Debates of Oct. 8th, 2002

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague is on almost the same lines. We saw in the newspaper yesterday that the member disagreed with what happened to him and yet nothing happened to the Solicitor General.

The only thing is that in the throne speech the government talked about being more open to all Canadians. The government's money is not there for its friends but rather for the citizens of our country who are in need right now. After listening to what the member has said it is like the government has not done enough. That means the government has not done too much over the last 10 years, and yet it is looking ahead 10 years to see what it can do. I think the time has run out. People are in trouble today. What will the government do?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not recall speaking on either one of those issues. I am not sure that the throne speech debate is the appropriate time to discuss them. As I indicated, there is an investigation going on with respect to this matter. I think that all members of the House have to adhere to a high ethical standard. There is absolutely no doubt about that. As I have indicated, when it came to the rules I abided by those rules. I think we will hear more about the case involving Mr. MacAulay.

Meanwhile, we do have a throne speech here--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member is a veteran in the House and knows that he cannot call a member by name but only by title or riding.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned a couple of topics that have always troubled me, child poverty being one and the state of the military being the other.

In 1993 the throne speech indicated that a million and a half children lived in poverty but that by the year 2000 this poverty would be eliminated. We are now in the year 2002 and have more than a million and a half children living in poverty.

Our military equipment was always going to be upgraded, since 1993. I think there was an effort to do a bit of that, but we are still way behind, as the member himself stated.

My question for the member is this: What happened? What happened to the throne speech of 1993 when child poverty was going to be eliminated and the equipment in our military was going to be built up? Is it a fact that, according to the Auditor General, the government has wasted $16 billion on foolish projects? Is that the problem? Or is it just poor management?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly share the hon. member's concern about child poverty. Back in the eighties, I believe, the House did say it would eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. Obviously that has not been done. I applaud the Prime Minister for making child poverty a priority in terms of the throne speech, to do more, and more needs to be done.

There is no doubt about the difficulty of funding everything Canadians need and want. The government, though, has done a terrific job in terms of finding the right balance of things and we will continue to do that. There is no doubt that child poverty has to be dealt with, and our military has to be dealt with as well.

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with my colleague, the member for Wild Rose. I am pleased to have this opportunity today to rise and speak in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

The Speech from the Throne is an avenue available to the government to clearly set out its agenda and vision for our country, but with the member from Shawinigan indicating just a short while ago his intention to step aside as our Prime Minister to allow one of his competitors to take his place, the throne speech is more about creating a personal legacy for the member from Shawinigan than creating a well-rounded vision and direction for Canada.

I find this cheapening of the throne speech and its use as a personal political tool shameful and would suggest that the Prime Minister, with his many years of service in this place, should have taken the high road on his way out. Nevertheless, it is done and Canadians are left to battle the rough seas of political and economic uncertainty in a rudderless ship, with a captain on his way out.

If one is from the big cities of Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver, there may be facets of the throne speech one can find pleasing, but the reality is that those most in need of the government, those producing the wealth in the country, hard-working Canadians, are those in rural, remote and northern Canada. They are all but forgotten in the member from Shawinigan's vision of Canada.

It is what is lacking and who is forgotten in the throne speech that I take issue with. I am a proud Canadian from northwestern B.C. and am offended that the government has ignored us once again. I am angered at the thought that vote-rich areas in southern Canada are more important and more deserving than those of us here in the north.

An example of the member from Shawinigan's narrow urban vision for Canada can be found in his steadfast support for the greenhouse gas emission reduction plan called the Kyoto accord. The reality is that 100 kilometres outside the limit of any major city greenhouse gas emissions are not the top issue on people's minds.

In northern Canada and my riding of Skeena, people put food on the table, pay their mortgages and hydro bills and, when they can afford it, send their kids to college on salaries paid by companies that do business extracting raw materials from the land. Be it forestry, mining, fishing, farming, oil and gas, most companies in northern B.C., northern Ontario, northern Quebec, and even rural Atlantic Canada, produce wealth from our natural resources.

In the north we are mining the metals that go toward making computer chips that run the manufacturing companies. We cut down the trees that make computer desks. The hydroelectricity we generate keeps the lights turned on and those computers running. And without the fishery and our agricultural industry, we would be having a pretty light lunch here today.

I would have to agree that the smog and pollution seen in Canada's big cities is a problem, and more mass transit and better car emission regulations are part of the solution. But to penalize northern and remote communities because of a problem they contribute to in a much lesser degree is not only irresponsible. Frankly, it is another reminder that unless people live in vote-rich southern Canada they just do not count with this Liberal government.

Let us take a look at the problems faced by the softwood lumber industry today as another example that shows the government has no plan and has really given no thought to the difficulties faced by rural, remote and northern Canadians. Here we have an industry that has been struggling to stay in business since the United States, our biggest trading partner, began imposing large tariffs and duties on those importing our products. These tariffs and duties are arbitrary. Even the WTO has agreed that Canada is not dumping lumber into the U.S. market. The U.S. action against Canadian lumber is predatory in nature.

What has the Liberal government done about the softwood lumber crisis? Absolutely nothing. It is not mentioned in the throne speech. There has been nothing that has made one iota of difference in the grand scheme of things. The Minister for International Trade has said he is working through the WTO and other organizations to see a resolution to the impasse. He has said he wants to take a wait-and-see approach and is certain that Canada will win in the end.

That wait-and-see approach so often used by the government has seen numerous sawmills shut down, thousands of jobs lost and, frankly, many families broken up as parents leave their homes in search of work, all because the government prefers to wait. The employees, small businesses and other spinoff economies affected by the softwood lumber crisis, particularly in B.C., cannot wait. They need help now as opposed to more hollow promises of assistance from the government.

The Prime Minister and his throne speech did not address the issues and concerns foremost on the minds and in the hearts of rural, remote and northern Canadians. Why not? What I am talking about today is a lack of certainty. As I said earlier, the government has done nothing with the throne speech to address the uncertainty we are faced with today.

