Debates of Oct. 18th, 1999

Speech From The Throne

[An hon. member]

No.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, if members have been paying attention to the news out west they will know that Alberta was troubled over the summer by the antics of an environmental radical bent on destroying the oil industry. For clarification, I am referring to Wiebo Ludwig and not the new environment minister, although I understand the hon. member for Victoria has the sport utility owners quaking in their heated leather seats.

I am anxious to respond to the Speech from the Throne because once again Canadians were forced to endure the platitudes of a political party committed to an unworkable big government agenda. As the newly appointed opposition critic for the environment, I would like to address this important aspect of the Liberal agenda.

I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Lethbridge, for his hard work on this portfolio. My colleague has consistently defended the interests of average Canadians against environmental policies that ignore the essential component, people. He is a voice for common sense and we can be sure he will bring the same talent and dedication to his new responsibilities in agriculture.

I would like to address two broad policy concerns which were addressed in the throne speech, first, the concern regarding global warming and second, the concern regarding endangered species legislation.

With respect to global warming, I have three questions for which I seek clear answers. Is the planet really warming? What is the cause of this warming? What is the potential consequence for average Canadians of this warming?

Scientists and environmentalists are not in agreement as to the validity of global warming. While climate models produced by computers predict that there should have been some warming over the past 18 years, satellite data collected monitoring global temperature since 1979 actually indicate a slight global cooling. Therefore these data refute the claim that there is a long term warming trend.

Furthermore, even if we are to assume that the planet is warming, and I must stress that the evidence is inconclusive, we must next consider what the root causes of this warming are. Have 100 years of industrial activity upset the balance of the ecosystem, or are we witnessing a natural warming trend beyond our control? According to ground level temperature records, most of the increase in the world's temperature over the past 100 years occurred before 1940, before the main input of human induced CO2 emissions.

Finally we must also consider the actual impact of global warming and the fact that this phenomenon exists. Environmentalists have long concluded that while there may not be a clear warming trend or a clear cooling trend, we are seeing instability in our global ecosystem that is causing erratic weather patterns. If the planet cools, do deserts turn into tropics? If the planet warms, do growing seasons last longer? What is the likely outcome of global warming?

I would like to stress again that before we pursue a national energy program style of politics, we must have conclusive evidence that global warming trends are real. We must be certain that these trends are the result of industrial CO2 emissions. Finally, we must be certain that the effects of this warming trend will be negative for average people.

When we have conclusive evidence that shows all these three conditions, the Reform Party will be the first to demand action. However we will not embark on a reckless and irresponsible campaign that will cripple our economy and send hardworking people to the unemployment lines.

On the issue of endangered species, in the Globe and Mail this morning I read that the government has failed to achieve adequate habitat preservation in the national parks. Government stewardship has not achieved the objective it intended to achieve. This conclusion comes from an independent task force led by Jacques Gérin.

This record of failure is interesting when we compare it to the very recent results achieved by a private sector company. TransAlta has just completed a massive strip mine reclamation project in Alberta. Because the company owns the land and because it has an incentive to ensure that the property remains valuable, care was taken to restore the property to its original condition. Today where the strip mine once provided vital energy to our nation, a wildlife habitat now exists that is recognized the world over as an example of successful private stewardship.

Those at TransAlta did not do this because the Minister of the Environment threatened to put them in prison if they did not. This company had the reclamation plans in place one full year before any provincial or federal statutes were passed regulating the impact of resource industries. They did it because it made good business sense.

I would like to quote a former chairman of TransAlta who worked on this project. Marshall Williams said “it made business sense that land on a major tourism route into Jasper be reclaimed and perhaps sold at a future date for a reasonable return”.

A wildlife habitat was created because it made good business sense. This is a powerful demonstration of the success of private property rights in ensuring the preservation of the environment in harmony with sustainable development.

When property rights are respected, there is little conflict between sustainable development and both habitat and resource management. Where conflicts do exist, a policy of co-operation and partnership will ensure that wild areas are preserved for all Canadians with the costs borne equally by all Canadians.

The government's idea of an environmental partnership is a prison cell and a pair of handcuffs. In past attempts at creating endangered species legislation, the Liberals were prepared to levy fines up to $250,000 or five years in jail as punishment against otherwise honest, law-abiding people. The government's idea of environmental education is fearmongering and misinformation.

