Debates of Feb. 1st, 2001

Speech From The Throne

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I hope the member from the Toronto area remains in his seat so we can continue the debate. We came into the House together in 1988 and share a lot of institutional memory.

Before I get into my remarks, Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your appointment to the chair. You are a great addition to the House and we welcome your presence.

I want to thank my constituents of New Brunswick Southwest as well for allowing me to represent them in the House of Commons. It is an honour and a privilege to do so. Like all of us, our commitment is to do our very best on the floor of the House. Hopefully I can do that today.

I thank my family, particularly my wife. As all members know, this business is tougher on families than it is on the members. There is no question that without them we could not be here. I want to thank my wife and my family for the sacrifices they have made.

In terms of throne speeches, there is nothing new in this one. Regardless of who forms the government, it is usually big on platitudes. The reality is we will have to see how committed the government is to carrying out some of what it has mentioned in the throne speech.

One of the things I want to focus on is the lack of consistency between red book one and two, and maybe to be determined red book three, in terms of what was promised and what was delivered. There was a wide gap there. Hopefully that gap will be closed in this next parliament with some co-operation from the government and members on this side of the House.

Let me remind the House that the election was called somewhat early. In fact, in a seven year period we had three elections. There was just a little over three and a half years between the 1997 election and the election last fall. I do not think there is any question that the Prime Minister was very calculating in terms of when that election was called. Giving him credit, he was smart enough to realize that the time was right and if he called an election when he did, he would most likely win it. In politics that is important. Winning is what it is all about in forming a government. Obviously, the Prime Minister's call was the right one in terms of winning office.

As our leader mentioned last night in his remarks to the Speech from the Throne, it is as much our fault as the government's fault. The government, to a degree without being too negative, did win the election by default. In a sense, there was not a strong enough alternative on this side of the House on which Canadians were comfortable enough to put their votes.

Luckily, some of us came over here and were elected to the House, hopefully to hold the government's feet to the fire in terms of what it said it will do and what we hope it will do. Sadly, Canadians could not see enough strength in one particular party to allow it to form the government. I hate to use this word because it sounds a little negative, but we are stuck with what we have. It is our job to try to make it a little bit better.

Let us go through some of the important issues that have been left simmering on the back burner by the government.

I was just reminded by the member from Nova Scotia, Madam Speaker, that I am splitting my time. I am sure I am going to get the big hook from the gentleman behind if I do not mention that. I think he is concerned because I am starting to ramble.

A number of issues were left over from the past election and I want to remind us of some of those. The immigration bill went through the process three times. In three elections an immigration bill was promised but nothing happened. It died on the order paper.

The species at risk legislation again died on the order paper and nothing happened. That was introduced three times but was never passed by the House.

The same thing occurred with the youth justice bill. It was a hotly debated issue in the last parliament and in the 1997 election, but again nothing happened. We are waiting for that legislation to come back. The financial services act died on the order paper. They are all very important.

There is the overhaul of the Employment Insurance Act. It died on the order paper just a few hours or days before the election was called. It was really important for those people who represented parts of the country that are not as blessed with a strong economy. We would like to see that introduced. I am told that it is going to be tabled in the House on Friday and we will be debating that very quickly. I hope the government is willing to listen and learn from its mistakes in how it handles people who are not as fortunate as we are in terms of employment opportunities and training. We are looking forward to that.

The government also, as was mentioned by the member from Winnipeg today, mishandled the rapid cost of home heating fuel and the rebate program that it introduced. It is doing it through the GST tax credit system. Obviously there are problems with that, Madam Speaker, because you or I could in fact receive the tax credit, but the ones who are actually paying the fuel bill cannot. It has created a real problem. It is neighbour against neighbour, family member against family member as to who is getting the credit and who is not. I do not think it was well thought out. It was well intentioned but it was brought in hastily without a lot of thought and without a lot of debate. It is one of those issues that could have come to the floor of the House of Commons and maybe some of the hitches and glitches could have been sorted out.

Again, we will be facing the native fishing issue in Atlantic Canada, which was a huge issue. In the last couple of years there has been no leadership on the part of the fisheries minister. Hopefully the minister responsible for the native issues in Canada along with the fisheries minister can do something to resolve that issue.

The old gun registration issue is an example of the government pitting rural Canada against urban Canada. It is an another issue that will rear its ugly head in the House.

This morning I spoke to a member from Prince Edward Island, which is going through a crisis in what we call the potato war. It is an issue that has been devastating to the potato farmers in Prince Edward Island. It is reminiscent of the potato virus of the 1990s that affected New Brunswick. We are learning that no matter when a community gets into trouble or a commodity resurrects its ugly head in the country, we are all affected. None of us take any joy in that.

Although I represent a good part of the potato belt in New Brunswick, there will be negative affects on us because of that. It is simply because of some very strong heavy-handed practices by the United States in an attempt to keep our product out. It will come up with any issue at any time if it fits its needs. It does not want to play by rules set down by international trade or in trade agreements. When it is in its best interest to put the wood to us it will sometimes do it.

That leads me into what might be happening in regard to the United States. There is no question that its economy is in difficulty. That is going to spill over into Canada. It already has. How bad will it get and how will the government respond? Hopefully it will and some of the debates on what we can do to cushion the blow or make it better for Canadians will come to the floor of the House of Commons.

Our leader spoke last night of the spirit of co-operation for the reform of parliament. It should not always be adversarial in terms of what we can do as individual members of parliament to work together to solve problems.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Madam Speaker, congratulations to you on your appointment to the chair. I am absolutely confident that you will do a great job.

I have a comment that arises from the hon. member's remarks relating to the federal government's fuel rebate program. First, the government should be applauded for moving quickly to come forward with a program that will cost $1.4 billion. There will be rebates going to over eight million Canadians.

However, there is no doubt that there have been complaints coming in. Perhaps the program is not as perfect as it could be. One of the problems we hear has to do with people who were not eligible for the GST rebate in the last tax year but certain things have happened since. Some people are telling me that they have gone through a separation, or lost their job or have a reduced income for some reason. However, at this point they are not eligible for the GST rebate, therefore they do not get the fuel rebate. That is a problem.

