House of Commons Hansard #4 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was rural.
The House resumed from October 14 consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session and of the amendment.
Susan Whelan Liberal Essex, ON
Mr. Speaker, continuing the debate today I would like to talk about health. Our health depends on safe and healthy food and I would like to remind the House that the agricultural industry in my riding is one of the largest in southeastern Canada.
The riding of Essex and the surrounding area has an ideal growing climate. It is situated on a flat peninsula, jutting into the United States farther south than northern California. The growing season is the longest in Canada, averaging 212 days, with 350,000 acres of rich fertile and relatively flat farmland. There are 3,000 farms and over 400 acres of greenhouse production, producing everything from apples and tomatoes to flowers and cacti.
Farmers provide an annual yield of fruits and vegetables, legumes and grains totalling over $200 million annually. Today more than 50 food and beverage processing plants account for over $1 billion in shipments.
Our farmers take pride in nurturing the soil and producing the freshest and healthiest produce possible. To assist the farmers in my riding of Essex and elsewhere we will use the upcoming World Trade Organization negotiations, including those on agriculture, to help build a more transparent rules based global trading system, one that ensures a level playing field, provides better access to world markets for Canadian companies in all sectors and respects the needs of Canadians, our culture and the environment.
I would like to remind the House that agricultural production and its future is the very soul of this nation. The Liberal government has been and will continue to be a very strong supporter of agriculture.
As the throne speech stated, Canada's ability to adopt innovative environmental practices and technologies will increasingly be a part of Canada's strength in the 21st century.
Just yesterday Canada's leading automakers announced a new fuel endorsement program designed to encourage gasoline retailers to sell fuels that meet strict specifications, including lower sulphur, positive combustion chamber deposit controls, no heavy metal additives and enhanced driveability characteristics.
Those retailers who meet these specifications will be able to obtain a licence to use the automakers' choice logo and designation. To quote General Motor's president Maureen Kempston Darkes: “If all vehicles on the road in Canada today could access automakers' choice gasoline, it would be the equivalent of eliminating the smog-causing emissions from almost two million cars and light trucks”.
This will positively affect all Canadians and my constituents by reducing the already unacceptable levels of air pollution in Windsor and Essex county.
We will go further. By improving our physical infrastructure for the 21st century we will not only aid trade and economic growth, we will ensure that we have clean air and water.
The government will work with other levels of government and the private sector to reach by the end of the year 2000 an agreement on a five year plan for improving physical infrastructure in urban and rural regions across the country. This agreement will set out shared principles, objectives and fiscal parameters for all partners to increase their resources directed toward infrastructure. It will focus on areas such as transport, tourism, telecommunications, culture, health and safety, and the environment.
Tourism is a multibillion dollar industry in Windsor and Essex which attracts day-trippers and vacationers by bridge or tunnel to an uncrowded, relaxed and safe destination. Tourism accounts for our fourth largest industry, with 12% of the workforce or 16,300 people employed in accommodations, food service, amusement and recreation. The Ambassador Bridge is North America's number one international border crossing, with over 10 million vehicles per year travelling between our two great nations. Municipalities in my riding and individual companies have communicated to me the importance of creating a better highway system to ensure the safety of our citizens, the efficient movement of our trades and goods, and to increase the movement of people to our tourist attractions.
With the millennium approaching, Canada is preparing for the arrival of the 21st century and its immediate future. We cannot speak of the future without looking to our children. This government recognizes that the viability and economic strength of this nation depend on the opportunities we give our children today.
If Canada is going to be the place to be in the knowledge based economy of the 21st century, young Canadians, our leaders and innovators of tomorrow, must be equipped with state of the art high tech skills. As well, they must have access to the tools and educational opportunities which will help them apply their creative talents and hone their skills. Our goal is to give today's young generation of Canadians, no matter where they live, a shot at personal success in the knowledge economy, at a job with a future that pays well, and at becoming our best and brightest.
