Debates of Oct. 9th, 2002

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I understood the member, but the Standing Order indicates that a member cannot share his or her time with a member from another party. However, the member for Jonquière may seek unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to share my time with the member for Saint John.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is there unanimous consent for the member of Jonquière to share her time with the member for Saint John?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today, on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Jonquière, and to take part in the debate in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

It is October 9, 2002. The Speech from the Throne was read nine days ago on September 30.

All the commentators, English or French speaking, said that this September 30 Speech from the Throne was a mixture of old ideas. It is a patchwork assortment of ideas taken from the throne speeches of 1993, 1997, 2000 and 2001. Once again, the government of the Prime Minister has promised to take action on poverty and social housing. Unfortunately, the result is more and more negative.

What can be said about child poverty? In 1999, we had almost 950,000 poor children in this country, while we had only 800,000 in 1989. Hence, this Liberal government did not take action. It is a failure across the board. Yet, in 1989, a unanimous resolution by all political parties was passed here in the House of Commons, saying that they were committed to eliminating child poverty by 1999, that is 10 years later.

Today, in the Speech from the Throne, another project has been proposed for Canadians. The Speech from the Throne said that we must “—ensure that no Canadian child suffers the debilitating effects of poverty. Canadians and their governments have already taken significant steps in this direction”.

This Speech from the Throne rehashes old ideas. The people of Jonquière I met with last weekend realize that this government is laughing at them. They listen to the news, they read all the information and they say to themselves, “What they are saying makes no sense. We know there are more poor children. They have done nothing for poor children”.

When it comes to social housing, there has been nothing but inaction since 1993: no investments in social housing since 1993.

As for the environment, the government promised that we would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6% from 1990 levels. That was supposed to be done by 2012. According to the Minister of Natural Resources, we have increased our greenhouse gas emissions by 35% since 1990. Inaction and failure across the board.

With respect to health care, I just listened to the Liberal member's remarks. As far as I am concerned, he is totally out of touch or is blinded by rage and can only see part of what is going on in that sector. The federal government is now putting in only 14 cents on every dollar. In the throne speech, it promised to convene a health ministers summit early in 2003 to lay the foundation for a comprehensive plan for reform. As we know, these are the same Liberals who made massive cuts in transfers to the provinces for health upon taking office in 1993. They will have waited 10 years and suffocated the provinces before taking action.

This means that, in return for the financial contribution it will make to the provinces in early 2003, Ottawa will give itself a free hand in deciding what the provinces should do in health care, when the whole area of health is a provincial jurisdiction.

In the throne speech, the government also promised to put money into infrastructure. In 2000, there was a Canada-Québec infrastructure program, and $1.6 billion was earmarked for the infrastructure program. It is well known how popular the program has been.

For the three parts of this federal-provincial agreement concerning infrastructure, the Quebec government received applications totalling $4.3 billion. This means that there is a shortfall of $3 billion to carry out all the projects submitted, and the Quebec government had to review all them, which it did very professionally, while determining which were the most important ones.

Again, instead of innovating, instead of creating new infrastructure projects in conjunction with the municipalities and perhaps looking after the provinces, this government says it will look after Canada's major cities. Why always major Canadian cities? The mayor of the major city in my region, Saguenay, says that it ranks sixth among Quebec's municipalities.

Why target only major cities like Vancouver, Montreal or Toronto? There are still applications totalling $3 billion on the table. If the government is serious about taking action, it should immediately put money on the table. Quebec said it was prepared to follow suit.

Last year, in the budget tabled by Ms. Marois, Quebec injected $500 million to allow municipalities faced with water problems to act quickly, should their projects not qualify under the Canada-Quebec infrastructure program.

Instead of reinventing the wheel, this government should put money on the table. We do not have to ask for projects. The projects are there, they have been examined and they are awaiting funding. Immediate action is required. With this program, I would see that they want to do something, that they are prepared to take immediate action. But after what we heard in the throne speech, I realize that this government is still saying “Perhaps; perhaps we will take action; perhaps we will do this”. What the government should do is take concrete measures.

Let us also talk about what they promised to do for public transit. During the last parliamentary session, I introduced a bill about which there was a consensus: the federation of urban carriers, the Canadian federation of urban carriers and the ACTU in the Outaouais region all supported this initiative. My bill went through second reading. It provided for a subsidy to public transit users.

When it was reviewed by the Standing Committee on Finance, Liberal members decided that my bill did not make sense. This is strange, because what is the Prime Minister of Canada doing six months later? He is going along the same lines as what is proposed in my bill and saying that everyone should contribute to improving public transit in Canada.

Why did the Liberals not take action when an opposition member made a similar proposal? Six months have gone by. During these six months, a lot could have been done to promote environmental issues, such as the plight of the increasing number of young Canadians who are suffering from asthma.

I realize that this government is making meaningless commitments, saying perhaps. It says, “Perhaps we will take action. Perhaps we will do something”. The Liberals are always right. They never take into consideration the proposals made by others. This is strange. We too were elected by voters who have common sense. They too have good ideas. In a democracy, one cannot always be on the side of power. It is very good for a democracy to have opposition parties.

