Debates of Oct. 18th, 1999

The House resumed from October 15 consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Speech From The Throne

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

When debate was last interrupted the hon. member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale had five minutes left for questions and comments.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was so unmemorable that I cannot recall all of the points which I wished to ask him about. However, I have a couple of things which I would like to raise.

He talked about a balanced approach to financing. We all know that in the last couple of years the federal government increased its tax take in this country by $18 billion. The hon. member makes much of the fact that the government is promising to lower taxes by $16.5 billion over the next three years. Is that what he means by balance, that the government will take $18 billion away from us and it might think about giving $16.5 billion back? Is that Liberal balance?

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

Mr. Speaker, in view of the hon. member's comment about my unmemorable speech, maybe I could give a memorable answer to him by saying, yes, that is absolutely my idea of balance.

Let me explain. The hon. member knows as well as I do that in the past years we were not in a position to reduce taxes. I trust that members of the party opposite would not have advocated reducing taxes given the budget problems we had and the deficit. They had huge complaints all the time about the size of the deficit and the debt. So that was the responsible attitude to take.

Now we are in a position to do something about taxes. In answer to a question, the Minister of Finance said in the House, I believe on Friday, that there were $16.5 billion in tax reductions on the table for the next three years.

What differentiates the hon. member and myself and his riding from my riding is that my riding, as I pointed out in the introduction of my speech, requires an act of sensitive government to issues. It requires a government that says there are homeless people in Toronto. It requires a government that says there are children who need housing and homes and that it will actively pursue an agenda which will enable them to have better enriched lives, which will help all of us and reduce the ultimate tax burden by reducing the problems of social conditions which produce delinquency and other issues in our society. This is what we need in government. This is the balance of which I spoke.

There is investment in infrastructure at the university level. The students and faculties at the University of Toronto, Ryerson and George Brown College are all thrilled to see an active government of this country saying that it will reward excellence and ensure that our institutions of higher learning are well equipped to ensure that we have the best brains in this country contributing to the ability of the country to go into the 21st century well prepared. That is what I mean by a properly balanced approach. Yes, tax reductions; but, yes, a government which recognizes there are needs for our citizens at all levels that have to be fulfilled.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale is a person with an extraordinarily good grasp of global and economic issues who always brings to the House very erudite and insightful comments.

Does he see the new spending that the federal government is committing to, the sparse commitment to tax reduction and the meagre commitment to debt reduction as being negative given the state of the Canadian dollar and the importance of addressing the fundamental issues of lowering debt, lowering taxes and controlling spending in the long term, in terms of fiscal and monetary policy and currency levels? I would appreciate the hon. member's comments because our Canadian dollar has been weakened significantly under this government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I should have recognized that the hon. member's kind words at the beginning of his question were about to cover some sting that was coming at the end of the scorpion's tail.

I am surprised that the he is coming so close to the previous hon. member who spoke. I thought there was an attempt to differentiate his party from other members further to the centre in the House. I am a little surprised by the tenor of the question, but I am really surprised that the hon. member, because I respect his economic judgment, would say the government is responsible for the weakening of the Canadian dollar in the last few years. As he knows, it is exactly our fiscal and our appropriate approach to the management of the economy of the country that has protected the Canadian dollar and allowed us to get to where we are today.

That is why I believe strongly that we need not just a focus on tax reduction or on debt relief, but a focus on those social requirements of Canadians that I referred to earlier in my speech. That is where the balance comes. That is where the differentiation is between his party, other parties and the government. I think that is where we will find that the Canadian people are comfortable with what is being done on this side of the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Before we continue I thought it would be a good idea to go over how we will handle questions and comments.

I would like to proceed pretty much as we did in the first session; that is, we will always recognize a member from another political party for a question or a comment. We will try to do it in balance. If there are a lot of members interested in asking questions, they will stand when I first call questions and comments. At that time I will try to pick three and I will ask that the questions and responses to be kept to between 30 and 60 seconds. That way more people will be able to get their oars in the water. If it seems that there are just one or two people, or perhaps just one, then we will relax that rule a little.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg Centre.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the Speech from the Throne and to send a message to parliament from the people in my constituency of Winnipeg North Centre.

The people in my constituency are working very hard to build their future, our community and to contribute to Canada. They are people who get out of bed, work hard every day, who look after their kids and organize programs at the local community centre, who coach at the rink or help out at the seniors' centre. They share a sense of pride for their neighbourhoods and are determined to make a difference.

I will provide a little idea of just how people in my riding are making a difference in spite of some very difficult odds and conditions. In the last little while we have celebrated many important anniversaries. I want to mention, for example, the 15th anniversary of the North End Women's Centre, an organization working to provide counselling, training opportunities and employment for hard pressed women.

I want to mention the 50th anniversary of Inkster School, a wonderful example of good, solid public education that needs the support of all levels of government.

Let me also mention the 50th anniversary of the Shaughnessy United Church which is working very hard in my constituency to be a presence, to bring a spiritual contribution to our area.

Let me mention the 20th anniversary of Bleak House, a very important centre for seniors working to ensure social and recreational opportunities for all of our senior citizens.

