Debates of Feb. 7th, 2001

Speech From The Throne

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Surrey Central.

I begin by congratulating you, Mr. Speaker. I know you and I are just beginning our new roles and I am sure that we will both go through a wonderful learning curve very quickly.

I also offer my thanks to the constituents of my beautiful constituency of Portage—Lisgar. They have bestowed the great honour on me, an honour that all of us who are members of this parliament share, of having the opportunity to speak on behalf of those who we love dearly, who we care very much about and who we share so much with. I look forward to fulfilling, in any and every way I can, my role and obligations to those people who reside in my constituency, my province and my country.

I also thank my wife Esther and our daughters Quinn and Shawn. They have been a tremendous support and encouragement to me. Ultimately the sacrifices made by members of this Chamber are not sacrifices we alone make. There are sacrifices that are made by our families as well and I especially want to thank them for that.

I also thank our leader for giving me the opportunity to join a political movement where I am made feel welcome and where the openness to new ideas and new approaches on many issues is very real. The willingness to reach out and include other Canadians, not just in terms of theatrics or partisanship but in terms of real debate on real issues right from the grassroots level up, is a real and genuine thing.

Over the last several years I have tried to do my best to reach out to and get people across this country who share the goals of small

c

Conservatives to join together and fight for those goals effectively beside one another. The people of our country who share those goals to be divided plays only one role. It is a role of effectively perpetuating a government of people who do not share those values, the government that is presided over by the Prime Minister.

My constituency is Canada in microcosm and it is Canada in microcosm in many good ways. Portage—Lisgar has attracted people from around the world to settle there. It is an old constituency. It was a fur trading area originally. In fact, my home community of Portage la Prairie was one of the first settlements of Pierre La Vérendrye who was one of the first explorers of western Canada. He saw the shining mountains that some of my colleagues and other members of the House are so familiar with. It was that original sense of exploration, of reaching out, of going into new territory and into new lands that drove those people and that drives the people of my constituency to this very day.

If I can define the mindset of my constituents in an accurate and general way, I would say they are desperately fair-minded. They are people who are brutally honest and frank with one another. More than any people I have ever met, they are tolerant and understanding of the differences which exist within that riding and within Canada.

In Portage—Lisgar we have people who very much pride themselves on the diversity that exists within the riding and within the country. They see it as a source of great strength and as a brighter future for all of us. We are by every definition an inclusive people. I feel very comfortable and feel very supported by this inclusive political organization of which I am now a part.

The issue of regional equity is something that is not addressed in the throne speech to any satisfaction, in any way, shape or form. It is that inclusiveness that I, the people of Portage—Lisgar and the people on this side of the House value. That is missing from the throne speech. The lack of responsibility of the government opposite is so evident. There is a lack of a plan and a lack of any method or means to address the important issues of including everyone in this country.

There is a centrifugal reality of the way in which the government has governed. This centrifugal effect has pulled the people who do not reside in the centre of the country away from the centre of the country. The policies enacted by the government have exacerbated those circumstances. It has shown a disregard and a disrespect for the people outside that central area.

An example would be in my riding. Agriculture is such a key industry to us. The government has no food plan for the nation. It has shown no respect for the trials and tribulations of long time family farmers, not just in Portage—Lisgar but across the country. That disrespect is resulting in a playing field being perpetuated that is not level. Foreign nations are subsidizing their farmers and their agricultural producers and we are, by default, adopting a policy of rural depopulation in this country. We are letting the nations of Europe and the United States establish policies which we cannot respond to. That is what the government is doing.

By our failure to respond, we are saying to family farmers across the country that it is time for them to move to the cities. It is time for them to leave. That simply is not right. The damaging effect that has on rural societies across Canada is very obvious to all of us on this side of the House. Basically, the only effort the government made in the throne speech to address the problems of agriculture was a comment made about connecting farmyards to the Internet. That should be increasingly easy as the number of farmyards across Canada dwindle.

The problem is that when the government addresses the need for adaptation it looks elsewhere. When it looks for adaptation within it does not find it. The reality is that the most adaptable and diversified people, in terms of the challenges they have faced and the reality of their lives, are the farm families and farm producers of the nation who have been forced by necessity to made tremendous adaptations. One of the principle adaptations they have had to make is to say goodbye to their children.

We would like to see these issues addressed in a real way. That is what we are committed to doing.

Today we raised the issue of equalization. The equalization formula seems to have a perverse incentive. It seems to provide a disincentive for certain provinces to increase their industrial job component and to develop the resources that are within themselves because of the problems of the formula which benefit the federal government but punish the provinces. We need to see those formulas revisited.

Other regions such as Atlantic Canada and the west have many shared goals and concerns. They also have concerns that are specific to their regions. Nonetheless, if we do not see a need to address the problem, as it is clear the government does not, it will not be addressed. There is no plan in this throne speech to address these problems.

Another longstanding issue to many of us is the issue of parliamentary reform. Parliamentary reform would give a greater sense of involvement and representation, not just to the people here but far more importantly to the people we represent. It is those people who we hear from on a regular basis. They are telling us that they would like to see us have a more meaningful role.

What better evidence of the truth of the disdain which Canadians increasingly feel for this institution than the absence of these same Canadians from the polling booths. From their absence they have said to us that it does not really matter. I am told that fewer Canadians turned out to vote in the last federal election than had for over a century. More Canadians came out to vote when they were two horse families than when they were two car families. That is a shame.

Parliamentary reform and other reforms such as electoral and Senate reform, and other aspects of measuring and addressing in a real way the need to include Canadians, to make their representatives more effective and with a magnified voice of effectiveness in the House, have not been addressed by the government in perpetuity.

The government has taken an approach to many issues which basically is threefold. First, ignore the problem and hope it goes away. Second, belittle and blame those who advance and articulate the problem. Third, if that does not work, throw money at it and maybe the people who articulated the problem can be coerced into supporting it.

That is a disrespectful approach. It is that disrespect most of all that is reflected in the comments of the intergovernmental affairs minister, the immigration and citizenship minister of all people, and also in the Prime Minister himself. Disparaging remarks about one region or another should not come from any of us. They certainly should be apologized for by the members who made those disparaging comments.

I close by quoting Donald Savoie in his book

Governing from the Centre

who said:

While I argue that the centre and, in particular, the hand of the prime minister, has been considerably strengthened in recent years, this is not to suggest that the federal government is better able to define new strategic direction or a coherent plan to which all government departments can contribute. It is ironic perhaps that as the hand of the centre has been strengthened, its ability to manage horizontal issues has been weakened.

I will close by saying that we need to reinforce the fact that the members of the House are not puppets of the Prime Minister. They are the tools for the people of our constituencies. The reality is that we have a plan to address those issues and we will do so. I look forward to doing this to the best of my ability with the support and help of all of my colleagues in the House.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the speech by the member, which I think is his first one in the House.

The member, who I believe is from Manitoba, talked about there being an exclusion in central Ontario. I suppose I am part of that process because I am from Ontario. He went on to talk about the agricultural community and how we have no understanding of it.

The province of Ontario produces more agricultural products than all the western provinces combined. The reality is that it rains on both sides of the field. We have agricultural problems in my riding. I used to farm at one time. Is the member telling me that there are no programs, that there is nothing the government has done to recognize the plight of farmers?

