Debates of Oct. 18th, 1999

Speech From The Throne

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member who just spoke about the commitment that he has, or that his government has, toward young people, or is the commitment primarily to the banks of Canada? It is particularly with reference to his last comments when he talked about student loans and the privilege that young people have subsidized interest rates on their student loans.

It is true that while they are attending university or a post-secondary institution of some kind the government pays the interest on these loans to the banks so the student is free from paying them.

When the student graduates he or she is then obligated to repay the loan at an interest rate exceeding the prime rate in the bank system. Is the government's primary concern about young people, or is the government's primary concern to absolve the banks from incurring any risk for these, our most educationally elite people? These people will lead industry in their areas. What is the real purpose behind this whole operation?

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased with the question of my colleague across the way. It gives me an opportunity to reinforce some of the points that I just mentioned about youth.

When we stop and think about it, the Canadian opportunities strategy is about helping young people get experience, helping young people work in the environment and helping develop a record of work experience by putting programs in place that allow them to be out in the communities working.

Concerning the educational grants given to students, we certainly are doing the very best we can to make sure there are grants for young people to develop youth environment strategies. Any type of opportunity where young people get an opportunity to work in programs is very good.

When we stop and look at the reduction of interest rates on student loans, the member is not suggesting that was not a tremendously great idea. I think he is suggesting go further, go further, go further. That has been the policy of the Reform Party. The sad part is that its members say to cut taxes but spend, spend, spend. I have heard them today alone suggest 10 policies which in fact—

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has deliberately misconstrued what I said a moment ago.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am afraid that deliberate misconstruction may happen from time to time. Sometimes it is not deliberate and sometimes there is no misconstruction. However, it is not a point of order, it is a question of debate.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I clearly remember the hon. member's comments. He asked “What are you doing for youth?” That is exactly what I am commenting on now.

The fact is that members of the Reform Party have said time after time, interestingly, “Spend money here; spend money there”. I could cite specifics, but the fact is that they have asked for tax reductions on one side and they say “spend, spend, spend” in every program. The problem is, we cannot do both. That is why Canadians have put them where they put them, across the way.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague for Chatham—Kent Essex made the point that we can look forward to the future with optimism and pride. Can he explain to the farmers of the Annapolis Valley, especially those who in the last three years have been faced with drought and those who have just in the last three or four years come into business, who cannot take benefit from the AIDA program, how they can have pride and optimism for the future? Not supporting these farmers is deplorable and it cannot and should not be tolerated.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I accept the question from my hon. colleague in the spirit in which it was given.

There is no question that we must ensure that industry in Canada, be it farming or any other type of industry, gets the proper support mechanisms required. As a Liberal government we have tried to negotiate with industries across the board on the best types of programs that could be put in place for those industries and we have been working hard as well with the provinces. It is not just the federal government that gets involved in this; it is the industries themselves and the producers in those industries.

There has been a lot of difficulty with the situation in Atlantic Canada, as well as the situation in western Canada. We all feel that we must do as much as we can. That is why the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food stood today in the House to say that the government had put $900 million into trying to bring supports in place for the agricultural industry. One has to admit that we are trying our best to handle things in a way that is reasonable and sustainable for the future.

I am not saying that our system is perfect. I would never say that our system is perfect. However, we have to realize that we are trying to make strides and to do the best we can. Many of these situations were unanticipated. Given the opportunity we will develop programs and safety nets that will make certain agriculture is safe in this country.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting to rise in reply to this throne speech, as this allows us to tell those who are listening to us that, to us, this speech seems drab and empty.

Government members on the other side of the House may try hard to make us see the positive side of this throne speech, but every newspaper article we read the day after the throne speech agreed with what all four opposition parties were saying. This speech has no clear policy and no vision.

Rather, this speech is an election platform; most commitments will take effect between 2001 and 2004, and probably during the next election campaign, which leads us to believe that the Prime Minister will still be there for the next campaign.