Finally, let me mention the 100th anniversary of the Holy Ghost Parish, a church that is located in the heart of my constituency. It represents an incredible achievement for not only my community and the province of Manitoba but for all of Canada. It reveals a history of courage, tenacity and faith. From its earliest days, the Holy Ghost Parish helped early settlers adjust to life in this new land. It became a focal point for, in this case Polish culture, but it also worked to serve the needs of new immigrants right across western Canada.

Today I mentioned this centennial because it represents the pioneering spirit in the country. It talks about those who built this great country, who devoted so much time and energy and who sacrificed so much in order to foster the spiritual and cultural growth of our community and the country.

All of those organizations are trying very hard to make a difference but the odds are working against them because of a failure of federal leadership. In my own area, along with the constituency of Winnipeg Centre, we have the highest rate of poverty anywhere in the country. We have a housing crisis that is beyond description in the Chamber. Just in the last couple of weeks we have had another dozen or more arsons of vacant properties in the inner city and north end of Winnipeg.

In that context, let me reference the Speech from the Throne which suggests that the government, in response to the housing crisis of the land, is going to study the roots of the problems of homelessness. The situation in areas like Winnipeg North Centre do not need to be studied any more. I can tell the House right now just what the problem is. This is an area that has few economic opportunities because of the policies of the government. This is an area that has been totally abandoned by the government offloading its responsibility for housing onto other levels of government. This is an area that has been abandoned by the big banks. In the next couple of months we will see another two branches close in my area. There are other examples right across the country. This is a situation where people are very much the victims of federal government neglect and of the failure of leadership that permeates every aspect of our society.

The people in Winnipeg North Centre are prepared to do their part to build communities but they want the support of government. They need the co-operation of government and they need the vision of government to do just that.

When I was at the celebration marking the very important occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Holy Ghost Parish, the pastor at that church, whose name is Father Karciarz, actually summed up the situation in the best way possible. He quoted from a prayer by Archbishop Oscar Romero who said:

We plant the seeds that one day will grow. We water seeds already planted, knowing that they hold future promise. We lay foundations that will need further development. We provide yeast that produces far beyond our capabilities.

That prayer is exactly what people in my area and in areas right across the country are saying to the federal government. Together we must plant the seeds of hope. We must ensure that those seeds are watered daily. We must lay the foundation for building a better society and a better day. They turn to the government and especially the throne speech for that sign, the road map of how we will create a better day. They look to the government for a vision to help us overcome these great difficulties around poverty, homelessness, deplorable housing conditions, unemployment and lack of recreational opportunities for our young people. They expect a throne speech to be in tune with that vision, those ideas and those seeds of hope. What did they get from the Speech from the Throne? They got an absolute failure of leadership and an abdication of government responsibility. There was no sign of a vision and no hope for the future.

On every critical issue facing the country, the government is either silent or it claims to be studying the issue. There is no mention of the housing crisis, the fishing crisis or the farm crisis. There is no mention of the real problems facing families and communities right across the country. Nowhere is this more apparent than when it comes to health care.

We are under a serious assault in the country as a result of the failure of federal leadership and an agenda that very much supports the privatization of our health care system. We are under the double assault of the dismantling of our universal health coverage system and the dismantling of our health protection system. This should be readily apparent today as we hear that there are 200 scientists in the government's own department who are crying out with a message that we are headed toward despair and doom on the health safety front unless the government decides to resume responsibility and provide leadership.

If nothing else, perhaps the government will listen to the words of its own former minister of health, Monique Bégin, who said: “Canada's cherished medicare system is steadily eroding and could one day collapse because of federal disregard”. If the government will not listen to the words of the opposition, surely it will listen to the words of those who have helped to preserve and protect our health care system, one of its own former colleagues, the Hon. Monique Bégin.

I represent an area that was held by both Stanley Knowles and David Orlikow, two people who stood and fought for health care, pensions, unemployment insurance, protection for our families and ways to end poverty and despair in our communities. We have a great responsibility to carry on that legacy and it is one we take very seriously.

I hope we can impress upon members of the government the need for addressing the real concerns of Canadians: being there at times of crisis and offering leadership that builds upon the sense of co-operation and community that has been so much part of the history of the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the former minister of health, Monique Bégin. I had the opportunity to be her critic for four years in the House of Commons between 1980 and 1984, a period in which we were leading up to the introduction of the Canada Health Act.

The Canada Health Act is fresh in my mind because I just finished reading a copy of the Hill Times in which the headline stated that the Canada Health Act was 35 years old, although the article was a little more accurate. The Canada Health Act was only introduced in 1984. Prior to that, we had other legislation with other names. The purpose of the Canada Health Act was to discourage extra billing by physicians and user fees. The Canada Health Act incorporated all the previous legislation into this one piece of legislation.

I welcome the mention of Monique Bégin because it seems to me that she was the last minister of health we have ever had in the country who did something to actually protect medicare. Subsequent ministers of health have, for one reason or another, presided over the dismantling of our health care system, generally through the introduction of unilateral cutbacks.