I spoke to the finance minister and he is sensitive to this. I know the government is looking at the issue. Perhaps there is a way to make the program better. There is pain out there and I just hope the government can fine tune the fuel rebate program.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I will take the member's comments in the generosity in which they were given. I agree that the rebate was good. What I am saying is that it could probably have been fine tuned. However, we do not hesitate to congratulate the government on what it is doing. It is unfortunate that those types of difficulties are out there.

I wanted to make a point with regard to disparity in the country and the inability of some Canadians to pay their heating bills because of unemployment, the rising cost of fuel or living on fixed income. It is interesting that the member for Fredericton, my neighbouring community, is talking about the federal government making a promise two years ago to lift the cap on equalization payments.

He said in yesterday's Saint John Telegraph Journal that the promise to lift equalization payments came after the ceiling on the Canada health and social transfer was removed but argued that generally benefits the wealthier provinces with its per capita formula for distributing federal funds.

He said he had no trouble telling us that Atlantic MPs will be working on the interests of Atlantic Canadians. That means acting on a political commitment that was made with the specific intention of bringing more equity to the country. He said there were provinces in one part of Canada struggling to maintain health services and provinces in other parts of the country that were rebating its citizens with their good fortune.

I do not have to identify those provinces. We all know them. That is the disparity that I am talking about within Canada. The federal government needs to recognize that those provinces need help to maintain the services we have come to expect as Canadians.

What it boils down to is a bigger, broader sense of a generous Canada. We are hoping that the finance minister will act on that. I fully support the member for Fredericton in his comments and his commitment to see that promise fulfilled. We are hoping that the finance minister will do that.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment to the chair. It is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. While I am on my feet I would like to take a moment to thank the citizens and constituents of the riding of South Shore for putting their trust in me to represent them in the Parliament of Canada.

The throne speech provides an excellent opportunity for the government of the day to set out its vision for Canada and the steps it will take to achieve its objectives. We did not hear much from the government. It does not live up to the ideal of a government that has a vision for the 21st century. We heard the same story in its last throne speech. There were no changes, no bold new ideas or initiatives.

In his reply yesterday, the hon. member for Calgary Centre observed that the Speech from the Throne had little information or depth, denoting the government's lack of plans for the country. There was little discussion of issues of importance such as the need for parliamentary reform or financial direction in the form of a budget. Instead there were no new ideas put forth, simply regurgitation of previous issues that were not given the priority they deserved, or they would have been passed in the previous parliament.

The member for Calgary Centre was clear about the need for a reform of parliament and the need for the issue to be discussed and debated on the floor of the House. If there has ever been a time when we needed parliamentary reform, it is obviously now.

I am wearing a copper pin made from the copper roofing that came off the roofs of the parliament buildings when they were replaced.

As every person in the House realizes, the Parliament Buildings burnt down in 1916 and were rebuilt in 1922. The copper was actually replaced in the roof because in one instance the library was leaking and was contaminating some of the books in the basement. What the government chose to do at that time was to replace the roof and keep up the infrastructure of the building.

Sadly, that has been the caretaker attitude of the government. It is willing to fix the roof to keep it from leaking, and it is willing to keep up the basic maintenance of infrastructure and the physical structure but it is not willing to do anything about the nuts and bolts of parliament. It is also not willing to do anything about the job that we are elected to do here, which is to govern the country and bring about responsible and reasonable reform when it is required.

There have been changes and chances to modernize the system. The government recognized that by fixing the roof. However, why is the government waiting before it makes similar changes to replace, restore and change outdated parliamentary procedures? It is not rocket science.

There are issues that should have been discussed and debated in the throne speech. I would like to raise an issue that the member for Toronto—Danforth raised regarding food security. He spoke as an urban member and I certainly appreciate that. However, I would like to return a question to the member as a rural member of parliament and as a member of parliament who has some knowledge and some understanding of what goes on in rural Canada and the need for the government, and hopefully the member for Toronto—Danforth, to pursue initiatives that can help rural Canadians live on a par with urban Canadians.

The member spoke specifically about the need for safe food and safe water. I do not think there is any member of parliament who would disagree with that. I wonder if the urban member of parliament for Toronto—Danforth really understands what he is talking about.

If we are going to have safe food and safe water then the government has to stop downloading the costs on to the people who produce safe food and who we quite often depend upon to enforce regulations and put safeguards in place to protect our water supplies. I am talking about the farmers.

For years this government has continued to download the costs of running the Canada Food Inspection Agency on to the people who produce the food instead of downloading those costs on to the people who consume the food. If we want safe food and safe water then all Canadians have to pay for it, not just the farmers who grow the food. This is a much larger issue than that.

The hon. member went on to talk about the fiasco and the lack of action that the government has taken on the potato wart in P.E.I., which my hon. colleague from New Brunswick spoke about earlier. We have neighbours to the south who for years have used phytosanitary trade restrictions as a non-tariff trade barrier. The government should not be surprised by that. It has been several weeks since the potato wart was discovered in P.E.I. and there has been no plan of action from the government of the day.

It is totally unacceptable that seven or eight weeks after potato wart was found in P.E.I. that there is no plan in place. There is a vague promise that the government is going to do something. The member for Malpeque was quoted in the paper as saying that the government was going to do something. However, that is not good enough. That is absolutely intolerable.

There is nothing in the throne speech about fisheries. The same government was willing to give $500 million to integrate first nations into the fishery and has done nothing to ensure that integration takes place. The government is willing to spend $500 million on an issue and not follow it up. It is never going to be looked at again. The book will never be opened. It will be set down on a desk and the page will never be turned again.

We cannot continue to govern the country in such a manner. We need a long term commitment to our fisheries, to fisheries training and to stock replenishment.

There is absolutely nothing on the government's agenda except that it gave a bit of money, I believe it was $12 million, to the wild salmon in the inner Bay of Fundy. That is not good enough. We have recently realized through new DNA testing that the inner Bay of Fundy salmon stocks are one of three distinct salmon species in the world. We have the B.C. stock; the North Atlantic stock, which is most of Canada and Europe; and the inner Bay of Fundy stock, a separate species of salmon.