One of the reasons there is a downturn in the economy is the lack of corporate investment in Canada and in particular in northern Canada. In my home province of B.C. not only is investment scared away by Canada's high capital taxes, but the continual aboriginal land claims uncertainty creates an atmosphere in which many businesses find it hard to operate. Recently there were articles in the newspapers citing concern for the future exploration and development of offshore oil and gas off the B.C. coast due to continual land claims wrangling in our courts and, in particular, in the court of public opinion. Until there is certainty of land tenure, British Columbia will find it very difficult to realize its natural resource potential. Unfortunately it is the federal government that continues to drag its feet. The province pays the price.

I have outlined several issues that should either have been addressed more adequately or considered in the throne speech. One area that I know my constituents and most rural, remote and northern Canadians feel should be addressed is the hated gun control legislation, better known as Bill C-68. There is no mention of this in the throne speech. It is a piece of legislation that was sold in the vote-rich cities of southern Canada as the be-all and end-all for solving crime.

The Liberals touted Bill C-68 as the solution to all crime and called it legislation that would mean safer streets in those urban areas. Instead, it meant penalizing rural, remote and northern Canadians. It has done nothing to reduce crime in our cities and has already cost the Canadian taxpayer $1 billion.

I will now move on to a problem exacerbated once again in the throne speech, one with which I am all too familiar having been active in municipal politics for almost 25 years, six of which I spent as mayor of a small, northern remote community in B.C. Infrastructure is the problem to which I am referring, one that has been poorly understood by the government for years. Yes, the throne speech did address the need for more infrastructure funding for cities to deal with needed road repairs, sewer system upgrades and better water treatment facilities, but nothing was done to address the hugely flawed funding formula.

What many MPs may not know is that the funding formula of one-third, one-third and one-third is highly impractical and even impossible to achieve in some smaller rural municipalities. Allow me to explain. In order for much-needed infrastructure repairs to be made in many municipalities, they need to access federal and provincial funding. The one-third formula means that each pays a third of the cost. That is to say, the federal government pays a third, the province pays a third and the municipality must come up with its third.

Large capital projects like those needed to upgrade sewer or water treatment facilities are not cheap. It is not uncommon for smaller municipalities to be unable to come up with their one-third share of the cost of the project. What then? The throne speech said that infrastructure funding would be available. It is available, all right, if we can convince the feds and the province to pay their share and only if the municipality has the tax base to come up with its share. The reality is that many municipalities in northern, rural or remote areas of Canada do not have that tax base to provide their share of the money, so having more infrastructure dollars available to be used for upgrades will not help them.

Again I must say I believe these funds are not directed toward those smaller municipalities in need of federal assistance. I believe this is an example of the government talking like it has funding for everyone but all the while knowing that those funds will mostly be used by the big vote-rich cities for which they were all intended. It is shameful how rural, remote and northern communities are ignored by the government and the Prime Minister in the throne speech.

When I heard the throne speech mention the government's vision for health care, I cringed. There was no vision and there were no new ideas. All Canadians heard was that the government was waiting for the results of the Romanow commission. Again, as I said with softwood lumber, the government is fixated on a wait-and-see attitude about everything. Since 1993 when the Liberal government was first elected, it has been tinkering with health care. Commission after commission, report after report, and here we are three elections later with nothing new. Meanwhile, waiting lines are longer, Canadians have been forced to go to the U.S. for treatment, and northern and remote communities have seen their specialists leave and their MDs burned out and frustrated. The system is not working. That is obvious to everyone except the government.

To conclude, I would like to remind the House and those Canadians watching at home today that there is a better way than the tired old Liberal ideas outlined in the throne speech. I would urge them to forget the tired Liberals and try something new, exciting and enthusiastic: the party I represent, one which represents much of northern, remote and rural Canada, the Canadian Alliance.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned with the Alliance member's remarks in trying to make a rural-urban difference in the matter of the Kyoto accord. He said that when people get 100 kilometres outside a city there is no problem or words to that effect. I sincerely would like to persuade him otherwise.

I represent a rural riding that is an hour and a half to two hours outside Toronto. In the last two summers on the worst smog days of the year, the pollution capitals of southern Ontario were Peterborough, which is a small city of 60,000 to 70,000 people, and the village of Omemee, which has a couple of thousand people. Both are well outside the city of Toronto. On those days it was possible to feel the loss of lung capacity. People who went outside and exerted themselves could feel the poison in the air.

The hon. member is quite right that most of the pollution is produced in the cities, but to think that means rural people can forget about it is a mistake. The pollution rises in a plume over the cities and then spreads over the rest of the country and the rest of the world.

The member mentioned his northern riding. I can say there have been poisons found in the breast milk of Inuit women. In the same way that Peterborough is a focus for the plume of pollution from Toronto, the north is the final source of the pollution from the industrialized part of this hemisphere.

This poisoning of the atmosphere affects us all.

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from across the floor for agreeing with me that I was right, that pollution does come from the big cities. Pollution is not generated in the small northern areas to a large degree. We all have our problems. Diesel generated electricity, for instance, in some of the small northern communities creates a bit of a pollution problem, but nothing compared to what is generated in the cities.

An hour outside most major cities in my part of Canada, for example Vancouver, a person will probably be 60 miles away from the city. A person is not going to be 60 miles out of Toronto in an hour and a person would be lucky to be out of Toronto, so perhaps my analogy was not totally on, but I think it was correct.

The bottom line is the bulk of the pollution is created by the automobiles and in the big cities. To offload the cost of the Kyoto accord on the resource rich communities that create the economy in our wonderful country of Canada is not the right way to approach it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the debate on the throne speech. Right off the bat, I want to say that I have heard all the throne speeches since 1993 when I first arrived here. What I heard in 2002 was a repeat of much of what I heard in 1993 and what was missed in this throne speech from 1993 the government picked up from the 1997 throne speech and before. It is nothing new.

We continually listen to these things over and over again. They are unfulfilled promises, a pile of rhetoric with no real means of achieving what the government is attempting to achieve. I will give a few examples.

First I would like to call to the attention of all Canadians, and particularly those people who are involved in agriculture, that in this particular throne speech there was one little sentence about agriculture in Canada. Agriculture is one of the most important industries, if not the most important industry. It is certainly one of the largest employers of the Canadian people. It deserves a lot more than one little sentence.

There are difficulties for the agricultural producers, the food supply and other things are happening, but Africa was talked about quite extensively in the throne speech. We have drastic needs throughout the country. In particular, western Canada has such a severe drought. No drought has ever been recorded as being this severe, yet it was not even mentioned in the throne speech, not one little sentence.

