Debates of Feb. 2nd, 2001

Speech From The Throne

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Halifax West commented on the issue of offshore gas, the distribution of that gas and the net benefit to his province and to other customers who may avail themselves of that resource.

It raises the whole thorny issue of the production and distribution of energy resources. I am sure Nova Scotia, with its Sable Island offshore resources, is starting to wrestle with the issue of who will be getting the net benefit from energy resources.

The province of Alberta has staked claim on absolute ownership of what is under its soil. Many Canadians actually feel that it is part of our common wealth, that energy resources are not theirs but ours, and that it is part of our birthright as Canadians to have access to it and share in the benefit that it offers Canada in terms of economic development possibilities, namely the revenue and the sales that it generates.

In order to address that, we need some real leadership from the federal government. Would the member agree that the federal government does have a role to play in trying to bring some semblance of order to the production and distribution of energy resources? Would he support the idea of a regulatory body set up by the federal government, an energy price commission, that would be charged with the responsibility of regulating the price, so that Canadians are not as furious about the seemingly arbitrary fluctuations in energy costs, home heating fuels and gasoline? Does he see a role for his Liberal government to intervene now and establish a regulatory body such as an energy price commission?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is familiar with the constitution and will be aware that this is an area that is the responsibility of the provinces not the federal government. It would be encroaching on provincial jurisdiction for the Government of Canada to create such a body.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Halifax West for a very good speech and one which I think all members of the House listened to intently because of the merits that were contained therein.

I want talk a little bit about the government's plans. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the cabinet and caucus are working toward a very good system of tax cuts that are starting to kick in right now. They will have an impact not only on ordinary Canadians but, in a macro sense, on the entire country.

I wonder if the hon. member for Halifax West can comment on the precise nature of the impact of those tax cuts. What will it mean for Canadians no matter where they live? What will the impact be on the country as a whole, especially as we move more and more into a globalized economy where the interconnectedness is very much in play? I would like to hear the hon. member's comments because I know he is a seasoned veteran and has great wisdom in this area.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his generous and kind words. The tax reductions committed to by the government will be of great benefit to our country. I heard a great deal about it during the election campaign in my riding of Halifax West. Many people in that area were concerned about the level of taxation and were anxious to see taxes lowered. They are very pleased to see that as of the first of this year tax cuts have already begun. These tax cuts will continue over the next five years and amount to a total of $100 billion. That will be a lot of dollars back in our pockets and it will help the economy.

Many Canadians are concerned right now as they watch the U.S. economy. The government is also concerned about the slowing of that economy and will watch it closely. However, it is important to note that our economy remains very strong and in good shape. The fact that we are having these tax cuts at this particular time will help to strengthen our economy and encourage people to spend, buy products and support the economy.

I think we will probably see interest rates come down some more over the next year. That will also boost the economy. I think we can expect a soft landing. There are many other factors, but I think we are near very good things with more good times ahead.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank my family for their engagement in my work, and the electors of Mount Royal for their renewed confidence and trust in me, and both for their espousal and support for the human rights agenda which will be the burden of my remarks today.

In the Speech from the Throne and in yesterday's address by the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister spoke of Canada's deep commitment to democracy and human rights. The Prime Minister mentioned that we have become a model for the world and that international involvement will be a main theme of this parliamentary mandate.

I will share with members a series of principles and policies which may underpin such a commitment.

First, combating hate speech, hate crime and hate movements. We are witnessing today a growing trafficking in hate from central Asia to central Europe and North America, reminding us that we have yet to learn the lessons and are repeating the strategies of 50 and 60 years ago. As the Supreme Court of Canada put it in upholding the constitutionality of anti-hate legislation, “The Holocaust did not begin in the gas chambers, it began with words”.

Fifty years later, this teaching of contempt and this demonizing of the other has led us down the road to genocide in the Balkans and Rwanda.

What is so necessary today is a culture of human rights as an antidote to a culture of hate, a culture of respect as an antidote to a culture of contempt, including in particular, respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, respect for the equal dignity of all persons, respect for the right of minorities to protection against group vilifying speech, respect for our international treaty obligations which remove incitement to hatred from the ambit of protected speech, recognition of the substantial harm caused to the targets of hate speech and hate crimes, be they individuals or groups, and respect for the underlying values of a free and democratic society.

Second, the communications revolution, the Internet as a transporter of the best and the worst. Television, radio and now the Internet, all have incredible power to move people to act. As with most technologies, there is power for good and potential for evil.

On the one hand, the Internet can be used for human rights education as a means of organizing human rights defenders, as a means of accessing human rights violations and mobilizing the international community to act. Urgent appeals and public campaigns can be received instantly and can prevent further abuses.

While the information highway can transport the best, it can also transport the worst. The ability of the Internet to reach out to people on a grand scale is what attracts not only the human rights defenders and civil society generally, but also the terrorist, the child molester, the hate group leader and the pornographer.

Hate on the Internet, particularly cyberhate, also seeks to target and recruit children. We have seen a proliferation of hate sites from just one in 1995 to over 2,500 today.

What we find now is that while technology races, the law lags. Once again the scientists are beating the lawyers. We need a strategy of cross-commitment, an imaginative use of legal remedy, education, anti-racist education, heightened awareness, media exposure and community advocacy.