Our caucus has been very active in creating new moneys for farmers. We continue to make the argument that it may not be enough, but Manitoba and Saskatchewan in particular have received additional funding in the last three or four years. In fact, it was his former government that came here asking for money and we were receptive and listened to that.

We have tons of farm programs. I can think of programs like NISA, the Ontario market revenue program, CFIP and AIDA. Yes, we are very concerned about the issue of family farms. I talk to my farm group almost on a daily basis about their problems. Some of the things that the member is talking about is because of the people that he is hanging around with. They actually believe in western alienation. The reality is, it is all psychological. It is because of how long it takes them to get here that somehow they are discriminated against. It is nonsense.

There are more people in the province of Ontario who feel discriminated against because of agricultural policy than in all the west. We have a problem here in agriculture.

The member goes on to say that we need to help farmers. The same party gets up day in day out and says no to subsidies. Its platform document in the last election specified no subsidies to farms. Those members do not believe in subsidies but that is exactly what they are asking for today. They cannot have it both ways. What is it going to be?

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments, erroneous and misguided as they may be. He makes the statement that he used to farm. I guess that implies empathy for agriculture generally. He makes the statement that Ontario produces more commodities than other regions. Therefore he is dismissive of the plight of grain farmers in certain jurisdictions.

This dismissive and arrogant attitude that is so evident in his comments shows an unwillingness to address the very vital issues that face real people regardless of region.

The member made reference to western alienation. I referred to alienation by region. In the households of people, regardless of region, there is a sense of alienation from the government.

The larger issue is the very powerlessness, which that member no doubt feels—although he will not admit it today in the House—as he sits in the backbench and knows that he has no input into the government's policy direction. More power and decision making has been centralized into the Prime Minister's office and into the Prime Minister's hands than in the history of any prime minister.

The Prime Minister has made announcements without consulting members of his own cabinet. The member opposite knows the sad truth of that fact. The member behind him, from Prince Edward Island, a former director and president of the national farmers union, knows how truly powerless he is in the equation.

When the most powerless agriculture minister in our history, a minister who presides over a department that is so important to our country, comes out to Manitoba during a disastrous circumstance, meets with a group of farmers and then tells them in their hour of need that the best thing that ever happened to him was when he quit farming, and then I listen to a comment by another member telling me about his former farming practice, I wonder at the ability and willingness of those members to genuinely empathize with people who are trying to continue to farm and make a living.

These are the people who do not wish to give up and become members of parliament. There are only so many places over there for people to sit and pretend they care about farmers.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to respond to the Speech from the Throne. I thank the constituents of Surrey Central for re-electing me as their MP with triple the margin of the last election. I shall try my best to represent them and address their concerns.

I congratulate you on your election as Speaker of the House. I am sure you will receive the co-operation of the House all the time.

In my reply to the Speech from the Throne, I will address some of the issues brought forward by my colleague from Portage—Lisgar. The throne speech is supposed to be the illustration of vision by the government.

Traditionally members of parliament are invited to the Senate chamber where the speech is read. Members of parliament are not allowed to sit down to listen to the speech. Rather, they stand outside the Senate chamber, crammed in the hallway and scramble to listen to the speech.

Many of those who are seated inside have no business or role to play in implementing the contents of the speech. Frankly it would be more appropriate for members of parliament to sit in front of a TV set rather than march off to the other chamber.

Let me read a quote from my colleague, the former leader of the Reform Party, who said:

The TV cameras panning the audience focus not on the innovative entrepreneurs or scientists of the new economy, but the TV cameras focus on political fossils, former senators, staunch resistors of change and defenders of the status quo.

What a great quote. What a great observation of the dinosaur government that fights change.

There are important omissions and inconsistencies in the empty throne speech. I will list some of them very quickly. The first is the concrete plan that reduces taxes and pay debt. There is a renewed need for the tabling of a budget as soon as possible, particularly in light of a substantive tax reduction in the U.S. and a sluggish economy, which is quite likely on the verge of affecting Canada.

In the last election we saw the lowest voter turnout. It signalled a warning to the Liberals. Despite this, there is no meaningful commitment to parliamentary reform. Western Canadians feel alienated like every other region in Canada. Since their concerns are not being addressed, the Liberals are fanning the fire of alienation instead of using the firehose to put out the flames by addressing the needs of Canada's regions.

The arrogance of the Prime Minister and the Liberals was evident even during the election when the Prime Minister made his infamous comments about his preference for dealing with eastern Canadians rather than with western Canadians.

Since 1993 the Liberals have failed to address these concerns despite the new west being the fastest growing region in Canada with a lot of potential. Here is a quick list of points worth listening to.

The Liberals have been hurting the B.C. salmon fishery, mining industry, softwood lumber industry and tourism industry. For years the Liberals have failed to negotiate a Pacific salmon treaty with the United States. They are killing jobs in British Columbia. They closed CFB Chilliwack and left British Columbia without emergency preparedness.

The Liberals believe British Columbia is under-represented both in the Senate and in the House. They will not let B.C. elect senators. They do not give B.C. a fair share of government contracts and other resources.

Another issue deals with transit levies. The federal government raked in $700 million in fuel taxes from B.C. and returned only $35 million in the repair and maintenance of roads and highways. British Columbia is the only province in Canada that does not have four lane freeways.

It was the Liberals who cut transfer payments which affected British Columbia's education and health services. While the Liberals continue to ignore British Columbians, there are many reasons why British Columbians ignore the Liberals. They turned off Pacific lighthouses. They ripped the heart out of the Pacific coast guard and so on. The list is long enough and it goes on.

It was pathetic watching the Liberal finance minister being given a tour by helicopter of my constituency of Surrey Central during the last federal election. His handlers could not dare to have him listen to the concerns of the residents. It was a vain attempt to give him a tour of the city by air. Perhaps he saw more geese than people.

The finance minister was actually quoted in our local media as admitting how naive he was to the needs of Surrey. Following the helicopter ride he admitted that he was totally unaware of the transportation problem in Surrey. During six years in office the Liberals have not listened to the needs of Surrey, but at election time a cabinet minister appeared from the sky, out of the blue.

We all know that the Prime Minister spent more time in Florida than in the west. Mostly he comes to B.C. to rake in money from fundraisers, as if westerners are not already paying enough into the federal coffers.

On another important issue, the offices of members of parliament are overloaded with immigration case loads. That work should be done by the immigration department, but the Liberals keep our immigration system clogged with backlogs.

Why is the federal immigration department not able to work efficiently and effectively? That remains a big question. The people caught in the system are suffering and are victims of the government's mismanagement. Even refugee cases are taking too long to resolve.

Visitor visas present a different kind of problem. Politicians should not be allowed to interfere with the process, but the Liberals allowed their candidates during the election campaign to interfere in obtaining visitor visas for those who had been refused, even after repeated interventions by their members of parliament. The system should be so effective that genuine visitors should get visitor visas without political interference and without hassles.

I have already had corruption investigations initiated in our embassies abroad, and they produced successful results.

On another note, there is nothing in the throne speech concerning the federal taxes on fuel and our transportation problem. In B.C. the federal government takes over 10 cents per litre in excise tax. It charges GST on top of the excise tax and then puts GST on top of the PST. There are taxes on taxes.

