Debates of Nov. 17th, 1999

Speech From The Throne

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question. Of paramount importance to us is the quality of life of our men and women who serve this country. They put their lives on the line. They have what is called unlimited liability. They do get injured and they do lose their lives in many circumstances. We have had over 100 peacekeepers in the time that we have been involved in peacekeeping who have lost their lives.

We owe it to them to make sure we do the best we can to improve their quality of life and that we support them and their families. That is an absolute number one priority.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand and respond to the Speech from the Throne.

Let us look at what the Speech from the Throne said. “The government will work with Canadians to ensure that our communities continue to be safe”. Another point was, “The government will combat drug trafficking”. We looked at that and we thought perhaps an amendment might be in order. The amendment we proposed was “That this government has failed to seriously deal with the problem of drug trafficking, youth crime and child pornography”, which in our judgment is a statement of fact.

While the throne speech was generally imprecise, with fluffy generalities signifying little or nothing, in the case of criminal justice, the government outlined inaccuracies and total distortions of truth.

Let us examine the Liberals' rhetoric against their record. They say, “The government will strengthen the capacity of the RCMP and other agencies to address the threats to public security in Canada and work with enforcement agencies in other countries”. So say the Liberals. That is their rhetoric. Here is their record.

The lead story in the Vancouver Sun two weeks ago puts a lie to their statement. It said, “RCMP halt fraud investigations blaming lack of money and staff. A Kamloops couple complained that they had been duped out of $450,000 U.S. in a stock scheme. Call your MP, the Mounties say”. They did not have to call me and certainly they did not have to call any of the Reform MPs because that is precisely what we have been shouting at the Liberals about for years.

This is a further quote from an RCMP officer in that article, “It is not a message we want to send, but we don't want to give the public a false belief that we will pursue their complaint if we don't have the resources”. That, as I say, was from the head of the RCMP commercial crime section in Vancouver.

It is not just B.C. I have been following a case in Edmonton where investors have been ripped off for $3 million in a stock swindle. They have been waiting three years for the RCMP to complete their investigation and for charges to be brought against the perpetrators of the swindle. The police have evidence coming out of their ears but they simply do not have the resources to get on with their job.

Mr. Speaker, I failed to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Northeast. My apologies.

Jason Cowan and Barb Trosin had an inventive product they wanted to bring to market but as with most entrepreneurs, they required capital. Unfortunately for them as with the case in Kamloops, they fell into the clutches of unscrupulous stock swindlers. Their case also has a Vancouver component where some of their stock was deceptively and fraudulently passed to another unsuspecting investor in a switch which took its inspiration from the Paul Newman movie The Sting . The offices used for the switch involved a well-known Canadian investment firm without the firm having any knowledge of the scam that occurred right at the front desk in its office. Like in the Kamloops story, the RCMP do not have the resources to pursue this obvious criminal fraud.

What about Bre-X, the $6 billion ripped out of investors' pockets and the RCMP already shutting down the investigation? I have a couple of questions.

Why did the RCMP give approval for unsupervised destruction of documents in the Bre-X office in the days immediately following the confirmation of the fraud? The answer seems to be lack of resources.

Why has there been no investigation into the responsibility that Nesbitt Burns had in dispatching their geologist on multiple trips to the mine site in Indonesia? He consistently reported no problems while the firm raked off millions of dollars in brokerage fees, yet within five minutes of an Australian geologist arriving at the mine, he detected serious problems.

The obvious answer is gross under-resourcing of Canada's national police force. Yet the Liberals have the gall to make statements in the throne speech as if they really cared about protecting Canadians. The bottom line is Canadian and international investors can be fleeced by swindlers and due to the government's intentional under-resourcing of the RCMP, our national police force can do nothing about it. The drastic result is that investment capital in Canada is becoming scarce.

I intend to ask the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to have the commissioner of the RCMP appear and explain his force's actions on the Bre-X file.

Speaking of international concerns and commitments, let me talk about organized crime. This is what the Liberals say. “The government will also continue to work closely with the U.S. to modernize our shared border for the 21st century”. That is what the Liberals say; that is their rhetoric. Here are the results. It is as if they have not had the responsibility of running Canada for the last six years. Wake up and smell the coffee. The government has no vision to lead Canada safely into the 21st century.

In 1998 the United Nations declared transnational crime as its highest priority. Members of the G-8 affirmed that it is one of the major challenges facing the world on the threshold of the 21st century. Organized crime has emerged as the number one threat to Canada's overall security, yet the government has cut the legs out from under Canada's security committee. How? This is how.

Last weekend it was revealed that a top secret planning document was stolen. It was a planning document for next year and to all accounts should never have been removed from CSIS property. Unbelievably, it was in a briefcase in the back of a car in a parking lot in Toronto. The bright light from CSIS was at the Toronto Maple Leafs game. She left the briefcase in the back of her car. Druggies smashed the window, took the case and we were told it was thrown into a dumpster, but we are not sure. If we think a smash and grab drug addict is a reliable source for information, then perhaps we will have no trouble also believing in the tooth fairy.

