Debates of Oct. 11th, 2002

The House resumed from October 9 consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session.

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said in the first five minutes of my reply to the Speech from the Throne, if the Prime Minister wants to have a true legacy he has 16 months in order to act for the public good and to implement changes for the public good that will dramatically improve the lives of Canadians. I have spoken before on health care with regard to amending and modernizing the Canada Health Act, implementing a plan for a manpower strategy for nurses, doctors and technicians and also a plan I proferred the last time I spoke which would enable those people to be redistributed to rural areas to work.

On the issue of economics, if the Prime Minister truly wants to affect the poor the objective is not to throw money at the situation but to give them the tools to do the job. Certainly there are many individuals who cannot work for various reasons and those people need to be taken care of. That is the purpose of social programs. What we need to do is give people the tools so they are able to work and provide for themselves.

One thing the Prime Minister could do is raise the basic minimum people have to pay taxes on to $18,000 a year. No one in the country who is making less than $18,000 a year should be paying any tax. A person can barely survive on that.

On the issue of drugs in health care, what the Prime Minister ought to do is implement a strategy that works to prevent drug use and criminal use and also gets tough with those parasites in our society, particularly organized crime gangs, who are involved in drug trafficking, prostitution and money laundering. They are preying upon our society, using our weak laws that enable them to do it.

On the issue of foreign policy, the Prime Minister said he wants to have an African agenda. He has said some very nice words but has not backed them up with facts. He has not acted on Zimbabwe. He has not mentioned a word on the crisis in Zimbabwe, where half the population of that country, six million people, is going to die in the next six months unless the international community mobilizes against President Mugabe. Although this is not about land reform at all, President Mugabe is using the land reform issue and racial politics as a shield to hide his true objective, which is to brutalize the black population. Ninety-nine and a half per cent of the people in Zimbabwe are black and he is going to kill six million of them by depriving them of food in a politically engineered famine over the next six months. This is not on anyone's radar screen.

Another seven million are going to die in politically engineered famines in five other countries. In Angola we have a narrow window of opportunity to help that country in a multilateral effort to engage with President dos Santos and use the billions of dollars in oil money for health and education, de-mining and infrastructure. This would go a long way toward saving that country. If we do not engage in Angola in the next six months as an international community, that country will become a failed state like Somalia. The country will fracture and we will never, ever be able to pick that up again.

On the issue of AIDS, 30% and sometimes up to 50% of the population in some countries is HIV positive. This is going to wipe out half the population of some countries. The economic backbone of these countries will wither away. The Prime Minister feels that the answer is to throw money at the situation. The irony of the continent is that it is an extraordinarily rich continent. It has incredible resources in diamonds, minerals, coltan, hydro power, agriculture and timber. It has incredible resources and yet it has the poorest people on the planet.

Throwing money at the situation is not the same as having an effect. What we need to do is implement policies that are going to affect people and deal with the three major issues that are affecting the development of that continent: corruption and lack of governance; conflict; and a lack of capacitance in primary health and education, as well as of course AIDS. Affect those three, work with the resources on the continent, enable capacitance to take place, defeat corruption and have good governance, and our country would have a foreign policy that truly would be an African agenda which the Prime Minister could be proud of and would affect the lives of these people.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity this morning to talk a little about some of the initiatives in the throne speech.

It is interesting for us to follow the speeches that occur after a throne speech. Frankly, they tend to be rather general, and often somewhat negative when coming from the opposition, which is understandable. In fact, a throne speech is really about vision. It is about the vision that the government has. Some may not share that vision. Members opposite or members of the media or some Canadians may not share that vision, but clearly that is what it is.

There are a number of key points announced in the throne speech that I think deserve some analysis and some discussion. It would be interesting if we could ever do it without the partisan flavour, but I doubt that is possible, frankly.

The first point in the throne speech states that we will put in place a health care system to meet the needs of Canadians today and in the future. I think we all know that the number one issue for all Canadians is our health care system. We are also well aware that Roy Romanow is in the late stages of his cross-Canada study and will be releasing a report with recommendations.

I believe most Canadians have faith in Mr. Romanow. He actually, as we all know, comes from the seat of medicare, the province of Tommy Douglas, and I always like to give credit where it is due, of the New Democratic Party and the CCF, its forerunner, who started public medicare. They sure did. As a result of that effort, all Canadians I think appreciate the fact that Mr. Romanow is doing a very thorough analysis on the health care system.