Only $35 million of the $700 million from the gas taxes being taken from B.C. is reinvested in transportation and infrastructure in B.C. That is only 5%. These kinds of injustices are at the root of regional concerns throughout Canada.

I should like to comment on the Liberal government's lack of concern for British Columbia's emergency preparedness. There is nothing about this in the Speech from the Throne, even though we have recently seen terrible earthquakes in India, El Salvador, Turkey and Taiwan.

We know that scientists predict that British Columbia's lower mainland will have an earthquake. The government refuses to dispatch the Vancouver search and rescue team to areas around the world that have been struck by earthquakes. We should not be waiting to be asked. We should be immediately sending our rescue team that is always ready at a moment's notice so that it can get experience that is needed at home.

The biggest threat Canada faces is from organized crime. As usual, there is nothing except a promise in the throne speech. The same is true regarding the RCMP. There is nothing which gives the RCMP contingent in Surrey, for example, which is the largest in Canada, the tools, resources, legislation and personnel for it to do its job.

I commend the Liberals for having listened to my cry to do something about recognizing foreign academic credentials. However the Speech from the Throne has not mentioned anything about standardizing the national academic standard.

The Liberal government is increasingly out of touch with Canadians regarding regional differences, particularly those of B.C. and western Canada. However the Canadian Alliance, the government in waiting, is here to continuously remind the government about these injustices just as I have done. The ball is in its court.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Surrey Central for his excellent speech outlining the grievances of the province of British Columbia.

Could the member comment on a newspaper item I saw just after the federal election campaign? The article quoted a senior minister from Victoria, British Columbia, who said that the results of the November 27 election were not a repudiation of the Liberal government in B.C. and that the Liberals between elections actually eclipsed the Canadian Alliance and Reform Party but that the Alliance seemed to pass the Liberal Party at campaign time. I found this astonishingly arrogant. It speaks exactly to the concerns raised in the member's speech.

Could the member comment on how this might impact on the capacity of the government to appropriately represent our province in the House and to address our grievances, when the senior minister from B.C. on the government bench has this mindset vis-à-vis our province?

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his excellent question and wish him good luck in the House. This is also an opportunity for me to welcome all of my other colleagues and members from all parties who have joined us with enthusiasm and excitement.

The alienation of different regions in Canada is a very important issue, particularly so because the federal Liberal government since 1993 has failed to apply the glue which would bind all the provinces and regions together to make a stronger Canada. If we put all our excitement together and address fairly the issues and problems of different regions, the federation will work.

The government's arrogant and ignorant attitude and its failure to listen to and address the problems are the root causes of the problems. The Prime Minister goes more to Florida to play golf and do other things than to western Canada or other regions to address issues and listen to people. We only see the Prime Minister in British Columbia when he is attending a fundraiser. That is ridiculous. That is the root cause of the problem that is causing this fire of alienation.

Rather than fan the fire of alienation by not listening to the concerns of the various regions, the government should hold a firehose and put out the flames so it can address the issues. The government should address the issues and keep the glue in place that is binding various regions together.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am impressed with the speeches we are hearing today, both from new members and members who are very well experienced in the House. The member from Surrey Central has been here three and a half years, since the Prime Minister called the election only three and a half years after the previous one.

One thing I would like him to comment on is the working of the House with respect to the representation by members of parliament of the wishes of their constituents.

It has impressed me that whenever the member stands to speak his opening sentence is always that he is proud or honoured to represent the people of Surrey Central. I am sure he has observed the way some members of parliament are not able to do that. Would he comment on the effectiveness of parliament on that topic?

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member who is a very hard working member of parliament and represents the beautiful constituency of Elk Island. His dedication is highly appreciated.

It is the moral responsibility of members that when we are sent by our constituents to this great House of honour where we have the honour and privilege of representing them, that first and foremost we understand why we are here.

We are here to represent our constituents, not to represent Ottawa in our constituencies. That is what our constituents expect of us. That is why they sent us to this place. It is always important that we bring forward to the House the issues and concerns that our constituents have so that they can be addressed. Similarly I have brought forward concerns today about the whole region of my riding, to give a bigger picture.

However, certain things definitely need to happen before our issues can be addressed. There should be free votes in the House. The House should work more in a democratic fashion. The committees should work. We highlighted all these things that should work in parliamentary reform.

Since my time does not allow me to elaborate on that I give the blanket, bigger picture that parliamentary reform is the first and foremost important thing that should be happening in the House.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)]

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform you that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the newly elected member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, whom I salute and congratulate once again for his victory, which is a great source of pride.

I am happy to rise today in support of the Speech from the Throne read on January 30. Allow me to begin with a quote to express the essence of the government's vision.

The Canadian Way recognizes that economic and social success must be pursued together. In co-operation with Canadians, our government will keep on increasing prosperity in our society based upon the capacities of our citizens, communities and companies and on the unique place that Canada holds on the international scale.

I am quoting the Prime Minister of Canada. He was expressing by these words the vision that we want to develop here in Canada to ensure that we not only exist on the North American stage, but also that we radiate around the world.

Our vision is a balanced vision, a respectful, reasonable and responsible vision. On the one hand, there is the issue of economic development, the positioning of our firms not only at the national but also at the international level.

On the other hand, there is the issue of all the members of our society benefiting from the collective wealth we have been developing here in Canada these past few years. That is also a vision that comes within the logical flow of things.

We will recall that, in 1993, when Canadians gave us the mandate to form the government, the situation was rather gloomy. We have since put our fiscal house back in order, launched a program review, and invested in some strategic sectors.

We also paid a great deal of attention to the Canadian social safety net that is the envy of many countries in the world. Today, our vision is a vision of the future, aimed at setting a balance among all these measures.

First, when we look at the plan as it is put forward, we can see that the government is banking a lot on innovation, which is the spearhead of the Canadian economy and which can help improve the competitiveness of all our businesses.

A large number of initiatives have been put in place. For example, Technology Partnerships Canada, a well-known Industry Canada program, has served all Canadian industries well . All things considered, it helped us not only to strengthen our competitive position but also to create good jobs.

There is also the Canada Foundation for Innovation, which is also supporting the government's desire to invest in innovation. We also have all the regional development agencies in Canada, including the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, which I am responsible for.

Under Industry Canada policy, these agencies operate in all the regions of Quebec, as is the case of the Economic Development Agency of Canada, and they try to support regional development according to the priorities, needs and policies of the regions. They also strive to assist in the acquisition and use of new technologies to help the regions cope with a new factor: innovation.

An important phenomenon is globalization. As a society, we must be able to use the various tools available to us. The first of these tools that comes to mind is the Internet, which eliminates borders between countries and opens up many opportunities socially, and with respect to economic development.

Here again, Canada has made tremendous efforts to become the most connected country in the world by the year 2000. The throne speech expresses the Canadian government's determination to be better connected with all communities in Canada by 2004.

All departments will be increasing their services and presence on the Internet. Certainly, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, which is under my responsibility, is one of the key players in the use of and access to services on the Internet.

Let us think about the pilot project that was launched by the agency last year and asking some Canadian taxpayers to file their income tax returns through the Internet. This year, the pilot project is open to the majority of Canadians.