We also know there has been a serious breach of security in Canada's Hong Kong trade office. What happened? There was a cover-up. When the RCMP officer revealed documents that clearly showed a cover-up, he was suspended. Meanwhile, we have also learned that a special operation to get intelligence about Asian gangs called operation Sidewinder was suspended in 1996.

It was not only suspended but all of the data was removed from electronic storage, including e-mails, and all hard copy was shredded. Why? As a matter of fact, the members of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, who are civilians and who oversee Canada's spy agency, learned about the shredding and the turning down of the Sidewinder operation as a result of picking up the newspaper a couple of Fridays ago. They were never told by the solicitor general and never informed by the agents at CSIS.

With that report, we would have information on the people smuggling gangs that hit Canada's west coast this summer. At least we would have a starting point to understand the infiltration into Canadian businesses by organized crime. But, I repeat, the report was shredded. My question is: Why?

Does it have anything to do with the other big story this weekend? That story revolves around the fact that the RCMP and CSIS are having a turf war. They do not share vital information. They investigate each other. There is constant bad blood that inhibits their ability to protect Canadians.

The government delayed and delayed the appointment of civilian oversight for CSIS. For years the spy service of Canada has run without the checks and balances set out in legislation. It has led to an unhealthy culture in CSIS. CSIS exhibited that culture through the director of CSIS when he came before the parliamentary standing committee on justice last May 25.

I fault the Liberal government, the government elected in 1993. The SIRC positions were vacant for years, that is years. There was no proper oversight of Canada's spy agency as a result of a deliberate omission by the Liberal government. All law enforcement and national security agents must, at the very least, be able to maintain the ability to target threats to national security, and the Liberals are badly failing the test.

There has been no strengthening of RCMP resources. Each year the RCMP face more and more challenges as the potential for technological crime increases. Its equipment and resources are rusted while organized crime goes on a buying spree of new technology.

We have just had a very tiny glimpse at the difference between the Liberals' rhetoric and the Liberals' reality. Canadians deserve better from the government. They want the government to resource our people who are charged with the responsibility of maintaining our national police force and our national security. Canadians deserve better than this government.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak today on a defence matter as it relates to the Speech from the Throne.

It has been a long and very busy year for national defence as DND has had to defend itself against one scandal after another. There have been various gaffs and a steady decline in resources and equipment. I by no means want to pick on the military itself because ultimately it all comes back to a political answer, which is with the defence minister himself and the Liberal government.

Unfortunately, the Speech from the Throne referred directly to the Canadian forces only once and in very vague terms. Even worse, and with rare exception, the Minister of National Defence has been unavailable, unaware and unseen through this summer's military meltdown.

Instead, we have had to view the repeated and unwarranted sight of military officers facing interrogation by the national media demanding answers to the glaring problems in Canada's military. These problems are political in nature and should be addressed by their creator, namely the defence minister and ultimately the Prime Minister who appointed him.

I will offer just a brief recapitulation of those problems that have plagued his department over the last four months because it is important to analyze these issues separately as each indicates severe systemic rot within the department.

The summer began with the discovery, via an access to information request, that unknown numbers of Canadian peacekeepers had probably been exposed to toxic soil in Croatia. Hundreds were experiencing severe health problems, ranging from the loss of eyesight to stomach afflictions. Though the issue of exposure was unsettling enough, what was even more disturbing were the measures taken to cover up the exposure back in Canada. We learned that a medical document attesting to the exposure had first been altered and then shredded. We learned that despite the blustering from the minister that the matter would be thoroughly investigated, a ministerial briefing note had mentioned the issue in 1995. The board of enquiry established to investigate the scandal was itself marked by conflict of interest and the first chairman and one legal advisor quickly resigned amid criticism.

The toxic soil controversy has highlighted two disturbing elements of military culture in Canada supported by the government, namely, dirty tricks and appalling health care for military personnel.

The hierarchy within DND, no doubt driven by the minister's office and his powerful civilian mandarins who have effectively controlled the day by day decision making of the Canadian forces for 25 years, is more interested in denying scandal than exposing it and cleaning it up. It would much rather bury the truth than expose it. It seems unwilling or unable to admit that mistakes have been made, but will go to extraordinary lengths to change the facts. Individuals who attempt to fight for full disclosure are often harassed, intimidated and ultimately driven from the military ranks. This perverse and destructive atmosphere of character assassination must be purged from our military culture.

Whatever happened to military leadership? In a Canadian military culture now long forgotten, generals and admirals possessed a military bearing that outshone the brass on their uniforms. They did not seek to anticipate the political direction of the day. They did seek to maintain discipline and honour in the profession of arms. There has to be a clear distinction between the bureaucrats and the military decision makers.

The Croatian scandal also gave Canadians some insight into the deplorable quality of health care in the military. Where else could confidential medical files simply disappear from a person's medical history, yet document tampering has occurred at other times and dozens of former and serving military personnel have written to my office describing examples of it in their careers?