The reality of the health care system is that when it started it was indeed fifty-fifty between the provinces and the federal government. However, what was covered in that fifty-fifty agreement was fundamentally physicians and hospitals. Since that time, provincial jurisdictions, which is their right as they are duly and democratically elected to represent their provinces, have expanded the coverage of medicare to go well beyond the initial agreement of providing fifty-fifty funding for physicians and hospitals. I do not dispute if they want to put certain services in Ontario or in Alberta. They have every right to do that. They are answerable to their constituents. That is one of the strengths of the federation of Canada.

However, it would not make sense to me that a provincial government could simply announce to its community that it is going to add certain things to the envelope of health care and then just expect that the federal government, regardless of who is in office, will agree and will again split the cost fifty-fifty. That is why the Romanow commission, in my view, will be examining the services that are provided under health care. It will be examining the ways in which health care is delivered. It will be examining, I hope, such things as people who are in beds in hospitals when perhaps they should be in beds in long term care or acute care facilities. They should not be taking up space in a hospital, which means that when the emergency room floods, when all of the people come in during peak hours in an emergency room, there are no beds for those people so they wind up on stretchers in the hall. Do we build hospitals with the capacity to run at peak in an emergency room setting 24 hours a day? I do not think anyone thinks that is necessarily the efficient way of delivering hospital care. As well, at the same time that many provincial governments have increased the envelope in terms of what is covered, they have also reduced the funding.

I do not really want to get into a battle on whether the provinces are right or the federal government is right. I hope sincerely that what the Romanow commission will accomplish for all Canadians is to once and for all depoliticize this entire health care system.

We need a system in which Canadians, regardless of their income, regardless of their age, regardless of their status, whatever it is, have access to basic primary care so that they know, when they take their injured child to any emergency room in any hospital in any community in the entire country, they will receive fair treatment. I do think there will have to be very hard decisions, and not just about funding.

I am sure that everybody's solution to health care is just that the federal government should put more money into the pot, but the reality is that we also have to examine the way we are doing things, the way we deliver community health care. Could care be better given at home in many instances? I think we all know that it is possible and that it should happen more. Could care be given cooperatively, with the Victorian Order of Nurses and others who do wonderful work spending more time going into the home or a seniors' residence and keeping these people out of the hospital infrastructure in the country?

That is not to say that they should be left to suffer in any way. In fact, we want to ensure that their treatment is first class and readily available, available in a way that is not only the most comforting way of delivering health care to them but the most economical way. Because at the end of the day, while we all wrap ourselves in the emotion of the health care system, the taxpayer has to pay for it. I think the taxpayer expects the federal government, every provincial government and every hospital board to be able to deliver services at a fair cost and certainly in an efficient manner.

My second point on the throne speech is one that is very important to me. It deals with the need to help children and families break out of poverty and ensure that all children have a good start in life. As we approach the Thanksgiving weekend, I think we all recognize, particularly in this place but across the country, that we have a lot to be thankful for. At the same time as we celebrate Thanksgiving, we have to realize that there is an anomaly in Canada. We still have too much poverty. We still have families struggling. We still have single moms without housing.

Recently I was astounded to read about a young woman who lived in a YWCA shelter. I also saw an interview with her when I was in Calgary a couple of weeks ago. The reason she was being interviewed is that she had a job. Every day she gets up out of her bed in the shelter, the people at the shelter make her a lunch to take to work and she goes off to work as a receptionist in a dentist's office. I could just see the thrill in her eyes. She was just so delighted to have a job. She does not want to be on welfare.

Let us imagine this. I was astounded to see that someone who is living in a shelter actually has a job. That is not the sort of typical image we think of when we think of people living in shelters, so I did a little more research. I found out that over 50%, an astounding figure, of the people who live in shelters in the city of Calgary go to work every day. Some of them have kids. They send their kids off to school and they go to work.

[An hon. member]

What about Toronto?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Somebody mentioned Toronto. I believe the number in Toronto is about 30%. The number is 60% in the Region of Peel, the community I represent.

The opposition wants to take this as an opportunity to once again bash the government. I would like to point out that there are a number of things the government is doing to attempt to address the issue of homelessness and affordable housing, but we have not done enough. If that satisfies the catcallers and the hecklers, good on them, but in my view the important thing is to recognize it, make the statement in the throne speech and then put in place the programs to try to solve these problems. If anyone here thinks we can do it with the snap of a finger or just simply by pouring money into a problem, that is pretty naive.

