Debates of Feb. 7th, 2001

Speech From The Throne

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. member has a particular interest in the issue of disability. I and many other members do as well.

Specifically, in the aboriginal community in my area the incidence of disability is four or five times higher than the national average. It is a very difficult issue for that community to deal with. We have had a number of reports. We have a working group for aboriginals with disabilities.

I know that there is a particular concern for children with special needs. It was very well registered during the election by many of my constituents that we can do the integration into the labour market but that does not deal with the children who have FAE/FAS, or dyslexia, or impediments, or learning difficulties, or attention deficit or who have a number of other learning challenges.

The big debate right now is how will we be able to take the $2.2 billion of early childhood development and square that with the needs that are out there. That is the challenge.

The other challenge is that we must not focus on our jurisdictional differences between the provinces, the territories and the federal government. To a child, there is no difference. To families who need the help and to the schools that find this a tremendous challenge financially as well as in terms of human resources, there really are no differences.

We need to be able to come together as the representatives of various levels of government and come up with a strategy that will deal with children, specifically children with special needs. That can be done through some of the suggestions in the Speech from the Throne. The items that are listed there are for children, specifically early childhood development. The most preventable disability, FAE/FAS, also got a special mention. We have a national strategy for that as well.

That is not to say that there is a silver bullet and there will be a quick fix. It will take a long time. It will take greater dedication and more focus in terms of what is needed in the next report that comes out on the disabilities. There has to be some kind of reflection of those needs that are out there.

We have many considerations because it is not simple. It is very complicated as I indicated. However I do not believe that it is insurmountable.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my fellow citizens in Markham for electing me. I also want to thank my family, which has accepted wholeheartedly the family and financial costs of political life.

Often many things have a silver lining. For my two teenage sons, the greater availability of a car during my sojourns in Ottawa is a definite plus.

I thank the Prime Minister, who invited me to join his team by selecting me as a candidate.

Finally, I thank my Liberal colleagues, fellow rookie MPs from all parties and the staff of the House of Commons who have made this first 10 days a very exciting and pleasurable experience.

My theme today is that in at least two respects Markham, my riding, can be seen as a vanguard of the shape of things to come in much of the rest of the country. I refer first to the increasing multicultural nature of our country and second to the degree to which we are as a country leaping into the new economy and making it grow.

If we go back 30 years, there was a negligible percentage of the citizens of Markham who were visible minorities. Today it is about half. Thirty years ago there were 135 Chinese people, today there are 43,000. More than half of the people of Markham are new Canadians, people who were not born in the country.

As one such as myself with a relatively Caucasian or WASP background from Bay Street or McGill, it was a distinct highlight of the campaign to have the opportunity to meet so many new Canadians in their places of worship and in their homes during door to door canvassing.

One event sticks out in my mind as something I will never forget. While canvassing on a street with mainly new Canadians one evening, I noticed that as soon as they saw a Liberal sign a smile would come to their faces and the names of Trudeau and that of the Prime Minister would often be mentioned, both in a positive vein.

At that point I realized, as a question of reality, that rather than theory it truly is the Liberal Party that has traditionally been the one to welcome people to our shores from all parts of the world irrespective of culture, religion or race. This is increasingly the population of Markham and increasingly that of Canada. It goes without saying that the government will continue in that tradition. In addition, there are measures in the throne speech and a commitment to work with provincial governments to make it easier for the credentials of immigrants to be accepted and for them to be integrated more quickly into our society.

As a Quebecer, or at least as someone who was born in Quebec and taught at McGill University, and at the Université du Québec à Montréal, I appreciate not only the multicultural aspect of the Canadian way of life, but also our bilingualism or linguistic duality.

This reflects the sense of balance which to me is the hallmark of being a Liberal. We favour innovation and inclusion. We favour wealth creation and growth and helping those who need help. We favour multiculturalism and bilingualism. This sense of balance comes naturally to Liberals, just as easily as walking and chewing gum. However, without naming names, that ability to walk and chew gum at the same time seems to come less naturally to some of the other parties in the House. That is meant to be a relatively non-partisan remark.

I come now to the second element. I said Markham is in a sense the vanguard of multiculturalism. Now let me talk about the new economy. Markham describes itself as the high tech centre of Canada. Markham has more than 800 high tech firms. Whereas the whole of the country benefits from the policies of this government, favouring economic growth and the new economy, nowhere will these benefits be felt more strongly than in Markham. Let me briefly illustrate three dimensions of these.

First, there are measures to make the macro economy perform because the macro economy has to perform for both the old and the new economies. The Liberal government's impeccably timed and very substantial tax cuts are just what the doctor ordered to allow us to weather the storms that are coming from south of the border.

Not only that, there are also budgetary measures specifically favouring the new economy. I refer to the end of the income tax surtax, the slashing of the capital gains inclusion rate and the measures on stock options, all of which are specifically geared to favour the new economy.

I also refer to structural measures contained in the throne speech that will favour expanded research, increased commercialization of research, increased learning and an improved information infrastructure, all of which are essential to the new economy.

Finally, as a specific illustration and as an economist, it does not make sense for the new economy to be a pure unadulterated private enterprise activity. There has to be an element of partnership. This is perhaps my favourite example of that. In the past year Markham attracted an IBM facility with 1,500 new jobs, thanks in part to a $33 million federal investment. Absent of that investment, according to IBM, it would not be somewhere else in Canada. It would be in Ireland or Asia. The Alliance policy, which would abandon and outlaw such partnerships, would see such companies not locate in this country but locate elsewhere.

In my view, Markham can be seen as a microcosm or as a vanguard of where much of the country is headed with respect to both multiculturalism and the new economy. In both of those two dimensions, the progress of the town will be much aided by the measures taken previously in the budget and more recently in the throne speech.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with my colleague, the member for Champlain.