Opposition members are intelligent, maybe more than those who are in office. We, opposition members, propose concrete measures to help society move forward, but because these ideas come from the opposition, the government thinks they cannot work. This is sad.

What Prime Minister Chrétien, the Prime Minister of Canada, is proposing in the throne speech is to promote public transit.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I see that the member corrected herself, but I will remind the House that members must not refer to one another by name, but by their title or the name of their riding.

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

Mr. Speaker, I meant to say the Prime Minister of Canada.

Several of my constituents from the riding of Jonquière asked me how much this cost, referring to the ceremonies surrounding the Speech from the Throne, everything that goes on that day and the next day, when there is a great celebration at Rideau Hall.

I could not give them a precise answer, but I told them that it certainly cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and that the breakfast club in Quebec would have been very happy to get this money to serve breakfast to children who go to school on an empty stomach because they do not have milk, bread, butter and fruit at home. I think that this money would have helped meet the needs of our children and of the breakfast club for several months.

This shows how unreal what is going on right now in Ottawa is. The government is totally out of touch with reality. More and more children are living in poverty, and the need for social housing is increasing. We also need more money for health care.

The Liberal who spoke just now said, “It's not true, there is no shortage of funding for health. The provincial governments have even got money hidden away”. But that is not true, as the Romanow report will tell us.

All reports that have been tabled in recent months, along with the one that will be forthcoming once the Romanow commission report is finished, are going to say that health funding is lacking. Who has forgotten to put in its share? Always the same ones.

Let us keep in mind that close to 40% of Quebec's budget is earmarked for health. So who is the one who forgot to pay into it? Again, the same government that is accusing the provinces of bad management.

We have only to look at what is going on as far as fiscal imbalance is concerned. There was unanimity in the National Assembly, from provincial Liberals, ADQ and PQ alike, that there is fiscal imbalance in Canada. Then there was the premiers' meeting , where it was also said that there was a fiscal imbalance in Canada. In the past two days, the Government of Quebec has called together all those concerned directly or less directly by the potential effects of this fiscal imbalance, the civil community. They too have agreed that such an imbalance does exist. The only ones who deny this are the members of the Liberal Party.

The feds have the money, and the provinces have the needs. Even the Conference Board—which I cannot imagine to be in favour of Quebec sovereignty or of breaking Canada up, or to hold any grudge against the federal government—says the same, and yet no reference was made to it in the throne speech.

It is one thing to look after themselves, but they are saying that they want what is best for Canadians. If we look at the Speech from the Throne, we see they do not want what is good for Canadians, but what is good for the Liberals, the great Liberal vision, and the vision for Canadians is unimportant.

The Minister of Finance said that Quebec has only to close its embassies abroad. I have taken part in international parliamentary meetings with people from Canada. There are nine English provinces and one French province in Canada and I did not hear many people praising the virtues of what is happening in Quebec.

Personally, I think it is our right. We are a distinct society and we have the right, outside of Quebec, to promote Quebec and to say who we are. I think that what the Minister of Finance said is an insult to the intelligence of Quebeckers.

I believe that the Speech from the Throne is a dull, insipid, flavourless and colourless speech. Fortunately the Prime Minister had appointed a new Governor General, if the former Governor General were still there, he would have said, “It seems to me I have already read this Speech from the Throne”. He read it in 1993, 1997, 2000 and again in 2001.

I think the Prime Minister of Canada did a cut and paste job on the computer, he cut and pasted it. That is what he did. He took parts of the speeches from 1993, 1997 and 2000 and only changed some of the wording.

For all these and many other reasons, this Speech from the Throne does nothing for Canadian society. I think that the Prime Minister will not come out of this as a winner. Journalists are saying it, and everyone is saying it: the legacy of this Prime Minister is not very edifying.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on her excellent speech.

I would like her to go over the history of the problems surrounding the decision made concerning the highway through the Parc des Laurentides. Earlier this afternoon, we heard the hon. member for Châteauguay remind us how the Liberals used somewhat wishy-washy election promises to score political points. Unfortunately, they were sometimes successful.

I would ask the hon. member to tell us everything she has done in connection with the highway between Quebec City and Chicoutimi and everything the Liberals have not done.

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

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

I have thanked all the people of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean for their involvement in the issue of this highway that we have managed to obtain. There was a consensus in my region. We managed to get this government moving. For so long, it was promising to take action, it would make us false promises and it would say “perhaps” or “this is a provincial jurisdiction”.

The people in the region and the members of the opposition here in the House of Commons have done their job. They have demanded their due.

I always say that the regions are the poor children of this system. The Liberals are always saying “We are helping the regions”. But they are not referring to regions such as ours. In Canada, there are five major regions. They are not sub-regions such as Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. The Liberals are currently involved in the race for the leadership of their party. The former Minister of Finance came to the Gaspé Peninsula to say that his priority was for regions such as the Gaspé Peninsula. Honestly. They should stop having us on.