Gratitude and platitude from the government are not enough to save this endangered species. It is not enough to save the fisheries or to help agriculture or to begin to understand the diverse issues affecting ordinary Canadians.

I will return for a moment to some very important resource sector issues. The Americans continually and at every opportunity use the phytosanitary certificate as a non-tariff trade barrier. It is something we are used to. Those of us in the agriculture sector and in the forestry sector are used to that. We expect it, plan for it and lobby against it, but the government has turned a deaf ear to our cry.

Members of the government do not seem to understand the importance of our agriculture sector. They certainly have no comprehension whatsoever of the importance of our forestry sector.

Last week, the premier of Yukon, Pat Duncan, was in Ottawa lobbying the federal government on a serious issue that is arising in Alaska. It looks as if the new president in the U.S. and his new interior secretary are willing to open up the national Arctic wildlife refuge in Alaska to oil drilling.

If the U.S. builds a pipeline to that refuge, it will cut off the migration of the porcupine caribou herd which migrates from Alaska to Canada and from Canada to Alaska. The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth said he was willing to discuss important issues of the day with the Prime Minister. That is an issue he should be discussing with the Prime Minister, to get it on the agenda when the Prime Minister meets with the American president next week.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member just told us that the government had patched up leaks and that it was better at patching up leaks than at repairing structures.

I would like to know if he agrees with me that not only does the government not repair structures, it tries to break them.

One simply has to look at the inaugural speech to see how, rather than dealing with issues that come under its own jurisdiction, this government is constantly trying to break up existing structures and to create trouble by infringing on provincial jurisdictions, including those of Quebec.

I would like to know if the hon. member agrees with me.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the new member of parliament for his question and certainly welcome him to the House. I appreciate the question, although I am not the expert on all issues that occur between the federal government and the provinces.

There are many issues for which we have striven as a party and have raised in this place. The government can work in conjunction with the provinces, whether it be the province of Quebec, Nova Scotia or Alberta. The government tends not to do that. It tends to go off on its own tangents, to have its own agenda and to satisfy its own agenda of simply getting re-elected. It is not anything about what is good for Canada or the provinces.

If the government really wanted to do something for the province of Quebec or the provinces of western Canada or eastern Canada, all it would have to do is to work in a concentrated effort to strike down interprovincial trade barriers which affect business and opportunities in Quebec and eastern Canada.

I would personally like to see as a member of parliament the government taking a more proactive, responsible and reasonable attitude toward all the provinces and working in conjunction with them for the betterment of all.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, the previous speaker outlined a whole host of shortcomings in the Speech from the Throne. Would he agree with me that one of the most horrendous oversights in the Speech from the Throne is the complete omission or the lack of any comment whatsoever on one of the most pressing issues facing Canadians: the spiralling cost of home heating fuel, gasoline, diesel fuel and the completely unregulated way the free market seems to be gouging Canadian consumers in this regard?

We have had phone calls from northern Manitoba where people are now paying more to heat their homes than they pay for their mortgage, at $900 and $1,000 a month. In the province of Alberta where they completely deregulated natural gas supply, the price of natural gas is going up 125%.

There has been absolutely no comment from the federal government on how it might intervene to bring some sense of order to the whole distribution and production of this precious natural resource. Would the hon. member like to comment on that glaring oversight in the Speech from the Throne?

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, without question the increasing cost in energy is spiralling out of control. Again we see a government that is not willing to deal with the issue.

The hon. member mentioned specifically home heating fuel. I do not know of a single issue, beyond a year ago when the federal government was somehow thinking it would put money into professional hockey, where I received as many phone calls on a single government initiative. We are looking at a government initiative that I think was meant to help Canadians but like most projects the government supports, it was not thought through.

The government said it would give people who receive the GST rebate a $125 fuel rebate. It did not take into consideration students in university who do not pay for fuel. It did not take into consideration widows who live alone, have a home to heat and get $125 and a couple living next door who gets $250.

It is just patently unfair. It did not take into consideration that the cost of natural gas in Manitoba has gone up by slightly more than one-third. It did not take into consideration the advice we gave the government prior to the election on the price of gas.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg South Centre. I congratulate you on your appointment to the chair. It will be a very interesting experience for you. I also congratulate the new Speaker on his election.

I will focus in on one particular part of the Speech from the Throne, the second paragraph on page 5. I want to take a look at one part of the sentence which states that the Government of Canada will help Canada's agricultural sector move beyond crisis management.

I was very happy to hear that, because that is the tool box. I have been watching with interest the Prime Minister. I heard about some of the tools yesterday and the fact that he will be aggressively going after the new President of the United States to get subsidies reduced.

Before I go into the harm of subsidies on the family farm across Canada, I would like people to understand and my urban colleagues to listen because I believe we are talking about the issue of food sovereignty. We have other sovereignty issues within Canada, but the most important one that we have to look at is food sovereignty.

The average age of a farmer in Canada today is 57. Members of the next generation coming up behind take a look at how hard it is to make a living on a farm today and ask why the heck they would want to do that. They are taking a look at other occupations and other vocations that they will educate themselves for to make a living.

My first question would be who will replace us. I am a farmer and I am 50. I am just below the average, but who will replace us? Who will grow the food for the next generation?

On February 6, average Canadians will have made enough money to pay their grocery bill for the year. Thirty-seven days into the year and average Canadians have made enough money to pay their grocery bill.

What is the farmer's component of that when he has paid for everything that he has done? On January 9, nine days into the year, and he has been paid for all his work.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

That is a shame.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

I hear the comment from the other side. I agree it is a shame. Farmers today work hard and deserve a fair return for their product. The biggest problem that I see right now within the farming sector is that farmers have become price takers. They are told what they will get for their product, whether it is fair or not, and that is it.

The international subsidy war we are into right now is about as bad as what it was in 1984. It has to be rectified or we will lose a base industry called agriculture. The agri-food industry is second only to our automotive industry.

My colleagues and I are working hard to make sure that does not happen. There is a clock ticking right now and it is called spring planting. We have 60 to 90 days. At that point in time a challenge will face the government, members of the House and those on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Standing Committee on Finance because there will have to be money for this. How do we help farmers get the seeds in the ground when they have to be planted? That is the question.