The reality is we have an opportunity. We have identified a segment of society living in shelters who go to work at businesses every day. They are proud individuals who do not want to take welfare, who would rather get a paycheque instead of a welfare cheque. They are willing to live in a shelter so they can save for their first and last month's rent. It is a tribute to those people.

Instead of members yelling about it, I would like to see us do something and I am convinced we will do something as a government. As a result of our statements in the throne speech around fighting poverty and investing in affordable housing, we will provide affordable housing on a much broader scale.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has re-entered that area of social responsibility. We announced agreements on affordable housing with $680 million of federal money matched by the provinces and in some cases the municipalities. Agreements have been signed by 10 provinces and territories, including Ontario where $245 million was signed for in an agreement. By the way, it was the first time in 10 years that we have been able to sign a bilateral agreement with the province of Ontario. We have signed the deal. They have agreed to put in rent supplements in lieu of capital up front which is fine with me as long as it gets the housing, as long as it gets the shovels going into the ground.

People will say it has not happened fast enough and I agree. It is a little frustrating with the bureaucracy at any level, be it the federal level or the provincial level. Frankly, on this deal we have done our job. We have brought the money to the table, put in place the programs, negotiated with the provinces and signed the deals. It is now up to the provinces and the municipalities working in partnership to either match the money or to put in the rent supplements so that these units are affordable and to get the shovels in the ground and get the houses built.

On top of that, there is a further commitment in the throne speech that says we will add to that particular housing agreement, that we will be investing more. It has to go through the budget process now. People will ask how much. The throne speech does not say how much. Canadians understand that a throne speech is not designed to put down the actual dollar amounts; rather it sets out the vision.

The government has committed that there will be additional work done in the area of affordable housing. I have the privilege as the parliamentary secretary responsible for crown corporations to work with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and with Canada Lands Company to develop some new housing initiatives in every part of the country and that work is currently going on.

That is the first step in addressing the issue of poverty. I have heard the opposition say there is no such thing as child poverty; that the children are poor because their families are poor. I tend to agree with that but the reality is the kids are not the ones who can do anything about it. They are captive to the cycle of poverty. Very often a poor child becomes a hungry child and a hungry child is not going to pay attention at school, is not going to learn, is not going to do the homework and is going to act out in some way.

There is certainly a comprehensive need to deal with the poverty of families and children. The end result of that and the reason that vision is so vital in the throne speech is it will help build a stronger Canada with stronger families, people who can get out of the welfare cycle and the poverty cycle and create a great life for themselves.

Let me give an example of the type of thing that people yell about. We will recall in the last throne speech there was an announcement that we would increase the maternity leave from six months to one year. It is not in this throne speech; it was in the previous document. There were howls of indignation from the business community. There were howls of indignation from the benches opposite. I have to say that even I wondered if it was the smart thing to do at the time.

We all develop our ideas by the circumstances in which we live. This summer I was delighted to become the proud grandfather of two new baby boys. My two oldest sons and their wives had kids. Those moms, Karen and Kim, have the opportunity to stay at home to nurture, to breastfeed, to be with those babies in the first year of those babies' lives. Maybe I have a different attitude because my family has finally experienced that.

It was one of the best darned things the government has done since 1993. It is a very simple thing. The business community has not been thrown into chaos. Every time something changes or there is something new, it is Armageddon, “Oh, my goodness, why would you do that? It is going to cost us thousands of dollars. We are going to have to retrain. We are going to have to replace these people. It isn't going to work”. The chambers of commerce, the boards of trade, the official opposition all rant about it.

Then we see mom with the baby and what happens to that baby by having a parent at home with it. It is not necessarily the mom any more; it could be mom or dad. Being with that baby during the first year of life is critically important. I am very proud and pleased the government had the courage to stand up to the hail that ensued after the announcement was made. With kids like my grandkids, it will pay dividends 20 years down the road when they graduate from university because they had a really good solid start. The opportunity was made available to them because the government had the vision in the throne speech to make that change in the way we do business. It was a terrific idea.