With highway 175, we have succeeded because everybody stood up. We confronted this government. We told it “You made promises; now it is time to deliver”. Everybody pulled together and there was unanimity.

I am proud to have contributed to the achievement of this project and I am proud that my region is coming out a winner. Together, we believed in it and, together, we got it.

[Claude Duplain, Liberal, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what my hon. colleague had to say and I had a bit of a chuckle.

Some speeches are kind of special. The expression “cut and paste” was used. Listening to the hon. member, I think that if anyone has cut and pasted something, it must be her. Every time I listen to her speeches, I seem to hear the same old thing.

I think we could easily predict what she is going to say several years down the road. She does not do much besides complaining. If the people in her riding are getting fed up, imagine how the people from my riding who are watching us feel. They are fed up with all that complaining and are eager for us to start building something.

In the most recent throne speech, the Liberal Party showed that we want to start building. I think Quebeckers rely on us to build this country, as evidenced by the fact that support for the Bloc Quebecois is starting to slip in the polls, instead of increasing. It is now down to only 34% of the vote. Quebeckers have affirmed their belief in the Liberal Party.

My colleague talked about a contribution of 4%, or 4 cents for every dollar spent on health. The figures I have are completely different. So, I would like her to tell us how she came up with 4%. She should back up what she says instead of babbling on all the time. My figures tell a completely different story. Can she explain how she came up with that 4%?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will gladly answer the question. That member has nothing to say. I say what the people in my riding say. I am the voice of my constituents. That is what they think of this government. I never said 4%. I said 14%, which means 14 cents on each dollar.

Second, the member mentioned polls. The last federal election was in 2000. I would ask him what new measure can be found in this Speech from the Throne with regard to employment insurance.

People can say whatever they want, but we must tell the truth if we want to make any progress. Right now, on the issue of employment insurance, it must be said that the government is putting the money in its pocket. It took $44 billion from the surplus in the EI fund to eliminate the deficit. These are the facts. This is not unfounded criticism. These are the facts. If the member does not want to hear the facts, why does he come to the House of Commons? Why does he not stay home?

If we want to make any progress, we have to tell voters in Canada and in Quebec, “These are the facts. This is what they did with your money, and you are not getting it back”.

It is the same thing with health care. The Liberals grab our money and we only get 14% back. These are the facts. They made the commitment to finance 50% of the costs, and they are now at 14%. Does the member not see those figures? If he does not, I can send him all the figures that were mentioned in the newspapers in the last few years. These are the facts.

This throne speech should have contained measures to improve the employment insurance plan, to help the unemployed and to give them access to employment insurance. It should also have contained concrete measures to help regions.

What is there in this Speech from the Throne? Nothing. It is a rehash of what we heard in 1993, 1997, 2000 and 2001. That is what we have here.

When the Liberals do something right, I do not hesitate to say so. However, do they ever tell PQ members and Bloc members that they have done something right? I have never heard them say that. It is easy to see the mote in someone else's eye and not the beam in one own's eye. These are the facts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Jonquière for giving me five minutes of her time.

When the Speech from the Throne was given I think most Canadians were very disturbed and disappointed, mostly because the government left out our military.

We had hoped and expected that the Prime Minister would have taken into account the pleas of our international allies, the Secretary-General of NATO, the Conference of Defence Associations, the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, the Auditor General and the countless men and women in uniform who have made the case that our military is in need of financial assistance. All of them have come forth in the last four years saying that it is time for the government to put some money into the military.

We just have to look at what happened a year ago in the U.S.A. When the terrorists struck there were we prepared? No. When we sent our men over to Afghanistan they had to be airlifted by the Americans. They had to eat their meals at the American mess. If our men were out training and the mess was closed they had nothing to eat. I was getting calls from the parents of the young men who were sent over there. They did not even have their uniforms like the rest of them had.

Look at us today, Mr. Speaker. Look at the Sea Kings. They are 40 years old. A pilot from just outside my city lost his life. His father called me because he had been a pilot. He said “Elsie, I flew those Sea Kings. Those Sea Kings should not be in the air”. They should not be in the air.

I have to say that it is strictly politics. I can see politics being played by the government in the replacement of the Sea Kings. It wants to wait until the Prime Minister retires and then he will not have to worry whether the EH-101s become the replacement. However, while the government waits more lives will be lost.

Let us look at our submarines. My God, we went out and bought used submarines. What happened? Just in the past month in London, England our Canadian people were ask to go over to England and test the submarine. They were fixing it over there. The men said that there was no way they would go out and test the submarine because it was not safe. It is still sitting over there because the men will not go out in that submarine. We have just wasted another $800 million on submarines that are now not useful and not good for the navy.

Let us look at our air force and the numbers in the army. At one time we had 85,000 people. Where are we now? We are at around 30,000 people.

[An hon. member]

It's shameful.

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

It is shameful. We have a lot to worry about in view of what happened in the U.S.A.

When we look at President Bush, what is our stand on Iraq? I know we have had and will have some debate here but what is our stand on Iraq? Where are we? If Bush goes to war with Iraq where is Canada?

