Debates of Feb. 6th, 2001

Speech From The Throne

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Madam Speaker, I find it incredible to hear a speech such as this one. I am not used to it yet. I heard things such as “firm commitments” and “trust us”.

The President of the Treasury Board was there. She must have gone through my riding of Châteauguay on her way to Beauharnois—Salaberry.

At that time, she promised $357 million to build two bridges as well as money for a little piece of highway.

I am wondering why, when the announcement was made only a few days before the election, such an important announcement, when one knows that the throne speech will be in force for three or four years, no mention was made of this important aspect, this commitment?

The minister talked about her government's firm commitments and said voters should trust the government. But voters in Châteauguay and in Beauharnois—Salaberry were also to trust comments and promises made by the government.

What I am asking the minister is: How can she say that people can trust the government? Is she willing to make a commitment and say “Yes, these $357 million will be reinvested in bridges and in the economic development of the Châteauguay area and the Beauharnois—Salaberry riding”? I would like the minister to answer my question.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, voters trust us so much that they reelected us with a huge majority across the country and especially in Quebec. We saw how great was the trust of voters in every region of Quebec, including Montérégie.

We are very happy that Beauharnois—Salaberry is represented by a new member who is going to join the members of this government in improving the social and economic development of the south shore of Montreal.

This is very clear. We had an election platform and we presented it to the electorate. As a matter of fact, voters knew more or less what to expect. They have seen us govern the country for the last seven and a half years. They know this government is competent and they know this government is always true to its words. It is very clear, we presented our election platform to voters. They put their trust in us, and we are undertaking, during our mandate, to fulfil the promises we made in our platform.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate you on your elevation to an esteemed position in the House of Commons. I wish you all the best in your deliberations. I will be splitting my time with the member for Dartmouth.

I thank the voters of Regina—Qu'Appelle for having confidence in me and re-electing me as their member of parliament. This is my ninth parliament. I was first elected in 1968. Over those years I have seen many changes in the House of Commons. There are a couple of general themes that I am really concerned about, the themes of democracy and equality.

I remember the sixties and seventies when there was a tremendous move in the country for better social programs and greater equality among people. There was a real fight in the student movement and others to have a more democratic society. I remember Pierre Trudeau and the talk about a just society and participatory democracy.

The word inequality or equality was not even mentioned in the throne speech last week. Some 30 years later we find that the gap between the rich and the poor, after narrowing in the fifties, sixties and throughout the seventies is now starting to widen again.

Recently there was a study of the family by the Vanier Institute which showed that the gap between the rich and the poor is now widening throughout the decade of the 1990s. That should really concern us as a country and as policy makers in Canada.

I should like to place a couple of very worrying trends on the record of the House of Commons in terms of the growing gap between the rich and the poor. If we look at the wealthiest 20% of Canadians, in the beginning of the 1990s compared to the latter part of the 1990s their share of the national income went up from 37% to 39%, an increase of 6.6% of their share of the national wealth.

If we look at the poorest 20% of the Canadian people, their share of the national income went down in the nineties. At the beginning of the nineties they had 7.6% of the national income and national wealth. At the end of the nineties they had 7.1% of the national income and national wealth. As we can see, the incomes of the wealthy went up while the incomes of the poorest went down. This is a sad commentary on the progress we have made as a society as a whole, not just at the federal level but at the provincial and municipal levels.

I want to mention a couple of other statistics that are interesting. In 1989, 29,200 households in Canada went bankrupt compared to 85,000 in 1997. This again is growing evidence of the widening gap between the rich and poor in Canada.

In terms of savings, the household average in 1989 were $6,250. In 1998, household savings on average were $1,664. This represents a tremendous drop throughout the decade.

According to the Vanier Institute, by the end of the 1990s 40% of the poorest Canadians spent more than they earned. The middle 20% spent all that they earned by the end of the 1990s. If a dollar was earned, a dollar was spent. However, the wealthiest 40% of the Canadian population had increased savings in the 1990s while the average went down radically throughout that decade.

Once again, we see the redistribution of wealth and income widening. It seems to me that the challenge of a parliament in any country is to govern on behalf of the common good, to create greater conditions for equality and opportunity, and to redistribute wealth so that people have a better opportunity to pursue what they want in their individual lives.

An example more specific to my riding concerns the farm crisis. The grain and oilseed farmers today are facing the biggest crisis since the 1930s. Farm income is dropping. Between the fall of 1998 and the fall of 2000, 22,000 prairie farmers left the land. However, we have a federal government that provides very little assistance to farmers in comparison to what is happening in Europe and the United States. That is another example of the widening gap between the rich and poor.

People are homeless and living on the streets. We have young people who are poor. The Vanier Institute stated that among single parent families and the young, the poverty rate was increasing while take home pay was decreasing compared to wealthy people in Canada. It is our obligation as members of parliament to address those issues.

The other issue I want to address is the issue of democracy. Democracy in Canada is in a crisis today. We have to look at electoral democracy, parliamentary democracy and economic democracy.

In terms of electoral democracy, the Prime Minister will soon be naming 12 more people to the Senate, a legislative body that is not elected, not democratic, not accountable and supported by only 5% of Canadians. Yet, as parliamentarians, we do nothing about it. The time has come to abolish that unelected body and bring the purpose of the Senate for checks and balances into a reformed House of Commons. That should be done as soon as possible.

We should also look at bringing our democracy into the modern world. We should bring in an element of proportional representation, as have other countries in the world with populations of more than eight million people, such as the United States and India. Most countries in the world have some element of proportional representation that treats all voters as equal. This means that a vote is a vote and no vote is wasted. Those are some of the things that have to be done. If we do not do it soon we will have a tremendous crisis.

The turnout in the last election campaign was barely 60% of the population. In 1997 it was 66% of the population. If we go back to the fifties, sixties and earlier seventies, it was closer to 80% of the population. There is no doubt that we are sleepwalking toward a crisis in democracy on the electoral side, on the parliamentary side and on the economic side.

