Debates of Oct. 8th, 2002

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Halton.

It is my pleasure to respond to the Speech from the Throne, a blueprint for the continued progress and prosperity which have been the hallmark of the government since 1993. It is a prosperity that has been shared right across the country and increasingly a prosperity that has been shared with the rest of the world.

The Government of Canada has done an exemplary job of consistently and competently managing taxpayers' money and ensuring that government has the flexibility it needs to address the concerns of Canadians promptly and to react to what cannot be expected, be it natural disasters like floods and ice storms, or the terrorist attacks on the United States, to which as a neighbour we have responded immediately and generously.

However, we are not just about maintaining the status quo. While there is nothing more difficult than to pose innovative ideas and take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things, the Government of Canada has clearly identified a number of new initiatives that are meant to lead to social and economic progress for Canada.

It is not necessary to recite once again an exhaustive list of these goals and priorities that have been outlined, but I must say I am proud that our government is working toward: the protection of the environment; improved life chances for aboriginal people, particularly children; ensuring that Canadians are secure; investing in research and development to make Canada a world leader in innovation and learning; expanding minority language and second language education; the creation of a ten-year program for infrastructure, including a responsible transportation system that will be used to ease traffic problems in cities and trade corridors; targeting regional development activities to address the direct challenges of Canada's urban, rural and northern communities; and, an accessible and quality health care system.

I want to take a minute to express my disgust at the untruths that are being circulated regarding health care spending in the country. Provincial governments and opposition parties often like to distort the facts on health care spending by saying that the current federal contribution to health care is 14%. We have seen the advertisements in newspapers and on TV. They are a deliberate distortion of the amounts of money that the federal government transfers to provinces. That figure is closer to 40% rather than 14%. When we consider all the different kinds of federal spending, such as transfers to the provinces and territories, direct spending and federal tax credits, we spend $29 billion a year on health care. This $29 billion is almost 40% of all public spending on health care.

In P.E.I.'s case, the federal share of provincial health spending during 2001-02 was 68%. That is $86 million from the CHST in cash and an additional $67 million in CHST through tax points. Combined, the total was $153 million, and P.E.I. was not the only province that was given considerable amounts of money by the federal government, whether it was in equalization payments or CHST transfers.

For example, the province of Manitoba received $1.207 billion in equalization payments, plus $720 million in CHST cash and $554 million in tax points, for a total of $1.274 billion. These statistics were gathered by the Department of Finance and upgraded on March 6. With the exception of Alberta and Ontario, all provinces received equalization payments, plus they received tax credits and CHST tax points. The average for all of Canada is $1.107 billion, which is par for the course across the country.

So indeed, not only are we giving considerable amounts of money and spending almost 40% of the total spending on health care, we are also giving the provinces the flexibility in tax points to be able to spend that money whichever way they see fit. That is respecting jurisdiction in matters of health care. If we made one mistake in this arrangement we negotiated in 1997, it is that we did not include at least a bottom or minimum figure on the CHST transfers to be spent on health care. They had the flexibility to spend the money not only on health care but on other social priorities too. We respected the provincial spending jurisdiction in those areas.

None of our plans, including providing such federal assistance in health care spending, could have been achieved without the hard work the Government of Canada, on behalf of the people of Canada, has put into balancing budgets since 1993. Theodore Roosevelt once said “Do what you can, with what you have, where you are”. Since taking office in 1993, the federal government has followed this creed and has worked hard to strengthen the fundamentals of the Canadian economy by living within our financial means.

The Governor of the Bank of Canada predicted that the Canadian economy would be on track for 2002. He was right. The economy has recovered since the slowdown and the terrorist attacks, with positive growth rates that are expected to increase in the near future. The Globe and Mail recently reported that the Bank of Nova Scotia, in its latest global economic forecast, expects Canada to lead all Group of Seven nations in economic growth. Our actions have helped the Canadian economy weather the economic downturn in 2001 and the negative consequences of the terrorist attacks and have resulted in economic growth rates that have outperformed those of the United States.

Five consecutive surpluses, including a record $17.1 billion surplus in 2000-01 have allowed us to reduce the national debt by almost $41 billion, which happens to be saving Canadians $3 billion a year in reduced interest payments. We could, if we eliminated that debt, actually reduce our spending by over $40 billion a year. Surpluses have also allowed us to make $100 billion in broad-based tax cuts and have allowed us to put $23.4 billion into health care and early childhood development. Our prudent management has led to lower interest rates, which are helping the economy grow today.

In P.E.I. we have seen the unemployment rates steadily decline from an all-time high of 18.1% in 1992, at the end of the Mulroney years, to a low of 11.9% in 2001. Between 1992 and 2001, employment grew 23% in Prince Edward Island, outpacing both population and labour force growth in the 1990s. In 2000, P.E.I. led the country in terms of economic growth and was in third place behind Newfoundland and Alberta in 2001.

I want to make special mention of our potato industry, which has certainly seen its ups and downs over the last few years due to the trade ramifications of potato wart and PVYn. However, the industry is currently showing signs of positive growth and stability as Canadian and U.S. officials work together to protect both potato growers and consumers in both countries against unnecessary trade restrictions. I must say that this may be the year our potato growers finally get to pay off a little of their debts. There is a bumper crop and the prices are relatively good.