As the hon. member mentioned, we now see two threats. I am sure that if she had more time she would have mentioned a third threat, which is that health services may be put on the table at the upcoming round of negotiations at the WTO.

I am sure I have said enough for the hon. member to comment more on the issue that she is so concerned about and on which she does such a good job of caring about in the House, the protection of our health care system.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the wisdom of my colleague, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, who has been involved in these issues for some 20 years. He probably knows better than anyone else the struggle in Canada for a universal, comprehensive health care system.

It is absolutely clear that Monique Bégin will go down in history as the last person in the federal government to be seen fighting for medicare. She was very clear in her recent comments about what is required. She pointed to the fact that “erosion of medicare is the slow concealed process which suddenly leads to landslides and collapses. Is that what we want?”. Obviously we do not want that.

We have a universal health care system in the country that must be defended against all pressures including our own worst enemy, the Liberal government, which has overseen the dismantling of the system through steadfast cutbacks over the years, has willingly allowed the private sector to invade the health care sector and, as my colleague for Winnipeg—Transcona has said, is prepared to allow free-floating discussions at the WTO around health care services to be up for grabs at the table in the international sphere. Those are two obvious threats to health care in the country.

The third threat, which I hinted at earlier, is the dismantling of our health protection system. We have in the country a tradition of a tough regulatory approach to ensure that the food we eat, the drugs we need, the water we drink and the medical devices we need to use are safe beyond a reasonable doubt. We have operated in the country on the basis of a “do no harm” principle. If there is a concern or a doubt then we ensure that we do not allow that product to be consumed by Canadians until we know the long term health consequences.

We know from events of the past week that we have been inundated with all kinds of concerns from groups and individuals about the flood of genetically modified foods on the market around which there has been no scientific investigation or research from the federal government. Members also know that we have had a number of instances where our government inspectors are so under-resourced and short staffed that they are not able to address very serious situations around toxins and poisonings in our food supply. It is an area that cries out for government leadership.

We are desperately hoping that the government will address both areas of health care: the preservation of a universal, publicly administered health insured system and the strongest possible national food safety and health protection system imaginable.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt that the Speech from the Throne is a very carefully crafted document. One thing I have come to realize in the short time I have been here is that there is probably no other piece of work that is done on the Hill that is so scrutinized and carefully put together. One can almost see dozens of bureaucrats burning the midnight oil in the catacombs of this building agonizing over every word that goes into it to make sure it is exactly, perfectly put together.

The reason I point this out is that there are no accidents in the Speech from the Throne. If there is something missing from it, it is not by omission, it is missing for a good reason. It has been thought through very carefully for the message that it sends.

We all know there are two ways to send a message. One way is by putting the message in the document and one is by leaving it out. As a westerner from the prairie region, the most glaring omission in the Speech from the Throne has to be the complete absence of any reference to the agricultural crisis that we face in the prairie region.

I did not come to Ottawa to get on the hobby horse about western alienation. Frankly, I did not even think I would ever be standing up in the House speaking about western alienation, but the longer I am here the more I realize how important and grating this issue really is for a person from the west.

We are all very sympathetic to the issue of the lobster crisis on the east coast. We realize it is a real problem. However, we have an emergency in western Canada in the prairie region.

It is not just an isolated incident. It is not just a part of our industry that is suffering. The whole shebang is at risk of losing what developed western Canada, which is our agribusiness. Forty per cent of all prairie farmers run the risk of being out of business by the end of this selling cycle if something does not happen. If some intervention does not take place, 40% of all people who work on family farms today will be gone, kaput, and that does not even begin to talk about all the many industries that rely on a vibrant agricultural industry.

With all due respect to our colleagues from eastern Canada, we do not see the minister hopping on the plane to get to western Canada immediately to deal with the crisis, as we do with the lobster fishery. The minister was on the plane the next morning, meeting with all the stakeholders down there and trying to carve out some way of dealing with that crisis. We do not see that in western Canada.

What are we supposed to think? Is it that our crisis is not as important as their crisis? Are we to weigh whose crisis is most severe? I put it to the House quite frankly that the other issue pales in comparison to what is going on in western Canada.

One might wonder why I would use my 10 minutes to talk about agriculture. I represent an inner city riding. I do not have a single farmer in my riding. There is hardly even a garden plot in my riding, frankly. It is the core area of Winnipeg.

However I do have the United Grain Growers. I have Cargill. I have the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. All the evidence of what built the prairies is located within the riding of Winnipeg Centre. That whole exchange area was built up because of a vibrant farm economy that we now stand to lose.

I raise this as the first point or as the most noticeable point about the Speech from the Throne for me as a westerner. There is not even a word, not a single line in there. I realize that the Speech from the Throne does not deal with specifics. That is for the budget. However, if there was a single line which said the Government of Canada recognized that it has to intervene in some way to protect the agricultural industry in western Canada, that would be some comfort. It would be some solace and people in that industry might say that at least the government appreciates that they have a problem.

It not just a matter of throwing money at it. I am not saying that everybody who lives on a farm, whether they are good farmers or bad farmers, should get a bailout from the Canadian government. Nobody is advocating that. It is a host of problems that have compounded and conspired to defeat the family farmer, whether it is world commodity prices or the corporate domination of the whole industry in terms of access to seeds.

