Debates of Oct. 3rd, 2002

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the last exchange and ask the hon. member perhaps to clarify why gay and lesbian people, who are involved in committed, loving relationships and who want the choice of celebrating those relationships through marriage, should be denied that choice in a society that reflects and celebrates diversity. The Ontario and Quebec courts have ruled that way.

When the hon. member suggests, and I think he said that the purpose of marriage was procreation, frankly, that is an insult to the many couples who are not able to have children, elderly couples who marry and many gay and lesbian partners who raise children.

Would the member clarify why it is that in any way we would be weakening the institution of marriage by allowing gay and lesbian people to have that choice? Surely that is the essence of equality in a democratic society.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess it comes down to some fundamental differences in terms of beliefs. My own view is that gay and lesbian couples should be able to operate very freely, and in fact they do. Some fairly high profile marriages have taken place in a church in Ontario.

However I am strongly of the view that while we should not create impediments for people who are gay or lesbian to form very meaningful relationships, I do not believe that it is incumbent upon the state to recognize those relationships as marriages. It goes back to, I suppose, a very fundamental view of what marriage is meant to be. While I respect the rights of people to form the--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I only have so much generosity given the large number of people who want to speak on the debate of the day.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, my speech is longer than the time allotted so I will try to get as far as I can on the various topics I would like to address.

As chair of our foreign affairs defence and international aid caucus, I think it is incumbent upon me to make some comments on parts of the throne speech that refer to some of those areas, especially because of the crisis the world is now facing with Iraq and the debates that are going on in the evenings.

I must say that the debates of last night and the night before were tremendous, as I am sure the debate tonight will be. They were a good example of how Parliament should work, with people from all parties putting in constructive positions for the government to take note of as it makes its decisions. In this respect I think it has been exemplary to other parliamentarians that the ministers and the parliamentary secretaries have been staying until midnight to listen to what has to be said.

One comment in the throne speech states:

--the government will remain vigilant and ready to ensure the protection of Canadians from emerging threats, and will work with the United States to address our shared security needs.

I want to continue on with Iraq a bit. I was in the House the last two nights until midnight but I cannot be here tonight so I just want to add some further reflections.

One of the statements in the throne speech makes it quite clear to the people who are questioning our commitment to our allies and to the United States that we have always worked closely with them and will continue to work with them. We have many shared goals and aspirations and of course we will continue to work with them.

Another point in the throne speech states:

The government will continue to work with its allies to ensure the safety and security of Canadians.

If that were ever a question, we are steadfastly working with our allies and we will continue to work with our allies. There is absolutely no question about that. That is in the throne speech.

It also is absolutely certain that Canada will continue to maintain its sovereignty. We will continue to make our own decisions. The Prime Minister has made those things quite clear. Certainly members on this side, and I am sure all members of the House, want Canada to remain a sovereign nation and continue, as it always has, to make its own decisions on these things. When we have a very close friends, we do lots of things with them but we do not necessarily do everything with them. We will continue to make our own decisions as to when and how to act on these situations.

A further point in the throne speech states:

Canada will continue to work through organizations such as the United Nations to ensure that the rule of international law is respected and enforced.

I think we have made that point loud and clear during the debate.

On the legal aspects, I recommend that those people who did not have a chance to listen to the tremendous speech by the member for Mount Royal last night at midnight, which was a detailed analysis of international law, take that into their thinking.

I would like to touch on a few other aspects and things to think about.

In my input into the debate I did not say that I had any answers. I did not provide any answers in either direction as to whether to engage the military or not. What I am trying to add to the debate are things that we should carefully think about.

The first thing we should think about concerns the United Nations. When the United Nations designs a prescription or a motion as to how the world community should act, I hope it keeps in mind that military consequences are not the only type of consequences. If there are certain problems with the inspection process, which of course we all hope goes well and that there will be access to everything, but depending on the size of the hiccups and the size of the remedies, I hope people keep in mind that there are other actions other than military and that we should bring all of these into force and consider them in designing the consequences.

The United Nations resolutions have to be very careful in their design. If they are not designed correctly, as with any resolution, they could be used improperly.

We would not want any particular country using a resolution inappropriately if it is too broad or does not define what it allows. We have seen in the past that people can say it gives them direction when it is not clear, when it is too open or too ambiguous. Hopefully the Security Council will keep its hands on the levers of force so that what it intends actually occurs.

We must also think about the interconnection. This is a very complex situation, as the Middle East always is, as war always is and as terrorism always is. Think of the complex interaction between the fight on terrorism we are engaged in and this particular conflict with Iraq. We have to think about whether the conflict with Iraq and the way we engage in it will be a distraction to the effectiveness of our war on terrorism, which has a long way to go. We are nowhere near the goals we want to accomplish relating to that. How much will this distract attention from that? Will it distract attention negatively?

We have a number of Muslim allies in Arab countries in the world related to the war on terrorism right now. If we do not act appropriately with regard to Iraq as far as perception or reality goes, what kind of effect will it have on this very delicate balance we have with the allies on our war against terrorism?

Once again if our action in Iraq is not very careful or is without the proper perceptions, what will be the effect of destabilizing other countries in that region and other parts of the world? There are countries that are very close to getting into regimes like Saddam Hussein's which we obviously do not want. There are countries that now are allies but have very strong fundamental groups and movements that could easily take over if the country was destabilized with the motivation that we had inflamed them for acting inappropriately and not carefully in our action on Iraq. We have to take this in the context of the various elections and governments in the world and what their status is related to their levers on the power in the various countries involved. It all has an effect.

As I said earlier, perception is reality in politics. We have to be careful that whatever we do, no matter how right it is, does not appear to be a western world overpowering a religion, a smaller nation and causing resentment in the masses of millions in the world that Canada has to have a good relationship with. We are a great multicultural country and a great leader in the world in that respect. Our pluralism brings us strength at home. It brings us those groups in Canada that we can now rely on to provide us with advice and input into the situation. I hope they do that so that we can make an even stronger intellectual decision after the great ideas that have come from this debate.

Another item I want to raise relates to the large amount of people who support Islam throughout the Middle East and the Far East which this is going to have an effect on if we are not careful in how we do it. They do not have access to all the information we have. In a situation like this one, what perception gets down to the people living in the streets? Think about the millions of people in India. Think about the millions of people from India who actually live in the Middle East and the area we are talking about. Think about the effect it will have on them, on the many people who are friendly with us at this time, on our important allies in the area and on our relationships in the world.

