Debates of Oct. 9th, 2002

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I certainly expected to cover a variety of topics from Kyoto to marijuana.

I have not had the opportunity to read the report produced by the Senate, nor have I read the report that is being produced by other colleagues. Having said that, I am also from Missouri on the point of decriminalization and/or legalization of marijuana.

I am not overly persuaded that the gains of decriminalization will actually translate into a lesser criminal activity. It may well be argued that what will actually happen is that low level marijuana will be decriminalized but those involved in organized crime will actually increase the potency of marijuana thereby creating a greater addictive effect.

Decriminalization might or might not be part of the answer. I would like to see the reports and the evidence before I come down firmly on that point.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member actually gave a sincere presentation in the House with regard to Kyoto and at least thought it out in terms of the pros and cons.

Before I get to my question, I did note that three times during his presentation he noted that we would be trading with the Russian mafia. With all due respect, I was wondering why the Russian mafia was brought up three times and whether that was where we were moving in terms of trading partners.

I want to specifically address his points on Kyoto. He noted that there would be negotiations with regard to green credits and exporting that to the U.S. Who will the Prime Minister negotiate that with seeing that the agreement itself does not call for that? He has told the international community and has put his word on the line that he will sign the agreement. How will he then be able to come back to this country and say that there might be this clause for green credits? How does he reconcile that?

How does the hon. member stand with regard to the agreement? Will the Prime Minister turn his back on the promise he made to the international community or will he introduce new rules that we make up in Canada? If that is the case, does every country get to make up new rules?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, on the issue of the Russian mafia, the way the treaty works is that there was a freeze date, which I think is 1990. The happy circumstance for Russia was that its economy and its industries had collapsed. For the purposes of Kyoto, it has a huge number of credits to sell, which will be a valuable market commodity. We have seen what happens to valuable market commodities in Russia. If people want oil, they go see this person. If they want diamonds, they go see that person, et cetera. Hence my three references to the Russian mafia.

As to green credits, the member raised an interesting point. I believe he was referring to the issue of exporting clean fuels and trying to obtain credits for that. As I said in my speech, there is an enormous gap between 96 and 165. That is a lot of megatonnes to make up if in fact the Prime Minister's argument does not work.

In some respects we should get behind the Prime Minister and try to get those credits, yet at the same time it does seem to be a bit of a disingenuous argument.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon. member who has a degree in law, who is a lawyer and who must give a lot of people a lot of advice, which I hope is good advice in most cases. If any group of people or any business asked that gentleman what he thought about going into this venture, I am sure the first thing he would ask is “Exactly how do you plan to do it?”

Is it a wise idea to ratify something without a plan on how it will be implemented? It sounds very strange to me that someone would want to do that.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, as a practising lawyer I had one rule and one rule only: Never give away free advice. I will speak to the hon. member afterward.

He raises a good point, which is where is the plan. I say to the hon. member that even if the Prime Minister tabled the plan in Parliament today, it would be highly suspect and for the reasons that I went into.

Necessarily the economic assumptions and variables are very suspect. It is very difficult to predict what the economy will be doing next year, let alone alone 5, 10 or 15 years out.

I have a lot of sympathy with the government in its difficulties in arriving at a plan, arriving at an economic modelling and arriving at an environmental modelling. Even the environmental sciences are changing as we speak. If we were debating this six months ago, we would be talking about straight line graphs on environmental degradation. We are now talking about exponential graphs on environmental degradation.

I have a lot of sympathy with the government trying to wrestle, not only its own head around these issues but also other jurisdictions that have to be brought onside. I am little more sympathetic to the position that the government finds itself in than possibly the member on the other side.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Surrey Central.

I am pleased to reply to the Speech from the Throne and represent all the constituents of Saanich--Gulf Islands.

Let us remember why we have a Speech from the Throne. It is because Canada is a constitutional monarchy, one with a proud and democratic tradition of elected representation.

I remain a strong supporter of Her Majesty and her successors. In becoming a member of Parliament I swore an oath of allegiance to the crown. I take that oath seriously. I support the monarchy as a strong and positive part of our heritage binding us together as one people. Our constitutional monarchy has changed over the centuries. It holds relevance and value to everyday Canadians to this day.

The Minister of Finance's behaviour during Her Majesty's visit has been a complete disgrace. Such blatant republicanism from a minister of the crown is reprehensible at the best of times and during a visit from our Queen, it is beyond reproach.

The apology for his insult came five days too late and was both evasive and insincere. Canada loves Her Majesty but it is her office we stand for, not just her person. The finance minister could not support the woman and could not support the throne.

There is an awful lot not to like in the throne speech but I will keep my comments limited due to the constraints of time.

