Debates of Oct. 14th, 1999

Speech From The Throne

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the new Minister of the Environment. I am very happy to hear him say that he wants to take action, but I think he has forgotten to check Bill C-32, which was passed in the House last spring. Under this legislation, the Liberal government will no longer be consulting the provinces. It has decided to set national environmental standards.

For his part, the minister says he is going to consult so as not to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

The minister also tells us he is going to take action immediately. But there is a big problem in Canada right now. Canada wants to import plutonium from Russia and the United States. I have not heard what our Minister of the Environment has to say about that.

Right now, Canada is flying in the face of everything other countries are doing. It wants to put more energy into getting nuclear power plants to burn plutonium. I would like to know where the Minister of the Environment stands on this, and if all Canadians and parliamentarians will have a say before Canada makes a decision on this issue.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first I thank the hon. member for Jonquière for her questions.

Her first question was about co-operation between the federal and provincial governments. I can assure the hon. member that I have already had meetings with provincial ministers. We have had very productive discussions on endangered species. We all shared the same views, as I mentioned in my speech. We set the objectives three years ago. The purpose of the meetings held a few weeks ago was to discuss ways to achieve the goals that we set together.

There is truly a great deal of co-operation between the various levels of government, because we know that Canadians want us to take action. They do not want us to carry on constitutional debates. They want concrete action on the environment, not constitutional debates.

The second thing that she mentioned was the issue of the very small amount of weapons grade plutonium, the MOx which is to be burned in the Chalk River reactor.

The reason this is important is that the world has literally tens of thousands of nuclear weapons that are rusting in former soviet union territories and need to be disposed of, to be eliminated. We have to take risks. It is true that she is correct. There can be very minor risks related to transportation, but if we are not willing to take the small risk to achieve a much greater gain for society our children and grandchildren will know that we have failed because we simply are delaying a problem to them.

This is a very important issue. It is truly an example of the biblical injunction to beat the swords into ploughshares, to destroy weapons for good. Can we think of anything more symbolic of turning evil into good than turning these weapons of mass destruction into light and power for human use? Is there anything more symbolic of the type of thing we should be doing?

Yes, I admit to the member that there are risks, but I challenge her to think also of the risks of doing nothing. The worst thing we can commit as legislators is to simply say there is a problem and do nothing, leave it alone, ignore it, let our children have the problem and inherit something much worse than if we dealt with it now.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. I know he referred to this in his speech but perhaps he could clarify it.

Just what is the government's intention with respect to how it plans to live up to the motion passed in the House in February this year having to do with the government placing an immediate moratorium on the export of bulk freshwater shipments and interbasin transfers and, according to the motion, introducing legislation to prohibit bulk freshwater exports and interbasin transfers?

I know the minister has spoken about boundary waters, but this motion actually talked about a national ban, not 10 separate provincial bans which would not be undesirable. At the same that is not the motion that was passed and not the motion the government supported. The motion that was passed called for a national ban on the bulk export of water.

I asked the government House leader today under House business whether there was legislation forthcoming. He said as far as he knew there was. I would like to ask the minister if he could clarify just what we can expect in this regard by way of national legislation, a national ban, because as he knows the provinces, particularly Newfoundland of late—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry to interrupt. The hon. the minister will have about a minute to respond.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, once again I thank the hon. member for an excellent question. I will go a lot further than he proposes. We will be having a meeting of provincial ministers and myself, because as I mentioned to the hon. member for Jonquière we believe in the importance of co-operation in this regard and many aspects of control of water are provincial.

We will move together with them through the accord. As the hon. member has correctly mentioned, in the last few days Newfoundland has come on board of the accord concept for the elimination of exports. We are delighted with that.

In addition, I am going further by discussing with them not just the elimination of exports of bulk water. I should distinguish between bulk water exports and containers of water, which are a different matter. In addition, we do not believe there should be any major diversions from watershed to watershed whether or not they cross international boundaries.