Instead of challenging the critics of global warming or ozone depletion, the Liberal government has disgracefully politicized environmental science. When the leader of the Reform Party challenged the junk science of the Kyoto agreement, the government responded with personal attacks.

The government's idea of a common sense environmental policy is more taxes: tax cars and tax gas and force low income Canadians to give up the pleasure and freedom of mobility; after that, tax industries and emissions and send hardworking people to the unemployment lines. That is the Liberal plan for the environment.

Canadians deserve better than that from their government and they deserve better from the Minister of the Environment. If problems such as climate change and dangerous levels of persistent toxins can be resolved, it will very likely necessitate a ban on all speeches given by the government benches. Their hot air is what is really causing global warming.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech. I have to concur in regard to global warming.

I remember 35 or 38 years ago we were ranching up in Dead man country out of Savannah, British Columbia. I was also trapping at that time. It was some cold, 55 below. One of the big news articles of the day was to prepare for a new ice age. That was the government's selling point, prepare for the new ice age. It was cold enough we could almost believe it. It became a big topic with all the other ranchers and that maybe everybody should get ready. The government had us frightened about what was going to happen. I was fairly young then. We wondered whether we had enough winter feed in for the cattle and everything else. Lo and behold, the next winter it was a fair bit milder and it was really nice.

After falling into that trap back then and getting worried and upset about different things, I came to the conclusion that this is a big money scheme. These issues become big dollars, big business for many different groups. Today it is the ozone and global warming; next year it is just as likely to be prepare for the new ice age.

I would like the hon. member's comments.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Okanagan—Shuswap for his very pertinent intervention. From my hon. colleague's intervention, there is no doubt that whatever certain groups tend to say or wherever the politically correct argument of the day lies is where the present government and obviously past governments tend to go.

There is no doubt that when working hard in minus 55 degree weather, as many farmers do, they are asking where this global warming is, if it actually exists. They are hoping for it.

I wanted to make clear in my speech that the government has to step back and take a critical look at what sort of policies it is implementing today. They are going to affect future generations. It must look at what sort of effects they are going to have on industry as well. People who are working hard to make ends meet are being put on the welfare lines simply because of poor management decisions by the government.

I was trying to encourage this government to think about it. As a younger Canadian in the House looking forward, in trying to create sustainable development in this country, let us take a step back. Let us make sure that when we make decisions that are going to be implemented today that they are going to be compatible with the future of the developing economies and of the environment. Let us not make rash decisions that are going to end up backfiring on future generations.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the Reform Party member.

However, I do not think that the expression global warming really tells the public what is at stake here. It would be more appropriate to talk about climate destabilization. This is what causes the flooding, ice storms and tornadoes that destroy crops and towns, and that kill people.

The government has not met the challenge—in fact there is not even any mention of that challenge in the throne speech—of dealing with the climate destabilization we are currently witnessing. How can we ensure that people will be able to face the various problems that this destabilization will generate?

I would like to hear the comments of the Reform Party member on this aspect of the issue.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois member has expressed another point of view in the debate on the environment.

I think that the government should really sit up and take note. For example, it should be telling us about the effects on the environment of climate destabilization. I think the government should perhaps examine this point of view more closely, instead of telling us about vague things like global warming.

I thank my colleague for his question. Perhaps we can consider this further at a future date.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is my opportunity to reply to the Speech from the Throne. I would like to digress for a moment as I have had an interesting experience this last week or so.

My mother has been visiting with me here in Ottawa. She reminds me of the wonders of serving in this place. She has come from Alberta to stay with us for a month. Her reaction to the things we do here has been enlightening to me. Her almost childlike enthusiasm, seeing the things that she has seen, reminds me that this is a very special place and a very special opportunity. It reminds me as well of what a privilege it is to serve my constituents and express their ideas and constructive thoughts.

I have had a recent responsibility change in parliament. I served as health critic for the official opposition for quite some time and have moved to another responsibility, intergovernmental affairs, which hardly anyone knows what it means.

I would like to take this opportunity as well to express my thanks to those individuals who made my job as health critic so enjoyable. I had an opportunity to associate with and have interchange with associations across the country, medical, nursing, dental and chiropractic associations and many individuals who had strong positions.