In terms of parliament, the power of the Prime Minister is much too great in our constitution today. We need stronger committees that are more independent. We need to have fewer confidence votes in the House of Commons.

The power of the PMO to make appointments, whether it be the Senate, the Supreme Court, the RCMP or every important legislative body or important institution, should be thwarted and democratized. Perhaps we should have appointments nominated by the Prime Minister but approved or rejected by the relevant parliamentary committee.

The Prime Minister should not have the power to set election dates. There should be a fixed and set election date. Perhaps we should even have a term limitation for the Prime Minister of Canada. These are ideas that many countries around the world adopt.

When it comes to economic democracy, the trade deals today and the large transnational corporations are really an assault on democracy. They take away a lot of the political power which nation states used to have to make important decisions over the lives of individual citizens. That is an area we have to address as we begin a brand new parliament.

To that end, I want on behalf of our caucus to move a subamendment. I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding, after the word “provinces” the following:

“and further that this House strongly condemns the government for its support of the proposed U.S. National Missile Defence System as well as undemocratic trade deals such as the WTO, NAFTA, and the proposed FTAA that do not ensure respect for human rights, labour, and the environment”.

In other words, it is an assault in democracy by these trade deals. We have lost democratic control.

It is not a question of being for or against trade. We are all for trade. We are a great trading nation. In the process of doing that let us make sure we reassert some national sovereignty and democratic control so that in these trade deals we can have minimum standards or a waiver for social programs, for the environment and for health. That is what we should be building. Also within those trade deals in the context of transnational corporations we should not give away our sovereignty and democracy.

There is nothing democratic about some of these large transnational corporations that have an economy bigger than these nation states. Wal-Mart has about the 10th or 12th largest economy in the world. That is bigger than nation states. These big transnationals are not run by entrepreneurs or free enterprise. They are run by technocrats and bureaucrats. They are like big icebergs that bump around the world destroying the economies of nation states.

The time has come for people to reassert democratic control when it comes to the economy of the world and the economy of our own country as well.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The Chair will take the amendment to the amendment under advisement.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was struck by a comment that the member opposite made in his speech that household bankruptcies had more than tripled in the last 10 years according to the figures he saw. I wonder if that seems to correlate with the rise of gambling in the country.

In the last decade the gambling revenues coming from the general public started at zero and now account for more than $1 billion.

Would the member opposite consider whether the rise in household bankruptcies may be connected with gambling which seems to be directed, particularly if we look at the casino in Winnipeg, toward the people who have the least to spend and who are probably the poorest in our society, and yet these are the ones most in jeopardy with the rise in gambling?

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

Madam Speaker, I have never seen a study connecting gambling to household bankruptcies but I suspect there is probably a correlation there.

If we look at the number of people who become addicted to the practice of gambling, more damaging than casinos, and I am familiar with the casino in my home city of Regina, are the VLTs that have sprung up like mushrooms all over the country. The VLTs are sort of the crack cocaine of the gambling world. A lot of ordinary folk without much cash can go in and spend a lot of money. They get addicted to that particular practice. That is something we should probably take a look at as a parliament and at the provincial jurisdiction as well. That may be one of the factors.

Whether it is or not, the fact of the matter is the gap between the rich and the poor is widening instead of narrowing in a society that is very wealthy. As a Canadian that really disturbs me. We have to look at how we can turn that around. We were doing that particularly throughout the sixties but also into the seventies with some of the new social programs and changes in the tax system. Now all of a sudden we have gone in the other direction.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, there were very passionate comments made by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. I was very interested in his comments with respect to transnationals which are part of his amendment to the actual amendment.

I was interested in his comments with respect to Wal-Mart. No doubt he is aware that other nations have taken it upon themselves to look at dominance by various retailers, particularly with respect to the impact on consumers and obviously the impact on competition. In Germany, for instance, even though Wal-Mart only had a few per cent of market share it was told to drive its prices up so it would not snuff out small business.

What I am concerned about and the question I want to ask the member deals more with the bigger question that he tried to illustrate under several points. He referred to bankruptcy, farms, poverty, democracy and the question of wealth in the nation.

We heard about a study this morning that almost counteracts and countermands the issue of people living in poverty with the assumption that for the first time since the 1960s, and certainly in this decade, we have seen actual incomes for Canadians rise, and there is a necessity now for two people to work in order to make ends meet.

Has the hon. member looked at this recent study? How does it reflect on the Vanier study with respect to poverty and families?

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

Madam Speaker, I had a chance to take a glance at it. Indeed the average income of Canadians has increased over the decade. If my understanding is correct, it has increased mainly because we now have two people working in a family and sometimes three. It has also increased because people have been working extra hours or have an extra or part time job. The family income has gone up because of the extra hours that the family puts into the workplace. I am not sure that is the way we should go.

Through a technological society and innovation we were supposed have more leisure time. I remember these debates about 10 years or 15 years ago when technology started to become the thing to talk about. One of the advantages of technology and computers was to reduce the time at work and free up more time to pursue leisure, arts, sports or whatever one wanted to do. The fact that we have more and more part time jobs and fewer full time jobs, and probably fewer jobs in the general sense that are unionized and have good benefits and wages, people are generally making less per hour and putting in more hours. At the end they make more money but what happens to the quality of life.

These are all things we should look at. We are beginning a new parliament which is really a new phase in the development of our country. It is important that we look at the issues of equality and how we close the gap rather than see it widen. I really mean it when I say the issue of democracy is one that is really important. Our electoral and parliamentary system and the thwarting of democracy or the assault on democracy by big transnational corporations is really quite a thing. It is not really a free enterprise thing either. Free enterprise and entrepreneurs believe in the marketplace. A lot of the big corporations are run by technocrats and bureaucrats with little sensitivity to anything called a free market or fair market. Again, that is a thwarting of democracy.