We have to think about the countries adjacent to Iraq, the countries most under threat within range of the missiles that have been developed and they are developing even longer range missiles. Obviously people in those countries would be the most upset. They should be involved in a coalition. They are not all involved yet. We must get them onside. If they are the most threatened we want them to be part of any coalition or any understanding. We do not want to hurt our relationships with those countries and cause their citizens to do things that would not benefit Canada in the long run.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to our hon. colleague from the opposite side. It dawned on me that even though he was sharing his thoughts on the Middle East, we are here trying to debate the throne speech this morning. He is a little ahead of himself, seeing that the Middle East debate is later on this evening.

However I would like to ask him a question specifically on the throne speech, since he is so concerned about some of the Middle East countries and some of the areas of the regions he spoke about. I believe he referred to India and Pakistan.

Clearly in the throne speech one of the major priorities for the government is Kyoto and the environmental accord it is pushing forward on, regardless of the effects on the economy, regardless of the human impact in Canada, which we still do not know because no impact studies have been provided by the government. I would like to ask the member specifically, since he is obviously concerned about some of the regions of the world that he spoke about in his speech, what sort of message are we sending out to many of these countries, especially on Kyoto, when we are forcing industrialized countries to sign on to an agreement that is not even engaging some of the worst polluters in the world, India, Pakistan and China to name a few?

Would he not agree that the best way to solve some of the environmental problems is to actually put some regulations in place that would force industrialized countries to work with those countries instead of signing some grandiose agreement? Should we not put something in place so that we could share technologies with those countries and force them to change their environmental practices in a proactive way, rather than forcing something that could cause huge negative impacts for our economy?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his excellent question. He will be surprised at how much I agree with him on a number of points. I am not totally sure I understood the part about the other countries. However it is great that he asked the question because there are a number of things I would like to say.

It is great to have these other countries, especially the polluting countries, work through the United Nations, and to try to sell them technologies. As I said, we are big supporters of that. There are great economic benefits to working on the solutions to Kyoto. Parliamentarians heard some great speeches yesterday afternoon about the success of that. If I understood the member's direction in that area, I am supportive of it.

I am also agree with him that we need to know the effects. My personal opinion is we need to know the costs. I have talked to the minister about this. I too am anxious to know what are the costs of implementing this to the various sectors of the economy, to various people. They should have the right to know if they will still be as positive as they are. Canadians are 80% onside and my riding is tremendously onside.

I was delighted the throne speech explained that climate change has far more dramatic effects in the north. Although I do not have time to explain them now, I would be happy to explain to people some of the examples. I have had a lot of input from my riding, including from the Council of Yukon First Nations, the medical association and a number of others, about how important support is for that because it has such a critical effect on the Yukon.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree completely with the member opposite. We do not force poorer nations to do anything. We lead by example. Kyoto is a good example of that. If we are not willing to lead ourselves, how can we persuade other poorer nations to follow our example?

I would like to ask my colleague, who is interested in foreign affairs, about a very cryptic part of the Speech from the Throne. I am very interested in young people and their future. There is one sentence which says:

[The government] will create more opportunities for young Canadians to help clean up our environment and assist in achieving Canada's global priorities, particularly in Africa.

Has my colleague given any thought to this, through his caucus on foreign affairs? Does this mean we will revive and strengthen Katimavik, or develop something similar, so that young people in Canada can clean up the environment and go overseas and do good work?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Not to take anything away from the merits of the question, but I am afraid the reply is going to come at another place at another time because the time has elapsed.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier.

The Prime Minister recently let it be known that he would be staying on until February 2004, and no later, and then announced that he would bring back Parliament two weeks later so as to be able to present Canadians and Quebeckers with a throne speech. The least one can say is that the people in my riding who listened to this throne speech did not get their money's worth.

I would like to start off with a quote the leader of the Bloc Quebecois used at the very beginning of his speech in reply to the Speech from the Throne. This quote is a statement the Prime Minister made when he first ran as the member for Shawinigan in 1963. It goes as follows:

I entered this election campaign driven by duty, because it is the duty of a serious man to analyze the situation and examine the points of a political program to remedy what is not working right in Canada. . . It is a matter of drawing up the constitution anew, not among ten provinces, but between two nations—

The young MP from Shawinigan, he of the long political career he likes to keep reminding us of, had an opportunity in this last throne speech to talk about what he felt were his successes and what was left to be done on this so important matter. But what were we treated to instead?

We were treated to a catalogue—the term used by a number of commentators—of measures which are, in large part, nothing new. As far as the Quebec people and nation are concerned, they do what the Prime Minister said in 1963 when speaking of two nations:

--that there is this in particular for our people and our nation, that it continues its encroachment on the specific areas of jurisdiction of Quebec and thumbs its nose at the consensus in Quebec.

This is quite an accomplishment for someone who claimed to have entered politics in order to reshape the constitution, not among ten provinces, but between two nations.

There is no recognition whatsoever in the throne speech of fiscal imbalance. As one of the ten provinces, Quebec has needs that must be met. This is enough to alarm anyone, as Yves Séguin was alarmed. This is the man the Premier of Quebec appointed to chair a committee on fiscal imbalance. Without a shadow of a doubt, he established the existence of a fiscal imbalance that is dangerous for the level of services to which Quebeckers are entitled.

As a result of that imbalance, the structural surpluses are in Ottawa and the growing needs in Quebec.

As far as health is concerned, we are waiting on the outcome of the Romanow commission, but it has referred right from the start to standardization. As we know, Quebec has its own culture, not in language and fine arts, but in a different method of organization. There is no mention of one vital issue for Quebec, parental leave. I say for Quebec but I should say for the families of Quebec, the young families, for those who would like to start families, but are going through hard times. I am referring to parental leave for those women and men—since the leave is also available to fathers—who are not covered by the present Employment Insurance Act and all those who do not have a decent income under the present legislation.

Quebec plans to have a parental leave program that should be put in place because of its specific demographic situation.

It is critical for Quebec to be able to provide young couples and all those who want children with the means to do so, and this includes real parental leave. It also includes assistance, and not just to poor families. Sure, we must fight poverty. However, the decision to have children is something that must be recognized by society.

Again, because of the fiscal imbalance, Quebec is not able to fully recognize this most fundamental contribution to society.

The Speech from the Throne is also silent on employment insurance, which explains why large segments of the population are living in poverty. It is also silent on softwood lumber, but it does include many intrusions by the federal government.

