Debates of Oct. 8th, 2002

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has worked hard in supporting aboriginal land claims and in supporting the vision of self-government for native people in this country. I refer to Chief Joe Gosnell's comment that it took nearly three decades and $50 million to reach the historic treaty that gave the Nisga'a people self-governing status in northern British Columbia.

Today, native people, Chief Gosnell included, are very worried that in fact the minister is warning them, threatening to walk away from as many as 30 negotiating tables. My question for the minister is this: Does the government intend to undertake full negotiations with first nations and all interested parties before reintroducing a revised Indian Act?

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are at about 170 tables across the nation. Those 170 tables are not all treaty tables or self-government tables. Quite frankly, we are at about 80 tables that are in the modern-day self-government realm or, of course, there are the sectoral tables that deal with specifics as they relate to wanting to build the self-government agreements.

What I announced last January I will repeat in the House. This minister and this government are not prepared to stay at negotiating tables that make no progress. It is very politically pleasing, I suppose, for members across to be able to say we are all engaged in treaty-making when in fact with some tables we are making no more progress than we have for a number of years. The assessment we did at the tables was to see if there were no progress how we would make progress. If we could not, we would look at ways to improve our relationship from a different perspective. I think that is the way we will proceed.

[André Harvey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for his commitment to a most important challenge for the future of our country, since it concerns first nations.

In Quebec, particularly in the eastern part, on the North Shore and in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area, negotiations on what is called the “approche commune” or common approach are going on right now. These negotiations have raised many concerns, and I think that improvements should be made with regard to both communications and content.

I would like to ask the minister what steps will be taken over the next few months so we will have a better understanding of what is at stake?

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right to indicate that in all parts of the country, including in his own region, we are at negotiating tables which involve ourselves, the aboriginal people and of course, the province of Quebec in this case.

The approche commune as we refer to it is intended to negotiate a modern day governance agreement between the aboriginal people in the Lac-Saint-Jean region and ourselves.

When we are in negotiations there is always a lot of talk by people about what will happen and what will not happen. It is necessary for the governments and the aboriginal governments as well to have a communication strategy to explain exactly where we are in negotiations.

In this case with the approche commune there have been no decisions made. We are still at the agreement in principle stage with a long way to go in discussing the final agreement. It is our objective to arrive at an agreement that is fair to both native and non-native people. In the end, building a relationship in modern day treaty making and governance is intended to be a win-win for all of society. It is not intended to be a lose for the non-natives and a win for the natives, or vice versa.

We work very closely to communicate the importance of those agreements. I look forward in the weeks and months ahead to working with my colleague to see that is what happens in his region.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, had I had the opportunity to take part in the questions and comments period following the speech by the Minister of Indian Affairs, I could have asked him, after these consultations with 10,000 members of aboriginal communities and after all these fine words and wishes on what he intends to do to support these communities, what he has done with the Erasmus-Dussault royal commission's report, which contained clear, specific recommendations. They were tabled four or five years ago, and we have yet to see a sign from the government that it intends to follow up on these recommendations. The answer would probably have been that the consultation process was still going on.

The Commissioner of Official Languages used this analogy, which I do not want to claim as my own. If they used this principle in hospitals when someone who is seriously ill arrives, if they analyzed, if they consulted and took that much time, they would probably be better off calling the mortician, because they would not have time to act after finally making a diagnosis.

The same kind of thing seems to be happening with aboriginal people, unfortunately for them and for the government.

Before getting into the subject of the throne speech, I will expand on what I said during oral question period, because it appears there may have been a misunderstanding by some people. It is important to keep in mind, to underscore, what I said and to spend a few moments on this within this address in response to the Speech from the Throne. I will be splitting my time with my colleague and friend, the member for Matapédia—Matane.

Even if there is little reference to it in the throne speech, the federal government does contribute financially to some one hundred international institutions. Earlier, I gave the names of three of these, the World Tourism Organization, the High Commission for Refugees and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Year in and year out, the federal government contributes financially to these organizations.

In these three organizations, and several others I have not as yet named, one of the prerequisites for candidates is that they must have English as their mother tongue, along with a knowledge of French or another language.

In other words, although all francophones in Canada pay taxes to the federal government, and a portion of those taxes goes to these huge international institutions, whose merit we all acknowledge, they cannot apply for a job with these huge international institutions because they have the misfortune of having been born to a French-speaking mother or father.

More than seven million Canadians who pay federal taxes are denied access to jobs with these institutions.

If a satisfactory or excellent knowledge of English were required, or perfect bilingualism, trilingualism or knowledge of four languages, there would not be a problem. However, everyone not born anglophone—for it is not only French-speaking Canadians who are penalized, but all non-anglophones in this country—cannot apply to these large international institutions for jobs. Canada will, however, continue to pay its contribution, take part in major international forums and pat itself on the back.

This is a very important matter the government needs to address. It is specifically mentioned in the throne speech. On page 12, it is stated:

Linguistic duality is at the heart of our collective identity.

In this case, linguistic duality means affording equal opportunity to the English-speaking and French- speaking people of this country, everywhere. I have, however, just cited a concrete case, one that is with us every day and is very pertinent, to prove that there is no equality, no employment equity, as far as linguistic duality is concerned when it comes to employment opportunities in major international institutions.

Further on in the throne speech, the following statement is made:

The government will implement an action plan on official languages—

Allow me to comment briefly on this action plan.

