Debates of Nov. 3rd, 1999

Speech From The Throne

[John Manley, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know about freshwater fish marketing, but I do know about fishermen in Nova Scotia who went to the local community access site when there were no fish for them to chase in the seas. They were able to complete their high school education by having access by computer in those situations to that learning, and doing it in such a way that was more respectful of their self-esteem than asking them to go into classrooms where perhaps they have children.

I have been able to see the situations in small communities across Canada where all kinds of electronic commerce opportunities are being pursued. I mention Gordon Currie from Dawson Creek, British Columbia whose clients are not necessarily in British Columbia. One is the Atlanta Olympic Committee. Others are in Hong Kong, Europe and around the world.

This is all about the jobs of the future. We all share a concern for the people who are challenged in finding jobs in the current economy, who have perhaps worked in an industry that has closed down. This is all about where the jobs are going to be in the next 10 years and how we can create them. It is about how we can give our people the skills and access to the technology they will need to fill those jobs that are certainly going to be created in a world economy. We hope to see them created in Canada first and foremost.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.

I am pleased to take part in today's debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. As the Bloc Quebecois environment critic, I will primarily focus on the promises made by the federal government in that area and on the initiatives that it should be taking to ensure sustainable development and preserve nature for the benefit of future generations.

I want to preface my remarks with quotes from a document published this year by the federal government, entitled “Survey on the Importance of Nature to Canadians”.

This survey, which involved 86,000 Canadians aged 15 or over, confirms the importance of natural resources, fauna and flora for a vast majority of people. Indeed, it shows that, during the 1996 reference year, 29 million Canadians and Quebecers, or 85% of the population, took part in nature-related activities, for a total of 1.5 billion days. These nature-related activities generated 191 million trips and expenses totalling $11 billion.

All these figures are telling me two important things. First, Canadians and Quebecers are keen participants in nature-related activities. This is why we must preserve our fauna, forests and protected areas, so that we can all continue to fully enjoy them.

Second, these activities have a significant economic impact, whether we are talking about outdoor activities, sports or the tourism industry. Regardless of what those who believe ecology is not compatible with economic development may think, the fact is that our environment is a profitable asset that must be preserved and developed.

Unfortunately, since it took office in 1993, the Liberal government did very little to protect the environment. Its rare initiatives were primarily designed to encroach on provincial jurisdictions and strengthen the federal government's control over natural resources rather than truly protect the environment.

The only good news is that the Liberal government seems to have woken up, probably having realized that it should not head into the next election empty-handed. But yes, let us take a quick look at a few of the measures proposed in the throne speech.

The government promises to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While the Liberals initially promised in their red book to reduce emissions by 20% by 2005—that is right, 20% by the year 2005—we recently learned that greenhouse gases have instead gone up by 20% since 1990.

That is why Bloc Quebecois members will continue to make every possible effort to hold this government—because this is essential—to the commitments it made in Kyoto, to set itself specific goals and to take firm action to achieve them.

The government also intends to protect endangered species. We will continue to denounce interference in provincial jurisdictions and the lack of resources to monitor and protect endangered species. Instead of setting national standards, the federal government should provide funding—that is what it should be doing—for preserving the habitats of these endangered species.

The most sensible proposal in the throne speech was the one to clean up contaminated federal sites. Finally, a ray of hope. The government has been promising to do this for years. Finally, it seems prepared to go ahead. I am giving it the benefit of the doubt, but I intend to keep a close eye on developments.

This should be the priority of the federal government: to clean up its own backyard before telling the provinces what to do with theirs. This clean-up should also include sites contaminated by the Canadian army, such as those in my riding of Jonquière.

As I see time is passing, I will deal with a very important matter left out of the throne speech, that of genetically modified organisms. The Canadian position on the matter of the negotiation of the protocol on biodiversity is unacceptable. Over 100 countries are prepared to sign an agreement to regulate the labelling, import and export of genetically modified organisms, primarily plants, and a liability clause for companies regarding damage to the environment caused by their products.

Unfortunately, Canada is part of a small group, with the United States and four other countries, that is blocking these negotiations because they are bent on putting exports ahead of the health of Canadians and the security of their environment.

I will close my remarks with a look at the decision by Jean Chrétien to permit the import into Canada of a fuel containing plutonium, also known as MOX.

I held a press conference this morning to oppose the import of this product from the United States and Russia, without public consultation on the principle. I pointed out as well the unresolved problems of storing radioactive waste once the MOX has been used as a fuel in nuclear plants.

I can only deplore the attitude of the Minister of the Environment in this matter. While he should be concerned about clean sources of energy and sustainable development, the minister has presented nuclear energy as an attractive solution that would reduce greenhouse gases. The minister has even advocated exporting Canadian nuclear technology abroad.

When I questioned him on the subject of his government's proposal to import some one hundred tonnes of plutonium from Russian and American nuclear arms, the minister had nothing to say.

I hope he will quickly change his course in this matter, as in others, and attend to his mandate as Minister of the Environment. For this and a number of other reasons, I must tell the government it is time to act on the environment. It must do so to give future generations a safe environment.

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments on safeguarding the environment.

We know that the old bill, Bill C-48, currently called Bill C-8, the act respecting marine conservation areas, will be coming back to the House at report stage hopefully by the end of this month. I see that the Bloc has tabled many amendments to delete all the clauses in that bill.

Reform believes in a very balanced approach to protecting our environment. We believe in sustainability when areas are to be designated for conservation or protection.

I have a question for the Bloc member. What is the Bloc policy on sustainable development regarding the environment?

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Reform member for his question.

For those of us in the Bloc Quebecois, everything related to the environment is very important as far as sustainable development is concerned, because it is important to pass a healthy environment on to future generations.

Since 1993, this Liberal government has made huge cuts in funding to the Department of the Environment. One need only think of Bill C-32, which was passed during the last parliament. We will recall the general opposition there was to that bill. The government pushed it through with a gag order.

We submit that it is important for everyone, the general public and all parliamentarians, to be involved in everything that affects the environment. These are the priorities I defend, and shall always defend, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

It is always a pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to take the floor when you are in the chair.

I would like to express our great disappointment with this throne speech. I believe it can be characterized quite simply as a throne speech offering little in the way of concrete solutions to people's concerns. It is the mark of a government that is coming to the end of its time.

I invite the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to reflect on this, and I trust that he will have some questions to ask me at the end of my speech, because I am always pleased to exchange views with him. I invite him to remember how different things would be in this House if the Bloc Quebecois were not here to promote the legitimate interests of Quebec.

If we were not here, the government would be left to its own device, with its rather monolithic view of Quebec. I am taking this opportunity to tell you that we will not let the government interfere in the referendum debate.

I am well aware that, if it were up to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, given his penchant for controversy—and I believe he will allow me to say this—he would want to legislate here, in this parliament, on the referendum question, even though, as we all know, Quebec already has a referendum act. The decision will be made in a democratic fashion.

