Debates of Feb. 9th, 2001

Speech From The Throne

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is the typical logic that we get from Liberals. They call themselves the government. We all know that half the price of gasoline is tax. If they were to reduce the excise tax by one cent, five cents or ten cents, surely as a government they could police it too and ensure that the consumer received it and not the oil companies. It is that simple. They are the government.

For the hon. member to say that the oil companies would grab the extra cents demonstrates the incompetence of the government in the House.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to clarify something with the member for St. Albert. The fundamental problem with the energy rebate was that it was a thrown together, knee-jerk reaction because of an imminent federal election.

If they fail to plan, to set targets or to work with accurate information and simply throw money out in a shotgun approach to buy votes, they are bound to find out in many cases that the people who were not supposed to receive the money or did not qualify to receive it are getting it. That is the fundamental flaw of the plan.

I am sure the member for St. Albert will agree that a conservative thinking government can be shown to be clearly more caring than a Liberal government. A conservative thinking government gives out government money for specific projects to help people. It targets the funds specifically to people who need it, instead of the shotgun approach the Liberal government uses where it throws the money out there and hopes the people who need it get it. In the meantime a lot of people who simply want it get it.

I think I have made my point about what type of government would be a more caring government for Canadians. Perhaps the member for St. Albert could confirm that.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, we all know that the government cares about the government and does not care much about anybody else. That is a fundamental fact.

The member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley is right. The government's big announcement the week before the election was that it would send cheques out to Canadians to help them with their home heating bills.

Good stuff, but they did not tell people, as they were going to the polls to vote for a government that was to send them a cheque, that some of them would not get one. The Liberals sent cheques out to a few people, the wrong people and say they fulfilled their election promise. If Canadians had known the real facts based on that announcement, that they would not get a cheque, I doubt very much they would have returned the government.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to dedicate my remarks primarily to the issue of private members' business.

I am also delighted to follow the member for St. Albert so that I can also put on the record some of my observations about that fuel rebate before I go into the main text of my speech.

I would point out to the member for St. Albert that I have an older single woman in her eighties living in the village who lost her husband many years ago. She lives in my village. She lives in an Insulbrick house. Her total income is about $12,000 a year. It is only old age security. If the government had not acted as fast as possible on that fuel rebate, she would have felt the cold.

Moreover, low income Canadians who do not pay for their own home heating fuel, who are tenants of landlords, also benefit from this because, as the Liberal member mentioned, what happens with landlords is when the fuel price goes up they pass on the cost to their tenants.

When those tenants are low income tenants, they are going to feel that pinch. My view is that the government did exactly the right thing. It did away with all the potential red tape that would have come from the conservative proposals we heard opposite. What it did was it got it out as fast as possible. Obviously it was imperfect but at least 80% or 90% of Canadians who needed that rebate, whether they needed it directly or indirectly, did benefit.

Let us just get it straight. If the government did act in a compassionate fashion, and if it had taken the course that was proposed by the Canadian Alliance, then the people like the one that I just mentioned, people who want to live alone but live independently and have small means, they would have suffered. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, the snow is deep in Ontario as well as out west and as well as on the east coast.

I really want to dedicate my remarks to the issue of private members' business. This is relevant to the Speech from the Throne because at various times during the speeches the issue of opportunities for MPs has come up and whether or not backbench MPs in particular and opposition MPs can have a meaningful legislative impact on the House.

I think what has been missing from the debate is the opposition has tended to suggest that there have been no attempts at reform, no attempts at expanding the opportunities of backbench MPs. Well in fact, precisely the opposite has occurred.

I would like, for the benefit of Canadians, to just give a little history of private members' business since 1993 when the Liberals came to power after the Conservatives. If the House will recall, we came back with quite a large majority.

Theoretically, when a government has a large majority, it can do whatever it pleases in the sense that it really can afford to ignore the backbench, but in fact, this government did not.

At the very outset, this government, at least as far as its own members were concerned, decreed that all private members' business would be subject to free votes on this side. As a government, we cannot dictate to what opposition leaders say to their own MPs, but on this side from 1993 onward it was free votes.

Second, the government invited, not initially willingly, but after a little while the government invited private members' business from this side, as a matter of fact, from anyone, of more substance.