I will conclude by discussing foreign affairs, which what I am responsible for. This of course includes Canada's relations with other countries. The Prime Minister, who had a golden opportunity to present his vision of Canada's role in the world, announced that the government will establish long term guidelines before the end of its mandate.

However, he did not mention one of the key issues for this country, namely the changing role of the United States in the world, following the collapse of the Soviet empire and the affirmation of the United States' superpower status, which raises questions for Canada. Our country, which has built an international reputation in the areas of peacekeeping and human rights promotion, must define, after consulting Quebeckers and Canadians, a clear position in its relations with its powerful neighbour and friend, which has to realize that we are a separate country.

Does it take a sovereignist to remind the Prime Minister that he had an opportunity to propose a plan, a vision, but did not do so?

The Prime Minister who, when he entered politics, wanted to redraft the Constitution not between 10 provinces, but between two nations, should have presented his vision, at least for the nation that he decided to serve, namely the Canadian nation.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I get to the main issue, I would like to take a few moments to speak about the form of the political exercise in which we are engaged today.

As recently as last weekend, in my riding of Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, people were asking me to explain what a throne speech was. I said that someone who had not been elected to office, someone who had been chosen and appointed by the Prime Minister, would be reading the government's policies out to a chamber full of other unelected and unrepresentative people. When I mentioned that MPs, the people's representatives, those who had been elected, did not have access to this chamber, people were surprised, to say the least.

They had some idea of what it meant. However, when one stops to think about it for a few minutes—and that is all the time I would spend—the absurdity of these colonial trappings hits home, and one might wonder how this exercise is representative of societies, such as those of Canada and of Quebec, which are themselves hardly monarchist and very egalitarian. All in all, one might have some questions about the form itself of the exercise, which, of course, is not as important as its substance.

What we saw in the Speech from the Throne is a reflection of Canadian dynamics. We have a country that has been built at quite a pace since 1995. This pace gathered steam in 1995, following the defeat of the yes side in the referendum, but it began back in 1982. I am referring to the building of a strong central Canada with equal provinces, a nation from coast to coast. When conflict arises between the Canadian way and the Quebec way of doing things, it will always be the Canadian way that will come out on top.

About this nation building, the Speech from the Throne is a good illustration of the fact that there is no status quo. Those who believe that some constitutional, administrative, or even political status quo exists are totally wrong. There is no status quo. Since 1982, Canada has rebuilt itself, and the process has gathered speed since 1995. This process is clearly illustrated by three specific examples.

The first example is that of centralization, a power grab by the central government in areas of responsibility that do not come under its jurisdiction. This is not simply about labelling powers. In very specific areas, this centralization has meant that Quebec cannot implement programs that it wants.

Just this week, the Speech from the Throne mentioned that the federal government would provide access to quality day care. Yet everyone knows that Quebec already has a $5 a day day care program that is very popular, in fact the only problem with it is that it is too popular. The federal government has once again announced its intention to interfere in research, in literacy and education, when we know very well that this is a provincial jurisdiction. The same can be said for health, education, university research, public transit. There are numerous examples.

So, the first example of this nation building is a complete disregard for jurisdiction by Ottawa, as it decides to act in areas where it does not belong.

The second example, which follows on the first one, shows that fiscal imbalance allows Ottawa to impinge upon areas which do not come under federal jurisdiction. I would remind the House that because of this fiscal imbalance, which is recognized by everyone in Canada—except the government—by the three political parties in the National Assembly and by all of the provinces, Ottawa can now afford, through its spending power, to get interfere in provincial areas of jurisdiction.

Ottawa can tell the provinces “You are hungry, you are thirsty, you cannot afford to carry out your responsibilities in your own jurisdictions, but it does not matter. We, in Ottawa, can give you the money you need; you will be able to do your work, but under our conditions and according to our standards”.

On one hand, we have Ottawa's stated intention to centralize, illustrated by the three examples from the throne speech that I have given. Also linked to that is the issue of fiscal imbalance, where Quebec loses $50 million, that is $2 billion a year. Ottawa has the means and the desire to impose its standardizing and centralizing vision for Canada.

The third example of this centralizing web is the fact that the federal government does not care about consensus in Quebec in the least. For example, I was very disappointed not to see anything about young offenders in the Speech from the Throne.

Judges, defence counsel, crown attorneys, social workers, police officers and the three political parties represented in the National Assembly all say that Quebec's approach to young offenders had produced the best results in terms of youth crime in North America.

With its bill, which has now been passed and which, by the way, that will be challenged before the appeal court at the end of November, the federal government has axed that approach. While it would have been so easy to allow Quebec to continue with its approach, since it was producing good results, the government said that, no matter, it would ignore the Quebec consensus, because it had a Canadian vision and, when there is a conflict between the Canadian vision and the Quebec vision, the former must prevail.

Here is another example: parental leave. Quebec is willing to give its young families the most generous parental leave program in Canada. What has Ottawa done? It refuses to transfer the money to Quebec so that it can impose its own parental leave program, which is not as good nor as generous as Quebec's program and to which six out of ten people would not have access.

I have used various elements of the Speech from the Throne to show how Ottawa is building a Canada where it wants to interfere in areas that are not under its jurisdiction, which it has the means to do because of the fiscal imbalance, where it can impose its Canadian vision, where it shows nothing but contempt for any consensus that may exist in Quebec and for Quebec's way of doing things. I think that all that is leading Quebeckers to realize more and more that there is no status quo, which brings us back to my introduction.

There is no status quo, and the choice that Quebeckers are facing is this: they can either build their own country or accept to be a province like the others, accept to live in a system that is increasingly centralized and standardized.

When the alternatives are clear, I am sure that the latter option, this centralized Canada, will be rejected by the vast majority of Quebeckers.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks today by congratulating the Prime Minister, the cabinet, all of the MPs who have worked so hard over these last few years and contributed to the development of this speech, the staff who have worked diligently over the summer, the public servants, and Canadians, whom we see reflected over and over again in this speech.

In many ways this is the starting point that gets us back on track, back where we wanted to be after the 2000 election, a course we were diverted from by the terrible events of September 11. All members will know just how the House was seized with the work on security to try to ensure that we had the capacity to respond to and to prevent a repetition of such tragedies. Now we are back to the agenda that the government laid out in the election campaign of 2000, with which so many members here have been struggling and on which they have been working over the time since the last election.