For instance, the public who fought for freedom in health foods and in alternative therapies were very powerful individuals. They made their positions so strongly known that the government changed some of its direction in those areas. I met some victims who contracted hepatitis C from tainted blood. Their powerful position, especially that of a young man, made the government look shaky in some instances.

I would like to focus on little Joey Haché, a young man with an illness that should have made him weak, should have sapped his strength, but instead has made him strong. I want all Canadians to know how proud I am to have known him and to have had a little opportunity to interchange with him.

Now, to this new job in intergovernmental affairs, I looked through the throne speech to see all the things that related to unity in our country, which is the main responsibility that particular job entails. I want to be very careful that the wording I use is exact because Reformers believe that Canada can be united by reforming the federation on the principle of equality and through a rebalancing of power. Knowing what that means and what, from my party's perspective, we mean in terms of unity, I looked carefully at the throne speech to see what it said on the issue of unity.

This was the government's response:

The best way to achieve the promise of Canada for every citizen is to work together to build the highest quality of life for all Canadians. [—]The Government of Canada therefore reaffirms the commitment it has made to Quebeckers and all other Canadians that the principle of clarity, as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada, will be respected.

This is the Government of Canada's response on this very important matter: the clarity of the question, the majority acceptable, and the negotiation process. These are not the best way to ensure Canada's unity.

As the Reform Party sees it, the way to ensure our country's unity is to make changes in the federation. For instance, we would like to strengthen or improve the exercise of federal legislative and administrative authority in the following areas: defence, foreign affairs, monetary policy, regulation of financial institutions, criminal law, definition of national standards, equalization payments, international trade and interprovincial trade.

These are important matters that come under federal jurisdiction. must try to strengthen or improve the exercise of provincial legislative and administrative authority in the following areas: natural resources, manpower training, social services, education, language and culture, municipal affairs, sports, housing, and tourism.

These are to diminish federal intrusion into exclusive areas of provincial responsibility. What does that mean to my home constituency in Alberta? That means that many of the things that Albertans are disappointed with and unhappy with in the way our federation works would be answered. What would that mean for those disaffected in Quebec? In my view, and in the view of my party, it would mean exactly the same thing, a rebalancing of the powers of confederation based on the principle of equality. That is quite different than just simply saying there is one way, the status quo. That has been the complaint I have heard over and over again from my Quebec colleagues, many of whom feel there is no other option but to split from this country.

My colleagues across the way seem to think that the option is to stay rigid. We believe that there is a troisième voie, a third way, another mechanism to reach the same goal: a stronger federation, not for those in these halls but for our children.

Some other things that we think would go a long way toward improving our country would be changes in the way things work in this House. We believe that we could involve members of parliament better to make backbench MPs feel that they have a powerful place here by freeing up votes on issues that should not be a vote of confidence. If a vote causes a bill of the government to fail, there could simply be a vote of confidence in the government so that the government itself would not fail. That is done in other jurisdictions. It is mind numbing to my constituents at home why we have the convention that the failure of a bill would cause the government to fail. There are very few bills that should cause the government to fail.

One other important thing would be to have the ability to fire a liar, and that is to recall a politician who has made a promise and then lied. And I do not mean just to have a politician resign and then run again.

We also believe that we could involve the public better in terms of being able to initiate by citizens' initiative information or laws that are not coming from the government and binding national referenda on major important issues, especially moral issues. Three hundred and one individuals in the country should not decide an issue of such importance.

These things, in terms of direct democracy, we are convinced would make a huge difference to the way this place works and also to the way politicians are looked at and thought of.

Time is always short. The government had very little to say about unity, maybe hoping that the unity problem would gradually diminish. I have looked at the unity debate over the last 30 years and have found that the interest in sovereignty goes up and down, and it is usually from combative things that are done in this place that sovereignty gets its strength.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House on this issue and I look forward as well to an interchange with Canadians who will guide me and help me to be at least a proper debater in this area.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my Reform colleague for his appointment as his party's intergovernmental affairs critic. I am sure he will be as keen and dedicated in his new role as he was as health critic. I am looking forward to debates with him and the intergovernmental affairs minister, as undoubtedly they will be worthwhile debates.

I would like to point out to him that indeed very little was said in the throne speech about unity. The word unity can only be found once in the throne speech; the government might think it will keep the country together if decisions—I mean the important decisions—are made in Ottawa and carried out by the provinces.