These things are sort of fleeting away from our hands. We have to look at ways to return power to the people, empower them and make our society and our country more inclusive. I think that can be done.

One way to do that is to make this place a little less partisan through fewer confidence votes and stronger committees, and by electing the chairs of committees and letting them have the right to timetable things out. These are not radical moves. These things happen in countries around the world that are advanced democracies.

Let us look at the idea of proportional representation as well. The time has come. We are one of only three countries in the world with populations of more than eight million people that does not have it. That would create the situation where all votes are equal, no votes are wasted and people would genuinely be empowered.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The Chair has had occasion to examine the subamendment proposed by the member from Regina—Qu'Appelle and the motion is in order. Debate will continue on the subamendment.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like also take this opportunity to congratulate you on your new appointment.

I would like to thank all of the members who ran in this election, the people who won and those that did not. It is an important place to be and I value the struggle that everyone went through.

I would also like to thank the people of Dartmouth, Cole Harbour, the Prestons, Cherry Brook and Lake Echo who have once again returned me to this place.

Maybe I should also make a comment with respect to Her Excellency the Governor General. She is doing a most excellent job and is a credit to her office and her country. I would not like it to be thought that my comments on her speech reflect poorly upon her.

This is the third Speech from the Throne which I have witnessed since being elected in 1997. Like the others, I believe the speech was long in rhetoric and short on specifics.

I would like to use my time to comment on two things which are the skepticism created by failed Liberal promises and the lack of overall vision to deal with the problems facing us in the years to come.

I am from Dartmouth. People in Dartmouth are not usually satisfied with good intentions. They want to know what we are going to do. They are skeptical and, given past Liberal performances, they have a right to be.

A current example of how Liberals created this feeling is the so-called home heating rebate, which is now being received by some of my constituent. People were led to believe they would get help. Page 5 of the Liberal platform said “we will provide fuel tax rebates of up to $250 per household to help low and modest income Canadians cope with the higher costs of fuel prices this winter”.

What has been delivered instead is a slightly augmented GST tax credit which does nothing to rebate anyone. The cheque is being given to people based on their eligibility for the GST tax credit, not on their heating cost. This program also does not go to any modest income families because they make too much to qualify for the GST rebate. In short, the program has no bearing on the ability of a person to pay his or her heating bill.

While I have always believed that tax support for our lowest income families has been too low and support an increase to this tax credit, calling this a home heating rebate fails every test of good public policy or even common sense. It does not deliver what has been promised because there are working families facing desperate economic circumstances but receiving none of the promised help from the federal or the provincial government.

There is also a social division being exploited as those with high heating costs get no help and many who are getting help do not directly pay for their heating.

This policy is not helping my community get together, it is dividing it. My riding office phone has been ringing off the hook. I sympathize with the callers. As I said, this kind of thing keeps them skeptical.

The Minister of Finance said that this happened because the government was anxious to get the cheques out quickly. However, the timing of the rebate only seemed to allow an announcement before the election and then to release the flawed details after the election. I am not convinced by this explanation.

Millions of Canadians are now on the verge of filing their taxes as they do every spring. If the government were serious about actually getting help to those facing huge increases in heating costs this winter, it could have used the tax system to help them when the mini-budget was announced last fall and people would have received rebates when they filed their taxes.

After all, the oil companies, which are reaping record profits because of the increased fuel prices, received help on their corporate taxes in last fall's budget. Their cheques, a real rebate in the form of reduced corporate taxes, will soon be in the mail. However hard working, modest income families in Dartmouth have been left with a promise, not a cheque.

This is simply one example of how the government has made choices under the cover of platitudes. I believe the other modest initiatives mentioned in the throne speech will suffer a similar but predictable fate.

The mention of support for employment programs for persons with disabilities will probably do nothing for the millions of Canadians who have a disability but are currently unable to qualify for EI or CPP because of their tenuous relationship to the labour force.

The building of broadband access does not say how low income Canadians will be able to afford this service, let alone buy a computer. It seems predestined to support bigger dot com profits before providing support to the people who are not willing to line up at community access sites.

The cultural initiatives in the throne speech are likewise vague. While artistic creators still receive no targeted tax relief and exist at minimum wage levels, my constituents and I remain skeptical.

My most important concern is the lack of a real vision of Canada in the Speech from the Throne. Last year we saw the passing of the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau, someone who had a vision for Canada. He could inspire us. We did not always agree, but we always had some respect for him. He was not ambiguous. He saw our country's problems on the horizon, brought them to our attention and offered his opinion.

The current throne speech has failed to do that. There are huge problems facing the people with which we have to deal. Our democracy is declining. Voter turnout is plummeting. Alienation is growing in many regions and among our young people.

There is a wide belief that the powers of this place have been subverted to those in the Langevin block. Above all, there is a growing sense that the powers of Canada as a state have been subverted to the powers of trading blocks, transnational corporations under NAFTA, the WTO and, maybe worse, the proposed free trade of the Americas regime.

The throne speech is silent on how to reintegrate young people and the disaffected of Quebec or the west into our democracy. It is silent on how to reassert our national sovereignty when foreign companies demand our resources at a lower price, demand access to our water, and demand an end to public delivery of our health services, our education system and our public environmental protections. In my humble way I will be bringing forward suggestions on how to give us some protection in parliament.

I believe the government should limit the concentration of ownership in our private media and restore its past support to the CBC so that information can flow to citizens as ideas for public debate, not just as content dressed up to attract advertising dollars. Any parliamentary package which neglects this aspect of our living democracy is flawed.

The lack of any mention of our need for cultural, environmental, labour and public service safeguards, while talking about new trade agreements including the free trade of the Americas initiative which the throne speech so proudly supports, is shameful.

Has the government forgotten the humiliation which we suffered two years back when we surrendered control over our magazine sector because the cultural carve out in the FTA and NAFTA proved to be worthless?