Rank and file military personnel cannot see a doctor when they so desire, unlike all other Canadians. They are often administered drugs contrary to their desires. Their illnesses are often misdiagnosed and mistreated.

I think of the radar technician aboard the HMCS Vancouver , Petty Officer Kevin Simon, who suffered from lung cancer for six months and was told that he had a lingering cough and cold.

Then there was retired Sergeant Mike Kipling whom DND persecuted and in a supreme example of vindictiveness initiated court martial proceedings against him because he refused a mouldy anthrax vaccine.

This, too, is a scandal. It is scandalous that our serving sons and daughters must first accept third rate health care and then be subjected to wilful desecration of their medical histories.

I would also ask the minister to allow military members to have full access to civilian health care facilities where available, that their medical files are viewed and approved by military members on an annual basis and that the role of military doctors be focused on deployments rather than on domestic medicine. The current system is quite clearly not working. It is leaving the Canadian forces open to abuse.

We have also witnessed over the past three months what I call a military meltdown within the Canadian forces. Quite simply, our military is imploding, rotting from the inside due to a lack of funding and genuine government neglect.

The air force talks about phasing out the Snowbird aerobatic team in a weird attempt to shock Canadians into economic reality. Here is some food for thought. If the military needs $30 million required to run the Snowbirds every year, why not examine the bona fide white elephant, the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre? This school of academic pretension was established as a rest home for recycled DND and Liberal cronies, proving that the public trough is always replenished for some.

Why are we sending military officers who have already been deployed on peacekeeping missions, to a school that requires four to six weeks to teach the obvious, how to keep the peace? Maybe then we can leave the Snowbirds in peace.

Though the Snowbird threat may either be a hard bargaining position or fancy, the air force is preparing to sell off its Tutors and T-33s, both of which have just received upgrades. Squadrons are being disbanded.

More dangerously, we are told that the maintenance to the new Cormorant helicopters will be contracted out, or in the catch phrase of the new DND, provided for by alternative service delivery, ASD.

Though we support the notion of contracting out where cost savings can definitely be realized and the impact on combat capability is unaffected, hard operational support services must be deployed on military missions and should remain as military trades.

Naturally, the increasing broad application of alternate service delivery has been unsettling to hundreds of maintenance technicians who have proven that they can provide maintenance at a cheaper cost than any civilian contractor. They know the nature of the work. They can be deployed with a squadron in an hour's notice and they certainly do have the capability of fulfilling that trade requirement because of their dedication. Now they are being betrayed and told that their expertise is unwanted.

We can either ignore reality or accept the need to find solutions. I would hope that the minister could see beyond his lack of interest in defence and his need to play politics with the Canadians forces to acknowledge this fact. I would pose the following questions to him and demand answers on behalf of hundreds of military personnel who write to my office insisting that the government is not doing enough.

Will the minister commit himself to a full disclosure of the Sharp board of inquiry into the toxic soil? Will the minister examine the military health care system so that they too can receive the treatment that they so richly deserve by serving the country?

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for my colleague for Calgary Northeast who arrived in this place at the same time I did back in 1993.

Not fully understanding how serious it is in terms of the democratic processes that take place in this particular place, I am wondering if the member could tell me if I am wrong or if I am right, and what we can do about it.

We have had many debates in the House with regard to our military placements. For example, I remember the debate on whether we should we send troops to Bosnia. At different times, we have had different debates on what we were going to do in regard to the use of our military.

I am thoroughly convinced that decisions are made before they are ever brought to the House and that the debate is absolutely a futile waste of time just simply because the decisions have already been made by the government. We are simply going through the motions. We do not have a democratic discussion about the placement of our troops throughout the world. It is simply run by the front line people on that side of the House. Then there are the little puppets who jump up and vote according to what they are told. They are called the rest of the Liberals. Is my analysis all wet, or how close to being accurate am I?

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Wild Rose for his question. It is a very positive question. It reflects the reality of what happens in the House with the government and how it expands beyond into the departments that are represented by ministers in the House.

Yes, we have a problem when it comes to top down government, and everyone in the House should be involved in addressing that particular issue.

I have seen bills come from the government that go to a committee, where they are subject to scrutiny with substantial debate. However, there really is no opportunity to change what exists in the top down process. The decision has been made.

The idea is born somewhere, maybe in the bureaucracy, or in the minds of the various departments, or in some minister's office. Then it goes through a process within the bureaucracy or within the minister's office. It is very much confined to that realm. There is no consultation in the broader context. Then it is tossed out for the opposition to look at, to discuss and debate without any opportunity for real honest debate to change what proposals may have been made. In fact, before it even hits the committee room or the opposition has a chance to scrutinize it, it is already decided.