Obviously this is the way we feel the federal government thinks federalism should be. Actually, not so much the federal government because the words federal and federalism hardly occur in the throne speech.

I would like to know whether the Reform intergovernmental affairs critic has noticed, as we have, that the government wants to centralize, and whether his party is not discouraged by this government's attitude when it comes to changing the way we look at the future and federalism in Canada.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

I thank the hon. member for his question.

For us Reformers, the problem is partly the centralization of the federal government's business. It is not the only problem. There are other issues and a balance is necessary in this debate. We would like the question to be clear, we would like to know what constitutes a clear majority and we would like to know about negotiations, should a referendum end with a victory for the yes side. We would also like to know about changes to the federation, positive changes for Quebecers and other Canadians. This is very important.

This is a major concern. It is not a concern that affects just one province or one group of Canadians, but one that concerns everyone.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I also congratulate my colleague on his new portfolio. I think he will do an excellent job.

When it comes to rebalancing powers, many people often confuse the position of the official opposition. Could he add some clarity, that we are not just talking about independent states far away from the government but a better working relationship?

Often when we talk about rebalancing people look to see if we are trying to advocate independent provinces that have no regard for the federal government. We are looking at the opposite. We want the federal government to show more respect for the provinces and to let them take on more decision making and work in a much better fashion than is happening now.

Would my hon. colleague comment on that particular relationship?

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a very helpful question. There are things that the original constitution laid out as exclusive responsibilities of both the federal government and the provincial governments. There is no question that there has been an intrusion into those areas of provincial responsibility. My colleagues from the Bloc will point that out every time it happens.

We look for a strengthening of the federal role in certain areas and a strengthening and improvement of the provincial role in other areas. Most importantly, we look for a co-operative approach, if there is to be money spent on specific things that the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over, and not simply an edict from on high. That helps in other parts of the country and, in my view, it certainly helps in Quebec.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I too wish to offer my congratulations to the governor general.

I had a pretty interesting summer. For a Liberal MP it was actually a pretty easy summer because people in my constituency appreciate the efforts of the government, the way it has managed the finances of the nation and the way in which there is a great deal of employment, particularly in my area of the country. There were times when I referred to it as a love-in.

When we ended the congratulatory exchanges between member and constituent, one of the issues that kept coming up was the behaviour and performance of parliamentarians. Canadians do not really understand what it is we do here. I spent a lot of time trying to explain what it is that we do. What they see is question period. That is what they believe parliament is all about.

I had some difficulties in explaining to them that parliament is something more than us making silly fools out of ourselves in question period. I tried to explain that question period was something having nothing to do with questions or answers. It is probably best described as lousy political theatre.

My constituents are bored and indifferent to the process of parliament. It is my view that our behaviour brings parliament into disrepute. I do not see any point in assigning the blame for that, but it is a shame. Not only does parliament end up in disrepute, it means that parliament is not seen as a forum for debating the larger issues of the day. It is an anachronistic irrelevancy and more, and Canadians just switch channels rather than engage in political debate.

One of the reasons we do not involve ourselves in the big issues of the day is that we end up in partisan slinging matches which do us no credit at the end of the day. I am as guilty as any other person in the House. I anticipate that notwithstanding this speech and to the contrary I will not greatly improve my behaviour.

However, in an effort to be non-partisan I want to compliment the Leader of the Opposition on his remarks and to pick up on some of the comments he made in his speech even though I do not have 100 minutes.

The thrust of his remarks was that the serious issues of the day were being dealt with by the courts rather than by parliament because parliament seemed to be quite prepared to duck the issues and to let the courts decide. He also stated that transferring the charter of rights from a system of checks and balances, as is found in the United States where there is a clear legislative function, a clear administrative function and a clear judicial function, has not translated well in a parliamentary democracy such as ours where the legislative function and the administrative function are clearly fused, which in some respects leaves the judicial function out on its own.

He went on to cite a number of decisions that leave a great deal to be desired in their interpretation and application. He made reference to the Singh decision which has imposed upon our nation a refugee determination system that is both costly and cumbersome. The government is stuck with a costly and problematic refugee system which shows its flaws when migrants show up on our shores with absolutely no intention of making any claim for status.

He cited the Shaw decision on child pornography as being offensive to many Canadians. He made reference to the M and H decision on same sex and the application that the same sex decision solves one problem and creates two more. He made reference as well to the Marshall treaty about which we have heard a great deal.