Prior to 1993, ordinarily a private member's bill would deal with an extremely non-controversial, even trivial topic, something that the government did not have to worry about, such as a name change or things that cost the government no money, that would have no potential negative political impact.

One of the things that changed after 1993 was that the government showed a willingness to accept private members' bills that dealt with more substance. Indeed, we started out in that line and there were some notable successes.

I remind the House on all sides that—

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening very carefully to the Liberal member from the beginning, and what he is saying has absolutely nothing to do with the Speech from the Throne. I fail to see the connection—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I wish to remind hon. members that there is a lot of leeway in terms of the type of debate that takes place during the response and the motion to the throne speech on both sides of the House.

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

Madam Speaker, actually I am sure the member knew that quite well, but there is some hesitancy on the other side of the House to want to acknowledge that in fact we have advanced the opportunities of backbench MPs and we have advanced private members' business.

There seems to be a theme of the criticism coming from the opposition that it wants to demean the opportunities of being a member of parliament. It wants to demean the fact of members of parliament having all kinds of opportunities. The very opportunity to speak in this place is an enormous opportunity that other Canadians do not have.

Coming back to my theme, and it is relevant to the Speech from the Throne because the throne speech is all about where parliament is going in the near term, where I will lead in my speech is to the fact that indeed there is going to be a new incentive and new efforts to expand private members' business.

Let me return to the history because it is very important to understand that expanding private members' business and having free votes is not as easy as it seems. In theory it seems great; in fact it is very difficult.

As the members on the opposite side will know only too well in the matter of free votes, it took them years before their leaders would allow them to have free votes on private members' business. We could see that on this side because they always voted in unison on private members' business, always in unison, and surely there would be some dissent on that side, one or two, but no, it was always the same.

On this side of course there were MPs who would support opposition private members' bills, and opposition private members' bills actually did pass. I remember there was one from the Bloc Quebecois dealing with the medical use of marijuana. That was an opposition private member's bill and it passed.

It received support from the backbench MPs here. It had nothing to do with the cabinet. It had everything to do with the backbench MPs on this side recognizing that an opposition MP had an excellent bill and that it should be supported, and it was supported.

On this side of the House I remember a Liberal member introduced a private member's bill that determined that those who would deliberately circumvent the Access to Information Act should be subject to a fine and even jail term. That succeeded. It was riding of Brampton West—Mississauga and that was a major step forward.

That did not occur prior to 1990. It just did not simply happen. The opposition, particularly the Canadian Alliance alias the Reform or however we say it, has never been willing to recognize that because it is not in its interest.

Private members' business and free votes brings with it significant problems. Also, introducing private members' bills that have real substance brings in significant problems. The reality is that individual members do not have the resources of government or even the resources of an opposition party to do the kind of due diligence on a weighty subject pertaining to private members' business that perhaps has to be done.

What happens and what we have found on all sides of the House is that the member may advance a very important private member's initiative and the government and the bureaucracy may genuinely find problems that have not been considered.

We wind up with a situation where the government knows that the bill has a very negative impact that the member is not considering. So the government is opposed on the advice of the bureaucracy in the Department of Justice.

Yet the backbench MPs on this side not considering it in the kind of depth that the government is considering the issue and the opposition MPs wanting to encourage a private member's initiative on this side or that side, what happens in the end is that the private member's bill, and several have actually done this, can get through the whole process because it is free votes on this side and get through third reading and actually go on to the Senate and be fundamentally flawed.

This was a problem that those of us on this side who were very interested in private members' business did not anticipate. The Senate on a couple of occasions blocked private members' bills that had passed this House. This is a very significant step because the Senate is not entitled to block a government bill. It can return a government bill to the House for amendment but it cannot actually stop it. The Senate has actually blocked private members' bills.

I would say that what we are looking at here is a very important opportunity for the Senate because I think it is very important to give private members lots of opportunity to bring in bills of significance and substance; but there has to be a check somewhere. Somebody has to do the kind of due diligence that the member himself cannot do and that other members are unlikely to do.

This is another reality about private members' business. When a private member submits a bill, and it is in second reading debate and then it comes to second reading vote, often members want to support that bill on all sides of the House simply because they want to support a private member. They want to support initiatives that come from backbench MPs, be they on this side or that side. What happens is then private members' legislation can escape through the House of Commons and it may not be as well thought out as it should be.