I will begin with Kyoto. I listened to the member for Scarborough East who raised significant concerns all through his speech. I hope that those concerns will be enough that he cannot support it and he can convince his colleagues not to as well.

Throughout the throne speech the government promised to ensure a clean water supply and to protect Canada's abundance of potable water but I question its commitment to the promise. The United Nations estimates that by 2015, 40% of the world's population will have an inadequate supply of drinking water.

As the world's largest source of drinking water, Canada must be a careful steward. It is estimated it could cost anywhere from $27 billion to $30 billion over the next 10 years to ensure a safe and sustainable supply of drinking water in Canada. Unfortunately the government is also committed to signing the ill-considered Kyoto accord.

Unlike water quality issues, there is considerable scientific uncertainty about the Kyoto accord and whether it would have any effect on preventing global warming. The costs of Kyoto are estimated anywhere from $40 billion and up and up to 450,000 jobs could be lost. For a fraction of $40 billion, we could do a lot of environmental good.

We could ensure Canada's long term needs for drinkable water. We could be investing in alternative fuel sources and cleaning up harmful particulates in our air and water. Instead the government wants to score cheap political points through grandiose schemes like Kyoto, which might suit the Prime Minister's legacy but do nothing for Canadians and next to nothing for the environment.

A strong environmental policy is only possible with a strong fiscal climate. Kyoto will damage our industry but not rescue our environment. It is the worst of both worlds. Working Canadians simply cannot afford to lose $40 billion in such a pointless exercise. Kyoto will spend money needed to solve real environmental problems with real environmental solutions like water quality and air pollutants.

The member for Scarborough East talked about the Russian mafia, buying tax credits and how there is no plan. He raised a lot of concerns and I agree with those concerns.

If we asked people whether they wanted us to clean up the air, I am sure every member in the House and virtually every Canadian would raise their hand. We must do that but the Kyoto accord is not the way. I would argue there is a much better way. We should be looking at legislation, which is being completely ignored, to protect things like our potable water.

Another issue which is very important is the softwood lumber dispute and trade. The throne speech says the following:

We are better positioned than at any time in the last three decades to seize the opportunities of the global economy and to weather a short term slowing of growth experienced by Canada's major trading partners.

Really. Our biggest trading partner is the United States with 85% of our trade, something like $1.5 billion a day. Frankly, we have been anything but successful in competing with it. Throughout the 1990s the productivity gap between Canada and the United States has widened to 19%. In 2001 Canada was only 81% as productive as the United States, down 5% since the government took office.

This productivity gap has caused a decline in our dollar and an overall reduction in our standard of living compared to that of our friends south of us. In 1965 real per capita income was equal to our American friends; now we are 40% behind. We have a Canadian peso thanks to the government.

U.S. lumber tariffs are costing Canada over $2 billion annually. My home province of British Columbia has been hit hardest. The government's response has been to give up on our forestry workers.

We should be helping our forestry workers get through these tough times. As we pursue our cases at NAFTA and the WTO, we should be providing forestry companies with loan guarantees. We should be standing behind them just as we stood behind Bombardier and the aerospace industry when it was facing unfair trade practices with Embraer in Brazil.

When the major part of the problem is out on the other side of the country in British Columbia, where is our government? It is not there. Instead it has come up with a plan but I think it is the wrong plan. Yes, it will help some and there will be some retraining. It is like what we saw with the collapse of the fisheries on the east coast. The government spent $3 billion paying fishermen to sit at home and wait for the fish to come back instead of looking at the real problem. Again, with the forestry workers the government is trying to offer a retraining package and juggle some money that is already in some departments, put it back in and say people will be taken out of the forestry industry.

Canada can compete. We have some of the best people in the world. We have the talent. We have the resources. We just need government to get off its backside and create an economic climate and provide the legislation. We need a government that will go to the wall.

We need a Prime Minister that does not sour our relationships with the Americans at every turn in the road so that we do not lose the favoured trading status with our American friends. Unfortunately, we have a Prime Minister who prefers to poke a stick in the eye of the President of the United States of America every chance he gets.

I want to mention something very important about the military. The military has served our country so proudly and admirably, but guess what? It is missing from the throne speech. Regarding the state of our military, the Auditor General has been warning the government for years that our military infrastructure is close to collapse.

Our forces fly around in 40-year-old helicopters simply because the government refuses to admit, not that it made a mistake but that for pure political reasons it cancelled the contract. The helicopters needed to be replaced. It was the right thing to do at the time. Now the contract has been split, the political masters are interfering on how this procurement should happen and it is turning out to be a disaster again.

The 443 Helicopter Squadron is based in my riding in Sydney. These good men and women put their lives on the line for our country. They deserve our support.

The Canadian Alliance would commit to an immediate increase of $15 billion to $20 billion over the next 10 years to address the Canadian Forces structural and personel deficits. The leader of our party has made this point very clear. The Canadian Alliance cares about the lives of our troops and we care about the longevity of the Canadian Forces.

