Debates of Oct. 8th, 2002

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin for his wonderful comments and presentation.

He spoke about the throne speech and the future of health care, the health of the economy, the health of society, Kyoto, and urban and rural relationships. He also mentioned that he would be very proud to run on the Liberal record since 1993.

However he forgot to mention the record. I would like to ask the hon. member to give us the record of the Liberal government since 1993 of which he is so proud that he wants to run again.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have enough time to describe all the things we have accomplished since 1993 so I will summarize.

I sense a degree of confidence in my constituency, which I know my colleagues on both sides have seen, although the other side might have a harder time acknowledging it, about the future of the country that was not felt leading up to the election of 1993.

When we went into that election we knew that people were in despair. The OECD was suggesting that Canada was a basket case. The Wall Street Journal had some reports that Canada was a third world country when it came to its fiscal framework.

Because we have been able to manage the books, we have made major investments in health, and there is more to come. We have revitalized the Canada pension plan. We do not hear seniors or people of any age asking whether the Canada pension plan will be there when they retire. We can tell them, yes, it will be because we have taken the initiative to put the Canada pension plan on stable footing.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry but the hon. member's time is up. I am sure there will be ample opportunities to continue this conversation either with the gentleman from Acadie--Bathurst or Brampton another time. Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about the throne speech and the important initiatives that are contained therein.

My constituents in Waterloo--Wellington are pleased with the general thrust of the throne speech and understand, as do most Canadians, that it is a good blueprint for future endeavours and for projects that we as a government will be undertaking in the future.

The portfolio of the Solicitor General covers a broad range of programs and initiatives. Our mandate is to protect Canadians and to help maintain a peaceful and safe society. It is dealing with the root causes of crime such as poverty or taking measures to deal with substance abuse. Underpinning all of our efforts is a proactive approach, not a reactive approach, and one that seeks to address problems before they are before us.

I would like to speak to four key areas from the Speech from the Throne and their relation to the work of the portfolio of the Solicitor General. These areas relate to: community crime prevention, our national drug strategy, first nations governance, and national and continental security.

Building healthy communities is an element of the Speech from the Throne and public safety is an essential ingredient to a healthy community. I would go so far as to say that it is a bedrock without which it is impossible to have a healthy community. To promote strong and safe communities we are working with the Department of Justice on the national crime prevention strategy and other things. The strategy seeks to remove personal, social and economic factors that lead some individuals to engage in criminal acts or to become victims of crime.

Since its launch in 1998, the strategy has supported more than 2,200 projects, improving the quality of life in over 600 communities across the country. As we launch projects, the strategy will continue to help those who may be most at risk, for example, children, youth, aboriginal people, women, people with disabilities, homeless people and ethnocultural groups.

In communities across Canada, public safety is being undermined by substance abuse. In the Speech from the Throne, the government pledged to renew our national drug strategy to address addiction and promote public safety. The speech set a direction for progressive measures to deal with this multi-billion dollar problem. Substance abuse is a health problem, a public safety problem, and an economic problem. It can only be overcome by taking a comprehensive, balanced approach through prevention, treatment, harm reduction and enforcement. The portfolio of the Solicitor General of Canada supports a drug strategy in all four areas.

Fundamentally, a proactive approach is a cornerstone of any successful substance abuse strategy. To that end, we are looking at innovative ways to strengthen the role of police in prevention and harm reduction. We are offering treatment programs to more than half of the offenders in federal correctional facilities. For example, about 10% of offenders are severely addicted. A high intensity substance abuse program has been developed and is now being tested to treat this group. These are a couple of examples of the many programs that are available to beat the problem of substance abuse, something that is horrific to many people.

More research needs to be undertaken. We need to know how to fine tune our strategy and to determine if we are using the best possible tools. We will continue to support the work of the House of Commons special committee as it reviews Canada's drug strategy and to pursue a balanced approach to combating this serious public health safety issue.