SchoolNet has connected every public school and library in Canada to the Internet. Canada is the first nation in the world to accomplish this. The community access program has ensured that we will have public Internet sites connected in 10,000 rural and urban areas by the year 2000 and Computers for Schools, whose goal of providing 250,000 computers for Canadian schools, is 60% complete.
The throne speech reaffirms that we will build on this strong foundation and use the world leading high tech infrastructure we are putting in place, not only to enhance the skills and opportunities of young Canadians, but also to broaden their understanding of their fellow Canadians and the Canadian experience.
Canada is on the right track. The nation's finances have been restored and we are enjoying the longest economic expansion since the 1960s with the creation of 1.7 million jobs since we took office. As the nation's finances have improved, the government has begun to deliver broad based tax relief totalling $16.5 billion over three years. As the nation's finances continue to improve, the government will further reduce taxes to increase the disposable income of Canadians, enhance innovation and risk taking, and create a more robust economy. In its next budget the government will set out a multi-year plan for further tax reductions.
I have had my opportunity to comment on the throne speech and the vision the government has unveiled to bring our strong nation into the next millennium. I hope that my constituents will take the opportunity to give me their views at the prebudget consultation I will hold at the Essex Civic and Education Centre on November 9, 1999 at 7.00 p.m. Together we can build a stronger Canada for the 21st century.
Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB
Mr. Speaker, I want to take a look at some things that have happened since 1993.
In the agricultural industry in my riding and in other parts of western Canada farmers are piling grain on the ground. Their bins are full. They have no place to put it. They cannot move it. About 40% of farmers are considering bankruptcy at this very moment.
This morning there are about 166,000 out of every million children who are going to school hungry. They are living in poverty. That is nearly three times as bad as it was in 1993.
The people on hundreds of reserves in this country are living in squalor. I have seen it with my own eyes. I know what is there.
We have a fishery problem that is going on now.
It is unbelievable that it would come to this, and all since 1993.
We have first degree cop killers, murderers, walking away from minimum security institutions. We have killers in minimum security institutions and this throne speech talks about the safety of Canadians as a top priority.
When we look at what is going on today and that which has occurred since 1993, I would suggest to the Canadian people throughout this land that this entire front row is filled with incompetent people, including the Prime Minister. How would the member respond to these tragedies that are happening today, right before her eyes?
Susan Whelan Liberal Essex, ON
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. member, which is hard for me to find right now, the government has already invested an additional $1.7 billion toward low income families and children. The member who just spoke voted against that. He now has the nerve to stand in the House and talk about poverty and children when he voted against money going to low income families and to children.
The Prime Minister has led the government and the country to the lowest unemployment rate in years. Canadians are back to work. We have new programs in our schools. We are connected to the Internet with leading edge technology. We are investing in research. We are attracting the best and brightest to Canada.
Maybe the hon. member should come to the industry committee once in a while and hear what researchers in Canada have to say about the opportunities that exist in Canada and what attracts them. The bottom line is not the dollars. It is where they can go and what they can do. If members on that side would show up at committee they would obviously know that. Since they are never there they cannot say anything about it.
Grant McNally Reform Dewdney—Alouette, BC
Mr. Speaker, obviously we have again heard non-answers from a government member to some very direct questions from my colleague from Wild Rose.
The member talked about being on track. Someone needs to wake her up because there has been a derailment. The government is very off track.
The member mentioned broad based tax relief as though the government had actually delivered it. She talked about $16.5 billion of tax relief but, surprise, neglected to mention that the government at the same time has wrung $18 billion out of the Canadian people in tax increases. We talk about the $16 billion of tax relief but we do not mention that we have raised and wrung $18 billion more out of Canadians at the very same time. That is a net loss and the member has the gall to stand in her place and defend her government by saying that it has provided broad based tax relief. How can she do that?
Susan Whelan Liberal Essex, ON
Mr. Speaker, obviously the math on the other side is a little distorted as usual.
When we go from double digit unemployment to single digit unemployment we obviously will have more Canadians working. More Canadians working means more tax dollars. That is why we have been able to provide $16.5 billion in tax relief and why we made a very clear announcement in the throne speech.