I am very pleased to make my maiden speech in this House. First, I want to congratulate you on your appointment and to mention the election of the Speaker of this House. I also offer you my full co-operation so that we can have respectful debates while dealing with the business of the House in the years to come.

You have perhaps the most significant job in the House. You must assist us so that, in our work, we respect of the rights of all members of parliament, particularly those in the opposition. I can assure you that I will support you to ensure that, even though the discussions between the opposition and the government are sometimes heated, they are never disgraceful nor disrespectful.

I also want to take a few minutes of my maiden speech to thank all the people in the riding of Châteauguay. I sincerely thank them for the trust they put in me on November 27. I can assure them that I will do my best to represent them and serve them here in parliament. I also want to pay my respects to the previous BQ member for Châteauguay, Maurice Godin, who, after having served his fellow citizens and Quebec for two terms, is enjoying a well deserved retirement with his family.

I am convinced that Mr. Godin, who is a fervent advocate of Quebecers' interests, will come out of retirement when there is another referendum, and that he will support Quebecers who want to choose freely and democratically their political destiny.

The throne speech read last week was quite a disappointment. To tell the truth, it was a bitter disappointment, for me and for many of my colleagues and fellow citizens. I was disappointed by the lack of a real government agenda and of any real vision of public administration. The throne speech was full of vague and meaningless phrases. The fact that the government has no agenda means that it will continue steering Canada day to day, with vague objectives in mind instead of clear goals. That this government should ask for clarity from others is the height of arrogance.

My colleagues in the Bloc have pinpointed some of the flaws of the throne speech, and we will continue to do so. The main theme of our remarks has been the lack of a real vision for the development of the Canadian and Quebec societies.

The various measures found in the throne speech remain vague and they lack clarity, in the areas of economic, social and cultural development. This is not the way to get Canadians and Quebecers interested in political life. The fact that four out of ten voters did not find the issues discussed in the last election campaign important enough to cast their ballot does not seem to bother the government.

It is certainly not with this kind of government agenda, which has absolutely no substance, that our fellow citizens will develop a renewed interest in politics and will give new lustre to this parliamentary institution.

I think it is important to say that the Speech from the Throne was a great disappointment to me, in terms of this government's vision of amateur sport. In fact, it has no vision whatsoever as far as our amateur athletes are concerned. The vision of the Bloc Quebecois is that amateur athletes must be our first priority. Right now, they have to get by without any formal support. Amateur athletes represent our country internationally, and yet they have to fend for themselves. The Bloc Quebecois is proud of our athletes.

Moreover, French speaking athletes have to master the English language to be able to succeed in their sport. Nothing has changed. This is another disappointment.

French speaking athletes have to be very tenacious, needless to say, to persevere in their endeavour even though English remains the only language used in many Canadian sport federations. It seems that, once again, the Bloc Quebecois has to ensure that the rights of Quebecers are respected by demanding that our athletes be able to train and compete in French. All that in spite of the fact that French is one of our country's official languages.

The Bloc Quebecois filed a complaint about that with the Commissioner of Official Languages in 1999, but nothing has changed, which is another disappointment. Can we hope for a follow-up on that?

I am very disappointed when I realize that English has become the official language of amateur sport in Canada. The government must send a clear message to our athletes by investing the funds required to promote the use of French within Canadian sport federations.

The government must stop being so vague when it streamlines the budgets of the various federations and stop asking always more of French-speaking athletes, insisting that they work in English only if they want to succeed. Bilingualism must be a priority in amateur sports and the government must act now.

I am also disappointed that the government has not taken a clear position on antidoping measures. It is especially disappointing since, as harmful as it is, doping has become more and more frequent, something athletes need to do to win and keep winning.

Doping has also become a lucrative billion dollar business, dashing the hopes of any athlete who refuses to use drugs.

Doping has become a lucrative business by creating a demand for the athletes to always perform better, given all the money the broadcasters are paying. The bottom line in this business is profits, and to make profits, the athletes must not only win but put on a performance worthy of being broadcast. To have athletes push their limits is profitable, not only for the broadcasters but also for the athletes who use performance enhancing drugs.

Such superhuman achievement tarnishes any real athletic performance. Athletes find themselves facing quite a challenging dilemma. The choice they have to make is a tough one, because they do not have the support they need and there are no guidelines to fight systematic doping in sport.

Does the government have a concrete and real antidoping policy? No. Is there an arm's length agency to monitor and control doping? No. The government might say it is against doping but its commitments keep being shoved under the carpet. And so if the commitments have been shoved under the carpet, I ask you where are our athletes and where can they turn? I ask you, who will respond to our athletes when they have been irretrievably lost to the world of drugs?

We have a vicious circle already. By remaining silent in the throne speech, this government is making very clear its lack of desire to fight this growing tumour in the world of amateur sport.

What is the explanation for the government's lack of a stand with respect to our athletes? What message is the government sending our athletes through its silence? What are its intentions? When will it take a firm stand? Our only answer is disappointment.

I must shorten my remarks considerably. To conclude, my colleagues, the members of the Bloc Quebecois, can count on me, as the youth and amateur sport critic, to criticize and unmask the actions of the Liberal government, which is acting increasingly as if no other level of government existed in Canada. This arrogant attitude is especially true and verifiable in the case of Quebec.

The Liberal government seems to forget that the people of Quebec also put their trust in the representatives they send to the National Assembly of Quebec and give their national government important responsibilities. I will ensure, with my Bloc Quebecois colleagues, that Quebec's responsibilities are honoured. I will ensure, with the Bloc Quebecois team, that the national government of Quebec is consulted and respected. I will ensure, on behalf of all Quebecers, that the people of Quebec are respected.

You can count on me to criticize every attempt to use young people to promote Canadian unity under the cover of new policies or programs. The public is not fooled by this sort of arrogant and opportunistic attitude.