Guess what percentage of Quebecers took part in the 1995 referendum? Some 93.5%. This compares favourably to the figures obtained where voting is compulsory.

I am asking the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to calm down a little, to control himself, to not add fuel to the fire and to accept that this issue will be dealt with by the National Assembly and by Quebecers, who will have to make a choice.

Incidentally—and this will be of interest to my friend, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs—this past weekend I attended a congress with the rank and file in my riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. Whenever my constituents were given the opportunity to vote for sovereignty, they did so in very interesting numbers.

I am not an illegitimate son of sovereignty. I am a natural son of sovereignty, considering that every time the people in my riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve had an opportunity to vote for sovereignty, they did so. In fact, the minister know who the first Parti Quebecois member elected at the National Assembly was. We will recall fondly that it was Robert Burns, who now sits on the bench.

I want to tell the House about a victory for democracy that took place in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. I put the following idea, which will interest the minister, to those attending the congress. In the coming days, I would like to campaign to have the Commission des institutions convene a constituent assembly with a four-fold mandate.

First, I would like Quebecers to be consulted about the wording of the next referendum question. Naturally, it would still be up to the National Assembly to decide whether or not to adopt it, but it would be interesting for Quebecers to be consulted. This would prevent the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and all the other ministers in this cabinet from saying that the question is not legitimate, because it would be based on what people wanted.

Second, I would like a constituent assembly to look into what could be called “new democratic practices”. In a sovereign Quebec—it should not be long now—what kind of ballot do we want? How can we ensure that decision-making is a truer reflection of representation? These are questions that could be raised in the context of a constituent assembly.

Third—and I know that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs will be interested in this as well—we must give some thought to a question facing modern nations. This is not something limited to Quebec or Canada. It is a question that I would say all modern nations must consider. How are we to define “citizen” as a concept? In Quebec, the view which I think is most widely held right now is that, in a sovereign Quebec, citizenship will be defined in relation to participation in a shared public culture.

This shared public culture has a number of components. First, of course, it must be rooted in French. The language of democratic participation in a sovereign Quebec will of course be French. Naturally, we hope that there will be wide participation in democratic life and in institutions. We also hope to benefit from the contribution of other communities in a context of genuine collaboration and mutual dialogue.

A constituent assembly could therefore make proposals for the wording of the referendum question, examine the issue of new democratic practices, and consider the concept of citizenship by consulting people about participation in institutions. I myself spent a few days in the United States and was trained by former congressman Kennedy, who has since left political life—but I confess I had nothing to do with it—and he explained very clearly to me the benefits of a law that, in the end, permits American legislators to measure the involvement of banks in poor communities.

I must say, to my great satisfaction, that this proposal was greeted with barely contained enthusiasm. It will now make its way through the regional bodies to the Bloc Quebecois Year 2000 congress. I would very much like the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to agree to exchange views with me on these matters.

Now, returning to the Speech from the Throne, although I do not believe I have ever strayed away from it totally, finally, as far as the government's constitutional strategy is concerned, we can see an imprecise outline of the underlying agenda of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

I would once again caution him against the desire to legislate here, in this parliament, on a matter that does not concern him in the least. Moreover, I am told that the minister—a likeable man, as is common knowledge—is a man becoming increasingly the only one on side with his strategy. I trust that we will have the opportunity to discuss this together, he and I.

I would have liked to have seen some concrete measures contained in this throne speech, lacklustre as it is, with no bite, no relief, a total lack of imagination. What would prevent the government from including in the Human Rights Act—not in the Charter, since this would require an amending formula, as we know—social condition as a forbidden grounds for discrimination?

Seven provinces already have such a thing in their legislation or in their human rights codes, and it would be a formidable weapon in the battle against poverty. We are very well aware that social condition refers to people's degree of wealth, their position in society, their place in the means of production. What would have prevented the government from passing legislation, as the United States did in 1977, on community reinvestment by the banks?

The Americans have what they call the Community Reinvestment Act. I myself spent a few days in the U.S. and was instructed by former congressman Kennedy who, since then, has left politics— and I had nothing to do with that—and who explained to me in very practical terms the benefits from this Act, which basically allows American lawmakers to measure the banks' involvement in disadvantaged communities.

I will now focus on another issue, namely tainted blood. This is a stigma, a matter of shame for all parliamentarians. So long as the government does not correct the situation, there will be a pall over all of the House of Commons. The government ought to correct the situation, and I am referring, naturally, to the Krever commission.

This is a scandal, a real catastrophe. In the early 1990s, Canadian blood supplies were contaminated for all sorts of reasons. It is nevertheless true that, in its report—a report not prepared by the Bloc Quebecois, a report by a royal commission of inquiry that cost taxpayers millions of dollars and needed to be called—the Krever commission called for a no fault compensation system. That means that everyone contaminated either through a transfusion or through the use of blood products would be compensated.

I would like everyone to stay, but acknowledge that is impossible. I know that those who must leave always do so out of necessity. I would have liked a debate with the minister, but that is not possible. We will have it in other forums. I think he may be a bit afraid of a confrontation with me, but that is part of parliamentary life.

I close by saying that I wished the Krever commission had been heard and that we were establishing a compensation plan without regard to the fault of those contaminated before 1986 as for those contaminated before 1990. It is a matter of humanitarian consideration. Quebec and Ontario have already compensated these categories. The government is turning a deaf year, and I think it is shameful it is taking such an attitude.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for his fiery speech. Even the minister he called upon was listening carefully.

Usually, we cannot tell. The minister appears not to be listening. This time, however, he paid great attention to the message delivered by my colleague.

I would like to ask a question to my colleague, a very thoughtful man who is very sensitive to the plight of the poorest of the poor in our society. I too work with the disadvantaged and the poor in my riding of Matapédia—Matane. Since my riding is in a remote region, communications are not so good. Major companies and multinationals are reluctant to come to my riding, if only because the airport is located in Mont-Joli and it takes close to one hour to get to the airport from my home. Given the transportation services available, this is already a problem.

I clearly recall the case of a local plant. The owners said “We are leaving the plant in Quebec City, because if we move it further east, it will mean an additional half-hour drive, because there is no air service, and half an hour is a long time for business people”.

The hon. member talked about a sovereign Quebec, and I know that he has given a great deal of thought to this issue. How could we be a little more sensitive to the plight of the poor and remote areas? How could we treat them better, just as the people in Montreal, Quebec City or the Abitibi region are treated?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question makes a lot of sense and deals with sensitivity, as members will have realized.

My colleague began with a reference to our friend the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who is plagued by constitutional matters. If he took the trouble to listen more closely to the opposition parties, I think he would see a certain light that is sadly lacking in his caucus. That having been said, on the issue of poverty, I think that it involves all parliamentarians.