In case they did not hear me the first time, we very clearly state in the throne speech that the government will set out a multi-year plan for further tax reductions. Canadians know that we have a balanced approach. Canadians supported us in the 1997 election on a balanced approach.
I know it bothers some members on the opposite side to think that Canadians want social programs at the same time as they want balance, with debt reduction and tax relief.
Just the other day I had a dinner meeting and by chance two people there, one from the health care sector and one who makes substantial amounts of money from a different type of profession, were at odds on what should happen, but both of them agreed that we have to support the social programs as much as we have to provide tax relief.
I very clearly answered the question when I stated that we have gone from double digit to single digit unemployment.
Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be part of the debate this morning. l enjoyed the throne speech, but the main event for me and I think for many in the media and others was really the Leader of the Opposition's reply to the throne speech. I always look forward to his comments. What a great job he did.
Reflecting on the throne speech, some Liberals seem to believe that spending money on government programs aimed at children will help with the challenges that Canadian families face. Unfortunately, investing in more new federal programs, the latest code word being investing, is really just more spending and spending financed by whom? It is financed by parents. It completely misses the importance of families in their struggles.
The issues and pressures facing Canadian families are bigger than a few new spending programs. Everything from fiscal and economic policy to justice and community safety issues all affect family units.
High taxes mean fewer family outings and more financial stress. High CPP premiums translate into a tax on jobs. There is also bracket creep. Tax inequalities and inequities mean that families have to consider what effect employment decisions will have on their tax bill.
A massive underground economy means that families are the victims of an especially unbalanced tax burden. A confused health care system means stress and uncertainty about the care of loved ones.
A low dollar, almost two-thirds of the American dollar, and once higher than the American dollar, means that families face a grocery bill and costs for fruits and vegetables higher than ever before.
Lower productivity means a less vibrant economy, higher long term and youth unemployment. Youth unemployment is almost twice the rate of overall unemployment. Many of the jobs young people get are across the border. The brain drain is a real thing and it is breaking up families. Oppressive regulations and bloated bureaucracies stifle the entrepreneurial spirit that is birthed within the family.
A lax attitude toward crime and criminals and using our communities as test laboratories for rehabilitating early parolees makes danger on our streets and violence in the playground sometimes a reality.
Probably a most significant concern to many in the House is the political interference and anti-democratic patronage which weakens the faith of our young people in the system. Special interest group funding, political slush fund contributions and other frivolous attitudes toward spending tax dollars encourages a sort of family tax rage. Children and families are all affected by these issues.
We have heard the government talk about its concern for children but I and other members of the House have repeatedly heard it refuse to deliver even when it had the opportunity to do so. This is a government that says it is against child pornography, it is for greater protection from child sex offenders and it is against family tax discrimination. Let us look at its actions because that is really the most telling sign.
We have seen, in the country, the courts strike down laws that make child pornography illegal. We saw 79 Liberal MPs and senators write a letter to the Prime Minister urging him not to wait for the appeal of the B.C. decision to be heard but to immediately act in defence of Canada's children. These Liberal members recommended that strong new child pornography legislation be introduced as soon as the House returns. That sounds good. I and I am sure all the members of my party would have signed that letter. In fact, they even went on in the letter to encourage the Prime Minister to consider the use of the notwithstanding clause to send a clear message that Canada's charter of rights and freedoms would never again be used to defend sexual abuse of Canadian children.
Tragically, we have the telling sign. These same Liberals voted against a motion in the House to do just exactly what their letter asked for. In February of this year every Liberal MP who signed this letter, except the four who are now in the frozen back land of the Liberal Party over there, the Siberia of the Liberal caucus, voted for the motion. All the others who signed the letter voted against it calling for the motion for child pornography laws to be upheld by parliament, not struck down, the laws shaped by parliament.