The last Speech from the Throne, two years ago--in April 2001 if memory serves me well--mentioned appointing a person, an official languages coordinator. The supposed saviour in this important area came in, the minister responsible for official languages coordination, and promised us that an action plan would be presented in short order, an essential, vital and important element to ensure the vitality of minority language communities.

There were some very humble acknowledgments from the minister. He said that he was given this responsibility by the government, by the Prime Minister. However, in committee, he admitted candidly that he had no additional staff in his office to help him work on the issue and that he had not been given one cent more in term of his budget to put toward dealing with the enormous challenge. He also admitted that he had no action plan, and that he had not started work on anything, and that he had not even established a timeframe. However, he assured us that he would be presenting a plan soon.

I think that someone should do a master's thesis, or a doctoral dissertation on the definition of soon as used by the Liberal government. For two years now, the Minister of Transport has been saying soon with reference to a highway; for four years now, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been saying soon with regard to the Erasmus-Dussault report; for 14 years now, the various ministers responsible for official languages have been saying “we will soon be providing a specification to section 41 of the Official Languages Act”. So, we are justified in at least wondering what the true, etymological significance of the word soon is, when used by our friends opposite.

But we are still waiting for this action plan from the minister responsible, who does not have money, resources or people to implement it. Last year, in 2001, the minister told us that he would release his action plan. But then he backed off and said, guess what, “I need to hold more consultations”.

This is what he did. Last June, he said, “I will release the draft of my action plan, the initial version, to find out if minority communities are living under satisfactory conditions”. The minister showed up in Whitehorse and said, “I am not ready. I will release my action plan in the fall”. He arrived here in Ottawa at the beginning of the parliamentary session and told us, “I will table my action plan in October or November”. Then, surprise. The minister said, “Come to think of it, perhaps I should wait until after the budget, to find out if I will have the resources to do what I set out to do in my action plan”.

Everyone is anxiously awaiting this action plan, and expectations are high. The minister is well aware of this, which is why he keeps postponing his plan from year to year, month to month, week to week, with the result that we will have to wait longer.

Elsewhere in the throne speech, it says that the plan will be released and will focus on minority language and second language education. Reference is also made to doubling the number of high school graduates. Everyone recognizes—and the minister was told so in Bathurst, New Brunswick—that this is a provincial jurisdiction.

We have nothing against encouraging this with the provinces' consent. But stepping in and invading an exclusive provincial jurisdiction across Canada is out of the question. The minister should focus on entitlement. Fifty per cent of those entitled to French schooling do not have access to it. Why not pay closer attention to them instead of interfering in matters that concern the provinces?

Further on, it has this to say about the government, and I quote:

It will support the development of minority English- and French-speaking communities, and expand access to services in their language in areas such as health.

They say they will wait for the Romanow report. We are still waiting for a report or some form of consultation. I am still quoting from the throne speech:

It will enhance the use of our two official languages in the federal public service—

I conclude by reminding hon. members that more than 30 years after the enactment of the Official Languages Act, approximately 30% of positions designated as bilingual within the public service are held by unilingual individuals. Still today, over 30% of positions designated as bilingual are held by individuals who speak English only.

The Speech from the Throne was very well written. So was the previous one, in 2001. However, what minority communities expect is for these words to be acted on, because there is an urgent and immediate need for action. The Commissioner of Official Languages keeps repeating, as do the Bloc Quebecois and the committee, that action is urgently needed, and that a concrete plan, along with resources for its implementation, is expected.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague from Repentigny for his excellent speech, particularly as far as official languages and the francophones who are directly affected by the policies of the present government are concerned. I should perhaps say who are not affected, or who are not sufficiently supported by the present government policies.

It would have been excellent if my colleague had been the one to write the throne speech. Judging by the way he gave his speech, he would certainly have been able to add some very positive and necessary elements, including some things for our regions.

I took the time to look at the previous throne speech, not just the one of September 30, 2002. What I saw was that basically what they served up to us on September 30 was almost the mirror image of the previous one.

What does that mean? Probably that the government has not managed to put into practice what it proposed to us two years ago, particularly as far as the regions are concerned.

I can characterize the throne speech as totally remarkable, but remarkable in a negative way. It is remarkable for what it does not contain, what it omits, what it leaves out, the non-presence of large sectors of our society, the regions in particular.

This speech contains absolutely nothing about the regions, their problems, the phenomenon by which the wealth of our society is concentrated increasingly in the major centres.

I found about a dozen points on which the government could have taken action to help the regions. But the impression one gets from this throne speech is one of a greater focus on what I would call the major centres, or when infrastructure is involved, the small centres. That is one example.

I would like to start by talking about child poverty. In 1989, if memory serves, the House adopted a unanimous resolution to fight child poverty. In each and every throne speech since 1989, particularly 1993 and thereafter, the government has told us “We are going to fight child poverty so that it becomes less acute”.

According to Statistics Canada, since 1993, child poverty has remained a problem. It has somewhat diminished in some families. But about two weeks ago, Statistics Canada told us that 983,000 children were still living below the poverty line in Canada and in Quebec. In every throne speech, we hear that the government will be fighting child poverty. Child poverty exists not only in urban areas, in large cities, but also in rural communities like mine. This is especially true since cuts were made to employment insurance.

I wish to remind the House, and this is my second point, that less than 40% of all contributors are currently eligible for EI benefits. This is a very serious issue in an area like mine or in Newfoundland or throughout the maritimes. It is a serious issue because most of the work there is seasonal. For part of the year, workers need some kind of income support, which they are not getting right now. They do not have a decent living, because the government has kept on slashing EI benefits.