I am a member of parliament from Ontario and I am still an active farmer. Each year I hold an agriculture round table at the OAC in Guelph. It was held on January 17 of this year, at which point in time we discussed a number of initiatives. We discussed research and development in Ontario and Canada. Twenty-four commodity groups representing the agricultural industry in Ontario and six members of parliament were sitting on a panel listening to their problems and discussing the solutions. We affectionately call the exercise a brick and a bouquet meeting.

We do not have the press there. It is a kitchen table meeting with farmers sitting around the table, talking about agriculture and the problems facing it today. Yes, we come up with solutions to different problems. We discuss biotechnology, which is a major issue for our industry right now. A number of ideas and concerns came forward in that regard.

We discussed the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. We discussed the environment and the fact that farmers in Ontario think that the environmental farm plan is an excellent program that was put forward by CARD and should be continued instead of being cancelled on March 31, 2001.

If people have read the paper as to the environment issues facing agriculture, Walkerton for instance, the environmental farm plan sets a good basis for the agricultural industry to work from, to work on issues like nutrient management.

We also discussed at great length the farm income safety nets and agricultural trade issues. We looked at the fact that right now the federal government, through the Canada farm income program, is putting in $3.3 billion over the next three years. The provinces are also stepping up to the plate to the tune of $2.2 billion, making a total program expenditure over the next three years of $5.5 billion.

We discussed programs like NISA, crop insurance, fall cash advances and province specific companion programs like market revenue. We discussed the issue that Ontario producers will receive $3.3 billion in federal support for core safety net programs, which is an increase of 30% over the previous allotment.

We also discussed the issue of the WTO negotiations. We have a lot of concerns about subsidies because that is the biggest problem for the commodity prices right now. It is causing overproduction and downward pressure on commodity prices.

One of the issues that came out loud and clear last year during the 11 meetings held across Ontario with the grain and oilseed producers was the fact that after the cost of putting their seed in the ground, the escalating costs of diesel fuel, the cost of their time and the depreciation on equipment, there was nothing left over. They in fact said that they were in the red. They said that they could only keep that up for a certain amount of time before the bank would be at the front gate and it would be 1984 all over again.

As soon as the committees are up and running, those are the issues that we as a government have to look at immediately. I see it as a two pronged point. I go back to crisis management. We have a crisis that will happen this spring and, quite frankly, we need solution within the next 60 days to answer that crisis. We have to go a step past that to make sure that we have long term programs in place so we do not keep going from crisis to crisis within the agricultural sector.

The general consensus that came from the meeting in Guelph, after we had looked at all the programs that are in place, was that we do not need new programs. What we need are the programs, which are in place right now, to respond more quickly, to require less paperwork and to have more money incorporated in them in order to address the problems that the growers are facing right now. If that is done within the next 60 days or within this term, I believe we will be able to deal with and move beyond the crisis management in agriculture.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I too add my congratulations for your ascendancy to the big chair. I know that you will do a great job there.

I want to say to the hon. member who just spoke that it was a delight to hear from a member of parliament on the government side who actually has firsthand experience on the farm. I do not think that we as members of parliament should be restricted in giving our message to the government, depending on which party we are from, but it somehow gives added strength when a member from the government side can point out that there are some Liberals who actually understand the farm crisis.

In both the province and in my riding where I live there are many farmers who are in severe, immediate crisis. This is even more so in Saskatchewan and Manitoba than it is in Alberta. I have had quite a few discussions with these people.

Their long term solution is that they need to get enough income from the sale of their products so that their operating expenses can be met. That is the simple long term solution. However, there are farms that are going to be taken away immediately from families who have had them for 100 years in some cases.

As the member is probably aware, Alberta and Saskatchewan only became provinces in 1905. Some of those farms in my riding were occupied by members of the family even before Alberta became a province.

I talked to farmers who imminently are going to lose their farms to the banks. They are going to be out of business and out of the homes that they have occupied for many years.

I would like to ask the member. Notwithstanding the fact that there is a political component to everything we say here, just from a straight, practical point of view, what can be done immediately in order to save the distress that those families are going through at this time?

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Elk Island asked a very good question.

I have been on the standing committee on agriculture since I was first elected in 1993. I am very proud of the committee that I sit on because all parties work together. Partisan politics stay at the door when we go into that committee.

We are all farmers on the committee. We know agriculture inside and out. I believe that as soon as the committee is up and running we are going to put our voice to the minister as loudly and as immediately as we possibly can. This is a time clock that is ticking.

Whether we use a spring cash advance for instance is one thing. However, in my mind $20,000 in an interest free loan is not enough. However, it has to be more than that. That would be the first thing we could do to address this immediate problem of getting the seeds into the ground.

Obviously the next problem is going to be in the fall when the products are coming off the fields. We want to make sure there is something in place so farmers can break even and make some money. That is what we will be working toward.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, there is sort of a cruel joke going around the area that I live in. It is about the farmer who wins the 649 lottery and his friends ask him “What are you going to do with all that money?” He says “I am just going to keep farming until it is all gone”.

As the member pointed out, farmers are farming at a loss of as much as $80 per acre. Our caucus just met with a delegation of farmers who were on the Hill. They pointed out that 22,000 farmers left the farm last year alone in the three prairie provinces. That is an emergency.

The Minister of Industry dumbfounded most Canadians the other day when he tried to justify giving Bombardier billion dollar loans. He said it was an industry that we could not afford to lose.

My question is for the hon. member who represents that side of the House. Is the prairie agricultural industry not an industry that we cannot afford to lose, and just as important as the aerospace industry in Montreal?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed with enormous pride, great humility and some considerable nervousness that I rise to speak for the first time in the Chamber.

Let me offer you congratulations on assuming the role as a Speaker. It is indeed a pleasure to see you sitting there.

I also want to offer my congratulations to my colleagues, the mover and the seconder of the Speech from the Throne. They set a high standard of eloquence and commitment to the class of 2001.

I most especially want to thank the women and men of Winnipeg South Centre for the profound trust they have shown in sending me here. I also want to thank the many hundreds of volunteers who in four and a half weeks worked thousands of hour to ensure that a Liberal voice would continue to speak for Winnipeg South Centre.