Also, I would mention “Government of Canada's Connecting Canadians”, which is providing its services on the Internet. One of the sites that is widely used in Canada and even in the rest of the world is without any doubt Industry Canada's Strategis site, which is probably the finest and largest bank of commercial data in Canada, indeed in North America. This site, which gets an incredible number of hits each week, has been very successful. Its primary objective was to provide better service and information to people.

With our objective of being the most connected government by 2004, the philosophy underlying our efforts is to better serve all Canadians.

In the Speech of the Throne, we also find the issue of Canada's positioning in the world. How do we deal and interact with our trading partners, and how can we help our businesses to evolve in the era of globalization?

One of the major aspects of globalization is certainly everything that relates to customs. This is part of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and is being modernized, if I can put it that way.

As members know, last April, I tabled a Canadian customs modernization plan for the next five years, so that customs could continue to properly serve people and fulfil its dual mandate, which is to ensure the safety of our communities and to make economic relationships easier, particularly between Canada and the United States.

As we know, a certain number of initiatives have been put forward.

I will end by talking about research and development. If we want to be able to compete with other countries, we have to be able to innovate and to increase the productivity of our businesses. R and D is essential in today's new economy, to which we are confronted.

By the year 2010, we will no doubt have to double research and development. This is an important commitment taken by the government. One only has to think about the tax credit for research and development. This credit, which is administered by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, may provide the Canadian business community with up to $1.5 billion a year in tax credits. These are all important tools which will help us increase our competitiveness and better position ourselves.

We cannot talk about research, development and innovation without mentioning the National Research Council of Canada, which does an excellent job and plays a major role in helping all Canadian businesses to position themselves.

I will conclude by talking about vibrant communities. We want to continue to support all Canadian communities from coast to coast. As we know, the Canadian government has been omnipresent in that regard. I think, for instance, of Community Futures Development Corporations. There are many in Quebec and they work to assist all communities.

We have launched a Youth Strategy which, according to the figures, has been a real success. Of course, the commitment regarding the broadband access to Internet project will provide considerable support to all regions. We do have a good Speech from the Throne with a great vision.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the minister and member for Outremont on his victory in what probably was a hard fought battle.

We are aware of the traditions in the riding of Outremont, where the Liberal candidate must be strong and courageous, must be well known and must have good credentials within the party. My congratulations on your re-election. You will be here a long time.

The minister talked about research and development, and the projects, initiatives and claims of the Liberal government with regard to innovation.

I would like to know what he thinks of his government's attitude so far, unless he has new developments to share with us today, regarding the pulp and paper centre, a most important project for the Trois-Rivières area. That centre was created when the UQTR research centre and the CEGEP pulp and paper centre amalgamated into a new world class research centre, as the president of the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières described it.

This new centre will ensure that at least 3,000 young people receive adequate training so they can adapt to the technological change the pulp and paper industry must undergo, having to go from newsprint to special types of paper.

The Government of Quebec has already offered a contribution amounting to tens of millions of dollars. However, the federal government, unless the minister has good news to tell us, has refused to grant $16.5 million as a financing package.

In light of the federal government's claims, I would like to know if the minister thinks it is acceptable for the government not to contribute to a project of such importance for Quebec, particularly for the Trois-Rivières area.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for referring to my beautiful riding of Outremont, of which I am very proud, in the preamble to his speech.

He seemed however to be saying that the Liberals take the riding of Outremont for granted.

I just want to say that no riding in the province of Quebec and in Canada should be taken for granted. We must do as thorough a job in each and every one of them. The same goes for my beautiful riding of Outremont. We must respect the people, the will of the people and the election process.

What I understand from what the hon. member has said is that he takes his constituents for granted, something, of course, I would never do.

About the pulp and paper centre he was talking about, I have already had representations on this project. It is a nice project. Naturally, an application was submitted to the Canadian Foundation for Innovation.

I know that applications were also submitted not only to Canada Economic Development but to other departments. They are being reviewed to determine whether something can be done. There is no doubt that this could be an interesting project for our region.

I also note that the Government of Quebec has undertaken to contribute a large amount of money. Of course, I would like to see the letter of undertaking. If there is one, it probably states as usual that the province's contribution is conditional upon the Canadian government investing in the program after doing all the groundwork.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in comments made by the minister concerning Customs and Revenue Canada and its modernization. Having travelled on both sides of the 49th for my constituency, I am particularly interested because of the deep concern Customs and Revenue Canada has about the modernization of technical and electronic entry, moving back and forth across our border.

I have talked to these people. It is interesting to know that on the American side officials say that this is taking place to save on manpower. Customs officers in Canada tell me they have great fears, simply because many of the ports of entry would be 50 to 60 miles from the nearest RCMP office. Having the largest number of border crossings in Canada, I would like to hear comments on that.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question is very interesting. The hon. member refers to the fact that Canada and the U.S. share by far the longest border in the world. I do recognize that. That is why we have within Canada Customs very good human resources. We have officers with very good expertise and experience. Today when one has a look at the situation and the management of customs not just in Canada but all over the world, one realizes that it is a question of risk management.

With the reform package we tabled last year we will be able to have much better risk management. On the one hand, we will be able to use what we call soft technology, such as CANPASS. We have started to establish CANPASS in some ports of entry across Canada. On the other hand, using soft technology will allow us to use human resources when we have higher risk situations. It is a much better system.

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my first words are for the constituents of my riding, Beauharnois—Salaberry. First, I want to thank them for having placed their trust in me during the election campaign, not only by choosing me as their representative, but also as their spokesman.

In making that choice, they have allowed the beautiful riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry to escape its turpitude so that the people of the riding can have access to the wealth that is growing from day to day, from week to week in Canada.

Canada is one of the countries with the highest economic growth. Unfortunately, the problem for the riding is that it did not derive any benefits from this growth, so it has remained at a standstill since 1993.

There is a reason for my coming back to politics. It is because I read a study conducted by the Seigneurie de Beauharnois CLSC, which clearly showed the problems in the riding, compared to the rest of the Montérégie, the riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry riding being the most underprivileged enclave of that area.

I am happy, therefore, to see that social justice is one of the main themes of the Speech from the Throne. This is something that will have specific applications in my riding. Why? Because the study, which was published but was ignored by members at the time, draws a parallel between the unemployment rate in the riding and in the Montérégie.

In this very vibrant region of Quebec, the unemployment rate is approximately 6%. Unfortunately, in the riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry, the unemployment rate is always twice as high, at approximately 12%.

The study also showed that the highest rate of suicide among young people in the Montérégie was in Beauharnois—Salaberry, of course.

In the Montérégie, the highest percentage of single parent families in the Montérégie is also in Beauharnois—Salaberry, as is the highest percentage of seniors living alone.

We realized, and so did the population, that this riding had been left to its own devices since 1993. This is understandable because a vote for a Bloc Quebecois member is almost a wasted vote, since that person can do absolutely nothing for the riding.

I decided to enter politics precisely to take on that challenge. I was asked to get involved and I presented a three-step action plan that will give the people of that riding a chance to catch their breath. They say that creating wealth is nice, but to be able to share it is even nicer.