If the government were serious about fighting poverty and providing a decent living for families, it would have to change the EI system to ensure that people have a decent income. They could receive an income 52 weeks a year.

The other point I want to make is about protecting agriculture in the regions. We have heard about it, although the throne speech made no mention whatsoever of it. There are international negotiations under way. In the last few weeks. we have learned that the government has agreed to put supply management on the table. What would it mean for a region like mine and for all the regions in Quebec and in Canada if the government were to put this on the table and negotiate it away?

Right now, even though the situation has changed over the past 25 or 30 years, or more, farming in our regions is still a predominantly family business.

What would happen if supply management was revisited? It would mean, once again, that the regions would be more affected than large centres. It would also mean that large companies would buy agricultural productions and could concentrate them around large centres, thus deserting the regions.

It would have been a good idea in the throne speech for the government to have reaffirmed its intention to protect supply management and to protect agriculture.

There is another issue on which the throne speech is totally silent and about which the regions are very concerned. I am referring to fishing, which is a very important industry in regions such as mine, in the Maritimes and in regions such as the riding of the hon. member for Skeena, who sits on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

The federal government has really mishandled this issue since assuming responsibility for it. Once again, we are told about the possibility of a moratorium on groundfish in our regions. This means that current fishers, whose income is already insufficient, would have more problems.

This government should at least have mentioned the issue of fishing in the throne speech, because of the concerns of fishers, people in our region, and the general public. It should at least have stated its intentions regarding the future of the fishing industry, and its desire to protect our resource and support fishers in our regions.

I want to talk about the development of exporting businesses in our regions. It seems that, in all likelihood, the federal government would rather see exporting businesses develop in and around major centres.

Some businesses tried to settle in my region, including in the Gaspé, but there were so many hurdles and problems, including in the negotiations with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, that they gave up and decided to settle in large centres, because this is what they were advised to do. This is what they were told by public officials.

Before closing, I would like to touch on the issue of softwood lumber. We learned today that there will be a program of assistance for the softwood lumber industry. However, again, this program is only half of a program, because it does not help companies. It only helps, it would appear according to the information available, workers and obviously the communities involved.

I fully agree with helping workers and the communities that have been affected. I think that is right, and admirable. However, we must also support the businesses, because if they close their doors, other workers and other communities will be affected. I would have liked the Speech from the Throne to express a real desire to support businesses in our regions.

In closing, I would like to add one last comment regarding air transportation in the regions and the federal government's complete abdication when it comes to both air and rail transportation, which, as we know, is only available three days per week for passengers in my region.

To close, the Speech from the Throne really does not contain anything for regions such as mine, and we were very disappointed with it, as we were with the previous Speech from the Throne.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member for Matapédia—Matane to continue to enlighten us on what should have been included in the Speech from the Throne, in particular as it relates to the many regions, including his own, that are affected by agriculture problems, by softwood lumber problems or by demographic problems.

What would he have liked to see in the throne speech that this government has not included?

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Had I had a little more time, perhaps I would have talked about what I call the right to live in the regions.

The federal government has totally abandoned the regions, particularly with regard to transportation infrastructures, which used to be its responsibility. It has turned over ports and airports to municipalities and corporations. At this time, many of these infrastructures are in very bad shape. This approach on the part of the federal government has a negative impact on all regions.

I think that the throne speech should have contained at least one sentence saying something like: “The government recognizes the right to live in the regions. Living in the regions is not a privilege, it is a right. It is very important for the economic survival of Quebec as well as the rest of Canada that the regions be occupied, that people live there and have access to adequate services”.

As a regional journalist commented following the Speech from the Throne, “We have had it with being offered the minimum in the regions. What we want is the same quality of life, the same services available elsewhere in Canada, particularly in large urban centres”.

We are not asking for fancy shows. We are asking for the same services, for instance decent transportation services, which we no longer have. What we want is for the federal government to maintain its infrastructures, to take its responsibilities and maintain these infrastructures, so that we can live in our regions.

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

Mr. Speaker, in light of my friend's recent remarks, does he believe that if the government or any government believed that strong regions or strong provinces would eventually create a much stronger unit, a much stronger country, we would all be much better off?

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell my hon. colleague that, at present, the federal government has withdrawn completely from the regions. This is particularly true in my region, and I know it is also true in his.

This government has withdrawn from just about every program. The economic development programs currently available are totally inadequate.

In terms of economic development, to expect us to meet the same criteria in St. John's, Newfoundland, or in my region as in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal, is totally unacceptable. We do not have the same economic structure in our regions. It is completely different from that of Toronto or Montreal. Yet, the same criteria are applied. It makes no sense.

The regions are said not to have projects, but that is a fallacy. There are thousands of projects, but they cannot qualify because of the different economic structure and the criteria that are applied. Should the government decide to take action, I do wish for my hon. colleague's sake that it will make for a better country.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Niagara Centre.

The Speech from the Throne was, in essence, a speech on social justice which is the kind of thing that motivated me to get into public office in the first place.

I will begin by talking about the issue of health. I was quite pleased to see in the Speech from the Throne that health care is being given prominence and that the government intends to move quickly after the Romanow report. However I want to underline a few things.

First, it is important that the government ensures that universal access to health care continues to be the case and, in fact, improves the system as we speak today. We cannot afford not to afford a universal health care system.