In conclusion, I would like to offer Canadians a different vision than the one that was set out in the throne speech.

Canadians are looking for practical solutions to the challenges we face, including: lowering our taxes, not just talking about it or claiming that is the case when there is no real tax reduction on our paycheques; looking at the debt; government waste, which is a huge problem; promoting economic growth and jobs; reforming health care; protecting our sovereignty; and strengthening our families. These are the values Canadians are looking for. Sadly, our government has failed them in the throne speech.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member throughout his dissertation mentioned the United States trading practices and what has been happening lately. Other than softwood lumber, there is the dumping of steel into the United States. There are ongoing Wheat Board issues. There are border staff issues with regard to the supply of appropriate people to move the traffic through our communities and to trade expeditiously. As well there is the racial profiling of Canadians who actually have their citizenship in our country and are practising in different professions in the United States.

There are massive subsidies in the United States. It is competing and taking auto jobs from Canada by dumping millions of dollars and taking the factories out of our communities. Softwood tariffs, as the hon. member has noted, are up to 27%, and a number of companies have moved causing a loss of jobs in our communities.

What specific actions would the hon. member take to improve the U.S. trade relations with Canada so that these actions would not happen?

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, again I emphasize that 86% of our trade, $1.5 billion a day, causes our economy to be directly dependent on the United States. I would start by creating a good relationship with the U.S. administration, unlike what we see today. Many people out there who are experts in this matter have said that our Prime Minister is the absolute worst at Canada-U.S. relations. It is something we have to work on.

When there are unfair trade practices as was mentioned regarding some of the agricultural issues, softwood lumber and the steel file, and there are a lot of them, we need people who will go down to Washington and fight for Canadians to make sure that we are successful. Unfortunately it all stems back to the relationship our Prime Minister has or has not developed with the U.S. administration. It goes back to the election of the current U.S. administration when the Prime Minister's own nephew was cheering publicly for the Democrats. It goes on and on from there.

When the Prime Minister pokes a stick in the eye of the U.S. administration, one would ask why should it give us the time of day. The United States has other countries it can trade with. It has an excellent relationship that it is developing with Mexico. Unless we work at the relationship, unless we fight hard for Canadians but also develop that relationship, there could be a very serious, long term economic impact on the country and it will all rest squarely on the shoulders of the Prime Minister.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows that in my riding we have the most modern shipyard there is in Canada. That shipyard built the frigates for our navy. The shipyard has sat idle now for over two years. The men that all worked there, and almost 4,000 people were working there, are now on welfare and their hearts are broken. The government is stating that it wants to purchase or rent ships from another country.

Does the hon. member think that we should be building our own ships right here, not just frigates but all of the ships that we need, for the Coast Guard, for our navy and for our armed forces?

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, aside from the member's great charm that we have in common, I also have shipyards in my riding, in greater Victoria.

The member will also know that we have some of the finest and the most talented shipbuilders anywhere in the world. We can compete. It is an utter disgrace that the government would go outside our sovereign country to purchase ships.

The government has not done its job not only in procurement for our own shipbuilders but in creating an economic climate where we can be the best in the world and shipping ships all over the world. Again, it rests squarely on the shoulders of the Prime Minister and his administration. It is an absolute utter disgrace.

The shipbuilding industry out on the west coast has also been hampered as it has been in Saint John and there is no need for it. Again, we have the resources and the talent. We have some of the finest and the best shipwrights in the world but unfortunately, we have a government that would rather send them a welfare cheque than have them shipping ships all over the world.

[Maurice Vellacott, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague on the issue of the Kyoto, to which he and other speakers have referred. Two per cent of all greenhouse gases are caused by Canada, but countries causing 65% of greenhouse gases are not even signing on to this accord, notably China, India, the U.S., Mexico and so on. On the whole issue of buying credits from third world countries and so on, there are proponents of the agreement who have said that this is really more about transferring wealth to third world countries, whether intentional or inadvertent, that this is the whole outcome of the thing. I would appreciate the member's comment on that.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, the whole issue of trading credits is just a bad idea. The whole agreement is bad. We have to go 6% below 1990 levels. Big countries like Australia are going 8% above. Countries like Russia are good because of their economic state. It is just a bad, bad mess. It was ill-considered. We went there with the objective to just one-up the Americans. When Canadians know the facts about the Kyoto accord they will rise up, I believe very strongly, and tell our Prime Minister what a bad deal this is. Time will be the test.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to debate the Speech from the Throne.