We will be discussing with the provinces an accord which essentially lives up to the International Joint Commission report of the Great Lakes area but in addition deals with the issue of interbasin transfers for water beyond just exports.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is seldom that we are able to have some time to question a minister regarding some of these issues. As incompetent as some of them are, I am sure that all of us would agree to another 10 minutes of questioning of the minister with agreement from the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. the member for Wild Rose has requested the unanimous consent of the House to extend the period provided for questions and comments by 10 minutes. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing that we have an opportunity to discuss the throne speech delivered earlier this week and entitled “Building a higher quality of life for all Canadians”.

When I look at that title, certain questions come to mind. The first one is: Who was left out of this speech?

Of course, since I take a particular interest in the agri-food sector, I must tell you that I have the distinct feeling that agriculture was completely left out in this speech. One would need a magnifying glass or would have to be an expert at criscross puzzles to find something that applies directly to agriculture.

On the contrary, even with this magnifying glass, I can hardly see any interest at all for agriculture. And God knows this industry is going through serious difficulties caused by a reduction in subsidies to Canadian farmers while those given to European and American farmers keep increasing. These difficulties are also caused by a drop in prices, which are unstable or low for agricultural commodities, both animal and vegetable, as well as by natural disasters.

This brings me to the issue of the crisis Canadian agriculture is facing today. There is a national program called Agricultural Income Disaster Assistance, or AIDA, but it is inadequate.

One just has to look at the numerous releases that were sent to us over the last year to understand what I am talking about. We saw all kinds of changes being made to the program, all kinds of adjustments to try to make it acceptable to farmers. But I wonder if government officials sat down with a farm family to see how these people can fill out these kinds of forms.

Some of the farmers who spoke to me of their distress told me that filling out the form can cost them $1,000 or so in accountants' fees, because an accountant is needed. The farm's taxation year is not the year in which the products are sold. There are therefore two kinds of figures and generally a person who is very busy and used to doing farm work is not going to be an accountant as well.

There is one delay after another. Why so? People do not enrol in this program because the forms are too hard to fill out and the results are very questionable. Yet when this program was implemented, there was a national revenue advisory committee, which asked that there to be no payment ceilings for farmers, that asked for use of negative margins, and for no linking to NISA, the Net Income Stabilization Account. All that was forgotten. Yet the people consulted knew their business and could have been of great service to the agricultural sector.

So here we are facing a crisis that is far more acute in the west than it is in the rest of the country, and which is reflected accurately in the letters children write to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture. These children write that:

“They need more than one job to survive on the farm”.

Basically, they are complaining that their mother and father have to hold down two or three jobs in order to make ends meet until the end of the month, if not the end of the day or week.

Another child, Terryl Drisdale, wrote:

“Farmers are a unique type of people. I am very sure that you personally don't work the hours annually that the farmers do for the pay that they have at year end”.

It is moving, because these are sixth grade children writing the Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture. It is like a cry of dismay at that point in social terms.

How will they cope with this crisis? Not with what they currently have at their disposal. Suppliers waiting to be paid for 1998 commodities have been very patient again in 1999. Will they continue to be?

When things are not going well in one sector of society, the wolf is at the door. So too there are people waiting to buy dirt cheap the land that is often family heritage and has been cleared and maintained by dint of hard work.

Yet, the government believes in rural life and in the diversification of farms, but all these fine principles the government states in public do not come about in a single day. The rural world is fragile. The work done on it must follow the seasons.

There is also income security. Not a peep in the Speech from the Throne on income security. Not a word on a review of stability programs.

In Quebec, we have a 25 year old farm income stability program, which adapts to federal programs, because we are partners. But here we realize that the program changes every three or four years. How can events be followed over the long term if the programs change?

There were references in the throne speech to research and development. It mentioned increased funding for research and development. And it is high time, because nothing has changed since 1993, despite the efforts in the last budget.

