Debates of Oct. 15th, 1999

Speech From The Throne

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the throne speech because three weeks ago the members of the Bloc who are in charge of social issues have stated that social equity should be the motto of this throne speech. When I consider this speech, I have to wonder if the government has really tried to uphold the principle of social equity.

It certainly has not found the right means to do it. We should not hide from the fact that the role of the federal government is to redistribute wealth, and it can do it through transfer payments, for example. It should also use the EI plan to make sure workers get a decent income when they are out of work. But its responsibility is not to create first line services.

That is not its turf. It has never succeeded in doing it efficiently and concretely, and it is not its constitutional responsibility to do it.

The first mistake of the federal government is that it did not limit its role. In Quebec and in Canada, nobody expected figures on tax reduction, but we were counting on clear indications that the federal government would significantly reduce the tax burden.

In order to do it, the federal government does not need to cut transfer payments or any other program. It can do so by simply stopping interfering in areas outside its jurisdiction and limiting its spending power to those areas under its responsibility, such as national defence and international affairs. If the federal government had restricted its involvement to these areas and had decided, for the two years left in its mandate, to deal only with its constitutional responsibilities, it could have freed up large sums of money that could have gone into the pockets of the middle class and the poor, on whose backs the battle against the deficit was won, and left some room for those actually in charge of important areas as health and education to levy taxes.

In this regard, the federal government decided, for the sake of visibility, to forgo its responsibilities and revert to the old habits of the Liberal governments we knew in the 1960s and the 1970s. We will have to keep a very close watch because we could very well face the same situation as before, with a federal government competing with the provinces, interfering in areas under their jurisdiction, buying off the provinces with millions of dollars, and trying to buy the silence of community groups, for instance. What we are seeing, such as wanting to provide services in the home, is totally unacceptable.

My second point is this: if the government was really interested in social fairness, it would have significantly increased transfer payments. These days the economy is booming and production is on the rise. Our problem is the distribution of wealth, and this federal government has decided not to meet that challenge. It was not flashy enough for it, not significant enough.

The Minister of Human Resources Development, who is responsible for the department with most responsibility for the impact on the provinces, and for transfers, seems not to have been heeded by this government. The measures she proposed probably did not give the federal government the visibility it wanted.

By putting visibility before efficiency, however, the federal government is not fulfilling its role, and this impacts on direct services to the population provided by the provinces. The federal government is hiding behind the fact that it is not in the front line in providing services to the population, and it is washing its hands of the outcome. Then it comes along, a bit like a white knight, to provide home services over the heads of the provinces, who were not able to provide them because the federal government did not give them the necessary funding. When it comes down to it, this attitude is close to being Machiavellian and it is something that, in my opinion, the population of Quebec and of Canada does not accept. They cannot see themselves in the throne speech that has just been delivered.

The third aspect that is close to my heart is the entire question of employment insurance. With a tour and subsequently with the Employment Insurance Act, it has been demonstrated since 1994, with well-documented files and briefs, that implementation of this act had created a great many inequities.

How is it possible that this speech contains nothing that will do away with the rule of intensity, which penalizes the seasonal workers? How can the Liberals across the way accept the fact that their government, at a time when it has $6 billion in surplus employment insurance funds yearly, is incapable of putting an end to the injustice this rule of intensity represents?

If there are some honourable members who do not know that this rule of intensity is, I will explain it to them. Each time one of their constituents uses up 20 weeks of emploment insurance, his or her benefits are cut by 1%. This means that, for a seasonal worker who works about twenty weeks each year, after three years, he or she will receive 50% of his average earnings, rather than 55%.

When people earn $9, $10 or $11 an hour, the difference between the two often represents the money necessary to make ends meet. If we were going through a terrible austerity period like the one in the early nineties, the government might be justified in saying “Everyone should do his or her share”. The government did not ask everyone to do his or her share, but it continues to make that request to people who have already done their share. People who have jobs in rural areas are not deemed to be unemployed but, in the end, they still do not have enough money to support their families. This is unacceptable. The government does not get a passing grade as regards this issue.