The Speech from the Throne carries a strong message for us. In my riding, we have a high unemployment rate and a very high dropping out rate compared to the rest of Montérégie and we also rank last for economic growth. There are reasons for that.

The people of my riding already started to do something about the situation. Setting aside all political partisanship, they created a coalition. The leaders of the area got together to form this coalition with the Liberal candidate in the riding. Together, we put forward this plan. All the leaders were backing me. When I speak in the House, I do so on behalf of the leaders and the population of my riding.

Of course, we have a lot of work to do to put companies on solid grounds. We have ailing companies. There is very little funding for the companies in my riding. That does not bode well for the future. We decided to consolidate existing jobs. Meanwhile, we must also be in a position to create a climate that can stimulate investments from outside the area.

There is a road infrastructure problem in Montérégie and it is particularly acute in the riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry. That was one of the themes of the last election campaign because we wanted to complete what we had started in 1985, which is to disentrap our region as well as the greater Montreal area. The road system was therefore one of the major themes of the election campaign.

One of the basic reasons I came back to politics is the tragic situation of youth, something that was highlighted in the report. Earlier, I mentioned the high suicide rate among young people and the dropping out rate, which is also dreadful.

We launched an initiative, which is perfectly consistent with the Speech from the Throne, to establish a foundation to help in the fight against poverty and dropping out among our young people.

All the workers in this region as well as entrepreneurs have shown some interest for this initiative. For some weeks now, young people have been building this organization and learning about the problems of the region. In the coming months, they will be able to develop an action plan.

In addressing these needs, it is very important to provide the people with an effective representative, one who will be able to communicate their concerns to the government. In my work as a member of parliament, I will use that victory, this seat that the people have given me, to address the needs of the region and to work aggressively with my government to get rid of the negative and pessimistic climate that has existed for a few years now. We want people to take charge of their own lives and to develop their region. Both the rural and the urban areas are concerned.

I said earlier that one of the major points that will help us get out of this state is to work in co-operation with the people in this, to put pressure on the federal and Quebec governments to make sure that a plan of action can be developed so that everyone can benefit from the economic growth that Canada is currently enjoying.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry. I also want to wake him up from his deep sleep and tell him that he is not in the National Assembly but in the House of Commons and that issues such as dropping out and health are provincial jurisdictions.

The hon. member sat in the Quebec National Assembly through two mandates. He should know or remember these things. Considering that he even forgot about his promises to build bridges when he was sitting in the National Assembly, perhaps we should ask him about that now. That will be my main question later on.

The hon. member said there were no economic spinoffs in the riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry because voters voted for the wrong party. Was he an MNA under Taschereau or in a modern era? Because this is no longer how things work, or at least it should not be the case, unless the Liberals' policy is to penalize those who do not vote for them. It seems to me that this is what was implied in his speech.

As for the unemployment rate, I should inform the hon. member that, in Quebec, the riding with the highest unemployment rate is Saint-Maurice. Yet, for 33 years now, it has been represented by a guy who supposedly belongs to the right party.

In his mailer, which I have here with me, the hon. member clearly promises his voters—this is crystal clear, it is not a commitment but a promise—that two bridges will be built. Now that he has been elected, now that his constituents have put their trust in him, will the hon. member tell us if he intends to fulfil his promise and build these two bridges during the current mandate?

[An hon. member]

Let him put his seat on the line.

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a debate on the division of responsibilities between the federal government and the provinces was held with the Bloc Quebecois candidate at the Valleyfield Cegep. I would point out to the Bloc Quebecois member that when one is an MP, one represents the entire community. There is no breakdown of jurisdiction. One represents all members of the community. That is how I intend to operate in my riding.

If a constituent comes to me with a problem, I will not be the kind of member who might say “Go and see the MLA, because this does not concern me”. I was elected by the same people and I am going to represent them the same way.

With respect to the bridges—and contrary to what the member said, this is not a promise but an undertaking—I would like to remind him that between 1976 and 1985, when the Parti Quebecois was in power in Quebec, there was a moratorium on road construction.

In 1985, we made this a major theme in Montérégie. Between 1985 and 1994, we went back over this issue from A to Z. None of the corridors were retained. We achieved consensus in Montérégie. We finalized one corridor, and built two segments of highway, which had not been seen in Quebec since 1976, and we concluded the impact studies in 1993. In 1993, Quebec's Department of Transportation wrapped them up.

Unfortunately, we were defeated in the 1994 election. So the impact studies were not filed with IBC until 1997.

I have now returned to politics to continue the work begun back then. But now the problem is no longer necessarily a local, regional one. It has become a national problem, because now all of greater Montreal is involved.

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for Wetaskiwin. As is traditional, I will begin my comments by thanking the voters of my riding of Lanark—Carleton for placing their trust in me and for sending me to this place as their representative.

Lanark—Carleton is as large as Prince Edward Island and holds as many people as that province. It is in some respects the most diverse riding in the country and contains within its bounds large tracts of rugged wilderness, much rich farmland, many of the prettiest small towns in Ontario, and also Kanata which is Canada's fastest growing and most dynamic urban area and the home of silicon valley north.

The residents of the riding have long been among the most individualistic and creative of Canadians, from Dr. James Naismith of Almonte who invented basketball, to Captain Arthur Roy Brown who capped a glorious flying career in the first world war by shooting down the Red Baron, Manfred von Richtoffen. In Lanark—Carleton we are, to quote from the motto of Beckwith township, proud of our past and confident of our future.

I will also take a moment to salute a few individuals: my parents, Gord and Leatrice Reid, for their wisdom and perpetual support and my remarkable campaign team, headed by Frank Hall and Jerry Rice, who did so much to win the Canadian Alliance's easternmost seat.

There is one other individual to whom I extend my personal thanks. My primary opponent in the election was Ian Murray, the former Liberal member of parliament. In a national campaign that was characterized by negative campaigning, Ian ran a clean and honourable campaign and was always a gentleman. I salute him for that as he begins his life in private industry.

It is a great honour to serve as the critic within Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition for intergovernmental affairs. As such it is my obligation to set out the parameters of the position my party will take in matters relating to federalism in this new parliament, and to emphasize as well one policy in particular that will occupy my own attention, that of intergovernmental transfers.

On this side of the House we are federalists in the true sense of the term: in the sense employed by James Madison in the 1780s when he wrote

The Federalist Papers

; in the sense that the term federationist was used a century ago in Australia when a federal system was being considered for that country; in the sense that citizens of Switzerland mean when they speak of the way their country divides its powers between federal and cantonal levels of government; and, most important, in the sense that the term confederate was used by the fathers of our own federal system at the conferences in Quebec City, London and Charlottetown in the mid-1860s.

We believe that a federal system ought to consist of two orders of government, each of which is completely sovereign within its own areas of jurisdiction and each of which has no authority whatsoever in the areas of jurisdiction assigned to the other order of government. This is what the great British jurist Albert Venn Dicey meant when he made the startling but accurate observation that:

A federal state requires for its formation...a body of countries such as the...Colonies of America or the Provinces of Canada, so closely connected by locality, by history...or the like, as to be capable of bearing, in the eyes of their inhabitants, an impress of common nationality.