I will be constantly on the lookout to not miss any opportunity to respond to Quebec's detractors in these areas. The people of Quebec exist, whether the Prime Minister likes it or not, and they demand the respect and recognition of this government, and the fight, whatever they say, is not over.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I wish to thank the constituents of Charlevoix for having put their trust in me in 1993, in 1997, and again in 2000, electing me with a very clear majority of 63%.

The people of Charlevoix trust the Bloc Quebecois because we seem to be the best advocates of Quebec rights. I also want to congratulate the hon. member for Châteauguay, who just spoke, and congratulate his constituents on putting their trust in a Bloc Quebecois member since 1993. I take this opportunity to offer my best wishes to his predecessor, Maurice Godin, who is enjoying a well-deserved retirement and who is surely watching us from his cottage.

I want to assure the people of Châteauguay that their new member will continue Mr. Godin's very good work.

About this famous Speech from the Throne, I want to go back to the speech given by the revenue minister and member for Outremont, who told us this afternoon that he was proud of his government and of the Speech from the Throne. He said his government is the most connected ever. But connected to what? This government is no doubt connected to Internet, as we were abundantly told.

But when the minister speaks of connection to the Net, he is completely disconnected from society. In fact, voters in Charlevoix and in Châteauguay found no stability measures for seasonal workers in the employment insurance system. Let us not forget that they are often people working at minimum wage. Often they are women who are heads of single parent families, earning low wages at a certain period of the year. If they are seasonal workers, it is because their jobs are seasonal.

In the speech, nothing also is said about the World March of Women. Members will recall the 13 demands made by the women during the World March of Women and the demonstrations that occurred all over Quebec, in my riding, in Montreal and here in Ottawa. The Prime Minister said: “Wait for the next mini budget”. We waited in vain. “Wait for the election”. We waited in vain.

The question we are asking today is this: why do we have a throne speech that is a photocopy of the previous one? Nothing changed before or after the election. People are even asking why there was an election in the first place. Nothing has changed as far as the cabinet is concerned. Nothing has changed in the government party's agenda. The policies mentioned in the throne speech for the next four years have not changed. Nothing also was announced in terms of social housing. Nor was anything announced in the area of employment insurance, as I was saying earlier.

What I would like to ask the member for Châteauguay is: does he not think, like I do, that when the government says it is connected to the electronic world, the fact is that it is increasingly disconnected or out of touch with the people of Canada and Quebec?

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. Obviously, in a society such as ours, we must not only talk about getting connected to the Internet. We live in a society that is moving toward globalization and we have a choice. All of this must be controlled.

The government had an opportunity to improve, clarify and give more substance to the employment insurance bill, the first one introduced in this parliament. The government lost an ideal opportunity not to proceed in haste but rather to consider whether it should allow young people and students not to pay any premiums, as it is well known they will not get any benefits. Only one out of four students receives benefits.

In its employment insurance bill, the government did not deal with people who, in ridings such as ours, in Charlevoix, Châteauguay or Champlain, are self-employed workers. These people cannot contribute to the employment insurance fund.

All the clauses we find discriminatory for young people, as I just said, are also discriminatory for women. That discrimination is reflected in an excessively high number of hours of work. Instead of 300 hours, they have to work up to 600 hours. When these women want to get back—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Champlain.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my colleague who could not finish his speech. I would have liked to have heard the end of it. He was eloquent, but it seems that it is my turn now.

I want to congratulate you on your being appointed Deputy Speaker of the House. I will respect your authority. I had the opportunity to act as deputy speaker of the National Assembly on a temporary basis and I know it is not always easy to ensure that the rules are adhered to.

I am very happy to be once again the member for Champlain, which is one of the greatest ridings in Quebec and even Canada.

The riding of Champlain covers 30,000 square kilometres. It is as big as some countries in Europe. The riding of Champlain is extremely varied. It goes from the river all the way up north. Its population is scattered across a territory which includes communities such as Champlain and La Tuque.

I take this opportunity to thank all my constituents for the trust they showed in me by re-electing me. I was an MPP from 1976 to 1984 with the team of René Lévesque.

There are also Indians in my riding, including the Attikamek, north of La Tuque. I take this opportunity to particularly thank them.

As everybody may know, I was elected in Champlain with a majority of 15 votes. I am the only member whose majority has doubled within a week since, after the recount, it went from 7 to 15 votes. It is not much, but I got all the Bloc votes.

It is wrong to say that the Bloc has lost some of its popularity, because in my riding the Bloc vote went from 43% to 46%. If a Conservative candidate had run in Champlain, as was the case during the last election, I would have had the same majority as my predecessor.

A 15 vote majority shows that we are not independent here. As members, we must devote ourselves to the people. Every time someone tells me “Marcel, I voted for you”, I thank him and say “Thank you, it is thanks to you that I was elected”. I had to wait 10 days, and I was increasingly aware of how important one vote is.

One may wonder why people did not get more involved than they did during the last election. The answer is that the election was not necessary. Every journalist said so. This election was meant to allow the Prime Minister, not so much to set a record, but to get what he wanted. If people had felt this election was necessary, they would have gone out and voted.

What brought me back into politics is, to a certain degree, the arrogance of the Liberal Party, the arrogance of the government. I believe it has given ample proof, in the past, that it ignores Quebec, among others. And it still does. The throne speech is another example of how it ignores us. It continues to intrude into areas of provincial jurisdiction, as is the case in Quebec.

During the last parliament, this government introduced contemptuous and offensive bills. I am thinking of Bill C-20 for example. I am also thinking of another bill that is coming back, the one to amend the Young Offenders Act. They government is always trying to interfere in areas that come under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the other provinces, and by doing so, in my opinion, it shows contempt for the people of Quebec.