I would be remiss if I did not say that for me family comes first. I want to publicly acknowledge the unequivocal love and support of my three daughters, Jessica, Elissa and Sarah for their support and understanding in this election campaign and many of the tasks that I have undertaken.

I am here today because the Hon. Lloyd Axworthy has chosen to leave politics and follow another path. Many of us wonder what political and public life in Manitoba will be like without him. Involved in our politics for almost 30 years, Lloyd Axworthy served us with great distinction, with a real pride in the community that sent him to serve them in the nation's capital. In Winnipeg and in Manitoba his landmarks are everywhere. Those of us who have worked with him will be true to his legacy by keeping alive his vision of public service.

Winnipeg South Centre is as diverse an urban community as one can find in the country. It is a riding of many faces: great wealth and privilege coupled with great poverty, many young people and students and many who have long passed three score and ten. There are many communities of recent immigrants and many whose families have lived there for several generations. There are large numbers of single parents and many young families throughout. There is a large urban aboriginal community in this riding.

It is, indeed, a community I know well having represented a large portion of it as a member of the board of trustees of the Winnipeg school division for the last 14 years. Much in the Speech from the Throne spoke to the concerns, the issues, the activities and the initiatives of the residents of Winnipeg South Centre and I would like to focus on just a few.

Members may be surprised to know that 25% of the children of Winnipeg South Centre live in poverty. Although child poverty exists throughout the community, there is a handful of places where it has reached epidemic levels. Winnipeg's inner city is unfortunately one of these places.

Furthermore, there are 50,000 people of aboriginal ancestry living in the city of Winnipeg, a large number of whom live in Winnipeg South Centre. In 1971 approximately 57% of Winnipeg's aboriginal households lived in poverty. In 1996 that number was 65%. Unfortunately it continues to grow.

The Speech from the Throne spoke directly to aboriginal people, from reducing the incidents of fetal alcohol syndrome, preventable diabetes and tuberculosis to meeting the basic needs of health, housing, work and education. It also spoke to strengthening their entrepreneurial spirit and business expertise.

My pledge based on my record to the people of Winnipeg South Centre was to ensure the safety and well-being of our children, to ensure them a solid future and to ensure that all children have the opportunity to be the best they can be. The Speech from the Throne has addressed this concern on many fronts. It refers to making sure that no child suffers from the debilitating effects of poverty.

The government has begun to tackle this ominous task by committing to increase the contribution to the groundbreaking national child benefit and by investing $2 billion in the early childhood development agreement. We heard the Prime Minister commit yesterday to a major focus on an investment timetable that will allow us to make real progress for children.

It is also reassuring to know that the government will take steps to ensure that laws protect our children from those who would prey on their vulnerability through Internet luring.

I am proud to be part of a government that recognizes that the real engine of growth is the human mind. Continued learning and skills training is a challenge facing all areas of the country. The establishment of registered individual learning accounts will make it easier for adult learners to finance their learning. Workers will be able to learn while they earn.

It is also important to the residents of Winnipeg South Centre to know that the government is committed to give colleges, universities and research hospitals a greater role in feeding the networks and clusters that will connect the brightest researchers with dynamic entrepreneurship.

Very important, financial responsibility and growth is reflected in the Speech from the Throne. The people of Winnipeg South Centre are looking to their government to continue to make Canada one of the most attractive places to invest and to do business. They look to our government to support innovation and to ensure that all Canadians benefit from technology.

I also know that many will applaud the increased commitment to both the CBC and the arts and heritage community.

Much is currently happening in Winnipeg South Centre. It is a vital, vibrant, dramatically diverse community where initiatives abound, be it the Little Red Spirit Head Start Program, the community justice program in West Broadway, the innovative health initiatives at the Riverview Health Centre, the Asper Jewish Community Centre or the Centro Caboto Centre.

At the risk of being parochial, I want to pay particular tribute to the community of the Winnipeg School Division. Not only does it provide quality education to young people, it has frequently, often without support from other jurisdictions of government, piloted or facilitated many programs that are finally now gaining recognition. These are primarily childhood interventions and assessments, culturally appropriate programs and curricula for aboriginal children, housing registries and family resource centres and policies and programs of inclusion.

It is indeed a remarkable institution often not acknowledged for the groundbreaking efforts on behalf of children and their families. It gives me great pleasure to do so here.

In closing, I want to say how proud I am, on behalf of my community, to be part of a government that believes in opportunity with a social conscience, inclusion for the strangers among us, justice and opportunity for our first nations and public generosity for those in need.

It is a government with an understanding of the importance of a strong foundation, a sound economy with incentives and opportunities and growth. It is a government that provides opportunity in a country where citizens will honour their responsibility to give something back to their communities. It is a government that recognizes that sound financial management is indeed a means to an end. It is a government that acknowledges that life is also lived in the spirit in our benevolence toward each other, in true respect for our differences and in the quality of our public service.

I am pleased and proud to be here on behalf of the citizens of Winnipeg South Centre.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to be the first to welcome the member for Winnipeg South Centre and to commend her on what was a very fine maiden speech. Many of the remarks I have no problem associating myself with. In fact, she almost sounded like an NDPer for a little bit there.

We actually share a border in that the riding of Winnipeg South Centre borders the riding of Winnipeg Centre. As such, we share a great number of issues and, frankly, a great number of social problems. The hon. member pointed out that an awful large percentage of children in her riding live below the poverty line. The figure for the riding of Winnipeg Centre is that 52% of all children live below the poverty line. It is a staggering statistic and a huge challenge for both of us.

I rise, though, to point out that the hon. member was a school trustee in the city of Winnipeg for many years. School division no. 1 has 92 buildings and schools within its boundaries. Surely one of the challenges the hon. member faced was how to heat and pay the operating costs of those schools.

Would she not agree that the government should play some role in regulating the skyrocketing costs of heating fuels, not only for homes but for institutions, for schools, hospitals, universities and all those other public institutions that are being crippled by their operating costs and debt loads?

Should the government not have said something in the Speech from the Throne about what to do in regard to the heating fuel crisis in this harsh northern climate?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, earlier today we heard the Minister of Finance speak to the issue of the rebates to low income residents for rising fuel costs. I am pleased that he is in a position to do that. It has come about through sound, wise fiscal management and I applaud his efforts.