Why do we want to become sovereign? Because we are a nation, but we are also a nation that believes strongly in social justice. Right now, even the best governments that have sat in the National Assembly have been unable to implement a genuine policy of resource distribution and full employment.

They have been unable to do so because monetary policy is decided in Ottawa. The major levers for regulating the labour market are in the hands of the Minister of Finance, and the Government of Quebec has tools that are very secondary but that make dialogue between the parties impossible.

Members are well aware that the countries—I am thinking of Sweden and Norway—that have come close to achieving full employment have been successful in getting employers, union representatives, representatives of community groups, educators and, of course, economic decision makers to sit down together, to agree on a certain number of objectives, and to implement them. In a federal system such as ours, this is not possible.

I will give an example. It is well known that the federal government has turned around and deprived the provinces of close to $11 billion in transfer payments. Do members think that this began with a dialogue and that the provinces were involved in these macroeconomic decisions? Of course not. This was authority speaking. It shows that federalism is incompatible with the full employment policies that Quebec will implement when it gains control of all these levers as a sovereign state.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Peterborough.

In a sense my remarks directly relate to what was just said.

My speech will deal mainly with early childhood, and the challenge of finding the means to work along with the provinces. I believe we can make considerable progress together.

How can we as governments, federal, provincial and territorial, work together with communities to support children and their families, particularly very young children, so that the development of those children can be as good as we can collectively make it? That is my subject.

The reason I have chosen that subject, in the context of the Speech from the Throne, is something which the Prime Minister said in his response to the Speech from the Throne. He said “Together with the provinces we have begun to put in place the national children's agenda to improve supports for families and children. I believe this work has to be accelerated. So do provincial premiers. We must move as quickly as possible from talk to action. Today I challenge all governments to have in place by December 2000 a federal-provincial agreement consistent with the social union framework to strengthen supports for early childhood development, an agreement on principles and objectives on measuring outcomes and reporting to Canadians and an agreement on a five year timetable for increased federal and provincial funding to achieve our shared objectives”.

The challenge is how we can do such a deal. How can we work with the other governments in the country to do the right deal and not just any deal for children? How can we do it in about 14 months? How can we do it by December 2000?

I think the only way we can conceive of a deal is to think of it as sort of a national project for all of our children.

We have a number of elements of success in place already. The first is perhaps the whole question of knowledge. What do we know about optimum developmental paths for all children, particularly those in the zero to six population? As the finance minister said yesterday in his annual economic update, quoting Dr. Fraser Mustard, “There is powerful new evidence from neuroscience that the early years of development, from conception to age six, particularly for the first three years, set the base for competence and coping skills that will affect learning, behaviour and health throughout life”.

The science also tells us that an additional factor for success is what we do at the community level. It is not simply a question of socioeconomic status, it is what happens at the level where we all live and breath, the level of the neighbourhood. Social cohesion is a positive factor which goes beyond income in explaining why some kids do better than others. There was a recent article in the Globe and Mail on Port Colborne, Ontario which talked about “wovenness” as being the magic, the secret which takes us beyond income into good results for kids.

The first asset that we can bring to the table is the knowledge base which is growing exponentially in this area. The second is that the provinces are increasingly on side. It was extraordinary to hear the recent Speech from the Throne from Ontario in which the lieutenant governor said these words on behalf of her government:

Your government believes that, to realize their full potential, children must get off to the best possible start in life. The most important period of development is the three years immediately following birth. That is why it is so important to nurture and support children's development from the moment they are born.

Building on the pioneering work of world renowned expert Dr. Fraser Mustard and child advocate the Hon. Margaret McCain, the government is committed to a bold new initiative that ultimately will extend early development opportunities to every child and parent in Ontario. Recently announced demonstration projects are merely the beginning. Your government is determined to remain the national leader in early child development.

That is the Government of Ontario. It is surprising perhaps to some, considering its other social policies, but that is a great one.

We know that in British Columbia the Hon. Moe Sihota recently announced a major new initiative in the area of child care and invited federal participation once again.

We are very familiar with the case of Quebec, which made a societal promise to its children, particularly its very young ones, with its $5-a-day child care centres. They are a kind of gold standard for the rest of the country. They are the summit we are all striving to reach, to use the vocabulary of social union.

We can find allies among the provinces across the country. In a meeting held in Kananaskis with the social services ministers as recently as October 26, ministers said the following:

Ministers also reviewed joint work currently under way in both social services and health sectors on early childhood development, including possible areas where governments can work together. Ministers agreed that this work should form the basis for responding to the federal government's invitation in the Speech from the Throne to work together in this area. They committed to working with federal, provincial, and territorial ministers of health to move forward as quickly as possible on early childhood development.

The next day their counterparts, the ministers who constitute the provincial-territorial council on social policy renewal, made the same point:

Ministers stressed the urgent need for action on children's issues, building on the leadership taken by provinces and territories and the co-operative work with the federal government. Ministers emphasized the need to move forward on the national children's agenda.

Now seems to be the time for us all to go forward, as we have the provinces enthusiastically responding to the Speech from the Throne.

Of all the assets we can bring to the table, including our own efforts, the knowledge base and the provinces, the greatest assets surely are the communities themselves. Communities are where we live and breathe. Communities are where our children develop through schools, through play contacts, through all of the things which make life worth living in our private lives.

I find this the most exciting part. This morning I was at a breakfast meeting in Ottawa-Carleton with the Success by Six group, an extraordinary alliance spearheaded by the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Education and the United Way, bringing together 85 different entities, agencies, the voluntary sector and government departments, to work together to improve outcomes for the zero to six population. The spirit of enterprise and excitement in the room of working together to produce a kind of seamless web of services so that all children and their parents will be given optimum support was tremendous. It was heartening. We have in the nation's capital a demonstration project, one chosen by the Ontario government as well.

Last week I was in Toronto with a similar group, called the Early Years Action Group, from North York. It is happening across the country. In Vancouver we can find Opportunities for Youth. In Montreal we have Un Deux Trois Go. In other words, we have a huge resource base.

We have allies like the United Way of Canada, which we are aware of this month as its flags are fluttering across Canada to remind us of the annual campaign. This network covers 87% of Canada. There is a huge sector of civil society that wants to participate in the national children's agenda.

What do we need to do? We need a deal which is something like the Canada Health Act. The Prime Minister talks of objectives and principles. We also need a deal which deals with outcomes. The Prime Minister talks of outcomes and accountability in public reporting. We need a deal which has money. The money has to come in the form of an early childhood development services fund, with resources coming from the provinces and the federal government, accessed by communities after they have determined what they need to do the right job for kids from birth to six, so that those children will be ready to learn and ready for life by the time they enter the school system.

That is what we need to do. It means that we have to sign on a group of provinces. It means that we have to see working examples in the next 12 months of how communities can work together, such as they are doing in Ottawa-Carleton and in Ontario in general.