Has the work of the Minister of Canadian Heritage on building a separate international agreement on culture already been sacrificed to the Americas so the Prime Minister can go bass fishing in Texas or host a banquet in Quebec City in April?

Is the fact that government subsidies to public broadcasters are being threatened in Europe under the free trade rules being forgotten by officials in the Langevin block, or have they simply decided that private media conglomerates should control all information for the Canadian public?

We need to take a stand saying that we are a rich people with a great and vast country and that we will trade fairly with the world. At the same time we must tell our trading partners that this country is ours and this parliament should make our laws, not some NAFTA trade arbitrator and not a transnational corporation.

The throne speech should have made it clear that until we have binding protection for our culture, environment, education and health care systems, we will not expand our trading agreements.

We must make it clear to all abroad that only we as members of parliament are accountable to our constituents. We should be saying to Canada: let us work together; let us prosper; let us defend our country together from the onslaught of corporate power; and let us revitalize our democracy together. That should have been the primary vision of the throne speech. The government had the opportunity to give us this vision but it declined. I hope that over the life of this parliament we can get the government to change its mind.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I too congratulate you on your appointment. I think the Prime Minister made a very good choice. I have worked with you in the past and I know you will do a very good job.

I wholeheartedly support the throne speech given by the Governor General last week. My question to the hon. member deals with rebates that she mentioned she opposed.

I campaigned at the same time as her but in different provinces. My riding of Brampton Centre was happy with the rebates. I do not know what is the complaint. She says that we are giving rebates to those who have low incomes and receive the GST rebate. We did not hear about a government giving rebates to those with high incomes.

Would she support giving rebates to those with high incomes and high taxes? I do not know what her objection is regarding giving rebates to those with low incomes who receive the GST rebate. I am confused. I do not know which way she will go. Maybe it should be changed again and the rebates given to those with high incomes and those who pay high taxes to the federal government.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Madam Speaker, I believe that the $250 maximum tax rebate being given to people who are eligible for the GST tax rebate is a start. We accept the minister's statement that this was a speedy method of getting some money out to people.

We simply do not believe that it went far enough. Many Canadians are now facing a 38% increase in fuel bills and have no way on earth of paying these increased costs. The government should create a much more substantial support program to help Canadians with these home heating fuel costs.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for clarifying her position with respect to the home heating fuel rebate. She will remember in the last parliament that it took almost three and a half years to try to convince everyone in the House that it was the best way to provide people with an opportunity to fend off a particularly cold winter.

Given that oil companies have a tendency to add 20% margins in Canada on home heating fuel over and above what the U.S. market would allow, I was glad and comforted to hear that the government had taken a good first step. It was validation of the work this member of parliament had undertaken for a couple of years.

Further to the member's concern about Canadians being able to fend off the high and unusual increases in non-discretionary items like heating, would she comment on the level of concentration in Canada's energy industry? That may be at the root of her concern.

Would she also comment on the good work done by the Competition Bureau in removing the restricting covenant on the Come By Chance refinery, which has now permitted the possibility of having yet another competitor come in and provide home heating fuel in the Atlantic provinces?

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Madam Speaker, I must say I cannot comment on that. I am not familiar with that regulation.

Although I have stated that the particular rebate is giving some comfort to Canadians, some of the are things that were absent from the throne speech would have given much more comfort to Canadians. New Democrats are very concerned about a national child care program. We did not see it in the throne speech and we will still be fighting for it in the 37th parliament. It would go a long way in buffering the harsh economic climate out there. We need a pharmacare program and a home care program. People with disabilities need adequate income support programs.

The throne speech mentioned an increase in training programs for persons with disabilities. It is limited to people who are eligible for EI. Many Canadians with disabilities, up to 70% of them, are not in the labour force and not even eligible for EI. Many people live in quite a vulnerable state and are totally at the mercy of such things as increased heating oil. That is the kind of issue we have to deal with.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. I congratulate you and your fellow Speakers on your appointments. The positions that you occupy are of paramount importance for decorum in the House. Some 301 representatives debate the issues of the day and try to ensure that Canada remains one of the best countries in the world in which to live.

I thank the electors of Kitchener—Waterloo for the great honour they have bestowed upon me by electing me as their representative to the Parliament of Canada for the third straight time since 1993.

I thank all the volunteers who assisted candidates of all political parties in the last election for involving themselves in the democratic process which has resulted in the 37th parliament. The volunteers in Kitchener—Waterloo who assisted in my re-election as their representative to the Chamber give a deeper meaning to the democratic process for me. I am certain these sentiments are shared by all candidates in the last election with respect to the thousands of volunteers across Canada who worked on their behalf.

I would be remiss if I were to forget to mention the support of my wife Nancy and my daughter Erin who have been my partners on this journey.

I give my first speech in the 37th parliament with a sense of humility for the privilege of being a member of the Chamber and with a new sense of collegiality and respect for all members who are here representing their respective constituencies.

While I will vigorously debate the points or differences of my colleagues based on differences in policy, I hope I will do so with respect, in recognition of the fact that we have all been sent here by our respective electors as temporary guardians of the public trust. We are here to serve our constituents to the best of our abilities and to contribute to building a strong and united Canada, a Canada that works for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

When I was first elected to the House in 1993 the fiscal challenges we faced as a national were most daunting. We had a $42 billion deficit, the highest in the nation's history, coupled with an ever increasing national debt in excess of $500 billion. These fiscal circumstances threatened the economic sovereignty of our country. Due to the hard work of Canadians and the sound fiscal management of the government, the deficit has been eliminated and the debt is being paid.

Because we have put our fiscal house in order, we have been able to cut taxes fairly. This will serve us well in meeting present economic challenges. By having effectively addressed our fiscal reality we have struck the right balance of investing in health care, families and children, investing in protecting the environment, and investing in research and innovation.