So what I hope in the future is that we will see significant activity on the part of the Senate in examining private members' legislation that reaches the Senate so that the bills, if they do get royal assent, are really bills that will help Canadians and are of value to the nation.

In the free votes I was mentioning that is a problem too, because the fact of the matter is that many members do not study the private members' legislation in the same way as they might government legislation, and in fact the reality, when it comes to party discipline or free votes, is that many MPs on both sides of the House do not usually look in detail at any legislation, be it government legislation or private members' legislation.

Therefore, when it comes to a free vote situation then it becomes incumbent upon the MPs to examine the bills in great detail and often they do not. That is the reality, and they probably never shall. Somewhere along the line, if private members' legislation is going to be a useful addition to parliamentary life, we have to make sure that legislation is examined in depth.

We had a problem on this side when it came to free votes. Because the members are not always reading the private members' legislation or considering the full impact, what was happening was that the backbench MPs on this side, when a private member's bill—even though it is a free vote—was being voted on after second reading, would watch the members stand along the front benches. And because they had not read the legislation and because people want to generally be on side with their leadership, they would take their cue from the front benches. What you would see was everyone standing at the two benches here, and then everyone on the back benches. To address this problem the subcommittee on private members' business held consultations with backbench MPs that went over several years and issued a report, first a report just before the 1997 election and then a final report after the election.

Thanks to the guidance of the chairman of that committee, the member for Mississauga Centre, a number of very, very important recommendations to improve private members' business were made in that report and subsequently adopted by the government. One of those recommendations, which is now the practice of the House and which led to a change in the standing order, is the idea that when the House is voting on a private member's bill the Speaker will count the votes from the back benches forward.

So any Canadian watching a private members' vote will see that the vote is counted from behind. That way, the true backbench MPs do not have the opportunity to take the cue from the front bench. Indeed, it has encouraged them to pay more attention to private members' legislation and it gives the opportunity to the member who has the bill, be it an opposition member or a government member, to actually solicit support.

That has been an enormous step forward in private members' business, just an enormous step forward. I think, if I remember correctly, because I was involved as a witness before the committee, that idea in fact was the idea of the member for Mississauga Centre. I think she has significantly changed parliamentary life just by that one change to the standing order.

That report had other innovations as well. One of the great problems with private members' business is the fact that in order to have one's bill advanced for debate in the House it goes into a kind of lottery. In fact, every now and then, about three times a year, the Commons clerical staff literally put their hands into a hat and draw 30 names of members of parliament. If those members of parliament have motions or private members' bills submitted at first reading, then those bills can go forward and be debated in the House.

Madam Speaker, I have to tell you that I have put in a number of private members' bills over the years and I have never been picked in that lottery in six years—six years, Madam Speaker. The mathematics, the statistics, of that process are such that with 301 MPs it is possible to never be picked for 10 years.

So another innovation that was brought in by the subcommittee on private members' business was the concept of a member of parliament getting the support of 100 members of parliament from all sides of the House. Actually what it breaks down to is 100 members from at least 3 parties, in which 2 of those parties would have at least 10 members supporting the bill. It is a little complicated, but the point is that the member could show broad support from the backbench MPs. It could buy his bill support to bypass the lottery and go directly on the order paper.

That innovation, I think, was a superb innovation because it at least reduces the element of chance. Or to say it another way, it makes it not a factor of chance alone to advance a significant bill. I think that was a very important innovation.

However, in practice it did not work very well. It had a lot of problems because a lot of members found it very difficult, because when they were given a list asking for the support, and the idea was to write their signature, they were torn between whether they should sign it because the bill was good or whether they should sign it because they liked the member who had the legislation.

It is the old story when we have free votes. For free votes, be it signing your signature to something that is going directly onto the order paper or whether it is a free vote on the actual vote going through the House, the problem is that if we do not do our due diligence we might decide that we want to support the legislation simply because we like the member who is putting it forward or because the member is on our side or whatever else.

I guess the jury is still out on that process. I do believe that the subcommittee for private members' business, which has been re-struck just recently, is going to reconsider that matter and see whether there is a way of amending that bit of legislation to make it work a little better.

I should mention, that I am happy to report to the House that the chairman of the subcommittee on private members' business is the member for Mississauga Centre, so can I expect her to give due attention to improving private members' business in every way, including this.