Of course our Fathers of Confederation viewed the U.S. model and chose to construct our own federation a little differently. They judged that the United States constitution had given the federal government too few powers and the states too many.

They therefore assigned to the central government certain powers which in the U.S.A. are given to the states. An obvious example of this is criminal law, which in most federal systems is the responsibility of the state or the cantonal government but which in Canada is a federal matter.

Our fathers were federalists nonetheless in the pure sense of the term and not advocates of a unitary state. Within the sphere of jurisdiction falling to each province the fathers clearly meant for that province to be absolutely sovereign. They also intended the federal government to be absolutely sovereign within its own areas of jurisdiction, with no provincial interference.

Wherever the fathers thought some form of joint jurisdiction would be the best arrangement, and they did not think this very often, they said so overtly, as in section 95 of the constitution which gives joint jurisdiction over agriculture.

Unfortunately this decision to create a less decentralized union has been misinterpreted in recent decades as proof that what was intended for Canada was a highly centralized union in which the federal government could justifiably tinker in matters that clearly fall within the provincial realm of jurisdiction.

The federal government does this by offering to share the cost of provincial government programs and then attempting to impose conditions not only on how the transferred money is spent but also upon the manner in which all provincial moneys in that area will be used.

This may seem a reasonable request, or at least tolerable, when speaking of federal grants amounting to 50% of total spending on a program, the so-called 50 cent dollars of the 1960s and 1970s.

Today when the federal government contributes less than 20 cents to every dollar of health care spending, for example, such demands for compliance to federal standards is clearly intended purely as propaganda, with the provinces bearing the lion's share of the cost of important programs but with the federal government taking as much credit as possible for maintaining standards that it does not take seriously.

This does not happen because the federal government is smarter than provincial governments. It has not happened because the voters who participate in federal elections are more responsible, more caring or more intelligent than the voters who cast their ballots in provincial elections. It has not happened because federal Liberals care more about health care and education than do provincial Liberals, Conservatives or New Democrats.

It has happened solely because the federal government has more revenues than it can reasonably expect to use for its own areas of jurisdiction while the provincial governments lack the revenue raising ability to directly finance their own constitutional responsibilities.

It should be noted that the so-called spending power stems not from any words to be found in the constitution itself, nor even from a supreme court interpretation of some unwritten emanation from a penumbra of the constitution, but rather from a straightforward assertion by successive federal governments that they have the right to disregard the boundaries set out in the constitution and to interfere directly in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

No less an authority than Pierre Elliott Trudeau argued in 1957 that the spending power was completely unconstitutional.

The disadvantages of a situation where taxes are levied by one level of government, and spending is done by another, are well known.

The preliminary report of the Liberal Party of Quebec says the following:

The federal spending power leads to three types of problems.

First, the predictability of funding; with respect to cost-shared programs, for example, the provinces find themselves faced with the progressive withdrawal of federal funding once the programs are established.

Second, the unilateral imposition of federal standards; in the case of conditional transfer payments in areas of provincial jurisdiction, the conditions imposed by the federal government lead to pan-Canadian standards, despite the fact that the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction in the area in question. This is an especially delicate issue for Quebec, given the specificity of its society.

Third, the duplication of measures; one example of this is when a federal program is added to an existing provincial program.

Nor is any of this a recent discovery. In 1930 Mackenzie King stated in the House “It is a pernicious principle to have one government collect taxes and another government spend them”.

Over 100 years ago Sir Wilfrid Laurier warned “It is an entirely false principle according to which one government collects revenues and another government spends them. This must lead always to extravagance.”

I have outlined a serious problem that was not addressed in the Speech from the Throne.

In concluding my remarks, I would suggest that there is a simple solution that could be and should be considered by the House. It is to transfer tax points and tax room to the provinces to allow their tax base and spending base to expand to reflect their important constitutional jurisdiction. This would allow for our federal system to be represented, our constitution to be respected and our most important programs, such as health care, to be adequately financed now and in the decades in the future.

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lanark—Carleton is using arguments in connection with Canada's constitution, which we are beginning to hear more of with respect to the Canadian Alliance's position on the constitution. In my view, it is a complete distortion of our constitutional history.

He talks about the federal government and the provincial governments being absolutely sovereign in their particular areas of jurisdiction at Confederation. Anyone who has read Canadian constitutional history will know that the government created by Macdonald, Cartier and others was looking very specifically at what was happening in the United States in terms of its federation. It saw the problem with states' rights and slavery. It saw a union and a federation dissolve after the civil war. That was the lesson learned from the American constitution.

There was always that toing and froing even within the American constitution's founding fathers, between Jefferson and Hamilton, in terms of whose theory of federalism would have ascendancy. As it turned out, Jefferson's theory took hold in terms of the U.S. supreme court's interpretation of the American constitution.

In relation to his speech, how does the hon. member's theory of absolute sovereignty of both levels of government at Confederation square with the power that existed at the time of reservation and disallowance? At that time the federal government had the power to nullify all provincial legislation, which was a very significant power. It was only after years and years of constitutional interpretation by the British judicial committee of the privy council that the power fell into disrepute.

How does the hon. member square the Alliance's theory of absolute sovereignty in its own particular areas of jurisdiction at Confederation with what actually occurred?

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member, whose riding adjoins my own, for his questions and his comments.

When it comes to the question of federal transfers and the use of tax points and tax rooms, it is not a new innovation of my party, nor is it something on which we stand alone. This approach has been suggested by the Quebec Liberal Party in its recent report. The so-called six wise men in Alberta have also suggested it in their recent proposal. It is in fact a long standing proposal of various parties within Quebec. The Ontario government has expressed an interest as well.

When we look at Premier Hamm of Nova Scotia and his comments on the need to change the equalization formula, certainly the idea of using tax points is compatible with that.

A broad based consensus is evolving and emerging in opposition to the Liberal Party and the government which basically holds that there is an effective way within our own system of dealing with the fact that there is a fiscal imbalance between the revenue raising abilities of the federal government and the spending needs of the provinces.

He raised questions with regard to the manner in which the Fathers of Confederation saw our country and the question of disallowance and reservation. I am surprised, in all honesty, that anybody at this time would want to defend the powers of disallowance or reservation. The power of disallowance was most recently used in the 1930s and conventionally speaking is no longer regarded to be acceptable.

The power of reservation, if I am not mistaken, was used most recently in 1961 by the lieutenant-governor of Saskatchewan. He was either dismissed or at least reprimanded for attempting to use it. Both of these are constitutional provisions which have fallen into disuse.

With regard to the original intention of those constitutional provisions, we may recall that when Canada was founded it was not an independent country at all. Nor did the Fathers of Confederation want it to be an independent country. The debates that took place in the predecessor to this Chamber over the provisions of Confederation are full of strong emphases on just how we do not want to be an independent country. We want to be part of the British empire. We want to be in the position of a protectorate of what was regarded at that time as the freest and greatest assemblage of people in the world.

[Dale Johnston, Canadian Alliance, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your ascension to the chair. I also congratulate the others sharing the chair with you. We only demand of you perfection; nothing more, nothing less. I do not think that will be too hard a bill to fill. If that were not enough, perhaps we would also suggest that you could be an agent for some change in the House while you are at it.