Throne speeches ought to be the Liberal Government of Canada's vision for the future, a vision that should provide guidelines and inspiration for the future, a vision that sets a framework around which budgets can be developed. However, this throne speech has no plan or no details. It is simply recycled from past Liberal agendas. It is a recycling of promises that were broken in the past and that I am sure will be broken in the future.

This throne speech shows so many empty promises. The Liberal government's so-called legacy seems to be the repackaging of past failures, but one thing I absolutely agree with is that the Prime Minister and the former finance minister seem to be policy soulmates.

The Liberal government's vision appears to be absolutely unclear and blurred and its priorities are misplaced. Therefore, the Liberals' ad hoc, unfocused, undisciplined approach to spending will not benefit Canadians. The highest quality of life and economic prosperity can be achieved if spending is applied to those initiatives and Canadians get value for their money. No wonder Canada's relative standard of living has fallen from the fourth highest of OECD countries in 1990 to eighth in the most recent OECD survey.

In Canada taxes are already too high and affect our competitiveness, work effort, productivity, savings and investment. Health care, defence, agriculture, the environment and many other issues will continue to suffer and be ignored. Patronage, scandals, corruption, subsidies and pork barrelling will not stop.

As official opposition critic on the scrutiny of regulations and in fact the past co-chair of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations, I will be dealing with a particular issue. I believe that the vision of the government and getting its priorities right is related to listening to Canadians and their elected representatives. In other words, we need to implement democratic reforms. The Canadian Alliance and its predecessor party have been raising the issue of democratic reform for a very long time. There is too much concentration of power in the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office. Our elected dictatorship rules, not governs, the country. During the last election 68% of Canadians did not approve of the government's vision.

This leads me to the other issue of parliamentary reform. The influence, input and the role of Parliament and parliamentarians is diminishing. Free votes in Parliament are very rare. Efficiency, effectiveness and the work of standing committees are in disarray. An elected, effective and equal Senate is not in sight.

Also, private members' business is counterproductive. It continues to be like a pacifier given to quiet a baby. The baby keeps sucking and nothing comes out of it. Similarly, members of Parliament keep working hard on their private members' business but no meaningful result comes out of it. The most important job of the 301 members of Parliament in the House and the 105 senators in the Canadian Parliament is to formulate and update legislation.

It is still Parliament's duty to hold the executive branch of the government accountable, but perhaps only 20% of Canadian law is made in Parliament. The remaining 80% is added through the back door by way of thousands of regulations made by the executive branch of the government. Regulations are neither debated nor subjected to public scrutiny. Many regulations contain matters of policy that are never even debated in parliament. Therefore, in democratic reform, parliamentary reform is an integral part, and in parliamentary reform, regulatory reform is the most important component, which has been ignored for far too long by everyone, including the media.

There may be many Canadians, including parliamentarians, my colleagues, and the members of the media, who are not aware of the direct and indirect costs of the regulatory burden, or what is commonly called red tape. According to a report, Canadians have to spend $103 billion per year to comply with federal, provincial and municipal regulations. That is 12% of our GDP or $13,700 per household, an expense second only to shelter. This cost exceeds total personal and corporate income taxes collected by the federal government.

Red tape is hidden taxes and is a costly impediment to productivity and growth. In addition to restricting people's freedom to make their own choices, rules and regulations dampen innovation, discourage investment, stifle entrepreneurship, weaken competitiveness, curtail jobs and lower the standard of living. According to a Canadian Federation of Independent Business survey, businesses believe that government regulations have had a negative impact on their ability to run a profitable and productive operation, with 66% of respondents saying they felt that it was the federal government's fault.

Provinces like Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta and Nova Scotia already have recognized this limitation in our democracy and have been working hard on moving from red tape to smart tape, and from smart tape to smart government. They have eliminated duplicate, expired and counterproductive regulations. Countries like Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, New Zealand and France already are on the path to regulatory reform. It is the federal Liberal government that is lagging light years behind other jurisdictions. Scrutiny of regulations is thus an essential task in protecting democracy, restoring transparency and legitimacy, and controlling bureaucracy.

I have reintroduced my private member's bill, Bill C-202, an act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act, calling on the House to give the disallowance procedure for regulations a statutory footing. It is a votable bill, a non-partisan issue and a necessity, and many members from all parties enthusiastically support it. It was even seconded by a colleague from the Liberal side of the House. I have raised this issue of regulatory reform on many occasions both in the House and outside. The Speech from the Throne briefly mentioned it and I am waiting to see what action the government will take and how soon.

Let me suggest or recommend the following to the Prime Minister for his to do list. Draft regulations and other statutory instruments should be tabled along with legislation and debated in the House. They should also be referred to the appropriate standing committee of the House. The realistic alternatives to regulations, such as negotiated compliance, should be explored. The focus of regulations should be results-based outcomes. Regulations should be written in transparent, simple, clear and easy to understand language.