I would make the comment right off the top that this is an enormously ambitious agenda. It is an enormous number of initiatives that we have to fit into a relatively short period of time and the House will have to work extremely hard to see quality legislation produced that reflects the wishes of Canadians.

Within the speech, we see how a process within the House, within the work done by members here on the Hill, now comes together in a series of commitments that soon, with the passage of legislation, will become programs that will go on to benefit Canadians for a very long time. I want to focus on a few of them.

I was privileged to be a member of the urban task force. We spent a great deal of time travelling across the country speaking to mayors and citizens in cities all across the country, trying to sort out how we could assist them in grappling with some of the terrible problems with which cities are confronted. Our large urban centres are having difficulty, in part because of a restricted tax base, in responding to the demands for new infrastructure that will allow them to build the kind of modern infrastructure that will make it possible for them to remain competitive into the future. We heard over and over again about the need for the country to come to terms with how we treat and support our cities.

In doing this, I wish to congratulate the mayor of Winnipeg, Mayor Murray, who has been a very effective leader in this debate over the last few years. The mayors of the five big cities have contributed strongly, as has the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, to the work that the task force did. We see that reflected in the Speech from the Throne.

If there was one thing the mayors asked us for it was to please extend the timeframe for infrastructure so that they could plan, so that infrastructure would not come as a surprise that is announced every now and again. Then they have to adjust all of their planning in order to fit the funds that are available. They asked us over and over again to put in place a plan that would give them some predictability and, frankly, the opportunity to move in a more coordinated fashion toward the development of the infrastructure that they feel they need in their regions. The government has responded to that.

The House will be challenged to go through the details of this to see whether it meets some of the tests that the mayors put on us. One of the things I will be interested in looking at is whether we will be tied to the old trilateral structure for these agreements or whether the federal government will free itself and allow itself to work bilaterally with cities. That was an issue that came up over and over again in those debates. I am hoping and will be arguing that it should be included in this legislative agenda.

Above all, I want to thank the member for York West, who chaired that process and who worked countless hours. In fact none of us are sure how she managed to keep up with the demands. She produced a very competent report that we now see reflected in a series of commitments in the Speech from the Throne.

I want to stop a minute to talk about a program that was actually introduced some time ago by the government. In the Speech from the Throne there is a commitment to substantially increasing it. That is the child tax benefit. I think that some years from now when people start reflecting on this, they will recognize that the child tax benefit is as significant a social program as some of the other main programs we have put in place, such as health care and pensions, those big pillars of our social safety net.

This is a program that for the first time steps back from some of the paternalistic attitudes that we have had toward very poor people, a step back from surrounding them in a network of services that are available only if they are good, a step back from people who are caught in the welfare trap. It says that people are competent to make their own decisions, that some people simply do not have access for a variety of reasons, such as low wage rates, lack of education and other things, to the kind of financial support that allows them to live healthy lives and raise healthy children. It puts money directly into their hands and trusts them to be able to make competent decisions on behalf of their families. I think it is a radical change from the history of social welfare in this country. I think the government should be congratulated for bringing it in. I think the Prime Minister is to be congratulated for committing to substantially increase that credit.

I want to congratulate people like Wayne Helgason from the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg and Mike Owen from the Winnipeg Boys and Girls Clubs, who have worked hard to help the government to understand the value of stepping back from those more paternalistic services and delivering services directly.

I also want to spend a bit of time on first nations. In Manitoba we have a very large first nations population. In the city of Winnipeg we have a large, growing younger generation. An ever-increasing portion of the workforce is made up of young first nations people. There has been a dramatic change in the leadership within first nations communities over the three decades that I have been working with them. I worked very closely with them in the early eighties. I am absolutely and deeply impressed with the quality of the leadership, the quality of the governance that is being built in those communities.

We have several pieces of legislation coming forward. There is the governance act, which we will have to look at very carefully and work on with leaders. I want to thank leaders like Grand Chief Margaret Swan and Chief Jerry Fontaine, who have worked closely with me and with others to help us understand how that legislation can be improved.

I want to congratulate the government for the commitments around economic development. If there is anything that is going to help us get out of some of the traps that have been created historically, it will be to give people the tools through education, early childhood development and support in starting to take control of their own lives economically. I think it is an incredibly important initiative. It is important for my province. I think the government should be congratulated for doing it.

On immigration, if we were to prioritize the two or three big initiatives for my province and my city, certainly assisting aboriginals would be one and immigration would be another. We live in a very large area with a relatively small population. Here again I wish to congratulate a lot of people who have worked very hard: the minister responsible for the provincial nominee program, Becky Barrett; the business council with Art DeFehr and Bob Silver; the people on our immigration advisory committee, Sharad Chandra and Ken Zaifman and the 70 or 80 people who work month after month trying to sort out ways to solve these problems. In Manitoba the provincial nominee program has a 91% success rate at bringing people in and settling them in the community with jobs and helping them become very successful. That is because of the work of the people in Manitoba who are so committed to seeing immigration grow.

I also want to thank our Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who has taken the time to meet with these people and work with them, not once but several times, and continues to do that and to pick up their challenges. One of the very first things that the group raised with the new minister of immigration was the problem with credentials and how we can bring in people who have professional credentials but cannot work in their field because they cannot get access to local licensing. That is because of the multiplicity of laws across the country and how the laws are fixed, in either arm's-length organizations or provincial jurisdictions. We have to sort that out if we are going to be effective at recruiting the best from around the world to live in our country. I think the minister has done an absolutely superb job. In the Thanksgiving break week there will be a two-day federal-provincial conference on this issue. The minister will bring together the ministers of all the provinces so that they can finally sit down at the table to try to sort out this important area.

I want to move on to research and development because there is a series of initiatives here that I think are timely and important. They are going to be difficult for the House and we are going to have to work hard to sort them out, but I also want to talk about some of the things we have done that I think need improving and which we now have an opportunity to fix.

It has been said by some that dealing in the area of public policy is a little like trying to change a tire on a moving car. The thing is in progress and has a certain infrastructure and momentum and we are trying to fix it as it goes along. That is particularly true when the government gets involved, creates a number of initiatives that get into play and then discovers that maybe some aspects have worked well but others have not. I think that is the case in our support for research and development.