My riding of Kitchener—Waterloo is a good example of what is entailed in the new economy: innovation, research and development, and investing in Canadians through higher education and skills training. The economic profile of my community is based upon insurance, education, high tech companies, many medium size businesses and the service sector.

In the area of insurance we have the head offices of Clarica, Equitable Life, Lutheran Life, Economical Mutual and the Canadian headquarters of Manulife.

Since my time is limited I will focus on the importance of post-secondary education, skills training and research and development from the perspective of my community. I want to share with the House how education benefits my community at the local level and how it contributes to our national economic well-being.

Conestoga College, the University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University are all in my riding. The excellence of our post-secondary institutions is well known worldwide. They are the engines of our economic growth. They provide occupation opportunities to Canadians and contribute to the economic output at the local, provincial and national levels.

The work of the visionary pioneers in Kitchener—Waterloo who invested their time and effort in starting up our post-secondary institutions has resulted in great contributions to and are at the core of the community's cultural, social and economic life.

When the University of Waterloo was started in 1957 in a farmer's field, it inspired a book titled Of Mud and Dreams . The university established the first co-operative engineering program. The pioneers who started that co-operative program were called heretics, as one did not take a professional program like engineering and debase it with a blue collar component such as work terms. Co-operative education, which offers an academic term matched by a work term, is now common practice throughout Canada and the world.

Since its inception, the University of Waterloo has also embraced computerization. It now has the biggest computer and mathematics faculties in the world and is world renowned.

The three post-secondary educational institutions in my riding are equipping Canadians with the cutting edge skills and learning that they will need to prosper. This will enable them to realize their unique potential and through lifelong learning to succeed in the new digital economy.

This government's record of supporting achievement in education is reflected in our having developed the Canada millennium scholarships, the Canada education savings grant, the Canada foundation for innovation and increasing the education tax credit. All of these will build upon our goal of having at least one million more adults take advantage of learning opportunities during the next five years.

The economic spinoffs from our post-secondary institutions are found in the association of Canada's Technology Triangle and Communitech.

I recall how the Atlas Group, representing the largest information technology companies in my community, made its first visit to Ottawa in the fall of 1994. Today the group has evolved to over 200 member companies of the technology industry within Cambridge, Guelph, Kitchener and Waterloo. Counted among its members are software developers, system integrators, telecommunication companies, Internet companies and more.

Names such as Research in Motion, Open Text, Dalsa, Descartes and Mitron are just a few of these companies, and they are world renowned

I remember visiting the company Research in Motion in Waterloo with the Minister of Industry in 1994. The company had just 40 employees operating out of rented space. Since then, it has received two Technology Partnership Canada loans totalling less than $40 million.

Today Research in Motion employs over 1,000 people in high paying jobs, owns its facilities, has produced two billionaires and hundreds of millionaires in my region. Its product is the blackberry, a wireless e-mail device that many of my colleagues in the House now use.

The Prime Minister sent his first e-mail on the device, and the new Minister of External Affairs was the first cabinet member to have one. The blackberry is the favoured communication tool of people such as Bill Gates of Microsoft, Michael Dell of Dell computers and former vice-president Al Gore.

Research in Motion is a world leader in wireless communications. Besides creating a tremendous amount of wealth and providing employment opportunities to a large number of people, it has also given back to the community.

Two former Research in Motion employees, Louise MacCallum and Michael Bamstijn, donated $12 million to the community foundation in the Waterloo region and $1 million to the Waterloo Regional Museum. This was to celebrate their retirement at the ages of 39 and 41 respectively.

Some $100 million was donated by Michael Lazaridis, along with $10 million from Jim Balsillie and $10 million by Douglas Fregin, for a total of $120 million to establish a world class research institute for theoretical physics. It is believed to be the largest private donation in Canadian history.

More important at the time, much criticism was made of research in universities being driven by company priorities. Here we have a record donation made by Research in Motion, with no strings attached, to expand the boundaries of pure research. In establishing the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Mike Lazaridis, Jim Balsillie and Douglas Fregin from Research in Motion more than met the challenge issued by the Prime Minister for corporate sponsorship of research.

In the new economy, knowledge and technological innovation are the cornerstones of new prosperity and better quality of life. Research and development are the lifeblood of innovation.

As one of the founding members of the Liberal caucus on post-secondary educational research and development, I am excited that we will at least double the current federal investment in research and development by 2010. That will strengthen the research capacity of Canadian universities, government laboratories and institutions. I also strongly endorse our commitment to ensure access to affordable post-secondary education and to work toward making Canada a country that embraces lifelong learning.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me say how pleased and proud I am to see you in the chair. I congratulate you and all of your colleagues on their appointments. It is great to see you there. I have no doubt that you will preside with the fairness and wisdom you have garnered over the years.

I thank the people of Etobicoke—Lakeshore as I begin my initial speech in the House. In returning me for a third term to the House they have placed their confidence in me to represent their interests in parliament. It is my privilege to represent the people of this riding. I can assure them I will do my very best to make their concerns heard in the House.

I also thank my family, friends, campaign team, the many volunteers and all those who worked so hard to ensure a re-election victory. I say to them and to the House that I am indeed very grateful.

I am honoured to respond to the Speech from the Throne, to take this opportunity to speak at the beginning of the 37th parliament. I will focus my remarks on the theme of creating opportunities for Canadians, as this is central to the Liberal government's plan for building a progressive and dynamic Canada.

Let me say a few words about my riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore. Situated in proximity to Lake Ontario, my riding is as diverse as Canada itself. It is the southernmost of three federal ridings in what was formerly the city of Etobicoke. Over 360 small and medium size businesses in Etobicoke—Lakeshore cut across the manufacturing, retail trade and business service sectors of the economy.

The Speech from the Throne gives me the opportunity to assure the people of my riding that they can count on the government to create a brighter future, a Canada that will have an even stronger economy in this century, a Canada in which every Canadian will have a higher quality of life, a Canada in which all Canadians will have the opportunity to harness their skills and talents. This is the Canada the constituents of Etobicoke—Lakeshore envision.