What does social equity mean for the government? Is it that it did not use employment insurance to help seasonal workers and young people? Only 25% of all young workers qualify for employment insurance. They all contribute to the program now. They all have payroll deductions, but only 25% can get benefits. This is unacceptable.

How can the throne speech talk about fairness and about providing funds for young people and children when the government is not giving anything more to the parents?

Most children in Canada live with their parents. It is the parents who support the family. If the government gives money only to children, it does not necessarily mean that these children will try harder to succeed in life, but it could result in the parents having an inadequate income. Children become more dependent on the state, whereas if parents receive an employment insurance cheque, it is because that money comes from an insurance program. They worked to earn that money and they made contributions to the program. The government did not at all achieve its objectives in that area.

This morning, I heard the Secretary of State for Rural Development tell us how dedicated he was to taking his responsibilities seriously. If he wants results, he should speak to the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Finance and get this scrapped. It is unacceptable. It is practically immoral that people should still be living like this in Canada, which calls itself a developed and well-off society. This is something that has to be changed.

Here is another example. There is the wonderful announcement about parental leave. The number of weeks of benefits will be increased to 52 from 26. Bravo for women with children, or couples where the man decides to stay at home. This gives them more weeks. Great.

But what we were not told was whether, in order to qualify for this leave, 700 hours would still be required when, before the EI reform, 300 hours entitled one to maternity leave? In Quebec, one woman out of five or six would qualify with the figure set at 700. That is 20%.

Try though they might to come up with the best scheme in the world, if no one qualifies, is that what we want? All that is achieved is visibility, but it is temporary, not long term, because people are smart. They are perfectly capable of seeing where this will lead.

Furthermore, we saw this already in yesterday's news on television. Women who have, or want to have, a child, couples where the father wants to stay at home, are wondering “Am I going to be entitled to this? Could it be more flexible? Could I have the opportunity to benefit from it?”

It is therefore important to settle this matter, and to have adequate parental leave.

I will conclude by addressing what was not in this speech. It is most astonishing, and if I were a private citizen and not in politics, I would say “What is going on there in the House of Commons? They have a Speech from the Throne that announces policies for two years, but they do not mention anything about airlines”. It is as if they had never heard of Air Canada and Canadian International Airlines.

There is no mention of aboriginal rights and yet the media are full of stories about native fishers. We see them daily on our TV. There is scarcely any reference to organized crime, yet there are major problems with it too.

How can they prepare a speech that is supposed to give a vision of the country for the next two years but sending the following message to people “We are talking about things that have nothing at all to do with reality. Don't bother listening. It isn't worth the trouble”.

Why this approach that is divorced from reality? Because this government is run by a federal bureaucracy that thinks for us, and decides what is right for us. It puts visibility before efficiency. That is where Canadian federalism is taking us.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for raising an issue that we have not heard enough about in the debate. We certainly did not hear any reference to it during the throne speech and we did not hear much reference to it in the subsequent follow up debate. The issue I am talking about is the national scandal that exists in our EI system. The hon. member pointed out some of its many, many flaws. I would like to comment on this briefly and then ask him how he feels about a recommendation I would like to make.

In my riding of Winnipeg Centre I have problems similar to what the hon. member pointed out. The changes to the EI system have taken $20 million a year out of my riding alone, out of one inner city riding in Winnipeg.

Can we imagine the impact when $20 million a year that used to be transferred from the federal government to my riding is no longer there? Let us look at the other side of the coin. Can we imagine trying to get a new business to come to a riding with a $20 million payroll? We would have to pave the streets with gold to try to get the business to come to our riding. The inverse is also true. We should be very alarmed when we lose a $20 million payroll just from changes to the program.

The hon. member pointed out the surplus that exists in the fund. There is a $600 million a month surplus. We are paying in $600 million a month more than we are getting out in benefits. This is a national scandal. I do not know why working people are not taking to the streets. They should be furious about the issue. They certainly are where I come from.

The Speech from the Throne talked about finally dealing with labour market training in terms of national sectoral initiatives. That is something we have been advocating for decades within the building trades and the labour movement. Finally we are getting reference to that.