Taking charge of our future is a basic theme in the Speech from the Throne. This applies more aptly to first nations than perhaps any other group. The first nations policing program provides unique and distinctive police services that are professional, community-centred and culturally appropriate to the first nations communities that they serve. We will continue to support first nations police services which are essential to the safety and stability of our aboriginal communities.

Public safety and security is a basic underpinning of a healthy community, and the first nations policing program supports the government's aboriginal agenda by working with those communities to build their capacity for economic and social development and to reduce aboriginal incarceration rates.

The events of September 11 have altered the environment in which we live and in which we operate. Last fall the government moved quickly to develop and implement its anti-terrorism plan, including new legislation and substantial funding. This plan is measured, focused and in balance. It provides authorities with the tools they need to deter, identify, disable, prosecute, convict and punish terrorist groups. It has created a road map to govern our actions over the next five years. We are in the process of putting these measures into action. The government has allocated almost $10 billion to national security over the past two years.

The Speech from the Throne highlighted the importance of agreements such as the smart border declaration, a 30-point action plan to enhance border security and improve the flow of people and commerce across the Canada-U.S. border.

We are working closely with our allies to ensure the safety and security of all Canadians. The portfolio of the Solicitor General is active in a number of law enforcement and security measures under this declaration, perhaps the most significant cooperative security initiative ever undertaken by Canada and the United States.

The Canada-United States cross-border crime forum, a key component of the smart border action plan, exemplifies how two countries can and should co-operate against cross-border crime, terrorism and other emerging threats to our common security and safety.

Other initiatives such as the expanded deployment of integrated border enforcement teams along the entire Canada-U.S. border and the enhancement of our intelligence capabilities by the creation of integrated national security enforcement teams in major urban centres will improve our capacity to respond to threats to the well-being of our nations.

We are equally committed to conducting more counterterrorism training exercises to test our response plans and to further enhance our joint response capabilities. Our next joint exercise is scheduled for May 2003. The portfolio of the Solicitor General is doing its part to help achieve the Canada we want.

I appreciate having the time to explain in broad terms how we have been contributing to building this foundation. It is important to know that our communities are safe and secure and that the government is assisting in that important endeavour to ensure that Canadians feel good about who we are and what we represent.

I know firsthand that constituents in my riding feel strongly that the throne speech has gone a long way to ensuring that this is the case. They know, as do most Canadians, that we are now in a position where Canada can flourish strongly and will continue to do so in the future. The throne speech laid the groundwork to ensure that happens. Canadians recognize that and are appreciative of that. It is our mandate as a government to ensure that carries on in a manner consistent with the great values of this country, and that we will continue to do.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was good to hear the hon. member talk about the national crime prevention strategy because it is important for community capacity building. Perhaps with more investment and with more crime prevention in the agenda this will prohibit and stop situations like Groupaction and other scandals that we have seen over the last year.

Congestion and backups continue to be problematic at the border in Windsor West. This is a violation of NAFTA whereby goods and services are supposed to flow on both sides on an equal basis. The local Chamber of Commerce has noted that Americans are not staffing their border at the capacity they should to allow vehicles to go through, especially with security measures having been increased. In fact, a task force was set up by the government and one of the things it noted is the specific capacity with regard to staffing on the American side. They are actually back to 1992 levels.

Would the parliamentary secretary agree that we should have a written agreement with the United States to enforce NAFTA or go to dispute resolution to ensure that the border is staffed correctly so that goods and services trade equally on both sides of the border?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we do know is this. There is an enormous amount of trade that takes place between Canada and the United States as a result of the free trade agreement. The Windsor-Detroit corridor is an important conduit for that trade. It is arguably the most important one across the country.

What we have done, through the good offices of the Deputy Prime Minister in dealing with his counterpart in the United States, Mr. Ridge and others, and certainly the Minister for International Trade, is put in place the kinds of things that are necessary to continue to facilitate that trade.