It will also be seen in the throne speech that we are moving in the area of affordable housing, in the area of attacking shelters, in working with the minister of homelessness on the SCPI funding, on the renovation funding. The government is in full flight on all those issues and is dealing with them at the community level.

We only have to ask the people at the community level whether or not what I say is true. The municipalities will say they are getting terrific cooperation and they are pleased with the programs being put in place in those areas. They will also say, and I openly admit it, that it is not enough, and it never is. They will also say that it is not fast enough and it never is. But they will say that at least the federal government is recognizing the needs in these areas and they would implore their provincial representatives to do likewise. I am confident that they will across the country, because government bodies are recognizing that once and for all we have to tackle these problems and put in place the solutions to poverty, homelessness and the lack of affordable housing.

The third item regards improving the life chances for aboriginals. The classic example of our doing that was something which again caused demonstrations in the streets and in here. Parliament was held to ransom. It is just an example of how we can work with the aboriginal community. That was the Nisga'a treaty. Now that the treaty is in place, the howls of indignation have calmed down and gone away. People have recognized that it was not Armageddon and the end of the world. In fact, some very good things have happened. I hope sincerely that the vision shown by the Prime Minister in the throne speech will put in place more treaties that will be similar and will accomplish the same thing.

I have spoken before about the environmental aspects of the Kyoto accord. I understand I have only about a minute left so I cannot go into great detail, but I want to say once again, let us just calm down the rhetoric.

We have made changes. We took lead out of gasoline and there were howls. People said, “Oh, my goodness, the sky will fall. We will go broke. We will go out of business”. When we converted to metric, one of the great debates in the nation's history was that it would be the end of the world because the United States was not going metric. Yet today our kids function in the school classrooms. Even if we dinosaurs do not, our children all do.

We need to recognize that the throne speech provides a vision and a direction. It shows not a legacy but in fact what we can do to make this an even greater country for our children and grandchildren and we can leave a place that all Canadians will truly be proud of.

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will give the hon. member a chance to calm down the rhetoric himself and actually give him a chance to respond.

Specifically on his last point on Kyoto, perhaps he could actually give us an idea if the government has a plan of action as to how it will implement this. Obviously, people are concerned about the Kyoto accord. I would like to know if he and the government, instead of just going ahead with the ratification of it, actually have a plan for implementation that they can share with Canadians so they understand what the whole deal is about.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I quite agree it is probably somewhat strange to hear me suggesting we calm down the rhetoric and I take the member's point. However, the passion I feel about these issues is very real.

We will indeed have a plan. That plan will be put before Parliament before the vote. That has been made clear. The plan has been a long time in the making. It continues to be a living document. We continue to consult with communities and to talk with industry. That is an ongoing process. That is why it is so disturbing to have people just stand and say, “No, no, no. Do not ratify it. Throw it out”.

At some point, one has to take a stand. The stand by the government and the Prime Minister is, we want to ratify Kyoto. Work with us to make it the most effective ratification we can. That is what we are committed to.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I understood correctly, the member is saying that the government had the lead taken out of gas. There is no longer any lead in gas, but the government is acting like a duck hit by lead shot. The Prime Minister had a golden opportunity with the Speech from the Throne.

The member mentioned poverty. The $6 billion the government grabs each year from the employment insurance fund is not returned to the regional economy, it is not paid out to poor families. If there are poor children in Canada, it is because there are poor families. We know that the government slashed the budget for social housing.

There the government had the perfect opportunity to give those $43 billion grabbed from the EI fund back to seasonal workers, to the unemployed in Charlevoix and other ridings in Quebec, and to students.

Students who work during the summer pay employment insurance, and we know they will never be eligible for the benefits. The Speech from the Throne would have been an excellent opportunity for the government to do the right thing once and for all.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the object of an employment insurance program is to provide insurance. When people buy insurance they hope they never have to cash in on it. It is like life insurance. The insurance companies are betting people are going to live; people are betting they are going to die, but are hoping the insurance companies are right. It is the same principle.

When we have an employment insurance plan, it must be supported by everyone in the country who is working. Hopefully not everyone will need it and obviously they do not.

Also, I would like to see an accounting over the last 20 or 25 years of how much has gone into employment insurance in terms of direct subsidy from the taxpayer, when the employment insurance program was running a deficit. Nobody talks about that. All members talk and yell about is that it is running a surplus.