These decisions in isolation are quite sound. Legal reasoning within the confines of a courtroom have a certain purity and logic but leave a great deal to be desired in application. I am not here to blame judicial activism. I believe the courts would only be too happy to return to what we used to call in law school black letter law.

For instance, on the issue of spousal definition, Mr. Justice Cory said:

The issue of how the term spouse should be defined is a fundamental social policy issue and Parliament should decide it and Parliament should listen to and balance the competing social issues, the philosophical issues, the legal, moral, theological issues that go into this definitional process. The courts shouldn't be deciding it. Parliament should be deciding it and the courts should defer to Parliament.

The reality is that the foregoing issues have not been addressed by parliament in any meaningful way notwithstanding that they are well within the competence of parliament. There is no party or government that runs on a pro-pornography platform. As a practising politician, there are a lot of these issues I would be just as happy to duck. These issues are largely the result of parliamentary neglect rather than judicial activism.

There is little enthusiasm on the part of the court to assume a jurisdictional competence that is properly the preserve of parliament. Rather than simply complaining about judicial activism and the inactivity of parliament on some of the larger issues I would like to make a specific suggestion.

Picking up on the comments about family by the Leader of the Opposition I would suggest that the legal environment as set out in M and H is as follows. First, discrimination between unmarried heterosexual couples living in a conjugal relationship is contrary to the guarantee section in section 15 of the charter. Second, discrimination between married and unmarried common law spouses is contrary to section 15 of the charter. Third, discrimination between married and unmarried couples is not contrary to section 15 if is intended to promote family, children and marriage and has a socioeconomic basis that parliament can articulate.

We have heard several suggestions. One of the easiest suggestions is to do nothing. Others suggest we should use section 33 to do an override. Might I suggest a more nuanced approach to this major social issue. For want of a better term may I suggest that it be called the three silos concept. The first silo is that of marriage. The second silo is that of a registered domestic partnership. The third silo is that of an unregistered domestic partnership.

Marriage is a unique institution of great significance to many Canadians particularly of religious and cultural communities. I recommend that the government make a strong and positive statement rather than simply use double negatives so that any legislative ambiguities may be cleared up.

The second silo is that of registered domestic partnerships. An operating principle of this second silo would be that it deconjugalize the relationship so the state stays out of the bedrooms of the nation. It is, after all, a former prime minister's 80th birthday today. He was the one who coined the great phrase that the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. Surely that should be an operative principle in anything we discuss.

The second point in the domestic registered partnership is that legislative entitlement and responsibility are based on dependency rather than conjugality. I do not quite see why that is so problematic for people. I do not really know why the state should again be pursuing what happens in the bedrooms of the nation. It should be a test of dependency rather than of conjugality.

The third point of the operating principle of domestic partnerships is that they be treated the same as marriage unless parliament can demonstrate some compelling socioeconomic reason otherwise.

Fourth, it should recognize that the family has many forms in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

Fifth, the government should open a register for domestic partnerships for same sex conjugal, same sex non-conjugal, opposite sex conjugal and opposite sex non-conjugal, with the only proviso that there be one relationship at a time and that any rights or benefits not be greater than anything that would be acquired by marriage.

Sixth, we should expunge the concept of spouse from the lexicon, save and except for those people who are married, and replace that language with that of partner.

Seventh, we would eliminate other forms of discrimination between conjugal and non-conjugal couples.

Eighth is the principle that registered domestic partnership is severed on death. It may be dissolved in the same manner as any partnership.

The third silo is that of what is called a non-registered domestic partnership, which would essentially be the same as a second silo although in this particular instance the individual couples claiming this benefit would have to prove on the balance of probabilities that in fact they did live in a relationship with some dependency.

I believe that the foregoing represents to the courts a measured and fair response to the court decision. It reflects a variety of views and a divergence of opinions and accommodates the essential elements of the court decisions. If in fact parliament were to adopt this kind of reasoning, the government would be able to draft an omnibus bill. It is my belief that there would be virtually no one in the House who could vote against the positioning because of the wide range of views that are accommodated. I would argue that parliament properly should reflect that wide range of views.

To return to the theme as I have outlined it, I would prefer to see parliament dealing with the big issues of the day rather than exercises in partisan foolishness. I would prefer when I visit a public school or a high school that I could point to colleagues who have made thoughtful contributions to the big issues on both sides of the House.