Canadians, wherever they live, understand that trade is a lifeblood and a lifeline to both economies. We benefit greatly as a result. Therefore, any of the measures that are being talked about, and any of the things that can enhance and help us in ensuring that trade is done in an efficient way, consistent with good economic principles and other things, is important.

We as a government will continue to ensure that takes place because our economy depends on it. We recognize that it is in our best interests in a number of ways to ensure that is the case.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member reminded us that his government spent $10 billion on security. He told us a few moments ago that he is very proud of that.

Does the hon. member really consider Canadians to be more secure? What about job security? What about families in the coastal communities that are suffering as a result of the softwood lumber crisis? What happened to their security? What about the almost two million Canadians who are either homeless or one step away from being on the streets because they cannot afford the high rents or because the rental vacancy rate is zero, or because housing is so dilapidated? What about the security of those Canadians? What about Canadians who lost income or are working at minimum wage and finding it harder to get through the month and put food on the table? What about the security of those Canadians?

It is curious that the hon. member did not mention that kind of security. He is proud that we have billions of dollars going into security agencies and protection at the borders, yet when it comes to security issues that affect Canadians on an everyday basis his government has contributed to the--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. In the time remaining there is approximately one minute left for a response from the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech did talk about the security and safety of all Canadians, including the homeless, children at risk, aboriginal people who require help, including people in all regions of Canada who are in need of government assistance.

The benefit of the government and being part of a Liberal government is to look at all aspects of these problems and ensure that we come out with a balanced approach. The NDP never wants to do that. It does not understand the word balance. It does not understand the word equilibrium. It only understands some loony left wing approach to things that are in this area. However what we do as a government, consistent with the values of the country, is maintain a balanced approach for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Vancouver East.

It is a pleasure to speak on the throne speech today, especially after the comments we just heard in the House that the NDP is on the left and does not want to balance and find the middle of anything.

I would rather be on the left all the way through than be like the Liberals who were on the left for 45 days before the election and on the right for the rest of the four years. Normally that is what they do. For the first 45 days before the election they were totally on the left because they needed the vote of the little people. Then right after the election they forget about them and they are on the right. They have a hard time to even meet them. That is the definition of a Liberal for me.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

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

Well you should sit down and listen to what I have to say.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I do not want to take away any enthusiasm or even animation from the House but let us ensure we make our interventions through the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, you should tell them to stay here to enjoy what I have to say.

First, let us look at this Speech from the Throne the Liberals are so proud of. They claim it is solid. It is so solid that it has not changed in nine years.

The Speech from the Throne is so fascinating that, last time the Prime Minister made his speech on it, approximately 100 Liberal members did not even show up in the House in support.

Over 100 Liberals did not even show up in the House of Commons to listen to the Prime Minister when he spoke about the throne speech. He did not even have the support of his own people. He has 15 months to do everything he did not do in 10 years. In the spring of 1993, he was against free trade, he was against the GST and he was against all the changes to unemployment insurance that the Conservative Party was making. But in 1993, right after the election, like I said, he switched to the right and then kept the GST and free trade and made cuts to unemployment insurance.

These are the exact same promises he had made when in opposition. It is a disgrace to entitle a throne speech “The Canada We Want”. A better title for it would have been “The Canada We Lost”. The Canada we want, we had it, but lost it under the Liberals' watch these past nine years.

The throne speech was about the Canada we want. What happened to the Canada we had? We lost it.

In 15 months, this will all be back. We have an employment system that no longer allows workers to qualify. More than 800,000 people do not qualify for employment insurance, yet the government claims to want to help children and families out of poverty . Jobs were lost in high tech firms. There are also problems in the fisheries, forestry and agriculture industries. Yet the government claims to want to help the poor. Let us not forget, however, that the cuts, the surpluses and the balancing of the budget have all been done on the backs of the poor. That is what this government has done.

It claims to want to protect health. We have lost our health system. The government has lost control over the system. The House leader of the Canadian Alliance went to the trouble of getting an MRI done in the private sector in Quebec, because it could not have been done under the plan we have here in Canada.