The challenges and the pace of the new global economy put a high value on knowledge, research and innovation. The member who spoke prior to me brought to the fore the research and innovative things in his riding.

Canada cannot afford to be unprepared to meet the challenges of the new economy and of the future. We must ensure that the doors of the new economy are open to all Canadians. We must continue in our efforts to ensure their talents, ideas and skills are utilized in building our country in the global economy.

Throne speech 2001 outlines the next steps in the government's moderate, balanced plan to create opportunity for all Canadians in the 21st century.

The federal government will make good on its commitment to make education accessible to my constituents and to all Canadians. It is important to the government that no man, woman or child is left behind as we move forward in building economic prosperity and sharing opportunities. That is why we continue to promote skills and learning as part of our plan to create opportunities for Canadians.

I spent many years in education and can say that skills and learning are essential, especially to our young people. Equipping Canadians with marketable, cutting edge skills will ensure they have the tools to prosper and to realize their potential.

This is reassuring to many young people in my riding. They will not be caught in the never ending cycle of no skills no jobs, no jobs no skills. The government will continue to help young Canadians contribute to their country, gain employment and apply their business and creative skills.

Building a skilled labour market is not an easy task, which I think the government realizes. We know that many Canadians have difficulties finding the resources to commit to learning and skills upgrading. We know that youth at risk are more vulnerable to being left behind.

The government's commitment to skills and learning in the 2001 throne speech will meet these challenges. As the Prime Minister indicated, the government wants to help at least one million more Canadian adults take advantage of learning opportunities.

To this end, the government outlined in the throne speech that it would create registered individual learning accounts to assist Canadians to finance their learning needs, to improve loans available to part time students and to help workers learn while they earn.

We will work in partnership with the provinces, the private sector and voluntary organizations to ensure that young people who are at risk, who need help staying in school or getting their first job, will receive that support. We will work to ensure that persons with disabilities and aboriginal Canadians are able to realize their full potential.

These are laudable goals, but I want to address the issues of one group at this point. I am referring to immigrants who have contributed to our economy and our quality of life since the formation of Canada. Every year Canada receives newcomers. They are eager to put their skills and talents to work in our economy. Like so many other Canadians, they want to participate fully in the various sectors of our society.

We cannot afford to have highly skilled, well educated immigrants languish on the margins of Canadian society. We cannot afford to watch them toil away at dead end jobs, especially when they could put their skills to use for the betterment of Canadians.

In Etobicoke—Lakeshore many well trained, highly skilled new Canadians are not realizing their full potential. Some come from various parts of Europe and Africa with degrees as lawyers, doctors and engineers, to name a few. They come with the hope and dream of continuing to practise their professions and to create a better life for themselves and their families. Sadly they are often disappointed when they learn their foreign credentials are not recognized in Canada.

I am very pleased that the Speech from the Throne addressed that issue. I will work, and I am sure you will work with me, Madam Speaker, as will all members of the House, to ensure that we find a way of working with the provinces and with the various authorities to ensure that Canadians' experience and credentials and those requested of newcomers will in some way be recognized as well as the credentials of those individuals. I thank the government for that initiative.

I also want to address the issue of the high speed broadband Internet access, which will be available to the residents and the businesses in Etobicoke—Lakeshore by the year 2004. My colleague, the member for Winnipeg South, who has some expertise in that area, spoke to that this morning. This issue has some resonance for the businesses in my area.

I congratulate the government again on that part of the speech that addresses the issue and that would put us in that forward global economy and provide the kinds of experiences Canadians will have as we build the kind of society in which young people, those at risk, new immigrants and newcomers to our society, each and every one of us, will have the opportunity to grow, develop, build and have a country that will continue to be one of the countries in the world that is admired by all.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I as well must say what a pleasure it is to have you in the chair. Congratulations on your position.

In regard to the hon. member's comments on the throne speech, I must preface my remarks by saying that I highly value the contribution the member has brought to the House of Commons, but earlier we heard from one of the members on the backbenches of the Liberal side who gave us a great discussion about the crisis in our farm industry. Right now we have a grave situation facing our family farmers throughout the country. It is the same situation that is facing our family fishermen. I would like the hon. member to address why the throne speech was so silent on those very important issues which face so many rural Canadians in Canada.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have admiration for the member and his concern for the issue of farmers and farming and the situation of subsidies and the comparative nature of our agricultural base as we look at what is happening in other areas.

I know and have sat with so many of the farmers who have come to my constituency. Although we are in an urban area, the issue that is of concern to them is an issue of concern to all of us as Canadians. As legislators I think we have to do everything possible to assure the farmers who provide food and sustenance to our entire country that we support all of their efforts.

It is difficult at this time to begin to discuss the issue of subsidies, of what we need to do and how we need to do this, but I think a good scrutiny of the Speech from the Throne will also show that the words are there that do address themselves to the issue of agriculture.

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to say a few words in this debate. Let me congratulate you on your elevation to the chair. I will be sharing my time with the member for Fundy—Royal.

In the throne speech debate today, let me touch briefly, if I may, on three very important points as they affect the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

During the last parliament I spoke repeatedly about the devastating effect that cuts to the federal transfers for health and post-secondary education were having on the smaller provinces in Canada, but especially on the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. For many Canadians, those transfers have been restored to early nineties levels with the new agreement on health and post secondary education. However, in the case of Newfoundland and Labrador, we will not return to nineties levels until the year 2006. That is having a very devastating effect on poorer provinces. It is having a devastating effect on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is one issue that I hope the regional minister for Newfoundland will be able to address. He is a very good friend of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, so I know that he will be quite happy to deal with this particular item when it comes across his desk.