The province of Quebec has a very good system for labour market training through a 1% training levy. In my industry that money is then managed through the CCQ, the Commission de la construction du Québec. It manages that money and the training in that sector.

My question and recommendation would be: Can we not use some of the enormous surplus in the EI fund for these sectoral councils and make the correct model the national model for the whole country in terms of labour market training?

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

Madam Speaker, I like the example the member gave of his riding of Winnipeg Centre being out $20 million in EI. Where I come from, in the Lower St. Lawrence region, the amount is $83 million in a given year.

Yesterday, in Moncton, in response to a question, the Minister of Human Resources Development said that she did not think that restoring benefits would change matters, or extend the seasonal industry. This is tantamount to telling seasonal workers that they do not work longer because they do not want to.

Why are both not possible? Why could the seasonal industry's period of activities not be extended? Why could we not take an original approach to this and develop our economy and, at the same time, make sure people have an adequate income? Right now, they are being treated like economic guinea pigs. The door is going to be shut; the requirements are going to be made so stringent that they will be driven back to work. But this is not what will happen.

In Montreal, a few weeks ago, there was a job fair. I think 10,000 people turned up in search of jobs. People want jobs. What EI has done is to remove the stabilizing effect of the economy. Today, in a period of economic growth, the federal government does is not playing its role of sharing out the wealth responsibly.

There is also the member's question about the 1% rule. In fact, this allows the focus to be put on training. This is one way of preparing ourselves to compete with the rest of the world.

There was another example of that recently. The Quebec minister responsible for economic development, Bernard Landry, offered to help subcontractors obtain contracts with General Motors, to provide them with the conditions that would enable them to develop things.

The Minister of Industry reacted by saying “No, no, we must not intervene like that. We have to let the General Motors plant in Quebec close”. However, they will make sure the one in Ontario stays open.

There is no future over there. We need a government that is responsible in both social and economic terms. Quebecers realize, in addition, that they have one government too many in Canada. It leads to decisions that are unacceptable and inappropriate for the future of Quebecers.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale.

The residents of Waterloo—Wellington have gratefully received the throne speech and what it entails. That bodes well for us as a government and certainly as Canadians. That is important to note. I also thank my colleague, the hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair, for moving the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and the hon. member for Laval West for seconding it.

I extend my congratulations to Her Excellency the Governor General for being installed in that prestigious position. It is one which the residents of Waterloo—Wellington think is a great position for her. We are grateful for that.

I want to look at some of the health care provisions provided in the throne speech. The government continues to be deeply committed to a universal and publicly administered health care system that delivers the highest quality health care to all Canadians, no matter where they live in this great country of ours. As reiterated in the Speech from Throne on October 12, good health and quality care are essential to the well-being of all Canadians.

The measures announced in the 1999 federal budget will improve access to quality care and help restore the confidence of Canadians in the future of medicare, but a high quality health care system depends on more than money. It requires adjustments in the way health care is organized and delivered.

At their meeting in September 1999 in Charlottetown, health ministers from all Canadian provinces and territories underlined access to quality care and its link to an appropriate supply, deployment and distribution of highly qualified health professionals. Those ministers agreed to continue to work collaboratively on health resources and the human resources necessary in planning, having noted concrete progress in this area. That is also important to note.

The throne speech puts further emphasis on the government's connectedness agenda to ensure that Canada is economically competitive in a global marketplace and to improve the quality of life of Canadians. Investments in the health infrastructure have an important role to play in this regard.

As we have noted, a modern health information system will give health professionals and individual citizens improved access to up to date information about health issues and treatment options. The government will ensure that citizens in every region of this great country have access to such information so that they too can make better informed decisions.

As part of the government's plan to improve Canada's information infrastructure, the government will reintroduce legislation to protect personal and business information in the digital world. The reintroduction of the bill, formerly Bill C-54, will have some impact on the development of the health infrastructure. Examples will include that Canada's privacy concerns are protected.

The government's intention to build on the personal gateway project to the government information and community content, www.access.ca, could tie into the health infrastructure initiatives such as a Canadian Health Network.

In addition, the government's five year plan for improving physical infrastructure includes telecommunication in health. The government will also take steps to modernize overall health protection for a changing world. Investments in the health protection branch national health surveillance infrastructure will be part of this modernization process. That too is important.