What is the government doing? Absolutely nothing, except to say, “We are waiting for the Romanow report”. There are laws in this country and the Liberals should enforce them. They do not need to wait for the Romanow report. They should get their act together and enforce the legislation. This should not be permitted. The day that we have to pay for a private health care system in our country, we will be stuck with it and it will be like the American system. At this point, we have lost everything as far as the softwood lumber issue is concerned, because of the Americans. This is what is happening to us. If we look at the infrastructure, how can the Liberals be proud to say ,“Yes, we created jobs, but in certain regions”?

Let us take a look at an area like mine, Acadie—Bathurst. The unemployment rate is still at 20%. This is an area where people have seasonal jobs. It is not easy for them. There is a need for infrastructure. We need highways that will help us attract companies and develop our area's economy. Our people are hard workers. One simply has to tour Ontario to see how many people come from the Atlantic region. People from the Atlantic region are hard workers, even though some would have us believe that they are a bunch of lazy people who do not want to work.

It is shameful to see a throne speech that is a rehash. The Leader of the New Democratic Party told the media, “This is recycling”. It is only that. It is the same old stuff.

Mr. Speaker, it is as if you were to fix dinner and then served leftovers the next day. It would not be so bad. However, when the stuff is nine years old, it begins to stink. And this is what we have here: nine year old stuff and absolutely nothing for ordinary people and nothing to create jobs in our regions. There is absolutely nothing in the throne speech for those who are fighting for these people.

As for transfers to the provinces, people who are on welfare cannot survive. They do not even have a a roof over their heads. These people are forced to live on $485 a month. Try to imagine living on $485 a month or, in the case of a single person, on $265 a month.

Now the Prime Minister is saying that he wants to end poverty. He has his work cut out for him, and he will have to make transfers to the provinces to help these poor people. He should ensure that these people have a roof over their heads.

In the Speech from the Throne, the government talks of:

--helping children and families out of poverty.

Some people on employment insurance received overpayments. What did the government do starting July 1? It started charging interest. For example, there is a woman in my riding who has to pay $120 every month. This amount was deducted from her employment insurance benefits to pay back the overpayment. The government is charging this woman $100 in interest every month on the overpayment. Twenty dollars a month goes toward her debt to the government, a debt which totals $20,000. She will never be able to pay back that amount.

Let us talk about the debt that the government has put on the shoulders of our youth. Young people leave university with $40,000 in debts. The government says, “It is not our jurisdiction, it comes under provincial jurisdiction”.

The federal government loves to bandy about the expression provincial jurisdiction when it suits its purposes. However, young people now have to deal with the CIBC and end up with a staggering debt, these days.

A young woman came to see me to say, “I finished my studies and now I owe $50,000. From the time I finished my studies to the moment I managed to get a job, I was unable to pay the bank. As a result, my file was passed on to a collection agency. I am a young woman with a bad record with the collection agency. I want to start my life; I want to buy a car; I want to buy a house, and I do not have the credit rating I need to do so”.

That is what the federal government has done to our young people, and it is shameful to see the members opposite stand and tell us that this is the best Speech from the Throne ever. “The Canada We Want”; it should read “The Canada We Lost” instead. And it will not be this government that will bring it back.

Yes, I am proud to be a member of the NDP because if I am on the left I will be on the left from the beginning until the end of the next election, not halfway or 45 days before and nothing after. When we go to the people to ask for votes, we are surely not telling them that we are going to put them in debt. We say what the Liberals say too: “Vote for me and I will work for you”. However, the Liberals are not doing that. They should speak to those youths. They should speak to those people who are sick and cannot enter the hospital like they could if we had a good program. We have lost everything under the Liberals today.

Canadians are paying taxes that cannot be believed. The Liberals know that and they said they would get rid of them but did not do it. We can look at what the Liberals have done with free trade. We are losing all our jobs. We have all the people in the softwood lumber industry losing jobs.

