House of Commons Hansard #4 of the 37th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was municipalities.

Topics

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

10:40 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Rob Merrifield Canadian Alliance Yellowhead, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and a pleasure to respond to the Speech from the Throne on behalf of the people of my riding of Yellowhead and as Conservative Party senior critic of health as well as intergovernmental affairs.

We really have to ask ourselves a question before starting out. We have to get a sense of where the throne speech is going because it is a document that looks into the future. We have to first talk about where we are at in health care today. We then have to talk about how we got there and where we are going, as laid out in the throne speech.

I would like to point out, as aggressively as I possibly can, the dysfunctionality of the throne speech in moving us forward into the 21st century in this area. Where are we in health care today? That is a question we all need to ask ourselves, because any day we pick up a paper we find massive problems in health care. We find waiting lists becoming extreme to the point where over a million people are on waiting lists right now waiting for serious surgeries and operations for problems they have. Many of them are dying while on these waiting lists before they can even get to the system that we cherish so much in Canada, this cherished health care system.

We have patients dying in emergency rooms. Hon. members should see the turmoil in Nanaimo, B.C. or Saskatchewan where we have doctors actually mutinying. We have never seen this before in the history of this country. When we talk about health care in Canada, we have never seen so much disunity, but more than that, people hitting the end of the rope and saying that enough is enough and they cannot handle it any more.

I saw the Minister of Health the night before last on television saying that there were no waiting lists in this country, that if people have an emergency problem they will be looked after. He should tell that to the lady who had a miscarriage while waiting over five hours in an emergency room. He should have said that to individuals before they died of heart attacks while on waiting lists or in emergency rooms. These are cases that are not just specific. These things are happening right across this nation as we speak today. They have to be addressed. We have to look at where we are going in health care.

To understand some of the difficulties and how we got here, we also have to look at the human resources problem, the shortage of doctors and nurses. It is interesting that my colleague, who is a doctor, spoke, in response to the Speech from the Throne, about his training. While he was training, another individual, who was an immigrant, was also being trained. That individual came up to the standard of the United States qualifications and was to go back to the United States, although he was trained here. We would not accept him with those same training qualifications here. There is something wrong when we have such dire shortages that we have individuals dying in this country and we are not opening our arms to these highly trained individuals from other countries. We have to do something about the human resources problem. There are two fundamental problems: the waiting lists and human resources. I will talk more about those things shortly.

We had the SARS outbreak that told us an awful lot about what was happening in this country and how we lacked in preparedness for these kinds of situations. We also have looming on the horizon a potential influenza virus. It is to be hoped that will not mutate into human to human contact, but we are watching that with great interest because it could become so serious it would make the SARS outbreak hardly worth mentioning. Nonetheless, are we prepared? Are we ready? What lessons have we learned?

The federal-provincial strained relationship is something I am also very concerned about because of what has happened in the past on health care. Never before have we seen such a situation as we have in health care today in Canada.

How did we get here? That is a pretty good question. Let us look at the legacy of the Prime Minister. He says that health care is a number one priority of this country. That is what the Prime Minister is saying. Yet I wonder if that is true when we really look at what he has done in the past. If we want to know where an individual is going, we only have to look at where he has been. That will tell us where he is about to go. We have seen from the Prime Minister in the past the massive unilateral cuts in 1995. When we talk of unilateral cuts, these are not cuts where we sit down and negotiate and then decide that this is in the best interest of everybody before we cut. These were unilateral cuts, cuts that came just because one individual said that he wanted to balance the budget, and it was on the back of health care.

It is really interesting when we look at the numbers and the priorities. We say maybe at that time the finance minister had no options. Maybe he had to do something with a deficit budget, which he did. It is all about priorities and obviously health care was not one of those priorities, $25 billion. It is unbelievable.

At that same time it is interesting to note that subsidies to businesses rose $700 million or 20%. At that same time the increase in bureaucracy spending was $1.3 billion or another 6% added to the additional budgets.

That was not at the same time that health care was put on back bench. Health care was exploited. That destroyed the fifty-fifty arrangement we had with the provinces with regard to health care. That was something that had been cherished for a number of decades as medicare came into being in the provincial-federal relationship as a national project.

That was destroyed by the unilateral cuts. It destroyed the relationship of the provincial and federal governments. Worse than that, it drove nurses and doctors out of our training institutions because they closed down those training slots and anyone who was working in the system had to go for employment south of the border. Our brightest and best were driven out of this nation.

At that time the country's medical and nursing associations said that in 10 years we would pay a price. Well, here we are, 10 years later and we are paying that price. We do not have the human resources to deal with the problems. What are we going to do about it?

Let us look at our health care system. It is amazing that every time we talk about the health care system in an intellectual dialogue about health care, everyone thinks that the American system is coming. That is absolutely false. There is not a provincial government or a party in this House that is advocating the American system.