We need a plan which focuses on all children and, as Minister Marland of Ontario said the other day, a plan which is affordable, available and accessible to all children.

We have a huge task to complete this part of the promise of the Speech from the Throne. It will involve all of us in all of our communities doing our best to work with the provincial governments, the federal government, communities and the voluntary sector to make this dream of a national project of making all of Canada's children as ready to learn as they possibly can be by the time they enter school a reality.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the member for Don Valley West. I know of his personal commitment to this area.

I would like to recognize the member's share in the development of the points in the Speech from the Throne which we now think of as the children's agenda. We just heard that he has a fundamental understanding of the area, as well as an understanding as a member of parliament on what needs to be done to push things of this sort through.

I thought it would be interesting if the member could give us some sense of the work and the proposals of the subcommittee dealing with the children's agenda and youth at risk which he chaired in the previous parliament. Could he give some sense of that? Also, could he give us his thoughts on how that subcommittee might proceed, or is it going to proceed? What is it likely to do between now and the budget when we hope that many of the things in the Speech from the Throne will become engraved in stone?

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the subcommittee to which the member referred is a subcommittee of the HRD committee. It is the subcommittee on children and youth at risk. So far we have only been able to produce an interim report.

First it is important to say that we are an all-party committee populated by real supporters of children. It has gone beyond partisanship. We are really working together on a common purpose.

What we have tried to do is to understand both risk factors for children, but also what are the best developmental pathways; what can we know from the science base about what works and how we can make sure that that knowledge gets across the country. The task for us between now and the budget, should our committee be reconstituted by the all seeing wisdom of the chairman of the human resources development committee, is to focus on the unfinished business.

We must determine what it is that we can do by way of encouragement and demonstration to show how communities are already doing this and that this is not an abstract reality. There is a huge amount of enthusiasm across Canada for this. The committee can highlight the successes and give us heart so that we may make national what we have been doing so successfully in communities across Canada.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. I am very proud to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the people of the Peterborough riding and the city as well as our country. It is a great honour. Each time this occurs it makes me proud. I work hard so that my constituents will be equally proud of me.

The Speech from the Throne is being described as one which sets out the government's children's agenda. We assume that we are now moving toward a budget based on the Speech from the Throne which is going to be focused on children.

I would like to take a different approach from that of my colleague from Don Valley West who just spoke.

It is true that there was a huge emphasis on children in the Speech from the Throne. It is also true that this was not sudden. It was not something that was pulled out of a hat. It is something that has been developing. We heard one aspect on the work of the subcommittee of human resources development. It is something that has been going on since the Liberal government was elected in 1993.

I was particularly impressed by something when we began those three years of cuts, those horrific years when all Canadians paid the price of the staggering $42 billion deficit that we inherited from previous governments. One of the things I remember in that first year of the cuts was that in my riding, when money was being taken out of the system in great quantities, new money appeared for prenatal and postnatal care. There was new money to support centres in which parents could learn to nurture their children in the best possible way. Even in those dark years the foundations for this Speech from the Throne and for what I hope will appear in the budget were already being laid.

I have a document which summarizes the Speech from the Throne. I will try to give some of the context for the so-called children's agenda. The context includes the fact that we have to consider parents and families before children are conceived and born. I have mentioned prenatal care and some of those aspects which we have been doing. It is mentioned again in the Speech from the Throne.

Then we have to think of the children themselves, which my colleague was just talking about. My colleague said in great detail that we have to work with the provinces and there are signs that the provinces are going to work with us.

We are going to make a third investment in the national child benefit. There are now billions of dollars in the national child benefit. These funds go directly to children and their families.

My only regret is that in Ontario the provincial government chose to take an equivalent amount away from those families on social assistance. For whatever reason, I do not know. It appears to think there is some stigma for families on social assistance. I do not know how children carry stigma so I regret that.

The national child benefit is helping children and families directly. The government says that there will be further tax relief for children and families.

On the matter of parental leave, there is a great increase in leave for parents, a doubling of it, which I strongly support. This will help parents, and by that I mean quite literally mothers and fathers, to nurture their children. Parental leave is not for the parents, it is for the children.

It is my hope that as that provision is brought in there will be very real help, support and advice for smaller businesses that have to adjust to this new regime. I support it strongly but I recognize that tiny businesses have difficulty adjusting to changes of this type. I hope when the time comes to deal with that, there will be help for those small businesses. There are other things as well, such as making the federal government a workplace that is more family friendly.

Those are all for children. We have to think of children before they are born, after they are born and in their very early years as we were discussing. However, we cannot leave it at that. The Speech from the Throne also considers children as they become young adults, youth, teenagers and so on.

In this agenda there is a program to hire youth to staff the community Internet access sites across the country. There is the launch of exchanges Canada. Every year over 100,000 young Canadians will have a chance to move around the country. Many of us remember Katimavik with great fondness. It is great to think of the children mentioned in this agenda growing up and having this opportunity.

A very interesting program gives younger Canadians from the age of 13 an opportunity to produce their first works using traditional and new technologies in the arts, cultural, digital and similar industries. What a wonderful thing. Then there is a plan to give tens of thousands of young Canadian volunteers the opportunity to work in literacy programs.

There are prenatal children, infants and then youth. Now we go to when children are a little older. The government has already committed to the Canadian education savings grants. They are like RRSPs. Families can buy RESPs. This puts tax-free money aside to support the education of their young people. When they put that money aside, in addition they get a 20% grant up to a value of $2,000. That is already there for children as they are growing up. Families that are looking after their infants can be preparing for their children to go to college or university later on.

There are a number of other programs of that type, particularly the Canadian millennium scholarship fund. This is a scholarship fund for well qualified but needy students, if that is the right expression, students who need the support. They will be academically good students who need financial support.

We usually say 100,000 students a year but we tend to forget that the foundation is set up in such a way that it will be 100,000 students a year for 10 years. One million Canadian students. These students are infants now and they will be cared for even better through the children's agenda. One million students will have an opportunity to receive those scholarships to help them get an education so they can lead creative and productive lives.

We want to go even further than students in college and university. We started with children at the prenatal stage.

The government in the Speech from the Throne has committed to increasing the funding for the granting councils. Those are the councils which fund social science research, natural science research, medical research. They are the councils which support the arts and so on. Those are the ones which allow our most creative people to fulfil themselves so they can make Canada a much better place. When today's infants grow up, they will be in a much richer society.

I mentioned the Medical Research Council. In the same vein, the Speech from the Throne said that we will table legislation to fund the Canadian institutes for health research. This is going to be an extraordinary development for the Medical Research Council which supports medical research now. It will link the Medical Research Council to research institutes and institutions, to practising hospitals all across the country, to local cancer societies like the one in Peterborough, to community colleges like Sir Sandford Fleming College in Peterborough which have programs to look after the elderly and conduct research. The new Canadian institutes for health research will help every Canadian in the whole country to become healthier.