Third is the combating of xenophobia and discrimination in the multicultural societies of the 21st century. Xenophobic, discriminatory and exclusionary attitudes and policies toward refugees, migrant workers, minorities, immigrants and les étrangers, the stranger generally speaking, characterize multicultural societies of the 21st century.

If a watershed issue in the 1980s was the right to emigrate, particularly for those behind the iron curtain, then a watershed issue as we begin the 21st century is the right to asylum and to protection against discrimination generally.

Fourth is the global struggle against torture. Torture, be it through rape, mutilation, beatings or any form of cruel and degrading mental or physical punishment, finds expression today in at least 150 countries, three-quarters of the world states, while children are tortured in at least 50 of those countries. People have died from torture alone in at least 80 countries in the past three years. The unconditional and absolute right to be free from torture, one of the most basic rights of all of the human rights, is under international assault.

Canada must become a leader in this crucial global struggle against torture. Working against torture should become a central piece of our foreign policy, a commitment we bring to all of our dealings with other states in the international community.

Fifth is the rights of children. The convention on the rights of the child was ratified more quickly by more countries than any other treaty in history. The international community recognized that children, the most vulnerable of the vulnerable, need to be protected from the violation of their rights.

In the last year alone, three international conferences were held on war affected children, culminating in Canada in the Winnipeg conference where 132 governments issued a resounding call to action on behalf of children affected by conflict.

The Speech from the Throne should be commended for its emphasis on the rights and needs of children. As my own daughter put it when speaking to me on human rights, “Daddy, if you want to know what the real test of human rights is, always ask yourself, at any time, in any situation, in any part of the world, if what is happening is good for children. That is the real test of human rights”.

Sixth is the rights of women. The genocide in World War II and the ethnic cleansing and genocides since have included horrific crimes against women. Moreover, these crimes have not only attended the killing fields or been in consequence of it, which would be bad enough, but now become in pursuit of it.

We are witnessing 50 and 60 years later once again violent crimes against women in armed conflict. The lessons of those days need to be relearned and acted upon. The struggle for international women's rights in all its expression must be a priority on our human rights agenda. The notion that women's rights are human rights and that there are no human rights without the rights of women must be not only a statement of principle but an instrument of policy.

As UNICEF recently reported that discrimination against women was an injustice greater than South Africa's apartheid. As the women's rights movement has put it, significant numbers of the world's population are routinely subject to torture, starvation, terrorism, humiliation, mutilation and even murder, simply because they are female.

Seventh is the plight of indigenous people. If we look at the Speech from the Throne we see its commitment to the question of the dignity and welfare of aboriginal people. What is needed here is a new cultural sensibility, a respect for difference, a politics and policy of inclusion, a recognition of aboriginal people's right to self-government, a recognition of their unique status by reason of their historic presence as first nations, a generous rather than a grudging or recriminatory respect for their aboriginal treaty rights and land rights, a radical improvement of economic and social conditions on reserves, a reform of the Canadian justice system to accommodate the distinctiveness and sensibilities of aboriginal culture, and the adoption of the draft UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples.

Eighth is the struggle against impunity. The 20th century has been characterized by crimes that have been too terrible to be believed but not too terrible to have happened.

It is also characterized by the impunity that has accompanied the commission of these atrocities. Establishing accountability is not only a moral imperative but a practical one. The adoption of the international criminal court in 1998 was a watershed in the fight against impunity and in the struggle for accountability in protecting the rule of law while deterring those responsible for the commission of the worst of atrocities, be it genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Accordingly the struggle against impunity requires that we recognize that states have an obligation to prosecute or extradite the most serious of international crimes. It requires that we invoke the full panoply of remedies at our disposal internationally and nationally to bring those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity to justice in Canada and elsewhere.

Canada should lead a campaign for the necessary ratifications to bring the international criminal court into being. We should continue to take the lead in engendering justice both at the international criminal tribunals for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and the prospective International Criminal Court. We should develop mechanisms for the protection of civilians in armed conflicts, refugee camps, security, and the integration of human rights into peacekeeping missions.

I will close with the reminders of my own constituents. We can best give expression to the struggle for human rights in the understanding that each one of us has an indispensable role to play in the individual struggle for human rights and human dignity.

Each one of us can and does make a difference. Human rights begins with each of us, in our homes, in our workplaces, in our human relations, in our daily capacity for active care and compassion. We are each, wherever we are, the guarantors of each other's destiny.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your new post. I would be remiss if I did not begin by congratulating the hon. member on his courageous stand with respect to Falun Gong. I know his work has saved the life of at least one individual and has brought the attention and attraction of the international community on this terrible situation.

The points that he articulates about human rights abuses, torture, the rights of children and conflict are well known. The amount of conflict taking place in the world today has been exploding over the last few years. The international community has been ill able to deal with this in a preventive fashion. I was very happy and encouraged to see in the throne speech an explicit reference to the prevention of deadly conflict.

Many of the things we have seen that the hon. member mentioned in his speech about abuses to children, torture, et cetera, are products of conflict in many cases, so I will confine my comments and questions to that.