I appreciate the opportunity to present those views and I look forward to questions.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of my hon. colleague opposite. He made a very thoughtful and thought provoking speech. I know that as an active and able member of the justice committee he holds very sincerely to the ideals he has put forward.

I listened with particular interest when he spoke of parliamentary neglect as opposed to judicial activism. I guess it goes without saying that as a member on the government side he is in a very unique position in his ability now to move the government to being more active in some of the social areas that he touched upon.

I want to focus my question to him specifically on an issue that I know he holds dear to his heart. It involves the job that is currently before our police forces, the RCMP and municipal forces across the country. He would know that today the Canadian Police Association held a press conference where it spoke on some of the issues it feels are priority issues for it and consequently is hoping to awaken the government with respect to some similar issues.

In particular, I would like to get the member's comments arising out of the throne speech where some of the policing issues I feel were not given a great deal of attention or a great deal of emphasis. We know that there were announcements, or perhaps more appropriately I would call them reannouncements, of the general commitment that the government has to policing services. However there was never really any detail put forward as to what it intends to do.

The hon. member would know that the RCMP in particular is facing a near crisis with respect to the increase in drug trafficking, illegal immigration, organized crime and crime stemming from the increase in Mafia, and I am talking about Mafia from outside Canada obviously.

I wonder if the member would address specifically what he feels the government can do and if his support is there with respect to increased resources that would assist the police in their efforts to fortify themselves for the storm of increasing criminal activity that is resulting in increased crime and the public pressures with which they are contending. At the same time resources have been cut and they are not in a position to respond adequately. I would suggest that the same situation exists in our armed forces.

Specifically with respect to the police I am wondering what it is he suggests we should be doing and what the government intends to do about this increasing problem in Canada.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for his comments. I thought my speech was about three silos, registered domestic partnerships and so on. However I was asked a question about policing which I do not think I mentioned.

Having said that, in some respects the response of the government to many of these issues should be to refer a number of them to the justice committee in particular or to other committees as the case may be. I do not know that policing issues take any greater priority than any other issue.

For instance, I just completed an interview with the CBC on homelessness where some people are advocating a 1% solution, that 1% of all budgetary revenues on the part of the federal government be devoted to homelessness. On the face of it that has a superficial attractiveness to it. In my area of Toronto and the GTA we have a particular problem with homelessness which is frankly nation-wide.

How that ranks in priority to any resources that the police may need I do not know. I know when the police come before the justice committee they do make excellent presentations and what they say is frequently heard. For instance, on the issue of child pornography in the Shaw decision I really do not know why that should stick to the government or to any particular party because no one is in favour of that kind of activity.

That is the kind of thing that should be coming before the justice committee, with the competing values to be analysed, the competing requests for priority, whether they are police priorities or other kinds of criminal justice priorities, and then a reasoned decision is reached.

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to join in the throne speech debate. Let me open with a quote from the throne speech:

We stand before a new century confident in the promise of Canada for our children and grandchildren.

As the opening of the second session of parliament coincides with the turn of the millennium, it is invigorating to see that our government has the knowledge and foresight to engage itself in the long term betterment of its population. Canada's quality of life is second to none. Yet without proper management it is difficult to sustain.

I applaud the government's untiring work not only to support our nation but to encourage Canadians to grow beyond the envelope. Our children and our children's children will ultimately benefit from the new direction our government is now taking.

I understand full well the benefits and consequences of our social system. In a recent era of cutbacks and slowdowns many Canadians have seen the fabric of our social safety net fray, but that era is finally behind us.

Outlined in the throne speech Canadian needs are being addressed to ensure that their lives are significantly improved. With better services being provided for early childhood education, health, the environment, families and our infrastructure, Canadians can face the challenges of the 21st century with confidence.

The task at hand is in no way simple. It will require perseverance and grit for every Canadian to see benefit from this new direction. The throne speech states that “the strength of Canada is reflected in its rich diversity”. This simple phrase speaks volumes about Canada's ethnic makeup and the bounty all Canadians reap from it. It is amazing to think in a world torn asunder by wars of ethnic and religious hatred that Canada stands apart like a beacon of tolerance. This pluralistic cohabitation has led to an immense wealth of culture, plucked from the very communities that make up Canada's geography.