In fact, the Americans rated 37th in the world as far as how good their health system is. We should not be bragging much either because ours rates 30th. We should be looking at who are the 29 above us and what can we learn from them to develop the health care system in the 21st century that will meet the needs of Canadians. That is where we need to go.

It is amazing when we look at the Speech from the Throne. We see now what we have. We talked about how we got here. Are we looking ahead? Is the throne speech truly a window into the future as to where the government and the Prime Minister want to take this country as far as health care is concerned? It does sort of look ahead but it does not look back or talk about the past and the failures because it is not a very pretty picture at all. The Prime Minister is the cause, not the cure, for many of the problems we are dealing with in health care.

The throne speech is long on generalities and recycles many old pledges but it is very short on any specifics. There are some specific failures. It failed to mention last year's health accord. It was the first time that we had the provincial and federal governments sit down, hammer out a deal and agree upon it. We could debate whether they got everything they wanted, but they agreed with it. We should be saying there is an agreement and let us at least achieve what both levels of government agreed upon at that time. There is no mention of the failures in the throne speech on that front at all.

There is also a failure to outline a timetable for the creation of a Canadian public health agency. We saw what went on with SARS. We know the potential pandemic that will come some day. All we have is supposedly the appointment of a chief medical officer. I will talk more about that later.

There is also a failure to include the pledges for stable, long term funding for health care. It is really interesting. Why would that be? We may say that the throne speech does not do that sort of thing but that is not true. That is exactly what was announced for the cities. In fact, it was retroactive from the throne speech. Yet looking ahead, health care is not getting any stable funding.

I have to mention the stable funding. I challenge the government to stop playing the numbers game with the provinces. In 2000, just before going into an election by the way, the Liberals announced $21 billion to go into health care, but not a nickel of that money, which is the foundational money that goes into health care, went in until April of the next year. Then it was a five year allotment of money after that period of time.

Then the Liberals came out in 2003, when three years were still left in the original agreement of 2000, and reannounced that same money. They ran around the country saying that they were putting another $34.8 billion into health care.

Why would the provinces sit there and not believe the government? They know the numbers are wrong and they know that old numbers have been reannounced. They know that the government is just playing politics with the numbers. I challenge the government not to play politics with the numbers. That may work for the average citizen out there, but it does not work with the relationship with the provinces which have the mandate to deliver on health care. It just destroys their credibility.

That is what has been done with the $2 billion that was announced in the throne speech. There is not a government in the land, certainly not a Prime Minister that is going into an election, that would not have announced that $2 billion. It would have been political suicide if he did not. Why play coy for the last month on whether that $2 billion was going to be announced this month or not? How ridiculous that would be. There was not a reporter in the country, not a party in the country, not a person in the other party who believed that that $2 billion was not going to go in, so why play this game? It destroys credibility. Credibility is absolutely paramount if we are going to work together in the 21st century on health care.

It is very important that we understand some of the things that should have been talked about in the throne speech but were not. They should have been talked about in the first ministers meeting on the Friday before the throne speech, the failures of the health accord.

If we look at the health accord, there are a lot of things that are good, that reflect some of the views we have and are agreed upon by most people in the House. Those are restoring funding to the core health services, the flexibility of provinces to implement those new services, the flexibility of delivering the options of a new public health care system, and the dedicated health transfers which is to stop the nonsense about what money goes where, to clear that up. All of those things were agreed upon in the health accord. We agreed with those.

There were a lot of things that were agreed upon in the health accord and were not accomplished in the last year. There was supposed to be a minimum basket of services for home care. There was a date in the accord and that had to be accomplished by September last year. Also in September last year, the health services performance indicators were not there at all. They have not taken place to date. It was promised that they would be looked after by last September. Also, the health council was supposed to take place last May and did not actually happen until December. Why would that happen? Even when it was in December and the health council was announced, there were two provinces saying that it was not what they had agreed to at the health accord.

When the government sat down and met with the provinces again, which happened last Friday with the Prime Minister, we would think that the first thing on the agenda would not have been the $2 billion but would have been the issues that were not dealt with which both sides had agreed to just the year before. None of those were even talked about.

There was no talk of the aboriginal health reporting framework which was supposed to be talked about. There was the catastrophic drug coverage for all Canadians. In fact when the minister was asked about that here in November, she said, and this is a quote, “The work there really at this point has not begun”. That is what she said and that is actually the truth.

The reality is that money alone will not save our health care system in the 21st century. What we have to realize is that we have to get serious about dealing with the problems on health care, stop the bickering in the relationship between the provincial and federal governments and those things that destroy the trust. We have to start working on putting the interests of the patient ahead of the system as we move forward in the 21st century. That is what has to happen. That is not what happened when it came to the health accord.

One of the things that should also have happened, and the first thing that should have been in the health accord in looking at the Prime Minister's legacy, is that he should have written in the throne speech “I am sorry” as the first thing he said about health care and apologize to the nation for the way he has treated health care and put us in the state we are in. Then he should have moved forward with a vision of how we are going to fix that situation.