One thing that scared the heck out of me recently was told to me by a group of farmers. It almost seems like this is part of some master plan: drive the small farmer off the farm so that the corporate sector can come in and make farming a corporate industry instead of a family enterprise.

One graphic illustration of why that is not just paranoia is the way that canola seed is dealt with. One has to buy canola seed from one corporate institution. I will not mention the name. One also has to sign a contract that one will sell the yield to that same institution. It controls the supply and purchasing of the product. At the same time it genetically alters the seed so that it cannot reproduce itself. It dead ends after one season. Unlike normal plants it cannot reproduce itself. It has been neutralized that way and the next year one has to go back to the same company to buy seed again.

It is a serfdom. It is a return to serfdom. Agro-serfs is what they really are. They are not farmers any more. They are agro-serfs, multimillion dollar agro-serfs.

These are the kinds of things that Canadians are trying to awaken the Canadian public to and nobody is listening. There used to be champions in the House of Commons for the prairie farmer. At one time we had a western protest party that actually spoke out on behalf of prairie farmers instead of just the corporate agricultural industry. Unfortunately we do not hear a great deal of that today and, try as we might, we cannot get that issue in the forefront. The Liberal government has missed an opportunity to buy some support in western Canada by at least being sensitive to that issue.

That is really how one could summarize the Speech from the Throne. It was a missed opportunity, in fact a series of missed opportunities, and that is only the first and most glaring one that I can identify.

Another missed opportunity that is self-evident for me because it is in my critic area is immigration. All summer long, for the past six months, we have been seeing an hysteria about immigration whipped up by my colleagues in the Reform Party and their right wing counterparts in western Canada. They are trying to convince us that we have an emergency on our hands because 400 or 500 Chinese migrants have drifted to our shore. I have heard terms like this is the biggest breach to national security since the FLQ crisis. That is one of the points they have made. I do not know how to say balderdash or poppycock in terms that are parliamentary, but I have never heard such nonsense in my life. I guess I just did.

Somehow we have to put the hysteria back into perspective and ease the public's mind that we are not facing a breach to our national security because a couple of hundred desperate people have foundered on our shore in British Columbia. It is a manageable issue and it is not the end of the world. However, again it is a missed opportunity where the Liberal government could have put one line into the Speech from the Throne to calm people down on that issue.

My colleague for Winnipeg North Centre raised the issue of child poverty. I was just reading the comments of the member for Winnipeg—Transcona in his speech. He reminded the House of Commons that we are up to the 10th anniversary of a unanimous motion in the House of Commons which said we would eradicate child poverty by the year 2000. That was moved by the leader of the NDP at that time in 1989 and it passed unanimously. Not a single person voted against such a laudable concept that by the year 2000 we would somehow eradicate child poverty within our borders.

I remind members of the House that we live in the richest and most powerful civilization in the history of the world. I ask members to defend in any way they can why there should be anybody living in poverty within our borders.

As I said, I represent an inner city riding and so does the member for Winnipeg North Centre. We have three of the five poorest postal zones in the country. Poverty is an issue that we are seized with every day. There is not a day when we go to work that we are not dealing with somebody's urgent social emergency in terms of poverty issues. Yet in the Speech from the Throne we heard very little. We heard nothing about the important resolution that was passed in 1989, and only passing remarks about the issue of the fair redistribution of wealth building equity into our society.

The government mentioned that in the EI program it would lengthen maternity benefits. That is a laudable idea, a wonderful idea. I would like to see some costing of it. I cannot wait for the budget to come out to see what it will cost the Government of Canada. I would suggest that it will cost very little. First of all, fewer and fewer women qualify for any EI. They have to get on to EI before they can have their benefits lengthened.

The EI surplus is $600 million a month and not per year. What the government will spend in lengthening the EI benefits for mothers on maternity leave might cost $50 million a year. I have sort of done some costing on my own. Some $50 million a year versus $500 million or $600 million a month. Where is the rest of that money going? The Canadian public is still being cheated and the EI reform is not nearly far enough. It is another missed opportunity. The government could have addressed that glaring oversight.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague who explained a few seconds ago that we have a surplus of $24 billion in the EI program which was transferred in 1986 from the EI program to the general fund.

When the throne speech came down it talked about wanting to give it only to maternity leave. Would the hon. member agree with me that the government is not taking responsibility for the new jobs and for women returning to work? To go on maternity leave now they need 700 hours. Many women do not qualify for EI. We saw again this morning on the first page of the Globe and Mail that many women do not qualify.

The government forgot in its throne speech all the women who do not qualify for maternity leave because of the 700 hours and the 910 hours needed to qualify for first entry. Most women work part time and do not qualify for EI. Our youth who come out of university have a hard time finding jobs and end up in part time work. They do not qualify for EI. Eight hundred thousand people who have paid into the employment insurance fund do not qualify for EI.