Finally, there is another problem with private members' legislation that I have not so far touched upon. One of the advantages that the government has when it introduces legislation is that the government has all the power of government and the bureaucracy to fight off the special interests that attack legislation. Any bill that is presented before the House, if it has any substance at all, is going to be the subject of attack from special interest groups, because the reality in society is that there are always those who support and there are always those who are against. So in the species at risk bill that is coming up right now, you can be very, very sure that there is going to be an enormous pressure that will come forward from various special interest groups.

So it was, with a private member's bill that I put forward on reforming the Access to Information Act last year. It was defeated in this House, a bill that would have advanced transparency of government. It was defeated in this House by opposition members. It was defeated primarily by the Bloc Quebecois and primarily by the Canadian Alliance. It was supported primarily by the NDP and supported by the Conservatives. It was defeated, not because they were against private members' business. It was defeated because every one of those MPs over there was subject to pressure from special interest groups, because when you bring transparency to government, when you bring transparency to crown corporations, they are going to put a lot of pressure on individual MPs.

There is a lot to do here, but we are making a lot of progress, perhaps not with as much help as I would like from the opposite side.

[Preston Manning, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of points.

At the beginning of his remarks the member implied that it is our position that the throne speech contains no attempts to improve parliament. That is not our position. Our position is that the provisions of the throne speech to improve parliament are pathetically inadequate. I just want to make that clear.

My comment and question really is on the first part of the member's remarks, wherein he dismisses the idea that energy consumers would be better helped by a tax reduction rather than a rebate.

This member and other members opposite have resisted every suggestion to reduce consumption taxes on fuel or anything else by saying that it will not be passed on to the ultimate consumer, that it will be absorbed by the oil company, the manufacturer, the distributor or someone else. This is their argument as to why there is no point in reducing consumption taxes: that they cannot do it because they cannot pass it on to the consumer.

In 1993 the Liberal Party itself promised to eliminate a consumption tax, the GST. It would never have promised that if it had not believed that there was some mechanism to ensure that the reduction in that tax was passed on to the taxpayer. Why does the government not take that mechanism, which it had in place when it planned to eliminate the GST, and use it to pass on a reduction in fuel consumption taxes to hard pressed energy users?

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

Madam Speaker, the answer is clearly speed and target. What we had to do is that we had to get a break on fuel taxes to the people who needed it most. The problem with just an across the board rebate is of course that it benefits the rich and the people who do not need it quite as desperately as those who do. We are definitely a government that, if we are going to respond, we are able to respond to what I think was a real crisis in fuel prices. We responded quickly. If we had chosen the rebate route it would have taken about a year and it would have helped a lot of people who do not need help.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, I find it rather paradoxical to hear our colleague on the government side talk about government integrity, and the greater role members have been given by the government, when this very morning we could read on the front page of La Presse that the Liberals were getting ready to vote against one of the red book's promises.

How can the member rise in the House, talk about independence of thought, integrity, giving more power to members, when just like in The Silence of the Lamb he, along with every government member, is going to vote against the red book?

I sincerely believe the member is one of the too many Pharisees on the government benches. Let us hope that one day in the future we and the other opposition parties will be able to wake up the government so that it lives up to the promises it made in the red book.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

Madam Speaker, in the absence of the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot—

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I put a question to the member. He cannot talk about independence of thought and flee like Louis XVI in The Hunchback of Notre-Dame .

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I remind the hon. member that we do not refer to whether someone is here or not here in the House.

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

Madam Speaker, you were quite right to advise the member of the Bloc not to talk about the fact that the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot fled the House. You were quite right to bring that up, Madam Speaker. There he is.

It was almost laughable, if it was not such a serious thing, when the Liberal member in his presentation talked about how, in order to catch the cabinet members, the whip and the Prime Minister off guard, for private members' bills they count from the back down. How surprised the Prime Minister and the cabinet must be with the votes. How surprised they must be.

Let us say this to all Canadians, that that is not exactly the way it happens. Prior to the members coming in, sitting on their desks, private member's bills or not, is either a demand or a recommendation from the government whip. We have seen those on the government benches. When the member so piously talks about how the Liberals have such free votes and how the whips cannot see how the members are voting, that is absolute hogwash. The member knows it and now Canadians know it.