I cannot say enough about ACOA, the regional development agency. With the low levels of investment by private enterprise, the fact is that outside the city of Charlottetown, our major city, in our rural areas we would certainly be in sad shape today if it were not for the ACOA investments. For example, there was a $300 million Atlantic innovation fund announced by the Prime Minister of Canada as the flagship element of the broader $700 million Atlantic investment partnership. This is a direct effort by the Canadian government to keep our young people in the area by investing in high-tech information technology programs.

I also want to mention some benefits to my riding because of government investment in Prince Edward Island. There is the wind test facility in North Cape, where we are now investing in wind power. The program was spun off from an Alberta pilot project and has been continued in Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island. We are producing 25% more power than was anticipated from this windmill investment in my riding. We see great strides being made with that incentive. I also want to mention the money that ACOA and other agencies have put into the Northport development in my riding and into harbour repair. We have never before seen the amounts of money that have been invested in our harbours on behalf of fishermen.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's remarks. I certainly know why the windmills are at the western end of the island. There is always more wind at that end.

I was most interested in the member's comments on the figures regarding equalization and CHST. He seemed to be indicating, and I agree with him on this point, that the federal government is putting more money into health care, equalization and the CHST. However that is a divergence from some of the ads we see in the press from some of the governments across the country. It is a particular divergence from some of the statements made by our premier in Prince Edward Island, which seem to attack the feds, as they often do, and try to leave the impression that we are only paying around 14¢ on the dollar.

Could the member expand a little further on what the federal government is doing for health care and how this throne speech and the government's direction will be of benefit to Prince Edward Island?

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, on the hon. member's comment, there was a politician on the western end of Prince Edward Island called the great west wind. Robert Campbell was his name. He was an MLA for over 30 years. Compared to him I am just a little breeze.

It is really criminal what the provincial governments are doing with their advertising. They are spending millions of dollars to mislead and misinform the Canadian people. They say that we are only spending 14% on health care costs, when we had committed to spending 50% right across the board. All these facts are basically untrue. It is misinformation and disinformation in an attempt to get the federal government to transfer additional dollars. They are not prepared to wait for the Romanow report so we can see exactly what is required in a revamped medicare system for Canada. They are trying to pre-empt the report. They think that as long as we transfer more money to them, this will solve all their problems, which is never the case.

We put $2 billion into the hospital equipment fund a number of years ago, then we found out that instead of buying equipment for the hospitals in question, the provinces spent it on lawnmowers, trees and all sorts of things that had nothing to do with hospital equipment. This was being done right across the country. Some provinces had put the money in the bank and were collecting interest on it.

One wonders where the emergencies are, when the provinces react in a very undisciplined way with the money that we do transfer to them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was driving along in my car one day listening to the radio. CBC was reporting that the Prime Minister was visiting Prince Edward Island in order to deliver a cheque. I think it was an HRDC grant to help open up a call centre. I do not remember exactly the location on the island but I remember being really incensed when the person who accepted the cheque, and they actually played the clip on the CBC, said, “Mr. Prime Minister, we are so glad that you came here and brought us this money. You have been here for us when we needed you and now you can count on it that we will be there for you when you need us at the next election”. I remember that because it caught my attention.

Surely the people of Prince Edward Island must be downright annoyed at being held hostage by the Liberal government because of the threat that the money will stop if they do not vote Liberal. What is the member's response to that?

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, my response is that the hon. member continues to display his ignorance of Atlantic Canada when he does not know the difference between Prince Edward Island and Cape Breton Island.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Surely nothing I said indicated that I was mixing them up. I told an accurate story about Prince Edward Island. I do not care where this member is from.

[The Deputy Speaker]

That continues to be a matter of debate.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I only have 10 minutes to enter into a discourse on this Speech from the Throne because it is reflective of an ongoing story that began in 1993. For the most part, the subject matter contained in it is an extension of what was begun at that time.

We have heard previous colleagues talk about the fiscal responsibility comments and the support for children which are contained in the Speech from the Throne. I would be remiss if I did not point out that because of the actions that were started in 1993, 300,000 fewer children live below the poverty line. That is an ongoing story and is an ongoing challenge that Canadians have to face. The recognition of the need to continue to support and expand the support for children is acknowledged in the Speech from the Throne.

There is also a section on the benefits of innovation. As we know, the federal government has involved itself to the tune of about $3 billion in innovation in Canada. It ties in very suitably with this new issue that has come upon us over the last 10 years but now is gaining prominence. That is the issue of climate change and the Kyoto accord. In my personal opinion, the Kyoto accord and its ratification should be considered only as baby steps in the beginning of a transformation in the way we live in this world.

I know the opposition members have taken a position of simply opposing the accord. I will deal with some of the arguments that have been put forward by them. It seems to me that some of these arguments, when examined, are pretty peripheral. For instance, one that was put up the other day was that Canada only contributes 2% of the pollution on the face of the earth and, therefore, why should we bother trying because it is only 2%?

Let me put it this way. If 50 other countries were producing only 2% and they all tackled the Kyoto issue, that would be 100% of the pollution in the country. It is sort of like saying, “Why should I ride public transit instead of driving a car? It only represents 1/27-millionth of the pollution in Canada”.

I got thinking about that as I came over from Pointe Gatineau on the bus this morning: Why am I doing this? Why do I take a bus from the airport to Parliament Hill when I come in from my constituency? Simply put, it is a time for every citizen in the country to take personal responsibility for what is happening to this globe. Surely a conversation with any insurance company will tell us about the catastrophes for which it has had to pay because of what are considered natural occurrences, whether it be hurricanes, or drought or whatever affects the lives of human beings. It is happening whether we care to acknowledge it or not.