I was in Bulgaria with the NATO committee and up on the big screen came the representative of the United Nations who said that Canada had to put some money into its military for it was down at the lowest end of the scale.

[An hon. member]

It's embarrassing.

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

Yes, it is embarrassing.

Those men and women cannot come up here and protest. They cannot say a word. They have tried. I have talked to them personally and privately and they are truly worried.

If the Prime Minister wanted to leave in February 2004 and he wanted to leave a legacy, he could have left the best legacy for him and for the government than any other government by putting the needed billions of dollars into the throne speech so that our men and women would be looked after and so that they would have the tools they needed to look after us, our children, our grandchildren and everybody else in Canada. It is a serious situation and one we must address.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a minute to thank the hon. member for stressing the feelings of literally thousands and millions of Canadians for the disgrace we have put upon our military.

I have a son in the United States military. He lives on base now and pays $300 a month rent. He had to live off base for a time and he had to pay $700 a month but the government subsidized the difference and gave him a living allowance. Today there was an announcement that our military's rent on the bases was being raised to $840, or something like that, to match the rents in the civilian community in order to make them compatible. That is what the minister said.

Does the hon. member agree with me that we have a government with only one mission in mind and that is to get its grubby hands on every single dollar it can from Canadians, including our military, and to heck with the results?

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his question. I had the distinct pleasure of going to British Columbia. While I was there I went to the naval base. They took me there to show me the houses and the living conditions of those men and women. It was pitiful. Do members know that they were going to the food bank with their children? And here is the government saying to them that it is going to raise their rent. The same thing has happened over in Nova Scotia. I was over there as well, at the base, where people there said “We live in quarters here that are not fit for our families”. Then they turn around and the government wants to raise their rent. Glory be, there is no way the government should be raising their rent and there is not a Canadian who is in favour of that for our men and women in our military.

In Nova Scotia at the base they wanted to have a counselling centre. Fathers, such as those in Afghanistan, are gone for many months and children are without their daddies, or their mothers, whoever is in uniform. So they wanted a counselling centre there. They were going to bring in a Catholic priest and a Protestant minister to help counsel the families. Do members know that the men and women had to go out and raise the money themselves? The government would not give them anything for their counselling centre. That is a shame and a disgrace.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today as the member of Parliament for London West. I have had an opportunity over the summer months before prorogation to consult with my constituents. I am very pleased that in the Speech from the Throne there are many areas that I know will be very important to members of my community.

First, like just about everybody in the House, we are concerned with our health care, with financing our health care and making sure that in the future we will be taken care of like we have been used to from cradle to grave. There are responsible measures to be taken, with perhaps some changes in the way we go about it. The value system we share across this land means having good health care for all of us, not just because of a pocketbook that is fuller than that of our neighbour, but because we are entitled to good health and good health protection by way of prevention programs. These are some of the things that we heard in the Speech from the Throne.

I would be remiss if I did not remind members of the House that London is a community that has health research. We are very fortunate to have many tens of thousands of our citizens working in the health care community and specifically in the health care research community. Not only do research dollars impact on the health of Canadians, but that knowledge is shared with literally the world. We were very fortunate to hear in the throne speech that we will be advancing more dollars for health research and in fact for research in general, because we are in need of a more innovative economy in order to be a more productive economy.

It is especially important for the students. In London we have Fanshawe College and the University of Western Ontario. Representatives from both of those institutions constantly come to talk to the members of Parliament in our area to emphasize the real need for the upping of these resources. We have to go from where we were many years ago when we took over the government. We were down because we were not supplying sufficient research dollars. In fact, we were losing many talented young people in whom Canada had invested. We were losing their talents. Also, after their primary, secondary and usually first university education, we were losing them as graduate students as they fled to other countries. We have reversed that.

Last week the president of the university visited me here in the House and reiterated how thankful they were that the climate for these young people has changed. I think we can even do better and improve it further. But that does not mean they get to do just the research and that is the end of it. There has to be a commercialization of the research, which I think is important.

Many of our colleges and universities and in fact our hospital systems are strapped financially. There is a method for us to help the system. What we heard in the Speech from the Throne is that we are now talking about working with the universities in particular on the indirect costs of research. This is a promising way to deliver more funds. That will then prevent the graduate and research students literally taking the dollars away from the undergraduate students and their studies. It will help support the educational infrastructure throughout Canada. I am very pleased to see that this will be for all universities across every province. That formula is a necessary one and I am glad to see that we are headed in that direction.

I want to talk about the physical environment of where I live. Unfortunately, there is something we are not proud of. I live in the area of Canada that has the most pollutants in the air. Lack of clean air is a problem. We had in excess of 27 smog days this summer in London. Combined with that, we had high humidity days. Not all of those pollutants were made in our backyard. We happen to live in a geographical basin. We get some winds from across our lake shared by our neighbour to the south. I am very pleased to see that this was addressed, because clean air is not an issue that we can take on as one country or one city. It is something we have to work at in collaboration with the United States. We have specifically said that and I think it is important.