Let us talk about another situation. The Liberals had an opportunity to protect children from convicted sex offenders but failed. We all know the Liberals waited to prorogue the House this summer until they could get through Bill C-78. Bill C-78 allowed the government to get its hands on the pension surplus of public employees but they failed to pass another bill, a Reform-driven bill, Bill C-69 which protected children from convicted sex offenders. Bill C-69 was in the Senate before the pension bill but they overlooked that and went for the money. They pushed through the pension bill to grab the money and left our children less protected. If that is not a telling sign of priorities, I do not know what is. Actions speak louder than words to Canadians.
Let us look at another one. The Liberals have refused and failed to end the tax discrimination faced by single income families with children. We know that in the last federal budget a typical single earner family with two children, a family of four with a $45,000 income, pays about $4,900 in personal tax. The same single income family is paying 136% more than a dual earner family. That is right out of the budget. However, the Liberals voted against the motion in the House that addresses tax discrimination. They said no. The vote was 123 in favour, most united on this side, and 145 against on that side. This affirms again that the true vision of the Liberals is a continuation of their legacy of high taxes and less choice for families.
The Liberal MPs say that they are concerned about pornography and child pornography. What are they doing about it? Nothing. We hear that they are concerned about protecting our kids, but when they had a chance to do something about it they did nothing.
The Liberals talk about caring for and wanting to address tax discrimination in the country. They had the opportunity but did not move on it.
What is all this talk about a legacy? We hear them talking about a legacy. The Prime Minister wants a legacy. The Liberal member from St. Paul's was quoted in the Hamilton spectator as saying: “We want something that is a legacy”.
The Liberal member for Don Valley West was quoted as saying: “When they look back at us 50 years from now what will be the great thing that we did? Will anyone remember if we gave them tax cuts? If we are going to be remembered we must do some great thing, some great national project. What more appropriate thing for the millennium for our legacy”—he is concerned about his legacy—“than to do something for our kids”.
This begs the question of what is more important to them, their legacy or our children. Parents look after the needs of kids best but it looks like they might also be asked to finance the Liberals' legacy building project. What a question to ask: “Will anyone remember if we gave them tax cuts?” Where is the credibility in all of this when we hear all this talk about a children's agenda? To me it sounds more like an agenda for children.
The Liberal member for Sarnia—Lambton was quoted recently. I have to agree with the member, although I think his career path in the Liberal Party is going to be severely stilted and derailed. He fears that the national children's agenda is a code word for big spending, social engineering and government meddling. He said: “To me it's all a lot of nonsense. It is as if having children is unnatural and the state is going to tell you how to rear your children”. This was said by a Liberal member and I can agree with him. He is right on.
I have to inform the government that it actually already has a legacy. The Liberal legacy is one of high tax, of high national debt, of increasing taxes and of a huge national debt borne by our children.
Families in Canada are actually aware of the Liberal government's agenda. They are quite confident that they have the ability to look after the children. Statistics Canada noted in a recent study that by far the majority of children living in Canada are in excellent and very good health according to their parents.
I do not think parents want interference by the Liberal government. They want to be left to raise their families as they see fit. They want a government that will give them less taxes and less government. They want a government that respects the natural authority of parents and the choices they are best suited to make on behalf of their children.
I have a lot more to say but I will leave it for another time. My number one concern is that families in the country be given the respect and the freedom to raise their children as they see fit. I would like to move an amendment.
I move:
That the amendment be amended by inserting after the words “airline industry”, the words: “and give Canadians some indication of its vision of Canada's airline industry in the 21st century”.
Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
The question is on the amendment to the amendment.
Louise Hardy NDP Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, the last speaker mentioned that parents look after their children best. Over all I would agree with him except that there are situations where parents do not always look after the needs of their children best. It is not because they do not want to but in some circumstances they cannot.
Does the hon. member think that every parent should be the teacher of their child or the doctor of their child? As citizens, as a group, can we not help each other look after our children? Everything a government does is not necessarily some sort of nefarious interference with those of us who are raising our children. In fact we can help each other build a stronger society by helping relieve the stress of a single person or a single couple looking after their children exclusively.
Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very reasonable question. I want to be clear on this particular point.