Is that a democratic process? No, it is far from democratic. If we were looking for honest and true debate in the House to formulate law and policy, it would be from the bottom up, with broad consultation. Then it would be formulated in a final sense in the various departments. That does not happen. Unfortunately we have more of a dictatorship in that regard than a democratic process.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I pointed out earlier today to the defence minister that it has been successive cutbacks, first by the Trudeau government, then by the Conservatives and now by the Liberals, which have created the tremendously desperate situation with respect to resources for the armed forces. He implied that the Reform Party would have cut further and would have done even more damage.

I wonder if my colleague, who is the defence critic, would care to comment on the minister's statement.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question and one worthy of a good clear answer as far as the position of the Reform Party, the official opposition.

We have made it very clear that the defence budget has been cut to the bone. In fact, it has almost destroyed the military completely because of a lack of good proper funding and moneys directed to the proper areas.

The Reform Party has clearly advocated that there should be a $2 billion infusion into the military budget so that it can meet the very basic of needs of looking after our troops, buying the necessary equipment, and looking after the operational end so that proper training can be conducted. One of the most urgent issues right now is supplying our forces with good combat clothes. That program is long, long overdue.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the member for Mississauga South.

As the Prime Minister said in his response to the throne speech:

We Canadians have proven to be a very determined people. We have established a distinct Canadian model. Accommodation of cultures....a partnership between citizens and state. A balance that promotes individual freedom and economic prosperity while, at the same time, sharing risks and benefits. An understanding that government can be an instrument of collective action—a means of serving the broader public interest.

As an instrument of collective action government has a crucial role in the lives of the people of our nation. As members of this place we have a heavy responsibility to ensure that we make decisions and laws that serve the public interest. As Liberals we take a balanced, sensible approach, one that understands that not only must risk be shared, but benefits as well.

There are some in this House who do not believe that government can be a positive force in society. They cling to a dogma of less government, not good government, a dogma which ignores the public interest in favour of narrow self-interest.

We can never forget our role. We must continue to work diligently to advance the health and well-being of Canadians, particularly our children and youth, to preserve and restore the health of our natural heritage, to build stronger communities, to foster a sustainable and viable economy, to continue as prudent fiscal managers of the nation's financial assets and to advance our outward looking vision as a country by continuing our contributions to world security.

A society that respects and honours its children has its fundamentals right. These fundamentals are a society with strong environmental laws and regulations that are enforced; a society with strong progressive social and economic values that allow for such things as income support measures to ensure that all of its citizens have access to nutritious food, safe shelter and human dignity; a society that respects human rights and opportunities for education for all Canadians. This is the kind of society that Canadians want.

As an active member of the Liberal children's caucus since its inception in 1995, I am very pleased to see such a child centred throne speech. Extending parental benefits from six months to one year is crucial in providing support for young families. No more will new families have to make a choice between a job and the personal care of their young baby. I am also pleased to see the federal government take leadership in making federal and federally regulated workplaces family friendly.

I am also hopeful that the government's plan to negotiate early childhood development programs with the provinces will be fruitful. I think that as a first step in these negotiations this must be reflected in a commitment for funding in the federal budget to be delivered next February.

A focus on the zero to six years is crucial for the healthy development of our children. A fund to provide for early childhood development programs is an initiative proposed by the national Liberal children's caucus.

Our commitment to children clearly includes initiatives to protect and restore the natural environment. The throne speech points out that a clean and healthy environment is important to our long term economic and social well-being. It is central to our quality of life. Our ability to adopt innovative environmental practices and technologies will increasingly be part of Canada's strength in the 21st century. I could not agree more.

Colin Isaac in the Gallon Environment Letter found that the 1999 throne speech contained more mention of the environment than almost any previous throne speech. Sixteen per cent of the speech referenced the environment and it also identified 21 environment related commitments, such as cleaning up contaminated sites on federal lands, strengthening the government's science capacity for environmental research, extending Canada's national parks system, addressing the structural weaknesses that have been identified in the management of toxic substances, and protecting species at risk and the critical habitat. These commitments make up some of the more significant ones. The government has also restated its commitment under the Kyoto protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The throne speech also goes on to emphasize the need for tough pollution standards to better protect the health of children, seniors and residents of the north. These initiatives are necessary to address the nation's fundamental environmental problems. Our desire to act on these commitments and our ability to successfully implement them will be the yardstick against which future generations will measure us.

My riding of York North is historically important in the development of democratic government in Canada. It is the riding of Baldwin and Lafontaine, fathers of responsible government for Upper and Lower Canada and the unification of the two Canadas. The rebellion of 1837 began in York North, in Holland Landing, not far from my home village of Mount Albert. Small business owners and farmers marched down Younge Street, rejecting the tyranny and elitist exclusive policies of the Tory government in Toronto.

York North is a vibrant, diverse riding with many small business owners. The agri-food sector is still very important to the economic health of the area. We have a first nations community, the Chippewas of Georgina Island, which is working very successfully on achieving self-government.

The people of York North have told me that they want a balanced, sensible approach to government. They also understand that both risks and benefits of nation building must be shared. They want tax cuts and they want us to pay down the country's debt. More than anything, they want to ensure that their children and grandchildren are safe, secure and healthy, that opportunities for our nation's children are many and that our children achieve their full potential.