I came back to politics when I was invited to do so, because I wanted to add my voice to the voice of all the Bloc Quebecois members who defend Quebec's interests. I want to tell this government that one day it will have to stop laughing at the people of Quebec. I believe in Quebec's sovereignty. At 64 years of age, I plan to use all the energy I have left to ensure that we achieve sovereignty as fast as we can.

There is a people in Quebec, even if the Liberal government across the way does not acknowledge it. We are a people. We have the right to emancipation. We have a right over our territory. The very existence of this people is being denied. This is what brought me back to politics, and I intend to say so as often as I can.

As far as I am concerned, Quebec sovereignty in not against anybody, it is for Quebec and for the people of Quebec. Our development does not mean we have to take anything away from others. We want everything we deserve as founding people, as a people who had to fight to survive in the Americas, which includes 400 millions anglophones and allophones.

European artists who come here are constantly congratulating us for the energy we have shown in surviving as francophones in North America. Maybe the natural wealth of Quebec is its distinct people, which is like no other, a people which has the right to live and the right to possess its own territory.

This people is the francophones, the Quebecers, not only the francophones but the whole people of Quebec, all of its 7 million inhabitants, who have the right to have their own territory.

As a Quebecer, I have had enough of seeing my government having to beg for what it is owed. I find it insulting that to get the money we are entitled to, money paid with our own taxes, we have to kowtow. It is insulting to be forced to resort to see overlap in Quebec.

Let us take, for example, the millennium scholarships. This is our money. Education is Quebec's jurisdiction and a jurisdiction of other provinces as well. This money belongs to us. The government has spent millions of dollars to intrude into Quebec's jurisdiction. Worse, Quebec has been placed under trusteeship. A certain Jean Monty, for whom we have not voted and who has never been elected, has been appointed to administer the millennium scholarships.

[An hon. member]

Two million and a half.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Someone said two million and a half. Such things explain why Quebec wants sovereignty. Not sovereignty against others but for us, and possibly with others.

Having in Quebec a strong and proud people, a people that fought for its survival and will continue to do so, does not deprive others of anything. That will not be taken away from them. Sovereignty is in the heart of Quebecers. There are latent periods. The government can pass whatever legislation it wants, raise the percentage required to reach it, but I can assure you that one day Quebec will be sovereign.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member opposite talks about a distinct Quebec people, does he talk about English speaking people like me, who live in Quebec? Does he talk about aboriginal people in northern Quebec? Does he talk about Chinese and Indian people who live in Quebec? I wonder whether it is true that the Quebec people is comprised of people of all origins.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, Quebec belongs to Quebecers. I believe in Mr. René Lévesque's version. I think no one would deny Mr. Lévesque's great intelligence and respect for democracy.

In my opinion, a Quebecer is a Quebecer, no matter which language he or she speaks. It is someone who lives in Quebec, who pays his or her taxes in Quebec and who has the right to vote in Quebec. Quebecers of all origins are well treated. I think, for instance, of English speaking people who live in Quebec and I am proud of this. They have universities, schools, hospitals and services. I am proud of this, and I am one of those who would defend them.

Since the majority of people living on the Quebec territory are French speaking, we want French to be the first official language. This takes absolutely nothing away from the others. It would however allow us to grow and to continue growing, in association with the rest of Canada.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I respond to my colleague, the member for Champlain, I would like to tell my Liberal colleague that the members opposite should be careful when they talk about such sensitive issues.

The Secretary of State for Amateur Sport once said, speaking of our former colleague, Osvaldo Nunez, a Chilean-born Canadian and Quebecer, that immigrants with such sovereignist affiliation ought to be deported, because they are not worthy of the Canadian citizenship. Such comments from over there would be far better left unsaid.

I would like to greet and congratulate my new colleague, the member for Champlain, not only on his speech, but also on winning his seat following a fight to the finish against a very big Liberal organization. His riding just like mine, which border the Prime Minister's riding, were real targets. We had many visitors, in particular the minister and member for Outremont and the Minister for International Trade.

The member for Champlain won by a slight majority but brilliantly. Already he has shown us how much he believes in sovereignty, a cause he also served in Quebec.

Let me seize this opportunity to ask him to say a few words about Cap-de-la-Madeleine, the main municipality in his riding, which will be celebrating its 350th anniversary this year. I am proud to say that my father presided over the celebrations for the 300th anniversary, in 1951, as president of the organizing committee. Cap-de-la-Madeleine has played a very important role in the history of Quebec and America.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed I should have mentioned in my speech that this year will mark the 350th anniversary of Cap-de-la-Madeleine. It is not just one city's celebration, it is a celebration for all of us. It is the beginning of our colony and it touches all of us on both sides of the House.

I take this opportunity to invite people to come to Cap-de-la-Madeleine to revisit the past and, while they are there, they can tour the whole Mauricie area, which is the forestry capital of Canada for 2001.

I intend to ask the member for Saint-Maurice to co-operate with us to fund these activities.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak today to the throne speech. It is a very important document in setting out the blueprint for the government's mandate.

I certainly take this opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, because I know you will bring great decorum to the House. I appreciate very much the fact that you are in the chair. I also indicate that I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac. We will hear from him in a short while.

I thank the residents and constituents of Waterloo—Wellington and show my gratitude to them in terms of my re-election. I go on record as well and thank the Governor General, and Mr. Saul for that matter, for the throne speech and what was contained in it. As I said at the outset, it outlined the blueprint of the Government of Canada over the course of its mandate.

The people spoke on November 27 and gave our government, a government of decency, respect and integrity, another mandate into the 21st century. As a result of that sweeping mandate we can now govern accordingly. That is in the best interests of all Canadians wherever they may be in this great country of ours, north, south, east or west. It is appropriate that we proceed on that basis, knowing that we govern on behalf of all Canadians.