This is my first intervention in the 37th parliament. I thank the people of the constituency of Wetaskiwin for yet another tremendous vote of confidence bestowed on me on November 27 during the federal election. I give a special thanks to my wife Dianne. As all members of the House know, their duties here also affect family members. certainly my wife Dianne has been a great supporter. I also thank our daughters Michelle and Dalene and our son-in-law Andy for their continued support.

I also mention the people on my campaign team who worked so hard in winter weather to get me re-elected. In particular, my campaign manager Janet Moseson did a marvellous job of working with a less than perfect product, myself. My official agent Gerald Grant has done a stellar job of looking after the finances, and his wife Averil Grant looked after the constituency office during a very busy time, and did it single-handedly. I thank all of them for their help, and the result is that I am back in the House of Commons for my third term.

Throughout the campaign I promised the voters of Wetaskiwin that I would bring their message to Ottawa. It would not be the other way around, that I would never bring Ottawa's message to them. I would be their servant.

My constituents have asked me to bring a message to the government and to the Prime Minister. Part of that message is that they want the government to be fiscally accountable and responsible. They want the government to treat all Canadians equally regardless of where they live or who they support.

My constituents do not want and certainly do not need the Prime Minister's tough love. They want and deserve respect from the Prime Minister and his government. Last week's throne speech was not a great start. It had even more platitudes than previous speeches from the throne. It was notable in that it had very little to say and it was notable in what it did not say.

When the government came into power in 1993 the national debt and deficit had reached astronomical proportions. A responsible government would have made tough decisions to cut wasteful and unnecessary spending in order to get things back on track. Not these Liberals. Instead, they kept their patronage ridden, make work projects, and they balanced the budget by raising taxes and offloading expenses on to the provinces and municipalities.

The throne speech promised that the government would fund improvements to municipal water and waste water systems through the federal-provincial-municipal Canada infrastructure program. That is the same promise that we heard in red book one. Instead, millions of dollars were squandered on questionable infrastructure spending.

In the 35th parliament the government announced the $6 billion infrastructure program. Here are some of the examples of what the government thinks are infrastructure and how that money was spent, and I beg to differ with it. There were bowling alley renovations in Ontario. There were a $24 million tennis stadium and a $14.4 million circus training centre in Montreal. There were a fountain in Shawinigan and golf courses in Atlantic Canada. Hardly any of that in the wildest imagination is infrastructure.

It appears that municipal sewage and water treatment infrastructure was not a high priority for the Liberal government as bowling alleys or golf courses. In the short term, make work projects designed to provide Liberal backbenchers with photo ops better describe it. The main reason to invest in infrastructure should be to make sure that the economy remains competitive and buoyant.

If a municipality, a province or a country cannot offer clean water, a reliable transportation system and affordable housing, businesses will locate somewhere else. If the British Columbia companies participating in the upcoming team Canada trade mission to China win large contracts, they will be faced with the problems of how to get their products to port because of deteriorating, congested road networks.

If Canadian companies cannot get their products to market, they will simply lose those contracts. Workers will have to be laid off and there will be a deteriorating effect on the economy. The government will then have fewer tax dollars to collect from those people.

Canadians, whether they live in the west, the east, the centre or the north, expect the government to provide core services. They pay enough taxes to justify these expectations. Before the government embarks on another potentially frivolous infrastructure plan, it should recognize what was wrong with the first two and steer clear of culture and social infrastructure components that led to many boondoggles.

Existing physical infrastructure has long been one of the areas consistently neglected by the government. An infrastructure program should embody economic efficiency and be a patronage free zone. By the end of the program in 1999, the Liberals' inefficient manner of allocating taxpayer dollars was obvious.

They left the private sector out of the picture in helping to identify, finance and administer the projects. Unless the neglect is followed up by an innovative way of finding new areas of financing, Canada's infrastructure will continue to deteriorate to the point where governments will be required to spend more money for improvements. As a matter of fact, improvements might not do it. They might have to completely rebuild the infrastructure.

Treasury Board claims that the program was not renewed in 1999 because the economy was booming. That brings us to where we are today: another red book and another throne speech promising to fix Canada's roads and sewers.

This time the government is still promising $2.6 billion, as announced in the February budget, for new physical infrastructure. Is it any wonder that westerners are skeptical and nearly shut out the Liberals in the last election?

If the economy is booming and Canada does not need another infrastructure program, we have to wonder why the government is renewing this program. Perhaps it has something to do with bringing goodies to certain regions of the country. For instance, Quebec got $515 million in federal contributions while Alberta got only $171 million. This is not regional fairness. Albertans have heard the same storyline over and over.

Yesterday the auditor general noted that Canadians get upset and angry when they see their tax dollars wasted. We cannot blame them. They expect the government to take the same care of and have the same prudence with their money as they themselves must.

I would like to point out that my former colleague in the House, the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Lee Morrison, authored a private member's bill that would have dedicated revenues from fuel taxes for repair of our crumbling highways. Our Trans-Canada Highway is a shame, a disaster, and I think his idea is one that is well worth exploring.

I want to conclude by saying that if the Prime Minister doubts what I am saying, he can visit the great riding of Wetaskiwin. We would be glad to have people meet with him and give him this exact message.

The other message the people of Wetaskiwin want me to deliver to this place today is that they want to see a country in which their children and grandchildren are treated with respect, have unlimited opportunity and have a government they can respect.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in the member's speech. If this is how he is going to start the new House I do not think we have much to look forward to.

He begins by saying that he is bringing us a message from his constituents. He is obviously very proud to be a member of parliament, as I am. He obviously believes in representing the people of his riding as well as he can.

However, in discussing the first two infrastructure programs he proceeded to malign the villages, townships, towns and cities of my riding, because within the guidelines of those first two infrastructure programs in the 1993 and 1997 parliaments, the choices were made by the municipalities themselves.

He also maligns the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. That was the design program municipalities specifically asked for and have asked for again this time. If he were to go to my riding he would discover that the elected representatives of my villages looked very carefully at their infrastructure needs. They effectively defined what was infrastructure and what was priority infrastructure at that time for their communities.

He went on to mention highways and water and sewage. What is the point when a small municipality that has recently spent large sums of money on its highways is given money to spend on highways? If there is a municipality that has recently invested in its water supply and has gone to great lengths to develop a good water system and a system of checking it, what is the point of giving that municipality infrastructure money for water?

Putting it another way, why should a municipality which has not done that get the benefit of a program simply because it is behind in checking its highways or water and sewage?

I believe that the purpose of this type of infrastructure program—and I do understand that there are others—is to deal with the smallest units in our system, which are the villages and townships of my riding and of the member's riding. I hope the design of this program is the same, because only the design of this program can do it. No one in Ottawa knows what the village of Havelock in my riding needs today. We just do not, but we can listen to the villages and townships and respond as well as we are able to with flexible programs that allow them to make the decisions.

I welcome the hon. member's comments. In his riding, in the 1993 and 1997 programs, was someone other than the municipalities themselves deciding what was infrastructure?

[Dale Johnston, Canadian Alliance, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what I did say in my remarks was that not even in my wildest dreams could I imagine a fountain in Shawinigan being infrastructure. What I certainly can imagine being infrastructure is the repair of the Trans-Canada Highway, and I cannot quite understand why it has not been done. To me that is infrastructure.