What is important, and needs to be mentioned, is the need for those doing basic research to be independent. The programs now in place often involve partnerships. Sometimes not much is said about the partner, but when its involvement runs to 90%, as it does with certain large corporations, the large corporation picks the research topics and they do not include basic research to help the public. All these partnerships inhibit research.

There is also the issue of genetically engineered organisms, one in which I have a great interest. Yesterday, we heard the Prime Minister begin his speech by stating that the next century will be the century of the Pacific. But, if we do not resolve firmly to label genetically engineered products, we will not get very far selling to the Pacific.

Are we prepared to lose Asian markets? This is a very good question which must be asked and which has a major impact on the country's farmers. I would like to conclude—I could go on at great length about genetically engineered organisms, but I will address the matter at another time—by referring members to page 19 of the throne speech, which reads as follows:

The Government will protect the health of Canadians by strengthening Canada's food safety program, by taking further action on environmental health issues, [—] pesticides [—]

This sounds like the bill that died when Parliament was prorogued, but it is reminiscent of the premises of Bill C-80, a superstructure with no accountability, where failures in the health system make us fear the worst. We cannot add all this to the work of Health Canada when we already know that the brain drain has left it unable to evaluate all the services the government should provide. So I have some major concerns.

Despite its lofty title, the throne speech leaves me, as agriculture critic, very puzzled.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments made by the hon. member on a sector that has been overlooked, but I would like to get her opinion on one specific issue.

We are faced with a rather pathetic if not immoral situation in Canada. On the one hand, the federal government is getting richer thanks to free trade and the GST—which brings in $20 billion—and tax surcharges that bring in an additional $20 billion. On the other hand, the provinces are getting poorer and cannot meet the urgent needs of their citizens in the areas of health, education and family policy. There are also individuals who are getting poorer because of the very heavy tax burden. Let us not forget that in the United States the maximum tax rate of 40% is imposed on an income of $264,000, while in Canada a rate in excess of 50% is applied on an income of $60,000.

How does the hon. member explain the fact that the federal government, whose role should be to support the activities of the provinces—considering that it cut $33 billion over a six year period in the Canada social transfer—persists in creating new programs in the areas of family, education and health, at a time when Canadians have to travel to the United States to get medical treatment? I would like to know the hon. member's view on this situation.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that question is virtually a whole program itself. There is something interesting in what my colleague has said: each province that has capitulated to the federal government is experiencing delays with the transfer of assets. I have said a lot about agriculture because it is the area with which I am perhaps the most familiar, but there are provinces that do not negotiate on the provincial to federal government level, but instead wait for federal public servants to do it all. Expand this situation and their jurisdiction has been totally lost just to get what they need. We have seen how this happened with social affairs. Everything was turned over to the feds to solve the problem. Now there is a heavy price to pay.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

This partisan document once again follows along the main thrusts of the September 1997 throne speech. There is continuity here: it is a document continuing centralization and non-respect of Quebec's jurisdiction.

The Prime Minister and his so-called strategists have taken each of the themes of 1997, changed their titles and added paragraphs. A fine makeover, with the maple leaf in the background.

The Liberals' Canadian policy is clear, as is the Canadian model they are defending. It involves spending budget surpluses in areas of provincial jurisdiction, avoiding problems at the federal level, such as employment insurance and air transport, and presenting a long shopping list with items that could create new federal-provincial friction.

The editorial of Le Devoir of October 13 provides in this regard: “It would be good news for once to hear that the federal government wanted to honour the principle underlying all federal regimes, which is the sharing of jobs and jurisdictions and proposed to its partners that the provinces come up with a consensus on joint policy. New real desire remains to be proven, however, especially since the speech includes a number of projects that could rapidly become irritants”.

This centralizing recipe now includes a social union sauce, which could well further spoil relations between Ottawa and Quebec City.