I was slightly distressed when I read not long ago that the members for Okanagan—Shuswap and Wild Rose attended a western separatist meeting. That is offensive when we really think about it in terms of our great country. Even more offensive was the fact that the Leader of the Opposition did not take the time to condemn that kind of treachery. I think he should have, but then we are on the road to seeing the kinds of things he is prepared to do such as spending $800,000 of taxpayer money. It is tough to take when we hear from him time and time again about good fiscal responsibility and good fiscal order. Here we have a person who could have settled for $60,000 and instead spent $800,000 when all the legal fees were added up. It is quite remarkable. I have to say that my constituents resent the hypocrisy contained therein.

Speaking of hypocrisy, we have the member for Edmonton North. I was reminded not long ago of the pig buttons and pig noises that we heard in the House, which came mostly from her; the pigs out on the front lawn of parliament; and all the kinds of things that took place. Here the high priestess of principle herself flip flops and with the duplicity of only what a contortionist could do is now back into a pension plan that she condemned so totally, so outrageously and so egregiously. It really is, and my constituents share this view, hard to take from that party opposite.

Let us get to the throne speech. It is important to note that we have set out a blueprint in keeping with the government's commitment to the people of Canada. I re-emphasize here and now that it emphasizes our commitment to opportunity for all. I do not mean for a few folks, or for people in certain geographic areas, but for everyone across the country. It underscores the commitment of the government to work for, to build and to lead into the new economy, and to ensure in the process that our communities are safe and secure.

The plan of action we have set out will allow Canadian men, women and children, for that matter, because we especially had emphasis in that regard, the very best country we can possibly give them. That too is in keeping with what we have said all along, and the Canadian people quite frankly agreed with us.

As a result of the great endorsement on election day we are proud to proceed on the achievements we made in the first two mandates. Even more important, we intend to fulfil the commitments we made in our election platform and proceed in that manner with opportunity for all.

The overriding goal is to secure Canada's place as one of the most innovative nations in the world. Why settle for second best when we can take charge and widen the circle of social and economic inclusion? In this way all Canadians can benefit from the economic rewards that are flowing and will continue to flow, and can share in the great future that is ours for the taking.

Since taking office in 1993 we have worked hard step by step, sometimes more incremental than other times, but we have worked consistently. We have worked hard to build a strong economy and a solid social foundation so that Canada can enjoy excellence and prosperity and an even higher quality of life.

Our plan is simply to create a very smart, focused and practical plan that ensures a bright future for all Canadians. We want to create and share opportunity for everyone who can partake. We want to include everyone in this great endeavour and leave no one behind.

The Prime Minister, cabinet and our caucus have repeatedly said that in the process we will make Canada the most innovative and entrepreneurial nation in the world, a land of endless opportunity for the best and brightest, not only to stay here but to be attracted here as a result of new investments, ventures, ideas and talent.

If we do this, and I am convinced we will, can and must, we will enhance our unmatched quality of life by building a more inclusive society, one in which all share the opportunities I have spoken of and in which no Canadian is left behind. In such a society we all work together.

The plan for our third mandate is to build a world leading Canadian economy driven by ideas and talent. We plan to create a more inclusive society where there is quality health service and where children get the right start in life. All of that will be available to individuals and families who can enjoy strong, safe and secure communities.

We plan to ensure a clean, healthy environment for Canadians. We need more and more to redouble our efforts in this area to preserve what is ours by nature and what we need to do as good stewards of the land, the water and the air.

Finally, we plan to enhance our voice in the world and our shared sense of citizenship, something that is envied around the world.

As Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General I would like to emphasize the feeling of safety in our communities and its importance to Canadians wherever they live. Feeling secure in our homes, our neighbourhoods, our communities and our streets is a fundamental right for all Canadians. Taking action to protect this fundamental obligation of government is very important. We have lived up to this obligation over the last number of years with what I believe to be a firm hand and innovative solutions.

We have taken a balanced approach, which is very important. It underscores the commitment of the government to ensure that it always proceeds in a balanced way. As a result, it is fair to say that Canadians have confidence in what the government is doing.

Let me review some of the things we have done. We have tightened up rules for early parole hearings. We have made it possible to obtain DNA samples from suspects of crime involving physical violence. We have cracked down on child prostitution and child sex tourism. We have introduced amendments to the criminal code that will strengthen the voice of victims of crime in the justice system. These are all important things.

Let us take as an example the national strategy of community safety and crime prevention and the money we have pumped into it to ensure that prevention is the order of the day. Let us look at the innovative youth justice strategy that we will soon reintroduce in terms of the Young Offenders Act. The act will be reworked for the benefit of all Canadians, and especially for our young people, to ensure not only prevention and consequences but rehabilitation as well.

The government's anti-smuggling initiative has resulted in 17,000 smuggling related charges in excess of $113 million and another $118 million in evaded taxes and duties.

We as a government have taken the measures and will be taking the measures that will ensure safety and security for all Canadians. It is very important because at the end of the day Canadians wherever they live in Canada will feel much better knowing that we on this side of the House will continue to fight for them and will continue to ensure their safety and security.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, permit me a moment to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker of the House and to extend my congratulations to the Speaker on his election as well.

It is with both pride and humility that I rise for the first time in this historic place as member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac. The voters in my riding put their trust in me. I have already promised them and I promise them again today that I will work hard for them day in and day out.

The riding of Beauséjour—Petitcodiac is almost a microcosm of our country. As I found out in the last campaign it is geographically vast, almost evenly divided between French and English speakers, and is a mixture of rural and urban communities.

I am not the first member of my family to serve this riding. My father was the member for Westmorland—Kent for 12 years. Standing in the House today I am more conscious than ever of the big shoes I have to fill.

And it is with a great deal of emotion that I realize that I occupy the same seat that my father did for 12 years or so in this House. I thank all my family, particularly my mother, my father and my sister, Geneviève.