As a matter of fact, when he was premier of Newfoundland just a short time ago, he described the agreement that the federal government signed with the provinces as being no bonanza for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. He pointed out that the funding formula was done on a per capita basis. When the population is declining like it is in Newfoundland and Labrador and when health care is funded on a per capita basis, that is bound to have a detrimental affect.

The old EPF funding formula in place prior to the CHST always had in place an equalization component that could be used for areas with small populations. The equalization formula in the old EPF scheme of things also took into account geographic differences. For instance, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador has hundreds of smaller communities scattered along thousands of miles of coastline. The old EPF formula ensured that an equalization component was built in so that it could take into account the geographic differences we have. We do not see that today in the CHST.

A second item I want to have a word on is an important item, an environmental problem currently being experienced in my riding in St. John's. It has to do with the cleanup of St. John's Harbour. This is an issue that is not only a very important environmental issue but an issue that came to the fore in the recent election campaign and I would be remiss if I did not say a few words about it. It is a matter I raised in the House on a number of different occasions in the last parliament and is an issue that I raised on a number of different occasions in the media. Of course in November it became an election issue.

I was pleased to hear the regional minister for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, who is the present Minister of Industry, make the statement that he would be working very hard with the Prime Minister and with the Minister of Finance, who is a very close friend of the regional minister, to secure funding for the St. John's Harbour cleanup.

It is only a $100 million project, and the province has committed its $30 million. The city of St. John's, Mount Pearl, and the surrounding area, Paradise, have committed their $30 million. The only holdout in this whole funding problem is the federal government. I note that the federal government made available, just before the election campaign, $1.5 billion for the cleanup of Toronto Harbour.

None of us would begrudge Toronto its right to have its harbour beautified and what have you, but I would ask for similar treatment to be given to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador in the area of harbour cleanup, a very important environmental issue that needs a measly $30 million.

I note that the federal government had no problem coming up with $2 billion a couple of days ago for Bombardier. Again, we do not begrudge Quebec or any other province their windfalls, but surely an environmental problem of this proportion needs to be looked at very closely by the federal government. Hopefully the regional minister can get together with his good friend, the Minister of Finance, and have this problem looked after immediately.

The other subject that is very close to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is the current equalization formula that we happen to be under. The Canadian equalization system is a really good system. It will keep us from drowning but it falls far short of helping us swim by ourselves. This is where the equalization formula, in the way it is drafted right now, fails the poorer provinces that have to be recipients of it.

Let me elaborate a little. Under the current equalization formula, new resource revenues raised by the provincial treasury are clawed back dollar for dollar by the federal government. That is not a very good way of doing business. A province is trying to develop resources, but for every dollar in resource revenue taken in by the province the federal government comes along and takes a dollar back. There are not too many incentives built into that kind of system for any province that wants to develop its resources in the manner it wishes.

I am very encouraged by the fact that today we have the premier of Nova Scotia, Mr. Hamm, in town to talk about the current equalization formula. Hopefully he will put forth a series of recommendations to help rejig or retool the formula we have at present.

In Newfoundland we had the Hibernia project, developed just recently. We were able to do a deal with the federal government in which the federal government said it would take back 70 cents instead of a dollar, thus allowing the province to develop the resource base a little more and to keep some of the revenues associated with that. On top of that, the federal government came up with a $1 billion loan guarantee and a $1.5 billion grant. In spite of that, it was able to say that we needed some kind of a better deal as it pertained to the Hibernia development. Of course that was done by the federal PC government.

We have had virtually no recognition from the federal government since that time that the equalization formula should be retooled and rejigged to help provinces like Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Only at the point when we have a new deal on equalization for Newfoundland and Labrador will we be able to rise above a beggar.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to note that the zone guarantee was not moneys that were directed toward Bombardier as loan guarantees. My hon. colleague knows that.

I listened very carefully to what the he had to say. We have agreements to help less productive provinces, which basically is the member's point today? How would the member respond to Mr. Klein's accusations that too much money is coming out of Alberta, that it is not getting its fair share and that Atlantic Canada is getting a tremendous amount? There seems to be a different philosophy in the member's party from one area of the country to the other.

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, it is great if one happens to live in a very affluent province. Alberta is rapidly becoming a very affluent province and probably already is. It has its own set of problems to deal with.

Atlantic Canada constantly gets criticized for the kinds of regional programs it has to prop up its economy. The Liberals, the Alliance and other parties criticize the kinds of regional development programs there. They say that they do not work and that we have to do something new.

We are now in the year 2001. The have not provinces, the provinces that are the recipients of equalization payments, want to be net contributors to this country. The only way they can do that is to have some kind of an incentive to develop these resources. The only way to do that is to retool and rejig the equalization formula.

There has been some recognition. When the Minister of Finance came to Newfoundland during the byelection campaign in St. John's West, he made some very good comments about equalization. He said it was time to have a look at it and see what could be done to help out the poorer provinces. A couple of days after he got back, I questioned him on that particular issue and he skated around it. I had reason to believe that he was not really serious about what he had said in Newfoundland.

If the current regional development programs in Atlantic Canada are not working, and maybe some of them are not, then I believe it is time to try something new. The various provinces like Newfoundland, Labrador and those that are the recipients of equalization payments need to have a rejigging and retooling of that formula.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he shares with me a certain excitement about the future of Atlantic Canada.

If we look at Ireland 10 years ago and compare it to Atlantic Canada today, I think the House would agree that a lot of comparisons that can be drawn. The fact is that a tax based strategy, largely based on the transfers from the EU, allowed Ireland to transform itself over that period of time.

We could change the equalization to make it more effective and enable provinces such as Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to keep more of the offshore revenue to lower taxes and debt. Would the hon. member agree that transforming Atlantic Canada by using economic development strategies we know work in other parts of the world would be a great legacy? Can we not change equalization to work now instead of dilly-dallying and doddering around and dealing with old economic development strategies that have failed?

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, how could I not agree with the hon. member? He is such a forward looking individual and such a sound thinker. How could we not agree with him?