We have reduced employment insurance premiums. They are down to about $1.25 from the $2.20 they were when we took office. We have reduced the burden on the business community and the worker. In the last budget we dramatically increased benefits for Canadian workers. They know it. It is only the folks over there who do not.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member has referred to a vision. My question is in regard to vision and where we are going with the Speech from the Throne.

There was mention made in the throne speech about expanding the Official Languages Act in the area of health care. I would like the member for Mississauga West to explain where he sees this expansion of official languages into the area of delivering health care. Where does he see the government going with this?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that party is opposed to the Official Languages Act. I know the Canadian Alliance would trash bilingualism, if it had an opportunity. If Canadians want that, Canadians can indeed vote the Alliance into government.

My sense is Canadians do not want that. This is a fully bilingual country in every aspect. In every region both languages should be celebrated. In my view they are celebrated by most thinking Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government member.

Many organizations and people, like the Conference of Defence Associations, the admiral of the fleet and the chair of the defence committee, have said repeatedly that they urgently need resources for our defence forces now, if we are to play our role internationally.

The Speech from the Throne had a non-sentence referring to defence. Will the member take to his government an urgent plea for funds and support for our defence forces now? If we do not, we will be unable to play our role internationally and unable to meet our domestic needs if we have a problem here at home.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

Defence is an issue that is important to Canadians but it is a matter of priorities. The government has made commitments in defence. I have heard the Minister of National Defence stand here and read off a litany of issues with which we have dealt. We have increased funding for wages for our soldiers. We have purchased new equipment. Nobody wants to talk about the positive things.

Because we tend to be in a war setting in our society with President Bush rattling sabres all the time, everyone wants us to somehow pour billions of dollars a year extra into defence. The government is committed to the armed forces. The government is proud of the military and the job it does. What is so astounding to that member--

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Oh, sit down.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. One thing we do here is we give each and every individual an opportunity to speak. Sometimes our listening skills could be a little bit better. I would ask for the cooperation of member. There is still time for questions and comments.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate. We are absolutely committed to the military. What I find interesting is that as we travel around the world, as many of us do in the pursuit of our jobs, people tell us how proud they are of the contribution of the Canadian military.

I am quite confident that there will be some attention to the funding needs of the military. I am sure it will not satisfy those who once again insist the sky is falling and that we never do enough. I do now know that we could ever do enough to satisfy those individuals, but I believe the military is being well served.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity to have an intervention. You are absolutely right, when a member is speaking the rest of us should be listening. However I took exception to the member's remark that somehow the government had been supportive of the military. Obvious to all Canadians is the fact that the government has been anything but supportive to the military.

We in the Progressive Conservative Party put a supply day motion to the House which was supported by the opposition parties, with the exception of the NDP. The motion asked that we support the Canadian military and give it the dollars and tools it needed to do the job the best it could do.

That member, along with the rest of the Liberal Party and the NDP, voted against the motion. Would the member explain his position on the military vis-à-vis his vote on the military?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, would it come as a great shock that I voted against a motion put on the floor by the Progressive Conservative Party? That party left this government in a deficit position of $43 billion in 1993. The PC Party wants to spend now and go back to the days when it had no concern about the fiscal reality that this government has created.

Why is our economy the way it is? Why are we ahead of even the United States? Because of the strong fiscal leadership shown by this government under this Prime Minister.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to resume debate on the throne speech. I would like members to think about all the pussyfooting, and the comments made by our great journalists and editorial writers. They said the throne speech was supposed to be the Prime Minister's legacy after 40 years of political life. They were partly right. The Prime Minister did not deny it. He was proud of his throne speech. It is the legacy he wanted to leave to Canadians and Quebeckers.

Today, I will talk about the legacy the Prime Minister, “the little guy from Shawinigan”, left to Quebec in his 40 years of political life, a legacy that is not mentioned in the throne speech, but should have been. I will talk about Mirabel airport, the biggest mistake ever made by the federal government in Quebec.

During his 40 years in politics, the Prime Minister was a member of the Liberal cabinet for a number of years. Of the 37 years of the Mirabel Airport saga, the Liberals were in power for 26. The present Prime Minister was in one or another portfolio for most of those 26 years. He was one of the cabinet members making decisions and recommendations on Mirabel airport.