Let us consider one example: parental leave. Overall, this seems to us to be good news, except that the parental leave proposed as a new program is not going to start until 2001. Everyone wonders why it is not now. The money is already there, it is not a problem, so why not start the program up?

As hon. members are aware, the funding for this program comes from the employment insurance fund. Only 40% of people qualify for this fund, and women and young workers are the ones most affected. If access to employment insurance benefits is not changed, one may well wonder who will lucky enough to benefit from parental leave.

First and foremost, October 12th's throne speech is a long shopping list. That list includes the government's commitment to a slight, long term and conditional tax reduction, to reducing the debt still further, to investing in capital projects, and to creating a broad range of programs ranging from improving the national child tax credit, to home care, to education.

We are familiar with the Liberals' promises. The numerous promises in the throne speech appear to be just window-dressing. We have never been given the real cost of these commitments. There is talk of compassion for families and the poor, but the only emphasis is on the homeless. Yet the government does not give us its vision of what programs and measures it will implement to help the homeless. It is fine to support the homeless in the throne speech, but since 1993, this government is no longer involved in social housing programs and has not invested anything in them. So much, then, for compassion.

Recent years have shown us that government commitments were anything but solid. Many still wonder about the ability and real desire of the government to honour its commitments. Other examples come to mind: the GST, pay equity and international aid, for which the government promised to provide .7% of GDP.

My colleague, responsible for daycare, tells me that the 150,000 places in daycare that were promised in recent budgets have yet to be provided.

That said, the fact that the government says it wants to do everything at once is a very clear indication of the fiscal leeway it has this year and of the surpluses that will be distributed in the next budget. As they say, they got the bucks. However, since they want high visibility as they move into the next millennium, they are offering a sprinkling of new programs instead of going after the real problems.

What is even more distressing is that these surpluses have been accumulated on the backs of the unemployed. There is the $25 billion from the employment insurance fund, because $5 billion a year accumulates in this fund. There is the $30 billion in the public service pension fund—if this were private enterprise, such scheming would be considered outright theft—and there are the cuts to transfers to the provinces.

The cuts in provincial transfer payments have hit the public very hard. For the benefit of those listening, I am talking about a $33 billion cut. Then the government wonders why there are health and education problems. It makes cuts and crows about the money it is saving, but the provinces are stuck with the unenviable task of running programs on nothing. They do not have the money and are having trouble maintaining services.

It is disgraceful to slough one's problems off onto the backs of others. In Quebec alone, an additional 200,000 people had to turn to welfare in 1998. They no longer qualified for employment insurance.

Health systems throughout Canada are in terrible shape and the provinces must work hard to avoid the appearance of a two-tier health system, one tier for the rich and one for the poor.

It is not just Quebec that is facing problems in its health care system, but all the provinces. The government would have people think that the problems are limited to Quebec, because of its sovereignist government, but that is not true. We must broaden our horizons and look at the other Canadian provinces, which are forced to turn to the United States to provide health care for their inhabitants.

In this regard, let us remember what Jean Charest said “Forget Lucien Bouchard. He is not the problem. The problem is the cuts made by the federal Liberal government to the Canada social transfer”. This from Mr. Charest in May 1997.

Now that the budget is balanced, it is obvious that the ruthless cuts and overtaxing to which the federal government keeps resorting in spite of the public's pleas are giving it more money than it needs, but the government is still avoiding its responsibilities.

The government prefers to spend that money on new programs, instead of fulfilling its responsibilities, which include alleviating the plight of the unemployed by putting money back into the employment insurance fund which the government pilfered, helping the sick by giving back to the provinces the money it took from them, and giving a break to the middle class by lightening its tax burden—let us not forget that it is the middle class that pays for our social programs. Instead of helping all these people, the government prefers to spend and to interfere in provincial jurisdictions. In Quebec, we already have homecare and pharmacare programs. Therefore, why not give the money to Quebec, to improve what is already in place?