Will the hon. member and his government look at international organizations and how we can prevent conflict? Will he advocate conditionality on World Bank activities in certain countries such as Tibet, Chad and Angola? Will he put pressure on companies in the international communities and countries to ensure that their resources will be applied to primary health and education instead of war efforts?

I cite the specific example of Angola. It receives a $3.5 billion infusion of capital every year from international organizations and companies while their people are living in abject poverty and are dying. One-third of the children in Angola die before the age of five.

Will he fight for conditionality in loans from the World Bank, in actions by the IMF, and in CIDA's activities internationally?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question goes to the heart of what a human rights foreign policy is all about.

I mentioned just yesterday the fact that China in the year 2000 has been the recipient of $1.67 billion in loan assistance from the World Bank. We need to review the policies of the World Bank, the IMF and international financial institutions to ensure that we are not licensing or rewarding human rights violations, be it in Angola, China or elsewhere.

With respect to the question of my involvement in these issues, my whole approach with regard to human rights foreign policy, including not only international financial institutions but corporate involvement, is that we cannot have a situation where corporations are themselves, however inadvertent, acquiescing in those violations.

We need more than just voluntary codes of conduct. We need to review whether we can regulate the character of our corporations when they are carrying out mandates that are effectively given to them by the Canadian government in the manner in which they relate to other countries.

I am referring to where the Export Development Corporation may be assisting corporations acting in countries that are committing the most egregious of human rights violations.

We will need to review our whole pattern of both corporate involvement as well as assistance by international financial institutions to human rights violator countries.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague in commending the member for Mount Royal. I think that he is a model member of this place in his passion, intellectual honesty and commitment to issues of conscience.

I should like to ask him two questions. First, will he join with me in encouraging the Prime Minister and ministers who will be travelling to China this month to raise as a top priority Canada's very grave concern about the continued atrocious human rights record of the People's Republic of China?

Will he join with me in raising concerns about the labour camps, not just the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners but minority Christians, Catholics, evangelical Protestants, Muslims and other religious minorities, and the people of Tibet?

My second question touches on what the member passionately said at the outset of his remarks in terms of the need for greater sensitivity about hate speech and hate crimes. Will he agree with me that it is very potent language, that it must be used with great care, and that we must use the most potent language in our rhetorical arsenal against those who are guilty of such crimes?

Will he therefore join with me in regretting the remarks during the recent campaign of his colleague from the riding of Thornhill? Although my party, according to the Globe and Mail , had the distinction of having the highest number of ethnic minority candidates of any party, the member for Thornhill ascribed to it the inclusion of many “bigots, racists and Holocaust deniers”.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the matter of human rights in China generally, I would refer the hon. member to my Standing Order 31 today. I identified a list of human rights violations in China in addition to the matter of the Falun Gong. I also recently identified 10 categories of human rights violations by China, which I take to be performance criteria by which we measure the character of China's standing in the international community.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the opening session of this new parliament and begin by thanking the constituents of Calgary Southeast for their renewed confidence in my representation here. I was honoured to receive an increased majority. I would also seek permission from the Chair to split the balance of my time with the member for Peace River. It is a particular honour to come back here with a larger majority.

I will address the balance of my remarks to the question of the lack of real economic vision presented in the throne speech. Economic and fiscal questions at a time of increasing economic uncertainty were unfortunately excluded from any serious discussion in Her Excellency's speech. That reflects a general attitude of carelessness from the government when it comes to the economic prospects we face.

I cannot help but note in the recent exchange I had with the honourable and esteemed member for Mount Royal that he failed to address my second question. I hope that at some point, when it is appropriate, he will do so.

This is not the right place for us to completely rehash the last election. However, issues and comments that are raised during an election campaign which are of profound importance to the tone and tenor of public discourse should be addressed.

I hope he will agree with me that it was very regrettable that a member of his caucus and a member of cabinet who continues to be supported by the Prime Minister engaged in the most foul, defamatory and scurrilous sort of remarks that are possible in public discourse.

At the outset of this parliament I for one want to put on the record how deeply hurt I and many of my colleagues were by those remarks made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I furthermore want to say that a substantive and not merely rhetorical commitment to human rights and civil rights such as that expressed by the member for Mount Royal is a tremendous thing and a great value to this place. However, members opposite would have greater credibility in addressing such issues if they were to identify the kind of language which frankly is hateful in itself and inflammatory.

I want to put on the record that I think the member for Thornhill stepped beyond the bounds of anything close to civil discourse and impugned herself as somebody who is willing to direct frankly hateful thoughts toward honourable, civil and tolerant members of this place and many who participate in our national politics.

Having addressed that regrettable matter, I turn to the issue of the growing economic uncertainty which we now face. Yesterday we heard reports from Statistics Canada that manufacturing orders and production will be declining even further in this quarter. This matches the reduced output being seen in the United States in reduced consumer demand. This also comes at a time when the principal economic authority in the developed world, the U.S. federal reserve board, has decided to reduce its prime rate by 100 basis points in three weeks, an unprecedented action.

All of this gives credence to those very credible voices and economists who suggest that our largest trading partner is now likely in the midst of a recession and that Canada may very well be headed into a similar recession. I note on the front page of one of our national newspapers today an economist being quoted as saying that we are in at least a brief recession.