I smile at the thought of Liberal ministers and members talking partnerships, agreements with their partners. How could we be expected to believe such a philosophy when the government itself cannot respect jurisdictions and is continually encroaching on their jurisdiction?

The day after the throne speech, the federal government received several warnings that it was heading off on the wrong track. I quote from La Presse of October 13 in this regard: “The Conseil du patronat is expressing concern over federal government spillover. The Quebec university students association went so far as to accuse Ottawa of invading provincial jurisdiction in the field of education”.

Examples include the case of the national plan on skills and learning for the 21st century, future health research institutes and the five year infrastructure program.

On this issue, the federal government has made a commitment, but we will have to wait until the end of the year 2000, not the end of the current year. Yet, during the prebudget consultations, all the municipalities of the electoral district of Lotbinière asked me to urge the federal government to take immediate action.

Another vague promise, with no specific funding, and we will have to wait for the 2001 budget to know the specific commitments of the federal government. I have made a diagnosis of this government. It is suffering from a new political condition called acute wait and see syndrome. The government makes a promise and then waits. It makes a promise now, but only for 12, 15 or 24 months from now. In the meantime, those who need the money suffer.

Let us now go back to employment insurance. Considering that 60% of the unemployed currently do not qualify for benefits, what do we find in the throne speech to give some hope to these people? Not much. Yet, when the federal government talks about fighting poverty, it should give priority to the employment insurance program, which is one of the causes of poverty and one of the main reasons why people are leaving the regions of Quebec.

What have the Liberals done to help regional development? They have come up with minor partisan measures and they made a big deal about some small subsidies, as they did last month when they sent a delegation of five federal ministers headed by the new minister of patronage, assisted by the new secretary of state for professional sport—I mean amateur sport, but given his recent statements, I am more and more convinced that his job is geared primarily to helping professional sports.

But let us go back to unemployment and regional employment insurance rates. This is an absurd situation which jeopardizes the very foundation of the employment insurance program.

In my riding of Lotbinière, the regional rate set for the regional county municipality of Lotbinière is very detrimental to the people there, compared to the riding's other RCMs. Having two regional rates create two classes of unemployed in the riding. People constantly contact my offices to condemn this social injustice.

The Corporation de défense des droits sociaux de Lotbinière, social and economic stakeholders and the unemployed will mobilize in early November to convince the new Minister of Human Resources Development to correct the mistakes made by her predecessor.

Once again, I would like to explain this administrative nightmare. The rate, which is determined arbitrarily by Statistics Canada and considered to be realistic, means that one must work 630 hours to be eligible for benefits for a period ranging from 17 to 40 weeks.

In the other RCMs in my riding, the regional rate is 11.2% and the number of hours required is 490 to be eligible for benefits for a period ranging from a minimum of 23 weeks to a maximum of 45 weeks. It is a gross injustice for the RCM of Lotbinière, since the socio-economic profile is the same for the whole riding. Therefore, setting a single employment insurance rate for the whole riding that is in line with our true socio-economic profile is of the utmost importance.

Businesses are also penalized by this regional rate, since they do not have access to the same federal subsidy programs as businesses from other areas in my riding.

In the Speech from the Throne, the federal government expressed its intention to make the Internet accessible to everybody. First of all, a lot of parents cannot even afford to buy a computer. Second, in our opinion, the CRTC should ensure that all Canadians have access to an individual telephone line so that they can connect with the Internet. Right here at home on the eve of the third millennium, certain regions in Quebec and in the rest of the country still do not even have the basic services necessary to access the Internet.

This government is completely cut off from the daily lives of people in our society.

This government has not changed since the beginning of the 36th Parliament: it remains a centralizing government, now pushing its social union agreement, a government that stops at nothing except tackling the problems that come under its jurisdiction, some examples being EI, the airline industry, and provincial transfer payments.