Cost benefit analysis should be done and published. The regulatory process should be harmonized within various departments as well as with other jurisdictions, including with provincial and municipal governments, for example, environment, fisheries, agriculture, health, labour and transport. Regulatory proposals must include a sunset clause or performance review. Public awareness, consultation and input should be encouraged.

Since my time is limited, I will go over a few more recommendations. No international regulatory commitments should be entered into without careful regulatory impact analysis to ensure that international proposals are in tune with Canada's interests, for example, the Kyoto protocol. Many times penalties are too low, for example, in relation to the proceeds of crime. Sometimes that nullifies the effects of imposing those regulations in the first place. Canada should introduce a regulatory flexibility act, similar to that of the United States.

I have many recommendations, probably 20 more. Since my time is over, I would like to conclude that I regret that the address to Her Excellency has recycled an empty vision, has restored to grandiose rhetoric and intends to implement expensive programs at the cost of Canadians looking for practical solutions to challenges we face, including democratic, parliamentary and regulatory reforms among others.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Oak Ridges. Since I am likely to get carried away, I am sure Madam Speaker will bring my attention to the limits so that I do not deny time to my colleague.

I would like to acknowledge and commend the government on a number of things that have been identified in the throne speech, I do not intend the list to be exhaustive, and I would like to touch in particular on some that are very important to me. I also will, at the end, want to bring the attention of the government to the limitations in the throne speech and some of the things that I would like the government to consider between now and next February, when I assume we will see a budget.

First, in the area of R and D and learning and innovation, I welcome the increase in funding for the granting agencies, although I would bring attention to the fact that there is a need for more research in the social sciences. The social scientists have lagged behind the NSERC and the Medical Research Council, now the CIHR, in the past. I would like to see that remedied as the government attends to reacting to that part of the throne speech before February.

I welcome the reference to literacy. I support the proposal of the National Science Centres Association to establish a federal program for science centres so that we can encourage kids to be more interested academically at an early age. We have a science centre in Fredericton that is a very useful tool in the community and is deserving of federal support.

I would like to highlight an issue that is very important to me, and that is access to post-secondary education. There is reference to learning, as I said, in the throne speech, but I would like to the money in scholarship program enhanced. Right now it deals with approximately 10% of students. It simply does not do enough to ensure that young people who have the credentials to go to post-secondary education can do that on an equity level. At the same time it will deny the nation of some of the best minds on the prosperity level. The universities should have a share in the debate around the CHST, which I will speak to around health care in moment.

There is a reference in the throne speech to the indirect cost program that was introduced in the last budget. It is very important to small and medium sized universities across the country. It deals with the fact that most of our programs require matching funds and not all institutions or regions are allowed to do that.

Health care is mentioned, and I welcome that. The increased long term funding to the provinces on health care, first ministers meetings and reforming the system are all important. They have had a number of forums in my constituency on the subject. However I think the federal government has to command of the provinces in return for that certain things.

I would like to see support at both levels of government for a third party audit of some kind so that we can get away from the finger pointing and the backing and forthing on the politics of this and allow the Canadian public to be represented by an impartial third party who can say that the feds are or are not doing enough or the provinces are or not doing enough.

I welcome the commitment on aboriginal issues. We need to work up a new, more respectful relationship with the first nations and the aboriginal peoples of Canada. In the meantime, while we do that, we have to recognize there are serious social problems across the country for our first nations.

I also welcome the reference to the importance of environmental issues. I will be supporting the ratification of Kyoto. I welcome the reference to cleaning up some of the heavily polluted sites in Canada.

I see my colleague from Sydney paying particular attention to this item. I congratulate him for everything he has done, in terms of the cleaning up the city tar ponds.

On the infrastructure program, I like the idea that the infrastructure program will be longer term and more predictable. I would urge the government to include both universities and heritage and cultural sites as part of that.

On the question of Canada's place in the world, I welcome the doubling of development funds by 2010, half of which would go to Africa.

I welcome the international and defence policy review, but this leads me to the weaknesses in the throne speech, as I see them.

I do not think that we can afford to wait until that review is over before we increase the national defence budget. I have a large military base in my constituency. I deal with the men and women who represent this country well.

We all stand up here all the time to talk about that. It is time for us all to recognize it in terms of an increase in the budget. The largest impact is on the men and women who represent us. They are being deployed too often because the size of national defence is shrinking. The reality is that we are not giving back as much as they are giving us and it is time that changed.

I support my colleague, the chair of the defence committee, for all the work he has done and all the interventions he has made.