Over the summer I talked with many people about Kyoto, climate change and reducing the necessity of getting those greenhouse gases down over time. I have heard the argument that Canada only produces 2% of the problem, but California only produces 2% of the problem. We have roughly equal populations. If we all were to say that we are just a bit of the problem so we do not have to participate, the problem could never be solved over time. I think we have to face reality. We are the potentially endangered species on this planet.

I think this is a situation where, even though it might be more difficult in the shorter term, we can turn this to our economic advantage. I think we should be going into cleaner energy. We should be looking for those products, innovations and methodologies in our cities, on our farms and in our industries to support getting to our global solution, because we do share the planet and we are certainly affected as a northern country in a way that is not welcomed by many of us.

I believe that doing this not only for ourselves but for our future generations is important. I appreciate that there may be bottom line costs to this and I also appreciate that they may not be known to the penny at this time, but sometimes there are situations in which we have to start on the solution and head in the right direction because it is the right and correct thing to do.

I want to talk a little more about biotechnology, the clean energy and the health sciences, because these are opportunities for economic growth. Again, this is fed by the research and the changing environment. We have passed through different ages over time. The industrial age has created some of the problems we are faced with now. We now will be moving into an age of future science and we are going to have to look at some of the ethics of those potential problems. We are going to have to look at the science. We are going to have to marry the values of Canadians with the legislation. Around the table here we are going to have to take into consideration and listen to the concerns of people who perhaps do not represent my party but, I believe, represent Canadians, and those Canadians have shared values. I think it is important that we listen and that we try to move ahead for the benefit of all of us in this wonderful democratic society we have.

One of the things that I feel very strongly about is palliative care. I read one part of the throne speech that was about a commitment to helping people who may have to serve outside the workforce while taking care of their family members during an illness. Palliative care is not just for aged people. It is for ill children and all ill people. I am glad to see that we are moving in this direction and I would encourage my government to move faster and with more strength in this area because I think there is a real need.

Senator Carstairs from the other House came to my riding a couple of weeks ago when we put the health care professionals together in a room. I do not think there is a family among us that will not be dealing with these situations. Sometimes our health care system by itself will not be able to cope. We will be asked to volunteer our time and our physical and monetary resources to assist a family member. I think it is important that we take on this role, but I also think there is a place for government to assist us. I am pleased to see that line in the Speech from the Throne.

London is in southwestern Ontario. We are on one of the busiest trade corridors the country has. U.S.-Canada trade is very important to the economy of the region. I am very glad to see the U.S.-Canada smart border accord coming to fruition. I am glad to see the money that we are adding and increasing in infrastructure over time. I am glad to see the security measures that make our trade safe. No one needs a bottleneck. We certainly need more dollars going into the facilitation of the trade that affects the jobs in our region and that tells our neighbours we are there to share in and increase each other's prosperity.

Many things in the Speech from the Throne interest me. One is affordable housing. Another is helping Africans, because I have been there. I was in Sierra Leone within the last year. Perhaps I could encourage everyone to take the opportunity, when they can, to go and get the yardstick measurement, because I am proud of what we do with our foreign aid and I am glad to see that it will be increasing.

I want to start working on these programs. I am pleased to do it with colleagues from the House. I am pleased to be a member of the House, and I look forward to getting on with the business of implementing over time, in a fiscally responsible manner, the issues that have been raised in the Speech from the Throne.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. I know there was mention of the infrastructure program. Back in Saint John, New Brunswick, which is my riding, we have the Point Lepreau nuclear power plant, which needs to be refurbished. I think it will take over $400 million to refurbish it. New Brunswick Power has said it does not have the money. AECL, Atomic Energy of Canada, came to Fredericton, New Brunswick, for a dinner. It needs some money. AECL said that nuclear power has to stay. When we are looking at Kyoto and the environment, nuclear power and natural gas are of course priorities.

Does the member agree that the government, through that infrastructure program or some other program, should be funding the refurbishing of the nuclear power plant to keep it going in Saint John, New Brunswick?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member across the way. Renewable resources and ways to get cleaner energy are important to the country, and there are many ways. There are wind tunnels, fuel cells and nuclear energy. We can do demonstration projects.

Through various programs we can help our environment and keep the cost of energy relevant and reduced. I look at some of the areas and the way some fuels have helped pollute our environment and I think it is important that we go forward.

I congratulate some of the oil companies that have moved forward positively in steps that realistically look at where we are today and how they can do it better. We had examples in the House this week of corporations that have come forward with better and cleaner sources of energy and better bottom lines for their companies. I congratulate all those companies and look forward to seeing the fruition in the priorities of the budget.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if everything in the throne speech played out as it should it would be wonderful but I think where the pessimism comes in is that we have heard it so often that we are starting not to believe it. Actually, we do not believe it. What can I say? After someone cries wolf so many times nobody listens. Certainly if the government followed through on some of the items in the throne speech it would be wonderful for Canada.

With regard to my colleague's comments, I do not think there is any question that my time on the industry committee has led me to fully support the fact that indirect costs for research needs to be there. It is certainly important to go along that line.