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

Actually, Madam Speaker, that is not done by the whip. The whip does not attempt to interfere in private member's business. What was actually happening with that, and it was something that evolved when the legislation got very controversial because it was not always well thought out, is that I think the person responsible for private members' business was sending notices around indicating the government's position. All it does is indicate usually the Department of Justice's position on it.

That was the initiative of the member who was the chairman of the subcommittee on private members' business at that time, not the member for Mississauga Centre I should stress. It was a subsequent member.

It was a very, very poor practice and I never want to give the impression that we have perfected the operation of private members' business on this side or on the other side. I am hoping that in this parliament that will be discontinued and we will not do that, because I felt the pain of that when my access to information bill came before the House. I think some members were influenced by what was before them on their desks and I hope that will stop.

I have to say further that I have watched that side, particularly that party, particularly when it was under the leadership of the member for Calgary Southwest, and there was not a ripple of dissent during most private members' bills. There was always unanimity. On this side we have had free votes. We have voted contrary to the government's preference more than 2000 times. That is 2000 votes since free votes were instituted for private members' business.

No, what Canadians need to see during a vote is to have the camera panned and watch everyone on the other side jump up and down like monkeys. On this side you will see dissent on private members' business, Madam Speaker, and that is healthy dissent.

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

Madam Speaker, I think I can give a simple explanation to the member opposite about the apparent perception of us voting according to instructions. As a matter of fact, I have never ever voted the way I have been told. I have always been persuaded, and that is the way the House should be.

I think that the discrepancy between us apparently all voting together and the members over there voting is that we are all subject to collective fine minds and good wisdom. However, over there occasionally, that being lacking but still being a whipped vote, we get an unwise vote on that side and a good one on this side.

I could give many examples of different votes which were held in the previous two parliaments which were not good for this country. I think of only one, the Nisga'a agreement. I think of the vote on hepatitis C. Did I say only one? I mentioned two before I could stop my tongue.

The idea of votes and members of parliament representing their constituents here is absolutely critical. It just cannot be two or three people putting their heads together and every time without fail getting it perfect. So, why not listen to 301 members who are properly elected and who put forward amendments? Surely we would be able then to get better legislation for the Canadian people because we could improve it.

The mechanism now is that once it is brought in by the government, even in committee, amendments are denied. We bring amendments in here and they are denied. I have had members over there say to me that some of the amendments I put forward in committee were good amendments.

However, when I asked why they voted against it in committee, one of the Liberal members shrugged his shoulders and said that they really did not have a choice. There was a contradiction between what the member is saying and what I heard from another one of his colleagues. I would really like to know what it is, but clearly we do need to have the freedom as elected members to represent—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, first may I congratulate you on becoming the Acting Speaker of the House. It is very nice to see a woman in the chair. I hope that it is a worthwhile and rewarding experience. I will be sharing my time today with the member for Palliser.

First, I will thank the people of Vancouver East who supported me and voted for me in my re-election. We went through a very interesting federal election campaign and here we are again, back in the House and listening to yet another throne speech by the government.

I have to say that I came back with some anticipation and maybe even a little bit of eagerness that we might hear something new from the government side, that something from the Canadian people had resonated with the Prime Minister and government members in terms of what would be in the throne speech.

Picking up on the debate that we have just been listening to about parliamentary reform, I would like to begin with that point. Speaking to backbench members of parliament, whether from the government's side or opposition members, there is a very strong feeling in this place that parliamentary reform and the opening up of the Chamber, in terms of the kinds of rules and procedures that apply, is something that is long overdue.

A lot of us were listening keenly to the throne speech to know if there would be any indication that the message had fallen on receptive ears on the government's side. Unfortunately that was not the case. I would agree with the member for Calgary Southwest who said that the so-called comments about parliamentary reform in the throne speech were absolutely pathetic.

I think of the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle who has long championed the issue of parliamentary reform. I think of the discussions I have had with our House leader, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, a person who really understands what fundamental changes have taken place in the House regarding parliamentary democracy. It is really a sad day that we have come to a point where a lot of us are talking about parliamentary reform but nothing has really changed.

In listening to the throne speech, the thing that I was paying attention to was whether the government would be willing to address what is truly a national crisis in our country: the growing gap between the rich and the poor.

Just the other day we had a report from the Vanier Institute that clearly showed that the gap between the rich and the poor was growing. It pointed out that 20% of families with the highest income saw their share of earnings rise 6.6% while the lowest fifth, the lowest 20%, saw their share shrink by 5.2%.