I am, and I declare it every time I stand in the House, a huge proponent of increasing the support for research and development, for the development and acquisition of knowledge, as a way of maintaining our competitive edge in the world. I am also a huge proponent of beginning to incorporating new technologies in the management of public space. That will allow us to meet a whole bunch of goals that I hear members of the House talking about, such as increased transparency and accountability. They are part of the paradigm of becoming smarter as a country.

At the same time I think there are some real problems in our research infrastructure. Some of them existed before the coming of this government, but some of them have been created, fostered and enhanced by this government. Let me reference two of them.

First, we have put a lot of new money into initiatives and granting councils such as the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. We did a big reform of the Institutes of Health Research and again added additional funding. These are important initiatives.

The Institutes of Health Research is a model of how a network research institution can be built. It incorporates the best in every province and builds upon their existing strengths. Alan Bernstein and others in that organization should be congratulated for their leadership and the very important work they do. I hope we will find a way to steadily increase the funding that is available to them. Similarly, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council is well networked and provides important support to researchers all across this country in understanding how we live.

But there are some problems. I would say that NSERC, the sciences research council, and the Canada Foundation for Innovation are stuck in an older model. Frankly, I do not think they have caught on to what needs to happen in a modern economy. I think that they basically have dismissed most of the country and have decided that there are only five universities in Canada worth supporting and have biased the majority of their funding toward those five. I think that is wrong.

There is another thing we have done. We have announced a multiplicity of programs. We now have health research, social sciences, NSERC, the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the chairs program, as well as another foundation for the environment, with a number of pockets of research money scattered throughout various departments. So universities have to bring on staff and divert professorial time away from actually doing research or teaching to “grantsmanship”. They run around trying to negotiate the multiplicity of doors they have to get through in order to assemble the financial support needed to do the work that they do.

In this throne speech, we see a series of commitments about continuing to increase financial support. I would hope and I will be arguing that we need to shape this support so that we correct the imbalance created by the Canada Foundation for Innovation and NSERC, so that we begin to recognize, as the Institutes of Health Research and SSHRC have done, that there is capacity in every single university in every single part of the country. I hope we will use the tools the government has to perhaps move those two organizations into a more modern view of management, one that is more responsive to the kind of Canada that I believe most Canadians would like to see built. There are other elements within that package. If we look at how the speech is written, we will note that there are a number of sections. This one is in learning and innovation. There is another section about smart regulation.

There are going to be some debates here: changes in copyright protection, changes and finalization of a very important piece of work that was done by the health committee on new reproductive technologies, and pesticide use. These issues have been debated well by the House. The piece of work that was done by the health committee which I had the privilege to be a part of, the former leader of the Alliance, Mr. Manning, and others, was to me a model of how good work can be done on difficult, contentious issues.

Debates around here have a range from the pretty mundane, ordinary kind of boring debates right up to the hottest of emotional and personal issues. That topic took us right into all of the areas we are so fearful around, such as abortion and the rights of the unborn, and all of those kinds of things. Yet, that committee was able to grapple with those and come through that experience to produce a report that every member of the committee felt good about.

I once wrote a piece on how it is not possible for the House of Commons to make an optimal decision. What is optimal depends on the point of view of the individual putting it forward. No matter what people put forward they will not be thoroughly pleased or get 100% because the nature of this place is ultimately to compromise. It is ultimately to find the most optimal route from a complex set of opinions, a complex set of beliefs, and a complex set of needs. That was something we achieved in that committee on an exceptionally difficult topic. I was proud to be a part of it.

Now we are down to the work in the House. All the committees would like to work on their pieces of legislation. I had the privilege of being part of the work to create a new committee in the House. It was created before the summer recess. It is the new Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. Because it is a new committee there are all sorts of expectations and all sorts of things being brought to the committee for us to work on but I want to--

[Darrel Stinson, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

We have no expectations from this side. We know exactly what it will do.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Well, I suspect members will get out of the committee what they choose to put into the committee, frankly.

The genesis of the committee comes out of a couple of things. It comes out of an interest of many members of the House to start to get better informed about how the new information and communication technologies can be a lever for change, substantial change in the nature of public spacing, public management, in citizen involvement and a whole host of things.

One of the things that has to happen is that people need to get up to speed on that. They need to understand that. They need to develop an understanding of what the capabilities are before they begin to apply it to something as complex as government. This committee has a mandate to do that. It has a unique mandate in that it has a mandate to look at things across government, not just down one department, but across every single government department.

It also has a mandate which arose from work that was done by a member of the Alliance and a member of our party who produced a report that talked about the need for reforming and improving the estimates process. We have a tool for significant organizational change. We have a lot of background understanding about how accountability structures work in the House and we have put them together.

We are going to try to build a committee process that allows all members from all sides to lead on these topics. I invite all members to be involved. The test will be whether or not we as members can come together and work collaboratively to produce substantive change. I invite other members to join in this and we will see what happens.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke of the importance of increasing the child tax benefit. My colleagues and I hope that the government will see fit to double the child tax benefit as Campaign 2000 recommended, the group of Canadians who have been working with dedication for many years in the fight against child poverty.

I want to ask the hon. member about a contradiction in the government's approach to people who are living in poverty. People with disabilities in many cases are some of the poorest of Canadian citizens.

At the end of August the government's Minister of Finance tabled a proposed regulation that is a shameful attack on people with disabilities. That regulation would cut people off from the disability tax credit in circumstances in which they need help to feed themselves. In this heartless and cruel proposal by the Minister of Finance, decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal and other courts are being overturned by bureaucrats and by the finance ministry. It is now telling people with disabilities, who are already struggling, that if they are able to get a meal from their plate to their mouth that is the end of the test. If they are struggling to get their food to the table, if they need assistance in getting the food, or assistance in feeding, tough luck. It is one of the most disgraceful and shameful attacks on people with disabilities.

I ask the member who spoke of the new generosity of the government, will he stand in his place and condemn that proposed regulation brought forward by his own government? Will he assure the House and the people of Canada that he and his colleagues will do everything in their power to join with the subcommittee on the status of persons with disabilities, my colleague from Dartmouth, who was our spokesperson on that committee, his own colleague, the former chair of the subcommittee, the member for St. Paul's, and say to the Minister of Finance to stop this appalling attack on people with disabilities?

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if I were to stand and do that, I would have to stand behind the lineup of Liberal members already doing that.

The member for St. Paul's, as the member rightly mentioned, is the former chair of the subcommittee on the status of persons with disabilities. The member for Fredericton spent a good portion of his time a few years ago helping to develop increased programs and support for disabled people.