I would like some comments from our labour critic about how he feels about that. This money belongs to the workers. As I have said many times, the Liberal government has stolen from working people and another $30 billion from the public sector pension plan. Some $54 billion have been stolen from the working people. The government is not taking responsibility for working people.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I want to caution members. The member for Acadie—Bathurst indicated that the government has stolen or the Liberals have stolen. As long as there is not a direct attribution to a specific minister or a specific ministry it is a political metaphor but certainly it is not to be taken literally.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing out those pressing issues regarding the EI program.

We all know that when unemployment insurance reform took place it made it more difficult to qualify. People could collect for a shorter period of time and receive less money per week. It was a recipe for a surplus. The government is using the EI system as a cash cow to harvest money from employers and employees to use for whatever it wants.

As the member pointed out, there is no such thing as the EI fund. All that money goes into general revenues and the government can spend it on whatever it wants.

I have always argued that to deduct something from a person's paycheque for a specific reason and then use it for something entirely different is fraud. At the very least it is a breach of trust. The government told us it would use if for one purpose and used it for another. It is completely misleading.

Never mind what it does to workers, which is bad enough. As labour critic I am sympathetic to that and what the changes in the EI fund are doing to my community.

The Canadian Labour Congress hired Statistics Canada to do some research on the impact on a riding per riding basis. In my riding alone the changes in the EI fund take out $20.8 million a year. Can we imagine losing that amount of income, wages or salaries out of one intercity riding per year? In one area of Newfoundland it is $70 million per year.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Winnipeg Centre who indicated that agriculture was not referred to in the throne speech at all. He indicated that there was no direction from the government with respect to agriculture.

Does the member believe that the government should have at the very least put together some sort of vision in the throne speech as to the support the government should be putting into agriculture right now? The government does not seem to have any direction at all.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Brandon—Souris is very knowledgeable about these issues. To answer his question simply, all it would have taken is one or two lines in the Speech from the Throne to recognize that we have a problem in western Canada, that we have an emergency that needs to be addressed. The government did not have to write pages and pages. There should have been a couples of lines to sympathize and say that there is an ongoing emergency in western Canada. It would have give some comfort and some solace to those people who find their livelihood at risk.

To answer the member's question, it is a missed opportunity on the part of Liberals to give some comfort to those of us in western Canada who feel more alienated than ever.

[Ian Murray, Liberal, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

I congratulate Her Excellency the Governor General on both her appointment and inspirational address which she delivered on the occasion of her installation. Those of use who were privileged to witness that event were, I believe without exception, moved by her thoughtful and powerful address.

I compliment the hon. members for Windsor—St. Clair and Laval West on their eloquent remarks in moving and seconding the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

It is traditional that participants in this debate describe and praise the unique character of their constituencies. I have always felt particularly fortunate to represent Lanark—Carleton in the House of Commons. It encompasses one of Canada's major high technology clusters centred in but not restricted to the city of Kanata. It has a large rural area which includes much of Kanata and extends through West Carleton township in the county of Lanark, officially the maple syrup capital of Ontario.

In its towns and dotted throughout its landscape are numerous substantial and handsome stone homes and public buildings, a legacy of the Scottish stonemasons who were among the settlers who arrived in the last century. The people of Lanark—Carleton are very aware and proud of their heritage. At the same time, explosive growth of Kanata driven by successful high tech companies and entrepreneurs has added a dynamic sense of energy, pride and optimism to that historic and beautiful part of Canada.

Coupled with pride in its heritage is a sincere and energetic concern for the environment. One does not have to travel far to be close to nature. The increased pressure on water resources for industrial and recreational use has led to real concern in particular within the farming community.

The spirit of co-operation that exists among those seeking solutions in an era of diminished financial resources is reason to be hopeful. However, I believe there is widespread public support for moving environmental issues back near the top of the agenda for all levels of government. I was pleased that the Speech from the Throne committed the federal government to addressing the management of toxic substances, increasing protection for endangered species and strengthening our capacity to perform environmental research.

I have mentioned the contribution of high technology to my riding. Its importance cannot be overstated. I was pleased therefore to see that the government recognizes the interrelated role of so many factors that allow high tech companies to flourish.

There has been an ongoing debate about the brain drain. Despite the clash of statistical and anecdotal evidence, I am on the side of those who see this as a serious issue. The success or failure of any business depends on the quality of its management and the skills, knowledge and enthusiasm of its employees. Very simple rules of human behaviour govern the response of individuals and therefore companies to both threats and opportunities.

We live in a era when changes to global trade rules and patterns have subjected business to unprecedented competition. Companies that once hid behind high tariff walls disappeared as those walls crumbled.

The ability and willingness of governments to prop up or bail out non-competitive firms has eroded. There is also little public appetite for government grants to business. Governments do though have the ability to create the conditions and environment that will encourage companies to take risks and encourage individuals to be entrepreneurs.

One aspect of that is the burden of taxation, both personal and corporate. Taxes in Canada are high both historically and in comparison with our neighbour and major trading partner, the United States. However, the relatively recent and sustained campaign in favour of major tax cuts demonstrates just how short term some people's memories can be.