I do not know how government members can be proud of what they have done. I would not be proud if I were in their place. I hope that Canadians wake up, too, and send them where they belong after the next election, which is surely not in power.

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

Mr. Speaker, over the couple of years that I have been here I have listened to the member quite often. One thing we can all say about him is that he speaks from the heart and is extremely concerned about the area which he represents. In totality it is not entirely unlike the area which I represent. He has seasonal employment. It is certainly not considered one of the richest regions in the country.

One of the peeves I have about the throne speech is that there is absolutely no mention made of investing in our young people. If we are ever going to get away from the poverty cycle, we are not going to do it by adjusting the child tax credit and giving families an extra $10 or $20 a month. That is not going to do it. We can do it by investing in our youth. I would like to ask the member if he agrees with that, with government investment in our youth so that they can obtain a proper post-secondary education, one they can afford. Right now, if they do not live near a university or in a university town or if their parents are not wealthy, chances are they may not get a post-secondary education. They cannot afford it.

If we invest in our youth, down the road we avoid the unemployment cycle. We avoid the heavy health care costs. We get great returns by investing up front. I would like to ask the member what he would think of an idea such as that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for St. John's West. I know that he understands what I am talking about. I have visited Newfoundland many times. If we look at the geographic part of it and at what is happening there and what is happening at home, it is the same thing. They are living in an area where there is seasonal work.

If we want to bring the economy up and be part of this world of all those jobs and everything, we have to educate our youth. There is only one way to do it and I am not the only one saying it. The government has said many times that the right investment has to be in the youth, the future of our country. How do we invest by putting them in debt? I think that is totally wrong.

It is wrong when a man or a woman who goes to university leaves with $50,000 in debt. If the man meets a woman who went to university or if a woman meets a man who went to university, they have another $50,000 of debt which totals $100,000 of debt. If they get together and buy a house, they have $200,000 of debt and they do not even have a child yet. If each of them has to work at different places, they need two cars and then they are about $240,000 in debt. They are our youth and that is not acceptable.

That is not investing in our youth. It is wrong. That is where we have to give them a break if we believe in our youth. They are our children and we are not looking after them. We are looking after big corporations and that is all. A manager of a company, a president of a company that makes $10 million a year, that is what the government is looking out for. It is not looking in the right place: the youth of our country, our children.

[The Deputy Speaker]

A brief question from the hon. member for Peterborough.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what my colleague had to say. He and I have been on the same committee for a number of years.

I do understand it is the role of the opposition to oppose. I really admire people who do that effectively and fairly. In terms of opportunities for education, in which I know the hon. member is passionately interested, I realize, as does every member here, that the Government of Canada had to take $42 billion out of the system. I believe we had to do that, but I know other people believe we did not. We had to do it and we did it in as fair a way as we could.

Since then, in my view, in the area of post-secondary education, the colleges, universities and programs like that--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. Has the member for Peterborough concluded his intervention?

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, could I--

[The Deputy Speaker]

No. Time is short. We have five minutes for questions and comments. I said we had time for a brief question. The question or the comment has been made. I now turn to the member for Acadie--Bathurst to wrap it up.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just cannot see how the member across, for whom I have lots of respect, could say that the government did a good job when our children are more in debt than they have ever been. The government has transferred the debt to CIBC. Now it has changed the law and they cannot get out of that debt for 10 years where before it was two years.

How could anyone say the government did a good job? It is shameful to say the government did a good job because it did not do a good job. It put the debt on our children. This is wrong because they are the future of our country.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share time with the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst and pick up the debate where he left off. I want to express my outrage too that the member for Peterborough would dare to suggest that somehow students are better off today than they were 10 years ago. If we look at any report from StatsCan, from the Canadian Association of University Teachers, or from the Canadian Federation of Students, all the factual information tells us that students are worse off today in terms of a higher debt load and higher tuition because of the massive retreat of public funding in post-secondary education.