But it is in a big rush to get its hands on our money. The budget surpluses belong to all taxpayers, not just the Minister of Finance, who fiddles with the books and conceals the real state of the country's finances.

The Minister of Finance already has the necessary leeway to announce immediate tax cuts for middle income taxpayers, those whose hard-earned money paid down the federal deficit, unemployed workers, youth, the sick and the poor.

In short, my conclusion is very simple: the federal government has money to spend in fields of provincial jurisdiction, but not a cent when it comes to problems for which it is accountable. That is the Canadian way of the Liberal government as I see it.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Lotbinière on his excellent speech. I think he is very close to his constituents. He has shown us that the Speech from the Throne truly has nothing to do with the real concerns of the people. The federal government has chosen to spend in sectors that are not its responsibility and not to make appropriate decisions in those that are, such as employment insurance.

I would like the member for Lotbinière to explain the whole question of the map used to determine how employment insurance will apply in a given area, a problem he mentioned in his speech, which is being experienced where he comes from especially. It is an important matter for the unemployed that are concerned, but it is also a problem throughout Canada, because in this case as in others, the federal government is refusing to revisit the current employment insurance legislation.

All sorts of situations are getting worse, and I would like him to tell us more about those concerning the map that governs the rates of unemployment and that defines the number of weeks that people need in order to receive benefits.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as far as the regions are concerned, this is again an invention by this government, an invention for interference, differing regional rates, so as to penalize all of the unemployed.

The problem does not exist in Lotbinière alone, but also in the neighbouring riding of Frontenac—Mégantic, and colleagues everywhere speak to me of this situation, which must be addressed. Now that I am regional development critic, I must say that this is a situation that is greatly harmful to regional development.

Here is an example. I am in my office and someone comes in to tell me “I am 10 hours short of eligibility for employment insurance”. So I explain the legislation to the person, who goes away. He then meets a neighbour who lives 20 kilometres from him, and that person is getting employment insurance. How is an MP who wants to be fair, and wants to see all his constituents treated justly, to explain such a crazy situation?

There are two major regional county municpalities in my riding, along with three others. There are three Human Resource Development offices. Apart from that there is not a single public servant in my riding, which has a population of 70,000.

This is abnormal, and once again it is the outcome of the famous employment insurance reform, which penalizes everyone in Quebec.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear an emphasis with respect to tax reduction in terms of what this country clearly needs. This country needs broad based tax reduction. A number of speeches have been made in this House that have focused on the necessity to have broad based tax reduction. We have seen growth in those jurisdictions. We have seen it in Ireland. We have seen it in the province of Ontario.

Does the hon. member believe that the government's rhetoric in the throne speech with respect to tax reduction is just that, or is the government capable of providing tax reductions that Canadian families need so desperately?

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my answer to the Progressive Conservative member is this: let him find one single line that is clear in the Speech from the Throne.

It is a bunch of vague promises, with no real commitments. The only concrete measure will not be taken this year. It will not be taken in the year 2000, but it might be taken in the year 2001.

[An hon. member]

Like abolishing the GST.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

How do Canadians and Quebecers react to such a document? As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, I compared the throne speech from 1997 with this year's speech. I added small paragraphs and changed some titles and the end result was the same.

The 1997 speech was just as vague in terms of commitments. Two years later, nothing has changed. The plight of Quebec's unemployed is glaring. We are faced with a crisis in the fishery. The government is trying to pass legislation to intrude into provincial jurisdictions, and is using this document to try to make us believe that this is the Canadian way. This sure bodes well for the future.

[Susan Whelan, Liberal, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour as the member for Essex to speak to the throne speech which was so eloquently delivered by Her Excellency Adrienne Clarkson whom I would like to congratulate on her appointment as Governor General. I know that she will bring respect, integrity and enthusiasm to her new position and will serve the Canadian people both gracefully and honourably.