Recession means two successive quarters of negative growth. We asked the government what it plans to do, how it plans to respond and whether it plans to act on this very troubling new economic development which will inevitably impact the standard of living of all Canadians and the fiscal projections and incoming revenues of the government. The government refused to do so. It is back to the don't worry, be happy theme which the Prime Minister is so adept at striking.

Last October the government introduced not really a budget but a statement, really a political statement, which had been done very quickly. Finance department officials were given very short notice by the Prime Minister to produce an election statement that was not able to take anything into account with respect to the recent developments in the U.S. and Canadian economies. The government is planning to maintain a fiscal plan right through to March of next year based on an outdated political document.

I know that some of my Liberal colleagues, those who came of age in the 1960s, still have a strong streak of anti-Americanism and they still do not appreciate the degree to which we are reliant on the American economy. Let me explain that we export to the United States more of our manufactured goods than we consume domestically, so when consumer demand goes down in the United States, manufacturing output will go down in Canada. That will inevitably affect our economy.

When our economy is negatively affected and we see a reduction in growth, according to some projections, of .1%, which is substantially lower than that projected in the fall statement, or potentially negative growth according to some economists, we will see government revenues decline. When government revenues decline, especially when the government is increasing spending in all sorts of unidentified areas, the conditions exist for potential deficits. That is precisely what the second most heavily indebted country in the OECD does not need to incur at a time of economic uncertainty, yet government members put their heads in the sand.

At the outset of this parliament we call on the government, not out of a sense of partisanship but out of a sense of prudence, to introduce in the spring, as is our convention, a comprehensive budget that takes into account all of these factors.

Let me suggest some things the government might want to introduce in that budget. First of all it might want to review the $52 billion of new spending outlined in the fall statement, much of which was not identified. It may care to identify the costs, which it has so far refused to do, of the 14 specific new spending commitments outlined in this week's Speech from the Throne and of the 51 other vague commitments to and promises of new spending programs. It may also wish to outline precisely how it intends to accommodate the Prime Minister's red book commitment to spend 50% of future surpluses. This is a figure clearly not accounted for or anticipated in the finance minister's fall economic statement.

We have contradictory directions. We have the old spending, welfare state, Trudeau Liberal in the person of the Prime Minister, who is promising to spend, spend, spend. We have the finance minister suggesting continued fiscal prudence. We have a potential recession coming on. With all of these contradictions and this atmosphere of uncertainty, there is no action. There is no precision. There is no response. The government cannot even tell us how much it plans to spend.

It is an important question, because as spending rises and a recession comes on we will continue to see our productivity gap grow. As my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, reminded us the other day, our standard of living, which is measured by real disposable income per capita, has declined from 70% of the U.S. average in 1990 to just over 63% in the year 2000. We have moved to the rank of 24th out of 25 OECD countries in the last decade in terms of growth in per capita GDP. Ireland has doubled its per capita GDP in a time when we have seen ours shrink.

We do see a diminishment in our standard of living. We see it in the fire sale prices of Canadian companies, such as the recent purchase of the Montreal Canadiens. We see it in the continued impoverishment of the Canadian currency, which affects our standard of living. We see it in the brain drain, with tens of thousands of bright, mostly young, talented Canadians leaving this country to pursue brighter economic opportunities elsewhere. We see it in the fact that Canadian taxes are on the whole one-third higher than they are in the United States.

All of these issues need to be addressed. The opposition has, and will outline through the course of this parliament, its comprehensive plan for tax relief, debt reduction and spending restraint. We invite the members of the government to do just that.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the voters in Etobicoke North for supporting me again and giving me the opportunity to represent them in the House of Commons.

I am sure the member from Calgary Southeast has heard of the concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy. In spite of that, he and his colleagues stand in the House and pick out every tiny shred of negative comment that might have come from the United States or from selected economists. It is almost like they are wishing that the economy would go into a significant downturn. I think that is scandalous.

I would like to quote from an independent, reliable source, the International Monetary Fund. The report is dated January 26, 2001. Today is February 2, 2001. This report says many things, and paragraphs and sentences of it have been quoted. One thing it does say is:

The strong policy framework in place (in Canada) has positioned the real and financial economy to cope with any new major economic shock, including a slowdown in U.S. growth. The Canadian authorities are to be highly commended for their policy accomplishments.

The government had a mini budget in October and introduced the largest single tax cut in Canadian history. In fact, in the year 2001, at around $17 billion in tax savings, it is the largest single monetary tax cut in Canadian history and is coming right at a time when there is somewhat of a slowdown. However, most reasonable, educated economists are saying that even a slowdown in the United States will be a temporary slowdown and that the economy will start to pick up at the end of the year.

Notwithstanding that, the government has consistently built prudence into its economic forecasts and estimates. There is prudence in its budget planning. The finance minister said that this situation is being monitored and that he will take action if required.

I wish the hon. members would look at something more positive. Instead of being the doomsayers and feeding a self-fulfilling prophecy, why do they not talk about the realities in Canada instead of the myths?

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member opposite does not believe that the OECD is a credible economic source when it says that our standard of living has fallen over the past decade.