Nobody likes to see the suffering that is going on in Africa. It just sickens me when I watch the advertisements by World Vision, Samaritan's Purse and other groups. They are doing their best and they are doing an excellent job. However what we have done is to continually look at refunding, putting in more money and doubling our efforts in terms of money.

If that was the solution the problem should have been solved a long time ago. That has been our answer to their needs for the last 100 years. We have created in those other countries very rich people and extremely poor people. The more money we put into those countries, the larger certain Swiss accounts get for certain individuals, the bigger their palaces are, the better their robes are and the more jewels they have. The rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to get poorer. It is not the answer.

It is not a deficit of the rich and the poor as the Prime Minister has stated. When are we going to recognize that the real deficit in many of those countries is there is no democracy? Democracy does not exist. We are dealing with tyrants and dictators who have no value for the human being whatsoever and our answer is to feed more money to the tyrants and dictators while the poor continually suffer.

If we would wake up and recognize the real deficit that exists in these lands is that there is no freedom, that there is no democracy, maybe we could put a little different spin on our efforts to help those who are suffering so severely. However the throne speech talked about them for all that length of time and had one little sentence about people in our own country who are losing their farms. People are committing suicide. They are going completely bankrupt and are no longer able to fulfill their mission as good farmers because of all the things they have to contend with and we do not even address it even so much as to say small things.

For example, at the end of this month if a fine is not paid by 14 farmers in Alberta they will go to jail. Why will they go to jail? They chose through the Internet to find a niche market and sell their own grain across the border in the U.S. where they received a much better price. They were trying to survive and make a living and that is against the law.

Those farmers broke the law. Thousands of other farmers in Canada are allowed to do that but in western Canada the farmers are not allowed to do that. Let me give a very sad comparison. There are three countries that do not allow farmers to sell their own produce which they work hard to produce. Communist China is one, communist North Korea is another, and dare I say, communist western Canada? I will just say western Canada because it is not that bad yet.

Western Canadian farmers are in the same category. They cannot sell their barley and wheat without the government's approval through the Canadian Wheat Board, yet it does not apply to thousands of others. Talk about an unfair situation in a free country like Canada. For Pete's sake, when are the Liberals going to wake up over there and realize they cannot treat people like that? If it is good for one farmer in one region, then it has to be good for another farmer in another region.

It seems lately the only people who recognize this are the farmers themselves. A great number of farmers from Ontario and other places worked hard to produce some hay. People did their utmost to get it to the farmers out west to help them with their problem. The government sat idly by watching them do this and then dared to step forward and take credit for what the farmers themselves were trying to do. It is disgraceful.

Regarding child poverty, in 1993 the throne speech said that by 2000, child poverty in Canada would be eliminated. That was the government's promise in the 1993 throne speech. It is now 2002 and it is as bad as it ever was, if not worse. It is empty rhetoric but the government keeps saying it because it sounds so good. Poor old John Q. Public out there who never heard the 1993 throne speech does not realize that this is going on and on and on.

Then we ask why it is not happening. We are a rich country. The revenue that is taken in by the government is huge and it is sufficient to do the job. Is it because fountains need to be put in the Prime Minister's riding rather than take care of some poverty problems in our own country? Is it because contracts are given out to hundreds of people who do not even produce a product for the job they were hired to do, and which the RCMP has to investigate because it sounds so strange? Is it because the $75 million gun registry, which is now at $1 billion, is a complete waste of money? It does not fight crime. There is another $925 million that could have gone to fight poverty.

We could make a list that would go on and on, but the Auditor General did it for us. In the last report she said to the government that she could identify $16 billion of waste that could have been used for very good purposes like eliminating child poverty, like equipping our military that has the finest men and women we could ever ask for. I have talked to lots of them in the last year, particularly at the G-8 summit where they were so involved in security. They are great people. They deserve better. Canadians deserve better.

The taxpayers of Canada deserve better than what the government has been giving them for nine years. One day the Liberals are going to wake up and realize that we are tired of the same old throne speeches promising the same old things that they never fulfill because they are filling their own egos and so obnoxious that they have to find a legacy for the Prime Minister.

Why does the Prime Minister not work for a legacy that says he was the Prime Minister that addressed the very serious problems that so many Canadians faced? He has not done it today. He has not done it in nine years. He has looked after himself and his colleagues well, and that has to come to an end. The taxpayers of Canada have to wake up. It is time for a change.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly both a privilege and a pleasure to speak in reply to last week's Speech from the Throne, which urges Canadians to work together with the federal government to build the Canada we want.

What is most inspiring to me in this visionary document is the fact that it encourages the public to get involved in the Canadian nation building process, thereby recognizing that democracy depends as much on citizen participation as on the underlying social partnerships.

As the Prime Minister indicated, maintaining public confidence does not depend so much on government accomplishments as on what we do together to make Canada stronger and create something lasting for our children.

I am very proud to be part of the Government of Canada, a government committed to ensuring that Canada keeps presenting ever more opportunities for our generation as well as for future generations.

The government presents opportunities grounded in fiscal responsibility that focus on the highest priorities of Canadians and priorities that reflect our common vision for our great country. It is a vision of Canada that fully seizes its potential to change lives and change our future for the better. It is a vision in which all citizens have equal opportunities to participate fully in the economic, social and civic life of the nation. It is a vision that reflects the core values that are at the very heart of what it means to be a Canadian.

The priorities identified in the throne speech are backed by the sound principles of sustainability, inclusiveness and responsiveness and the recognition that there needs to be a balance between passive and active measures as well as a focus on flexibility. Most important, is the commitment to partnership in identifying and building good social policy for our country.

The throne speech reinforces our belief that, with the help of our fellow citizens, we can make Canada the country with the best quality of life for all its inhabitants in the 21st century.

This does not mean, however, that we must forge ahead at all costs. The throne speech recognizes the difficult financial times we have gone through in Canada. Our government has worked very hard to put its fiscal house in order and eliminate barriers to economic prosperity.

The fact that our government is able to bring forward balanced budgets speaks volumes. Since 1993, we have balanced our budgets and reduced the debt. More than 2.5 million new jobs have been created, and the number of full time jobs has increased by 21%.