I heard a comment from the opposition about the benefits of CO

2

, carbon dioxide. That is a very interesting one because a certain amount of carbon dioxide of course is exhaled and inhaled by growing matter on the planet. As a tree grows, during the day it gives off oxygen and then consumes carbon dioxide. It is a cycle. What we are doing as a nation or as human beings on the planet is adding to that non-cyclical carbon dioxide. It is increasing in our atmosphere every year. Some people say that is a good thing. I have heard the opposition say that.

I would like to challenge any member of the opposition to something today. I would like them to sit for an hour in a room filled with carbon dioxide. If they come out of it alive, I will give them a month's salary. They know very well that if they are faced with high levels of carbon dioxide in the air they will die. This is one of the manifestations of climate change which we are witnessing.

They tell us that it is impossible to meet Kyoto targets. Let me suggest that they are right, without imagination. They are right, without innovation. They are right, if there is no vision. They are right, if there is no creativity. They are certainly right, if there is no willingness to participate.

That is why I am so enthusiastic about endorsing what is perhaps largely symbolic and is only the beginning of a journey. However I want to challenge Canadians. I want to challenge their imagination, their vision, their creativity and their willingness. As a government, we are actively challenging their ability to innovate. This is where we have to go and where we certainly can go.

History has shown that humans usually do not change their behaviour pattern very much unless there is a perceived crisis. In the 1970s I can recall when there was an oil “crisis” in the ability or the desire of OPEC to deliver oil to North America. It resulted in escalating prices of crude oil. Many of us can remember that. Some of my colleagues are too young to remember it. I can remember when oil hit $50 a barrel on the Chicago spot the prediction was that it would go to $120 a barrel. What happened? It precipitated the biggest voluntary conservation effort ever in North America.

Today we have a crisis which is coming upon us gradually; it is not acute. However, when 1,800 people die prematurely in Ontario every year, I would challenge it and say, if that happened with airplane crashes, not one airplane would fly in Canada until that problem was sorted out.

That is our challenge. That is the challenge facing Canadians and the whole world. Canada has the ability through its innovation, vision, creativity and willingness to become the world leader in this quest.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was good to hear the hon. member rediscover innovation in the environment after years of neglect, including a massive cut to the ministry of the environment since the Liberal tenure of government. We have seen many of those problems, which could have been worked on during this time period and could have been addressed, proliferate and grew even worse. The targets for Kyoto have been set for much longer and we still do not have a definite plan. This is a real weakness with regard to the Speech from the Throne.

It was also good to hear the hon. member talk about innovation. I recently attended a really interesting innovation summit. Every knife sharpener from Ontario was there, but we did not have a good discussion with students because only one was invited.

With regard to innovation, the government talks about the role of students in terms of their future. However their education becomes sticker shock when they find out how much in debt they will be when they actually leave their education program. Those people will be necessary for the hon. member's platform of a strong and vibrant Canada and using Kyoto as a way to open up new markets. However, doing it on the backs of students is not the proper way to go.

Further compounding that is the fact that students are graduating later in life and are having families later in life. Hence, we have to get more immigrants to come into the country to contribute because childbearing years are being reduced by citizens, including myself and my wife, who delayed that for career and occupational goals as well as paying down student debt.

As we go through the innovation strategies talked about in Kyoto, why should student loan rates be above the prime rate and often times triple the actual rate of inflation for this innovation to take place? Will the hon. member commit to lowering student debt and ensuring that as we go through this process it will not be on the backs of students and those looking to contribute to the future of our country?

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of attending an innovation summit as well but it did not throw all innovation on the backs of students. As a matter of fact, the process challenged business people, political people, people from all walks of life to put on their thinking caps and do some innovating of their own. Another innovation summit will be held here in Ottawa this fall.

I can tell the member that rather than laying it on the backs of students, we laid it on our own backs. We looked at what was good in our environment now and we looked at what we would need to do to move forward. That was our interpretation of innovation. The federal government has committed $3 billion to that innovation.

Talking about the cost of student tuition, I would like to remind him that we do have a $2 billion millennium scholarship fund. This not only allows students of lesser financial means to take advantage of student loan programs but the millennium fund is also there to provide some assistance.

A member of my family, who did not have the resources to complete university, completed it through the student loan program, which helped him out immensely. When I went through college I was lucky enough to earn enough money to pay my tuition, but I will admit that was many years ago and the cost of tuition was, admittedly, much less than it is now.

We have a tremendous future ahead of us. Innovation is not limited to students or universities.

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Gander--Grand Falls.

It is an honour to stand today in the House to respond to the Speech from the Throne on behalf of the good people of Dauphin--Swan River.

Important issues are missing in the government's agenda. There is nothing for agriculture, there are no plans for rural Canada and there is no increase in funding for additional health care providers. Many of the promises we see in the speech have been mentioned in previous sessions of Parliament and only about 25% of those have been acted on by the government. No doubt this really was a useless exercise. We really did not need the Speech from the Throne. Over the last day we debated on the government's motion to bring back old legislation which died on the order paper.