Perhaps he does not believe that his colleague from the riding of Markham was an honest and thoughtful economist when he said in October of last year “I believe in being honest” and “the mini budget is firm but other promises might have to be delayed a year if the economy is not as good as what we believe it will be”. He went on to talk about the fact that there was a $2.6 billion hole in the Liberal budget promises. That is what one of the member's own colleagues said. I do not know what source he would find more pleasing than that.

The point is this: no amount of hot air opposite will turn around the reality of the uncertainty we are facing right now. The hon. member did not make a case for the lack of a conventional, full spring budget. All he told us is that he hopes and expects that the recession which we may now be facing will shortly be curtailed. That sounds an awful lot like Michael Wilson and Don Mazankowski in this place 12 years ago, when they denied for a full year that we were even in a recession.

Governments do not want to face up to economic prudence. We believe they should do so by accelerating meaningful tax relief so that we can increase consumer demand, investment in the economy and productivity, and so we can see our dollar appreciate over time and our standard of living go up with it, unlike the decline we have experienced over the past decade of Liberal government.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the members opposite, I was remembering Trudeau saying that the land was strong, and we all know what his economic record was.

My colleague calls on the government to act, but beyond just calling for a real, comprehensive budget, what elements does he think would be wise for Canada to take on in view of changing realities? I can think of four: reduced spending, creating a low tax environment, long term debt reduction commitments, and balanced budget legislation. Perhaps my colleague can elucidate a little on what would really be wise for this country.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague identifies debt reduction as an important long term priority. In the fall economic political statement, there was no outline of a long term debt reduction strategy. The government's attitude is that maybe if we are lucky, maybe if we run a surplus and do not use the contingency fund, if the minister for heritage and her big spending colleagues like the minister for HRD do not get their hands on it, we might allocate it to debt reduction.

We need a legislated debt reduction strategy, which some of the provinces have successfully implemented, and major tax relief, which we can afford and which will keep us competitive even after the Bush tax cuts are passed by congress this spring.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to respond to the Speech from the Throne as the industry critic for the Canadian Alliance.

First I would like to thank the electors in the Peace River constituency who have returned me for a third term and who in doing so again placed a responsibility upon me to carry out their interests in Ottawa. I intend to do just that.

In order to respond to the Speech from the Throne, I think we need to examine the government's proposals to help Canadian industry through the looming downturn in the economy by increasing Canadian competitiveness in the new economic environment, which is necessary.

In order to do that, we need to look at Canada's historical position in terms of what we have done in the economic area in the last several years. We have to ask what went wrong in the past and evaluate whether the proposals in the mini budget and the throne speech are adequate to see us through. I would like to make the case that these are not the right formula. The formula the Liberal government has in those two areas will not see us through adequately and will not put us back into a competitive position.

The finance minister and the industry minister both maintain that everything is okay, and we heard it from the parliamentary secretary too. It is sort of a head in the sand approach that has become all too common from the Liberal government; everything is going to work out, do not worry about it.

Let us look at an historical review. Last spring the Standing Committee on Industry tabled a report regarding Canada's productivity. The study was initiated in response to concerns expressed by many prominent economists and business leaders who warned of an alarming productivity gap developing between Canada and the United States, particularly over the past decade.

These leaders confirmed through statistical evidence what Canadians instinctively already knew. Our standard of living had fallen over the past 30 years and the rate of decline had accelerated in the 1990s. Witnesses told the committee that on average Canadians earn $9,000 less per capita than their American counterparts. This illustrates how Canadian productivity has impacted on our standard of living. That is what this is all about. It relates to our standard of living; are we better off or worse off than we were a decade ago.

Between 1996 and 1998, the U.S. increased its productivity at double the rate of Canada. No wonder the 1990s were called a dec-a-dis hor-ri-bil-is by the hon. member for Markham when he was the chief economist at the Royal Bank of Canada. All of a sudden he has completely changed his tune. I wonder why?

What happened to Canada's productivity and why did we slip out of the game? We went from being number two in 1976 but we slipped badly. In fact, from the 1950s to the mid 1970s we had tremendously high rates of growth of productivity in this country. In 1976 Canada was second only to the United States in terms of productivity among the G-7. While the United States remains number one, Canada no longer holds that second place position. By 1997 we were in fifth place. Italy, France and Germany have all passed Canada by and more countries will do so if we do not get our fundamentals right. Members might rightly ask how did this happened. We need to pursue this further.

The issues related to Canada's loss of productivity and weakened competitiveness are complex, to say the least. Many factors, including external shocks to the economy of a country can cause disruption. However, the United States was better able to adapt and restructure their economy. The restructuring which took place in the U.S. during the 1980s enabled the Americans to lead the way in growth for much of the 1990s, as is the case today.

Why did it happen? How did it happen? I suggest that it is 30 years of bad public policy in Canada that has caused that to happen. I see a denial happening in government ranks again that they do not recognize what happened and therefore cannot make the shift.

I would like to argue that the fundamental shift in government policy in the 1960s and 1970s, specifically major social programs that were introduced and the federal government expansion during those years, created the conditions that led to Canada's decline of productivity and currency devaluation.