In addition, Canada will lead G-7 nations in economic growth both in 2002 and 2003. We have clearly demonstrated our ability to manage the economy.

Yet we also know the necessity of social investment that builds for the future. We recognize that governing is not about choosing between economics or people. It is a question of making the right choices in order to build a more inclusive and stronger society.

Canadians can rest assured that the comprehensive and balanced approach outlined in the Speech from the Throne is a recipe for ongoing growth and prosperity. Whatever steps Canadians decide we must take to build the Canadian society we want, we will do it in the context of affordability, focusing on essential and sustainable investments.

We know that there is no better investment than taking the necessary measures to ensure that children have the best possible start in life and that their families have the tools they need to provide them with the care they require to meet their needs.

Nothing we do could maximize the enormous potential of our country more than investing in our children. The national child benefit truly reflects the effectiveness of this approach. This program, which is the biggest social policy initiative since medicare was created, seeks to reduce child poverty and support low income families with children whose parents want and need to work.

The program puts extra money into the pockets of low income families every month to help get our children off welfare and ensure that they are healthy, safe and secure so they are able to develop to their full potential. Reflecting on our commitment to sustainability, since the program's creation, we have made significant incremental investments in the benefits moving toward the goal of taking children off welfare.

I am very proud that the 2001 national Cchild benefit progress report confirms that, for the third consecutive year, the percentage of Canadian families with children living on low income has declined. The first report of the NCB, in partnership with the provinces and territories, shows that the number of low income families with children in poverty has decreased by 16,500, and this includes 33,800 children. This decline is expected to continue.

However, because the poverty rate remains high, and we are aware of this, too many Canadian children end up with limited opportunities; we know we must do better. For this reason, the Speech from the Throne reaffirmed ours commitment to working with our partners to increase investments and help poor families escape the vicious circle of social assistance, thereby breaking the cycle of poverty and dependence.

We are committed to ensuring that Canadian children have a good start in life. This will be the objective that the government and its partners will work toward in order to provide a level playing field in terms of access to learning opportunities and quality day care services, two elements that are particularly important for poor and single parent families.

We will be implementing special measures in order to meet the needs of low income families who have to care for children with a disability, because they are among the most vulnerable members of our society.

We realize that these families face additional costs in providing care, costs that can contribute to a cycle of poverty. The Government of Canada will take steps to relieve this economic hardship by increasing income support for families caring for children with severe disabilities. We will work with our provincial and territorial partners to ensure that these benefits are passed on to low income families.

In the Canada we want, Canadians and their families should be able to care for a gravely ill family member without fear of losing their jobs or incomes. When families are caring for a gravely ill family member, their needs are particularly acute. In recognition of the stresses families face at these times, the Speech from the Throne renews and strengthens our commitment to support Canadians through compassionate care leave. We want them to be able to support a seriously ill or dying child, parent or spouse. This kind of investment represents the best of enduring Canadian values.

I am especially proud of the government's efforts to improve the life chances of aboriginal children. The throne speech sent a clear signal of our resolve to provide young aboriginal Canadians with the tools they need to take advantage of the opportunities Canada has to offer. As the fastest growing population in the country, these youngsters need the skills and knowledge to succeed in the new economy. If we help them achieve that, we will go a long way to addressing Canada's looming skills and labour supply shortages.

As the Speech from the Throne indicated, we are determined to develop a strategy to remedy the skill and manpower shortfalls that threaten our country, and to take energetic steps to prepare all young Canadians to take advantage of the opportunities our economy will offer them in the 21st century.

We are well aware that we cannot afford to exclude anyone at all at this time in Canada's history, when our greatest comparative advantage lies in our country's human capital. Canada needs the talents and creativity of each and every one of its citizens, and we must take prompt action to ensure their integration.

I am delighted with our commitment to reorient our youth employment strategy. Our plan is to target our programs more effectively and reallocate resources so as to help our young people acquire the skills the jobs of the future will require, while at the same time providing assistance to those who face the greatest barriers to employment.

Canada's youth need and deserve the best development and learning possible because we understand that in today's knowledge economy, it is people and their skills that drive innovation, increase productivity and give businesses the edge to stay ahead of their competitors.

If we wish to equip ourselves with world calibre workers who will be at the leading edge of progress on the world economic scene, we need to make Canada a country whose workers will continue to learn new things throughout their entire working lives. The economy of the 21st century will require workers to have the ability to adjust and adapt to change. Skills acquired on the job will play a vital role in this.

That is the reason that our throne speech commits to making changes to the national employment assistance programs and to working along with the various stakeholders and the public to create the skills and learning architecture Canada needs in order to equip itself with a skilled and highly specialized work force. We will report to Canadians on what is working and what is not.

The Speech from the Throne also commits us to help those Canadians who need to overcome barriers to employment. For example, we will work with the provinces to help Canadians with disabilities gain the skills and confidence and the respect and satisfaction that comes with self-reliance.

I am especially optimistic about our plans to tailor training programs so aboriginal and Inuit people can participate in economic opportunities, such as Voisey's Bay, the northern gas pipelines and other projects throughout Canada.

The economic potential unleashed by these projects will create unprecedented opportunities for aboriginal people who historically have been severely disadvantaged. Equipped with the workplace skills required, these workers will have access to a higher standard of living and quality of life that other Canadians take for granted.

It is also essential to work with our partners across the country to break down the barriers to the recognition of foreign credentials.

Many Canadians do not realize that the majority of newly arrived immigrants in Canada are highly educated and specialized, but they cannot contribute their talents because of a lack of comprehension and because we do not properly recognize the value of what they have achieved in their country of origin.

In 2001, 60% of working age immigrants at landing had a post-secondary degree, compared to about 42% of the Canadian working age population. Yet instead of taking advantage of this talent, we are wasting it. We underutilize the skills and the knowledge these immigrants bring with them, at a time when we are beginning to experience a serious shortage of skilled workers and manpower.

Governments, employers and communities each have an important role to play in helping immigrants fully achieve their potential and make a full contribution to our country's social and economic life.

In addition to foreign credential recognition, fast-tracking skilled workers entering Canada with jobs already waiting for them is also a priority, as is more aggressively selecting and recruiting the talented foreign students and skilled workers Canada will need in the years ahead.