I will conclude by saying that instead of using common sense, the Liberals are beginning again to spend money on all sorts of new programs whose only sure impact is to empty taxpayers' pockets. Why? This is all in the name of visibility and propaganda, coast to coast.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about, what she coined, our two-tier health care system. As far as I am aware, the federal government deals with health through the Canada Health Act, which has the five principles of our health system: universality, accessibility, portability, publicly funded and comprehensive.

As far as I am aware, and I am very sure of my facts, Canada has a health system which serves all Canadians and it has nothing to do with how much money one has.

Would the member please clarify for this House exactly what she meant by a two-tier health care system in Canada? While I understand that anybody can travel to any other country to purchase health care, in Canada that is not the case. Could the member please clarify her statement?

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that we had a two tier system, I said that we were heading that way.

When transfer payments to provinces are cut by $33 billion, including $10 billion for Quebec alone, it is obvious that health care is in jeopardy.

Quebec does all it can to maintain the five major principles of medicare. We believe in universality and accessibility and when we are a sovereign country these five principles will be maintained.

We believe in those principles, but what can a province do when its funds are being cut off and hospital costs are skyrocketing? I remind the House that our population is ageing and needs more health care. Furthermore, new technologies, like laser treatments and other medical equipment, arre increasingly expensive.

When Quebec needs more money to buy new equipment and to give health care to an ageing population but its transfer payments are cut by $10 billion, how do members think it will be able maintain the five great principles of medicare?

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the new session opened with a Speech from the Throne, in which the government was supposed to highlight its new policy thrusts during the second half of its mandate.

As justice critic for the Bloc Quebecois, I carefully examined the throne speech and I was sorry to see that it only confirmed that the government wants a Reform style justice system.

Since it paves the way for the next election, the throne speech, inevitable, was greatly influenced by the right and the intolerance movement with which both the Liberals and the Reformers seem to be so cozy. Under these circumstances, political expediency is the rule: public perception prevails over public interests.

The Reform Party, which has been actively promoting law and order ever since its election to this House, as we have seen many times, took advantage of the shift to the right and, in the last two federal elections, campaigned on a platform that called for a harsher youth justice system. Reformers decided to fight tooth and nail against what they saw as the excessive clemency of Liberal policies toward young offenders.

Given the situation, it is unlikely that the government will reconsider its plan to reform the Young Offenders Act. This is unfortunate, because the government will be missing an opportunity to show how effective the current legislation is and to distance itself from the demagogic policies of the Reform Party.

Bill C-68, the Young Offenders Act, as it was called when it was introduced, died on the Order Paper, since we started a new session. However, statistics on young offenders tell us it was a pointless piece of legislation anyway.

Statistics clearly show how effective a young offenders act can be if it is properly enforced. Many experts in Quebec have condemned the justice minister's eagerness to sacrifice several decades of expertise. Nevertheless she is standing her ground, claiming that a so-called flexibility will allow provinces, especially Quebec, to continue enforcing the model of their choice.

Such flexibility, a kind of opting out, which is as virtual as a stroll on the bow of Titanic , is not tangible and the minister knows it full well.

The system the minister has been proposing so far is based on the nature and seriousness of the offence, thereby ignoring the young offenders' needs.

As a matter of fact, the bill—and this is important—did not even mention the special needs of teenagers. However, it is precisely because the Young Offenders Act allows for individual treatment based on each teenager's own characteristics that Quebec has the lowest juvenile crime rate in Canada.

During her summer vacation in Alberta, the Minister of Justice must have had the time to review the request from the Bloc Quebecois and the Quebec government to withdraw Bill C-68 or, at the very least, to amend it in order to allow the province to continue enforcing the Young Offenders Act its own way, the Quebec way.

By granting this reasonable request, the minister would make it possible to keep intact an approach that has already proven itself. On the other hand, an outright rejection might lead to improper handling of young offenders.

According to the Speech from the Throne, “the Government will reintroduce legislation to reform the youth justice system”.