The Liberals could have done several things with the throne speech. They could have promoted a responsible financial plan, an active international agenda or a collaborative approach to social programs and democratic reform. Instead, they chose to propose a long list of legacy spending in the absence of a budget. Canadians need planned direction, not spending sprees, from any of their governments.

I will take the time to quickly and briefly go through different sections of the throne speech. The first section deals with plans for and funding to health care. We all know that health care is first and foremost in the minds of all Canadians. As former government speakers indicated, we are at the point where only 14¢ out of every $1 comes from the federal government. When the plan was first put together it was 50¢. An increase in transfers to health is long overdue.

We must not forget the current disastrous condition of health care. This began in 1994 with the $24 billion cutback which forced the provincial governments to centralize and reduce their spending. Unfortunately, as we all know, technology is costly and is always on the rise. As we all age, a greater demand is put on health services.

The hon. member for St. John's West indicated to me this morning that in a province like Newfoundland, which has a population drain, it is even harder on the health care system because the number of taxpayers are not there to help pay for the system. Special attention certainly needs to be paid to that.

In terms of investment in cities and infrastructure, we know that over the last 50 years, from the first infrastructure program, which was the brainchild of FCM, that bridges and water and sewage systems are falling apart. It is unfortunate that governments, this one as well as past governments, have not paid more attention to infrastructure upgrades.

Today, with the experience of Walkerton, we know that potable water is very important. It is part of our health. In fact I have been lobbying the minister responsible for western diversification. Currently the situation with the prairie provinces is that most of the provincial-federal agreements have lapsed. Therefore they need to sit down at the table and renew these agreements so that more money for infrastructure development can be put in place.

Rural Canadians, certainly in my riding, are waiting for federal funding or tripartite funding to assist in potable water development. The community of Gilbert Plains in my riding is waiting to hear from the federal government. Unfortunately, if the money is not there, the work will not get done.

In the area of new money for early childhood programs and welfare reform, it is time this government and future governments started looking at the whole issue of free tuition for post-secondary education. Other progressive nations in the world are doing that. We all promote education in the House because we know it is necessary. It is how people change their status and improve their livelihood. We talk about that for the aboriginal community continuously and we all support that. I think that is the direction in which we need to head.

The speech talks about renewing environmental commitments and creating 10 national parks. Most Canadians would agree with that but the problem is that there are not enough funds to look after the parks we have today. In fact, the people living within national parks are fed up with the taxation increase. The ironic thing is that instead of looking after the urban sites, the recreational sites within national parks, the tax money is being used to look after the parks.

Another contentious issue is the whole issue of park wardens. It is ridiculous that the heritage minister, through Mr. Lee, the parks agency administrator, has absolutely refused to be rational when it comes to park wardens retaining their status as peace officers and being able to use handguns. The judgment from the labour board was in the park wardens' favour. It is so ridiculous that over the past year the park wardens have lost their status as enforcement officers. Do members know that a park warden cannot even stop a poacher on the highway or do anything about the poaching? The park warden has to contact the RCMP and literally wait until the RCMP arrive. It may take hours to do something about illegal activity in national parks.

Basically the park wardens have no role left other than that of being public paper pushers in their offices. It is very unfortunate and unreasonable. Park wardens are a part of the enforcement system in this country and they need to be treated with respect.

Ethics guidelines for public servants are long overdue. Perhaps we need to add ethics guidelines for governments. What will we do about broken government promises? We hear that concern from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. There is no recourse. Politicians can promise all they wish. Maybe it is time for them to be accountable for what they say. I think it is probably long overdue and most Canadians would agree with that.

In the time I have left I want to talk about what the throne speech says on page 14. It says:

Respectful of our history, confident in our future, let each of us do our part.

I want to mention two historical situations that this government and past governments have neglected and which need to be dealt with.

The first one is about the internment of Canadians of Ukrainian descent. We all know that during the first world war over 5,000 Ukrainians were interned in concentration camps and in 24 work camps throughout the country. The government must deal with this long overdue problem. These people were Canadians.

Past governments have resolved the issue of the Japanese internment. I think it is time the government acknowledged that the internment of Ukrainians actually happened in Canada, in this free, democratic and open country, during the war years only because they came from another country and perhaps looked or spoke like the enemy. Certainly that is a danger we encounter today with the war on terrorism and with people who have come to this country from the Middle East.

We also have the issue of Canadians of Chinese descent, of which I am one. The whole issue of the head tax must be dealt with. It was unjust and unfair, that whole idea of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1923. The government needs to acknowledge this problem. If that is what is written in black and white in the throne speech then the government has to be accountable and carry out its promise.

It is time for the Liberal government to walk the talk. As we all know, actions speak loudest. We are looking for action from the government.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a topic which has been raised two or three times this morning in dealing with the cost of post-secondary education. The point that seems to come out in debate is the cost of tuition and how people work to pay their tuition. That is all well and good.

However, if people do not live near the university town, they need more than tuition. Tuition is only a small portion of the total cost of a post-secondary education. The real costs result from having to get an apartment and having to furnish that apartment, having to buy food, as well as the costs of travel.

Most post-secondary education courses during the year will cost an individual who comes from other than the university town around $15,000 or $16,000. A maximum student loan does not even come close to that. Unless parents can help, students cannot receive an education. It is not the costs they have on their shoulders when students come out, it is that they cannot even afford to go.

Does the member, serving part of a rural area, find that many of his young people are having problems accessing proper post-secondary education?