That is not what happened. We should have put a sixth principle into the Canada Health Act which we fought for in the last election so that never again could a Prime Minister unilaterally destroy this nation's number one priority, which is health care.

Do we believe the Prime Minister when he stands and says that health care is his number one priority? I think we really have to question where we have been, where we are at and where we are going in light of those words. I really have some serious concerns about where that should be.

Let us talk about the public health agency that was announced.

Look at the failure of SARS, and I say the failure of SARS because we were absolutely not prepared. When tragedy strikes our nation, whether it is militarily or an infection in a pandemic situation, or a health threat of any kind, we absolutely have to have leadership. It has to come from the leaders who are charged with that leadership in the House. It has to come from the Minister of Health and the Prime Minister of the day. That was not the case when SARS hit the nation.

Do we need a CDC north, an infectious disease centre as in the United States? Perhaps we do. Perhaps we already have that and it is just not coordinated. I think that is more likely the truth. Now we have a new ministry that is charged with that but the government actually was warned by the Auditor General as well as the deputy minister of health who said that we are vulnerable to this kind of an attack in Canada and that we have to do something about it.

The alarm bells went off over the last decade and we failed to deal with it. It is unfortunate that we see what the throne speech had to say about that. It said that we are going to appoint a chief public health officer but there is no timeline on the agency. There is no budget for it. We do not really know if we are prepared today.

Let us say that the bird flu which is in Asia right now happens to move to human to human contact, to mutate to that degree. Are we prepared? Absolutely not. Should we be prepared? Absolutely we should and we should be working a lot harder and more aggressively toward preparing ourselves for that.

That is not in the throne speech. We would have thought there would have been a timeline and a budget for it. Neither is the case. All we are doing is playing politics.

Mark my words. The chief officer will be appointed before the next election. It will appear to Canadians that everything is looked after and nothing will have happened except the hiring of one person who is going to run to the media and communicate how well the government is supposedly doing in case something happens. That is what will happen and it is unfortunate.

We do not need this game of politics when it comes to health care. We cannot afford it. We do not have the time and we do not have the money.

Another thing that should have been in the throne speech but was not there was a bill that the House has been working on very aggressively for the last three years. It is Bill C-13. We need a bill that deals with the threat that is there. Doctors are actually saying that they are going to clone the human being in the next year. We need that legislation but not the Bill C-13 that was so flawed. It had flaws on surrogacy, on gamete donor anonymity, on research using the human embryo and a host of other things, including no accountability for the agency that was going to be set up, the in vitro fertilization clinics and authorization of what should or should not be allowed under the legislation.

We said originally what we need. We would split the bill in half, bring forward a bill that would allow the prohibitions that everyone in the House would agree to, which is therapeutic reproductive cloning, germ line alteration, chimera and a host the others. They are all named in the bill. That would pass in a blink of an eye. We could pass that this month. We could pass that next week if it was brought forward. That is what we should be doing and that is not what happened. In fact there was not even a word of it in the throne speech.

Another thing that really bothers me in the throne speech is that it was a golden opportunity for the Prime Minister to right his wrongs in the past on the hepatitis C file. There is $700 million left in the court agreement to look after those who contracted hepatitis C through blood transfusions through absolutely no fault of their own. The government is liable for this. It arbitrarily chose the period 1986-90 which is false and it knows it. Many of the members on the other side of the House know that every member on this side of the House knows it full well. The money is there but the will is not.

What a golden opportunity for the Prime Minister to correct his wrongs and to do the right thing and to compensate everyone who should have been compensated for the wrongs of the country. As a Canadian I feel badly that the government of my country is not looking after its wrongs.

The other thing that bothers me is when it comes to natural food products and the ability for individuals to choose how they look after their bodies and how they have alternative medicines. There was absolutely nothing on that.

A colleague of mine, the member for Nanaimo—Alberni, has brought forward a private member's bill, Bill C-420. We should have had some commitment in the throne speech from the government to allow freedom of choice in that area, something on natural food products.

I would like to conclude by saying that the throne speech was very deficient. We have a health care system that is in dire straits. We all know how it got that way. I just described it.

Where are we going to go from here? Number one, we have to put the patient first and build a system around the patient in the 21st century. We have to get the relationships right between the provinces and the federal government and agree upon our mandates equally so that we can do what is in the best interests of Canadians.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

11:05 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Carol Skelton Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I have in front of me the bulletin of the National Advisory Council on Aging. I will quote from it. It talks about what is abuse for seniors. It lists neglect as:

failing to meet the needs of an older adult unable to meet those needs alone. Denial of food, water, medication, treatment, health aids, nursing services, clothing, visitors.

Yesterday the minister who is responsible for senior citizens in this country said in the House that our seniors are doing very well. A former minister of the government this morning said that he is hearing from seniors in the city of Toronto how hard it is and what a struggle they are having.