This government inherited a $42 billion deficit when it took office in 1993. Canadians enthusiastically supported the Minister of Finance as he brought in budget after budget that moved us steadily toward the surplus position we now enjoy. Prudence was the watchword. There was always the recognition that economic growth could stall. We were not prepared to achieve a budgetary surplus only to be thrown into a deficit situation by a future economic downturn.

Tax cutting has begun. Measures from the last three budgets will mean 600,000 low income Canadians will no longer pay federal income tax. The current clamour for tax cuts comes from those in the top tax bracket. That is understandable and the fact is one does not have to earn an enormous salary to be in that bracket, which brings me back to the brain drain.

Canada depends on successful business people to create jobs for other Canadians. We cannot afford to lose highly educated, highly skilled and highly mobile people. The disparity in income tax levels between Canada and the United States has been a significant factor for high tech companies in my riding that need to attract and keep skilled employees.

My message to both employers and employees is simple: your patience is about to be rewarded. I will quote from the throne speech:

Tax reduction is a key component of a strategy to increase individual incomes and to ensure an economy that produces the growth and wealth which enable those public and private investments necessary for a high quality of life. In its next budget the government will set out a multi-year plan for further tax reduction.

I included that quotation because many media reports suggested the speech gave little importance to lower taxes. The message is clear and the details will be spelled out in the February budget.

This session of parliament appears to be built around the theme of “Canada, the place to be in the 21st century”. I applaud the idea. It reminds me of a suggestion made by Dr. Howard Alper, vice-rector of research at the University of Ottawa. While considering the Canadian scientific diaspora, those top scientists and academics who are now abroad, Dr. Alper suggested a rediscover Canada program. Canada can only benefit by having many of its finest researchers available to, in particular, graduate students.

I was excited therefore to hear of the government's decision to fund a program known as the 21st century chairs for research excellence. The federal granting councils already play a very significant role in funding university research. They will now be responsible for enabling the establishment of 1,200 new chairs for research excellence in universities across the country. The objective is to have a total of 2,000 chairs as soon as possible.

That is the kind of bold leadership required if Canada is to be known as the country that celebrates excellence. I would extend that idea, though not the model, to other areas of human endeavour.

There has been a recent and overdue recognition of the need to celebrate our national heroes. Fellow Canadians who are successful on the world stage make us feel good about ourselves and serve as role models for others.

An obvious area is amateur athletics. In this era of multimillionaire professional athletes, to whom few of us can relate, we should remember the pride we always feel when our Olympic athletes perform well. At a time when study after study raises the alarm about how physically inactive our children are, we should look for ways to encourage amateur athletics. That will also require an investment in developing top quality coaches.

Along with celebrating excellence we should be known as a country that welcomes and supports creative minds. That means Canada is the place to be for artists, among others. One has only to look at the excitement created by Pinchas Zucherman becoming music director of the National Arts Centre Orchestra. Often relatively small incremental costs mean the difference between experiencing the merely competent and the truly outstanding.

Many small steps can lead to a better country. One example is the annual Prime Minister's awards for teaching excellence. Another is the Governor General's award for caring Canadians. It is important to recognize and highlight the achievements of unsung heroes.

One group of heroes we can never properly thank is our war veterans. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to never experience war can have no real idea of what it was like. The reality that over 100,000 very young Canadians died on foreign soil in defence of their country can be acknowledged every November 11. But the enormity of the sacrifice and the loss and grief experienced by so many families rarely invades our own consciousness.

We became a country in the eyes of the world thanks to battles like Vimy Ridge. To recognize and celebrate the lives of those who died for Canada is not to celebrate war. It is a fundamental overarching responsibility we have to make succeeding generations know the price that was paid for our freedom.

I mention this in the course of this debate because another debate has been going on for far too long about building a new Canadian war museum. I believe the government should release from their commitment those who offered to raise money for the museum. Just build it.

I have seen much of the museum's collection that is unavailable to the public because of space restrictions and I can assure everyone that it deserves to be on display. I am aware of no other national institution that depended on private fundraising to be built. I hope there will be an early announcement that construction will soon begin on the new museum.

The Speech from the Throne addressed the need for an infrastructure for the 21st century. The most visible is the physical infrastructure we require as a trading nation to enable the free flow of goods and services. In addition to transport, the five year plan will focus on tourism, telecommunications, culture, health and safety and the environment. That is an ambitious objective but one which I believe Canadians will support.

The government has set a goal to be known around the world as a government most connected to its citizens. It will also take steps to accelerate our adoption of electronic commerce and encourage its use throughout the economy. There are challenges associated with electronic commerce.

In the last session of parliament we worked on legislation to protect personal and business information and to recognize electronic signatures. It is important that Canadians recognize and seize the opportunity we enjoy, because of our leadership in communications technology, to be a world leader in the control and use of electronic commerce.

I want to acknowledge and support the government's commitment to building stronger communities. In much of the industrialized world we have seen a growing gulf between rich and poor. There are almost daily media reports of newly minted high tech millionaires and corporate executives enjoying incomes that are many multiples of those earned by their rank and file employees.

Globalization has led many to question the importance of national boundaries. Every new round of trade negotiations appears to lessen the ability of governments to act on behalf of their citizens.