We hoped that the term “reintroduce” would not mean reintroduction of all the provisions of Bill C-68 on young offenders, a bill no one in Quebec wanted. However, based on the rumours going around the Hill, I fear that the minister will be introducing Bill C-68 in its entirety within days. Should this be the case, I trust that members will remind the Minister of Justice that it is not in the interests of either Quebecers or Canadians to back such a reform, since it is not warranted by the present situation.

The statistics the minister is quoting in support of the Young Offenders Act demonstrate that she does not need to do anything to change that act, only to require that those provinces that do not enforce it do so, in order to achieve the same results as we have had in Quebec.

Those involved in this area in Quebec have worked tirelessly to prevent juvenile delinquency from leading to “chronic delinquency”; it would be unfortunate to impose upon them an instrument unsuited to youth rehabilitation.

In the course of my summer reading, I came across a quote from Honoré de Balzac “Once the convicts were marked, once they were given their numbers, they took on an unalterable character”. It is my belief that, with the young offenders legislation, or the amendments the Minister of Justice wants to make to the Young Offenders Act, these young people will be marked forever, branded, considering all the publicity that surrounds this issue.

When the time is right, and when the minister reintroduces—as rumours on the Hill would have it—the bill to amend the Young Offenders Act, we shall see what transpires, but the fear is that the minister will go back on the prior commitments.

Too much effort has been invested in Quebec to date for us to be forced in future to regretfully apply the Balzac citation to ourselves. For our collective security, the Minister of Justice must abandon her plans once and for all.

Unfortunately, the experience with young offenders legislation reform is not the only one of its kind. By way of example, the debate on the reinstatement of life sentences for persons driving while impaired is another illustration of the need for sensationalism of the federal justice system.

By way of reminder, the government initially agreed with the Bloc Quebecois and amended Bill-82 to retain the 14 year maximum sentence for persons driving while impaired and causing death. During the negotiations preceding the adjournment for the summer recess, the Bloc Quebecois contended that a life sentence was unreasonable, despite the seriousness of such an offence.

It was a mistake to think that the government would stop there. Everything indicates, once again, according to the rumours on the Hill, that the government will introduce another bill to obtain a life sentence for impaired driving causing death.

We will see that, on the subject of justice, the Liberals, the Reformers and, to some extent, the Progressive Conservatives, are all on the far right.

At page 23, the throne speech provides:

The Government will focus attention on new and emerging threats to Canadians and their neighbours around the world. It will work to combat criminal activity that is becoming increasingly global in scope, including money laundering, terrorism, and the smuggling of people, drugs and guns.

It continues:

The Government will strengthen the capacity of the RCMP and other agencies to address threats to public security in Canada—

I do not know if the government realizes that there is a world of difference between what it says in its speech and what it does in reality. Since the Liberals took office in 1993, funding for the war against drug trafficking and organized crime has been reduced by $11 million. The throne speech talks about strengthening our capacity in that area when, in fact, there has been a decrease in funding.

As strange as it may seem, even though the federal government is aware of a 12% annual increase in drug related crimes, as reported in one of its own documents, it has reduced the number of police officers investigating these kinds of crime.

Maybe reality has caught up with the Liberals but they do not know exactly what to do. They should listen more carefully to certain proposals made by the Bloc Quebecois, including the bill introduced by the member for Charlesbourg to withdraw $1,000 notes from circulation to help in the fight against money laundering. We presented all kinds of information.

I will close by saying that, at some point, the Bloc Quebecois will reach out to the federal government to conduct a serious study on the whole issue of organized crime.

I see the Minister of International Trade. I think that, as a member from Quebec, it would be interesting if he could co-operate with the Bloc Quebecois to set sound policies—

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

A policy that would show respect for Quebec.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Exactly, and this concludes my remarks.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today in the House to offer comments on the Speech from the Throne, which was so ably delivered to us by Her Excellency the Governor General last week. I also want to thank her for her excellent and moving installation speech. I am sure that all of my colleagues in the House join me in offering best wishes to Her Excellency as she begins her term of office.