I can tell the member from my own experience about a friend of mine who called me a little while ago. He has a daughter who was born without her left arm. When she was a baby the cost was not a big deal. It was not much different raising her. But as she got older and ready for school, where she had to have special prostheses and other things to help her fit in, he finally applied for the credit. He was refused. He phoned me and asked how she could not be disabled? We phoned the department. We were told she never had the arm and therefore how could she be disabled by the loss of it?

I want to be really clear about this. I am quite proud to stand here and condemn that decision, as most members on this side are. I do not know what has gone wrong. I do not know the rationale. We have tried to sort it out. All of us will be looking to see what the minister says because it is absolutely wrong. I had my staff go back and pull the speeches of finance ministers when they talked about, first, the introduction of the tax credit and then the changes.

I asked for the purpose of it. Over and again we saw ministers saying it was to help people deal with extraordinary costs created by their disabilities. It is not like we are giving people a gold plated road to retirement. This is not a big credit. It is a small amount of money that helps people deal with the extraordinary cost created by not being able to function like the rest of us. The actions of the department are shameful.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Red Deer.

It is a pleasure to rise and address the Speech from the Throne today. I want to address it first of all from the perspective of being a member from the riding of Medicine Hat in Alberta. In a moment I will talk about how it affects the portfolio which I critique, namely human resources development.

The first thing I would say in reflecting on the throne speech is that it seemed to put forward a number of ideas that we already have heard about many times in the past. We have heard the government talk endlessly in past throne speeches about the need to deal with child poverty. That is fine. We agree with that, but it seems like every time there is a throne speech the government comes up with some new proposal to address the problem but it never gets fixed.

The same is true of issues affecting aboriginals. We see new program after new program. Again there are new programs here but the problem never seems to get better. Oftentimes it seems to get worse. That should cause us to reflect a little about whether or not these programs are a good idea or maybe we need to come up with some completely new approaches.

We see the government addressing the issue of Kyoto in the throne speech. In my judgment that is completely out of step with where Canadians are at. Canadians want clean air and they want to deal with pollutants in the air. They want to get rid of smog. If the public understood all the implications of Kyoto they would not be supportive of it.

One of the things that struck me when I read the passage about Kyoto in the throne speech was the fact that the government said on the one hand that it would be ratified by Christmas, but on the other hand said that it was consulting right now. How can it decide that it will ratify the thing if it has not even finished consulting yet? It is an insult to the intelligence of Canadians to suggest that it is taking their input seriously if it already decided to go ahead and ratify the thing.

The government is planning on ratifying it without any plan to implement it. How will this work? There is nothing worse than uncertainty. We have individuals and businesses with billions of dollars ready to invest but they have no idea how Kyoto would be implemented. Obviously it will put a chill on investment and those people will withhold those investments until it is clear what is going on.

It is important that the government provide the public with some sense of what the impact of Kyoto would be. How can we have a meaningful debate if we do not know what the impact would be?

Members should consider for a moment what might happen to seniors under Kyoto. If energy prices go up even a little, and they are likely to go up a lot more than a little, what would be the impact on utility costs? Members should remember that the great majority of seniors are on fixed incomes. It is tight for them already. Utility costs are climbing. If Kyoto comes in, what would be the impact on seniors? Those are the sorts of questions that need to be addressed before we go marching forward to ratify the thing. Unfortunately the government seems determined to do exactly that.

Also notable are the things that were not in the throne speech. I spent a week this summer at CFB Wainwright through the Department of National Defence parliamentary outreach. We spent time out in the field and slept on the ground in a tent. I got a good sense of what it is like for the infantry of the Canadian military. It was a fascinating experience. I have tremendous respect for our troops. They are tough, disciplined, and extraordinarily professional, but they do not have the resources.

When we went out there we did live fire exercises and all kinds of things, but in many cases they did not even have enough ammunition to conduct live fire exercises. That is a real concern, especially when we consider what they are being asked to do: engage in peacekeeping roles, go to Afghanistan and perhaps now even go to Iraq. They need those resources but there was no commitment in the throne speech to granting any more resources. That is a disgrace.

The throne speech talked about the issue of health care, which is something that is very important to Canadians. It said that somewhere down the road the Liberals would think about reforming it, but the immediate cash injection needed was not there. Again, the government has different priorities.

When it comes to agriculture, there is one sentence in the throne speech on it. I think it is generally accepted by the Canadian public that agriculture is in deep trouble right now. The government has provided no overarching plan to help us deal with the economic travails of the farmers and ranchers, and there are many, due to subsidies, drought and the fact that the government has put in place institutions that do not allow, for instance, farmers to market their own wheat and barley.

Finally, there is a problem in not addressing the issue of the economy. The world economy today is in desperate straits. The Canadian economy is doing okay but it cannot forever resist the pull and tug of the world economy. Right now the United States is in a difficult situation. There are some people who talk about the world going through a deflationary period and we need to be concerned about that. Unfortunately it is not addressed in the throne speech.

Let me talk a moment about my critic area, human resources development. There were a couple of mentions in the speech about things that the government would do such as scrap the youth employment strategy, which has the spritely acronym of YES. I guess we could say the government is now saying no to YES. The problem with dealing with that approach to dealing with social problems is the government is putting all the emphasis on the part that really only addresses the concerns of a small percentage of people. What I mean by that is, if the economy is really roaring, that will deal with about 90% of the concerns of ordinary Canadians. It provides a good income, a job, money that can go into an RSP, university and RRSPs for retirement.

Unfortunately the government has put no emphasis on the component of addressing Canada's social problems. Even today, when we have a relatively buoyant economy in a province like Newfoundland, we have unemployment rates of 16%. We need to remember that Newfoundland is one of the provinces that is leading the country in growth. However because of the structure of some of the social programs, including employment insurance, we have created disincentives to labour market attachment or staying employed in the workforce. The government is actually working against some of its goals with some of its social programs. We are very critical of that.

I know I do not have a tremendous amount of time so I will start to wrap it up. While we appreciate that the Prime Minister wants to leave a legacy as he prepares to depart this place after 40 years, we do not feel it should be done on the backs of taxpayers. We do not feel that the Prime Minister really enhances his image by running up a tremendous amount of spending on a bunch of social programs that have been tried for 20 or 30 years and still have not dealt with the issues that they were designed to address.

We think a much better approach would be to address his concerns to the concerns of Canadians. Health care, the military, national security and agriculture are some of the issues my friends over here have mentioned. These things need to be addressed. Unfortunately, they are not being addressed by the Prime Minister in the throne speech.