One of the questions I wanted to raise in my response to the throne speech, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to do this, was to point out how the throne speech was presented to us. We heard a Liberal member across the way say over and over again that it was a solid speech. That kind of solid speech reminds me of Jell-O; it is nice to look at but eventually it just turns to mush.

I come from British Columbia where people are really hurting because of the massive cutbacks by Gordon Campbell and his provincial Liberal government in health care, in education, in child care, in social assistance payments. The people in my riding were looking to the throne speech and yes, they were looking for something solid. They were looking for some clear statements from the government, for example, that it would uphold the Canada Health Act and stop the privatization that is happening in British Columbia and elsewhere across the country.

People were looking to the government for some solid statements that there would be some standards to ensure there would be accessibility for students who want to go into post-secondary education. We do not want to see more reports out of StatsCan that tell us the chances of a low income young person or even a middle income young person getting into university are now much decreased because they simply cannot afford to pay the tuition which has gone up 136% in the last 10 years.

People in my riding of Vancouver East were looking to see some solid commitments on the housing front. I read the press release “Time to start building new housing” from the National Housing and Homelessness Network which has done a tremendous amount of work on this issue. It said in response to the throne speech:

We can start building the housing and providing the services tomorrow, if the federal government would only make the commitment today.

What we saw by way of commitment was just more promises that the federal government would deal with the housing issue. The reality is the $680 million over five years that was earmarked last November does not even come close to the 1% campaign that many groups and the NDP have endorsed which would produce what is actually needed, which is about 20,000 new units per year. That figure comes from CMHC. It tells us that we need new units in those kinds of numbers to deal with making housing prices affordable in this country.

The throne speech was a huge disappointment to the millions of people who were looking for leadership and a real commitment to deliver these promises that we have seen recycled so many times.

I also want to raise the promises that were made around the child tax benefit. One of the concerns I have in the throne speech is that the government is using language that talks about the cycle of poverty and dependency. It leaves the impression that people on welfare and single moms and their kids need to be motivated off social assistance. The reality is that the child tax benefit the government is so proud of does not go to the poorest of the poor. It does not go to families on social assistance. Therefore when we talk about dependency, it is a dependency that is created by public policy. It is a failure of public policy.

I would like to ask a question of the government, in particular the HRDC minister, who was quoted in the press as saying that the government would increase the child tax benefit. I would like to know whether or not the government is finally going to acknowledge that when it created this program it did it with a fatal flaw which was to deny the poorest families in Canada access to the child tax benefit by clawing it back. That is something we absolutely have to see change.

The Canadian Council on Social Development pointed out that the resolution which came from the House of Commons in 1989 by the then leader of the NDP, Ed Broadbent, said that we would eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. In actual fact what has happened between 1984 and 1999 is that the wealth of the top 20% of families rose by 43% and the net wealth of a median couple fell slightly, but the median income of the bottom 20% of earners fell by 51%.

I ask government members, is this any measure of success? It is a measure of failure.

I also want to spend a few minutes talking about the so-called promises in the throne speech to our urban centres, Canadian cities. About 80% of Canadians live in the urban environment. In fact, the throne speech said that there would be a 10-year commitment to an infrastructure program.

It has to be said that we have had enough of these on again, off again infrastructure programs. We need a permanent program that defines a new relationship with Canadian municipalities. It is outrageous that $4.6 billion is collected in gas taxes from municipalities and only $400 million of that goes back into transportation. Virtually none of it goes into public transit.

The throne speech said nothing about developing a new relationship with cities. It said nothing about some of the proposals put forward by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. It said nothing about creating a standing committee on urban affairs. There are committees on every other conceivable topic, but when it comes to something that affects 80% of the population, there is no indication the government is getting the message. The throne speech was a failure on that score as well.

The FCM even put forward proposals to reduce greenhouse gases by 40 megatonnes. This would meet 20% of Canada's commitment on Kyoto. Here we have a very concrete proposal on a hugely important issue to all of us. What is the response from the federal government? We have no idea of what the government's plan is to implement Kyoto. In fact, the NDP has been pressing this in our caucus repeatedly over the last five, years asking where the government's plan is to meet Canada's commitments on Kyoto.