The other thing I want to point out is the issue of privatization. I do not support and never will support any form of privatization in the health care system. In fact, I believe we have gone a little bit too far in some areas as we speak. If we look at other countries, such as the U.K., Italy or others where privatization has been allowed, private clinics begin to have all the equipment because they are for profit and general hospitals end up doing less and getting less and less money. People are being encouraged to go to the private clinics if they want better health care. A two tier health care system in this country is not acceptable. Privatization has already crept into our system.

Accountability is another issue that is extremely important. We must demand that accountability is put back into our system. In the health care agreement of September 2000, the Government of Canada transferred $1 billion to the provinces for diagnostic equipment. Not all of that money was used for that purpose. In many cases it was used for things like mattresses, pressure cookers and other things. In Ontario some of the money went to other things and a lot of the money went to the private sector. One company in Ontario is registered in the stock exchange. Ontario just recently announced the opening of 20 new private clinics.

As we saw, the House leader of the Canadian Alliance was quite happy to pay $775 to get ahead of other people in line. However that does not shorten the line. It just allows people with money to get ahead of everybody else. Quite frankly, it is time that kind of thing stopped. It is absolutely appalling what is going on in the country with the Alliance encouragement and support.

The Canada health and social transfer does not work because there is no accountability built into that program and it must be changed. We used to have the Canada assistance plan which had some accountability, and I think it is time we brought that back.

I would like to go on to the issue of children and families. Child poverty in a country such as Canada is not acceptable. We cannot continue to tolerate it. I am glad to see in the Speech from the Throne that the government intends to increase the child benefit plan. Currently, with the work of MPs, including myself, we have $2,500 in income support for low income families for the first child and $2,200 for every child thereafter by 2004. That needs to be increased and I support that wholeheartedly.

Early learning and quality child care are also extremely important. We all know that the development of the brain starts from the time the child is in the womb, but certainly from the moment the child is born the development is very rapid. Without proper stimulation, care and early learning, the development of a child from zero to six years does not happen properly. Many children do not have the proper start in life. This is very important.

Many other countries in the world have already brought early learning down to two or three years olds in full time care. Quality child care is essential to eradicate poverty in our society.

When we look at the issue of affordable housing, that again goes to the eradication of poverty. Without child care and affordable housing we cannot really address poverty in our society. It is time we looked at universal access to child care and not piecemeal approaches to the issues of early learning and quality care.

The targeted measures for low income families caring for severely disabled children to meet the needs of the child and family is an extremely important part of the Speech from the Throne, and I am very pleased to see that.

The throne speech also talks about cities and infrastructure. The cities in our society need to be financed in a sustainable way for the long term. I am glad the government is prepared to finance infrastructure for a 10 year program and that it is making a commitment to affordable housing.

Transportation and public transit are two important issues but I would like to see some discussions being held on a long term, sustainable financing arrangement between the Government of Canada, the provinces and the cities. This is fundamental to the survival of the cities and the programs they offer people.

We have been dealing with the issue of terrorism. We have had speeches recently from the President of the United States with respect to Iraq and our soldiers have been in Afghanistan. Development, however, is the only way that I believe we can in fact eradicate terrorism in the long term. We cannot address terrorism unless we eradicate poverty in the world.

If we look at some countries in Africa, thus far AIDS has killed more people than all of the wars put together, the first world war, the second world war and the Korean war.

Assisting countries in the world and making them stronger is important. The assumption sometimes is that they are all corrupt and therefore why waste the money. Yes, there is corruption and weaknesses in governments. In Africa many countries are moving toward democracy. Some of them are weak but, nonetheless, they are moving in that direction and we must be there to work with them. It is not an issue of charity. It is an issue of partnership. We must give them the kind of assistance and support they need to ensure they can take their people out of poverty.

If we had not abandoned Afghanistan to the rule of the warlords I do not think the al-Qaeda would have been able to do what it did with that country. I commend the government for doubling the funding for development and for going in that direction. It is extremely important that we continue to commit ourselves to equity in our world because we cannot continue to ignore the suffering, poverty and desperation that some people in our small global planet live in. That is not acceptable.

I am glad to see that finally we will be able to begin to address the issue of credentials of foreign workers. We talk in the House a great deal about the brain drain but we never talk about the brain waste. We bring thousands of immigrants into Canada, and so we should, but we bring in people with skills, university degrees and with extremely high levels of education and training who cannot get their credentials recognized.

We have a shortage of doctors and yet we have hundreds of doctors in Ontario who cannot practise medicine, even though they have passed the exams in Ontario, because they cannot get internship space. It is appalling when we have people in parts of the country who do not have access to proper medical care and assistance.

I wholeheartedly support the ratification of the Kyoto accord. Climate change and the environment is not a minor issue. It goes to our health care and to the very core of who we are as a society on the planet. We cannot afford to lose the future of the country.

There are people who say that Kyoto will denigrate or destroy our economy. We used to say those things when welfare was brought in. We said that it would destroy small businesses. When we brought in other measures to minimize pollution in the past again we said that it would kill business. The reality is that if we are innovative, inventive and if we truly want to do this, we can create jobs and be ahead of the game by selling technology and innovation from Canada. Other countries are beginning to do it and we must be ahead of the game if we truly want to succeed in what we are doing.

I therefore wholeheartedly support the ratification of Kyoto and encourage the government not to back off on that one.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was practically left breathless by the amount of stuff that the member covered, from Kyoto to credentials of workers coming into the country and so on, but there is one point that I want to talk about.