The result of that is, as we go into a very turbulent future in many respects in terms of the economy and where the world is going with respect to Iraq and the war on terrorism, we do not have a clear path ahead of us. The government has missed a glorious opportunity to put some focus on where the government will go to help us address some of those issues. However it missed that opportunity. Instead we received from the Prime Minister and the government a recycled throne speech, and I regret that very much.

Therefore, it is safe to say that our party simply cannot support either the drift or the specifics of this throne speech.

[Philip Mayfield, Canadian Alliance, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the comments of my colleague. I was interested in his comments about disincentives, and he used the example of Newfoundland. We understand that matters of this nature perhaps follow the course of least resistance and when it is easier to get money from programs of the government than to actually go out and get a job that is likely what happens. However I want to ask the member about the circumstances in British Columbia.

Rather than following the course of least resistance, the water running down the hill there has already reached the bottom and is in the puddle. With the softwood trade agreement falling apart, we have thousands of loggers and mill workers who do not have work and yet we cannot get the government to offer any support after the failure of the government to reach a satisfactory agreement with our trading partners.

Would the member comment on this aspect of perhaps that same question?

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's question. It is important to make a distinction between a safety net, which is designed to help people through short periods of time where they become unemployed through no fault of their own, and what really becomes a long term social program that really, in many cases, undermines the goals that the government is setting out to achieve, which ostensibly is to put people back to work and to give them some future and some hope.

What has happened in British Columbia is a good example of where the government has failed. Here we have a situation where the government has blown the trade file and the negotiations with the United States on softwood lumber. As a result, we have thousands of people who are unemployed, people whose livelihoods are in jeopardy and who are on the brink of losing their homes. The trade minister has promised for months that he would be providing some kind of help. That help has not been forthcoming.

On the other hand, we have these programs that simply are not effective and do not work, programs like the seasonal benefits, which I would argue have done more harm than good. Those sorts of benefits would be better addressed helping people through a short term crisis. If there is a crisis in the fishery, give them the benefits in the short run but do not leave them there forever. The same thing applies to softwood lumber. The same thing applies to other sectors of the economy.

Unfortunately, the government seems to have its priorities mixed up.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Medicine Hat for this very fine speech. I will be discussing it with him in further detail when we go to the Say Hay concert together in a couple of weeks, and I appreciate that support.

As we all know, and as the member knows, we are facing the most drastic conditions in Alberta, regarding the drought, than we have ever had in recorded history. It is the worst drought that we can imagine. It has been devastating to a number of farmers in my area and some in the hon. member's area as they abut each other in Alberta.

I want to ask the member this. When we listened to the throne speech, we heard the Prime Minister refer to the great needs in the agricultural sectors of Africa and other foreign countries at least a dozen times, for probably 15 minutes. Then when it came to our own agriculture, there was a tiny 5 or 10 second blurb. What does this tell the member and what does he think it tells our farmers?

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we should not be surprised, is the first thing I would say. There is one sentence in the throne speech that deals with agriculture in Canada. In the past sometimes there has been no mention at all of agriculture, so we should not be surprised.

However what it underlines is how out of touch the Prime Minister is with where, in particular, the west is at. He seems to have no understanding or comprehension of the values and the needs of the west. To me that is underlined by his misunderstanding of how the west thinks with respect to Kyoto and the same thing with agriculture and the gun control issue. There are a number of issues like that.

It points out the fact to me that the Prime Minister and his cabinet simply do not understand big parts of the country. As a westerner, I will speak about the west. It is important that he does understand it because agriculture is in a serious situation today. We need to have some leadership from the Prime Minister and his cabinet to help us address some of the problems that really afflict agriculture today.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are many areas in the throne speech about which I would like to talk because there are so many deficiencies and reruns of what we have heard before. However I want to emphasize totally the section on climate change and the environment. As the environment critic, I feel that is what I should best address today.

I should first tell the House that my background is in biology. That is the field I was trained in in university. I have been known as an environmentalist probably most of my life. I have studied Kyoto extensively. I attended the Johannesburg conference, and our party does care about the environment. I get a little annoyed when I hear from across the way how we do not care about such things as contaminated sites, air and water and all those issues that are so important to us for life itself.

I also get a little annoyed when I see the hypocrisy from across when projects such as the Sumas power plant are being proposed for the second most polluted air shed in Canada. The government does not even have the nerve to stand before the NEB hearings that start on October 18 to say anything to protect that air shed. That is hypocrisy. It is great to have fine words about the environment and that we are all the good guy, but actions are what really count. There is an example of where they have missed the boat.

A lot of people in Canada wonder what Kyoto is about. The government has forgotten to tell them about Kyoto, and so there are many questions.

If people are asked if they are in favour of protecting the air, they will say yes. However Kyoto is not about the air. Kyoto is about CO

2

. Kyoto is about getting levels to 6% below 1990 levels. Kyoto is about removing 240 million megatons of carbon dioxide from our emissions. We are now between 22% and 30% higher since 1990. The government of course says we will achieve those targets.

This agreement, which started in 1992 with Rio, was basically one of transferring wealth from the north to the south, but we never hear that very often from across the floor.

Let us talk about the reasons for opposing Kyoto. I do not have a lot of time, so I will obviously be summarizing.

First, the developing countries are not part of this. Countries such as China, which is doubling its CO

2

emissions every 12 years, are not part of this agreement. India, Mexico and Brazil, all those developing countries are not there. They represent about 5 billion people who will not even be part of the Kyoto agreement, and yet they say this will really make a difference to the environment.

Then we have this great idea of emissions trading. It is rather interesting that in today's paper the EU in Brussels has been told today by their chief economist that it will be unable to reach its Kyoto targets by the year 2012. The Europeans are the guys who have been pushing this whole thing and have been pushing it on Canada but they cannot meet their targets. What does that say for us?

I have been to the emissions trading seminars. What does this mean? We will send money and we will to get credits so that then we can keep putting the CO

2

into the air. Somehow I do not understand how that helps the environment. It seems to me that it is simply again of transfer of wealth and nothing about the environment.

When I have attended those seminars, I have simply said emissions trading equals bureaucracy. Who will do all of that? We get into the sinks. Who will count trees? Who will go out and figure out that the young trees are there and they absorb so much CO

2

, or that older trees do not absorb so much or that this method of farming does that. Will farmers get credit for that or will the government get credit for it? Who will pay the bill for all this?