I will end my comments by coming back to post-secondary education. When we look at the throne speech, we see there was nothing in there that actually delivered a promise or a commitment to students who are really hurting. They are still in a big black hole. There is still unfair discrimination against students who are facing the 10-year bankruptcy law that is hanging around their necks. Even though a recent federal task force said that this bankruptcy law is very unfair, there has been no response from the government.

There is still no sign of any sort of coherent public policy based on accessibility for post-secondary education and based on a publicly administered system. As a result of the federal government withdrawing public funding we are seeing an increase in privatization. This is something we should be very worried about. We have had a very long tradition of publicly administered post-secondary education which is now in danger of being jeopardized as a result of the irresponsibility shown by the government.

I will close by saying that these are issues that we in the NDP will continue to press. We will continue to raise them with the government. We do believe in balance. We do not think it is balanced for the government to say it is fair to hand out $100 billion in tax cuts that benefit huge corporations and wealthy people, when the people at the bottom end up with nothing. That is the real proof of what is going on with the government's record. That is what the NDP will stand up against and hold the government to account for.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of her speech I believe the member continued from where I left off for lack of time. She put her finger on it. She mentioned tuition fees and the extraordinary costs, which her colleague had been describing, the increasing costs at colleges and universities. They have been extraordinary, but that is provincial jurisdiction and my remarks were addressed to the federal role.

As I mentioned, we were faced with the horrifying fact that the country was borrowing $42 billion a year. If we accepted that, my colleagues and I, as members of Parliament, had to do something about it so we took that out of the system.

Since then with respect to higher education, we have increased the CHST, the transfers to the provinces, much faster than we have increased the funding of federal programs.

Nevertheless, and my remark was about us having done a good job, we have put money into the millennium scholarships, 95% of which goes directly against student loans. We have increased and improved the Canada student loan program, although I know it is still a loan program. We are funding 2,000 research chairs to help the universities with their funding problems. The Canada Foundation for Innovation directly provides research infrastructure to colleges and universities. The granting councils, which help the universities as well as they can through research, have also had their funds increased faster than other federal government programs have.

My previous remark was that in this area of provincial jurisdiction where, I agree, there have been horrifying decreases in access, the federal government has gone out of its way within the limits of its jurisdiction to improve or alleviate the situation. That was the point of my earlier remark.

I would like to ask this member a question on the same point. Given the fact that the provinces control this area, what other measures would she have the federal government do, without interfering with the provincial jurisdiction, to see to it that these students get better access?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Peterborough for the question. I know that he has long been interested in post-secondary education, but I think where we differ significantly is that the $42 billion he refers to which had to be taken away was taken away on the backs of students. It was taken away on the backs of the lowest-income people in the country. The fact is, the government had a choice. It had a choice about creating a fair taxation system which would have ensured that all social safety nets still existed. Right now they barely exist.

We are facing the lowest level of federal funding in post-secondary education in 30 years. Tuition has gone up about 130% in the last 10 years while inflation has gone up only 20%. One cannot escape these facts, because they show what has happened to post-secondary education as a result of the federal government moving away from its responsibility.

Yes, I agree that the delivery of education, like health care, is a provincial responsibility, but it has to be based on some sort of national sense of purpose about what it is that we believe is accessible to young people in this country. When that does not exist, and it does not, then we begin to see the reality that is emerging today, that is, enrolment in post-secondary education by young people with low and moderate incomes is declining because they simply cannot afford the tuition. They cannot afford a 100%-plus increase. This is what we have seen in B.C. in recent months.

This could have been averted if the federal government had taken a strong position on creating some national standards based on accessibility. The member and I are well aware of this because it has come up at the committee that we were part of. There were choices and the government chose to make choices that took away these programs for people and basically lined the pockets of corporations, businesses and wealthy Canadians that had a lot of lining there already.