I believe she raised the issue of the House leader of the Canadian Alliance and the fact that he had to access private medicare in an emergency because the public medicare system failed him completely. He needed emergency surgery and fortunately was in a position to access private medicare. Without that he perhaps could have lost his leg or even worse. Who can tell?

The point is that the public medicare system is in need of radical reform. Accountability has to be brought in to ensure that medicare is there to serve all Canadians when they need it. When it fails Canadians, be it the House leader of the Canadian Alliance, or any other Canadian for that matter, that is when the government should stand up and acknowledge that there are serious problems with health care rather than glossing over that and denigrating people who have to access private health care by virtue of the fact that the public health care system is not there for them.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is easy to talk about losing a leg and how this was an emergency but that is why we have an emergency department. Is it not wonderful that we have hospitals with emergency services?

I went through three difficult years with my mother, who passed away last year. I was in and out of the emergency department a great deal. She was treated well and we received service. Yes, there are problems, there is a shortage of funding and, yes, I will say that I noticed a great deal of stress on some of the staff, especially the nurses. The system does need reforms but it does not need privatization.

What the member is saying is that when people with money have an emergency they can go to a private clinic and be served. It was $775 but maybe next year it will be $1,000 or $2,000. It is for profit, after all. It is there to make money. Let us face it, it is not about health care, it is about profits. That is why we have a health care system.

He could have easily gone to the emergency room at the hospital where he eventually ended up because he had to have surgery. He would have been treated properly, just like anyone else who goes to emergency. It is quite evident that they prefer to have a private for profit, pay as you go system because those who have money would be able to go to the head of the line. If there are 10 people who have $1,000 each and another 10 who do not, guess who gets to go first to get this kind of treatment? It will not be the ones who do not have the $1,000.

The health care system in this country is a pure gem. If we were to talk to the American people, we would discover that they and other people around the world envy us. Health care is not totally broken. We must make some reforms and we must bring in some accountability measures but we must at all costs maintain a universal health care system in this country.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to hear the government say that the system is a pure gem when the government has routinely underfunded the system and basically put the whole health care system into the position where people are so desperate they will go to these private options. Twenty private clinics were created in Toronto because people are so desperate from the lack of support they receive that they are willing to do this.

I would like to ask a simple question concerning municipal funding for infrastructure for 10 years. Will the cities be gone in 10 years? Why does the throne speech only identify 10 years of sustainable funding when we know they have been underfunded for the last dozen years?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, on the issue of diagnostic equipment, it is not necessary to open up 20 clinics in the private sector because the money that was transferred from the Government of Canada should have gone to hospitals. I can tell everyone that the hospital in my riding, the Toronto East General Hospital, has been waiting for 10 years for an MRI. The people who go to the hospital cannot access an MRI because the government chose to give up that money to the private clinics. With all due respect, I do not accept that argument.

Second, I said quite clearly in my statement that while I commend the government for the 10 year commitment, I believe that we must start negotiating and looking at long term sustainable financial assistance for the municipalities. I believe we must start looking at municipalities and the kinds of services they provide to make sure they are properly financed.

[Tony Tirabassi, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is very important that from time to time the government issue a statement of intent as to its priorities as part of an accountability exercise between itself and the people of Canada. A throne speech should also be seen as a road map for everyone to review to ensure that we as a government are on course, arriving at the same goals set for all Canadians.

Today I rise in response to the message that the government delivered to the people of Canada, and more particularly the constituents of my riding of Niagara Centre.

It has been almost two years since all of us in this great place were elected or re-elected to serve our constituents in this vast land. In that time, we have assembled here on numerous occasions to debate and to vote on various issues. Although we have had, and I am certain that we will continue to have our differences, the one thing that I am certain we can all agree upon is that presenting oneself as a member of Parliament is indeed a privilege and that in the area of public service there is no higher calling in this land. The decisions we make not only impact on our local ridings and regions but also help to shape the national landscape. Therefore, I am grateful to once again return to the House for this, the second session of the 37th Parliament.

As I make my way around the parliamentary precinct, speaking with other members and their staff, Hill personnel and security, and I mention that I from the Niagara area, it seems to automatically conjure up images of open space, green fields, orchards filled with fruit trees, vineyards and wineries, tourist attractions and bed and breakfast retreats. It almost seems to create the image that in Niagara life is good and without issues, almost the utopian part of our country. Although to some extent that may be true, in many ways Niagara, and in particular my riding, is not without its share of difficulties, its setbacks and its challenges.

What used to be large manufacturing giants in the steel, pulp and paper industries at one time have now been reduced in size. Increased competition, globalization, automation, the just in time inventory and reducing the need to stockpile have all led to the downsizing mirroring similar transitions that have taken place in the rest of Canada. The riding of Niagara Centre is home to one of the man-made marvels of the world, and that is the Welland ship canal.

The St. Lawrence Seaway authority describes the Welland Canal as a vital artery bypassing Niagara Falls, connecting the major industrial areas of the North American heartland and providing a valuable link with the world's trading nations. It generates an economic impact of $222 million each year in the Niagara region and is considered one of the biggest employers in the region. Thus far in 2002, 1,330 marine vessels have passed through its 8 locks.

I would now like to speak about the two post-secondary institutions that are located in my riding. Assisting and preparing for the new technology environment are Brock University and the Niagara College of Applied Arts and Technology. Employers, in partnership with the federal government, are working hand in hand with post-secondary institutions to ensure that graduates are well prepared with practical training that will more readily benefit both the company and the future employee.