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I live in a large area and the majority of people who want to go to university have to leave the area. They are looking at a four to six hour drive to Winnipeg and there is that added cost. That has always been the dispute between rural and large urban centres. There is that added cost of living. Students have to find a place to live and there is that extra cost.

There are creative ways of dealing with that. Universities need to decentralize and offer courses in smaller communities. In the world of technology that we live in there is no reason why the Internet is not a big part of the equation. I see throughout the country that community colleges are probably way ahead of the universities on this point. They establish satellite locations in smaller regions and communities so that students from distant communities can have access to education whether it is at the community college level or taking university courses.

[Rex Barnes, Progressive Conservative, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech was a missed opportunity for the government. It was a time for the government to show its vision for the entire country. Unfortunately there was nothing for Canada and Canadians living in rural areas such as the riding of Gander—Grand Falls.

I can only speak about my riding because I do not fully understand at times, listening to members speak, what is happening in other ridings. I can only concentrate on how my people are feeling and how it is affecting them. The throne speech offers no hope and demonstrates what a low priority rural Newfoundland and Labrador is for the present government.

After two previous speeches from the throne only 28 of the 114 promises have been actually fulfilled. We hear from both sides that the numbers vary, but why promise to do a lot of things when nothing is done? This goes back to the 1993 Liberal platform. It is a clear admission that after nearly 10 years of government the Liberals have failed to achieve what they have set out to do. It is an admission of failure to the people. This country needs new ideas and a new approach. The Liberal government is full of promises but for some reason or another, it is short on performance.

I want to highlight some of the areas that were missed and are important for my riding. Rural Newfoundland and Labrador is important to me and should be to the government. One of the things that is lacking in my area is the ability to have technical support so that people can have the same access to all the technical ideas and thoughts that urban centres have. A former MP started that motion but because of the cost factor it failed. Sometimes if we are serious about doing something for rural Canada and rural Newfoundland and Labrador, there is a cost factor that we must look at. Sometimes the cost is not that much when it is compared to other items.

One of the other items that was a major loss for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador was the custodial management of the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. While the government talked about protecting species at risk and environment protection it failed to protect the most important resource of our province, which is fish.

We talk about Kyoto being costly for Canadians. Custodial management is the way to guarantee the protection of several marine species and a way of life for people in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially from my riding.

We can also look at the airline industry in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and rural Canada. There is no way in the world that any politician can state in the House that rural Newfoundland and Labrador and rural Canada are getting the same service as the urban centres. It is impossible for anyone to say that. In my travels, as well as the travel of other MPs, it is a difficult task to get flights out and to make connecting flights because of the limitations.

[An hon. member]

What about the cost?

[Rex Barnes, Progressive Conservative, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

The cost that has been echoed has always been there. The people in Gander—Grand Falls have always paid a higher cost for air travel than their counterparts in St. John's. People travel to St. John's, which is a five hour drive, so they can get an cheaper airplane ticket; sometimes it is $200 to $400, which is totally ridiculous.

The government should be acting on items such as fees with regard to travel costs to make it easier for people from rural Newfoundland and Labrador and rural Canadians to travel from their own airports rather than having to travel all across their own province to go to urban centres.

One big item is the health care plan. There is always a big debate about whether the government is spending the money wisely with regard to health care. Coming from the health care field, I realize that a pot of money will not fix the problem but it will help the situation.

Governments have always pumped out all kinds of money at times. We hear the Liberals talk about the fact that they put another $1 billion into health care. However the workers on the ground do not see this. We do not know where the money goes. It is time for the government to have a plan for health care and a plan for rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

In rural areas of Newfoundland and Labrador people do not have access to doctors. They have to travel long distances to see doctors and specialists. The strike by doctors in Newfoundland and Labrador today is a prime example of what the doctors are going through. Sometimes they talk about money, and yes, money is a factor. However, as I heard one doctor state on the news, it is about service delivery to patients. If there is a high cost for that, then the government must ensure the money is there to ensure the service is available for people in rural areas.

One of the hottest topics in my riding right now is the unemployment crisis, which I am presently undertaking with regard to the problems that we have. I have asked to meet with the hon. minister and her department. When we meet with her department, the big issue is always top up programs. A portion of the top up program is to boost EI while waiting for a full time job. The problem is that the workers are not seasonal in my province and in my riding. It is the work that is seasonal.

Our people are looking for full time work but, unfortunately, we have no choice but to go the other route. The government has failed in its ability to do something about that, especially acknowledging in the throne speech that it is a serious problem and how we would challenge it.

The top up program is a small avenue in the unemployment crisis. It is no good to top up the higher salary. It is essential that top up programs are made EI eligible because of the scarcity of work in rural areas. It is important that we take note of that.

I will be discussing this with the minister very soon so that we can make some movement to ensure that the voices of the people in my riding are heard at the level where it will count.

We need to revitalize rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We need to have a plan for not only my riding but the whole of Canada because I am sure that the rural areas of Newfoundland and Labrador, Gander and Grand Falls, are the same all across Canada.

We need to have infrastructure put in place. We all realize there is a cost. I am not standing here saying there is no cost factor. We have to prioritize where we should go. If we do not prioritize with a plan, then we will have no plan and no ability to pay for it.

Any government can say it will do all these wonderful things but if it does not have a plan, how will we pay for it? Every time we look around the government is floating all these trial balloons about how we are going to pay for things, yet we have no budget. There is no budget to determine where this money will come from. Before we have a plan, we should tell the people where the money will come from so we know exactly where it will go.