This, I should point out, is in my opinion the only true legacy the Prime Minister has left in Quebec. The white elephant of Mirabel is all too typical of him. Discussions on Mirabel began back in 1966 under Lester B. Pearson. It was a major decision. There was Expo 67 and all that. Paris and New York City were building second airports. Montreal was, of course, the air entry point for Canada at that time. It was said that Dorval would no longer be able to accommodate the demand after 1985. The decision was made therefore to build a new airport. This was a political choice made by the Liberal government of the day.

Discussions were held, and a variety of concepts proposed. Would it be built on the north shore or the south? Finally, on March 27, 1969, federal minister Paul Hellyer put an end to the suspense and announced the expropriation of 100,000 acres in the Sainte-Scolastique sector, which has now become the city of Mirabel. At the time, this was bigger than the city of Laval, 10 times larger than other major world airports and 27 times larger than Dorval. More than 3,000 property owners were expropriated or moved. It was often described as the greatest population displacement in the history of Quebec, the greatest population displacement since the deportation of the Acadians.

That same day, on the way to church, Jean Marchand promised that 100,000 jobs would be created in the Mirabel sector. It must be kept in mind, of course, that in 1969 Montreal was still the aviation port of entry into Canada. After much discussion, Mirabel Airport was inaugurated on October 4, 1975. The announcement was made by then Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Everyone was of course delighted; there were 100,000 acres of land and predictions of major industrial development.

The development plan provided for completion of highways 15 and 50. A rapid train was to reach the airport. Once the work was completed there was going to be--and there still is--a place where trains would arrive. The work was done, in the sense that the airport terminal was built to accommodate trains. Plans were to go ahead and everybody was going to pitch in. The federal government was supposed to invest over $500 million plus another $300 million to complete highways 15 and 50. It was supposed to look after building the necessary infrastructure for the rapid train to arrive directly in the airport terminal.

This is not what happened. Over 25 years later, the reality is quite different. The Liberal government--I will remind members that the Liberals were in power for 26 of the 37 years the Mirabel saga lasted--was being pressured by the establishment, which is mostly controlled by Ontario. Toronto, just like English Canada, has never accepted that Montreal should remain the gateway to Canada for air travel.

What happened between 1975 when the airport was opened and 2002? We have witnessed a shift in air travel, and Toronto is now the gateway to Canada. This is what the Liberal Party establishment of the time wanted, with the support of the Montreal's West Island establishment, which has obviously never accepted that economic development might be exported outside of Montreal's West Island. That is what happened. That is not what history books will say, but it is the political reality. Those decisions were made by the cabinet of the time, of which the current Prime Minister was a member for most of the time the Liberal Party was in power.

Since the airport opened in 1975, there have been various developments, including the creation of ADM in 1996, when one independent airport administration was created to manage both Dorval and Mirabel airports. However, it is important to remember that on December 4, 1986, the federal government decided to keep both airports. Then there was the saga from 1975 to 1986, the period when Canada's gateway shifted from Montreal to Toronto. The Liberal government and representatives at that time, with the complicity of the Conservative government as well, took advantage of the situation, redistributing traffic and redirecting air traffic to Dorval.

So in the end, we have the situation that exists today, where Mirabel is but a shadow of its former self. As far as I am concerned, no matter how you read the Speech from the Throne, in English, in French, backwards or upside down, there is absolutely no mention of the development that could have been achieved with the whole Mirabel airport area.

This is an area that has experienced land grabs over the years. One hundred thousand acres of land were expropriated, and it soon became apparent that the federal Liberal government did not have the will to finish the project according to original plans. Land was returned to those who had been expropriated. In the end, more than 80,000 acres of the 100,000 that had been expropriated were returned.

Today, Mirabel airport covers some 5,000 acres. Another 11,000 acres are rented to the former owners or to new farmers. There is the potential for a further 16,000 acres to be developed, and this could very well have been mentioned in the Speech from the Throne.

While Mirabel has had an increase in job creation lately, it is not solely due to industries in the aviation and aerospace sectors like Bombardier. There is also Technicolor and other businesses that can benefit from moving to industrial parks near airports around the world.

The Government of Quebec decided to create the Mirabel international trade zone, to grant tax credits to attract businesses that would not have settled in Quebec, but that would nonetheless have set up shop near other airports around the world. These tax credits have led to the creation of 2,500 jobs since the international trade zone was created by the Parti Quebecois government.