I am in no way advocating that as a community and as a nation of caring people we do not support one another or that we do not encourage one another in the rearing of our children. What I am focusing on is the natural authority of parents in their families to make their decisions. When they want to seek help and when they want to get advice from their neighbours, their community or even from their government, that should be a decision left solely in the hands of the parents to decide.
I am not talking about situations of neglect or abuse where perhaps there is a legitimate requirement for a government to have some intervention. We are primarily concerned that public policy and government policy respect the role of parents to make the decisions in the best interest of their children. They should be able to make those choices in a fair way where tax policies do not discriminate against one choice over another. There should be a fair and equal playing field for parents to make the decisions because they are the ones who can best make the needs assessments of their children.
Stan Keyes Liberal Hamilton West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I just read over the hon. member's amendment to the amendment. After the words “airline industry” he wants to insert the words “and give Canadians some indication of its vision of Canada's airline industry in the 21st century”.
Could the hon. member tell me whether or not he is aware of the process the government and in fact all parties of the House of Commons are going through at this very moment?
The transport committee of the House of Commons is an all-party parliamentary committee. Members of all parties of the House sit on it. In fact his colleague sits as the critic on the committee. It has already begun its work. It is the only committee of the House of Commons to get moving on its work.
Yesterday we had our first meeting. As early as Monday afternoon we are meeting with an agenda. From all indications from my colleagues on the committee, as well as the critic for the member's party, the airline issue is probably the issue the committee will be seized with immediately.
There will be input from the Standing Committee on Transport in the form of a report. We all hope that it will be a unanimous report back to the House of Commons as soon as possible but within the limitations given us to do the job.
The member indicates that he is looking to the government to provide vision. There are members on this side of the House who are concerned. They are bringing their concerns to the attention of our internal economic development committee chaired by the member for Stoney Creek, and that will move forward.
Is the hon. member aware of all these different things that are going on, including the Competition Bureau which will make representation to the minister by the end of the month in the form of a report? The Minister of Transport is being seized with this issue and is getting all this input. I wonder if the member can acknowledge that all this work is being done.
Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, yes, I am aware of that work being done. I am also aware there was no mention of the airline industry in the Speech from the Throne. I am also aware that this issue was not led by any plan of the Liberal government. It was led by the industry itself. It had to take action because there was no vision from the government.
I am not saying it should intrude in that situation, but at the same time I am saying there is a vacuum over there. There is no plan. It is trying to cope with the realities of the marketplace and struggling with how to do it. I am aware of what the hon. member is pointing out, but we are not seeing any clear direction from the government at all. It is trying to cope with the situation.
Grant McNally Reform Dewdney—Alouette, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to enter into the debate on the Speech from the Throne.
It is quite evident from what was not in the Speech from the Throne that the government is clearly failing in a number of areas. At a time when the throne speech is to lay out the government's priorities in the areas that it needs to pay attention to, it neglected four of the major issues that are huge in the country right now. Many people are talking about those issues and many people are looking to the government for answers. There was a failure of the Liberal government to acknowledge those issues or spell them out in any remote detail or even in any generality.
One of the major four areas is the fishing crisis happening on our east coast. The government did not talk about that or mention it in the throne speech. The government did not address agriculture in that throne speech. That is a major issue for many hard working Canadians in the agricultural field and it affects all of us.
It has neglected to talk about the airline industry, as was just pointed out by my colleague for Calgary Centre. It has failed to talk about immigration and the crisis happening in the broken system that became so clearly evident this past summer off the west coast of Vancouver.
I will focus most of my attention in my speech this morning on the broken immigration system and the failure of the government to address the crying need for change in that area. It is woeful that the government has not taken action. The incidents that happened this past summer of which all Canadians across the country are aware have in essence highlighted and shone a beacon of light on the government's failure in this area.
The immigration system has been broken for a very long time. Members of the opposition have been talking with the government, pleading with it for a number of years to change the system. My colleagues that were here years before I came here made a lot of proactive positive suggestions to the ministers of immigration, to the government, to the Prime Minister, and they have not acted on them. They rebut any idea of change out of hand because it comes from opposition members or from anybody else. They believe they have the answers and will do what they want.