What I do want to comment on is the commercialization of research which, quite frankly, I do not think is the route to go. I think we have seen from a number of major companies in health care that the commercialization of research does not do a whole lot overall for the costs within the health care system.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, budgeting is the balancing of priorities. I think it is a dream to say that we can do all these things in one budget or even in one session of Parliament but I think our goals have to be enunciated and that there are incremental ways we can move forward together.

I am a fiscal conservative, believe it or not, but I consider myself a bit liberal on the social justice issues. I think my friend is surprised over there. With respect to commercialization, I do not want the member to believe that I am not in favour of basic scientific research. I believe there is a real need for basic scientific research but in my own city I have seen research that has been commercialized through our research park that had a connection to our universities and successful companies have resulted from that. That is what I am talking about. It is not that every piece of research has to have a direct result. I certainly do not want to leave the hon. member with that impression.

We find by accident wonderful things from sometimes the most obscure titles of research papers, things with which we would never have associated to product lines. Yes, there are accidental beneficial consequences from new products so there is a need for the basic research but I also think we need the commercialization. Nobody wants to see research sit on a shelf.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a special pleasure and privilege to respond to the Speech from the Throne on behalf of the citizens of Mount Royal, one of the most multicultural and engagé ridings in the country, while giving expression to the cases and causes that underpin the involvement of my constituents.

Indeed, I am pleased that the priorities and purposes that are represented in the throne speech reflect those of my constituents and I trust that they will, because the question has been raised, in fact be implemented. These include: first, a comprehensive reform and renewal of our health care system, anchored in the values of universality, accessibility, public administration and sustainability.

Second, environmental protection, including an implementation plan to meet our climate change obligations under the Kyoto protocol; create 10 new national parks and 5 new national marine conservation areas; reintroduce legislation, and this is of particular to my constituents, to protect species at risk; strengthen the pesticides act to protect the health of Canadians, particularly children; accelerate the clean up of federal contaminated sites in Canada; and improve air quality and national water quality guidelines.

Third, redress the disparity between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples while working with first nations communities to build their capacity for economic and social development, expand community based justice approaches and maintain our focus on first nations health issues at the same time.

Fourth, enlarge and enhance our commitment to make Canada a world leader in skills, learning and research, of which I have spoken elsewhere in the House, anchored in the principle that knowledge, innovation and creativity are the measure of achievement in today's global village.

Fifth, invest in our cities to help build and develop worldclass urban centres and healthy communities.

Sixth, extend our investments in affordable housing, another commitment of particular concern to my riding, particularly in the Quartier of Snowdon and Côte-des-Neiges where the needs are greatest, while extending the supporting communities partnership initiative to help reduce homelessness.

Seventh, to double our foreign aid and development assistance approach, particularly for those countries that are in desperate need in that regard.

Finally, and most important, a sustaining and deepening commitment to our most important national resource, our children--a theme that runs through the speech from the throne which I was pleased to see--through a significant increase to the national child benefit to poor families; increased access to early learning opportunities and to quality child care, particularly for poor and lone parent families; targeted measures for low income families caring for severely disabled children so as to help meet the needs of the children and of the family; and early childhood development programs for first nations.

I would like now, in the second part of my remarks, to address two issues in particular: one of a domestic character and the other of a foreign policy character.

On the domestic front I will focus on health care because that continues to be the cross-cutting priority for my constituents and for the inhabitants of Quebec, as it is for the country as a whole. As I have said before in the House, Canada's health care system is a litmus test of our society, defining who we are and what we aspire to be: a caring, sharing, responsive and compassionate people.

As I go about in my constituency and my province, as I did during our summer break and since, I am able to identify eight major concerns with our health care system which, for reasons of time, I will abbreviate rather than elaborate upon.

First, there is an acute shortage in human resources, in health care professionals, including a critical shortage in family practitioners, specialists and, perhaps most important and which we do not address enough, our nurses, who are at the core of our health care system.

Indeed a recent report in the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrated a strong correlation between the amount of professional nursing care that patients receive and health outcomes. For example, these studies demonstrated that patients with more hours of nursing care had shorter hospital stays, fewer infections, less internal bleeding, lower rates of pneumonia, fewer cardiac arrests and lower mortality rates.

I need not reiterate the importance, not only for health but for sustainability and economic returns, of addressing and redressing this critical shortage in human resources, particularly with regard to nurses.

Second, and not unrelated, is the critical situation in our emergency rooms.

Third is the rise in pharmaceutical costs with its disproportionate impact on seniors. For example, as I was advised in my own constituency, the annual pharmaceutical costs for seniors is now about $885 a year, running the risks thereby of institutionalization, hospitalization and, tragically enough, even death because of the inability to pay.

The fourth and most important is a holistic approach to health care involving interdisciplinary approaches to primary and home care.

The fifth concern is the lack of diagnostic instruments.

The sixth is the lack of accessibility to health care in one's own minority language. I was interested in the proposal by the official languages commissioner to tie the question of transfer payments to the issue of accessibility to health care in one's minority language for francophones outside Quebec and anglophones within Quebec.