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate you on your position as Chair. I am sure you will do a fine job.

As well, I congratulate the member for Winnipeg South Centre for her fine maiden speech.

The hon. member knows well that farmers in the prairies are hurting. In the last two years the number of farmers in Manitoba was reduced by up to 20%. If things do not change, we can probably anticipate another 16% of farmers leaving the land. Even the great city of Winnipeg relies on the agricultural economy, and I know that Ontario agriculture, which is about a $95 billion industry, is second only to the auto industry.

I notice that in the throne speech the government mentions agriculture, whether it is through using the words farm, farmers or farming, only three times. In fact, the speech indicated that we need to look past crisis management and go on to value added innovation. I agree with that, but unfortunately we are in a time of crisis and we need to manage the crisis before we can move on. If we do not deal with the immediate crisis, there will not be many farmers left to save.

This country needs a food policy, as one of the members indicated earlier this afternoon. It also needs a national agricultural policy. What will the member for Winnipeg South Centre do now that she is part of government to ensure that the farmers of Manitoba stay in business and do not end up in the city of Winnipeg looking for work?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I share the concerns the hon. member has about the farming community. I share the concerns for the farmers and I have concerns about the impact, as he well knows, on the city of Winnipeg.

I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister speak to it yesterday and to hear the comments in the throne speech on the issues related to the farming community, such as the commitment to work to provide a long term sustainable response to farming and not simply crisis management. I will be pleased to work as part of government and with the member, being a Manitoban, to ensure that the farmers of Manitoba have the opportunities that they and their families so deserve.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I extend congratulations to you on your appointment. I look forward to working with you in this 37th parliament.

I will start my speech by thanking the constituents in my riding who supported me in the recent election and sent me back for a third term. I do appreciate their endorsement and I look forward to serving them in the years ahead.

Having just come through the election, today I would like to talk about democratic empowerment in particular and about changes that I think are missing from the throne speech and would do much to improve the way this place does business and much to improve the lot of all members of parliament, both on the government backbench and here on the opposition side.

Recently I was on a trip to London, England, where I witnessed firsthand some of the reforms that are taking place in the mother parliament. It actually has a modernization committee, that is, a committee dedicated to modernizing parliament, the House of Lords, the electoral system and the role of backbench MPs by giving them more say and so on.

It was interesting for me to stand in that place where there has been democracy of a sort for probably 1,000 years. There in the mother parliament, in the old tradition bound area of a Westminster style parliament, active steps are being taken to bring parliament and the electoral system into the 21st century. That aggressive, positive way of setting about its business is what is going to make it succeed, rather the attitude the Liberal government seems to employ, which is an ad hoc attitude of hoping it works today and maybe we can get away with doing the minimum possible. What a difference.

While I was there I did find a quote of Winston Churchill's about Canada. He said:

That long (Canadian) frontier from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans, guarded only by neighbourly respect and honourable obligations, is an example to every country and a pattern for the future of the world.

His speech was given at the Canada Club in London, where he honoured R.B. Bennett with those words.

What of that message to the world, not only on our relationships with our American neighbours but on democracy in general? What kind of message are we sending to the world? Although we have much to be proud of, there are some things that have gone awry in our democratic process, especially here in parliament.

Time and again we hear from both sides of the House, and from the public generally, about the fact that too much power is concentrated in the Prime Minister's Office, the fact that too much discipline is exercised by parties in the House, the fact that there is not enough freedom for members of parliament to represent their constituencies and the fact that there is too much control by the whips of the voting process, such that there is not enough freedom for people to represent their constituents and the ideals that brought them to this place to begin with.

The Prime Minister argue that he allows free votes. I requested the Library of Parliament to do a research paper for me to find out how many free votes have been held on government legislation since he took office. It is a very short paper, because it says there have been no free votes on government legislation during his entire tenure. However, the Prime Minister has allowed free votes on private members' bills. In fact, I believe 19 actually passed. Unfortunately, 17 of the 19 just changed the names of riding boundaries. Those are the private members' bills. In other words, 2 out of all 400 bills that were debated in this place actually made it through the system and became law.

That is perhaps why we have quotes from Liberal backbenchers such as the one from the member from Broadview—Greenwood, who said that parliament does not work, that it is broken, that it is like a car motor that is working on two cylinders. Or there is the member for Sarnia—Lambton who, when talking about committees, said that the party whips come into the room and make it a complete sham. The member for Lac-Saint-Louis said that being in the backbench, they are typecast as if they are all stupid, that they are just supposed to be voting machines.

Others have noticed that this is happening. In a June 16 article in the Ottawa Citizen , David Law, a professor at the Royal Military College, when speaking at a conference, warned about the decay of our democratic institutions in Canada. He said:

If Canada de-democratizes (then) internationally there is the danger that the democratization process will slip and slide, with disastrous repercussions for regional and global security.

He thinks that our democracy here has an impact around the world and I believe it does. He went on to say that one of the factors eroding democracy in Canada is a broken party system with demoralized backbenchers.

We need to see change. One of the things we did bring forward is a 12 point plan that I believe has been described as a 12 point plan for those addicted to too much political power. It is a plan to democratize the House of Commons. It would allow more free votes, again to mirror what goes on in our mother parliament over in England. It would allow the Speaker to intervene if he or she thinks closure or time allocation is brought in either too frequently or too soon in the debate.

Part of it is about more committee power, with more power for members in their committees. They would have independence and could get a lot of work done. It would also allow for a true ethics commissioner, who would report directly to parliament. Again that is something that the Prime Minister promised in the first red book and has yet to deliver. It would allow for a new standing committee to review not only privacy but access and the new ethics commissioner, who should be reporting to parliament itself.

All these things can be done. In fact, I was a little surprised at the response. I received a very good reaction to these proposals. Even some of our friends in the media liked them, which was nice to see. The Globe and Mail said they were sensible proposals and long overdue. The National Post said they are 12 worthy reforms. The Vancouver Sun said they are simple and doable. Even the Calgary Herald said they are progressive points that would do much to bring back democracy.