My father is not the only one of my family to serve in the House. My great-great-grandfather, George Elliott Casey, was elected in 1872 at 22 years of age. Like me, he was the youngest member of his caucus at that time.

I would be remiss if I did not mention another of my predecessors as member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac. The Prime Minister served my riding from 1990 to 1993. During part of that time I worked for the then leader of the opposition in his office. I had graduated from law school and had been called to the New Brunswick bar. The Prime Minister gave me the opportunity to see how our government works up close. I used to watch from up there in the gallery. I must say the view from down here is considerably better.

I will never forget the opportunity given to me by the Prime Minister. If I am here today, it is mainly thanks to him.

I also wish to make mention of the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, the Minister of Labour. She holds the riding next to mine. Over the past few years she has been a good friend, a staunch ally and a mentor, both publicly and privately. Her 30 year commitment to her community and her commitment to social justice and economic development stand as an inspiration to all of us.

I also thank the Minister of Labour for her help during my campaign.

The campaign was perhaps a bit longer for me than for other hon. members. I had hoped to be here in 1997. I had campaigned to be here then and I fought hard, but I came in second. I am a little late, but better late than never.

Obviously, my deepest gratitude goes to my constituents. The election campaign was an opportunity to get to know their generosity and warmth.

I saw again in the last election how francophones and anglophones work together for the common good. I met and spoke to the decent, hard working people who work in our factories, who fish off our coast and who work the land as farmers.

I met with students, seniors, teachers and nurses, and I was impressed by their dedication to their community.

A major concern in my riding had to do with the changes that were made to the employment insurance system, changes that unjustly penalize workers in seasonal industries, many of whom live in my riding.

I am enormously gratified that the government has introduced Bill C-2 to restore fairness to the EI system.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister made a commitment to proceed swiftly with these improvements, and he has kept his word by making this legislation the first bill introduced in this Parliament.

It should be emphasized that the proposed changes will be retroactive to October 1, 2000.

A promise was made and a promise has been kept. It is what the people of Beauséjour—Petitcodiac expected and it is what they deserve.

Beauséjour—Petitcodiac is also the birthplace of College St. Joseph, the precursor to the Université de Moncton and also the home of Mount Allison University which, for the last 10 years, has been ranked as the number one undergraduate university in Canada.

My riding is a place of wonderful opportunities but it also suffers from many of the problems that have long plagued Atlantic Canada: seasonal employment, resource dependent industries and an unacceptable level of young people leaving the region to pursue jobs elsewhere.

We Atlantic Canadians know that the real brain drain is not from Canada to the United States, but from rural Canada to urban Canada and from Atlantic Canada to central and western Canada.

My friend, a leading academic on regional development, Dr. Donald Savoie, once told me that in Atlantic Canada we have three economies: a seasonal resource based economy largely in rural areas, an urban economy slowly and encouragingly transforming itself to new technologies and to a new economy, and some areas where virtually no functioning economy exists at all.

We know that we have to solve these problems ourselves, but we also know that we need a federal commitment.

Our government knows this and has committed $700 million to the Atlantic investment partnership, a fund that will help keep our young people from having to seek jobs elsewhere.

These major investments will help our young people build a future for themselves here at home.

The Atlantic region has also seen over the past year a crisis in the fishery. The integration of native fishermen into the commercial fishery has been difficult to say the least.

Behind the headlines, however, is a story of co-operation and goodwill on both sides. This is the result of the tremendous efforts of fishermen, both native and non-native, and the strong leadership of the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The minister's steady hand and commitment to conservation has earned him the confidence of all stakeholders. People of goodwill support the minister's efforts to enact a set of conservation rules that will apply equally to all fishermen.

The Maritime Fishermen's Union leadership, particularly its president Ron Cormier, deserves our support and congratulations.

I did not arrive here in the class of 1997 as I had hoped. The class of 2000 comes to the House at a time of tremendous opportunity.

For the first time in a generation we are not faced with deficits dictating the economic policy of our country.

The throne speech tells us that the national government is committed to sharing the wealth and opportunities of the nation with all Canadians. The national government can be a positive force in the lives of all Canadians.

I believe that this parliament will be remembered by future generations as marking a turning point.

More than 30 years ago the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau inspired Canadians by challenging them to build a just society.

I feel that I have, in this parliament and in serving in this government, the chance to dream of a Canada of even greater achievement, of an activist and prudent government investing in Atlantic Canada and bringing the wealth and prosperity of the last few years to every region; the chance to dream of the end to the threat of dissolution, when francophones and anglophones in all parts of the country can work together as harmoniously as in my riding; and the chance for all Canadians, particularly the people of Atlantic Canada, to once again dream of a just society.

I am here to share in that process and to serve this House and this government as we work together to continue building what is surely the greatest country in the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Liberal member for an excellent speech that went right to the heart of all of us who really feel a strong sense that this is a country that is united and united in its sense of compassion in all corners of the country.

He made reference to the proposed changes to employment insurance. He said that that the changes would have quite an impact on his riding. For the benefit of all Canadians, I wonder if he could elaborate on that a little bit.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments and his good wishes. The changes to employment insurance that were made a number of years ago had some positive elements, for example, the conversion of weeks to hours as a method of qualifying for benefits.

In New Brunswick alone, 87% of the people work more than a 35 hour week. With the changes that the government made, all those weeks now go toward qualifying for employment insurance benefits.

We on this side believe in incentives for work but we do not believe in punishing people who work in seasonal industries.

My colleague, the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, has often told me, and he is right, that in Canada there are no seasonal workers, only seasonal industries.

A fundamental difference that we must understand is that there are no seasonal workers in Atlantic Canada. There are seasonal industries such as the fishery, tourism and agriculture. These industries have been unjustly affected by the intensity rule.