The consistent message throughout the throne speech is that the Government of Canada recognizes its responsibility to provide security to our citizens; personal, economic and social security. It goes further, underscoring that good economic policy depends on good social policy. They are flip sides of the same coin.

If we are to count on the next generation to carry on the economic and social progress we have enjoyed in this country so far: we need to invest in children; we need to invest in youth; we need to invest in skills and learning; and we must ensure that nobody is left behind.

However, the throne speech goes further by stressing that the value of economic policies depends on the quality of social policies. These are the two sides of the same coin, so to speak.

Our future labour force, on which our sustained growth will depend, must get all the attention and support it needs, because if we do not invest now, we will not get any dividends later on. People who do not develop fully in their early years or who are confronted by obstacles that prevent them from achieving their full potential are less likely to be successful in their professional life, and this has a negative impact on their quality of life in general. In the end, it is the whole country that pays the price.

It is clearly mentioned in the throne speech that making responsible choices implies a fine balance that requires the contribution and commitment of all Canadians. It is also pointed out that all our decisions on where to invest our resources are based on the principles of sustainability, inclusion, flexibility, accountability and partnership, which are all based on dialogue.

Let us take the example of the national child benefit. We sat down with our provincial and territorial partners and set out the program's principles together. We built a platform for investment, making the incremental increases we were able to do as a country and reinforcing our commitment to sustainability.

Together we worked to help Canadians understand the direction we wanted to move in, helping them to understand the program, the platform that is there for them to utilize and for us to build upon.

We not only provide the money to our partners or invest in the services ourselves, we measure the outcomes to ensure we get results. We make every effort to make sure these investments are benefiting all citizens to the degree that we expect. Ensuring everyone has the positive outcome that we are looking for is sometimes a real challenge, which is why it is essential for us to be flexible enough to respond to the unique needs of different Canadians.

We also test the transparency and accountability of our choices. We talk to Canadians about whether we have it right, whether the time is right and if we are fiscally able to make an additional infusion of capital because, at the end of the day, it is up to each of us to decide what kind of Canada we want.

The values and principles articulated in this road map to the future reinforce the reason Canada was the chosen land for generation after generation of immigrants who came to our shores, and I am one of them, from the far-flung corners of the globe.

The vision defined in this landmark document helps us better understand why Canada will continue to provide ever greater opportunities to future generations.

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am astounded to say the least by the comments from the member for Laval West. She seems to be proud of and making a big deal about nothing. Coming from Quebec, she should be very familiar with Quebec's special needs, and those of all of the provinces. She spoke about responsibilities, but we all know that it is the provinces that have all of the responsibilities and it is the federal government that pockets the money.

Let us talk about health, education, labour, health, job security, legal assistance to name just a few. She touched on health. Does she know? I think she knows, but she did not say a word to defend Quebeckers and not one word about taxation. The federal government made a commitment to contribute 50% for health care; it contributes 14%. The math is simple. Why did she not talk about that? The Speech from the Throne contained not one word about this.

I could talk about employment insurance too, but I am being told that my time is about to run out. There is more than $40 billion that belongs to workers. As for labour, it is the provinces that are responsible.

What does she think about health care, labour, and the fact that Quebec is losing workers in droves?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his remarks. However, it is obvious that I do not agree at all with what he just said.

Absolutely, I am proud to be a Quebecker and a Canadian, particularly since I was not born a Quebecker, but became one. When the hon. member tells us that the federal government is pocketing money, it must be remembered that the federal government is not an individual. It is a group of individuals, of which my colleague is a member, since he is among those who were elected to this august House. The federal government has a responsibility toward Canadians; therefore it does not pocket anything. Rather, it takes the money collected from the public through taxes and other means, and it uses it according to the priorities that I mentioned in my speech.

When I defend the federal government, I defend all Canadians and that includes Quebeckers.

Again, I am proud to be a Canadian and a Quebecker.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to three of the issues raised by the hon. member regarding the Speech from the Throne, the first one concerning the disability tax credit really shows that the government still is not willing to commit it to the document.

We know right now that the Minister of Finance is moving, with his department, to narrow the scope for persons with disabilities to be able to claim this tax credit, literally making it from spoon to mouth in terms of being able to access this small amount of funds which are so vital for their quality of life and, more important, for their subsistence.

Does the hon. member support the narrowing definition that the minister is actually moving toward right now?

The second issue has to do with student debt and the situation of our youth who are attending university. The hon. member noted that their future was vitally important. Right now students who have had access to student loans are coming out of university with debts averaging $30,000 to $40,000. Sometimes they leave university at age 22 or 23 with one degree and often need to seek a second degree and come out at age 25 or 26. Sometimes they have to pay off that debt up to ages 35 and 40. I would like to know if the hon. member would agree to lowering that student debt and the interest payments.

The last issue has to do with persons who come to this country to contribute their education, experience and value. Would she agree to eliminating the head tax for new immigrants? That is something that is very regressive. It was introduced by the previous minister of finance. We need to make sure that new immigrants are not introduced to the Canadian culture of debt.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the terms used by the hon. member opposite, who referred to a head tax.

The fact is this is not a head tax at all. I have spoken extensively of how immigration will help us meet the needs in terms of population, since immigrants will be filling the jobs.

At present, the economic situation in Canada is such that jobs are not being filled because individuals meeting the requirements for these jobs cannot be found in the Canadian labour force. The only solution is to increase immigration, while carefully selecting newcomers to ensure they can contribute to our economy and society.

We are not talking about a head tax. We are talking about individuals who want to settle in Canada paying to have us process the application they file when they come here.

Regarding the student debt issue, I am a member of a government group that is looking very seriously at the issue of post-secondary education and the possibility of working together with ministers not only on reducing the debt load but also on alleviating the situation, so that students would not have to get into debt as much as they currently do.

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member made a fair bit of reference to social investments and the economy. Those are nice words but perhaps she could comment on how she might approach this? Increases in the level of CHST transfers are actually less than 1993 levels.

She addressed the child poverty issue with some numbers, something like 33,000. I understand the member for Wild Rose brought up the number of 1.5 million possibly in this category at this point in time. This was also something from the 1993 throne speech. It looks like the number of children who have been helped here are about 2%. Does the member really think that is acceptable after a nine year approach to this. Could she possibly look at the CHST transfers to help the provinces to deal with some of these problems?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about child poverty nothing is acceptable. It is true that we have not eradicated child poverty as we had hoped we would do. I know that all members in the House, not just those on the government side, want child poverty to be eradicated.