Seventh is governmental accountability under the Canada health and social transfer.

Eighth is ensuring the integrity of the principles of the Canada Health Act and the values that underpin it, particularly the concerns with universality, accessibility, sharing the risk on the basis of human need, and the timeliness of health care. One ought to make reference here to the impact of NAFTA on the integrity of the Canada Health Act.

In conclusion, I would like to focus on one foreign policy issue: the humanitarian urgency of the African dossier. In this regard I want to heighten the fact that we are on the verge there of a humanitarian catastrophe, with a risk to the whole new partnership for African development, NEPAD, the blueprint for a sustainable Africa. This will founder and fail unless we address the six following priorities of the African dossier and thereby avert a humanitarian catastrophe in the making.

The first is the pandemic of AIDS in the African continent, resulting in 2 million deaths a year and some 40 million projected deaths by 2020. In a word, a continent is dying. Unless the pandemic of AIDS is addressed with the urgency it warrants, NEPAD also may not survive.

The second priority we need to address is the threatened starvation of some 13 million Africans, a horrific and unthinkable contemplation. Canada must take the lead in averting this humanitarian catastrophe in the making as I speak.

Third is the convergence of the above two priorities in Zimbabwe, the crown jewel of Africa, where the pandemic of AIDS and the threatened starvation of 6 million Zimbabweans alone proceed amidst a Mugabe-led government of repression and corruption.

Fourth is the continuing “genocide by attrition” in the Sudan, where intimations of a peace process belie the continuing slaughter of the innocents, forcing the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum to once again reissue its genocide warning with respect to what is happening in Sudan, which regrettably has gone unacknowledged and unaddressed.

The fifth is the African world war in the Congo, which is a passing blip, perhaps, on our political radar screen, but where a culture of impunity only encourages the killing fields.

Sixth, and finally, is the recommendation by the newly inaugurated African Union that Libya, whose litany of human rights violations has been documented by the UN itself, be the new chair of the UN Human Rights Commission. The recommendation of a human rights violator country to chair the most important human rights body makes a mockery of NEPAD principles of peer review and accountability for human rights violations.

In a word, and in conclusion on this second part, Canadian leadership at this moment is crucial. A sustainable Africa, at the heart of a sustainable planet, is on the line.

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise and speak on the reply to the throne speech on behalf of the constituents of Surrey North. It is incumbent on me to express the disappointment Canadians are feeling after hearing what the Liberal government has planned for our nation for the next few years.

First, I would like to address an issue, something that we learned that had not been contemplated in the throne speech. The federal cabinet appears to have approved that the government change its rules for refugees. Those claiming refugee status who arrived from a so-called safe third country, such as the U.S., will be denied refugee status. Why was this not in the throne speech? This is a major initiative. So maybe it is not going to happen. We will have to wait and see.

During the date of my private member's Motion No. 422 in the previous session, calling on all western democracies to be listed as safe third countries, it was made abundantly clear that the Liberals had no real intention of ever stemming the flow of illegal immigrants into Canada. The government was giving Canadians its usual double talk of things like more study and international obligations.

I will be sharing my time, Mr. Speaker, with my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca

What that really meant was that the government wanted to do little, if anything, to turn back refugee claims in order for these claims to be heard in the first safe country in which the claimant landed. The issue of bogus refugees coming to Canada has been of significant public concern for decades.

If average Canadians are asked what they thought about Canada's refugee system, we would find out that they are proud of the fact that we have assisted thousands of people who are genuinely, and I emphasize that genuinely, persecuted in foreign lands. I also think that we would hear that people are tired of Canada's generosity being taken advantage of by fraudulent refugee claims.

My Motion No. 422 would have done much to eliminate the practice of asylum shopping and the use of our refugee system as a back door immigration method.

The Liberal government thinks that most western democracies are too tough on refugee claims and that Canada should continue to be the favoured destination of people smugglers, criminals and terrorists. The government knows all too well that all western democracies are signatories to the UN convention on refugees and torture. The Liberals also know that no country is as accepting of refugee claims as is Canada, and until others relax their standards we will rarely ever consider turning back bogus claimants.

Most Canadians agree that many people claiming to be refugees are not real refugees and some unfortunate attitudes have developed as a result. I believe that if Canadians were able to see that only genuine refugees were being admitted those attitudes would change greatly.

It is vital for Canada to continue its tradition of helping those less fortunate and I truly believe that. It is equally vital that Canada not feel used. In my constituency some of the most vocal critics of our refugee and immigration policies are members of the immigrant communities themselves.

By identifying certain nations as safe third countries, the government would restore a lot of confidence in Canada's refugee system.

I hope that the debate on my motion last February helped to contribute to whatever the cabinet seems to have decided concerning this matter. Again, I remain extremely cautious that the government is only talking now and doing nothing later. We will see.

In general on the throne speech, my colleagues have already laid out many of the shortcomings of the throne speech and put forward the official opposition's proposals to address the failings.

The Prime Minister has no plan. He announced no details and no price tag on the initiatives announced at the beginning of this session of Parliament, and he has refused to bring in a budget this fall to address these issues. Most of what was in the speech was simply recycled from past Liberal agendas.