The government will also continue to address the serious health problems in aboriginal communities, for example, supporting their efforts to promote wellness and to strengthen the delivery of health services for them. The first nations health information system can help achieve this objective in a very meaningful way.

The government announced in last February's budget that it was providing $328 million over three years to start building a truly national network of information about health and health services to strengthen the health care system and make it more accountable to Canadians. All these measures are important to Canadians as core values for all of us.

Let me turn my attention to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research which are important vehicles. It will fund health research that will improve the quality of life and health of Canadians and lead to more effective health products and services and will result in the strengthening of the Canadian health care system. It will offer unique opportunities for economic development in the knowledge based economy. This initiative came from the research community which has been working closely with health officials to develop the design and structure of the CIHR.

The CIHR will integrate the wide range of approaches to health research under a single umbrella organization, providing co-ordination and support for these efforts based on a shared health research agenda. Biomedical scientists will work collaboratively with clinic researchers; researchers specializing in health services and systems; and researchers working on the health of populations, societal and cultural dimensions of health and environmental influences on health.

The CIHR will be a truly national institution, breaking down traditional barriers between disparate research sectors and different research agencies. It will establish strong, co-operative partnerships among researchers, research funders in federal, provincial and territorial governments, voluntary health organizations in the private sector and users of health research in general.

Virtual health research institutes will link researchers working on a common theme. These institutes will be guided by a strong ethical framework and will adopt integrated multidisciplinary approaches to health research as a whole. The CIHR will provide opportunities and support for Canadian scientists to participate in international collaborations for the benefit of all Canadians, no matter where they live and within the wider global community as well.

In the budget last February the government gave $50 million a year for three years to the granting councils to work toward the objectives of the CIHR. The impact of this new funding has already been felt in the research community. I look forward to the CIHR bill being introduced this fall.

I will now turn briefly to a discussion of the Canada health and social transfer, the CHST. In the budget of 1999 the Government of Canada announced an investment of $11.5 billion over five years in health care. This was the single largest new investment the government ever made. The increase in the CHST cash from the previous 1999 budget level of $12.5 billion to $15 billion by 2001-02 takes what is regarded as the health component of the CHST to as high a level as it was before the period of expenditure restraint in the mid-1990s.

The budget of 1999 also dealt with the issue of equitable distribution of the CHST to provinces and territories. By 2001-02, CHST entitlements will be distributed on an equal per capita basis. As a result provinces and territories will receive $985 per capita in CHST entitlements by the year 2003-04. This increase clearly demonstrates the government's determination to work with all our partners to provide the absolutely best health care possible to all our citizens.

The Speech from the Throne reaffirmed the government's commitment to move forward with our partners in the health care community on a common priority and common front. They include supporting the testing of innovations in integrated service areas such as home care and pharmacare, ensuring that citizens in every region of the country have improved access to up to date information about health issues and treatment options through the modern health information system so that they can make good choices.

All this underscores what we are up to as a government in terms of the throne speech and the vision that will take us into the 21st century. It is important to note that as we march confidently into the 21st century we do so by linking arms with all Canadians and not, as some would have us do, by leaving some Canadians behind.

Let us as a government on behalf of all Canadians keep our focus on the opportunities of the future in the 21st century and not on the grievances of the past. In the spirit of co-operation, fairness and equity that is precisely what we as a government are doing. We are doing it with vision, foresight and compassion.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a quick question for the member.

Emphasis on health and the importance of health is always right up front in the minds of many Canadians. This government has been in power since 1993. The report has just come out that one in six children across the country are going to school hungry. It is three times worse now than it was in 1993. Homelessness is double what it was in 1993. Poverty is up 100% from what it was in 1993. There is squalor and third world conditions on many reserves. It is far worse than it was in 1993.

Would the member please give me the government's excuses for allowing this to happen in the last six years?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do know there are ongoing problems that we as Canadians face and that certainly we as a government face. It requires a concerted effort on the part of all parliamentarians and all Canadians to address those problems. We need to attack those areas that need attention. I think the member heard that in the throne speech, if he was paying attention and I hope he was. We are on the cusp of doing great things with respect to our children's agenda for example, and issues related to the homeless and poverty.