Seniors right across Canada are struggling. I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he is hearing that in his riding. What is his position is on the health services for the seniors in his riding?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

11:05 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Rob Merrifield Canadian Alliance Yellowhead, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely paramount that we understand the dynamics of what we are heading into in health care. Seniors do not really start consuming health care resources in a dramatic way until the age of 65. That is when our bodies naturally start to break down and we start consuming much more of the health care dollar. From 65 to 75 it doubles from about $5,000 a year to over $7,000 a year. From 75 to 85 it doubles again to over $14,000 or $15,000. These are two year old figures, so it would be much more than that now.

On top of that, we think the number one issue for Canadians is health care, but when we talk to seniors it is the only issue. If they do not have health, they do not have much. They understand that very well. They do not talk about their bank accounts. They do not talk about their work. They talk about their health. On health, the seniors in this country are very fearful of what is actually happening. We have to start looking after them.

Another thing about seniors that we found in our cross-Canada study on the addiction to prescription medication was just how poorly seniors are being treated in some homes. Some of the problems they are having with breaking a hip, breaking ankles and so on, are not so much because of osteoporosis, which is a serious problem, but because of the addiction to prescription medication that is happening within some of our homes. Some of the statistics were absolutely alarming. The number of deaths a year is from 10,000 to 20,000 because of adverse reactions within our facilities. I have heard individuals who appeared as witnesses before committee say that we are treating our seniors so poorly that all we are doing is sedating them into death.

We have to really be careful as a nation with what we do for our seniors. We have to respect their needs, understand their needs and prepare for what is coming down the road. It is something that I do not believe we are ready for as a nation.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

11:05 a.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising a number of very relevant points regarding shortcomings in the Speech from the Throne. I would like to raise something with him and ask for his views.

Many of the aspects he raises have a price tag to them, yet the government is willingly forgoing hundreds of millions of dollars in possible revenue. I would like to ask his views on this point. Is the hon. member aware that businesses can deduct fines as a legitimate tax deduction from their income tax? I think most Canadians would find this absurd, but in actual fact breaking the law can offer a dividend and a reward. Surely most Canadians, as I said, would find this horrifying.

Would the hon. member agree with me that the government should not let another tax season go by allowing businesses to deduct fines from their income taxes as per the 1999 Supreme Court ruling which opened the door to this? If I could remind the member as well, the United States has specifically enacted legislation to disallow the deduction of any fine or similar penalty paid to the government for the violation of any law.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

11:10 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Rob Merrifield Canadian Alliance Yellowhead, AB

It is an interesting question, and I will respond to it, but it really has nothing to do with health care. Nonetheless, it is interesting. I do not believe anyone should be allowed to deduct fines. I do not believe that individuals who are put into our institutions because they have broken the law should have the ability to vote either. I think they have waived that right.

If we are going to exempt something, we should be doing it more on the educational side. The Prime Minister said that health care and education were his number one and number two priorities. It is interesting that it says in the throne speech people can deduct a computer but not textbooks from their income tax. There is something wrong when that is happening. I have had all kinds of students from universities saying this is ridiculous and they should be able to exempt their textbooks. That would be a much smarter thing than exempting fines.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by acknowledging your service in the House of Commons for the last 16 years.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

11:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

We came to the House together in 1988 as colleagues. With only 33 days of House time left before a national election, I will reminisce on some of the great relationships you have had in the House on both sides and also on some of the accomplishments that we have been able to make happen as a result of our working together as a team. I know on behalf of your constituents that you have always been there for them and they will miss you.

It is a great privilege to be elected to this chamber. As we are heading toward an election, we begin to appreciate a little more what a trust we have been afforded by our constituents. Really, trust is the central issue here. Trust is what it is all about.

What has always made this chamber special for me is that we come here not only to talk about issues pertaining to our own ridings, but we are here on behalf of our ridings to speak about national issues.

In other words, if a member only wants to come here and talk about issues pertaining to his or her own riding, one might as well stay a city politician or a provincial politician. What makes us different here is that we have a responsibility to speak about national issues from our base wherever we are, whether we are a rural member or a city member. I consider that to be quite a satisfying experience.

I want to deal a little bit with the issue of trust today, because one of the challenges that we have had in our community in downtown Toronto has to do with the Government of Canada presence in our community. Most of the media action in this country is centred in Toronto. On a regular basis we are fighting to try to communicate the government message. We are competing against global issues.

Quite frankly, it is a heck of a challenge to communicate all the good things that the Government of Canada does in a community such as ours in the Greater Toronto Area. In fact, about two and a half years ago, the largest paper in our community, a paper called the Toronto Star , wrote an editorial. The heading of the editorial was that Toronto MPs were “missing in action”. The editorial went on to say how the Toronto MPs really do very little on behalf of their constituents.