When Canadians are asked what separates them from Americans, we often point to our system of health care. A search for the defining idea of what makes Canada unique remains elusive. I suggest however that the answer may lie in embracing the idea of community. It is not a weakness to be seen around the world as a country that supports the less fortunate. It is not a weakness to be known as a country that embraces cultural diversity and welcomes new immigrants with their skills, energy and ambition to build a better life for themselves and their children. The danger would be in a retreat toward isolation as provinces, as communities and as individuals.

We as members of parliament have an ambitious agenda before us. The challenges set out in the Speech from the Throne are many and real. The goals are clear and within our grasp. Canada deserves nothing less than our best effort.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Lanark—Carleton.

He addressed the issue of the brain drain as being very serious. I know the member. I know he is serious about it and is concerned. I wonder how that squares with his government's record on a lot of these issues and the reasons for the fact that our society has this brain drain. The conference board two weeks ago came out with a report which said that Canadians are falling back in terms of innovation and that we are losing some of our brightest people to the United States. That is a fact of life we all know about.

When our committee on international trade asked small and medium size companies why they did not export outside of Canada, they said that too much government regulation was a serious inhibitor to doing business in Canada. Taxes, including payroll taxes, were a deterrent. There were interprovincial trade barriers. I noticed the premier of Ontario on the weekend said that it was easier to do business with several American states than it is with Canadian provinces.

The government has been in power for the last six years and we still have these serious problems. There is a 50:50 split on how it is going to decide what is going to be spent on spending and on debt and tax relief. Yet we have seen social spending increased so there is nothing left to split 50:50.

What is the government doing? It has had six years to address these issues and nothing much has changed.

[Ian Murray, Liberal, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that these problems did not spring up overnight.

If we look at the history of research and development expenditures in Canada, they have languished at the low end of the G-7 for many years. That is largely because of the branch plant economy we had in Canada. The brain drain problem is partly related to taxes. It is a very important component and I am pleased it is going to be addressed.

The hon. member referred to trade. It is important to look at the team Canada initiative of the Prime Minister. It has been quite effective in stimulating increased trade abroad. A lot people ridicule these trips abroad as junkets that do not accomplish anything. The fact is for years businesses have been asking ministers—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry to interrupt the member.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member opposite rather well. He is one of the august members on the Liberal benches. In fact, he should be a Reformer with some of his philosophies and the hon. member is welcome any time.

I would like to address a point that was not in the Speech from the Throne. It has to do with traditional activism, in particular, the reference with regard to the possession of child pornography. I do not know a single issue that has been raised more by constituents across Canada as to why this is the case. Not one single solitary statement was made in the Speech from the Throne dealing with this particular issue.

It is not a matter of what is right or wrong with child pornography, it is that the judge completely ignored what the people wanted. He completely ignored what the intent of parliament was when that law was first passed. He used his own technical legal interpretation of a particular issue. When we asked the government to invoke the notwithstanding clause, there was deathly silence.

Could the hon. member say if it has come to the point where the government does not have the courage to deal with issues that are controversial and reflect the interests and the wants of the people of Canada?

[Ian Murray, Liberal, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, not at all. It is important to remember that until 1993 the country existed without the law my hon. colleague is referring to. The law was rushed through during the Kim Campbell government just before the 1993 election. We have to keep that in mind as we look at this issue.

As well, it is important to remember that any exploitation of children and the production and distribution of child pornography is still illegal.

I am concerned that the law may have been carelessly drafted. Apparently it is possible that if somebody has written something themselves and maintains it in their possession and it can be defined as pornographic, then they can be charged. That is not the sort of thing we are worried about in the House.

I was one of those who very early on called for the Prime Minister to address the problem created by that judicial decision in British Columbia.

I have been quite willing, though, to wait for the courts to look at it. If the problem is not resolved by the courts, I think the House should look at redrafting the legislation to make sure it is ironclad that the possession of child pornography remains a crime throughout Canada.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. I want to begin by complimenting the governor general on her appointment and note the signal of hope that appointment has given to many in my riding.

I also want to begin by wishing the legendary former prime minister, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, a happy 80th birthday, with wishes from my constituents for many, many happy years to come.

The Speech from the Throne gives reasons to my constituents and to all Canadians to be optimistic about the future of Canada. I said that on Friday when I spoke to four classes of grade 10 students. I encouraged them to watch the debate in the House today, and I am convinced that many of them will be watching. Therefore I am pleased to make my remarks with the hope that it will enlighten them and with the hope that the remarks from other members will show them the extent to which the Speech from the Throne has set out a vision.

The government has set a course for Canada in the next millennium. It has paved the way in building a nation in which the quality of life of Canadians will continue to be unmatched in the world.

For several years in a row the United Nations has declared Canada to be the best country in which to live. The commitments we made in the Speech from the Throne will ensure that our country will remain so for many years. To the students who are watching, we hope that it will also be the case for many years in their lifetime.

Last Wednesday the Prime Minister stated that Canada is the place to be in the 21st century. I agree. Six years ago when the government took office our country was described as a third world country. Our economic growth was slow. The deficit and unemployment were high.