I would like to see us do more for Canadians with disabilities.The disability tax credit is the subject of considerable discussion around this place right now. The government has to rethink its position on that review and it has to do it immediately. Not only that, but the disability tax credit should be refundable. The idea that one has to have earned income to be eligible for a credit that is supposed to recognize the cost of dealing with a disability means that the people who are at the lowest end socially and economically, those who do not earn an income or a taxable income, do not have access to a credit that is supposed to be for people who have to deal with a disability. That is quite unfortunate and it needs to be remedied. I suppose, given the debate taking place around the disability tax credit, this is as good a time as any to remedy that problem.

I would also like to see more support for the CBC. Right now, as the globe is shrinking, we being pressured from around the world in the context of other influences in terms of how we see ourselves. I like that. It is important that we see ourselves as citizens of the planet and international people, but at the same time I want to hear about us. I want to see about us. I want to know about all parts of the country. As those pressures increase, I think we have to do more from within to ensure that we understand each other as Canadians. I would like to condition my support for an increase however in a more sensitive treatment of the regions by CBC television in particular. My position on that is well known.

I would also like to see more commitment to regional economic development. There is a lot of reference in the throne speech to the fact that one of its intentions in terms of the Canada we want is to deal with the gaps that exist in Canada between those who are prosperous and those who are not. Some of that has to do with aboriginal Canadians versus the rest of Canada. Some of that has to do with Canadians with disabilities. I mentioned that. A lot of it has to do with ensuring that everybody has access to the education that their capacities and capabilities warrant, and I speak to that. However it also has to do with where we live. I will give an example by going back to the indirect cost program at universities to illustrate this example.

We have a good program in the Canadian Foundation for Innovation. It is very important to universities in Canada. It is very important to R and D in Canada. However it will only go as far as 40% of the research project. If one lives in Alberta, as does my friend from Wild Rose does, the reality is that it is much easier for that province and the private sector to come up with the 60% that allows the University of Alberta, for example, to access the Canadian Foundation for Innovation as compared to the province of New Brunswick in terms of the private sector and the capacity of the provincial government, to be fair.

I do not want to see us get rid of matching funds programs. They are important for the country. However, if knowledge is the future of the economic development in this country and innovation, and I believe it is, we need to put programs in place to ensure people will have access to those programs and opportunities regardless of where they live, or where they choose to go to university or where they do their research. That will require more investment in regional economic development kinds of initiatives. It is not stuff that goes back 20 and 30 years. It is research. It is pure. It will mean that we will take our place in Canada. I would very much like to see the national government do more on that front.

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

Madam Speaker, a lot of things the member said we are certainly thinking about, but I really wonder from where he is coming. What track is he at with making statements that apparently did not seem to make any difference in the past and why we would want to continue that trail?

I am thinking particularly of his comments about how pleased we are that the help to Africa will be doubled, and I am sure that is in terms of dollars, yet we have done this year after year for many years. The member knows, as well as I do, that the problem is no better now that it has been for a long time; the tragedies that are taking place in these countries and the starvation. Yet we have one sector of people who are called the elite who fill their palaces with gold, their Swiss accounts with money, but these countries still have the starving.

I will ask the member my first question and then a quick one after. Does he not agree that there is not a poverty or rich and poor deficit in these countries? There is a democracy deficit and until they get true democracy and rid themselves of tyrants and dictators, how is it ever going to change; with more dollars?

Second, when we talk about the difference between some who prosper and some who do not in Canada, right now we have a group of farmers in my region who are not prospering. In fact they are losing their farms. There are bankruptcies as a result of the drought. I did not see the government step forward to the plate with any significant help in terms of this disaster as it has in other disastrous situations.

Having been part of the justice system as solicitor general in the past, in the member's view is it right that farmers in half of the country go to jail if they sell their grain across the border without a Wheat Board permit when farmers in the other half of the country can sell their grain without a permit? Does that sound fair?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the member for Wild Rose, I could not disagree with him more on foreign aid and Canada's responsibilities. I recognize it is a difference of opinion but I believe that we are a prosperous country and I believe that much of our good fortune has been good fortune. That compels us to be citizens of the world and recognize that we have obligations to people who are less fortunate.

On the question of farm aid, I think my colleague had it whispered in my ear that we had not done enough. He also mentioned also $5 billion. Therefore the reference to nothing is somewhat lacking in credibility when we talk about those kinds of numbers. It may not be enough but I do not think we can refer to it as zero.

As for whether certain things having to do with the Wheat Board constitute criminality or not, notwithstanding the hon. member's reference to my former vocation, I do not think I ever had to deal with those issues and I do not feel particularly equipped to deal with this.

However I recognize the member's opinion, but I really believe as Canadians that we do not do near enough internationally in terms of our privileged position on this planet and I do not think I could have my mind changed on that.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank my colleague in the governing party, the member for Fredericton, for his comments and recognize that he was somewhat critical of the throne speech. It was nice to see a member from that side of the House have the gumption to speak out on what he believes to be failures within that speech.