I was troubled by that editorial; we were all troubled. I decided to come back and sit down with the researchers in the Library of Parliament and ask them what is the exact state of the number of treasury dollars that go into the Greater Toronto Area. The researchers came back to me a week later and, to my astonishment, they illustrated that for all taxes received from the Greater Toronto Area, all taxes, whether that be GST, corporate taxes, excise taxes, or personal income taxes, the treasury of Ottawa receives approximately $32.5 billion.

The Government of Canada has sent back to the greater Toronto area $22.5 billion, every year for the last 10 years. That $10 billion, the differential, is our contribution toward equalization, debt reduction, and so on. Quite frankly, I have never met a person in Toronto who resents the fact that we share the richness and the assets that we have with the rest of the country, or parts of the country that are not as advantaged as we are.

So the fact that we ship $10 billion more to Ottawa than we receive back is not an issue. However, the real issue and the real doubt, when I explain this to some of my constituents, is where does all the money go? It does not seem like the Government of Canada presence in the GTA is $22.5 billion. The Government of Canada activity does not seem like $22.5 billion.

I then proceeded to go department by department, government agency to government agency and ask, what are the dollars they are spending in the GTA? It took a couple of years, but I am happy to report to the House today that I am close to completing the breakdown of where that money goes.

In fact, I have all but nine departments or agencies of government reporting. We are still missing Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation does not want to tell me how much money is spent in Toronto, but we all know that the head office of the CBC is there. We all know that it employs about 3,500 people. So we can calculate that there is approximately $300 million of the $1 billion we give the CBC going into the GTA.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has not reported yet. We are still waiting for the departments of Foreign Affairs, Finance and Fisheries and Oceans. I still have not heard from Health Canada and we can imagine that that is quite a large number in the GTA.

Transport Canada is going to get back to me very soon because it has just made additional commitments in the GTA and it is not quite sure if all those commitments are going through. It wanted to ensure that the number was solid. In other words, there is some doubt over a large amount of money from Transport Canada, but its number will be here very soon.

The point is that I have a list of $15.5 billion that goes into the greater Toronto area. I am happy to share this with every member of the House. If anyone wants to go to my website and punch the button, they can access it.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

11:15 a.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON

It is not much more than Windsor.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

It is absolutely more than any region of the country.

However, we must remember the fact that this is the economic engine of the country, and I say that humbly. We do not mind that there is another $10 billion that is shared with the rest of the country. If we keep that economic engine healthy, we will continue to throw off much more than we receive. As national politicians, it is our responsibility to share with the rest of the country.

I want to go through a few examples of some of the agencies of the Government of Canada that actually spend tens of millions of dollars in the GTA. Even the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency spends money in Toronto in substantial areas. So does the Canada Industrial Relations Board, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Canadian International Development Agency, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and all of the agencies of government.

The point that I want to make has to deal with responsible government. As elected members of Parliament, it is important to know where every dollar goes in our communities. It is not right that we are unaware of the dollars that go into our communities.

I know for a fact that three years ago we gave about $20 million to chartered banks for a program called labour adjustment. Not a single member of Parliament would vote for money going to banks that are making large sums of money when there are other needs for children, housing, shelters or whatever. This is the point that I want to make. It is about responsible government as well.

From time to time we have to look at government expenditures and ensure that they are meeting the priorities of the House of Commons. It is important for members of Parliament to know what is going on in their communities because they might need to cut in a certain area because there may be a greater need for people in pain. The point that I am trying to make here is that our system of government should be designed and managed in a way where we can ensure that those dollars are being spent wisely.

The second point that I want to make has to do with the communication of this large sum of money, or any sum of government money in whatever riding in this country. One of the reasons there is tension right now, whether it be provincial or municipal, is because there is a lack of understanding as to what government departments and agencies do in their communities.

It is incumbent on all of our public servants in whatever department or agency of government to ensure that they are doing their work on behalf of Parliament and communicate in a constructive way with the region or the community so that there is no misunderstanding with the media, no misunderstanding with the general public, about the activity of the House of Commons and how that work is executed.

I lay that down as a foundation for the fact that when we talk about a new executive, a new Prime Minister, a new government, it is important that when we look at this Speech from the Throne and see the commitments that are being made to municipalities, that we see that these commitments are on top of an already existing foundation of federal presence. This foundation is something we should not forget. We should ensure that when we are interacting with municipalities and working with their needs, that we also bring to the table the other work that we are already doing.

If we are going to create some momentum over the next few months around this focus on communities, cities, hamlets, we are only going to do that if the collaboration respects and understands the existing presence of the Government of Canada.

In other words, we cannot get into a discussion on new moneys or new commitments without acknowledging the foundation that is already there. One of my greatest fears is that people will isolate the new commitments from that foundation of, in our particular case, the $22.5 billion that has already been spent in the greater Toronto area.

This morning, on a radio show in Toronto, the new leader of the NDP said that this Speech from the Throne represented crumbs to the greater Toronto area and that people will eventually wake up and find that the Government of Canada does very little in our community.