I gave the numbers in my speech a few minutes ago. We have managed to bring down the numbers. We have not managed to get rid of the numbers all together. What I will say is that we are working hard to bring the numbers down even more. Child poverty is very complex because we are not just talking about the poverty of children, we are talking about children being poor if their parents are poor, and very often it involes a single parent family.

We are working, not just on the children themselves but on an economic and social change in our society. This takes a long time and it takes a great deal of investment.

What I can say in answer to the member is that we are working on it. We have managed to bring down the numbers and we will continue to bring down the numbers.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most apropos thing the parliamentary secretary said was that it takes a lot of time. The government has now been in office for 10 years.

With respect to the throne speech, clearly one of the biggest disappointments was the repeated lack of commitment for the Canadian military. We know that we now have subs that will not go down and helicopters that will not go up. We saw the spectacle in Afghanistan of sending soldiers into a combat zone with uniforms that were forest green in a desert.

We know that there are battleships, frigates in the Canadian navy that will be needing refits. There was public speculation by the Minister of Defence himself about the possibility of selling off tanks.

The neglect of the Canadian military is at an all time high. We have heard from Senate report committees. We have heard from the Auditor General. We have heard from Liberal backbenchers. We know that the military from the top brass to the men and women in uniform in the trenches have all been crying out for the government to do something to address the shortcomings that are demoralizing and debilitating the Canadian armed forces.

When will the government step up and do something to protect those in the Canadian military who protect us?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly say that I am no expert on military matters. I must say, however, that I took part in a DND program. I had the honour of working alongside members of the Canadian Forces. I travelled to Bosnia with them.

I was greatly impressed by the fact that our soldiers are not there for war but for peace. My view may differ from that of many members of this House, but it is a great honour for me to know that our troops, and those who were in Bosnia with me, are people who bring peace wherever they go.

Obviously, and I have no objection, we need to provide assistance in terms of budgets, and I hope that we will do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today and join in this debate. I would like to begin my remarks by thanking my constituents of Portage--Lisgar for their ongoing support and encouragement as I represent their views here, and also thanking my family for their ongoing support, encouragement and love.

I would like to begin by stressing that I am not anti-American. At the same time I resent those, including members of the government, who choose to attack the United States for their own purposes, largely political I am afraid. What concerns me most about the direction that the government appears to be drifting in is that the process of Americanization, year by year, becomes more pervasive in every phase of Canadian life. This can only be addressed from a position of Canadian strength.

For the most part Canadians like Americans, but are also worried about them. American culture, economic and political influences so pervade our way of life that many of us have begun to wonder if our relatively small nation can retain its independence in the face of the strong pressure generated by our giant neighbour. In this love-hate relationship it is important to recognize that Canada will suffer whenever we use anti-Americanism as a cloak for our own ignorance; whenever we use American policies as a scapegoat for our own sins of omission; and whenever we blame American inventiveness and energy for what is our own lack of vision.

Contempt for articulate American patriotism goes hand in hand with a complete lack of faith in Canada. As I listened to the words in the throne speech I heard little to rekindle such faith. I heard in the words of the throne speech a superficial attempt to speak to the results of internal polls.

There are three major issues that concern me and I would like to address them today.

I want to talk about the issue of ethics. I hear the government talking about ethics. I learned a long time ago that there is a great likelihood that those who talk at length about ethics are probably not as ethical as those who simply behave in an ethical manner. I see a government that unfortunately has confused the best interests of its own party with the best interests of this country, and which seems to believe that if something works for the party's advantage it is worth pursuing.

I see a government that lacks the courage to see the longterm impacts of its decisions because it is unable to overcome the fears it has of losing popular support in the short term. I see a government more concerned with its communication of issues than with the position it takes on the issues themselves. I see a government whose leadership has become less forward looking than it is inward looking.

This concerns me and it concerns a growing number of Canadians for it is in the ethics of a government's leadership that we see the legitimacy of its leadership. I am concerned at the lack of reference to investment and defence in the throne speech, and the relationship which those investments have to our strength as a nation and our relationship with others, particularly the United States.

Coping with the fact of the United States is and always has been an essential ingredient of being a Canadian. It has formed us just as being an island has formed Britain. It is our power to persuade the United States that is of critical importance to us in the world community. It is because of our limited capacities, because of our vulnerabilities, and because of our dominant relationship to the United States that the Canadian government's most potent technique in achieving the objectives of the Canadian people is the use of influence.

We have limited abilities to use other techniques of statecraft such as force, coercion or inducement. Persuasion is perhaps the only technique we have left. In the context of international politics the art of persuading an adversary to move to a position more congenial to one's interest is known as diplomacy. However to suggest that Canadian diplomacy, which has been so much a part of our history, is not imperiled by the frailty of our current defence capabilities or lack thereof is to ignore the realities of today.

As a country we have embraced internationalism. We understand that to be an influential player in the world we need to be multilateral. We need to commit to international institutions. We need to be willing to enter into agreements with other nations. As part of that we need to be willing to enter into commitments with other nations and to use our national resources for the system as a whole. These commitments are fundamental to us fulfilling our responsibilities in the international community, and yet our defence capabilities have dropped to such a degree that they imperil our ability to fulfill those commitments.

We are, by the nature of a lack of investment and a lack of commitment by the government to our defence capabilities, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, becoming isolationists. Canadians are not isolationists; we are internationalists. We want to avoid war, we want to avoid conflict, and we seek to achieve those ends by different means than others.

We must accept the argument that peace is indivisible. We understand that the fate of any one state and the peace of the international system as a whole are interconnected, and that as a precept to internationalism we must understand we must make real commitments in the event of military activity if the Liberal government's record has not maintained Canada's contributions to its military, to peacekeeping, and to the other aspects of keeping a real defence in place. This has not been a government enthusiastic for the job as exhibited by its predecessors.