With that kind of attitude and that kind of approach to governing the Liberal government gets itself into the position of crisis after crisis after crisis because of its inability to be proactive and its inability to look at positive solutions suggested by others, even by people in its own caucus. They are rejected out of hand. As a result of that attitude, that underlying philosophical approach to governing, the government neglects its responsibility. That is not acceptable.
Members of the opposition will continue to urge that the government take action. Failing that, we will work in whatever way possible to become the government so that we can put in place proactive positive approaches that solve glaring problems across the country which the government is not willing to even go near.
I will move into a little more detail about some of points made about our immigration system. I will quote a piece of information that came from a report commissioned by the minister of immigration entitled “Not Just Numbers: A Canadian Framework for Future Immigration”. This study was put together by some independent individuals who did a broad based consultation process, in the government's own words, to find out what needs to be done. Here is something that was included in the report:
In recent years in Canada, over half of all the asylum-seeking arrivals at ports of entry had destroyed all identification documents before being seen by officials—
It goes on to say:
Recent arrivals have mainly come from countries which are stable enough to provide identification documents. Generally, these individuals are uncooperative and refuse to provide their names, their countries of origin, or anything else that might assist the expeditious processing of their claim. The idea that all such persons are reluctant to give such details because of refugee-based fears, or that the persons helping them enter Canada are latter-day Raoul Wallenbergs, is naive. The people-smuggling business is now as lucrative as the international drug trade.
This was in a report submitted to the government, commissioned by the government and in fact has been lost on the government. It is another report that has simply been shelved or put away to gather dust for another day. We can say this because the government has rejected that notion out of hand as well as many other proposals which have been put forward. It is a shame that is its approach to governing.
Immigration department officials in response to the people smuggling that occurred on the west coast this past summer have said the following. An Immigration Canada spokesperson named Jim Redmond has said:
This is not a humanitarian movement; this is almost a slavery movement. It's hard on the people who are smuggled. It's organized crime at its worst.
He also said:
There is a good chance we could have more arrivals this year. It would be naive to say it's all over.
What appears to be happening is that the Liberal government is hoping the issue will just fade away. If it does nothing long enough other issues will pop up which will take the attention away from this glaring failure within its mandate so that it does not have to act on it. The underlying approach of the government is if it does not do anything long enough maybe people will forget about it.
People are not forgetting about it. They are realizing that the government is failing in the area of addressing the immigration system. I have sat with my colleagues for two years on the immigration committee. We have had many good debates. We have tried to work together. We have had many very heated debates at times too about the issue because it is a very important one.
We have been able to work co-operatively at times to look at ideas and solutions. What tends to happen is they get rejected because they are not approved by the minister, by the prime minister or by the cabinet. That is a shame too because there are many things we would like to see happen that are not happening.
The Reform Party offers a proactive positive approach rather than this force of negativity of doing nothing offered by the Liberal government. We have ideas, suggestions and solutions which have been put forward time and time again. I will mention a few of them.
We have to move away from the voluntary compliance system within the immigration system when individuals claim the protection of Canada. They can come, claim refugees status and then be told to appear tomorrow or next week at a hearing.
Those who are not true refugees will abuse that and often do. They disappear and do not go to their hearings. That is a problem. We need a system that addresses that, a system that has individuals maintained in an area until it is determined whether they are really refugees or not.
That process needs to be expedited. It cannot go on for years and years and years as it currently does. Members know that refugee cases go on for years. People's lives are in limbo. It is not fair to them and it is not fair to Canadians.
That process needs to be determined quickly, in a matter of days and weeks, not months and years. It needs to be done quickly, and once a decision is made, then it should be acted upon. If the person is determined not to be a refugee, then they should be removed from our country post-haste. If a person is determined to be a refugee, then they should be integrated into our communities as quickly as possible.
The Liberal government's approach is to leave people's lives in limbo, to allow people who are not refugees to be here and then to go after people who are true refugees and deport them. The system is broken at both ends and this Liberal government is failing.