It has been a great pleasure for me to speak in this throne speech debate. I look forward to the budget which as we all know is necessary to put these wonderful policies into effect.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague as he discussed the throne speech. In particular, I found interesting the issue of the Canadian institutes for health research. It is a new idea to me. Can the hon. member explain what exactly these institutes will be doing and how that ties in with a children's agenda?

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I would have to say that had I been giving a different speech, this is one of the most significant developments not only in research, but in the application of research results in Canada in recent years.

This is a confederation. The strength of a confederation is that all the different parts of it have a chance to be creative. If one lives in Nova Scotia, one can be creative within the Nova Scotian context. If one lives in Alberta, one can be creative within the Alberta context. In addition, because it is a confederation, one can be creative at the national level. One can take an idea in Nova Scotia or an idea in Quebec and bring it up to the national level and then to the international level.

The danger of confederation as far as research is concerned is that if we are not careful we will have lots and lots of people all doing their own thing, all reinventing the wheel and so on, without this co-ordination.

The Canadian institutes for health research will be linked centres all the way across the country that will draw on the expertise of their regions and feed it in to the national scene so that when there is a good idea somewhere it will not be lost. By the way, it will not simply be lost in the morass of information that exists in our world. Nor will it be lost by someone going to the United States or some other jurisdiction. It will capture that idea and bring it forward to the benefit of all Canadians.

The federal government has always been the main engine of medical research, but there has always been other research. All sorts of hospitals, institutes and organizations are doing research of some sort. The purpose of this new system of Canadian institutes for health is to capture all that creativity to the benefit of all Canadians and, I do not think it is immodest, to the benefit of the health of everyone on the globe. I thank my colleague for her question.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my friend from Peterborough about a very important growing problem in the country, the issue of homelessness.

The throne speech talked about a general vision of the country but there is no reference to homelessness. Even more important, yesterday I was in London, Ontario, for the financial statement and fiscal update of the minister of finance. When I looked through that statement I did not see any reference whatsoever to homelessness. I am wondering whether or not this worries the hon. member.

Just the other night I was walking toward the Congress Centre and there were some 1,400 Liberals at a fundraiser. I think it cost $350 a plate. As I was walking with a certain friend who shall be unidentified, a couple of homeless guys were standing outside asking for money. It just struck me as rather ironic that this friend of mine, a very distinguished member of the House, would be stopped by these two homeless people. They knew who was the Prime Minister. They called out my name and things of that sort. I did not have the heart to tell them that the Prime Minister was having a fundraiser at the Congress Centre, because it cost $350 each to get in.

It struck me as strange, when we have a $10 billion surplus for this coming fiscal year and around $100 billion accumulating over the next five years, that in the 45 minute speech yesterday by the Minister of Finance there was not even a reference to homelessness.

I am wondering whether the member across the way shares my concern that the Minister of Finance is forgetting about a very important growing social problem, not only in my province but in his as well.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of my colleague from the NDP about this matter, but I do not share his concern about the interest of the government in it.

I can give a couple of examples from my own riding. In Peterborough the federal government funded the forum on homelessness attended by one of my friend's colleagues. That forum and the study associated with it identified the nature of homelessness very seriously in a rural small town environment as distinct from some of the larger urban communities.

Having identified those problems moneys have started to flow to solve them. For example, there is in Peterborough now a housing resource centre which helps people, young people, older people, and very old people in some cases, search more effectively for a home. The federal government was able to work with the county and the city to deal with that.

Even more recently we had a meeting with representatives of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, one of the federal government's main arms in this regard. Like my colleague I would urge the government to give Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation more resources in the social housing area. Nevertheless, in my riding two weeks ago CMHC was able to fund a substantial project, a refuge for homeless women.

I agree that homelessness is a serious problem. It is my sense, and I hope it proceeds very quickly, that the federal government is beginning to tackle these problems. I thank my colleague for his question.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start my comments on the throne speech delivered on October 12 in my first language.

The throne speech is entitled “Building a Higher Quality of Life for All Canadians”. My understanding is that we are trying to provide a better quality of life in the future for our children. A large part of the throne speech is directed to children and the agenda of the government to improve the quality of life of children to ensure they have a good foothold in the new millennium, to ensure they have an economic future, an educational future and are wealthy, healthy Canadians.

I challenge the government not to care only about certain sectors of the population. It should truly live up to its promise that all Canadians will have the same opportunity regardless of where they live.

We can look at the interconnectedness which the Minister of Industry highlighted. Internet connection will be a major part of Canadian development in a very short time. However, small communities in my riding cannot necessarily make a career or a livelihood by bringing Internet into their homes. We live in the middle of the forest. We live in the middle of abundant resources. This is the direction we should be working toward. We should be training our people to be engineers so that they can make master plans of the resources in those regions.

When Canadians were told to wait a month until the House of Commons returned to listen to a throne speech in October we thought of a grand vision. I am trying to make the best of the throne speech. I understand that our children and their journey are a major part of it.

We must afford our children the wisdom of our elders so that they have the strength of their families and are connected with their communities. Then children can stand with pride knowing who they are and where they are going. They can figure out what is right and what is wrong in life and can go forward with that knowledge.

In the throne speech a promise was given to a certain group of elders that should be truly recognized, our veterans. As we are close to Remembrance Day I wanted to raise this issue. We talk about merchant marines, the mariners who supplied our troops abroad with many provisions in times of war. These people were not truly recognized in an honourable way and have been asking to be treated equally.

The other veterans I would like to speak about at this time are aboriginal veterans. Aboriginal veterans in some cases disenfranchised themselves from their treaty status to fight for peace in the world. Upon returning home other veterans were afforded economic development opportunities and land grants, but these grants and opportunities were not given to aboriginal veterans. They were not treated equally. I ask my colleagues in the House on the government side to look at treating aboriginal veterans fairly and equally.

As a child grows education is crucial in this day and age. There are young pages in the House of Commons who are seeking knowledge and gaining life experiences just by being here. That is what I challenge other youth to do as well. They should leave the schools, move around Canada and experience life elsewhere.

The throne speech challenges all of us to experience the beauty of Canadian geography, history and people. I challenge people in Quebec to go to Saskatchewan and to the north. I challenge people in British Columbia and the prairies to go to downtown Toronto to see what life is like in a big metropolitan centre. I challenge the Blue Jays to play rubberball with children in La Loche. I challenge the Edmonton Oilers to play street hockey with homeless people in downtown Winnipeg.

We should enjoy each other's lives and the gifts that we have. Let us not put ourselves on a higher pedestal. We are all Canadians. We all live on the same beautiful land. Just because some people have a different paycheque than others, it does not afford them a different status.