That is really not constructive. What we have to do is, and I hope my colleagues in the greater Toronto caucus will support this idea, appeal to the Public Service of Canada, who is already spending that $22.5 billion, that we show that because it is $22.5 billion plus what is being committed in the Speech from the Throne and probably, in the not to distant future, the budget.

I want to leave with this House today the fact that we are moving into a new season. I have enjoyed the time that I have had in this House over the last 16 years. We hope that in the next election we continue to win the trust of our community.

Having said that, I will never forget the reason why I came here in 1988. It was because of the debating skills of John Turner on free trade. I enjoyed three special moments with Jean Chrétien, specifically, his commitment to Kyoto, his commitment to say, “No, we are not going to war with Iraq”, and for me, the work that he did on the clarity bill was something very special that this House will one day recognize as being a special moment in this House.

I want to say that my hope for our new Prime Minister, the new leader, is that he will become our first green Prime Minister, with a commitment to the environment.

I am also hoping that our Prime Minister never forgets that the people who make $15 an hour or less are the heart and soul of this country and all our policy should be designed in a way that all those people are in the loop, respected, and that they are listened to.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

11:25 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Art Hanger Canadian Alliance Calgary Northeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member from Toronto. I appreciate his enthusiasm for his city. He reflects on the needs of his city and on what the future holds.

Certainly, when he relates to how much will be spent through government programs in his city, it is a significant amount of federal tax dollars, not to say there is not a need for much of what he is saying. There probably is. What disturbs me a little about the whole presentation is that Toronto is not the centre of the universe. Toronto is not the only large city with specific needs.

I will go back to my own City of Calgary and even take a step beyond into Vancouver. The very things that the member describes about the needs of Toronto, the City of Calgary also faces. The City of Calgary has a major problem with the Trans-Canada highway and very few federal dollars have gone into fixing that major problem, where heavy truck traffic goes right downtown through that city.

I am going to ask the member, since he is so stuck on Toronto, what does he know about the City of Calgary, its needs, and how will the federal government fix those problems, besides the $19 million that is allotted through GST rebate which will not even build one interchange?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a great point and I tried to acknowledge that point in my initial remarks.

As members on that side will acknowledge, when there were specific needs for the farmers of this country we in Toronto tried to press the nerve of the government to spring additional dollars forward. We acknowledged the fact that the Trans-Canada Highway needs more infrastructure support. In no way, shape or form am I begrudging any federal presence in the province of Alberta. I would continue to be in favour of doing things that support every region, especially those regions and provinces that are not advantaged provinces.

I am not going to differ with the member. That is part of the reason I said that all of us as members of Parliament should know where all the federal dollars are going in all of our own communities. I do not know the total number of federal dollars that are going into the province of Alberta, but I would make the point to the member that there may be federal dollars going into his province that he may disagree with and may think should be re-profiled for the Trans-Canada Highway. That is my point. I think that re-profiling existing dollars is a very important exercise for all of us.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

11:30 a.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear my colleague from the Liberals talking about the economic analysis he was doing department by department. I was wondering what assurances he could give us after the fiasco we have had around the Canada Steamship Lines assessment. Initially it was $137,000 that it had contracted with the government. Then it was $161 million. This week another $21 million U.S. was discovered, which is about $25 million or $30 million Canadian.

I am wondering what assurances he can give to the members of his riding, the members of the House and the Canadian public that this economic analysis he is doing will be any better than what we had with regard to the CSL contract.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the NDP for the last four elections and I obviously will be jousting with it again in the next election. The one thing that I have always experienced in the last four elections with the NDP are the moments when one can get a bit into the zone, and I am not talking about this specific member, where it can be a bit nasty. Obviously a mistake was made in terms of the initial numbers and the mistake is being corrected.

I started off by using the word trust. I am happy to give the member of Parliament from the NDP all of these documents. I have received these documents from various departments in the Government of Canada and I trust that the officials who gave me these numbers submitted them to the best of their ability.

I have worked on the Hill now for 20 years and we have the best public service in the world. However, in every institution mistakes are made and, from time to time, they can be sensitive and embarrassing mistakes. On this side of the House and in this party we have always corrected them. I believe part of the reason we always come back here is because we always try to take the higher ground.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

11:35 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jay Hill Canadian Alliance Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech by my colleague from across the way.

I want to say very briefly that we have all heard about vote splitting and I am looking forward to him splitting the vote between Jack Layton, the leader of the New Democratic Party, and the Conservative Party candidate coming up the middle and winning that riding for the Conservative Party.

Having said that, I want to take this opportunity to wish my hon. colleague well. I hope he wins second place and Jack Layton comes in a dismal third.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, Jack Layton and I are warriors from many moons ago. We have had a friendship for a long time. I taught in his classes at Ryerson. The one thing Jack and I agree on is the level of foreign investment in this country. I share his view that there is too much of it and so we will put that debate aside.