One might ask whether it was a coincidence that the Canadian dollar has had a 30 year decline, that Canada's productivity has had a 30 year decline and that the investment in Canada had a 30 year decline. I suggest that at the same time taxes went up, the debt went up. There is no coincidence. It is bad public policy by the Liberal and Conservative governments of the day which has led to the decline and currency devaluation that we are suffering today.

As an example, changes to the employment insurance program moved it away from the concept of an insurance program to more of a social program function. The result was an increase in unemployment rates, several points higher than that of the United States over the last 30 years. It remains there in good times or bad times. It is just an example of growth or government expansion.

Federal government spending continued to grow every year, which had to be financed by tax increases and deficits. The result was a $585 billion debt. It was largely glossed over until about 1993-94 when we had to finally admit that we were virtually bankrupt.

What was the government's response at the time? That was a brand new Liberal government and many of the members here today came in at that time. The newly elected Liberal government raised taxes and cut transfers to the provinces to get itself out of the problem.

Did it cut its own spending? Very little. Program spending is starting to grow again, which shows the Liberals do not recognize what needs to be done. They increased excise taxes on gasoline which added to transportation costs. They hiked capital gains tax in those years which discouraged investment. They allowed the discounted Canadian dollar to insulate Canadian exporters from restructuring and improving their own productivity through investments in technology and innovation.

No wonder the Canadian standard of living was slipping away and our best and brightest were leaving for better opportunities in the United States and other countries.

Despite what the finance and industry ministers are saying today, Canada is not well positioned as a low tax jurisdiction. We just have to look south of the border. We have not even caught up to them from the last time. Now the Republican government of George W. Bush is moving the yardsticks again with lower taxes.

While the overdue tax cuts in October's mini budget were welcome, their value is hampered by long phase-in periods and other half measures. For example, the corporate tax rate was reduced by a mere 1% this year. The planned seven year reduction will not be fully achieved until 2005-2006.

I maintain there is a very real danger that Canada will become the incubator economy for the United States and our people will be lost to foreign multinationals. Why does this government not learn from the experiences of Ireland, the Netherlands, Georgia, Michigan, Ontario and Alberta. They cut taxes and within a year or two saw their revenues grow as an increased growth in the economy quickly made up for those cuts. Canada's national debt right now is roughly $565 billion; 25 cents out of every tax dollar goes just to pay interest on debt.

We know what is happening in Washington. It is moving again to cut taxes. In fact, it is telling us that the U.S. debt is going to paid off by the end of this decade. Where is the finance minister of Canada's plan to pay down the debt? At the rate he is going it will take him 190 years. That is simply not good enough. We are not sending the right kind of signals to our business community for investment.

I think this begs the question. Where is Canada's plan? I do not see it in this throne speech. I did not see it in the mini budget and I do not think they have one.

What about the low Canadian dollar? Defenders of the low Canadian dollar argue that it helps exporters and therefore creates jobs. It begs the question. If a 66 cent dollar is great, why do we not move to 50 cents? Would that not be better? The answer is no because it does not encourage investment by Canadians and foreigners in our country. What it does encourage, I would suggest, is other people from other countries coming up and buying up companies like the Montreal Canadiens and taking them outside the country because our dollar is so weak.

We have to look at investment. Currently, I think the real problem in Canada is the lack of private investment, especially investment in research and development. Canada is currently ranked 15th amongst OECD nations on how much it spends on R and D. U.S. venture capital investments were 12 times that of Canada in 1995 and have moved to 18 times what Canada spent on venture capital in the year 2000.

We are going the wrong way. Public money under the Prime Minister's leadership cannot fill that void. It has to be filled because we need to have investors confidence that they will get a return on investment. I would argue that that is happening because we have an unfavourable tax climate which has caused lack of confidence.

To sum up, it is simply a matter of bad public policy. I am concerned that that bad public policy is continuing. We have had 30 years of decline and it is not over yet. Canadian industry needs the government to finally pay attention to getting the fundamentals right and creating the business environment so Canadian companies can succeed on their own. They need to boldly cut taxes to get not just the same as the United States but more.

My belief is this is a very weak, timid response. We have to do much better. I would encourage the Liberal government to bring down a budget to that effect as soon as possible.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the previous speaker for pointing out many of the obvious shortcomings of the Speech from the Throne and many of the obvious flaws in the reasoning.

One of the specifics he dealt with was the problems with the EI system. It was very timely that he pointed this out and I am glad he did. Today a new bill was introduced, allegedly to try and repair the completely dysfunctional and broken unemployment insurance system in the country.

The hon. member spoke to the fact that the system is so broken that it ceased to become an insurance system at all. It does not provide insurance benefits to unemployed people. What is the point in having an unemployment insurance system if it does not provide insurance to the unemployed?

It is really common sense. The fact is that less than 40% of unemployed people qualify for any benefits whatsoever. If the person is a woman that figure is 25%. If the person is a youth, the figure is 15% of unemployed people who qualify for any benefits, even though they are forced to pay into it. They have no choice. It is a mandatory deduction off your paycheque. As a result, the government is getting a surplus from the EI fund of $500 million a month, not per year, per month. That is really another tax off the paycheque. It is not an insurance system any more.

The negative nature of not having an employment insurance system has added to the profound economic difficulties that some regions in the country find themselves in. Just how much of an impact has the absence of any meaningful insurance program had on the hon. member's riding?