The facts are in. The perception across our country is that this government does not think it is a problem. The Prime Minister himself said there is nothing wrong with our immigration laws and there is nothing wrong with our refugee process. He said that this summer. In light of what is happening on the west coast, it is unbelievable. It is absolutely shocking that this government, in the light of information, details and facts from its own people, fails to act. It is unbelievable.
I urge my colleagues on the government side to apply pressure to change the system. Failing that, the members of the opposition will work day after day in this place, in committee and on the streets of our nation to be proactive and positive. We will make a commitment here and now that we will change the system not only within immigration, but within all the other areas outlined in the Leader of the Opposition's speech for a positive vision for the future of this country, because it is clear that today in this land the Liberal government has failed and is visionless. We will carry the day. We will put in place the positive solutions that will reshape our country and take our country ahead for the next generation.
Leon Benoit Reform Lakeland, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to comment on something I find very interesting.
There has not been one question or comment on his presentation from the members opposite. We see members from Vancouver, members from Toronto, members whose constituents are upset that the government has taken no action on the issue. Obviously government members must have been told to keep quiet on this very serious issue. The Liberals are afraid to tackle difficult issues and this is a difficult issue.
I would like the member to comment on the government's handling of this issue, in particular that none of the government members are willing to ask a question or make a comment on the issue.
Grant McNally Reform Dewdney—Alouette, BC
Mr. Speaker, I can only say in response to that very good comment from my colleague that it is clear that the government has no answers.
The member for Vancouver—Kingsway across the way is a member of the immigration committee. She is simply not offering any solutions.
Members of the government, ministers of the crown have said very interesting things. The Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific said it is sad that Canada's screening process is being abused, and he is angry because the generosity, the goodwill Canadians have toward genuine refugees has been abused. That is what he has said.
Grant McNally Reform Dewdney—Alouette, BC
That is right. The minister said wait until the weather gets bad so the ships stop coming. What kind of approach is that? That is the government's solution to a very important issue. It is a do nothing approach, just wait and hope that people do not notice. Well, people have noticed. If the Liberals will not change the system, we will work day after day to sit on that side in order to put in place our proactive solutions.
Andrew Telegdi LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker let me say to the deputy citizenship critic for the Reform Party that as usual he has it wrong.
Look at Canada and the success that we have had. As a matter of fact Canada has been named the best country in the world for the last six years and it is because of the people we have in this country. The people in this country were immigrants or refugees at one point in time.
When the member says he wants to make a determination on refugee cases in a matter of days or weeks, he is wrong. We cannot have a judicial system or any system that has any kind of justice that can make a determination on somebody's life in a day or a week. This is the problem the Reform Party brings to this House. The Reform Party has simplistic solutions that are not viable. I do not want a commandant deciding in a day if somebody gets due process. It takes some time. Our government is acting responsibly to combat international smuggling of human beings.
The opposition parties, particularly the Reform Party on this issue, are like ambulance chasers. They run around looking for a problem and they point fingers. We are working. It is succeeding. Members opposite can blow and shout but the reality is we have a system which we are continuously working on to improve. It is a very good and a very fair system, one which will be even better.
Grant McNally Reform Dewdney—Alouette, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is a broken system. The member is in la-la land. The member sits on the immigration committee and he talks about simplistic answers. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said wait until winter so the boats do not come anymore. What about that for a simplistic answer. That is the suggestion offered by the minister and her mouthpiece the member for Kitchener—Waterloo.
I was in the member's community. Talking about immigrant communities, I talked to some of his constituents who said they gave the member a petition and he lost it. That is the kind of approach the member takes to constituent work. Now he has no answers. His government has no answers to this crisis. It is clear. The facts are in.
Sophia Leung Liberal Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my colleague that our government not only cares but it also takes action.
Last month the Chinese government invited a small delegation of three Liberal MPs to go there. We had a very long and detailed discussion to establish co-operation between China and Canada to tackle the problem of human smuggling. It is the beginning of our work on immigration. There are many things we can tell the House. We not only take on our concerns but members' concerns are also in our hands. We are trying to solve the problems. We do not just sit in this House and talk. Talk is too easy. The government takes action.