However I will tell the member the one area where Jack and I differ. I consider serving in this Parliament the greatest privilege I have had in my entire life. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why, in the last year and two months, the leader of the NDP has passed on five separate occasions, where he could have gone into almost an acclaimed environment, to be sitting in the House, respecting the House and asking questions here. I am not saying that day will not come for him, but to pass on it for 14 months is a mystery. I will leave it at that.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

11:35 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

11:35 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Order, please. To my knowledge I have not seen the name of Jack Layton in the Speech from the Throne.

There is only a minute and a half left. The hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

11:35 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Carol Skelton Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned agriculture in one of his statements. He recognized that people making under $15 an hour are the people who basically keep this country growing.

Yesterday a farmer in my riding told me that to get into the new agricultural programs and try to get some money out of that, he would have to put 16% of his income down before he even started into these programs.

I would like the member's comments on that.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, for starters, that is shameful. One of the great challenges that we have in the House of Commons is the fact that our population base has shifted to a point where 80% of our nation is now living in larger communities, which essentially represents the structure of this House in terms of MPs.

I am a city MP but we worked together when we did the family farm tributes, one, two and three. The greatest communications challenge we have in the House of Commons is to sensitize urban members that the quality and the security of the food and the supply of food that is produced here is more of an urban issue than it is a rural issue.

Sensitivities, like somebody having to find 16% equity, does not make any sense to me. I would appeal to the new Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food because he is a pragmatic minister.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

11:35 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Myron Thompson Canadian Alliance Wild Rose, AB

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam. What a mouthful. Maybe he should have gone first. It is a lot easier to say Wild Rose .

It is a pleasure to speak to the throne speech today, a throne speech, I might add, while listening to the words coming over the microphone and trying to absorb as much as I could through the droning that went on, I thought was a rerun from 1993, 1997, 2000 and a few in between. Over and over it was the same kind of throne speech with a couple of things that might have been new. I think maybe 5% of the throne speech was something I had not heard before but about 90% or 95% of it was all old stuff that has been hashed and rehashed.

In my riding, a big farming district, I encouraged people to pay close attention to the throne speech when it was read. I asked the members of my farming communities to listen carefully because, with the crisis in the cattle industry and in the lumber industry, which have had an effect on my riding, surely the government would be making some announcements that might be interesting to them and that they might want to hear. I am sorry to say that after the throne speech was all over I was reminded of an old commercial “Where's the beef?” There was nothing there, nothing whatsoever.

It was a nice election platform and, of course, doing what anybody who would be running for prime minister of this country would do, the throne speech announced that a gift of $2 billion will be given to the provinces for health care. That is something desperately needed, and what a great time to do it. There was a great deal of campaigning going on during the speech, and that is what it is, an election platform. It is not, in my opinion, a good delivery of the vision of the nation at all. It does not address any vision at all. It talks about the same old things.

I spent a good portion of my tour here as a member of Parliament going across the country. I think you, Mr. Speaker, would probably well remember the years I spent going from Indian reserve to Indian reserve, visiting several hundreds of them, visiting with the grassroots natives in their homes and their huts. The hospitality of these people was just phenomenal. Back in the early to mid-1990s, up to about 1998, we did all this. I listened to the throne speech about how desperately necessary it was to do something. I have to say that I was amazed, when I looked at the throne speech on page 9, that the government dared make a statement in the House of Commons in the year 2004 stating:

The conditions in far too many aboriginal communities can only be described as shameful.

Good grief, that is what we heard in the 1993 speech and in 1997. All kinds of reports have been delivered to the House about the horrible conditions on these reserves. Even the United Nations has declared in the past that although Canada was elected to be the best country in the world in which to live, if we factored in the Indian reserves we would be about 35th. Where is the dedication to dealing with the problems that were old 10 years ago when I first came? I am sure there are members here who can assure me that these problems existed before that.

When the government stands in this place to deliver a throne speech saying something to the effect that there are one million children living in poverty in this country, that homelessness is overwhelming and that it will see that it is fixed, which was said in 1993, and 14 years later there is not a million starving children living in poverty, there are a million and a half. Is that progress? That is really moving. That is really successful.

What a wonderful government. It made these announcements years ago of what was to be accomplished and here we sit today with things worse than ever. Good grief, I hope the Canadian people realize that when this government talks about being committed to a cause what we should do is just put a period after committed. The government should be committed. That is an absolute, dismal failure. It is only one example.

It was boldly stated in 1993 how proud we are of our military forces. And boy, we are: the men and women in this country should be applauded forever for their efforts. But my goodness, what the forces have had to put up with in terms of looking after their needs and what is necessary to maintain a good, strong military unit: it is another dismal failure.

I hope the Canadian people across this country realize what failures these guys are. I forgot, though, that the government did one thing. It balanced the books. That is good; we wanted to get rid of the deficit. Never mind the fact that the government increased taxes so darn many times and so much on the backs of taxpayers and cut transfer payments to all the provinces so severely. The government takes it off the backs of the provinces and from hard-working Canadians and then boldly stands in this place and says, “What a bunch of heroes we are”.