I have never claimed they were perfect, but they are an intentional effort to modernize parliament and make it more effective. It is not ad hoc. It is not “I hope it works better, maybe next week, and if we put in electronic voting”, like the government says, “all our problems will be solved”. No, it is not that attitude.

We need to make a conscious effort to set out to modernize this place and give backbench MPs on both sides of the House more responsibility and more of a chance to represent their constituents.

The government had a chance in the throne speech. It promised something would happen. Everybody got their hopes up. This is what we got: we are going to study electronic voting, and there will be more money for committee researchers.

The Library of Parliament committee researchers in this place do a wonderful job. Everyone I have ever talked to in the House is amazed at the amount of work they do and at how much we depend on them. They do a great job. However, giving more money for committee research is not going to democratize the House. That is not going to change the House or set it on its ear or send a message to the world that changes are coming in Canada's parliamentary system.

It is a disappointment that the throne speech is so shallow and that so little is said about the need for democratic reform. In fact, the two little things that are mentioned, the electronic voting and the money for committee research, will do nothing to address the key concerns of members in this place.

I will be dividing my time with the whip of the official opposition, but in conclusion I would invite the Prime Minister to build a legacy for himself. A lot of people worry about what legacy they will leave. Sometimes budget problems come in or worldwide recessions come in and so on. There are the vagaries of the international marketplace. However, there is an opportunity here to build a legacy of a renewed and reinvigorated Parliament of Canada.

I invite the Prime Minister to let us set out to make the House work better. Let us consciously do it. Let us do what New Zealand did. It modernized not only parliament but the electoral system. Let us do like Australia did, which not only set out to modernize parliament, which it did, but also to modernize its senate. Let us set out like the United Kingdom did and say “Let us talk not only about how we can make this place work better but also about a new electoral system”. The United Kingdom has done it. Even though there is a majority government, it has commissioned an electoral commission to put together proposals to make the electoral system work better for all people in England.

I invite the Prime Minister to build a legacy, and not just on the steady as you go stuff. I invite the Prime Minister to step out a little. It will not hurt. It is surprising. I invite the Prime Minister to take the first steps and to first of all just say to himself that there is a problem. Let us strike a committee. Let us invite all members from all parties to be part of it.

Let us set out with a goal to modernize the House, to make it better for backbench MPs on both sides of the House. Let the legacy be that we built a better parliament with more productive members who are able to represent their constituents better and are able to enhance people's opinion of this place in the years to come.

What a legacy and what an opportunity for the Prime Minister to leave his stamp on the House for the coming century. I invite him to do it. I look forward to his input on that.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on assuming a very important role in making sure that the tenor of the House continues to be constructive.

I say to the opposition House leader that I have absolutely no problem with the member quoting my article from The Hill Times of some six months ago that we as members of parliament should be seized with the issue of parliamentary reform. Most members on the government side would appreciate the fact that opposition members acknowledge that within government, members can debate freely, openly and constructively.

I say to the House leader, who has spent a lot of time in England with our government House leader discussing things with him, that it is not constructive for the member not to acknowledge the fact that when the Prime Minister in his first press conference after the election was asked about the issue by the media, he issued what I term lately the Chrétien challenge. If members really want to show the leadership and the insight to reform the House then he would be there in a second.

He cited examples of his own backbench experience when he was an MP. I think he even bragged about how he changed Trans-Canada Airlines to Air Canada as a single member initiative.

The government dealt with this issue in the Speech from the Throne. The Prime Minister dealt with it in his speech yesterday in the House of Commons. I think if it is to work the tone will have to be constructive and not just the pointing of fingers.

I hope the House leader could try to build on the foundation a number of us have laid here in the last six months.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here a little while now but not as long as the hon. member. I do not think anything I said was particularly nasty to the government. I did not call it a power hungry nasty name of any kind. I did not get into any of that. I just said that there was a real desire for change; that there has not been enough change; and that it is time, as the hon. member says, to set out with a constructive effort to try to move it forward.

I brought forward my 12 proposals. They did not have a single word that said anything nasty about the government. The government House leader said that it was impossible, that the government could not do a single thing. I just said to the government House leader that it was interesting because most of the proposals came from the Liberal backbench. In other words, some of them came from the government House leader himself.

All I am saying is that when someone puts forward these ideas a signal is sent over there either from the Prime Minister or the government House leader. The signal is that they will not entertain very much of this junk. That is what they called it. They called it complete nonsense. They do not want to talk about it.

All I suggested was that when somebody puts forward proposals to make the place work better, a response saying that the proposals are interesting is not forthcoming. Why not refer them to a committee and perhaps in some way open up the committees to investigate some proposals? Of course it is not like that.

The government House leader said that he could not do it because it was unconstitutional. That is nonsense because the signal sent from the front bench by the Prime Minister was to show initiative but be careful because too much initiative is not good. It is called a career limiting move in the Liberal Party.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do believe that the government House leader, in response to the initiatives brought forward by my colleague, the Canadian Alliance House leader, said that it was dangerous to talk about parliamentary reform in the open. He said that it would be much better to do it behind closed doors. I was wondering if my colleague might comment on that perspective offered by the government House leader.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do think there are times when people sit down over a cup of coffee and kick around ideas. We would call those private meetings. Sometimes those are very productive. Those meetings go on around here and I do not think there is anything wrong with it. However, neither is there anything wrong, nor should there be, in taking what are sometimes difficult issues and having a public discussion about them.

I think we would all be well served, as would the Canadian people, if they just knew that the government was going to set out in the morning to accomplish the modernization of parliament. If they knew that alone, if that signal came from over there, the rest of it would follow in line.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the Address in Reply to the Throne Speech which opened the 37th parliament.

I would like to acknowledge the election of our new Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands. Myself and my party congratulate the Speaker and look forward to working with him and all members to make the 37th parliament a progressive and responsive sitting. I also congratulate the Deputy Speaker and the other deputies who were elected.

We may come here from different parts of the country, representing different parties and possessing distinct points of view, but we are all here to pass laws for the benefit of all Canadians in this the crucible of democracy. I am hopeful we will make this parliament more responsive to Canadians.