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I would maintain that I do not think any employment insurance program can substitute for a job. Most people want to have a job. That is their number one criteria. I suggest that the moves the Liberal government is taking to correct the fundamentals are not good enough to allow that to happen.

For the last 30 years we have had chronic unemployment in the range of 5% to about 12%. That is going to vary. I am suggesting, and the analogy I was making, that up until about 1970 the business cycles of Canada and the United States could be charted on a graph. We could look at the two of them in good and bad times. The economic indicators were always the same. We could put them together.

It was the same with employment insurance and the unemployment rate. However, starting in the 1970s we had a divergence because we expanded the employment insurance program to become more of a social program. I do not think that was the right method because we built in a penalty for Canadian business.

I agree with the member from Winnipeg that there are many shortcomings in the employment insurance program. He raised the example of a person who has to pay into the program but cannot collect benefits. Canadian farmers are in that category as are lots of people. It should be one way or the other. If a person is not going to get benefits from the plan, he or she should be exempt from it.

Overtaxing workers and employers to build up large surplus funds for general revenue for the government to squander away on its priorities is not good enough. We need to have a true insurance program where we have dedicated revenue, not where it is going into the general revenue for governments to fritter away.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member for Peace River.

He talked about bad public policy. Since when is bringing interest rates down, since when is bringing unemployment rates down, since when is bringing in and delivering the largest single tax decrease in Canadian history of $100 billion and since when is reinvesting strategically in things like health care, children and poverty bad public policy? Since when is paying off debt and reducing the deficit to zero bad public policy?

What I object to is those members opposite always need to bring in the Americans. They are lovers of the Americans. Listen to how they invoke the name of George W. Bush. Look at how they always want to cozy up to American cultural, economic and social ways. Canadians object to that. More to the point, they reject that.

Is it bad public policy for a person who has carved out his career by saying that taxpayers' dollars should be used wisely and then turn around and use $800,000 of Albertan taxpayers' money to do something that $60,000 could have done? I ask the member for Peace River if that is good public policy.

I also want to ask the member for Peace River—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I regret that with only five minutes for questions and comments, I am trying to be as co-operative as I can be with all members on both sides of the House. I will give the floor to the member for Peace River for one final minute.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it was largely the Liberal government that put us in this terrible mess to begin with.

It was Brian Mulroney's government that was elected to go in and clean up the mess which had been created. The failure of the Conservative government to do that was the reason why the Reform Party and the Alliance were formed. It did not listen to the huge majority and clean up that mess.

In regard to the lawsuit, I would like to talk about Pearson and Airbus. I believe over $2 million of taxpayers' money went to pay for Mr. Mulroney's expenses when the Prime Minister and the current Minister of Health had to admit that there was no evidence to back up their accusations. They had to publicly apologize to Mr. Mulroney.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Simcoe—Grey. Let me begin by joining all my colleagues in congratulating you on your election to the chair. We look forward to your presence in the chair during this session.

I also take this opportunity to thank the people of Parkdale—High Park who re-elected me for a second term. They have renewed their trust and confidence in me to represent their interests in the House of Commons. I am truly honoured by the privilege which they have again bestowed on me and I undertake to continue to work on their behalf.

On the day the election was called I told my constituents I was proud to run on the record of the Liberal government and on the policies and programs that have assisted individuals and communities in my riding. I unequivocally repeated this message on election night. Today I once again confirm how proud I am to be a member of the Liberal government and of the Prime Minister's team.

Today I will address the government's commitment in the Speech from the Throne to a vibrant Canadian culture and how this commitment is integral to fulfilling our government's other commitments to creating opportunity, investing in innovation, connecting Canadians, investing in skills and learning, and helping our children.

In 1997 in my first speech in the House of Commons I spoke about the fact that I truly believe we must invest in programs, opportunities and partnerships which support our arts and culture. I said then and still believe today that this is one of our greatest responsibilities. I am proud to say that in the Speech from the Throne and in the Prime Minister's contribution to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne we made a commitment to fulfilling this responsibility.

I commend the Prime Minister and the government on its commitment to innovation by not only increasing federal investment in traditional research, institutes and granting councils, but also by committing to a reinvestment in arts and culture.

The Speech from the Throne clearly states that the focus of our cultural policies must be on excellence in the creative process. Investing in the creative process is what Canadians need and what our children and grandchildren will need to participate in the new economy.

Let me begin by applauding the government's renewed support for the CBC to assist it in fulfilling its distinct role as a public broadcaster serving all Canadians.

The CBC is truly one of Canada's national institutions. It connects Canadians from sea to sea to sea. It speaks to Canadians by Canadians about Canadians and provides the Canadian perspective to national and international issues at home and abroad.

The CBC provides services in English, French and aboriginal languages. It also opens up opportunities for our creative people, our artists, directors, set designers, lighting designers and writers, just to name a few. It provides a venue for independent producers to produce Canadian content that is not only generic and exportable but is important to Canadians and talks about our history.

Canadians have been very impressed with the public response to the history series on television. The Minister of Canadian Heritage recently said that it was a type of project that could not be undertaken by the private sector and really ties in with the core mandate of telling Canadian stories. I am very proud to say that the producer of the history series, Mr. Mark Starowitz, resides in my riding.