Her appointment is of special significance to the residents of my riding of Papineau—Saint-Denis. Indeed, many of my constituents are immigrants to Canada. Many arrived quite recently. I am proud that Her Excellency inspires us all and demonstrates that in this country, Canada, all citizens, old and new, have access to all offices, even to the highest office in the land.

The residents of my riding of Papineau«Saint-Denis are also delighted that Her Excellency the Governor General will be joined at Rideau Hall by her husband, John Ralston Saul, one of the great thinkers of our time, a philosopher whose reputation and credibility extend well beyond our borders. I know he is particularly well thought of in France.

In the throne speech, the government stressed the need for Canadians to open up to the world, and to be aware of our role and our responsibilities in this respect and also of the great opportunities and challenges that this entails.

Not the least of these opportunities are those that come about through international trade and capital movement. As all members are well aware, Canada has founded its economy on external trade. Our present and future prosperity and growth are largely dependent on international trade.

In Canada, one job in three is directly linked to international trade, and 40% of the GDP depends on it. This is the highest percentage of all industrialized countries in the G-8.

A mere five years ago, we exported 25% of our GDP. We have therefore gone from 25% to 40% in just under five years. The vast majority of the 1,700,000 new jobs created since 1993 are the result of the increase in exports.

As mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, Canada's economy is more open than any of the other leading industrialized countries. We have a population that comes from countries all over the world. In many instances Canadian businesses, because they have such a culturally diverse and rich workforce, have the great advantage of not only being aware of the customs and practices of other nations but of being able to do business in many different languages. Our investment in diversity over the years is turning into a major asset for us.

To ensure that we continue to enhance that very real advantage, we intend to increase our trade promotion efforts in those sectors that have high export potential. Some of these exports did not exist even a few years ago, but thanks to some very dedicated, innovative and very clever people, whole new economic sectors are now growing up where nothing existed before.

Our biotechnology industry for example is pursuing some of the most leading edge innovations in the world. Our environmental industries are growing at an incredible rate. Our information technology sector is large and getting larger with investments in high tech all over the world. The same is true in many other sectors of our economy such as agriculture, agri-food and natural resources.

In other words, we are an important player in the global economy. As a government, we want to help our industries to develop the linkages with the world that will help bring growth and jobs here to Canada. We also want to take more direct action to encourage companies to locate in this country. Therefore we will be presenting legislative changes that will make it easier for global corporations to bring their headquarters to Canada.

As the throne speech stated, we also intend to create investment in Canada, a co-ordinated effort by all governments and the private sector to promote the unique opportunities that are available here.

In addition, we will continue to support innovation and the development of new technologies. Doing so is good for Canada and it is also good for our trading partners.

Of course, one thing that is very favourable for Canada and its trading partners is the introduction of a rules-based international trade system. In fact, we are one of the most active advocates and promoters of this system. It is important that we be active in this area because our country, Canada, is neither the biggest nor the most powerful country in the world. We must continue to co-operate with like-minded countries in order to ensure that the rules are accepted by all and not dictated by the largest players. This requires skill and perseverance in all circumstances. Soon, the WTO's ninth round of multilateral trade negotiations will begin in Seattle.

We hope to be able to build on the successes of the previous rounds. During these negotiations, Canada will continue to promote the strengthening of the international trade system. We will continue to ask for the rules to become more transparent, predictable and enforceable. We will continue to urge the World Trade Organization to keep pace with technological and social change.

We want a system that would guarantee a level playing field, give Canadian businesses in all sectors easier access to the world markets and respect the needs, values and culture of Canadians as well as the environment.

Issues are brought to the attention of the World Trade Organization on a daily basis. The recent interim decision on the Auto Pact is just one example. Unfortunately, I am clearly not at liberty to comment on this issue today because the decision must remain confidential until it is made public. I just want to say that we are actively consulting business people and other governments on this issue, and more specifically on its impact on NAFTA, and we will have another announcement to make.