A people are made up of their past and their future. The synergy of these two creates Canada's national identity. It is this identity that culture seeks to preserve, to bottle it in words or movement, to embellish it in works of art or in monuments that grace our parks. With new technologies come new possibilities for enhancing our cultural heritage.

The 21st century will allow us to bring the world into the classrooms and homes of every Canadian. No longer are Canadians hindered by the vast distances that separate them. The digital age is upon us. By plugging in, people will be able to explore the world around them without leaving the comfort of their chair. Our government must embrace this medium by linking our cultural resources and ensuring access to all Canadians. The benefits gained by such quality exposure are immeasurable.

If we speak of cultural heritage then it must also hold true for the military. Canada just recently celebrated the 100th anniversary of the Boer War, yet I wonder how many Canadians really know much about it. Canadians owe it to our veterans to ensure that the memory of their deeds remain in our collective psyche.

Every regiment's imprint runs deep in their respective communities. Each has its own story to tell and they often do it with fervour. Regiments like the Royal Canadian Regiment, the Hasty Pees, the Loyal Eddies, the Rileys and the Prince Edward Island Regiment. The list goes on and on. As veterans pass and memories fade, there is a generation of children and grandchildren now making themselves aware of Canada's proud war history and affirming their important role in educating generations to come.

As such, we are standing on the forward edge of a new era where digital technology will move beyond anything we can imagine and will provide government with the tools to marry the past and future into a seamless venue to attract and amaze viewers.

Imagine ourselves participating in a World War I dogfight in the skies over northern Europe or experiencing the emotions as we crash ashore in Normandy on June 6, 1944. Using leading edge technology to improve our cultural attractions, this type of viewer interaction is a real possibility. Renewed emphasis on our National War Museum will not only enhance the prestige of our historical past but will also the government to focus new technologies into bringing the past alive.

Today's youth seem to lack the knowledge of the great deeds our forefathers performed in acts of utter selflessness and courage. I wonder how many people today really and truly understand the meaning of Passchendaele, Vimy Ridge, the Scheldt or Hill 355. The government has a duty to pay homage to that past, to elevate and preserve their memory for time immemorial.

The Canadian War Museum will not only honour those who served in war and peacekeeping but will also ensure that their legacy of heroism and sacrifice is not forgotten by generations that have never experienced war.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite intently to the hon. member's very eloquent speech. I commend him on pointing out the importance of the rich diversity of our country.

I was somewhat disappointed with the throne speech. While it speaks about Canada as being a bilingual country in which both men and women of many different cultures, races and religions participate in economic, social and political life and our diversity is a source of strength and creativity making us modern and forward-looking, that seems to be where it stops. The words are good but I think most of us would agree that words without action do not really mean a lot.

It saddened me during the last session when I had to approach the government to explain to the House why the appointment of a black female judge to a unified court in Nova Scotia did not take place. To this day I have not yet received a response to satisfactorily explain what took place in that situation.

What we really say to people in our society comes through by our actions more so than the words that are written in a speech. If this speech is to be meaningful as we move forward into the 21st century, if we are to give more substance to these words, then the actions have to prove and bear out that we really mean what we are talking about in terms of the diversity of our country making us strong and people having equal opportunities.

When the hon. member mentioned the military, I thought about our veteran merchant mariners who are still fighting for justice, still seeking some form of compensation to make up for the injustice that was done to them following the war. Those kinds of actions or lack of action by the government say more to people than words in a throne speech talking about being supportive.

Does the hon. member have any comments to make on those particular instances? Could he also perhaps indicate how he sees his government moving forward in a real positive way to give some substance to the words that are in the throne speech?

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would really like to respond to the first part of the member's question but I do not have the background on the issue at hand. As I do not know the situation thoroughly, I feel I would be overstepping the knowledge I have in order to give an answer.

We both see eye to eye and we will continue to work on behalf of our veterans who crewed the ships during the war and were lost in heavy numbers or were taken prisoner well in advance of many members of the Canadian forces. It is certainly my wish to see a wrong righted in that area as well.

I do not think I can say much more other than to say that we do see eye to eye. As we are both on the same committee, we will both continue to work for the betterment of our naval seamen who worked, some of whom lost their lives and now have very little compensation for their efforts.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in standing to speak to the throne speech, I must say that there were no big surprises.