We will as a government do the kinds of things that are necessary to put in place initiatives to ensure that those problems are eradicated. Canadians expect no less of us and that is what we as a government will be doing. We will be doing it with vision and foresight, unlike the party opposite which instead of uniting Canadians in a common cause to eradicate problems seems determined always to take extremist views that pull people apart, that pit region against region, people against people and group against group.

We on the government side will have no part of that agenda. Mercifully and thank God that we do not. We know what we have to do. We will do the right thing in terms of all the issues noted. We will do it with vigour and with the compassion that Canadians know only we can provide.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member talks about doing the right thing. I want to ask him about a very big crisis facing our country, namely the farming crisis on the prairies, the drop in farm income. Farm income is going down to negative levels. It is the biggest crisis since the 1930s.

We now have in Saskatchewan and Manitoba a joint alliance between all the political parties. For example, in my province of Saskatchewan all three political parties and the farm groups have gotten together and are requesting of the federal government an additional $1 billion in terms of emergency farm aid for our province. I am not talking about the AIDA program that is there now. I am talking about an additional $1 billion minimum of farm aid and farm assistance.

It is the largest farm crisis since the 1930s. People are going bankrupt. People are under stress. We have many letters here from children who have written about the stress in their families and the financial pain they are facing.

It has united all three political parties. It has united the farm groups and the chamber of commerce. It is a crisis like I have never seen because unlike the member, I was not here in the 1930s. It is a long time ago.

I want to ask the member whether he is open to helping us put pressure on the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to use some of the several billions of dollars of surplus that are now accumulating to help farmers stay on the land.

I remind him that every time a farmer is better off in this country, we are all better off. When the farmer is better off, there are more jobs in the towns, cities and villages across the country. When the people have more jobs and the economy is stronger, there is more money for health care, there is more money for tax cuts and there is more money for education.

Whether the member will help us in that lobby is my question.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really do not need to be lectured by the member opposite about the importance of farmers. I still live on the family farm and we settled in 1827. I know the importance of what the family farm means. I am still on it. I still live it.

I was part of the tour that went to Saskatchewan and Manitoba this summer. I know firsthand the kinds of heartache those farmers are facing. It is very real and it is very disturbing. We as a government, as the minister of agriculture mentioned today, along with our provincial partners have committed the kinds of resources that are necessary to do the right thing in that very important area.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on debate in response to the Speech from the Throne. I would like to echo the words of the member for Vancouver Kingsway and the member for Waterloo—Wellington who congratulated the Governor General on her appointment and on the Speech from the Throne.

The Governor General's words were particularly welcome to those of us in Toronto Centre—Rosedale because the Governor General and her husband John Ralston Saul live in Toronto Centre—Rosedale. We are all very proud to see her installed as our new Governor General. We are proud of what she represents to this country, looking forward into the future of the 21st century, representing what is the best of Canadians and Canadian developments in the 20th century.

They also represent Toronto's bicultural dimension and its bilingualism, anglophones who speak French and who have incorporated our country's French element into their culture and into Toronto's multiculturalism.

Toronto Centre—Rosedale is an extremely diverse riding in the middle of downtown Toronto. St. James town has 20,000 people living in it. Fifty-seven different languages are spoken there. Those languages are spoken by people who live and work here in Canada together because we have established a country which has as its base a certain notion of tolerance and a willingness to work together. We have certain Canadian values that make that work.

[An hon. member]

What about the value of equality for all the people?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

That is why those people are there. They have a sense of the value of equality.

My riding also happens to have the largest gay and lesbian community in Canada, which the hon. member opposite knows something about because his party is already trying to make sure they are not treated as equals. As members will recall this House adopted measures in the last parliament to ensure that that community will be properly treated. We now wait for legislation which will bring into effect those values of equality. We will see how the opposition party treats those matters when they come before the House when we talk about equality.

We can look at the businessmen in our ridings. We are aware of the economic requirements of a modern economy, or the cultural dimension of my riding in Cabbagetown, or the universities and community colleges. We are proud to have in our riding the University of Toronto, Ryerson university, George Brown community college and Collège des Grands Lacs.