Some people are also concerned about the United States putting health and education on the table. I want to clearly reiterate in this House that our health system is not being threatened and will never be questioned during these negotiations. Our universal health care system is not negotiable.

Of course, if we can find ways to export our health and education services, we will undoubtedly go ahead and do it. But, as the Prime Minister said many times, our universal health care system is central to our way of living. We will not let it be weakened in any way. We will promote and protect the economic, social and cultural interests of Canadians. In Seattle, I will raise as well the issue of the World Trade Organization as a body, including its structure and its procedures. I hope to be able to put forward specific proposals to improve it. Many think the WTO is no longer of any use since we have NAFTA with the United States, which accounts for 85% of our exports. I want to remind the members that the World Trade Organization is still very useful and needed, including to fight protectionist pressure from the United States.

Another long term goal mentioned in the Speech from the Throne is our intention to work with our partners in the hemisphere toward the establishment of the free trade area of the Americas by 2005. I will be very pleased to host the 34 democratic countries of the hemisphere in Toronto in November, to continue to work toward the establishment of that zone of free trade of the Americas.

In Canada we have the great advantage to be the neighbour of the very strong and dynamic American market. This however should not stop us from looking all around the world to develop other markets. That is what we are doing with the free trade area of the Americas.

As the world trading system opens up as never before, as we enter the age of globalization, an age of new knowledge economies, we have to be aware that this new phenomenon is shaping the choices we make as a society. In Canada we believe very much that it is important to humanize globalization. It is important to remind ourselves that there is a human purpose to the economy and we want everyone to be able to buy in.

The humanization of globalization is one of our gouvernment's objectives. I would like to share with the House some of my thinking, for example, on the issue of culture, on the role of artists in society and thus on the importance of cultural diversity for a country like Canada. I find that the role of artists in society is not only to express emotions felt by society but also to shape these emotions.

At a time when we have to undergo changes as radical as those brought about by the globalization of the economy, I find it extremely important for every country tocontinue to make room for artists and allow artists with this responsibility to shape the emotions felt by people. It is extremely important to allow them to work to enlighten us, as a society, on what it is we are going through.

Let us look at the deep emotions, the excitement as well as the insecurity felt by people dealing with globalization. We realize that the insecurity and the excitement can both be captured by artists, who can give form to them and help us understand how societies live with this phenomenon. Hence the importance of cultural diversity.

In our own society, the society I come from in our country, Quebec society, I look at the role of the artists and the automatistes in the global rejection movement in 1948. I look at Gratien Gélinas' theatre in 1948 as well, his Ti'Coq . These artists were the harbingers in 1948 of the quiet revolution that took place in Quebec in the 1960s. Twelve years ahead of time, these artists showed the extent to which Quebec was stifled and had to be liberated from many of its past experiences.

So, the artists are the ones to see what is coming first. I therefore think it extremely important to give this matter careful attention.

I would also like to tell the House how much the phenomenon of globalization changes the nature of exclusion as well. For 200 years, we have fought exploitation. With industrial capitalism came exploitation. In other words, people were exploited in this industrial capitalism, however, even exploited, the individual exists in a social context. Individuals can organize, form unions. They can negotiate and obtain better laws.

The exploitation we have fought for the past 200 years is now over, because, unlike industrial capitalism, financial capitalism means the exclusion of more individuals. Exclusion is much more radical than exploitation, because exclusion means a total loss of bargaining power. In the case of exclusion, there is nothing to negotiate and no one to negotiate with, hence the importance of humanizing globalization, of remembering that the economy has human finality and that it exists to serve the whole population to grow.

These are the concerns we will bring to the major rounds of negotiations in November. These extremely important phenomena are fundamental.

It is extremely important to me that people understand that there is a balance with which the Liberal government has been approaching things, a balance that has to be concerned with this because markets cannot solve every problem. Of course our commitment should be to make markets work better, but at the same time governments need to pursue policies that reflect the democratic values and inclusiveness that ultimately make economic activity more sustainable.