The Speech from the Throne would have been a good opportunity for the federal government to correct the terrible mistake made with Mirabel, by giving the same tax credits in the international trade zone. The federal government could have done what the Quebec government did, and this would have given us a true duty free zone in Canada, not to compete with businesses in the rest of Canada, but with multinationals that open facilities close to airports all over the world. But we do not have such zones, whether it is in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal.

There is nothing in the throne speech to help those who were part of the largest displacement of people on Canadian ground since the deportation of the Acadians. Mirabel Airport is the largest tract of federal lands in Quebec. Stop dreaming and thinking that there are some in your region. The largest tract of federal lands is the 100,000 acres the federal government expropriated, and that is located in Quebec. Mirabel Airport was the largest federal property in Quebec.

Now, it has become a white elephant. The Château de l'aéroport, a federally-owned hotel, closed its doors in August 2002. When we travel along highway 50 and drive by Mirabel Airport—we are told that there will still be chartered flights until next spring—we see a hotel, which is closed and whichbelongs to the federal government. ADM, the authority that manages the airport, is not looking for new tenants and is actually suing the previous tenant.

This is a saga. ADM has already been ordered to pay $17 million to the former owner for loss of revenue, because ADM deliberately reduced the number of flights at the airport. Of course, this resulted in a reduction of the number of clients at the hotel. The court sided with the owner. ADM has decided to appeal the ruling.

In the meantime, this federal property, this hotel located alongside the highway, could still attract potential clients, and the owner wanted to discuss a resumption of operations, because there will still be chartered flights and potential clients, at least until spring. But nothing is happening, because ADM is not accountable to the public, and because the federal government, through the Minister of Transport and the Prime Minister, is taking cover behind this independent authority, which is accountable to no one, except itself.

Talk to all the journalists who are trying to reach ADM for whatever reason; it does not even return its calls.

This is a federal asset which is managed by an independent authority, and that suits the present federal government just fine. I would like to quote from a statement by the Prime Minister. I think this is the worst thing that could be disclosed today:

On February 9, 1996, Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister of Canada, said he will not be sorry when one of these airports closes down, if it seems that one of them is not needed.

He knew very well what was going on. His establishment was protecting Montreal's West Island and Mirabel Airport. So he will not be sorry when Mirabel Airport closes down next spring. He will have contributed to that. During the 40 years he has been a member of Parliament, the “little guy from Shawinigan” has been a minister. During the last 37 years of the Mirabel saga, he was a member of cabinet during most of the 26 years when the Liberal Party was in power. Obviously, he had his say in the decisions made, and he contributed to the fact that the gateway to Canada for air transportation was Montreal in 1966 and has been Toronto since 1985. The Liberal government had a major role to play in the transfer of the gateway from Montreal to Toronto.

It is a real tragedy. More than 500 million dollars was invested in Mirabel Airport and the infrastructure needed for its development has not been built yet. The best way to kill the project was to make an announcement and not follow through by completing highways 15 and 50 and building the infrastructure required for the high speed rail system to get to the terminal that has already been built for it. The train could arrive at the terminal, which exists, but the tracks have not been laid and the investments required to ensure that the train reaches the airport have never been made.

This is what is happening now; this is the dream that has been kept alive among the whole population of Quebec by the Liberal government, by the ministers, by the current Prime Minister among others. It is a dream that will end next spring. As far as I am concerned, Mirabel Airport could have been the legacy of the Prime Minister, “the little guy from Shawinigan”.

I hope that every time he drives by this airport, he will think about it, because he was directly involved, with his cabinet colleagues, including the member for LaSalle—Émard, in the decisions. This member's father was a member of cabinet, and he also had a say in the decisions to close Mirabel Airport and to transfer the Canadian airline gateway from Montreal to Toronto. This is what the Liberal government did.

Ontario is probably grateful for this. Still, there is a harsh reality: we are left with a $500 million plus facility that was left unfinished, and with Dorval Airport, one of the worst airports in the developed world.

My colleagues in the House of Commons should pop in to Dorval to check the condition of that airport. It is the worst in all industrialized countries, and attempts are being made to fix it. Since 1996, over $800 million was poured into Dorval Airport, and another $500 million—for a total in excess of $1 billion—will be required to bring this airport up to modern standards. Why? Because, to do a real good job, the airport should have been shut down for five years, completely torn down and rebuilt from scratch.