Certainly, as the hon. member says, if municipalities chose to repair their water and sewer systems before the infrastructure program became available to them, then he is right, it would not make sense to force money on them for water and sewer where it is not needed.

By the same token, I challenge the hon. member to tell me how a fountain in the Prime Minister's riding would qualify, even in the broadest terms, as infrastructure.

The availability of infrastructure money should come with no political strings whatsoever attached to it. From where I sit, it appears that quite a lot of the infrastructure money came with some political strings attached to it. It should be available on the basis of need for infrastructure spending in a municipality.

I agree with the hon. member when he says that it should be decided by the area of governance that is closest to the people. Those people should be able to make the decision because they are the ones who know what is needed in the community.

I am just having a very difficult time understanding how he qualifies a golf course, for instance, or a fountain as infrastructure.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Children and Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, as the representative from the Northwest Territories and the Secretary of State for Children and Youth, I am pleased to contribute in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. I am sharing my time with the member for Markham.

Had it not been for the support that I received from my constituents through four elections in a row I would not have the opportunity to speak today. I am grateful for having been returned to my seat in the House of Commons. To serve as a member of parliament is one of the highest honours. We are sitting in the highest court of our country, apart from the supreme court and the Senate, and we all take that seriously.

In regard to the Speech from the Throne, I am delighted to say that the emphasis is something that I really believe my whole life has been about in the work I have undertaken for the people I represent. The emphasis is one of inclusivity and innovation.

Our goal is to ensure that all Canadians can succeed and fully participate in today's society. As is said in the Speech from the Throne, the true value of a strong society in Canada is our willingness to include everybody and generate opportunities shared by all communities. Every region, every province, every territory, every community and every citizen has a strong voice and can contribute to building our nation.

That resonates with me specifically because I come from such a remote part of our country. I represent 33 communities in over half a million square miles, many of which are not connected by road and are only accessible by air. These words in the Speech from the Throne really mean something to my constituents, because when we are essentially physically isolated there is the sense that everything is happening out there and we are not connected to it. My community and the territory I come from can appreciate these words.

Allow me to state how much we are progressing in the north. Much more economic development is occurring at this time. Land claims are continually being settled. A few are well on their way to being settled and others are in different stages of completion and development.

The goal in the north is to become much more self-sustaining. As Canadians, we want to contribute. We want to be able to give back to this wonderful country what we have received in terms of transfer payments and equalization. Never in the north has there been an opportunity as great as there is today to position ourselves to do that. We are a part of Canada that is positioned, because of our resources and the region we come from, to be able to do that in a very short time if we are given the opportunity and the support we need.

Allow me to say that at this time I see a better future for the people in the north because of the opportunities there. I am honoured that the government has made a commitment to strengthen its relationships with the aboriginal people of Canada through the Speech from the Throne. The government will support first nations communities in strengthening governance, including more effective and transparent administrative practices.

In my community there is an ongoing debate about the Dogrib land claim. Embedded in that claim is the provision for self-government. These are constitutionally binding commitments. They are legal. They are constitutional once they are completely finalized. We have to recognize that. Those provisions are not put there so that these instruments become hollow vessels. They have to mean something.

Also in my riding is the community of Delenhe, which is working on a community self-government proposal. This proposal is progressing quite well.

These communities are serious in their negotiations and their intent and I believe the negotiators on all sides are negotiating with goodwill.

We also have a proposal from the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation and the Gwich'in Tribal Council for regional self-government. Self-government does not have one mould. It can have many different structures. These are serious negotiations. The proposal would provide greater responsibility to those who would be governing once they complete their negotiations and arrangements with the federal and territorial governments and among themselves.

These are important negotiations. They speak to the actual substance of what the throne speech is speaking to in terms of strengthening governance for aboriginal people.

The government will work with first nations to ensure that basic needs are met for jobs, health, education, housing and infrastructure. This will be reflected in all of the government's priorities. This is good news.

Nowhere is the creation and sharing of opportunity more important than it is for aboriginal people. Too many live in poverty without the tools they need to build a future for themselves and their communities. Over the last 12 years I have been to many reserves in many parts of Canada. I have gone to touch the earth and be with the people, as have many hon. members. I have seen many diverse living conditions in Canada and many ranges in the quality of life of Canadians. That is being recognized in the throne speech. We need to help these people develop the tools they need to build a better future for themselves and their communities.

As we enter this new millennium in a faster paced, digital economy, the government will work with all Canadians to build a stronger, more inclusive Canada, fueled by innovation, ideas and talent, an innovative economy built on an innovative society whose people welcome diversity and are willing to explore creative approaches.

We can only achieve our potential in the north and elsewhere if we expect all of our citizens to do well in education, work and life and if we willingly support them in that achievement. We are already seeing progress. Many of our young people are very technologically savvy, outward looking and more educated than ever. They are managing very well. However, we are ever more determined to build on this momentum. The throne speech refers to instruments like the creation of the registered individual learning accounts to make it easier for Canadians to finance their learning. We will improve the loans available to part time students so more workers can earn while they learn. We anticipate many thousands of working Canadians will take advantage of learning opportunities like these over the next five years. This is good news for Canadians who need to upgrade their skills.

In the Northwest Territories we see tremendous opportunities opening up. We have two diamond mines that are in full swing and producing diamonds. They are the Broken Hill property mine and the Diavik Mine, which just started and is basically bringing in all its supplies because the winter road has now opened.

With all the spin-off effects on jobs and economic growth, it was said at one time that we could never cut and polish diamonds in the Northwest Territories, which is a value-added subsidiary of the diamond industry. We have two cutting and polishing facilities in Yellowknife. One of them is co-owned by Aboriginal people.

In addition to that, oil and gas companies have committed more than $1 billion in exploration in the Northwest Territories. This includes $750 million in the Mackenzie Delta, $85 million in the Sahtu region and $25 million in Liard area.

The demand for natural gas is robust. The development of a Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline has many benefits: $1 billion dollars in wages to workers; aboriginal people would have new opportunities and perhaps a chance for equity ownership of the pipeline; towns would have an increased tax base; and the service industry would expand.

When the next two diamond mines come into play, Diavik and Snap Lake Diamond mines, the Northwest Territories will be producing 20% of the world's diamonds. Diamonds have landed. We have become a big player in the diamond industry in Canada and it is happening in my region.

This is like every other part of Canada. Northerners want the opportunity to participate. They do not want a handout, they want a hand up. There are opportunities and the throne speech speaks about many of those opportunities.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the throne speech, could the Secretary of State for Children and Youth tell us what some of her ideas are regarding the issue of young people with disabilities?

In the throne speech there is a section on support for persons with disabilities who have some attachments to the labour force. However, I see nothing that deals with the very real problems that young people with disabilities face in the education system in terms of mobility support. At the present time there are no adequate national standards for education and certainly not for children with disabilities.

In my town hundreds of parents struggle every year to make sure there will be a speech therapist, a teacher's assistant and a psychologist. We seem to throw all of these things into the provincial pot.

As a spokesperson for children and youth, I know that education and national standards for learning have to be part of any kind of a vision for the country. How does the hon. member feel the government is helping with the solution?