Having said that, it behooves me to say how disappointed I was with the government's blueprint for this session. While full of prose and poetry, the throne speech offered little in the way of rebuilding the trust of Canadians in this institution. I would have expected, given that MPs from all parties have expressed interest in reforming the operations of the House, that the government would have responded.

Regrettably, the government paid mere lip service and offered to look into electronic voting in the House and improving resources for the parliamentary library. As my colleagues have said, we all like those things. They are good ideas to look at. What I and many MPs, not just from the Canadian Alliance, are saying is that we expected major initiatives in parliamentary reform.

The status quo suits certain individuals who insist on vesting more power in the Prime Minister's office and within certain unelected individuals. It surely entrenches more top down power and further abuse of this institution, and diminishes the efficacy of elected MPs on how we represent those who sent us here.

Grassroots citizens and community groups feel that their opinions are not respected, nor are they heard. The throne speech further entrenches that feeling and ensures further excessive party discipline which stifles open discussion and debate.

Even the member for Toronto—Danforth has said that parliament does not work. One Liberal MP who sought your chair, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, said that being on the backbench, members are typecast as if they are all stupid. No member of parliament should ever have to say that. These two observations are not glowing endorsements about the way we do business in this place.

Liberal backbenchers are not alone in their admonishment. During the election campaign the Progressive Conservative Party election platform said that we must reassert the power of the individual MP to effectively represent the interests of their constituents and play a meaningful role in the development of public policy. Their plea certainly fell on deaf ears in the Prime Minister's office.

The NDP member for Winnipeg—Transcona has championed parliamentary reform longer than most. He said that strengthening the independence of the committees of the House can do the most to achieve a better balance between party discipline and the independence of individual MPs. I must inform the member for Winnipeg—Transcona that his voice also fell on deaf ears.

The Minister of Finance may get the Prime Minister's attention when it comes to the issue of leadership of the Liberal Party, but the minister has very little efficacy with the Prime Minister on the issue of parliamentary reform.

Allow me to elaborate by quoting the Minister of Finance. He said that they have been discussing the role of parliament and enshrining the values of the nation and its response to change, that it is an empty debate unless it recognizes the role of parliamentarians themselves, in our case, the 301 members of the current House of Commons. He also said that MPs must have the opportunity to truly represent both their conscience and their constituents.

It is little wonder that the Prime Minister bristles at the notion of being replaced by the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance at least understands those quotes we read from the four, five, six, ten, twenty Liberals who are frustrated by the way the House of Commons is working today.

It is tragic that at the outset of the 37th parliament, this watershed time, the government has missed a unique opportunity to implement key parliamentary reform changes and begin the new session in with a constructive spirit.

In early January the House Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition, on behalf of the official opposition, unveiled 12 proposals that would be a first step in rebuilding Canadians' trust in our parliament. What the opposition House leader was attempting to do was to put flesh on the bones on the issue of parliamentary reform and offer the government a document to consider and ultimately implement.

I recall the opposition House leader discussing the proposals with the government House leader in the afternoon on a CBC broadcast, Politics , following the unveiling of our proposals. The government House leader dismissed our proposals. It was not a good start. There was not a scintilla of receptivity by the government's guardian of the status quo in the House.

Even today in question period, we asked questions about change in a nice way. The government House leader came back with a smart aleck answer that we must know that committees are formed. Of course we know that committees are formed, we are part of doing that, but we also know that when we go to that committee, unless the Prime Minister and the government House leader advise their members that the committee should look at parliamentary reform and look at it in a free and open manner, it will never happen. I think the Canadian public is tired of these smart aleck answers, the know it all from the other side.

The government House leader is the one who made half the proposals that are in the proposal and yet he says that they cannot not work, that we would have to change the constitution. We all know how different it is when in opposition than when in government. Some of us on this side have been in government. We have been part of making change and we know that it works.

We know that the mother of parliaments in Great Britain has made changes. The majority of its votes are free votes. The whips only come on when it affects the government's ability to govern. That is the way it should be in this House so that members can speak freely, not only in the House but in committees.

Let me identify some of the proposals we are talking about. Our first proposal called for an official commitment by the House to conduct free votes. An official commitment by the House to conduct votes freely without jeopardizing our parliamentary traditions would strengthen members' resolve to represent the wishes of their constituents. This happens in Great Britain and in Australia but does not happening here.

Canada should be one of the most progressive countries. I agree with our House leader when he talks about the Prime Minister's legacy. We would all support him in building that legacy. We know that the opposition is a minority compared to the government, which has the majority of seats. It can kill free votes at any time, but why not sit down in a committee?

I heard the member for Vancouver Quadra on a local radio show after he was elected. I appreciated what he said about coming here and speaking his mind, voting the way he should for his constituents in British Columbia. I have been around politics for a long time now and it does not quite happen that way, but it should.

I hope the member for Vancouver Quadra will have some influence on the members of his party who are a very frustrated lot. Not all of them because some are in cabinet and they have it pretty nice. The parliamentary secretaries make a little more money, so they are happy. However, there are a lot of people on the back bench who would like to participate a little bit more, knowing they could go to committee and speak freely, vote freely and bring messages back to the House. That is happening in other parliamentary democracies in the world. The greatest system in the world is parliamentary democracy but we have taken too long. The McGrath report, a colleague of mine back to the seventies, came in long ago and some very positive changes were made.

The Prime Minister talks about change. The election of the Speaker was a change made in the House which was very positive. Needless to say, I think we might have had a different Speaker today if it had not been a totally free vote. It allows members to have a little power in the House and we all need a little more of that.

I hope in the next few years I have left in parliament we can make those changes. I would love to be able to say to my seven children and eight grandchildren, who are coming quicker than I can count these days, that I was part of making these modern changes in Canada so we could have a better country.

We all know democracy is there. We had a great election and the Liberals won. That is wonderful. Let us take this year to sit down in committee and try to make some positive changes for the good of Canada. If it is for the good of Canada, it will be good for the Liberals, the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc, the NDP and the Tories. If it is good for all of us, it is good for Canadians. We are as Canadian as anyone here, although the guys behind me are not too good at that. We are out to do what is good for Canada and we think more freedom and more access is good for Canadians.