It is important that as a government we have a plan. If we do not have a plan with a budget, then we will go nowhere. We can promise all we like but we cannot deliver.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for York Centre.

It is a privilege for me to take part in this debate on the Speech from the Throne. The vision laid out in that speech is based on values and principles that are deeply rooted in the spirit of the people of Canada. This means the sharing of risks and benefits, equality of all citizens, tolerance and a celebration of our differences.

It is a vision which builds on our past successes. Those successes have not been based solely on economic growth and financial prudence, but also on our ability to listen to Canadians and to set as our priorities the issues they deem important.

The commitments made in the throne speech reflect these priorities: a comprehensive plan for health care reform; a strong economy; a healthy environment; and the well-being of children and families.

One of the things which makes Canada strong is our linguistic duality. As a staunch defender of official bilingualism, I anxiously await the implementation of a renewed action plan to revitalize our official languages policy.

Promoting and reinforcing the bilingual nature of the public service constitutes an important part of this plan of action. Canada's public service is, and always will be, a bilingual institution and there can be absolutely no room for compromise on this.

I am particularly pleased to learn that a recent study on public servants' attitudes towards official languages indicates that the vast majority of them support the official languages program, and feel that it is important to serve the public in the language of choice and that bilingualism in the workplace must be encouraged.

That said, it is certain that there must be more active promotion of the use of both official languages in federal government workplaces. This must be a dominant characteristic of our daily activities and our policies must be better understood. More will be said on this in the coming months.

I want to turn to the subject of human resources management in the public service. As the final commitment in the Speech from the Throne, the government will “introduce long-awaited reforms for the public service to ensure that it can attract the diverse talent it needs to continue to serve Canadians well”.

For me, it is fitting that this should serve as a conclusion to this important speech. It is fitting because the public service underpins all that we do in government. Whether in advising ministers on policy, supporting parliamentarians, delivering services to citizens across Canada or abroad, or in enforcing the law, we rely on the dedicated men and women who are the Public Service of Canada.

The public service is one of the country's greatest assets. As a parliamentarian, I consider that a vital characteristic of our democracy is the positive energy and results that are produced when those elected to serve Canadians are supported by an impartial, non-partisan, professional, representative and bilingual public service. While it is true that we set the agenda, we must all recognize that our public servants make it happen.

It is because of this that there is a clear political determination to make the changes required to ensure that our public service is prepared to take on the challenges of the 21st century. We realize that if we are to meet Canadians' legitimate needs, we must rely on an effective and competent public service.

My perspective has always been that it is people who count, regardless of the organization, be it in the public or private sector. Given that it is the role of all governments to provide their citizens with the high quality services that we all need, human resources are even more important in the public sector. Our employees give the government a human face.

The current employee management system is outdated and lags behind current management theories. Some of our rules and regulations were enacted 30 and 40 years ago and have been changed very little since that time, despite the profound changes that have taken place in our public service and in our country.

The demographic reality is that approximately half of our current public servants, and a much greater proportion of our senior managers, will be retiring in the next ten years. At the same time, competition to attract more talented people is intensifying. Therefore, one of our priorities is to retain competent employees and to recruit new ones. The public service must be able to retain, attract and train highly motivated women and men.

We must also ensure that there are appropriate mechanisms in place to train our future leaders and to ensure an efficient transfer of organizational knowledge. This is why we must renew our legal and administrative framework for the management of human resources, which is quite rigid in many respects.

We must encourage innovation, which means putting in place more flexible policies and procedures. We must provide employees and managers with the appropriate tools so that they never have the feeling that they have to battle the system in order to do good work.

We need to create an exemplary workplace. In my view, an exemplary workplace is a place that embraces diversity, where employees are proud to belong, where they can work in the official language of their choice in bilingual regions, and where they receive fair compensation for their work. It is a place where managers encourage employees to take advantage of a range of possible working conditions so that they can better balance professional and family responsibilities. It is a workplace that promotes learning and professional development for all employees regardless of level.

Of course such a workplace should also be a place of harmonious labour relations, where a real spirit of cooperation, not confrontation, leads to frank and constructive exchanges and problem solving between the employer and union representatives.

In an exemplary workplace, systems, practices and regulations are aligned with getting results. Right now many of our human resources management practices are just plain inadequate for today's challenges. Anyone who has tried to recruit or transfer an employee in the public service knows that the process is lengthy and tedious. I have received much correspondence and I have had numerous conversations with members on both sides of the House about the difficulties some of their constituents have encountered with the current human resources system. These exchanges have been very helpful to me because they illustrate the practical difficulties Canadians face when applying for a public service job.

Change is needed, and it will occur. However, changing the system does not mean changing our fundamental values. On the contrary. Any new human resources management framework must remain based on values of integrity, equity, respect, accountability, transparency, skills and merit.

The reform must be based on sound ethical principles. We are stressing these principles because they provide a democratic government with what it needs to operate in the best manner possible and because, this way, the public will trust Canada's public institutions.

For all these reasons, I will soon introduce in the House of Commons legislative changes that will address these matters. Each and every one of us has a duty to participate in this initiative. The reform of the public service human resources management system is a priority of our government, as it should be for all the members of this House as well.