We do not know what this means. Even they do not know what it means. Ask the Europeans this at some of these international conferences, “What is your thought on sinks?” They look skyward and say, “The science is not really there, but that was kind of a throwaway at Bonn just to keep Canada in the agreement”. I do not think that is good enough. As Canadians learn more, I think they will also find the truth out about that.

The government promised that it would have a plan. It said it would have a plan shortly after signing in Kyoto in 1997. In November 1997 in Regina, a week before going to Kyoto, it promised the premiers, “We will have a plan. We will not sign anything before we consult you”. Yet one week later the government signed the agreement.

The government promised the industries that they would be fully consulted and would be part of this. Talk to the industries now. Ask them. Every day in the newspaper we read about another industry saying, “We have not been consulted. We will work with the government if we just know what its plan is”.

Most important, the people have not been consulted. There were 14 meetings held in June this year, with selected speakers and a prepared list. The media was not allowed access. Is that public consultation? It might be Liberal public consultation but it sure as blazes is not what the people think is being informed about what Kyoto is all about.

It reminds me of Charlottetown. I was involved in fighting the Charlottetown accord. I was doing sometimes as many as six or seven town halls a day against Charlottetown. This was a top down plan conceived in Ottawa with little consultation. Above all, the government forgot to talk to the people about it. It figured the people would not get involved. The people ordered 12 million copies of the Constitution. The people did get involved and the people defeated the Charlottetown accord.

We are exactly there with Kyoto. The government did not tell the people. It did not consult with the people. A bunch of elites and bureaucrats designed this UN concept of wealth transfer. They did not talk to all the people. It can be defeated as well. It is going down. The EU is saying it cannot achieve them, and Canadian companies and the seniors a member previously talked about, all are reasons that it will not happen.

We need to talk about the costs to Canadians. Canadians are starting to ask what it will cost to ratify Kyoto. It will cost jobs. Even the Prime Minister's secret report from his bureaucrats said it will cost 200,000 jobs. The manufacturers have said it will cost 450,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector, and so on.

What about electricity? Most Canadians do not realize that close to 50% of our electricity comes from coal, which produces the most CO

2

of anything. There is new technology coming but by forcing the ratification of Kyoto. There is no way that electricity costs will not go up. SaskPower a week ago said its rates could go up as much as 25%. A half an hour later, IPSCO had a news conference saying, “If our rates for power go up 25%, we will move our plant to the United States”. There will be little benefit to the environment, but a lot of bureaucracy will be created.

What is a better way? A better way is a made in Canada solution, one that involves conservation, one that involves energy efficiency, one that involves setting targets for industry working with industry, and setting targets with people. Transitional fuels, be they biogas from sewage, garbage and feedlots, and ethanol biofuels all have the potential to be a transition to the hydrogen energy of the future. Then we get into alternate energy. It will not be the sole answer, but it will help us to achieve a better and cleaner environment. Whether it is wind, solar, or ultimately fuel cells, at least it will help us get there.

The Canadian government needs to have a vision for the future. It needs to have a vision of where it is going. It needs to get companies onside. It certainly needs to get the provinces onside. It needs to get Canadians onside. That is a better plan.

The plan the government has is no plan. It will not release what it will do. The Prime Minister says he has 10 years to develop it. He has had 10 years since the Rio conference in 1992 and he has had five years since signing in 1997 and he has done absolutely nothing.

Let us tell Canadians we care about the environment, that we want to do something that will make a difference. The throne speech is just more words, more promises and no action.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pose a question to my hon. colleague, who is the Alliance critic on the environment committee. I find his comments somewhat surprising because I know that in his heart he is an environmentalist and it is good to have his hard work on the environment committee.

This past summer, on behalf of the Minister of the Environment, I was able to make an announcement of $7.9 million into an organization called Fluxnet. It is doing the necessary scientific research to look at good agricultural practices, indeed to look at the very question the member raised in his comments, which is how we deal appropriately with carbon sinks. Clearly, the geography of Canada is somewhat unique. I commend the Minister of the Environment for taking an active and indeed a leadership role during the Kyoto protocol negotiations.

I would ask the member to comment on the fact that we have been consulting since 1997 with all of the stakeholders, including industry, some of which he referred to. Indeed, there are industries that are already ahead of the government in looking at how they can key into this new technology, as well as the new commerce and the potential of carbon trading that we are looking at.

There are four proposals put out by the Canadian government which can be picked up on the environment website. We will be coming out shortly with one of those in order to receive comments. I believe it was of the order of 2,500 people who were involved in the consultations that the member depicted as being very closed. I would see that as being fairly embracing.

I ask the member opposite, in the face of all of these efforts and the fact that I know he is a father and a grandfather, how can he justify not acting on this very important issue?

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the whole point is the fact that the government is not acting, does not have a plan and is going nowhere. As far as consulting 2,500 people, I am sure there are that many people on the Liberal membership list.

With respect to the money, the $7 million, the U.S. government put forward $4.6 billion just for fuel cell research. The Danish and German governments are way ahead of us. We have been sitting on our hands for 10 years. We did not even negotiate properly. Australia negotiated 8% above 1990 levels because it has an immigrant population.

We start talking now about clean fuel credits in 2002. That should have been on the table in 1997. We have blown it. Canadians do not understand. If and when they do understand, they will ask for a better way. That will help my grandchildren.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the opposition critic, mentioned SE2. I would like to ask him a question with regard to that.

SE2 happens to be an American corporation trying to build a generating plant in Sumas, Washington right across from my hometown of Abbotsford, British Columbia. It will be spewing hundreds of tonnes of effluent emissions in the air in the Fraser Valley. The residents have been fighting hard to dislodge this as the American corporation wants to build a transmission line across our community in Abbotsford to get the plant running. All of our MLAs, myself, all of our local city councils, regional districts, everyone is basically opposed to this. Yet the federal government, through the Minister of the Environment is probably the most silent on the issue. He is conspicuous by his absence.

In view of the throne speech mentioning nothing about the seriousness of issues such as this one, could my colleague possibly shed some light on just why it is that when the issue of emissions in an already overpolluted Fraser Valley comes up, there is absolutely no support? Is it because it is from British Columbia, or is there some other reason?

[The Deputy Speaker]

I will ask the hon. member for Red Deer to respond in the last minute while we are being somewhat distracted by some strange sounds in this place.