Since I hold the critic responsibility for the Reform Party in the area of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I eagerly scanned the throne speech to see what was in there that related to aboriginal people and the challenges that aboriginal people and government face in Canada today. I was not surprised but I was disappointed to see that there was no change in direction on the part of the government and that it is steady as she goes.

The government feels that it is charting the right course. It obviously continues to use words like partnership, gathering strength and all kinds of nice words and phrases that would leave the average person listening to the throne speech with the impression that progress has been made, is actually being made and that things are continuing to improve.

I can assure the House that nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, for aboriginal people in Canada things continue to go downhill. The social problems on reserves continue to worsen. The economic circumstances for aboriginal people living on reserves continue to worsen. The programs that have been put in place by successive governments over a long period of time in the country have actually, if anything, been counterproductive to the health and welfare of aboriginal people in Canada.

As an example, the Government of Canada decided to invest in aboriginal economic development back in the early 1990s. It spent $1 billion on aboriginal economic development over a period of four years. These facts are all contained in the Auditor General's Report to parliament. Over the same period of time that the $1 billion was expended, the economic conditions on reserves worsened, the unemployment rate continued to increase and the overall picture continue to worsen, to darken, rather than to improve.

The question one naturally asks is why would the government continue to go down the same road when there have been no positive results and there continue to be negative results? Do we not learn as human beings from experience? Do we not look to the past to gather and analyse information to assist us in making decisions about what we are going to do in the future? That is really what learning and human history is all about. The government has refused to do that.

Naturally, one asks why we would go through the trouble of having all of these government departments that can track the impacts and effects of various government programs and expenditures if we are not going to pay attention to the results. I have come to the conclusion that the government by choice automatically insulates itself from the realities of its own policies. It does not want that feedback. It does not want to know that its policies are failures.

The government does not want to know because it does not want to admit that it has failed. The government lacks the vision and the courage to think outside the box, to think in some new way that could perhaps be of great benefit not only to aboriginal people but to the country as a whole. Obviously, the country has a challenge in front of it which badly needs to be addressed.

The Liberals do not have the courage to face that challenge. They do not have the courage to admit that the way things have been done in the past, the policies that have been implemented and the taxpayers' money that has been expended has not been of any benefit to native people in Canada.

Is the government not willing at least to analyse the results of its policies? We would think that at least a majority of native leaders would be interested in going through that analysis and going back to government and saying that what the government has been doing has not been working and they need a change. Why are the chiefs and councils across Canada not engaged in a process of examination and analysis? Why are they not advocating for change?

I think the reason becomes clear when more time is spent looking at what the department of Indian affairs does and how it has a relationship with native leaders across Canada and native leaders at the national level. There is a symbiotic relationship. Both parties are unwilling to admit failure because they fundamentally do not want to change the status quo. The reason most native leaders do not want to change the status quo is that they are caught up in the system. Some direct personal benefit accumulates to them as a result of being part of the system.

One of the things that strikes me as I travel from place to place and talk with grassroots aboriginal people is that they feel as fundamentally disconnected from their leaders in many cases as do ordinary Canadians from their political leaders. There is a sense of frustration that the programs are supposed to be benefiting them as individuals but they are not hitting the mark.

One has to do a critical analysis to determine why that is the case. The greatest mistake the federal government has made and continues to make and shows no sign of changing when it comes to native people is it continues to treat native people as collectivities rather than as individuals. It wants to deal in programs and policies that are related directly to collectivities. That is why we see certain things in modern treaties that are being negotiated.

The Nisga'a treaty is mentioned in the throne speech. We are going to have a lot more to say about it in the coming weeks when the government actually introduces the legislation. Fundamentally it sees the Nisga'a as a collectivity of some 5,000 people. It does not see the individuals. It looks at the Nisga'a people, and aboriginal people in general, as being some kind of homogeneous group that thinks the same way, that wants the same things and that fundamentally has a culture that is different from the rest of Canada and therefore must be treated differently.

Of course, what gets lost in the shuffle when that happens is the individual. Individual rights are put on the back burner in favour of collective rights, and individual aboriginal people are coming to that realization in a major way in the country. Individual native people are coming to understand that their rights as Canadians are fundamentally sidelined in favour of these collective rights that are somehow supposed to benefit them, but they see very clearly that those benefits are not accruing.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. It being 6 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment to the amendment, and the amendment now before the House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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 Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.