We are not undertaking this initiative because we feel there is something wrong with the Public Service of Canada. The government I represent believes, as I do—and I hope our colleagues opposite do as well—that our public sector is one of the very best in the world. We just want to ensure that this sector will be able to grow and adjust in order to meet the challenges of our ever-changing economy and society.

I am confident that, with the support and involvement of everyone in the public service, from senior management to employees, our union partners and our parliamentarians, this initiative will lay a strong foundation, so that we can continue serving Canadians well.

I believe we are headed in the right direction. For change to happen, we need to focus on our goals and we need to bear in mind that changes must be possible and practical. Ultimately we will all benefit from modernization.

I applaud the Prime Minister for concluding his reply to the Speech from the Throne by saying:

When I travel across Canada I will talk to a new generation about the importance of public life. I will discuss with them the role of public service, how they can participate and lead in the future.

I urge all members of the House to follow his lead and to discuss with our young graduates the Public Service of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the minister on a fine speech of empty rhetoric. It has been nine years and now she says the Liberals recognize the problem, that their eyes are open and they now know what they want to do. Well, I am still waiting to see that legislation she is promising, because after nine years I think it is long overdue. It is time that the government and the President of the Treasury Board brought in some meaningful legislation that would work.

Let us look back at the universal classification system. It was the great panacea that was going to ensure that we had a uniform workforce, that there would be no discrimination of any kind. It cost us $3.6 billion and the policy did not work so it was thrown in the garbage.

There have been rigid hiring practices for years and still a vast number of people are being hired on term employment because the process of hiring permanent employees is so constipated that it cannot work. Therefore we end up with term employees who cannot look forward to a career in the public service unless they get converted to permanent employee status. That destroys morale.

The President of the Treasury Board made reference to regional hiring and how she is going to fix that. That type of discrimination was absolutely condemned by the public accounts committee yet regional discrimination continues because the government cannot figure out how to end it.

People who want to get hired by the civil service have to live in Ottawa most of the time. A graduate from the University of Toronto, UBC, University of Ottawa or wherever, who goes back home to live with his parents in northern Alberta and is trying to find a job in the government, cannot get a job because his address is in northern Alberta.

Although those were comments and not necessarily a question, I do have a question. If the President of the Treasury Board is so concerned about improving the morale and the effectiveness of her civil service, is she prepared to commit to bringing in the merit system to compensate people on the value of the work they do, rather than--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. President of the Treasury Board.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to see that the chair of the public accounts committee approved of the priorities set out by the government for the public service. All members of the committee have studied some of the problems that we have in the system right now. That is why the Prime Minister appointed a task force last year to look at the human resources management system, to look at exactly what went wrong in the system and to see if we need some legislative changes. The answer is yes.

I have to say that it is very rare to find in a government the political will to bring in those changes. I am happy that our Prime Minister decided it would be a priority for our government. I am sure that all parliamentarians realize that we can have the best Speech from the Throne with wonderful ideas coming from parliamentarians and wonderful legislation, but if we do not have the right people to implement them, they will not be a success. That is why we need a very good public service. It is why we need to make some legislative changes to the human resources framework. We will do that in the coming months.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the minister and President of Treasury Board and am well aware of how attuned she is to the working conditions of public servants. I think she places great importance on respect of the individual. It also seems that health was a very important issue in the throne speech.

This morning, a newspaper article reported on psychological harassment of public servants. Psychological harassment is a very serious thing.

I would like to ask the minister what she intends to do in the very short term to deal with the problem of psychological harassment?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that our first survey of the whole public service was carried out two years ago. It was a first; we had never surveyed all of our federal employees. We asked them what they thought of their workplace. To our amazement, one of five respondents reported being a victim of harassment in the workplace.

We immediately struck a task force along with the unions to review our anti-harassment policy, and now we have a new one.

There is no room for compromise in this area. It is very clear that all departments have a duty to look very carefully into the situation each and every time there is an employee complaint, in order to immediately take the necessary steps to remedy the situation and prevent it being drawn out or expanded to other sectors of the department in question.

Needless to say, all departments must comply with this policy.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first occasion that I rise in the House, not as a minister but as a member of Parliament for York Centre, to give some perspectives I have on the Speech from the Throne.

The Speech from the Throne is a solid blueprint for dealing with the challenges that face the country and the people of Canada at this time. It talks about the need to reform health care and reform the justice system for our aboriginal people. It goes on to say how Canada must be a leader in terms of innovation in learning, and it commits and recommits to the concept of dealing with child poverty, one of the issues that I hope to spend more time on in this session of Parliament.

It deals with the Kyoto protocol which we all want to see put in place in a reasonable way that helps to meet our obligations with respect to the environment while at the same time continuing with a strong economy which we have enjoyed for some time in the country.

How much of the blueprint will be put into action will depend upon another document to be tabled in the House at a later date and that is the budget. It will contain the resources that will be needed to implement many of these things. It will determine how much of it can be put into action at this time.

We have for a number of years had as a firm policy the desire to keep our fiscal house in order, not to go back into deficit. We spent a number of years getting out of deficit. We want to ensure we never do that again. We want to ensure that the debt continues to reduce as a percentage of our gross national product.

We want to ensure though that at the same time we can put in place for Canadians a balanced approach for dealing with these many challenges which are incorporated in the Speech from the Throne. That will have to be determined as we determine what financial resources are available.