He mentioned the lack of support for the CBC. I know in the past few days we heard of appointments to CBC by someone whom we felt would probably undermine CBC, if not set it up for further problems. It is good to hear that there is a member on the other side who is willing to push for greater support for the CBC, as well as regional support for CBC.

It is without question one of the greatest ties the country has had to bring us together. From the time that we were young people on the Prairies, we grew up respecting the culture and heritage of eastern Canada from numerous programs that we watched throughout the year as well as programs from the west coast. I think CBC was as much to Canada as was the railroad. It is crucially important that we continue to recognize that. As we grow as a country it is beneficial to have CBC there as part of that growth. I just want to congratulate him on his comments.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will say that my affection for the CBC is commensurate with how well it has treated me.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the Speech from the Throne, which outlines the objectives the government has for the coming years. We have to keep in mind that the real flesh, the real detail is in the budget. I will be concentrating my remarks on two areas, on competitive cities and on children and families, which are very important to the constituents of Oak Ridges.

It is extremely important to remember that the government is committed to balanced budgets or better; to disciplined spending; to a declining debt to GDP ratio; and fair and competitive taxes. We are not on the cusp of spending money we do not have. We are not in the process of doing the things that some colleagues on the other side would suggest we might do.

Fiscal responsibility is critical in any government. Having come out of that deep $42.5 billion debt that we saw over the years, the government does not intend to go back into it, no matter how much some members on the other side might suggest that we are going to do.

We need some strong fiscal anchors and we have them. For example, in Canada the GDP growth averaged 5.3% in the first half of this year. In the United States real GDP grew by 3.1%. With respect to employment, over the first eight months the Canadian economy grew by 386,000 new jobs, while U.S. employment remains down 40,000 jobs since December 2001.

On net foreign indebtedness, we are the only G-7 country paying down the national debt. We paid over $40 billion on the national debt over the last four years. This is something that is very important for members to keep in mind. The fact that Canada is the only G-7 state to be paying down the national debt at over $40 billion is a real accomplishment.

Canada's net foreign debt as a share of GDP is down to its lowest level since the 1950s, from a peak of 44% of the GDP in 1993 to 19% last year. In contrast, U.S. net foreign debt has been increasing since the early 1990s and recently surpassed the Canadian level.

Members should not take only my word for it; they should take it from the OECD. The OECD has come out with another report card. It indicates very clearly that Canada is doing extremely well in many fronts economically in terms of our openness to trade and in terms of our macro policies. We are a leader in the OECD, which is extremely important.

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

Nonsense.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

A member opposite says it is nonsense. Unfortunately, the member probably has not read the OECD report and of course it is nonsense if it is something he has not read.

Let us look at other issues. When we want to have strong fiscal anchors, private sector economists expect Canadian growth will average 3.5% this year compared to our friends south of the border where it looks like it will be about 2.3%.

The fact is that we will lead the G-7 in economic growth this year and next. This is an important legacy. The opposition talks a lot about a legacy. The most important legacy under the Prime Minister has been the economic record of getting the fiscal house in order. I know my colleagues would agree that is what is extremely important.

Regarding the debt, the fact is that by paying down the national debt, we save between $2.5 billion and $3 billion a year on interest, this year, next year and every other year. Why is that important? It gives us the opportunity to deal with some of the urban issues, rural issues, social issues, family issues in this country because the government has been fiscally responsible. That is something Canadians appreciate. That is something Canadians expect their government to do and we are doing it.

There are two areas I want to touch on briefly. One is with regard to urban areas, an area of particular concern to me. I live in a very fast growing area of Ontario, an area where there is a lot of congestion and development.

Over the years I have spoken out very strongly about the need for a solid partnership of all orders of government and the private sector with regard to urban issues. When I was president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities I talked about the need for a 10-year program for urban infrastructure. In fact my good friend from Saint John was there with me. She also supported that and I know she is pleased to see that in the Speech from the Throne. The fact is the government has delivered.

I would point out that between 1993 when this government came in and 2000, the government funded over 21,000 projects with over $15 billion in urban infrastructure along with our provincial, municipal and private sector partners. This is a major accomplishment. When there is a hole in the roof and it is not repaired, it gets bigger and the same is true with urban infrastructure. If we do not deal with it today, it is going to get worse. We have been responsible in working with our partners to deal with that.

We also have announced $2 billion in major strategic infrastructure projects dealing with sewer, water treatment and local transportation. These are very important. The Speech from the Throne recognizes that. That is why there is a 10-year program for infrastructure, to accommodate long term infrastructure needs.

Helping our urban communities respond in a fiscally responsible manner is important. It is important that we have cities that are safe, efficient and environmentally friendly. That is what the government is doing in helping to reduce congestion in our cities.