This economic malaise impacted our communities across Canada, including those in Etobicoke—Lakeshore. I recall a time when there were many closures in my riding: stores, businesses and manufacturing areas. Today I know that our country will be well situated economically and socially to be a world leader in the next century and beyond.

We are enjoying the longest economic expansion since the 1960s with over 1.7 million new jobs created. Our nation's fiscal house is in order. Taxes have been cut in the last two budgets by $16.5 billion over three years and, important to me, 600,000 low income Canadians will no longer pay federal tax.

The government has done this by adopting a comprehensive, balanced economic strategy that has transformed Canada to becoming one of the strongest economies of the G-7.

With this strategy our government will continue to strengthen Canada by recommitting itself to economic policies that will allow us to keep the national debt on a permanent downward track, reduce taxes for Canadians and invest in knowledge, innovation, children, youth and health. These are the themes of the throne speech.

The Speech from the Throne enables the government to further its efforts. Canadians may recall that this is what the government said it would do: 50% for tax and debt reduction, 50% for economic and social needs.

I held several budget consultation meetings and over and over I heard from my constituents that those are things they would like to see the government pursue in dealing with the surplus, and they urged us to manage whatever surplus there is in a progressive way.

The constituents of Etobicoke—Lakeshore believe that in the global economy knowledge and technological innovations are the cornerstones of the highest standard of living and a better quality of life. Our quality of life and standard of living can be secured in the future if we are willing to explore new frontiers in innovation. Investment in research and development is central to this.

We need to build an infrastructure of skills development and innovation to foster opportunities for Canadians to pursue lifelong learning. I see this in my constituency. The federal government has created initiatives such as the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and Technology Partnerships Canada to put Canadians on this path. Many of my constituents have received benefits from the $1 billion endowment to the Canada Foundation for Innovation which is helping to build a leading edge national system of innovation.

The technology partnerships program is being taken advantage of by businesses in my riding to help them keep up in the development of marketing, production and new technology in Canada, thereby creating jobs for Canadians.

With the commitments in the throne speech the government is expanding its efforts. Let me cite some of them, especially for those grade 10s who are watching. There is good news. Through the research granting councils the government will fund the creation of 1,200 new 21st century chairs for research excellence in Canadian universities over the next three years. The cost of the program will be $60 million in the first year, $120 million in the second, $180 million in the third year and it will be ongoing.

I shared this information with those grade 10 students. Many of them come from diverse communities. Perhaps they can see that there is an advantage for their parents and older siblings who are presently at university in research areas.

Canada's place in the 21st century cannot be secure unless we commit to investing in children. They are the future of our country and the strength of our society. We know that when the development of children is neglected in the formative years of life society as a whole is disadvantaged. I spent six years as chair of the Metro Toronto Housing Authority. We dealt with individuals in rent geared to income facilities and I saw the socioeconomic situation of many of our children.

Over the past six years the federal government has endeavoured to provide families with support in caring for their children. We put several programs onstream. I want the young people of Etobicoke—Lakeshore and across Canada to know that as we look forward to the progress in broadening experiences and the understanding of our fellow Canadians it is important for us to do what needs to be done to ensure that the mantra of no experience, no skills, no job becomes something of the past, especially among young people.

My constituents expect nothing less from the government but to ensure that our health care system is modern and sustainable. I know of several who are watching the direction in which the government is going. It is trying to ensure that we meet all of those commitments.

Canadians are committed to preserving and protecting the environment. Several individuals in my area work on a daily basis in the protection of the environment. The Humber River was recently declared a Canadian heritage river. There are many other very important environmental niches in Etobicoke—Lakeshore where we must ensure that we clean up areas that are contaminated and that we protect the health of all Canadians.

The Social Development Community Council in Etobicoke—Lakeshore has a regeneration project and is looking to the direction in which we are going for support for their project. The volunteers and people who give of their time and effort in my riding are enthused by the direction in which we are going.

I call on all members on all sides of the House to view the Speech from the Throne, as it outlines the Liberal vision for Canada's future in the new millennium, as building and creating strong communities that will enable us to have a more equitable society for all Canadians.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I found the speech to be rather interesting, but I was actually somewhat disappointed by what it omitted. I would like to give the member an opportunity to address some of the issues that she might have included in her remarks rather effectively.

I would like her to respond to the whole situation of youth in Canada today. We have a number of young people who are looking somewhere for a job, hopefully at home in Canada. Many of them are finding, though, that the tax situation is such that it is preferable for them to find a job elsewhere where they will get more money because the taxes are lower than they are in Canada. There is a disadvantage for them to stay at home, assuming they have a job in the first place. I would like the hon. member to address that question.

The other question concerns the youth exchange program across Canada. If there is a shortage of funds, which there is, which would the young people rather have, an exchange trip across Canada or a job?

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the member because in my discussion with our young people we talked about how debate occurs in the House. Someone speaks and someone questions or responds. I am sure this is a really good example for the young people who are watching.

To address the issue of jobs I will speak about my riding in particular. We have a number of agencies that are working with our young people and a number of initiatives that are on the ground to assist them in finding employment through small business, entrepreneurial adventures and through support.