I will focus on two parts of the Speech from the Throne. Neither one of these should be of any surprise to members of the House because they deal with my experiences over 30 years in public service and elected office.

First is defence. I was Minister of National Defence for some five years and was grateful to see in the Speech from the Throne the notation that Canada's military be equipped to fulfill the demands placed upon it. That is a principle that has to be implemented as quickly as possible. Now there is more defence program than there is defence budget. These two things have to be brought in balance. We can no longer afford a roughly $13 billion program but a $12 billion budget. There has to be a reconciliation. We must recognize that the demands on our troops have increased the operational tempo over the years since we last did a review of the defence program in 1994.

At that point in time we thought 60,000 troops would be enough coming out of the Cold War. Since then we have had more peace support operations than we had during the entire 40 years of the Cold War. We should continue to meet that operation tempo because we have built a solid reputation for this country when it comes to peace support operations around the world. Countries of the world and the United Nations look to Canada to be involved in those peace support operations. It is our forte in terms of our contribution militarily to the international arena.

In order to be able to do that we will have to add troops to the Canadian Forces to keep up that kind of operation tempo. Otherwise we must cut back on the operation tempo. We must do the same with equipment. We need to add to the equipment. We need to replace the outworn and outdated equipment as quickly as possible.

We need additional moneys, at least a billion dollars a year, in terms of the operations of the Canadian Forces to carry on this kind of programming and these kinds of services and relieve some of the pressure on the operation tempo. We need some additional dollars to go into capital equipment. We need to develop a rapidly deployable force. This is something we have been developing. However, we need to continue to do that so that we can move quickly to deal with some of the challenges that we face in the world. While we may not have a Cold War, we may not have the bipolar world that we had for a great many years. The world is still an unsafe place. There are still many conflicts. Canada has to be there to be part of making a contribution.

We continue to need multipurpose combat capability. Our troops need to be combat capable because peace support operations are not so peaceful nowadays. As we have seen in the case of Afghanistan, we can find ourselves in conflict situations which are necessary for us to provide the training and the equipment for our forces. At the same time recognizing that the operation tempo needs to be reduced.

We have spent a lot of time and effort in terms of the quality of life for our troops. However, more needs to be done to ensure we support our Canadian Forces the way they should be supported.

The second subject deals with the plight of our cities. I spent 11 years as the mayor of Toronto and well know the difficulties that cities have in making ends meet and getting the kind of tax resources they need to solve the problems that their citizens want them to solve. I was grateful to see in the Speech from the Throne the 10-year plan for infrastructure.

Infrastructure is a good contribution that the government can make to help our cities. Our cities need their infrastructure modernized so they can continue to contribute to the economy of the country. The economy of the country is, by and large, made in our cities. Over 80% of our people live in our cities. We need to ensure that they get the infrastructure needed to do that. A 10 year plan helps to ensure that our municipalities have the planning horizon they need. They cannot plan ahead by putting in funds one year and cutting them out the next. That is not the way to govern our cities. A 10 year plan for infrastructure, as mentioned in the throne speech, is a solid, good move. However, more needs to be done

There is the whole question of affordable housing. We have put money into trying to help solve the problem of the homeless. However, it is not solved. There is more that needs to be done there. There are people in my city of Toronto, thousands, waiting years in lineups to get affordable housing. There are seniors in my constituency of York Centre who are paying 50% or more of their income for rental accommodation. They do not have enough money left for food and for the other necessities of life.

We have a real problem in housing in my constituency, my city, and cities right across the country. The infrastructure program or the housing programs of the federal government must help to deal with the problem. We are not in it alone; we are there in partnership. The provinces and municipalities must be there as well. The federal government must recognize the needs in terms of our cities.

There is the problem regarding transit. In my city there is enormous traffic congestion choking the streets of Toronto. We need more put into public transit to expand the public transit system.

There are things that we can do at the federal level, for example, housing for seniors. The guaranteed income supplement, the seniors pension program, is indexed to inflation. However inflation does not cover the cost of housing in Toronto. We ought to be looking at increasing those kinds of pensionable allowances so that our seniors are not paying 50% or more of their income.

We should look at tax policies and transit. Right now, in terms of our urban municipalities, if we are driving a car we get a free parking space but if we get a pass given by our employer it is a taxable benefit. Those are things we can do at the federal level to help in terms of the plight of our cities, in terms of supplementing what we are talking about in terms of our infrastructure.

The Speech from the Throne says that this will lead us to the Canada we want. I believe we can do that, but we have a lot more work to do.

We have to provide the resources that are necessary to do it and we have to continue with very sincere follow-up to the principled statements that are made in the Speech from the Throne.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's comments this morning. Since about 1992, the Prime Minister has stated that there is a need to restore trust in government, a need to restore respect on the part of the Canadian people for their government, in short, ethics.

For almost a week now the member's colleague, who sits very close to him in the House of Commons, the Solicitor General, has been embroiled in a scandal because he chose to issue, and the key word is chose, a sole source contract to a friend. We all remember that the member for York Centre was removed from his position as defence minister a few months back for a very similar incident.

How does the member explain to Canadians the inconsistency in this disciplinary action by his Prime Minister? How does that begin to restore or do anything except further damage the trust and respect of Canadians for their government?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, trust and ethics are important issues. I have given comments with respect to my own situation in that regard, as the Solicitor General has with his. The matter is now under investigation by the ethics counsellor, who will subsequently report on this matter for the edification of the entire House.