I was happy to hear the subject of skills, learning and research mentioned in the Speech from the Throne and to know that the government will continue to increase its funding to granting councils offering students more support for graduate studies.

I was also pleased to hear that this government will continue to work with universities on the indirect costs of research and on strategies for its commercialization. As an example, this program has resulted in a $1.4 million grant to Brock University for a research chair for plant biochemistry and biotechnology, under the Canadan Foundation for Innovation, to define the most appropriate times to harvest the grapes for the making of wine. In the words of Brock University president, Dr. David Atkinson, “This is wonderful news for Brock University. This support from the Government of Canada will play an important role in strengthening the university's position as a major research centre and ensuring that Brock faculty researchers and students continue to achieve the highest levels of research excellence”.

Niagara College on the other hand received an $800,000 grant from the CFI to help establish its centre for advanced visualization which features one of only three virtual reality labs in Ontario.

These are also very challenging times for the municipalities in my riding. From the city of St. Catharines which I share with the member for St. Catharines, to the cities of Welland and Thorold or the town of Pelham, provincial downloading of responsibility and dwindling resources are taking a toll on the member communities of Niagara Centre. However as a result of the Canada-Ontario infrastructure program, my riding has benefited from this federal initiative which leverages federal money in partnership with provincial-municipal funds to help, as an example, to improve the quality of drinking water or the treatment of waste water.

This program also qualifies those submissions which deal with sports, culture and tourism opportunities. In terms of short term planning, this program has proven to be very successful. However, as we know, municipalities need to plan for the long term in order that they may continue to be dynamic cities and communities. Therefore I was again pleased to hear in the throne speech that the government will put in place a 10 year program for infrastructure to accommodate long term strategic initiatives, essential to competitiveness and sustainable growth.

Equally, I was pleased to learn that the government has stated its intention to extend the supporting communities partnership initiatives, or SCPI. I doubt that there is a municipality that does not have a homelessness issue. This is therefore an initiative that will provide support to every riding with this most serious issue.

When we speak of issues affecting every municipality and indeed every individual, there is no more important issue than health care. It is the one area, the one service, that all of us at one time or another will require. Hopefully most of us will require less. Even if it is in our final days or hours on this planet, we will require health care.

This summer I took some time to visit my constituents in their neighbourhoods, at their front doors, because I felt it was necessary to hear directly from them and to listen and to understand what was on their minds. Sure enough, and I am certain that this comes as no surprise, the one issue that was repeatedly mentioned was health care.

In my hometown of Thorold we are fortunate to have as one of our citizens a dedicated registered nurse and a mother, Mrs. Kim Stasiak. Mrs. Stasiak chairs the Niagara Health Coalition, which is a citizens for health care group whose membership consists of local labour unions and community organizations such as the Council of Women and the Council of Canadians. This group is supportive of the course of action that the government has taken by the creation of the Romanow commission. The Niagara Health Coalition forwarded some 10,000 signatures to Mr. Romanow. Mrs. Stasiak stated in an e-mail to me:

I have a lot of hope for Mr. Romanow. He listened sincerely...he responded warmly and asked questions appropriately. I would like to thank the Prime Minister and the minister (of health) at the time of its conception.

Again, I was happy to find reference to health care in the throne speech. We are all anxiously awaiting the release of Mr. Romanow's final report expected later this fall. While Canadians support the fundamental principles, we agree that our health care system will require change. The throne speech commits to the convening of a first ministers meeting early in 2003 to put in a plan that will include the necessary changes in which the federal government will establish the federal long term investments that will be required and include those dollars in the next budget speech.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the throne speech should be viewed as a road map laying out the path and outlining the priorities of the government on behalf of Canada. Although I am certain that there will always be those who felt it should have included this or perhaps it failed to mention that, overall, based on what the people in my riding of Niagara Centre feel are the issues of the day, and based on what I have heard presented and debated in the House during the past 20 or so months, I believe that the throne speech achieved the goal that it set out to achieve.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the government prepares the prepared text for the backbenchers, who get up and praise government, how much detail does it give to the members in relation to the topics they talk about?

The member just talked about the investment in health care. Would he tell us if the government will be looking at the discrepancies which exist in the country? If he was around last night, he would have heard me talk about the problems being faced right now in our province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Doctors are on strike, mainly because there is not enough money to pay them competitively with doctors in Atlantic Canada, not to say the rest of the country.

We get the bulk of our health care funding through the CHST formula, which means on a per capita basis. Every other province has either a stable or an increasing population. Newfoundland has a rapidly declining population. This means fewer dollars compared to everybody else to maintain the same plan. Not only that, the people who are leaving are the young and healthy. Those left behind require greater expenditure. We get fewer dollars, have greater expenditures and a big, rough geographic area to service.

Will the government address discrepancies such as this as it moves ahead with its health care plans?

[Tony Tirabassi, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his comments and concerns. I must say that previous to this summer, the furthest east I had travelled in Canada was Montreal. I made it a point this summer to take 10 days to visit the eastern provinces.

The member refers to the problem of the shortage of doctors in Newfoundland. For a different reason, we have those same issues in my area of the province. Doctors are retiring but they are not being replaced. Believe it or not, one of our most successful initiatives has been with local municipalities. They have been taking on doctor recruitment teams.

Do I feel comfortable that it has been left up to the municipalities with their dwindling resources to undertake this exercise? Absolutely not. Do I think that there should be more assistance from the province? Absolutely. Do I think that the federal government should play more of a role? Absolutely.