To paraphrase the remarks of one of the country's frontbenchers, the current Minister of Finance, while many others in the international community have stood at the ready, the government has hidden in the washroom. Canadians have no reason to feel as a result of this throne speech that there is a plan to position us more adequately to fulfill our international role in the future or to restore the deteriorating Canadian reputation vis-à-vis the other nations of the world. Most importantly, Canadians have no reason to feel optimistic that the government has an understanding of the need, ethically and practically, to stand strongly for a Canadian vision which will strengthen us in our relationship in the shadow of the world's greatest and only superpower.

The Canadian Alliance has a strategy, which we will pursue and advance, and which will advance Canada as a nation. It is an ethical strategy. It is a forward looking one and it is courageous. I for one would rather be attacked for such courageous strategies and ideas, and for advancing them than I would ever wish to remain, as it appears the government is content to do, popular in the absence of such strategies and in the absence of any vision.

Failing to learn from one's mistakes is a recipe for eternal frustration. The throne speech left many Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, very frustrated. For 25 years increasingly large amounts of money have been thrown at aboriginal problems raising the level of frustration incredibly high. On a per capita basis the federal government now dedicates more than eight times as much to aboriginal-specific programming as it did three decades ago. Welfare dependency and the associated problems of poor health, low levels of educational attainment, involvement in criminal activity and suicide, especially among young people, show no signs of abating. Last week's throne speech promised, unbelievably, more of the same.

This is hardly a compassionate approach. Increasing spending on failed old billion dollar band-aid approaches shows a miserable lack of genuine caring. Longterm solutions can only result if we pursue major reforms which empower aboriginal communities by empowering aboriginal people. To arrive at the answers we must ask the right questions.

The government promises more funding, for example, for the aboriginal head start program in answer to the question: How can we help poor preschool children on Indian reserves? That is a good question and it seems logical enough. However, did the government consider for a moment another question such as: What steps can we take to encourage economic development on reserves and reduce the number of poor children? The government did not ask that question and there is no indication that it has any answer for that problem.

It is similar with other promises that the throne speech makes, such as, “The government will work...to improve educational outcomes”. That is a great promise. It has been made before. However it is in answer to a question which logically enough is, “How do we improve educational outcomes?” The Liberals promised to do it. However, the question they do not ask is, “How relevant is education and skill development?”, when there are no jobs on most reserves.

All these vague and empty promises beg the question, and aboriginal Canadians are asking it, “If tens of billions of dollars have not made a dent in these problems, why should we believe the government now?” If the trends continue, we will soon be dedicating one of every 10 federal dollars to aboriginal-specific projects. Canadians would not mind that if they saw an end to this mess, but they do not, and they are starting to object. Before it gets uglier, let us cut the spin, and let us talk truthfully about the problem.

Poverty comes from joblessness. Jobs come from capital put at risk. People will not invest in an Indian reserve and they will not risk their capital because they do not expect to make a profit. If profits are not theirs to keep they will not invest. These systems of private ownership and private property do not exist on reserves. Economic climates for job creation do not happen on reserves. Most reserves are still victimized by the high levels of poverty that they have had for years.

It is important to recognize that there is a better way. We will only find that better way if we attempt to address in a real way the root causes of the problems that exist--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt. I have been very indulgent. Questions or comments. The hon. member for Souris--Moose Mountain.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for stating it so clearly because Canadians coast to coast need to hear that.

I also want the member to help me. I received a letter from friends I made in west Texas two winters ago. Obviously they watch some of the proceedings here. The letter said: “Why do the people in your government say such nasty things about us Americans? We don't dislike you. Please answer our letter”.

Could the member tell me how am I to answer that letter?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a difficult issue. There is sometimes, within all of us I suppose, an aspect of envy. For some people the way to deal with that is to lash out at those we envy. Politically, it is well known and well understood that many elections have been fought on the basis of what one is against, not what one is for. Governments like to define themselves in this country in ways that are descriptive of their anger or their lack of concurrence with American positions. This is a tactic which many Canadians see through far better than some of the so-called strategists.

We are in a situation where we are economically interdependent, perhaps more so than ever before. What that spells out to us in this political organization is the importance of strengthening our own capabilities, for example, in defence, trade and economic development, and increasing the strength of the foundation of our tax and regulatory regime in such a way that we can compete, can compete to the advantage of Canadians.

Lamenting the success of our neighbours to the south, or in the absence of any defence capabilities of our own in the real world, we attempt to make foreign policy for the Americans. With all due respect to the great debate we had here over a number of hours last week, American foreign policy is not made here, but Canadian foreign policy is.

It is time we took up the challenge of strengthening our own nation and putting it in a position where its words are amplified and magnified by that commitment we make to be real partners with our neighbours, not just making abundant rhetorical flourishes of a negative nature every time they initiate a project that is very difficult or undertake a decision which is even more difficult.

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

Mr. Speaker, during the time that I spent as Indian affairs critic a couple of years ago I had a chance to visit with hundreds of grassroots natives across the country. I spent lots of time in their homes with their impoverishment. The main cry that was coming from these people was that they wanted two things to happen more than anything else. They wanted some democracy in their own reserves and some accountability from their own chiefs.

Could the hon. member tell me what progress he feels the government is making in respect to providing a truly democratic and accountable society on our reserves?

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to pay tribute to the member for Wild Rose. Since I have assumed the position of critic for Indian affairs, I have travelled fairly extensively in the last few months. His name comes up quite frequently in my consultations as somebody who has taken more than an interest in learning about aboriginal people. He has learned firsthand about the circumstances they face, both on and off reserve. I know other members in the House have done the same and I compliment them on that.

I believe the member raises two excellent points. The issue of democracy and how we make democracy work is enormous and we could it discuss for hours. However suffice to say, I think aboriginal people are very cognizant that democracy cannot work in the absence of accountability. Nor can it work in the absence of economic freedoms. In other words, we can have a democratic system on a reserve that says everybody can vote, but if the chief and council control the welfare money and where everybody lives, then people will not be inclined to speak up much.

The system will not work in the absence of economic freedoms. That has come through time and time again. The idea that people could perhaps benefit by having some sense of owning their own house or at least having the sense that they could not be kicked out of it will lead to democratic freedoms. However imposing democratic freedoms and accountability from above never works. It has to come from below, from the real people who are governed. That is what aboriginal people would like us to pursue.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to rise in this throne speech debate. You and I have been here some time and we have seen a few throne speeches in our day. I was a little surprised to hear this one. In fact, if we just look at the title of it, it is called “The Canada we Want”.