We have a very exciting future in Atlantic Canada but we have to have a forward thinking government to take advantage of the opportunities that are in Atlantic Canada.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I have to take care of three very important orders of business.

First, Madam Speaker, I would like to compliment you on your appointment to Acting Speaker. I know it is something you are going to appreciate. You will get to learn from the learned member from Kingston. I wish you all the best throughout this term in your capacity as Madam Speaker.

I have this opportunity to speak in the House of Commons, the sacred place that as parliamentarians we all should embrace, due to the privilege that has been bestowed upon for the second time by the electors of Fundy—Royal. I want to thank the electors who reside in my fabulous riding of Fundy—Royal for this opportunity.

I would also like to pay tribute to two individuals who have made an immense contribution in the last parliament with respect to getting the EI issue for seasonal workers on the political map. Lots of other individuals played a role in that but I would like to pay particular tribute to Jean Dubé and Angela Vautour. They spoke out for the seasonal communities who really needed a voice in this parliament. They were clearly magical components in the recipe that got that bill tabled. We now have the bill before us again. Their legacy will benefit many citizens who reside in their communities for many years to come.

I would also like to pay tribute to my colleague Jean Dubé who was successful last evening in a byelection. He is now the member of the legislative assembly in Fredericton and for the riding of Campbellton. He is going to continue that public service commitment. I also want to pay tribute to Mr. Moore, another Tory, who was successful in the riding of Caraquet. The legislature only got stronger last night in New Brunswick.

I referred to the EI bill which has just been reintroduced. The bill with respect to immigration has also been reintroduced. We are also going to see the government make its third attempt at bringing forth legislation with respect to protecting species at risk. Also, there was a bill on the order paper with respect to financial services. The government tabled it five years after it said it was a priority however it died on the order paper.

It would be quite appropriate to say that the government is a government of improvisation. It makes it up as it goes. No longer are we seeing that with respect to the Marshall decision. The government was not ready for that particular incident, despite the fact it must have had people in the Department of Justice saying the decision may not have gone the way the Government of Canada had expected. We saw that in 1995 referendum, in the postal strike and in the farmers' crisis as well. It is a government that manages by crisis and not by vision.

In the throne speech there was no real commitment to developing and augmenting health care in the country. Basically, the government reflected back upon the agreement it signed with the provinces in September or what I call the postdated cheque bill. The government returned the money that it gutted from the health care system in 1993-94 and agreed to return descending levels to that threshold again. When? Not today but three years from now.

When I campaigned in the recent election, they said categorically that given the government was in a surplus and if it had its priorities in order, before it did anything else, it would have returned that money to the health care system today, not three years from now. This fact may not be known, but the province of New Brunswick will not return to the 1993-94 threshold for health care funding until the year 2005-06. New Brunswick actually waited five years for the government's postdated cheque on health care.

I challenge the Minister of Health to return that money now and to escalate the accord that was signed in September as opposed to the take or leave it deal that it left the provinces in that regard.

I also want to talk about one perspective. We have seen a lot of economic indicators in the last little while that would say the North American economy is starting to slow down. It is unheard of and unprecedented that the Minister of Finance would not have the fortitude to provide the leadership that the country fundamentally needs to ensure that Canada will make the necessary investments in our economy to ensure that it maintains its place in the world economy.

Why do we not have a budget tabled that would recognize the fact that Canada has the second highest corporate and personal income taxes as a per cent of its GDP in the industrialized world? Why would we not have a budget right now that would send a signal that Canada is going in the direction of lowering its taxes so it can have more growth to keep up with its principal trading partner, the United States?

Moreover, we categorically have to make investment for the younger generation. The best investment we could possibly make for younger generations right now is to set out a methodical strategy about paying down our national debt. That is the least we owe to our future generations.

There was no clear signal that the government will in a prudent, methodical way pay down debt. If we want to send a signal to the international investment community that Canada is getting its economic fundamentals in order, that it is a place to grow and invest those important dollars in, no signal would be more valuable than a methodical approach to paying down national debt. I want to pay tribute to the member of Kings—Hants, our finance critic, who played a fundamental role in ensuring that that element was in the platform we bestowed upon Canadians in the recent election.

There is one issue that I was very shocked by and that the Right Hon. Adrienne Clarkson did not utter the words because they were not placed before her in the throne speech. The member for Burin—St. George's obviously does not think my next point is going to be all that important. I know students who live in Burin—St. George's. When the member was a Tory, he actually thought this was a problem. Now that he is a Liberal, he has forgotten about the students.

Can you, Madam Speaker, go to a high school, a community college or a university near your riding and say that post-secondary education is accessible to everyone? We cannot do that right now because we do not have the guts to invest in post-secondary education to the level that we should.

The message I want to send throughout this debate on the throne speech is that this is a government of improvisation. I want to be a friend of Fundy—Royal and a friend of Canadians as a parliamentarian who advocates these particular issues. I want to be a friend to farmers to ensure that we actually have an income stabilization system that would address catastrophic loss of income.

I want to ensure that we are friends to students. I want to ensure that we do things in terms of being a friend to the environment, to safe air and safe water, to protect species at risk and to address climate change. Those are the issues that we had in our platform. I am sure, Madam Speaker, that you actually read our platform with wholehearted intensity during the course of the election.

I am a friend of the environment, of farmers, of students and, above all, I pledge today that I will be a friend of my great riding of Fundy—Royal.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment to the chair.

I want to ask a question of my colleague from Fundy—Royal. Is he suggesting that the government should totally neglect and forget about the $42 billion deficit that the former administration left this country with before the Liberals came to power in 1993?

Does the hon. member not realize that student debts and problems with student loans is a result of the mismanagement and overspending of the former administration led by former Prime Minister Mulroney?

Is the member for Fundy—Royal advocating that we should return to blind spending, to increased student debt and to not dealing prudently with the finances of this country? I would like to hear the hon. member's response to those questions.