As I mentioned in my speech, we are looking forward to the Romanow Commission's report, which has widespread support in my area of the riding. We want to look at what the commission has to say about the scarcity of professional medical resources such as nurses and doctors. Hopefully, subsequent to the release of that report, a first ministers meeting will be convened to take that report and implement some of the changes that are needed.

We stand in the House of Commons and speak to Canadians about changes to health care, and there will have to be changes. However, I caution that with changes come a price and one way or another we will have to be prepared to pay for those changes.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Bras D'Or—Cape Breton, NS]

Mr. Speaker, to continue on with the health care theme, I think we all recognize the investment that was made in September 2000 by the government, in particular, the envelope of money that was made available for the acquisition of major medical equipment. I know it certainly had an impact across the country. We have seen the number of MRIs grow from around 52 to 106.

I know that my home constituency of Bras d'Or--Cape Breton is in the process of obtaining an MRI in our regional health facility. As well, we have been able to acquire digital X-ray equipment in some of the rural hospitals. We have had great success with that. Again, it reduces the lineups.

My question for the member is this. Does he believe that there is merit in the strategy outlined by the Prime Minister that we wait for the Romanow commission and then meet with the first ministers?

[Tony Tirabassi, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to think that when we see the results of the Romanow commission there will definitely be some merit in what was proposed by the Prime Minister.

There is one thing I would like to see improved. We talk about the procurement of specialized equipment like MRIs. In the province of Ontario we transfer money through CHST and through tax points. There is a gap in accountability between the federal government transferring the money and how the province accounts for it.

I hope that in the future we can get better accountability between the federal government and the provincial government so that when we transfer money we will know that those moneys are going exactly to address the particular areas they were designed to address. I hope this will also be addressed in the first ministers' conference when it is convened.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville. That is one of those Saskatchewan ridings and a very good one I might add.

I am here to respond to the Speech from the Throne, as are all the members who are speaking today. Being the official opposition defence critic, I will talk about the military. If I were to talk only about what was in the throne speech about the military, I would have to sit down right now. There was one sentence, and it did not say much. It was a motherhood statement. That was in the written text.

The Governor General did make a few comments which I thought were important and which were added in, on the efforts of our soldiers and the marvellous service of our army, navy and air force in the area of Afghanistan. But that was it. There was nothing concrete at all about the military in the throne speech. That omission tells an awful lot about the government, as did a report presented by the Conference of Defence Associations and the Auditor General's report on one aspect of military spending.

After the Conference of Defence Associations made its presentation today I responded to it. Eric Sorensen, a reporter for the CBC, asked some tough questions about defence funding. They were very interesting questions. He did not back off. He asked me if I were the Minister of Defence would I spend more money on health care or on the military? My response was that it was a bogus question.

First of all, the Canadian Alliance identified in the past more than $7 billion of low priority or completely wasted spending by the government every year. That is money spent on political friends for projects that are not productive and other types of programs. The taxpayers' association identified about $11 billion in low priority and wasted spending.

However there is something even more fundamental than that which has to be said. Defence and other security spending is different from any other spending in the government budget. It is different for at least two reasons.

First, it is the first responsibility of the government, above all else, to provide security for the nation, to protect the sovereignty of the nation, and to ensure that the citizens of the country are safe and secure. The government has forgotten that with its lack of effort over the last nine years and the way it has allowed our military to deteriorate.

There is something else as well which has to be considered. We have members talking about more money going to health care and other important social programs. We have the government with all of these ideas that were thrown out in the throne speech, and granted we do not know what they really mean, but it looks like an awful lot of spinning. Liberal members must ask themselves how will they raise the money for these programs.

I would like the members opposite in particular to think about how that can happen because Canadians are starting to recognize this. If it were not for our military and other security provided in the country, I would argue that our economy would not be able to operate in a way which would produce the money that funds all these social programs. Without a strong, capable military, and without the other security spending, there would be so much unrest in our country that our economy would not function in a way that would allow us to maintain our status as a wealthy nation. That is something that the government has forgotten. It has not been talked about by the government and I have come to the realization that it does not understand that.

That was the first question from Eric Sorensen. The second question he asked me was: if the government refuses to put substantially more money into defence then how would I reallocate resources?

If we look at the military, there is no area that we could tear out and throw away and still maintain an effective military. There is no large, substantial area we could cut out of our defence budget and not put our overall military at risk of collapse, even more than it is. Those are the facts. There is no area we can cut out.

However, there are ways that money could be better spent. That is the case for any department. It is the case in the defence department as well. The Auditor General did a good job of pointing out one of those areas. The Auditor General put out a report today on NATO flying training in Canada. It is in chapter 4 of her report. This NATO flying training program was intended to provide training to Canadian and international military student pilots to fly helicopters, F-18s and various other types of planes that our military has and that other NATO allies have.

This untendered $2.8 million contract was given to Bombardier by the government. We talked about that at the time. The government tried to justify it, but it was unjustifiable. It was a sole source contract, untendered, given to its political friend, Bombardier. That is bad enough, and it is unacceptable. The government should answer to that.

We find out today from the Auditor General that only 41% of the training that was paid for by Canada was used. That means 59% of the pilot training that was paid for by the government went unused, and yet the payments still had to be made. That is $65 million, according to the Auditor General, in the first two years of operation which were completely wasted.