If Canadians cannot see all through that, I am really feeling sorry for this country. I really hope Canadians are paying attention to what is going on.

Let us talk a little more about children. If I have said it once in the past few years in the House of Commons, I have said it a hundred times: we have to start dealing seriously with issues that are affecting our children, particularly their safety.

My party has brought motions before the House, accepted by all members, saying that we should have a registry of sexual offenders and predators who prey upon our women and children across this country. What kind of registry did we get? Rifles and shotguns. This is a perfect example of going after law-abiding, hard-working Canadians and making sure they are doing their job. In 2004 we still do not have a national registry of these offenders who affect the security and the safety of our children. This is another dismal failure. Promises, promises: they do not mean a thing to the government.

I cannot tell members how disappointed I was to read page 8 of the throne speech when we in the House of Commons unanimously agreed that we should do everything to remove all defences for the possession of, manufacturing of and distribution of child pornography for exploiting our children. We all agreed on that.

What do we get? The government says it is once again committed to ensure the safety of children by bringing back and reinstating the child protection legislation. The government has not had any child protection legislation. What the government has done is make a commitment to this kind of thing, through unanimous support, including that of the government of the day, and it has failed to produce. What the government is going to do is rehash old legislation. The government is going to bring it back and we are going to go through all of that again.

With regard to child pornography issue in the Criminal Code, possession except for medical or educational purposes will not be allowed. I can buy that, but what happened? Over the time period of that case, it was decided in the courts that this little section must include the words “artistic merit”. We had quite a thrash over that, but then the courts put it in. It has become part of the Criminal Code. We wanted it out. The government brings in legislation and put in “public good”. The government is not getting the message. We want to abolish child pornography now and forever. We want it wiped off the face of the earth. We want to make every effort possible to do that.

Where is the commitment? Where are these people when the voice of the nation has spoken through their elected representatives and says that the people want legislation to abolish it?

I say, be committed for a change. I am committed to do my very best as long as I am in the House of Commons to wipe child pornography off the face of this earth. I am not going to allow nine unelected individuals sitting in a courtroom to determine whether we should or should not do that. I am going to allow the people of this country to have their voices heard. It is high time that the silent majority was heard in this land. It has been unheard for too many years and we are going to start bringing it back to life.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

11:50 a.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, page 17 of the throne speech indicates that the government is seriously thinking of developing Canada's energy resources in terms of using the coastal and offshore areas under a new “Oceans Action Plan”.

Today in Quorum , the Vancouver Sun quotes B.C. energy minister Richard Neufeld as saying he believes this comment means that the federal government is about to lift the ban on offshore oil and gas drilling within very sensitive fishing grounds off British Columbia.

I would like to have the member, if it is possible, speak on the Conservative positions on inshore oil and gas exploration in very sensitive ecological waters and the fishing rights of fishermen in those coastal communities.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

11:50 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Myron Thompson Canadian Alliance Wild Rose, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have not paid much attention to that particular area of the throne speech and to the activities taking place. I do have a lot of confidence in provincial jurisdiction in a lot of areas regarding natural resources. I think the government would be wise to back off on some of these issues, leave it to the provinces and let them work with the industries and decide what must be done. I have no further comment at this time.

Right now I am thinking about those things that should have been taken care of a long time ago in the House of Commons and I am asking why they are being rehashed again and again.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

11:50 a.m.

Simcoe—Grey Ontario

Liberal

Paul Bonwick LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development (Student Loans)

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. colleague across the way. Certainly one listening to that could only take out of it that apparently there are a lot of villains on this side of the House: that we are not interested in Canada's future, we are not interested in supporting Canadian children, and we are not interested in making this country the best that it can be. Of course Canadians clearly recognize that as a lot of rhetoric and as something that they quite simply do not believe. It is the sour grapes mudslinging that party is famous for, whatever name they run under.

My question falls in two areas. First, the member talks about the number of tax increases that take place, yet it was only two years ago that the largest single tax decrease in Canadian history was announced by the former minister of finance, now our Prime Minister, to the tune of $100 billion. I heard his party comment that we actually stole their tax reduction policy, so it was quite interesting. The opposition clearly felt that we had a very aggressive tax reduction policy and they felt we had just stolen their taxation policy. I am curious to hear the member comment on that.

The second point is this. If he is so interested in helping children, how in the world is it that his former party, the Alliance, the united alternative or whatever it was, voted against the increases the government brought forward for the child tax benefit program, the increases that provided the funding for families most in need? I am curious about that, if he would comment.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

11:50 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Myron Thompson Canadian Alliance Wild Rose, AB

Mr. Speaker, first of all, we had in our platform a much better deal than what was offered by the government. We would have liked to have seen a better deal accepted rather than the one they offered.

We have to laugh an awful lot, because he talks about the $100 billion in tax relief and what a wonderful thing it was.