I have been a member of the government for nine years. It seems a bit late to me for anyone to say “The Canada We Want”. If the government really wanted that Canada, surely to heaven it could have started a few years ago in the very first throne speech that we listened to as the class of 1988, and I came in right behind you in 1989, Mr. Speaker.

It is now nearly a decade later and the government is saying that this is the Canada it wants. It seems to me that the Canada we wanted back when the government came to power in 1993 should now be the Canada we have, maybe putting a few finishing touches on for the Prime Minister's flourish, for his legacy. However it seems to be a little late to admit that this will be the Canada we want.

When I think about the throne speech and the timing of it and of course we were supposed to start on September 18 but the Prime Minister bumped that forward to the 30th, everybody in the country sensed a real feeling of enthusiasm that the Queen would open Parliament. There was all kinds of bantering back and forth about whether she would or would not.

When we think about a Speech from the Throne, there really is only one throne. You are sitting on one, Mr. Speaker, but it is pretty small potatoes. Her Majesty celebrated her 50th this year, as I did on July 1st. She was to be in our country when Parliament opened but it did not happen that way.

There was talk again that it would set a precedent if she opened Parliament. She was here in 1977, and she has done it in other countries in the Commonwealth. I wonder the Prime Minister did not say “Your Majesty, we would be honoured to have you come and open our Parliament”, or whether she did not feel comfortable or think it was appropriate, even though she did it before. Maybe she heard some rumblings from this place from some pretty high profile, high powered people that maybe they were not keen on her. I say shame on them.

It is one thing to harbour ill feelings toward the Queen, and I supposed everyone is entitled to that, but it is quite another thing to be so classless as to go on a rant about it when she is in our country. We as Canadians are so horribly polite all the time. Would someone's mother not say “Zip it, she's here, honour her, celebrate her”?

When I think about people with far too high a power going on these silly rants about it, maybe we should not blame her for not being interested, or not tempted, or embarrassed to come and open Parliament. What a pity and an absolute shame that is. Maybe she did not read it. I do not know.

I am rather keen on the Queen. Her coronation was in 1952, and we both just celebrated 50 years. I have a soft spot in my heart for her. I still cannot imagine anyone being so crass as to carry on the way our Deputy Prime Minister did. He is number two in charge. It is just unbelievable. Yet we have seen her on TV and she is so classy. I am actually sad that it was not her sitting on the throne giving that speech.

The government said it is the Canada we want. It has had almost a decade. It seems to me that the desperation to have a legacy, to say “I did this”, is coming a little too close to the surface for our Prime Minister. When he was announcing his parks the other day, he said that he was not looking for a legacy. It is one thing to say it but it is another thing to try prove it by his actions. Sad to say, the Prime Minister, after nine years of inaction, seems to have taken pride in saying that he really has done nothing and that he just manages the place.

Someone asked what he liked about being Prime Minister, saying that he had tremendous influence across the country to accomplish whatever he wanted and that he could put his stamp on it.

He said he liked the job. That is cool but it is not reason enough to have that passion to say that he is Prime of Minister of the country, for what will be a decade by his term is over, while wondering what his legacy will be. It strikes me as kind of pathetic. In fact a lot of the things the government has done strike me as pathetic.

Just imagine the opportunities the Liberals have had to deal with taxes. They say they have cut them, but it has not been great. They say they care about families, but it is still an unbelievably oppressive regime, in terms of families where one of the spouses might want to stay home to raise their kids.

What about crime? I do not think Canadians feel any safer now than they did when the government took office. I do not think they feel more comfortable knowing that everything is well with them.

What about defence ? Billions of dollars have been cut out of defence and our defence has become defenceless. I will make reference later to a few little phrases in the throne speech. That is a sad thing.

I represent many people near the super base of Edmonton. My colleague from my old riding of Beaver River, who is in the Lakeland riding, represents Cold Lake, another enormous military base in Alberta. These people are feeling like the wind has been knocked right out of them. They are feeling defenceless. They will come to the charge. They will do what they can because they are committed, they believe in it, they have a passion for it and they will do everything they can do. However they have not been given the tools. They have not been given the opportunity. They have not given the manpower. They are over-extended and underpaid.

Yesterday in the House I raised the issue of the $1.5 billion which had been taken out of the funds allocated for equipment to pay the salaries of these people. Yet, time after time, we say they are standing on guard for us, and they are, to the best of their abilities, but it is falling far short.

The throne speech stated:

And the sacrifices that some of our citizens make are deeply appreciated by their country

That is true.

When men and women go to war, they understand the costs and potential costs and what might happen when they go to war. It is sad to say that many were injured. It is sadder yet to say that four did not come home. I paid tribute to those men today. I was at the ceremony just after the four young men were killed. I must say that I cannot remember being at such a moving ceremony in all my years of elected life, plus my life before that. It was very moving. We are willing to make sacrifices.

The Governor General went on to say, on behalf of the one who should have been sitting in the throne:

This kind of contribution...makes us what we are as a nation. It is a very precious life that we share as Canadians. And we must be prepared not only to praise it, but also to make sacrifices for it.

The ultimate sacrifice that those four young men paid is the highest sacrifice one could make for one's country and for one's family. Yet when it comes to valuing our military, the government waxes on about how committed it is. It will put it on paper. However we would really like to see it, and I am sure the military would like to see it, reflected in pride they would like to feel as they do their very level best.

My colleague said that three out of four F-18 fighter jets were not fit to fly at any moment. That is pretty frightening. The military wants to be able to say that it has the manpower and that it will go at it. However it needs the principal and the pay.

Think what our military is doing and what it is prepared to do. Think about the shame the government should feel. The report of the Auditor General, the think tanks of the House of Commons and Senate defence committees and, more specifically, the Conference of Defence Associations, have come out with a stinging, damning indictment of the government, a government that says that everything is under control and going really well.

We must think about what actually is going on, about the people studying behind the scenes and meeting with real military people. It is important for them to know they have a government that stands behind them, not one that says it wants another paper, another review or that it needs to consult some more. The studies that have come out one after the other are embarrassments of what the government's pathetic legacy is for Canada's military.