As the Speech from the Throne made clear, we intend to do more in the coming months to ensure that Canada continues to be an inclusive society, a society that values the contributions of all its people, a society in which everyone is given a fair chance to participate by helping people to learn new skills and to take new opportunities, a society in which children are given the best start in life and are given the support they need to grow up healthy and safe, and a society that supports and practises the concept of sustainable development for our environment so that future generations will also be able to build their own dreams.

I think Canada is in a better position than most countries to succeed in the new context of globalization, in large part because of our history and in part because of our geography.

As the throne speech indicates, Canada was born at a time when countries were formed in the crucible of war or revolution. In the 19th century, the norm in the traditional nation states, as they emerged throughout the world at the time, was for majority to assimilate minority and majority to eliminate differences. The traditional nation-state was based on a single language, a single culture, a single religion.

Here in Canada, on the contrary, we have chosen another path. We have chosen to build a country that would not become a traditional nation-state. We chose a Canadian approach to reconciling differences. We chose to place tolerance, acceptance and respect of others at the core of our country's identity. We therefore chose to develop a political citizenship rather than an ethnic, linguistic or religious one. That political citizenship allowed diversity to become, not a threat to our identity or our existence—as some try to make it out to be—but instead a strength, an asset.

Canada is a bilingual and multicultural society, one used to the reconciliation of differences and mutual respect. Today we are faced with globalization, which imposes the phenomenon of diversity throughout the world. We in Canada have 150 years experience with diversity, which means that, faced with the phenomenon of diversity imposed on us now by globalization, our country will know better than any other in the world how to deal with it and how to use it to the benefit of all of its citizens.

Moreover, I believe that people everywhere in the world are interested in our experience. The most radical and the most fundamental question that will be raised in the new century with the phenomenon of globalization will be: is it possible to live together, equal and different? That is the most radical and the most fundamental question. With this throne speech, we want Canada to represent the optimistic response to that fundamental question. Yes, we can live together, in equality and difference. That is the human and optimistic answer.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things I would like the minister to address. I thank him for being here today to address the Speech from the Throne but there are some things that are missing in the speech.

Where is the plan and where is the high level attack that we need as a country to put against the unfair foreign subsidies that are killing our agriculture community? We did not see it in the speech and we did not hear it today.

One thing the minister touched on, which is more to the point, is U.S. protectionism. We have an industry in Canada that exports $2.2 billion worth of beef and cattle a year to the United States and an unjust, baseless tariff that has been placed on cattle going across the border. When the tariff was adjusted the other day from 5.57% to 5.63%, the government considered it a victory. That victory is taking millions of dollars out of the cattle industry in this country every day.

I would like the minister to comment on what he is going to do. The northwest beef producers have been in touch with the government. They have suggested changes that could be made to the health regulations for cattle coming from the United States that would help to solve this problem and that would send a message to the ITC that Canada is willing to work at solving this.

Would the minister comment on exactly what his plans are and when this issue will be solved?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition member for giving me the opportunity to add more comments to my speech. There are a number of things I did not raise in my 20-minute speech because obviously one cannot touch on every issue.

Concerning the European export subsidies, my colleague, the minister of agriculture, has been very clear. At the end of August, we presented the government's position showing our plan and our objective of working very hard at the next round of negotiations to eliminate the European export subsidies. We find these subsidies absolutely detrimental and are working very hard toward eliminating them. The government has stated this position time and again and we will continue to work on it.

As for cattle, we recognized last week that in part of the decisions we were favoured. For instance, on the countervail subsidy side, we won that part of it.

The member will be pleased, as will the House, that on the countervail subsidies we are very pleased that the U.S. upheld its initial decision and found that Canadian exports of live cattle do not benefit from countervail subsidies, so it is a good decision.