Instead, the old building is being renovated, but it dates back to the 1940s. This does nothing for development. The proof is in the figures: a small increase in air traffic; a large one in Toronto, but none in Montreal. All this because the Liberal government put an independent authority, namely ADM, in charge of managing the airports, following in the footsteps of the Conservatives.

Just today, I received a letter the Minister of Transport sent me at the end of September, saying “There is nothing we can do for the Château de l'aéroport, because ADM is in charge and we trust them. They are supposed to manage in the interests of the Government of Canada”. That is not true, ADM is not managing in the interests of the Government of Canada.

At present, ADM is trying as best it can to safe face. The chairman and members of the board are replaced every three years, again, in an attempt to force bad decisions on them. The bad decision was made by the Liberal Party, which was in office during 26 of the 37 years that the Mirabel saga has been going on. For most of this 26-year period, the current Prime Minister was an influential member of cabinet.

I see that there is nothing in the throne speech about de development of the airport at Mirabel. There is every indication that the statement made by the Prime Minister in 1996, when he said that it did not bother him to see an airport close down in Quebec, will translate into reality and actually be his monument, his legacy to the Quebec government: a white elephant, like himself.

Arts and Culture

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the honour of attending the opening of the first solo exhibition of an exceptional artist from Baker Lake, the geographical centre of my riding of Nunavut.

The National Gallery of Canada is featuring Marion Tuu'luq and her wonderful wall hangings which are truly masterpieces.

This was a very poignant evening too, as Marion passed away two weeks ago at the age of 92, but she was graciously represented by three generations: her daughter, Rosie, granddaughter, Phoebe Anne and six month old grandson, Obid.

I invite all hon. members to view these amazing wall hangings as the show will run until January 12, 2003.

My thanks to all those who have worked hard to make this show possible and celebrate Marion's work.

Health Care

[Larry Spencer, Canadian Alliance, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in Regina the health care strike continues. A man has died and CBC is asking if it is a result of the strike.

This tragic death of an elderly man is a symptom of the perpetual finger pointing exercise that is going on in the health care system. Meanwhile, the strike goes on. My constituents are fed up.

All levels of government must take some responsibility for the health care system and work cooperatively toward making our system more efficient.

In her recent report, the Auditor General said that Canadians do not know how much the federal government contributes to health care because the CHST is a block fund which the provinces are free to spend as desired.

By conveniently lumping its CHS transfers, the federal government is avoiding scrutiny on how much money it is really giving to health care. The government should stop hiding behind the CHST and provide Canadians with the real amount that it is giving for health care.

The Canadian Alliance is calling for adequate, stable and transparent federal funding for health care. Canadian families deserve nothing less.

Banking Institutions

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, in recognition of the contribution of co-operatives, credit unions and caisses populaires to the building of Canada's economic and social well-being, I rise to pay tribute to over 10 million Canadians, who are co-op members, as they celebrate National Co-op Week and Credit Union Day from October 13 to 19.

These unique and democratic organizations help to provide local solutions to local challenges in areas such as agriculture, financial services, day care, medical services and housing. Co-operatives promote economic and social development by enabling people to pool their resources, share risk and achieve common goals. Wherever citizens live, and particularly in rural and remote communities, co-operatives find ways to share the benefits of Canadian prosperity.

Co-ops play a major role in the Canadian economy and social fabric, employing over 150,000 people and accounting for over $167 billion in assets.

“Building Tomorrow's Communities” is the theme and I congratulate them on--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Miramichi.

The Royal Visit

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pride that I rise before the House today as Her Majesty tours New Brunswick.

I am proud to share with the House that during her Majesty's visit she will pay tribute to some exemplary Canadians who perform extraordinary tasks as she meets with the first 10 recipients of the newly created Order of New Brunswick.

On her second day in our province, Her Majesty will visit Sussex and pay tribute to the past while highlighting the promise of the future as it relates to youth, identity and enhanced prosperity. Indeed, she will begin her day by touring a new wing of an elementary school, the same school that Her Majesty opened during her visit some 40 years ago. She will meet with students who are engaged in high tech learning as well as creative programs such as music and drama.

The remainder of the royal couple's day in our province will emphasize the importance of small town Canada and how it has evolved and continues to foster a sense of belonging during an autumn family celebration in Sussex. It will also highlight our creativity in ensuring economic prosperity--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Bramalea--Gore--Malton--Springdale.