Today I would like to reaffirm my thanks to the constituents of Essex for giving me the privilege and opportunity to represent them in the House of Commons over the past six years. As many members know, my riding of Essex is situated in southwestern Ontario, the southernmost part of Canada and consists of the newly amalgamated towns of Amherstburg, Essex, Kingsville, Lakeshore, LaSalle, part of the town of Tecumseh and all of Pelee Island.

Windsor and Essex county has been the core of Canada's automotive sector and industry since 1925. Daimler Chrysler Canada's operations are headquartered here, along with major facilities for both Ford and General Motors. Since 1991 their combined investment has totalled over $6 billion. Their presence has attracted over 500 manufacturers of auto related parts, supplying state of the art machinery, machine tools, moulds, stampings, dies and automation transfer equipment.

With less than 2% of Canada's population, our region is home to 20% of all tool and die makers, 50% of industrial mould manufacturers and 80% of the automation transfer machine companies operating in Canada. Our workforce is diversified, dependable and disciplined with old-fashioned work ethics.

Keeping our workforce in tune with technology is a top priority among our manufacturers and educational institutions. The University of Windsor has established itself as one of Canada's foremost research universities. In partnership with government and industry, it has initiated programs pioneering the development and deployment of advanced technologies. In addition, the Chrysler Canada University of Windsor Automotive Research and Development Centre, a joint venture, brings together the best business and educational minds to create both company driven and research oriented solutions.

As well, St. Clair College of Applied Arts and Technology concentrates on management productivity, trends and skills development and manufacturing technologies in tool and die and mould making. We are responsive to the industry's needs where training is carried out on the factory floor where students gain access to the latest in technology.

As chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry in the last session of parliament, and as the member for Essex with such a vibrant technology based community, I was pleased to hear the Governor General outline the steps that we will take to improve our infrastructure of skills innovation and research. The industry committee took action on this front and held extensive hearings since 1997. It met with individuals from the university community, research councils and the private sector, and listened to their suggestions and recommendations.

At one of our hearings, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the Canadian Association of University Teachers and the Canadian Consortium for Research, the Humanities and Social Sciences Federation of Canada, and the Canadian Graduate Council highlighted their focus together in the opening paragraph of their submission by stating:

Canadians realize that innovation is vital. It is the foundation for our economic and social prosperity and our ability to compete in a global market. To be successful, we need a steady stream of new ideas, a well-educated workforce for the knowledge economy, and mechanisms to transfer effectively ideas from the laboratory bench to the marketplace. And we need to ensure that the innovation process is built on a strong and healthy foundation.

The increased support to the granting councils will ensure that a healthy foundation exists. It will enable them to forge new partnerships with our universities such as the University of Windsor, to attract the best research minds in the world. This will be developed through the innovative program of 21st century chairs for research excellence that the Prime Minister outlined in his speech. Through the research granting councils the Government of Canada will fund the creation of 1,200 chairs.

The industry committee in its 19th report entitled “Research Funding—Strengthening the Sources of Innovation” recommended that funding to the granting councils be increased. I am very pleased to see that the government is acting on the request in response to members of the committee and members of parliament.

The committee also heard that the number of students in the natural sciences and engineering is increasing and the need for support for funding their research in this area is increasing correspondingly. We also know that the government must intervene and act in order to help the challenges of commercialization.

As Robert Giroux from the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada said, “To me, the major impediments are the ability of the universities to identify the potential for a research product, and secondly being able to move that product to the marketplace”.

We know the throne speech identified that the Canadian government will help to assist in the commercialization of research from universities and government centres. This is now a priority of the government.

The government also understands that Canadians cannot be productive and prosperous if they are not healthy. In the throne speech we confirmed our continued commitment to ensuring that our health care system will meet the needs of our growing population.

We will build on our health record by supporting partners and testing innovations in home care, pharmacare and integrated service delivery over the next two years. A modern health information system will make health information more accessible to professionals and our citizens.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 6.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment to the amendment now before the House.

The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.