The contract was set up so there was no requirement to perform or deliver. That is the government. I do not blame the military for that. I blame the government and its political process through Public Works, a process that it uses all too often to award contracts to political friends and does not require those friends to deliver. That is exactly what happened here. We can see that there are areas where the money must be better spent, though there are no areas that can be completely cut out.

Mr. Sorenson went on to ask: If the government will not spend more money on the military, then what would I do? My response, and the only response, was “I would elect a new government”, because that is the only thing we can do.

The government has refused to provide adequate funding to the military. We all know that. Various groups have made that point clear. Many Liberal backbenchers have made the same point, to the extent that the House of Commons committee has asked for a 40% to 50% increase in the military budget.

Approximately $5 billion to $6 billion a year must be added to the base budget three years from now. That is a lot of money added to the budget, but that is what the Liberal dominated House of Commons committee came up with. That is what the Canadian Alliance has proposed for some time, that we increase spending on our military, with $2 billion immediately added to the base budget, and move it toward the NATO average. Yet the government has not responded to that.

The government has been dishonest in the way it has presented spending on the military. I want to refer to the Conference of Defence Associations and what it says in its report. It is absolutely right. These are things that our party has pointed out before. Of the $1.2 billion that the government talks about that it spent for security, it talks about it all the time and the defence minister in his answer says that, only $510 million was assigned to supporting Canada's military. So the real number is $510 million, and some $200 million of that was to fund the war in Afghanistan.

The government often says that it allocated $5.1 billion to defence since 1999. This is the Conference of Defence Associations saying this. What the government did not say, according to the Conference of Defence Associations, is that much of this amount has been assigned either to non-military objectives or to the services and operations deficit. Only $750 million has gone to military use over the past five years.

Canadians deserve honesty in reporting what spending actually has gone to the military. The government has not provided that and it should do that as a bare minimum to show some respect to Canadians.

There is virtually nothing in the throne speech. One motherhood statement on defence is not enough. We need $2 billion in the next budget and then let us talk about what we want our military to be. It is going to take more money in the future.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was following attentively the comments made by our colleague from the Alliance Party. He said the first job of a nation is to defend itself.

Let us be reasonable. Canada is a huge country, the second largest land mass in the world. Our population is 31 million maximum. How does the member suggest that we defend this huge land militarily? We could draft every other person and I do not think there would be enough soldiers in the country to defend Canada's land mass.

As my colleague mentioned, the only enemy we have is nature. The country from coast to coast is about 5,500 kilometres and north to south it is about 4,800 kilometres. How much money can we pour into the system to defend this land mass which is impossible to defend?

If the member has suggestions besides saying increase the money, throw the money to the military, perhaps he could make them so people could hear how he proposes to defend the land mass.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the way the member asked the question, I would ask him what he wants to do. Does he want to give Canada away? Does he want to give the whole north away? Is that what he wants to do? Is the member saying that somehow we should not try to defend our nation? Is that what he is saying?

The way to defend the sovereignty of the nation is first to build a military that can make substantial contributions to our allies, our NATO allies or Norad allies and the United States. We should work with them but have a military that can stand on its own and provide units as needed to make a substantial contribution. That is the way to protect the sovereignty of our nation.

Then we work with our ally the United States in defending our country. We do not do it by allowing our military to collapse as the government is doing. The member's question demonstrates the thinking of the government. It is saying that it simply cannot spend the money needed to defend this country.

This is how bad it is. We had to beg the Americans. We had to hire large planes from the Americans for a strategic airlift to move our men and their equipment to the ice storms in Quebec and eastern Ontario and to the floods in Manitoba. Even within Canada we have to depend on our allies to get our men and their equipment to where they are needed.

What type of security is that providing to the citizens of Canada? It is unacceptable. Canadians more and more as they understand the situation are saying that it is not good enough. The government should provide more.

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that my colleague just brought out the lack of heavy lift capability and the inability to even move our troops around Canada for domestic purposes. The other issue of course is with our peacekeeping role internationally. The lack of heavy lift makes it very difficult for us to get over there without hitchhiking a ride from our American neighbours. Would the member comment on that?

Further, the government cancelled the EH-101 contract leaving our forces with the rather old and embarrassing Sea Kings. They are now 40 years old and have very poor performance yet the Prime Minister has $100 million to make sure his new aircraft is state of the art. Does that not put our servicemen as well as Canada's security and infrastructure at risk?

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. By cancelling the EH-101 contract and not replacing the Sea Kings, the Prime Minister has put our men and women in danger.

On more occasions than not the Sea Kings are not capable of fulfilling their missions. That means the frigates they are on are put in danger because they cannot fulfill their missions. I had a nephew who flew the Sea Kings until he got married and had children. Then he thought it was a risk he really did not want to take anymore.

It is completely unfair of the government not to provide the equipment needed to allow our men and women to do their dangerous jobs as safely as they possibly can.

In terms of strategic airlift, the defence minister just committed on behalf of Canada, or at least he has indicated he is going to, to a NATO rapid reaction force of about 20,000. It is a good idea. We should be committing to do that. There is no doubt we will have to buy strategic airlift and C-17s are probably what we will have to buy. If we make this commitment to NATO we had better be able to deliver because with the rapid response requirement, there will be no welshing on our promise under this circumstance.

Then we will have the planes for the earthquake in B.C. which is going to happen sometime, and it could be in 200 years, it could be next year. The people in that area deserve to know that should that happen at least we can get our military people in there to help deal with the disaster and the mess that follows a situation like that. At least then we would have the ability to get our troops and their equipment to the next ice storm as needed.