The people of York North want to strengthen health care for Canadians and ensure that the health of our natural environment is restored. They want us to foster a dynamic economy and to help build stronger communities. They want Canada to advance world security. They want the government to continue its prudent fiscal management.

Most of all, the people of York North believe, as I do, that Canada is the place to be in the 21st century.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the hon. member's comments with respect to a healthy and clean environment. We know this is very important for the future of our society and, as has been mentioned, for our children and our children's children.

I wonder if the hon. member could give me her views with respect to her government's decision to move ahead with the transportation and burning of nuclear waste in Canada when there has been clear indication that many citizens in Canada are opposed to it. The U.S. has indicated it is no longer interested. Yet, the government seems to want to persist with this potentially dangerous environmental action in our country.

Could the member please give her comments on that matter?

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to this question. I am going to give a response which might surprise the hon. member, but my answer is indicative of a healthy democracy and the ability of members in the House to speak their minds and speak on behalf of their constituents and the people of Canada.

I do not agree with that decision.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I always smile a bit when I hear some of the comments that come out of the mouths of Liberals. First, there is the strong statement of how the Liberals respect and honour their children. I ask the member how this respect is being shown by a court decision in British Columbia, which will reach the supreme court, and Lord only knows when it will reach a decision, that allows child pornography to exist to the extent that it does.

Why would the hon. member dare to say that we respect and honour our children and not have a government that will stand up for these kids, bring in the notwithstanding clause and put an end to this nonsense? Why is this going on?

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had listened to my speech he would know that I said a society which respects and honours children.

I believe that this government has taken firm action on behalf of children in Canada. The options that the hon. member has suggested are not workable options and the process that is in place to deal with such a deplorable act as child pornography is the appropriate way to go.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a totally unacceptable answer, but we will try again on another question.

In the throne speech, there was an obvious absence of any words to address the dire needs of our reserves throughout the country. The United Nations has declared them to be worse than some third world countries. The conditions are deplorable.

The cry of the aboriginal people, the ordinary grassroots people, is loud and clear across the land. Thousands of them are crying out for help from the government in terms of bringing some accountability to the reserves to address the serious issues that exist in their lives.

Why did the throne speech fail to address the accountability on the reserves? It totally ignored it. Do not tell me there was something in there about it, because I looked at it over and over again and it was not there. Why?

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I purposely mentioned the first nations community, the Chippewas of Georgina Island and their successful work toward achieving self-government because they were one of the 13 communities across the country who were the sponsors, creators and promoters of Bill C-49, which the Reform Party opposed and delayed for a number of years.

As I rose in the House on numerous occasions to debate the bill, I felt a great deal of shame at the comments that came from the other side. Members of my constituency, people that I represent here in the House of Commons, including the chief, his band council and other people from his community that I worked very hard with on this particular issue had to sit and listen to the comments from the members opposite. It was with a great deal of shame that I had to listen to these things and know that those people heard those comments.

The second point I would like to make is with respect to children. Why is it that members of the Reform Party want us to repeal our ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which clearly protects the fundamental human rights of children, including protection from child pornography. Answer that question.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech provided Canadians with a framework for government initiatives for the second session of the 36th Parliament. Rarely does a throne speech articulate specifics of any initiative, but rather the objectives and directions that the government plans to pursue.

In this throne speech there was a specific commitment to extend parental leave to a full year for new or adopted children, and to implement it no later than January 1, 2001. This is no small item in itself. It is, however, a small item with regard to the children's agenda. It is an important signal with regard to the evolution of our child and family policy. I would like to spend my time elaborating on why this specific initiative is so important to all Canadians.

The 1996 Statistics Canada national longitudinal survey on children and youth found that 25% of Canadian children enter adult life with significant emotional, behavioural, academic or social problems. In the words of Dr. Paul Steinhauer of Voices for Children, “With one in four children entering adult life significantly handicapped, we can look forward to a society that will be less able to generate the economic base required to supply the economic supports and services needed by one in four adults unable to carry their own weight”. In that context, investing in children particularly in the early years is an imperative, not an option.

According to Dr. Fraser Mustard, childhood outcomes are not a question of being rich or poor, but rather of other factors related to the quality of care during the formative years. This view was supported by Statistics Canada research presented in November 1998 which found that the quality of care during the early years can overcome the damaging impacts related to family poverty.

In 1994 the Carnegie task force on meeting the needs of young children published a report entitled “Starting Points”. Its research observed that good physical and mental health, the ability to learn, to cope with stress, to relate well with others, and to have a positive outlook, were all rooted in the earliest experiences of life. The task force concluded that where, how and with whom children spend their early years of life are the most significant determinants of lifelong physical, mental and social health.

In 1997 there was a conference at the White House on early childhood development. One of the principal findings announced was that the neurological foundations for rational thinking, problem solving and general reasoning appear to be established by age one.