I learned about the economy in grade 12 economics. Money can circulate as many times as it can in one region and afford a certain amount of value. If the Canadian dollar is to retain its value in world markets, we have to circulate the Canadian dollar as many times as we can in Canada before it leaves the country. I also extend this advice to certain regions.

I look at my region and the people of Churchill River. We have very few supermarkets. We have very few butcher shops. We do not have an abundance of hardware stores. All our shopping and our economy are bound to the southern urban centres of Saskatoon, Prince Alberta, North Battleford and Meadow Lake. That is the sad place we are reaching in rural Canada. Farm communities are evaporating as we speak. Credit unions, schools and hospitals have been dismantled because the community no longer functions. That is the sad fact in rural and regional Canada.

The urban centres cannot demand all the economy and strength of the country. We have to share from coast to coast to coast. We cannot all be Torontonians, Montrealers, or people of Regina and Vancouver. It is not the dream of all Canadians to live in a huge city in suburban Canada. I ask members to imagine living in the north, living in the wilderness. Maybe with a satellite dish they could make billion dollar deals right there with e-commerce, as the industry minister said. One does not have to be in a city to do this. It could be done from one's home in Pierceland, La Ronge or Cold Lake.

I challenge Canadians to treat each other with respect. I have seen an abundance of ill feelings among certain sectors and peoples in the country which just does not flow with the Canadian vision. We have founded a nation where people from all over the world have found a home. I say a home because that is basically what we are talking about. The House of Commons is a home for Canada.

We must not forget that for generations aboriginal people have held this country and land together, living in harmony with its nature and its unique gifts and challenges in a respectful way. That is the challenge I extend to everyone. Let us live in that essence into the new millennium. Let us live together. Let us welcome people who find refuge here perhaps because of hard times in other parts of the world. We have a lot to offer. Let us not point them to the urban slums of our country. Let us share the beauty of our villages, hamlets and little settlements of 15 people that are so proud.

In my riding there is a community that built its own school out of logs. One could not see a prouder student attending a school than those whose school was built by their aunts and uncles, mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers.

Now we have the vision that a technologically innovative future is a school that is interconnected. Could one of our grandparents connect a computer? No. It is our 12 and 15 year olds that connect the Apples and IBMs together, but we still have to put the two generations together. They cannot travel on different journeys. We have to envision them living in harmony together.

This opportunity to speak gives me the opportunity to thank the people I represent. As I mentioned, this seat belongs to the people of Churchill River. They are the ones who empower me to say these words. That is the story I wish to tell.

I come from a region that is called a boreal forest. It is basically in the middle of the bush.

These are the people of the woods.

All the highways in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Manitoba go north and south. The infrastructure is not the same in the north. The north is basically a colony to the south. Canadians have to stop treating the north like a food supply, a wood supply and a mineral supply. We have also at one time provided Britain with all the furs they needed. All the beavers which came from the north were sent over there. We cannot do that anymore. We must be given due respect. We make our living in the north and envision our people and our children growing up in the north and sharing with the rest of the world. It cannot be done without us.

There is no master plan for infrastructure in northern development. We see logging roads and mining roads but when are the communities going to be connected? When are the dots going to be connected to the northern villages? We used to travel along the river east and west, but our highways are all north and south. These roads do not connect our communities at all.

For many years we have had major discussions on national parks. I have one in my riding. I believe six future parks are being committed for ecological integrity, national identity and for preservation and conservation. These parks are targeted for the boreal forest. However, we have to talk with the community members, the people who make their living off the land. These people cannot be relocated.

CMHC has brought in housing programs to urbanize northerners. Northern trappers and hunters have never been agrarian people. We have never lived in a commune for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. We were hunters and gatherers who went 30, 40 or 100 miles to get the goods and bring them back to our families. These people moved around. The expanse is huge. It is not like an agrarian centre where the farmers stayed in one central area. The hunter-gatherer society was a a totally different concept. We cannot impose an agrarian principle on a hunter-gatherer. Going into the bush is like going into a new world. Welcome it because it is a beautiful place.

We see the head offices of industrial and corporate developments in Calgary, Toronto and Vancouver but they have no presence in the north. They have to leave legacies. I challenge institutions such as universities, research centres and hospitals. I challenge anyone in the House to identify anything that the Hudson's Bay Company has left in our northern villages. Not one swing, not one slide and not one hospital bed has been left by the Hudson's Bay Company in any of our northern communities. That is a shame. That is not what corporate consciousness should be like here in Canada or in the world.

I challenge the federal government to take leadership in northern development. We have a department called Indian Affairs and Northern Development that has been comfortable with identifying north of 60 as the north. The north is not north of 60. It is further south than that. The 55th parallel or even the 53rd or 52nd parallel in some of our provinces is truly defined as the northern half of our provinces.

I want to touch on the agricultural crisis that is growing and offer my perspective on this whole process. The throne speech was very remiss in not identifying the farm income crisis. The whole industrialization of the agricultural industry has taken its toll on the independent farmer. It is beyond many of the factors that have come into play. There are multinational interests.

There are four or five multinational companies that control the food and drug industry in the world. They are not in this debate. We have farm aid, which I just recently acknowledged. Country music is near and dear to many people in the country. Willie Nelson throws a major farm aid benefit in the U.S. The non-profit farm aid corporation identifies its concerns with the multinational interests in farming. They say that no matter how much money or how much aid the farmers get, unless the corporations ease up on the input and output costs of the farm, it is the same corporations controlling both ends. They basically have the farmers in the middle, in the crunch.

The whole issue of floods, droughts and the extreme conditions we are getting from climate change will have an impact on the agricultural industry for years to come. It is not only a short term problem, it will be a very long term issue.

In one of my local papers I was bold enough to raise the idea that maybe a royal commission should be commissioned to report on the family farm in order to protect it. Let us document 1999 and the year 2000. Let us show our children in documented form how the evolution of the farm came to be in Canada, where it should be going, what the factors are and who had their hands in the farm industry and economy.

Farmers only get mere cents. I understand that because in my riding there wild rice farmers, ranchers and trappers. I come from a generation of trappers and hunters. When the fur industry fell down nobody helped us. We had to look at ourselves and where we were going. The fur industry is still there.

The people just love living off the land. There is pride living off the land and being able to provide one's family with the food and shelter they need. A lot of our urbanized people who had lost touch with the land have regained a whole new connection with respect to the beauty of it.

My father still goes out on the land, as did my grandparents before that. That is the connectedness that we have to give our children for the future, as well. Let us not remove them and put them all in an urban centre.

The throne speech contains grand promises for children, health and the environment. We have the economy, diversity, technological change and all these exchanges being promised in the throne speech. The challenge now for Canadians is to push the government to make good on its promises. We have to make sure that the surpluses are spent right, that they are not going only into political strongholds or pockets. We have to make sure that all Canadians benefit.