We are proud to have mixed communities like that of St. Lawrence where an enormous number of co-ops are contributing to the way in which we manage our relations in a complex urban environment today.

The Speech from the Throne responds to the needs of this community as it responds to the needs generally of Canadians. It addresses the needs of children. It addresses the need for investment in science and technology so that our universities and researchers can grow and make this a stronger country.

The throne speech addresses the issues of the environment, health and agriculture in spite of some of the comments that were made in the House today. The north is very important for this country and is seldom mentioned. It was important for us to see mention of the north and our arctic in the Speech from the Throne.

It also addresses the needs of the business community to see tax reductions. We heard today in question period of $16.5 billion projected for the future with possibilities of greater reductions to come.

It is a balanced approach, exactly what I would have expected of the government. It focuses on the needs of Canadians generally to ensure that those in society have a good government that furnishes them with the services they need and at the same time ensures that we have a healthy and vibrant economy that is able to deliver those services.

The Speech from the Throne had another very important dimension to it, which I think members of the House would be equally interested in, and that is the international dimension. The Speech from the Throne spoke of the role of Canada and Canadians in a world that is evolving. It recognized that we cannot be prosperous or healthy in a world that is not prosperous and healthy.

The government understands that Canadians live in an integrated world and that activities outside our borders affect us on a daily basis. We are adapting ourselves to world conditions in a responsible way and in a way to ensure that Canadian values and interests are protected in that world.

If we look at the area of trade and economics, we see that the policies that are being adopted by the government, both in the WTO and the FTAA, are responsive to Canadians' concerns. When the foreign affairs committee travelled across the country there was an intense interest from Canadians on this subject. They were determined to have human rights, labour standards and the environment put at the forefront of our concerns at the WTO.

Canadians are also concerned that globalization is forcing changes on us which we do not wish to accept. Our determination therefore is to ensure that the institutions in which Canada is represented abroad will both protect and advance our values and interests. As the member for Peace River reminds me, that includes the interests of agriculture which will certainly be at the forefront of the discussions in Seattle as he well knows, and which our government will make sure is made a priority point for the government in those negotiations.

It also recognizes that state sovereignty is changing in the world today. The people's needs have to be put ahead of those of states. That is why we have our peacekeepers in places like Bosnia, Haiti and East Timor where the safety of women and children has become a preoccupation of governments and where the international control of drugs and crime is a focal point of what our government is doing.

In short, it is what our foreign affairs minister calls the human security agenda. It is the agenda of ensuring that individuals are more important than states as we go into the 21st century in a world in which borders and state sovereignty is being eroded in favour of individual protection and the need to ensure that everybody is guaranteed a better standard of living throughout the world.

Canadians are a generous people. We recognize that in helping our neighbours we help ourselves. In that respect, the member would be happy to recognize that the Speech from the Throne spoke of an increased need for Canadian aid to underdeveloped countries. We will rebuild our need for aid to underdeveloped countries.

We rejoice in today's announcement that Médecins Sans Frontières has been named for a Nobel prize this year. As members know, there is a Médecins Sans Frontières in Canada. We have young doctors from Canada and non-doctors who work with that organization outside our borders. They all contribute to the well-being of the world in exactly the same way as our modern NGOs do in providing a different type of world, a different type of international arrangement within which we all participate. The Speech from the Throne spoke directly to that and it is an inspiration for us all to enable us to be more effective with our global responsibilities.

From the perspective of the people in my riding, and I believe from the perspective of all Canadians, the Speech from the Throne demonstrated a balance between what we need in terms of providing services for Canadians and a sense of what our society needs, both in the present and in the future. This was evidenced by our increased funding for universities and our increased funding for health care, which are concerns for Canadians. It focused on the needs of today's Canadians and on the needs of Canadians in the future.

This will be accomplished in the broader context of a world in which Canadians will play a role. As we go into the 21st century we will make sure that our interests and values are secure here at home and secure in the world. The Speech from the Throne demonstrates the ability of the government to achieve that.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11:00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)