Many of the government's new showpiece initiatives have been tried in one form or another and have failed miserably. Its agenda for children is an example of what I am talking about. Ask advocates of policies focused on children and they will say that they have been waiting for years for the government to deliver the programs required for the promises they make.

The children's agenda is set out as a set of throne speech promises from throne speeches in 1996, 1997 and 1999. The government has resorted to repackaging past promises and announcing new attempts to address previous failures. What of the feeble attempt to address the ethical issues? Even the Prime Minister's own caucus is balking at his proposals.

Of the 145 throne speech promises since 1993, 79 have been broken, unfulfilled or forgotten. That is a failure rate of 46%. In this throne speech we have 58 new promises, no less than 29 of them recycled from previous throne speeches or previous government announcements.

As one of the justice critics for the Canadian Alliance, I would like to take a few minutes to enter into the record a number of fronts where the federal government is disappointing Canadians through the mismanagement of our criminal justice system.

With respect to a sex offender registry, we understand that the government now plans to develop one. My constituents will believe that when we see it. So far, for months the Solicitor General has insisted that CPIC is adequate. We know full well that it is not; 30,000 members of the Canadian Police Association have said that CPIC is not adequate. Province have been in the business of developing their own. We have devoted supply days and numerous motions to this issue, so I am hesitant to believe the promise. It was not in the throne speech. It was announced after the fact. Again, we will see.

On the issue of child pornography, I welcomed the announcement in the Speech from the Throne that the government plans to move forward with legislation this fall that will tighten the defence of child pornography. We will hold it to this promise as will some government members who I know are extremely concerned about this issue.

With regard to the age of consent, for years the official opposition justice team has been calling on the Liberal government to increase the age of sexual consent in Canada from 14 years to 16. I myself have tabled numerous petitions containing thousands of names on this issue. I refer to a lady at home in Port Coquitlam, B.C., Diane Sowden, who is a mainstay in driving this issue and has been doing so for years. She is the mother who is a teen prostitute who knows all too well the problems around this issue.

Unlike other western democracies, in Canada adults may legally have sex with children as young as the age of 14. The Canadian Alliance has consistently warned the federal government that this law is hampering the ability of law enforcement agencies to protect children from sexual predators. The current age of consent leaves children and teenagers open to becoming targets of pornographers, Internet sex scams, pedophiles and sexual abuse.

We have received thousands of letters from Canadians from coast to coast asking for the necessary steps to protect the most vulnerable members of our community, however the Liberal government has failed to make the protection of children a priority. As I said, there was some lip service in the throne speech, and again, we will be watching.

Another issue which has not been addressed and which is extremely important in my community is the issue of auto theft. There are real criminal justice issues that are affecting Canadians on a daily basis on our streets that have not been addressed in this speech. Unfortunately my community of Surrey is now the number one city for auto theft in North America. There were 6,100 vehicles stolen in Surrey in 2001. That is a rate of 1,743 cars stolen for every 100,000 people. This is hundreds more than the second place community in North America, which I believe is Phoenix, Arizona.

This is a horrendous problem. Much tragedy flows from car theft. Often personal injuries accompany car theft. I know of one incident myself when I was coming home a few years ago from playing in a recreational hockey game. I came across the intersection two blocks from my house where a known car thief with a long record had outrun the police, waved by them, thumbed his nose at them, went through a red light, t-boned a car and killed a 34 year old woman on her way home from a church meeting. I witnessed that myself.

These are some of the results of car theft that are becoming all to clear and all too frequent: vast amounts of police fire, ambulance workers and resources become involved; the criminal courts; increased insurance costs; and police officers and innocent bystanders hurt and killed in crashes while in pursuit of stolen vehicles. It is my information that a significant portion of vehicle theft is for the commission of other crimes, for example robbery.

We have an incredible phenomenon now with ignition interlocks being built into current modern vehicles. There is a new phenomenon taking place where the people who want to steal these vehicles are breaking into occupied homes, conducting home invasions just to get the keys to steal the cars. Another phenomenon we are seeing is that they are stealing SUVs because these vehicles are built like tanks and they can use them to ram police cars when they are in pursuit.

In the last session I introduced a private member's bill to try to do something about the laws governing repeat auto theft. It was made non-votable and was shot down by the Liberal government. Maybe now the government will start to pay some attention to it.

Drug addiction, alcohol abuse, family breakdown, and children at risk are all contributory factors to auto theft which the government is ignoring.

Another phenomenon that is related is street racing, another crime running rampant in the region I represent. The mayor of Surrey, Doug McCallum, is saying that juvenile joyriders, young offenders in particular, should have their driver's licences suspended for five years.

Harjit Kaur Atwal was killed when her car was rear-ended by another. The suspects charged failed to show up for trial. Two children lost their mother. Constable Jimmy Ng of Richmond, a Mountie, was killed recently by an allegedly speeding driver who was formally charged with alleged street racing. The government has said nothing.

As for the throne speech, Canadians deserve much better.