I am here to bring a message, on behalf of the people in the constituency I represent, that we are in northern Canada. The people in Churchill River consider themselves as northerners. We cannot be brushed off as “those people from the west”. We are living in western Canada but we live in the northern region, in the northern climate of the country. It is a whole new and different economy with a new and different social community. When mining and timber industries make plans for one's backyard, it does have an effect on the north but does not affect the social or economic well-being in the country.

On behalf of our people, I beg for a change in the freshwater fish marketing industry that I spoke about earlier. The government is deregulating airlines, railroads, power utilities, telephone utilities and everything else.

We have a freshwater fish marketing that does not even allow our people to sell across the border. The people in the community of Pierceland, just a stone's throw away from the Alberta border, cannot even sell their pickerel to Cold Lake which is just across the border. They have to sell it all the way down in Winnipeg which is one big fishing plant. By then the fish is not fresh anymore. It is old, frozen fish by the time it leaves that plant.

Anyone wanting to buy fresh fish should come to the northern lakes and buy it right off our docks. We will fillet it, dry it, even smoke it and ship it. Maybe we can use e-commerce to make us economically viable as world traders. The deregulation of the freshwater fish industry has to happen. It is a far cry today from what it actually intended to be 30 years ago. I think a lot of northern fishers were blindsided by the promises of the federal government.

I congratulate the government for making bold promises, but we, as Canadians, are here to say that we have to go through with our promises, especially when we are dealing with the future of children. If it is a children's agenda, let us not sway from the promises being made. We will hold the government true to that.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask one straightforward question and then I will follow up with a second question.

I am interested in knowing what language the member started his speech off with because I was fascinated by it.

I commend the member on his speech. It is seldom that we see people get up in the House and speak from their hearts as this man obviously did. When we speak from the heart we put all our political stripes aside. We have to admire a person for being able to do that when we know that he truly means it and that it is not some canned speech that has been written for him by some other group. I appreciate that.

Let us get back to the throne speech and the title, “A Better Quality of Life”. The member may know that I spent some time in the Indian affairs department as one of the critics. My mission was going across the country and visiting as many reserves as I possibly could, which ended up being several hundred, and visiting with grassroots people. I did not visit with the elite. I did not visit with chiefs and council. I talked to people face to face and tried to see the problems from their point of view.

I will give the member one example of the reserve in my riding. It is in the most beautiful spot one could ever ask for in Alberta. It borders the grand Banff National Park. It is a huge reserve with a tremendous amount of agricultural land and many hills and trees. It has a river running through it and a huge lake where a lot of people gather for skiing, boating and things of that nature. Highway 1, a major interprovincial highway, runs through the reserve. Approximately 10 million people drive through this reserve on an annual basis as they head for Banff National Park.

However, on this reserve the unemployment rate is 90%. The debt load is huge. Approximately 16% of children who start their education complete it by grade 12. Most of them are in schools outside of the reserve. Poverty is at its greatest. In the member's view, what kind of quality of life does the throne speech promise for the people who are suffering on many of these reserves?

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my first language is Cree. I was raised speaking Cree and I had to go to school to learn English. I am a very fortunate person to have that language. It is a gift from the Creator. In order to speak from the heart, as I did in my speech today, I had to open with my language. That is how I opened the door to share that with the House.

The member highlighted one reserve in his question and wanted to know what the throne speech had to offer. The throne speech aside, the relationship between aboriginal communities, mine included, and the rest of Canada is a major challenge that started 500 years ago. The challenge is whether we can live with each other's laws.

I say each other because we have grown accustomed to and have lived under the British North America Act and the laws that came through Britain and this House for all of Canada. However, can Canadians who came to this continent live with the aboriginal laws and policies? That is where the empowerment is.

Aboriginal people could see that giving up a way of life and allowing other people to live on their land was a major investment. However, if those people can build their houses, build their roads, teach their children, preserve their language and make their people healthy, then they will feel a sense of pride that will take them and ignite them and keep the cycle of life going.

It is not a linear journey; it is a cycle. We only serve one cycle. So when aboriginal people are given an opportunity to prove to their community that they can achieve something in a respectful way, that is the investment that will take us into the next generations.

With respect to the throne speech, I said that I would not get political in my speech, so I cannot slam anybody for not having anything in there. What we have to do in the relationships we have in the new millennium, among our communities, is to live with each other and respect each other's laws and ways of life. That will take us forever.

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Madam Speaker, like my Reform colleague, I would like to thank the member for Churchill River for opening the door to the discussion of the diversity of this country, which is the strength of our country.

Unfortunately the Liberal government tends to govern from the point of view of urban Canada. That creates a lot of problems. One of the existing rural problems is the farm crisis in western Canada. It is very difficult to convince the people who live in urban surroundings that the problem is real. It is much like the situation faced by constituents of Churchill River, who live in the northern part of Saskatchewan, which is different from the southern, rural, agricultural based economy. We can see why there are so many difficulties encountered, certainly in the House, in getting the message through to the government.

It is much like the problems of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board, which exists in my constituency. Not only is my riding agricultural, but because we have freshwater lakes we also have fishermen. The problems of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board in determining where fish can be sold can be compared to the farmers who face restrictions and penalties under the Canadian Wheat Board.

We have a lot of problems. If we are really going to look at a new way of governing the people of this country we have to look at new vehicles and measures.

Does the member have any ideas on how we can get rid of institutions like the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board and the Canadian Wheat Board, or at least make them more flexible so they meet the needs of the people they are supposed to serve?

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I had an opportunity to travel through the city of Dauphin. It was the first time I realized that it was in the interlake area.

I dare not compare the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board to the Canadian Wheat Board. Freshwater fish have to be fresh. We cannot wait for fish to go to market. Wheat and other grains can wait. We see silos and holding elevators all over the prairie provinces. These containers can hold their grains for months on end, but we cannot hold fish. It has to be fresh.

The most delicate fish is pickerel. It is the best fish to be eaten, right out of the lake, into the frying pan. If we buy it in markets it is drowned fish. My uncle, who is a professional fisherman, tells us that.

Fresh fish is not governed by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board. That is frozen fish. It is like McCain's fish and chips in the store. That is not the nutritional fish that comes from our lakes.

We cannot compare the Canadian Wheat Board to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board. That is all I can say. There is no comparison. The federal control that the hon. member was referring to is a whole different thing. When we talk about freshwater fish, let us keep it fresh. Let us sell it as directly as we can to the markets. Let us bring the processing plants back to those little communities. The processing jobs, the jobs of the people who fileted the fish, who gutted the fish in our little plants, all went to Transcona. It is a sad fact. There could have been one or two jobs in Williston Lake, which has a community of 200 people.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is truly an honour for me to speak today on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. Before I begin, however, I would like to give a bit of an explanation of the context of the aspect of the speech on which I am going to concentrate: the chairs of excellence.