Extending investments in affordable housing is extremely important. It is another area where the government is stepping up to the plate and doing its part. It is an important signal in the Speech from the Throne.

Extending the supporting communities partnership initiative is something that cities have said is extremely important to them. The government has listened and responded accordingly.

I would be remiss if I did not recognize my good friend the Minister of Labour and her tremendous work on the homeless file. Our government came up with the necessary dollars to assist communities across the country in dealing with the homeless issue, knowing that we alone could not solve it, but in partnership. In the Speech from the Throne we talk about partnership and helping Canadians help themselves. This is all in the context of the strong fiscal anchors that I have outlined.

Canadian families are looking to the government. Families sometimes need the tools to care for family members. We are an aging society. There are family members who are getting older and responding to that issue is important. The government has recognized that in the Speech from the Throne. The government will continue to increase its support for families.

One of the most important policy initiatives is the issue dealing with the child tax benefit. This is very important. The family will benefit by more than $2,500 for the first child in 2004. We had an early childhood agreement with the provinces and territories. Again we are working in partnership.

These are not policies or programs that we are pushing on people. We are working and listening, and by listening we are able to develop these important programs. There is the Canada prenatal nutrition program with $27 million to help pregnant women at risk. Again, this is a very important program. We want to make sure we have strong families.

I should not leave out tax cuts. We brought in the largest tax cuts in Canadian history, over $100 billion. This year alone we are seeing a $20 billion cut by the government. It shows that we are responding. We are bringing down corporate taxes. We are bringing down income taxes. At the same time we are responding to the social needs. A nation is not just a balance sheet of figures; it is about real people and real needs. We can be proud as a government in responding in that way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I just heard. Somebody sitting behind the hon. member should give him a slap on the side of the head and wake him up to reality.

The member had the audacity to say it is such a frugal government that it does not waste money. Boy oh boy, I guess he did not read the Auditor General's report about the billions of dollars of waste. I could name a whole pile of things starting with the billion dollar boondoggle in whatever department it was. I am sure the hon. member would like this one. I do not know if he is a senior yet, but a committee was struck and was paid $165,000 to study seniors and sexuality. My gosh it makes me feel good being an old boy that the government would pour money into something like that. And the member says the government has not wasted money. What a bunch of utter nonsense.

We heard today that shipyards have been closed and people have been thrown out of work. Then the government buys ships that will not float from some foreign country but that is not a waste of money. People were thrown out of work.

I could go on after a speech like that which absolutely amazed me. The government would not have balanced anything had it not cut the transfer payments to the provinces so severely that every province today is suffering while trying to deliver health care. Those members do not have the guts--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I heard any questions, but I did hear a lot of ranting. Let me see if I can respond at least in part to what I consider to be absolute nonsense from the member. He should know better.

First of all, I never suggested anything about waste. Obviously every government has to be accountable. One of the ways we are accountable is through the Auditor General.

Our good friend across the way mentioned money being wasted. When governments are held accountable, they respond. They say, “We had some shortcomings and we are responding”. The Auditor General said that in many cases.

I hate to hear about a billion dollar boondoggle. It is utter nonsense. There was not a billion dollar boondoggle and the member knows that. Yes, there was a bad paper trail. Yes, there was bad accounting. Yes, we had to do better. The minister has responded in kind. In fact, the Auditor General said so, but the member does not want to say that.

As far as the issue of health care is concerned, I have heard this argument from the member and other members before. I want to set the record straight. The provinces have the same taxing ability as we do. The province of Ontario cut taxes, which is its right, but at the same time it turned around and told this government it wanted more money for health care. It is about priorities. If the province's priority is tax cuts, then more power to it; but if it is health care, then make it health care. Do not make it both.

The member said that we are not spending money on health care. In September 2000 the Prime Minister, who held no gun to anyone's head, received agreement from all the premiers. They said they wanted x number of dollars, and were handed $21 billion plus for health care. They said that was what they needed. The ink was not yet dry and suddenly early Alzheimer's set in. The provinces claimed not to remember any of this and said they needed more money. Why? Because they had money sitting in a bank in downtown Toronto. The Quebec government, the Ontario government, and the British Columbia government demanded more money.

This government has said it supports a strong health care system. We will hear from Romanow and we will respond to Romanow. The Prime Minister has said there will be a first ministers conference early in the new year to put the system right in terms of the future.

The national round table on health said a few years ago that health care is not just about money. It is about how money is spent. What we need in health care, and which the member did not mention, is transparency and accountability. When I give money to somebody, I would like to have it accounted for. I would like to know where the money went. Maybe that is what we should say to the province of Alberta. Maybe that is what we should say to the province of British Columbia.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will use 15 of the 20 minutes that are allotted to me. I ask that the five remaining minutes be allotted to the member for Saint John.