It was a very important measure that the Prime Minister undertook when he visited my colleague's riding during the election in Belledune in northern New Brunswick. He made it clear at that time that the changes which had been introduced in parliament before the election to eliminate the intensity rule would be reintroduced as a priority.

The Prime Minister kept that promise. Bill C-2 was the first substantive piece of legislation introduced in this parliament and the changes, as the Prime Minister had committed, will be retroactive to October 1, 2000.

This was an important undertaking for the people in my riding. I hope, with the co-operation of other members of the House, that the legislation will pass quickly.

People in my riding are looking forward to these changes coming into effect. I intend to vote and to encourage the government so that these changes become law as soon as possible.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here in the 37th parliament and to make my first speech. I will be dealing primarily with agriculture as it pertains to the Speech from the Throne, and my reply to it.

Certainly in the time that I have I will not have time to talk exhaustively about all the issues but I will deal with some of them. I would also like to share my time with the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley.

First, I am pleased that I had the support of my constituents of Selkirk—Interlake. I intend to repay them with diligence and hard work while I am down here.

I will deal with the Speech from the Throne in a positive way.

The farm groups and farmers across the country have given many good suggestions to the agriculture minister and the government. I will go into some of those suggestions in a moment.

The farm community has had a reaction to the fact that agricultural issues were not dealt with in the throne speech nor by subsequent Liberal members during debate.

Bruce Johnstone, a writer for the Regina

Leader Post

, summed up how the farmers feel about the throne speech. He said that it set a new low for “vacuity, fatuity, banality and inanity”. He went on to say:

The government will help Canada's agricultural sector move beyond crisis management—leading to more genuine diversification and value-added growth, new investments and employment, better land use, and high standards of environmental stewardship and food safety.

He also pointed out that all the Liberals had to offer were empty election promises of more farm aid bromides about the need to diversify and add value and a lot of hot air. He concluded by quoting another author. He said, and I have heard the same from farmers in Ontario and in the west, “This high-sounding rhetoric is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.

Unfortunately, that is exactly how the farmers feel about the throne speech. Agriculture is having a real income crisis. It absolutely needs an immediate injection of additional cash over and above the farm safety net programs. Farmers are asking for that because the farm net safety program of AIDA, agriculture income disaster assistance, left out so many farmers with little or no assistance whatsoever. Farmers, whose family income from the farm is well below the $20,000 mark, are actually living in poverty.

Some of the groups that have come to Ottawa to protest and put forward suggestions have had meetings with the agriculture minister, but I would like to reiterate some of the things that have been said so that it gets recorded in the House of Commons.

I will start off by reporting first on the farmers from a town in my area called Beausejour. They told me that their backs were finally against the wall and that they had done their best. They said that they had done everything by way of diversification and efficiency but that they wanted me to report to the government that they needed a program which would deliver aid quickly, efficiently and without a big administrative expense. Their request, which was in the neighbourhood of $50 an acre, was what they felt they needed. I would like that passed along to the agriculture minister. I am not talking party policy here, but I am telling the House what farmers out there are saying.

The western barley growers is another good example of a farm group that has been in contact with the agriculture minister. They say that there are several areas of opportunity for government to assist agriculture without direct subsidies.

A lot of these things were put forward by the Canadian Alliance also: removal of the excise tax on fuel used by producers in off road use; removal of the excise tax on fuel used by the railways to haul grain; review of the Grain Transportation Act to ensure that the cost savings, which were envisioned by the Estey commission, were actually delivered to producers; review of user fees; and a review of government regulations to ensure that only those which are required to market Canada's agriculture production remain in force.

The Ontario corn producers have asked for money over and above the current safety net commitment, to be administered by the provinces. Once again, safety net programs have failed them. The grain growers of Canada are asking for an immediate infusion of public funds to restore equity between levels of direct income supports for grain and oilseed producers in Canada versus those in the United States. This is an issue of parity. They estimate that would work out to between $1.5 billion to $2 billion nationally.

That is a large sum, but let us remember that we all have to eat. It is in Canada's national interest that we have a viable agriculture and are able for the most part to supply ourselves with the majority of food we eat.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has requested $900 million in additional farm aid over the next three years. Once again it has identified that the agricultural policies the Liberal government has brought out over the past seven years have failed farmers in Ontario and across the country and need to be addressed in an emergency fashion, as opposed to the long term, efficient, effective program that should have been put in place by the government in these last seven years.

While these requests sound like a lot of money, once again I say that they are for emergency use.

The Saskatchewan rally group was here. That group was also talking in terms of $25 to $80 an acre. It is now talking about a plan similar to the one in the province of Quebec, where the cost of production is actually the basis on which farm support is provided. While that would be a lot of money across the country, we cannot have farmers producing food and working like serfs and slaves for the whole country.

In my own province, Keystone Agricultural Producers had its annual meeting, which I was happy to attend, and came up with a suggestion. Those producers said that they have identified to the government that a 1% food tax should be looked at. That is another suggestion the government could look at. They also made a suggestion for alternate land use services. That would be a 20% land set-aside over nine years, with payments being made for the land that is set aside.

Over the years, besides the immediate cash injection and the long term safety net program, the Canadian Alliance has talked about tax reduction. We have talked about harmonizing with the United States in regard to the use of chemicals so that there is no interference in trade with our big trading partners.

There are many things the government could do. The suggestions have all been put before the government. It is the duty and it is the responsibility of the government to address this crisis in agriculture income, part of which was of the government's making, and it is the government's fault for having let it occur.

I hope the agriculture minister and the Prime Minister listen to farmers and farm groups and deal with this issue before spring seeding.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows very well that one of the reasons why the benefits got out so slowly in the AIDA program is that the terms of dispensing those benefits were determined by the provinces. It was a shared program. The provinces did not want to put up the money any faster than they could help.