In my riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine there is a university. It is the Loyola Campus of Concordia University. On the Island of Montreal we have four major universities.

There is the Université de Montréal, McGill, the two campuses of Concordia, and the Université du Québec à Montréal. I have had the honour and the privilege of studying at three of these: Concordia, McGill and UQAM.

So, when the representatives of the universities came to see me after the 1997 election to tell me of their need for more money for the research councils, funding for innovation, for infrastructure, and for the researchers themselves, I was very pleased to be able to support their approaches to the government for this funding.

As we all know, in previous budgets the Canadian government announced the creation of the Canadian Foundation for Innovation with a $1 billion endowment fund. The foundation was to create the physical infrastructure which the universities, institutes of research and the councils require. However, we need the people. We need the researchers.

We have been hearing a lot about the brain drain. One thing is clear. There has been a certain amount of brain drain in terms of our qualified researchers and our young graduates who, because of the lack of opportunities here, have been lured away to universities in the United States and elsewhere to undertake important research activities.

It was a great pleasure for me to learn that our government, through its throne speech, took on the challenge. By doing so it has started a bold venture that will be one of the cornerstones of our effort as a government to ensure that Canada is the place to be, the place to live, the place that people want to come to and the place where people want to stay in the third millennium to take full advantage of the knowledge based society and economy of the 21st century.

What is that bold venture? That bold venture is the creation of the 21st century chairs for research excellence. The government announced in its throne speech that through the research granting councils, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, it will be funding the creation of 1,200 new 21st century chairs for research excellence in Canadian universities over the next three years.

That is a major investment. We can be assured that our Canadian universities have received the information on this new project with great joy and happiness.

We will be investing in the first year $60 million, in the second year $120 million and in the third year and every subsequent year $180 million.

One of the objectives is not simply to rest on our laurels with 1,200 chairs, it is ultimately to bring that number up to 2,000 chairs of research excellence in the third millennium.

What are these chairs of excellence going to do? They are going to be two tiered. One will be to attract our established star researchers who already have a proven record in their field of conducting leading research endeavours. The second tier will be to attract our rising stars. We have been losing on both fronts over the last years. Everyone knows that the government in its fight to eliminate the deficit had to reduce funding to the research councils. That obviously had a boomerang effect. It meant that there was less money for researchers. Therefore, researchers who wanted to continue conducting their work in some cases had to look elsewhere.

By creating these 1,200 chairs of research excellence, and hopefully bringing them up to 2,000, we will be able to keep our proven star researchers and attract the rising stars. All Canadian universities will be able to participate.

To receive funding the universities will submit proposals to a competitive peer review process which will be administered by the three granting councils.

This program sends a strong message, a strong signal that Canada is the place to be for research and development in the third millennium, that Canada is serious about fostering and nurturing a healthy research environment in Canada and that we are serious about nurturing and fostering a strong economy through knowledge and innovation.

This is what we call added value. The Canadian Foundation for Innovation, the expansion of the networks of centres of excellence and the development of the Canadian institutes of health research that the hon. member for Peterborough spoke about at great length are the cornerstones that will ensure that Canada will be the place to be for research and innovation in the third millennium. Our renewed and increased funding to the granting councils is the added value, along with the 21st century chairs of research excellence.

I am not an innovative person, so I have a difficult time imagining what else we can do. However, I am sure that with all of the bright minds in the House we will get many suggestions on what we can do to ensure that we are the place to be.

By creating these 1,200 chairs of research excellence we will have the best people doing research in Canada, which will create our next generation of the world's best. The world's best will be here in Canada. Our young researchers will seek out the top opportunities for work and they will choose Canada, both our young researchers in Canada as well as those from elsewhere. Graduate students will be looking for leaders, proven stars in research, to assist them in their research projects. Because there will be the first tier for the star researchers with a proven track record, they will want to come to our Canadian universities to complete their graduate and post-graduate studies.

The program for the 21st century chairs for research excellence builds on the comprehensive strategy to boost innovation that this Liberal government has been implementing over the last three years. As I mentioned, that includes a $1 billion endowment for the Canada foundation for innovation, the expansion of the networks of centres of excellence, the Canadian institutes for health research with $500 million over three years and the renewal of funding to our granting councils.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member and some of her government colleagues have finally recognized the brain drain phenomenon. The number of people for instance going to the U.S. from Canada has grown from 17,000 to about 86,000 in I believe the last 12 years. It is very, very important. The fact is that Nortel is losing 300 to 400 software engineers per year to the U.S. This is very, very important.

The hon. member seems to believe with some level of 1970s Liberal economic naivete that all this can be solved with government intervention. This is despite the fact that most of the companies that are affected are pointing to the tax system as having a significant and deleterious impact on our ability to keep people here.

There are three areas that are raised most frequently by the high tech sector. The capital gains tax system is effectively twice as oppressive in Canada than in the U.S. That affects those in the high tech sector because of stock options. Also, our top marginal tax rate kicks in at $60,000 in Canada. The equivalent top marginal tax threshold in the U.S. does not occur until $420,000 Canadian.

I would suggest that some of those stars we are trying to keep are probably in that over $60,000 tax level, so it is very important that we address those issues. I look forward to the hon. member's comments.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Madam Speaker, I recognize that there has been some brain drain. I also recognize the problem in Canada that there are people who have skills and training, but because of the lack of a standardized recognition of licences and diplomas from province to province, Canadians have a hard time being mobile from province to province.

I will not dispute the figures the hon. member just mentioned. I have not looked at those figures so I cannot state whether or not they are accurate. Given that your party has recently suffered—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I must interrupt the hon. member and ask her to address her remarks through the Chair, please.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Madam Speaker, you are quite correct.

Given that the hon. member's party has recently suffered from its own brain drain with a member moving from the Progressive Conservative Party over to the Liberal Party of Canada, I will take that as an example of the hon. member having more personal experience about brain drain than I have.

The hon. member talks about the issue of higher taxes here in Canada as compared to the United States. Everybody knows that. Everybody knows that our personal income taxes are higher, approximately 10% I believe it is. He may correct me on that. However, it is also known that our payroll taxes are much lower than those of most of the countries in the G-7, including the United States if I am not mistaken. I may be corrected if I am mistaken.

It has already been announced. The Minister of Finance already discussed the economic outlook for the next couple of years. I believe it is clear there will be a lessening of the personal income tax burden. There already has been.

Over the last couple of years $16 billion has been cut from personal income taxes. That is where the 10% comes in. It has come out to approximately 10% lower income taxes paid by the average Canadian. There has been a steady decrease in personal income taxes.

In the last budget we removed the 3% surtax which the Progressive Conservative Party established when it formed the government. That in itself is a major impact. We will be reducing taxes. However, we will not do anything which will put into peril the health of our economy and put us back into a deficit position.