On the question of whether Canadian cattle were being dumped, that is to say being sold at prices less than the cost of production, the department of commerce reconfirmed an earlier ruling that Canadian cattle were indeed being dumped into the U.S. market. As a result, most Canadian producers will now have to pay a 5.6% duty on their cattle exports to the U.S.

However this duty will not be made permanent until the U.S international trade commission decides whether Canadian cattle exports threaten or injure the domestic U.S. industry. We expect the decision on November 8.

We remain hopeful that they will determine that Canadian exports are not injuring the U.S. domestic industry. We will continue to work closely with the Canadian cattle industry.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder, with the minister's consent and the consent of the House, if we could extend the minister's time for questions by about 10 minutes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to extend the time for questions and comments by about 10 minutes?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

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

Mr. Speaker, we would like the minister to give us more time.

I listened with interest to the address in reply to the throne speech given by the member for Papineau—Saint-Denis. On this side of the House we are getting tired of hearing that it feels good to know that Canada is the best country of the world, the government is letting it go to its head.

To say that Canada is not a traditional nation state as the minister said again today and as he wrote in a book well worth reading, is a contradiction of the throne speech itself.

As I asked in my own speech last week, how many times is the word national used in the throne speech? The throne speech mentions that Canada has a national government and yet the minister claims it is not a nation state. This is a contradiction the minister might want to explain. Could it be that he disagrees with people who say Canada has a national government?

I noticed that regarding negotiations at the WTO, under the heading “international trade”, the throne speech does not say anything about the provinces taking part in such negotiations. I would like to know whether the minister intends to involve the provinces in these negotiations and make sure they are asked to approve any future treaty dealing with issues coming under provincial jurisdiction in the Constitution.

Does he intend to involve parliament in the negotiations? Is he willing to have the outcome of such discussions and negotiations reviewed by parliament, not only by the foreign affairs committee, but also by the House of Commons?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry is criticizing the Canadian government for constantly saying that Canada is the best country in the world. I would like to tell him that his problem is not with the Canadian government, but with the United Nations. Indeed, it is the United Nations Development Program that, each year for the past six years, has noted that respect for others and the quality of life in Canada were absolutely remarkable. Therefore, the member may have more of a problem with the United Nations than with the government.

He went back to what I said about Canada not being a traditional country, a traditional nation state, and wondered if there was a contradiction between the throne speech and my way of thinking.

The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry must look at 150 years of history and at the country we have built to see that it is indeed a country, contrary to any nation state.

What is a traditional nation state? It is a political power that has formed an alliance with a nation, generally the majority nation. That is what happened in France, in Great Britain, in Germany and in Italy. The state formed an alliance with the majority nation and systematically assimilated minorities and tried to eliminate any differences.

Here, in Canada, the country we have built is not a traditional nation state because, contrary to what happened in other countries, we have built our country on the reconciliation of different peoples and different nations. That is Canada's strength today.

Since we are a country that did not try to eliminate diversity but, rather, made it central to its identity, I say that in this era of globalization, which imposes diversity everywhere, we have a great advantage in that we have been experiencing such diversity for 150 years, including here in this parliament.

Madam Speaker, you are tolerant toward me, so I will continue to provide replies to the questions that were put to me.

I can assure the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry that last week we had an excellent work session with the provincial ministers of trade. We had very wide consultations and very productive discussions. We are determined to work closely together to ensure that the next round of negotiations at the World Trade Organization will prove as satisfactory to Canadian businesses as did the first eight rounds. I can assure you that we will work very hard to achieve that goal.

As for getting the house involved, we will do all that is necessary with our excellent Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I will of course be very pleased to work with the committee and with the house.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you can see the amount of interest in the House today as we have the Minister for International Trade here. There was a motion asking for a 10-minute extension of questions which was denied. I think those people have ducked out. I wonder if we might try that again. There are different people in the House at the moment and there is an interest. I would ask that the minister be allowed to be questioned for another 10 minutes.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I will ask on your behalf for the unanimous consent of the House to extend the period by 10 minutes. Is there unanimous consent for this request?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.