In June 1998 Dr. Mustard appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and described the health impact of the rapid development during the first year as being dynamite. At birth the human brain is far from fully formed. In the days and weeks that follow, vital neural connections are formed that create pathways along which learning will take place.

It is estimated that 80% of the lifetime development of the human brain occurs during the first three years of life. These connections do not however form automatically. The quality of nutrition, caregiving and stimulation determines not only the number of these healthy connections but how well they are wired for both cognitive and emotional intelligence.

In April 1998 the Canadian Institute of Child Health announced its concurrence. It reported that at birth the parts of the human brain that handle thinking and remembering as well as emotional and social behaviour are remarkably undeveloped. The fact that the brain matures in the world and not in the womb means that children are deeply affected by their early experiences, that relationships with caregivers, the sights, the sounds, the smells and the feelings they experience actually determine brain structure and thus shape the way we learn, think and behave for the rest of our lives.

The report also deals extensively with the importance of responsive care which addresses the child's needs when the child signals us rather than when the caregiver can provide for those needs.

In November 1997 the report of the National Forum on Health also concluded that there was an urgent need to invest in children. It reported that deprivation during early childhood can impair brain development and permanently hinder the development of cognition and speech. It further stated that the impact on children's physical and mental health is very significant and can only be partially offset by interventions later in life. It concluded that the failure to invest in the early years of life increases the remedial cost to our health, education, social services and criminal justice systems.

No family should have to choose between the job it needs and the child it loves. Attempting to balance the responsibilities of work and family is difficult and may compromise the quality of child care. For many parents their children come first and they seek more flexibility, options and choices to allow them to put the interests of their children ahead of their own.

Social policy should presume that parents and not governments should be making decisions affecting the caregiving of their children. They are in the best position to choose what constitutes the best possible care arrangement for their children. We should therefore seek to provide as much flexibility and as many options and choices to parents in the best interests of children.

I will turn now to the importance of breast feeding. In April 1998 Dr. Christopher Ruhm of the University of North Carolina published a research paper entitled “Parental Leave and Child Health”. This researcher studied 25 years of population data in nine European countries. He found up to a 29% reduction in infant mortality where parental leave of at least 50 weeks was taken. That is very significant.

The research also highlighted the significant benefits of breast feeding and found a lower incidence of sudden infant death syndrome, accidental deaths, and sicknesses causing death. Exposure to a broader range of environmental risks, travel risks, risks associated with public places and risks associated with exposure to other persons, in particular children, were all contributing factors to the overall findings.

The health benefits of breast feeding cannot be overstated. In 1998 the Canadian Paediatric Society announced its unanimous endorsement of the World Health Organization's new recommended guideline that mothers should breast feed for at least one year for optimal health outcomes of their children.

The research on breast feeding clearly confirms the importance for optimal infant health. It also enhances the bond between mother and child which is a significant factor affecting healthy outcomes. In addition, a family can save up to $4,000 in the first year in the cost of baby formula alone, which significantly affects the economics of the decision to provide direct parental care.

Based on the comprehensive research, there is a need to promote, protect and support breast feeding in Canada. Extended parental leave options could help to achieve these objectives. According to Dr. Fraser Mustard, breast feeding can provide a perfect nutritional and emotional nurturing to endow an infant with the important capacity needed for a full and productive life.

What would be the criteria for policy development? Obviously, our policy should be child centred and promote the best interests of children to the best extent possible. It should presume that parents are the primary caregivers. It should provide flexibility, options and choices. It should be inclusive and responsive to the social realities. That is why we need more choices. Finally, the policy should be fair and equitable and neither penalize nor compel caregiving choices.

The first year of life is the most important period during which a caregiver can influence the future physical, mental and social health outcomes of children. It is vital that this opportunity for either parent to provide direct parental care to a new child or an adopted child during that first year should be made available. Therefore, extending parental leave from the current 10 weeks to 37 weeks to allow one full year for one of the parents to provide direct parental care is an important option.

Investing in children, particularly during the formative years, represents a sound preventative strategy to improve the physical, mental and social health of children. Even the most conservative research estimates show that for every $1 invested in children, there are $2 saved in health, social program, educational and criminal justice costs. The studies have even estimated cost savings to be as much as $7 for every $1 invested.

Let me conclude by repeating the most important fact. In Canada 25% of our children enter adult life with significant emotional, behavioural, academic or social problems. The monetary and social costs are enormous and therefore investing in children is an imperative, not an option. Research has consistently found that the most significant determinant of child health outcomes is the quality of care provided during the first years of life. Therefore, if we value our children, we must also value our caregivers. In my view, extending parental care is in a small way showing that we do value our children and their caregivers.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Tobacco.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member on making some very good points with respect to children and the importance of caring and nurturing children and investing in children. He touched upon some very important issues, breast feeding, proper nurturing of the child, the bonding between parent and child, and so forth.