Grant McNally Reform Dewdney—Alouette, BC
Mr. Speaker, to simply say something and say it is true is an interesting concept. Actions speak louder than words. The member's solution to the immigration crisis is to make an educational video and send that across the waters to folks so that they know to please not come because we are not sure what to do with them when they get here. That is the member's approach to this crisis.
Rather than work for legislative change with some teeth in it that will make a change and send a message internationally that Canada is not an easy mark for those who would abuse our immigration system, the member and her colleagues sit idly by and offer solutions such as waiting for winter so the boats stop coming, or putting together an educational video so that people stop coming. Those are their suggestions, rather than using the legislative powers we have in the House to take action and make a change.
We can work together in the House to make legislative changes to send a message internationally that Canada will not be an easy mark for those who choose to abuse our system. We want a positive system.
A member has shouted out a comment that I am not going to repeat because it is in contempt. He said it the other day in question period under his breath. He does not have the intestinal fortitude to stand in his place and make that accusation because he knows he would be thrown directly out of this place. He does not have the guts to stand and deliver; rather he holds his hand in front of his face and utters scurrilous remarks toward opposition members.
That is the approach of the government, to run scared, to do nothing and utter attacks against those who offer positive proactive solutions for change. Shame on the member and shame on every one of the Liberal members for standing idly by and doing nothing once again. That is the Liberal government's approach to governing. Shame on the Liberal members.
The day will come soon when we will be in the Liberal government's place making positive proactive solutions to address the concerns of this nation because the Liberal government simply refuses to do so.
Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
I know we could go on with questions and comments but really the time has expired. Given the liveliness of the debate for a Friday, perhaps we should move on to Standing Order 31 Statements by Members.
Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON
Mr. Speaker, on October 1, 1999 the Canadian Medical Association joined the United Nations in celebrating the International Day of Older Persons which was put in place to recognize the contributions to society of our older citizens.
Older persons across the country and around the world are an active and important part of society. As fellow members of society, it is our duty to ensure these older persons receive the health care and special services they need and deserve. The federal government recognizes these needs and is committed to working with Canadians to continually improve our health care system.
We must accommodate the changing demands of our aging and increasing population. The International Day of Older Persons gave us the opportunity to really look at this important sector of our population. Older persons have special health care needs and services which must be made readily available to them.
I would like to applaud the Canadian Medical Association's efforts during this international day. I urge Canadians to work together with each other and with the government to ensure our older persons are well taken care of.
Reed Elley Reform Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of many Canadians in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan and across the country who are concerned about the introduction of genetically engineered foods to the marketplace.
While everyone is interested in ensuring that the world's food supply grows and that the hunger pangs of children and indeed all people disappear, there are many who share concern about the safety of genetically engineered foods. There are too many outstanding issues and too many questions of what if. These questions require full answers.
The safety of our food supply cannot and must not fall into question. We must learn from past failures, such as the testing of our blood supply, and ensure the public that the same mistakes will not be made again. We must take time now to ensure that the safety of these foods is without question.
I have currently submitted a private member's bill to be drafted that calls for further investigation into the regulations concerning genetically engineered foods and their mandatory labelling. Until this process is complete, I believe that the questions will remain unanswered. In the near future I will be asking for support of this bill by the members of the House.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, there was a huge jump in the price of gas in Ontario this summer. In addition, the major oil companies continue to jerk around gas prices and Canadians to maximize their profits.
I know the price of crude oil has gone up, but that in no way explains current high gas prices. Some say that more than seven cents of the new price is excess profits for the corporations. I urge the government to initiate another inquiry into the lack of competition in gas pricing in Ontario. I believe the virtual elimination of small retailers has produced a monopoly in the province.
I also urge the government to persuade the Government of Ontario to use the threat of gas price regulation, which is clearly in the jurisdiction of Queen's Park, to pressure the oil companies to change their ways.