Let me turn to the arts in the new economy. In June 2000 the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development released an analysis on why the new economy was arriving sooner in some places. In trying to pinpoint the driving forces of the new economy so that governments can nurture them, the OECD highlighted the importance of innovation.

For governments the OECD offered a menu of what is quickly becoming standard advice: foster competition, encourage startups and venture capital, invest in research and shape education and immigration policies to enhance human capital. It also noted that wiring schools will not be enough.

Yesterday in the House the Minister of Industry confirmed that Canada had surpassed the United States in being the first to connect all its schools, and said that the government would continue to connect Canadians and provide them with fast, high speed efficient broadband.

While this connection of Canadians is very laudable, I would add that it is simply not enough. In the Prime Minister's address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, he clearly stated:

In a globalized society, in a universe of hundreds of channels, in the age of the Internet, it is more important than ever to support Canadian culture.

I thank the Prime Minister for his commitment thereafter to provide significant new support to ensure that our cultural institutions, our performers and our artists can play the critical role of helping us know ourselves.

Yesterday the Minister of Industry spoke about the importance of our scientists and their innovations. Today I want to talk about the importance of our artists, writers and creators and their innovations. We need to encourage creativity and innovation, and our artists are well suited to play an important role in this.

I refer my colleagues to an article written by Robert Everett-Green that appeared, unfortunately, on the front page of the arts section of the Globe and Mail and not the business section. It was entitled “Art, not IBM, makes kids smarter”.

I think we have to remember that the arts provide essential training for a more creative world. I too believe that arts, not computers, make kids creative. Many studies have found that children exposed to music at an early age score much higher on scholastic entrance exams than those who are not.

The Speech from the Throne also talked about the important role the arts play in our communities. It also noted the role they play in improving our quality of life.

In his speech to the Canadian Club in Toronto last September, Piers Handling, director of the Toronto International Film Festival Group, spoke about the importance of the arts to quality of life. He urged the arts community to articulate the idea that, controversial as it might sound, culture is as important as health and education.

Handling reminded everyone that the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao transformed a once run down port in northern Spain into a vibrant city that attracts millions of tourists each year.

However we do not have to look to Europe for examples. We need only look to Stratford, Ontario. It was on the verge of dying as a town after the demise of the steam engine. What happened? Tom Patterson, with the assistance of the town council and $100, went to New York, obtained the necessary rights to produce theatre, and made Stratford what it is today.

Not only is Stratford a wonderful city to visit and a major tourist attraction, it has also served, and continues to serve, as a training ground for our wonderful artists.

I would be glad to speak about the importance of the arts for Canada's future. However, I will end now with a quote from Jane Alexander's book Command Performance , which recounts her term as chair of the National Endowment for the Arts. The quote explains why the arts are so important. It says:

When we teach a child to sing or play the flute, we teach her how to listen. When we teach her to draw, we teach her to see. When we teach a child to dance, we teach him about his body and about space, and when he acts on stage, he learns about character and motivation. When we teach a child design, we reveal the geometry of the world. When we teach children about the folk and traditional arts and the great masterpieces of the world, we teach them to celebrate their roots and find their own place in history.

Who knows if we will remember the F-22 400 years from now? I submit that we will still be reading Carol Shields, Margaret Atwood, Michael Ondatjie and Mordecai Richler.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the hon. member. In her speech she said culture was as important as health care. Would she rather have access to a play at Stratford or access to the emergency department at St. Joseph's Hospital in the area where she lives?

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is about either/or. There is not one thing that we as Canadians need. We need a balanced approach. We need all choices. We need a healthy environment. We need a good medical system. We need to invest in our children and we need to have a vibrant arts community. To say that the arts are dispensable, with all due respect to my colleague, we will have to agree to disagree.

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to some statements the Minister of the Environment made today.

I was surprised when the government talked about its grand plan for going to Kyoto and holding Canada out as an environmental standard for the world. It went to Kyoto without a plan or a cost estimate, and yet it promised the world to all the other nations there.

When the government came back to the House we asked how it would finance its plan and carry it out. The government did not know because even at that time, after it made its promises, it did not have a plan.

The K word is missing from the throne speech, K being Kyoto. Yet there are statements about the environment which are quite vague and meaningless. It seems reality has caught up to the government in terms of its Kyoto promises.

Because the Kyoto agreement and the promises Canada made are so significantly absent from the throne speech, where exactly do the Liberal government's ill-conceived environmental promises stand on its agenda now? Could the hon. member tell us in detail?

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I love to address questions on the environment because the issue is very important to the people in my riding. I have worked very hard with a number of environmental experts who live in my riding.

We spoke about the Kyoto protocol. Yes, it is true we have not signed it. However that does not mean we have not acted on it. We have acted on it. We have worked at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

We have worked with the provinces, the territories and the municipalities to ensure that we have clean air and water. We do not need an agreement to act on what we have agreed to. We will work with other countries to ensure we all sign the Kyoto protocol.

We cannot look to Germany as an example just because it was the first to sign the Kyoto protocol. Germany was able to close its industries, but we are not able to do that. However we will work together in partnership with the corporate sector, the labour unions and the private sector to ensure that all of our protocol targets are met.