I seek his comments on another topic which is very closely related and that is homelessness. Today we saw on the Hill what in my view was a very sad commentary upon the state of our society. Numerous homeless people and people supporting them came to the Hill to make their concerns known to the nation's capital and to those who are leading this country. There were riot police lined up in riot gear, dogs, and police with batons. There was even the use of pepper spray against these unfortunate people.

This is a very serious problem. What does the hon. member see in the throne speech that addresses that issue? We know a minister was appointed to deal with the homelessness issue. She has been travelling across the country and gathering information, but it is time now to stop travelling and stop studying. The answers are there.

It is very clear that the federal government needs to reinvest in the social housing program, reinvest in support services for those who are released from institutions and so forth, yet the throne speech did not address those issues. Does the hon. member have any comments on that problem?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of homelessness is a very serious and important priority for the government. The member will well understand that homelessness is a complex problem that needs more than a simple solution. There is no simple solution.

The Golden report on homelessness found that 35% of homeless people in Toronto had mental illness, 28% were youth who were alienated from their families of which 70% had experienced physical or sexual abuse, 18% were aboriginals off reserve and 10% were abused women.

The member will well understand that this does not paint a picture of economic poverty and homelessness due to economic causes. It is social poverty.

The member is quite right that there have to be solutions. But I can tell the member that finding a solution to mental illness, to family breakdown, to youth who are alienated from their families, to domestic violence and to aboriginal issues will take time.

I think the member would concede that the government has covered the bases in terms of putting the framework in place so that all members in this place can work together to deal with homelessness.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to try once again because I have known this gentleman for a few years and I totally respect his values, his understanding of family and of young children. I know he has his heart in the right place. We have also served on committees together to try and resolve some of the problems that young children face.

With regard to the child pornography issue and hundreds of thousands of signatures and letters from the Canadian public and many more on its way, can the member explain to me why the government is reluctant to do something about the issue today by invoking the notwithstanding clause as some of the member's backbenchers have suggested prior to this date? Let us stop the perversion.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the member's question. The Sharpe case has certainly challenged Canadians to deal with the very serious issue of possession of child pornography.

It was simple possession alone. The member knows that the effect of that case was to basically deal with the laws as they stand in B.C. Throughout the rest of the country, the member knows that the laws of Canada remain in place and continue to be in force.

The member has asked a specific question and I will give him an answer. I am advised by justice officials that if the notwithstanding clause was invoked it could not be applied retroactively, in which case Sharpe would get off. I do not want Sharpe to get off. I want the laws of Canada to be defended in the courts to the fullest extent. I do not want anybody in Canada to get away with possession of child pornography.

The notwithstanding clause is only a perspective instrument. We have to go back and make sure that all of the cases and all of the charges that have been laid since the Sharpe case, get dealt with by the laws of Canada that protect our children from those who would seek to abuse them.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate on the throne speech and to respond to a number of statements made in that speech.

Let me point out first off that the session started four weeks late. According to the government, that time was used to prepare the Speech from the Throne.

I should let you know at this point that, like my colleagues, I will be sharing my time. I will be sharing it with the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. We will both speak for ten minutes.

As I was saying, it is unfortunate that the government delayed the beginning of the session by four weeks in order to draft this Speech from the Throne which, as we all know, could have been prepared over the summer.

The speech is timid and lukewarm in terms of substance. While it is rather lengthy, the speech does not have much substance. It lacks substance.

Of course, there are a few interesting things in there, but there are also serious omissions. Take telecommunications for example.

With respect to telecommunications, the throne speech says that the government will adapt its programs to reflect the socioeconomic realities of rural communities and that it will intensify its efforts to ensure that those communities and all regions of Canada can take advantage of the opportunities created by the new global, knowledge based economy.

We understand what that means. It means that the government wants to connect all rural communities. I am all for it, because it is important. Between you and me, many people still use the phone to talk. Computers are not the only ones to use phone lines. In our rural communities, there are still ordinary people made of flesh and bones who like to pick up to phone to have a conversation.

What is the government doing for these people? Let me tell you what it is doing, or rather what it is not doing for them. In urban areas, the government allows for competition to decrease the cost of local residential phone services. In rural areas, the phone bill has been going up year after year. In some cases, it increased twofold over six years. This represents an impressive inflation rate.

Why is that? The problem is simple. Businesses operating in rural areas have higher telephone bills than those operating in urban areas. The message to these businesses is very clear: if you want to save on communication costs, get out of the rural areas and into the city. I am sorry to say that is an unacceptable message. Rural communities have a right to life as well.

When a company or individual in a rural area wants to have telephone service, the first thing needed is quality service. There are some areas in Quebec, Ontario and elsewhere that are still in the party-line era, with two households to a line and with exchanges that cannot handle electronic signals. In short, they are still in the dark ages, telephonically speaking.

Then there are the long distance costs. There are big savings to be made by major companies with high calling volumes. But an individual—a man or woman who is not just a single user but a rural user on top of that—may find, believe it or not, that he or she is in a municipality where calling city hall is a long distance call. Imagine that.