The other day in question period I told the government that the growing inequality in our country, the growing poverty where more and more families are experiencing difficulty in paying the rent and finding work, or living on substandard wages, is a direct result of a decade of failed Liberal policies that have created this inequality. I must say that the throne speech failed miserably to address that issue in any substantial way.

One of the concerns I have, in reading through the throne speech, is that the reference to a national project on poverty was nothing more than a new guise for a program that one could consider a workfare type of program, where low income parents on welfare would be motivated or compelled to work in the low wage ghettos and be subsidized. It is really a subsidization program for employers who provide very low wages.

That is the government's answer to dealing with poverty. It does not deal with the reality that one in six Canadians live below the poverty line. It does not deal with the reality that many aboriginal people are living in destitution and poverty on reserves as well as off reserves.

The messages and the commitments in the throne speech were utterly disappointing in addressing what I believe is truly a national crisis.

The same goes for housing. Any organization that has dealt with this issue, national housing groups, housing advocates and people who deal on the front line, have said over and over again that what the government must do is get back into the housing supply program. There is no getting away from that simple straightforward fact.

Instead, what did we see in the throne speech? We saw one reference where the government will stimulate the creation of more affordable rental housing. What this says to me is that the government is now ready to begin a program of basically subsidizing developers. This is not a national housing strategy. This will not provide affordable housing for families, single people and seniors, the people who really need it.

Canada had good housing programs. They were dismantled by this government. It was one of the things that fell under the axe when the finance minister brought in his draconian cuts which were basically done on the backs of the poor people. The housing program was one of the victims of that. As a result, we now have something like 200,000 people sleeping on the streets. We have millions of Canadians who are inadequately housed.

I was very disappointed that we got a mere line in the throne speech and no reference to a real national housing strategy. This is particularly reprehensible when one considers that the finance minister, who is sitting on a big fat surplus, 10 years ago in the opposition actually produced a very good housing report. The report called for a lot of the kinds of programs that people today are still today calling for. Does that minister believe in his own report that he wrote a decade ago? It is the kind of hypocrisy that makes Canadians feel very cynical about the political process.

As the spokesperson in our party on the issue of post-secondary education, I try to stay on top of what the government is doing or is not doing when it comes to helping students. We only heard about the innovations of the high tech future of Canada, the vision of the future and the knowledge based economy. All these platitudes there were in the throne speech. There was not a single reference to the crushing debt that students are facing in the country.

Why is Canada only one of three OECD countries without a national grants program? Why is the average student debt now $25,000? Why have student loan bankruptcies increased 700% since 1989? It is because the government has abandoned post-secondary education. The retreat of public funding and the dramatic increase in tuition fees of about 240% is now hammering students. They are graduating into poverty. That is the Liberal answer to post-secondary education.

When it comes to issues of justice and equality, the throne speech had nothing to offer. When we put the picture together and looked at where we are headed as Canadians, I and my colleagues and in the New Democratic Party have very deep concerns about the vision of the government. We have concerns about the very role of government. It has changed its vision of helping people, of providing a social safety net and of strengthening democracy. It has now become the propaganda machine and the movers and shakers for globalization.

We were also looking for references that would deal with the threats of corporate globalization, that would respond to the concerns from Canadians about how the free trade area of the Americas and the WTO and these trade agreements and how the issues and concerns about weakening democracy in those agreements were going to be dealt with. Again, the throne speech was silent on this matter. There were no references to banning bulk water exports, something that Canadians are extremely concerned about. There was no commitment to environmental labour or public concern about meeting to carve out these issues in any trade deals.

We in the New Democratic Party see this as the most pressing issue before us. Whether we are talking about health care, education, culture or our very democratic foundation, we are threatened by globalized trade agreements that are literally transferring power from democratically elected governments to private corporations that have no accountability. The government is allowing that to take place.

We are just a small group but we will be a very strong force in taking on this issue in parliament and challenging the government on its agenda in this regard.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It being 2. 15 p. m., pursuant to order made earlier today, every question necessary to dispose of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne is deemed to have been put, and the deferred division is deemed to have been demanded and deferred until Tuesday, February 13, 2001, at the conclusion of Government Orders.

It being 2.16 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.16 p.m.)