Second, all the member can really talk about is spending money. It is amazing that the party opposite is willing to spend billions on a problem. When the member talks about $80 an acre, he is talking about farms of 10,000 acres as an average. That is $80,000 a farm.

We know there is a crisis in the west. We know there is a crisis in Ontario, even in my own riding. The real reason for it is the unfair subsidies that are occurring in the United States. The member opposite did not even mention that. He knows that is the root of the problem.

In this past week, our Prime Minister, when talking to the President of the United States, said to the president that he has to do something about these unfair subsidies because he needs our energy, so he has to fix the farm crisis. That is a better fix than simply asking for more and more money. We have to do something with the Americans and we have the Prime Minister who has the credibility to do that something.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will quickly reply. Finally the Prime Minister has taken up the suggestion that I put forward to the 36th parliament, which was for the Liberals to get off their Liberal butts, talk to our partners there and get rid of the subsidies that are causing the distortion of production. The proof is in

Hansard

. We could have the clerk bring it forward right now and I could prove that. The Prime Minister has finally taken my advice.

The last thing I will say is in regard to the AIDA administration and is a strange fact. Some provinces administer the AIDA program and process the applications by themselves and in some places the federal government does it. Where the federal government is doing it, in Manitoba and in Saskatchewan for example, the applications are processed more slowly and the payouts are much lower. Where the provinces are administering the program, it is done much more quickly and the farmers get their money more quickly, so what the member said is not too accurate.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to share some thoughts with the Chamber. We have decided that the theme of today from the official opposition is regional interests. As a member from British Columbia, I am delighted to bring some of the concerns that British Columbia has with the direction that the government is planning to take and has shown in the throne speech.

I will be addressing the omissions from the throne speech, the things that it did not address. There are a number of concerns that British Columbians have. One of the main concerns is the high level of taxation, both on a personal level and a business level, which prevents us from being competitive with our American partners.

British Columbia's economy is very much a partnership with the United States, as much as it is with Canada, so the high level of taxation that interferes with our relationship is certainly something we are concerned about. The brain drain that is happening, the loss of our medical people to the United States because of taxation reasons, all of these are concerns.

Another area of great concern to us is the low Canadian dollar. It affects each and every one of us, not just people in British Columbia. Part of the reason gas prices are so high is that the gas is bought and sold in American dollars so we automatically are paying half again as much as our American counterparts who are buying it. The low Canadian dollar causes people in my constituency and in British Columbia great concern and we see nothing from the government that indicates it plans to do anything about it.

There is the fact that for whatever reasons, and I will not go into what the reasons might be, we in western Canada and particularly in British Columbia feel that there is no support from the federal government. We have urban transit issues that need to be addressed and we do not seem to be getting any support from the federal government for that kind of program. We have trade issues that are very much a concern, softwood lumber being the most recent, and we do not see a commitment from the federal government to represent the interests of our region in these negotiations.

There is something as simple as the trade centre. When Toronto wanted to redevelop its harbour to make it more aesthetically pleasing and to offer something to the community with their trade and convention centre, the federal government was there to assist them. However, when Vancouver wants to develop a trade and convention centre to improve its harbour, the federal government is not there.

We wonder why there is this inequity? Why is it that a city in the east with the same type of project gets the support and a city in the west does not?

Of all these issues, the one that causes us the gravest concern is the government's lack of respect for the people of British Columbia. It is indicated in many ways. Some of them are very apparent, some are not. That lack of respect also plays out here in that British Columbia is under represented in the House of Commons. Our population deserves a greater representation in the House.

We are concerned that there is a lack of understanding that Canada has changed its dimensions since Confederation in 1867. It is not okay to leave things the way they are. It is not okay to continue to not respect the fact that there has been a massive change in the population in this country. It is not okay to continue to have British Columbia under represented, not only in the House but in the other place.

British Columbia was recognized by the House a number of years ago as a distinct region. Canada now has five distinct regions as recognized by the House of Commons. However, that is not taken any further than a piece of paper in

Hansard

. One of the smaller Atlantic provinces has 10 members in the Senate and British Columbia, the third largest province, has six representatives.

A province which is recognized as a unique and a distinct region, different from the rest of the country, has six members, while Atlantic Canada has thirty-two members, as a distinct region. Ontario has 24 members as a distinct region, as do the province of Quebec and the prairie provinces as distinct regions. There is something wrong when British Columbia, the third largest province, is shown such disregard for its true place in Confederation, our true place in Canada.

There is a lack of respect for the changes that have taken place. The country is different now, some 130 years later, than it was in the beginning. We need to recognize there is a different dimension. We have a very multicultural community on the west coast which is not recognized by government policies. There has to be a willingness for the members of Confederation to sit down and start looking at what is appropriate going into the 21st century.

British Columbians want to see a willingness to accept the fact that British Columbia is the third largest province, that is unique and that it has a lot to offer Canada as far as ideas and participation. There should be more interest shown by the federal government to include British Columbians in what happens in the country. We feel that not only through distance but through attitude there is an unwillingness of the government to recognize the contributions of people in British Columbia.

I hope that its omission in the Speech from the Throne was not deliberate. I hope the Liberal government will be willing over the next for our five years, a mandate given to it by the people of Canada, to show the people of British Columbia that it truly wants our participation, that it truly recognizes our place in Canada and that it will seriously look after the inequities of representation in both the House of Commons and in the Senate.

British Columbians would like to see signs of willingness by the government, not just talk, to recognize and acknowledge British Columbians as equals in Confederation. When that happens we will feel that we are a respected member of Canada.

In the Speech from the Throne that was not apparent and was missing. I hope that efforts will be made by the government in the very near future to show British Columbians that it was an omission, that it was not aware of some of these considerations and concerns and that it is sorry and will do something about it.

I am hoping it was only a big mistake. I hope there will be signs in the future days ahead that British Columbians can feel respected and wanted members of this confederation.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 6.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)