The throne speech has nothing to say on any of this, but I would go even further. Very recently, just a few weeks ago, the CRTC brought down a decision on high service-cost areas, which to all intents and purposes means the rural areas. The assumption was that telephone companies charge reasonable amounts to their subscribers and therefore there was nothing to worry about.

The telephone companies have raised their monthly rates for local calling beyond a reasonable level. Some families have discontinued phone service. Others, however, cannot and will not, but will give up some other essential instead or will deprive their children of some other essential. It seems that the Speech from the Throne has no consideration for these circumstances, which are worsening poverty.

The government and the Minister of Industry, in particular, through the CRTC, have totally abandoned the rural community. In Quebec the situation is even more tragic. Most of rural Quebec is served by Québec Téléphone, known as Quebec Tel. This company is 51% American owned.

For this reason, the CRTC has denied Quebec Tel the right to expand within Quebec or Canada, but is permitting Canadian firms and even new companies from the United States—AT&T and Sprint— to eat away at the territory of Quebec Tel.

Consequently, Quebec Tel is being eaten away from the inside by this competition, which, to all intents and purposes, is unfair. The Minister of Industry could, with a simple decision, accord Quebec Tel the rights the other telephone companies, including the American companies, enjoy on Canadian soil. This puts both the company and its subscribers, including myself, at a disadvantage. The situation is intolerable and unacceptable and is not even mentioned in the throne speech.

This speech does not deal with the real challenges in telecommunications, challenges that concern the rural community. The country is big. Quebec is big, it is vast. There is air and great open spaces, but the government is literally mocking the people who live in these spaces and who need telephone service.

Wherever I am in Quebec, my hydro bill is always the same: distance is not a factor. The cost of my car registration is the same for a given class of vehicle. My drivers' license costs the same, whether I live in Montreal, Quebec City or Portneuf. So why, tell me why, does the cost of my telephone vary according to where I live?

We had the choice for the telephone of the hydro approach or the airline route approach. The choice was the airline route approach, and the cost has become prohibitive for those who live far away.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to follow my colleague; in fact, what I have is more of a remark than a question.

He is entirely right. In the throne speech, we have the government talking about the Internet and about connecting many municipalities in Quebec with the world. This is all very lovely, but since I too am a member with a rural riding, I can confirm that, in 1999, on the eve of the next millennium, there are taxpayers in Quebec—and in Canada as well, I am sure—who have party lines, and even some who do not have any telephone service at all.

The federal government wants to invest in impressive programs such as the Internet, but does nothing about what is happening just outside major cities. Bell Canada and other telephone companies have come up with this wonderful concept of areas without service. I urge all members of the House to examine the legislation and to look at all the definitions. They will realize that, ultimately, the telephone companies are the big winners. All they have to do is sit tight. That is it.

I think the government should take some very tough action. When the CRTC looked into this, the government was strangely quiet, while the regions all got together to bring to light the fact that, in 1999, there are, as I said, families without any telephone service at all.

Worse yet, Bell Canada has allocated telephone numbers to families—they are listed in the directory—that do not even have service because their homes are perhaps 10 or 15 metres beyond the last telephone pole. It is as ridiculous as that.

The members opposite sit back, go on about the Internet and want to see the whole world connected. All these political speeches are very impressive, but the regions are being left to fend for themselves.

I would therefore ask my colleague if this is a situation he sees in his riding, on the outskirts of Quebec City.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raises an important point. Let me tell you about my riding of Portneuf and in particular the Portneuf RCM.

In the Portneuf RCM, there are a lot of exchange areas. And within some of these exchange areas, there are long distance charges to call from one community to another, even if there are no long distance charges to make a call to Quebec City.

Do you see what impact this has? The Portneuf RCM is a social environment. People have lived in these communities for generations now. And since there are long distance charges, for instance, from Saint-Raymond to Saint-Marc-des Carrières, some people will forgo making phone calls.

I know some older people who have lived all their lives in the Portneuf area, who have worked there, have raised their families and are now retired. These people can no longer afford to call their children, who live in another community only 20 or 30 kilometres away, because of the long distance charges.

Should the CRTC regulations not ensure that the people living in a social environment like Portneuf have the opportunity to call members of their own family? Or is their only purpose to allow major corporations to lower their long distance charges?

Something does not make sense here ,and the government is not addressing the issue, and I think my colleague shares my concern.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be very short. I think the member for Portneuf will be able to answer it immediately.

What he just mentioned clearly explains one reason why more and more people are leaving our regions. What does he think the federal government should do to stop the exodus to the large urban centres?

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, young people are indeed leaving our regions and people who need medical care are moving to the city.

The solution is simple, however. Let us give the regions affordable telephone access everywhere. Let us eliminate long distance charges within an area that forms a single social and economic environment, such as the Portneuf area. That would solve a lot of problems. It is possible.

Feasible proposals have been made by Quebec Tel and Télébec, among others. One such system has been implemented in the United States. The government must take action in this regard.