Debates of Feb. 28th, 2002

Supply

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my earlier remarks. It is surprising that the hon. member is involved in a debate to save Canada. That is not where he is coming from.

He made the point that I said things were going well. I said I was pleased with the balanced approach being followed by the government. Many issues were raised by the mover of the motion. More can be done and more should be done. However I am pleased with the balanced approach being followed by the government.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise, I must say, with some degree of disappointment in my friends in the NDP, for many of whom I have considerable regard, not because I share their principles but at least because they have some, which I cannot always say for my Liberal friends opposite.

I am disappointed in the motion because it so clearly lacks focus. One of the perennial criticisms of the NDP is that it attempts to be all things to all people and has a kind of Utopian approach to public policy. What is reflected in the very notion of this motion is that we can save Canada, that salvation comes through public policy. That the NDP would present to the House 12 disparate policy ideas to debate in a few hours, I think reflects its lack of focus. It would seem to me that its caucus could not agree on what to bring forward in terms of a supply motion so each of its members got to throw an idea on to the list.

Perhaps the member for Burnaby--Douglas did not participate in the process because I do not see free trade with Cuba on the list. Apart from that, when some of my colleagues first heard there would be a 12 point NDP plan to save Canada, I received a number of e-mails suggesting that we could expect to see things like extending social benefits to house pets, the introduction of a protester protection program and the offer of free day care for all Canadians except bankers' kids. Somebody said that we would need to tax the allowances of children with stay at home parents to pay for the free day care. I was also told we could see Canadians being forced to refer to each other as brother or sister and endangered species being unionized so they could bargain with the government collectively.

Someone else suggested that we might hear about nationalizing WestJet to eliminate competition in the airline industry. Another person submitted that the NDP may want to make the Atlantic economy equal to that of Alberta by ratifying Kyoto and driving Alberta's unemployment levels up to those of Newfoundland. Someone suggested that we would reject NAFTA in this motion and embrace multilateral trade with Iraq, Cuba, North Korea and the PLO.

Finally, number 10 on the list to be anticipated was that the NDP would do for all of Canada what Bob Rae did for Ontario and Glen Clark did for B.C.

We were relieved to see that the NDP did bring forward a couple of sensible ideas but, unfortunately, no substance. First, let me go through its list. It wants Canada to ratify the Kyoto protocol in 2002. This takes no regard for the economic costs of Kyoto which have been estimated to pose a potential cost to the Canadian economy of as much as $40 billion, or 3% to 4% of GDP, and as many as half a million jobs. This is a ridiculous protocol which exempts all the principal polluters in the world, namely developing countries which have little or no emissions reduction technology. It will not be entered into by the United States, our principal competitor, or Mexico, our two trading partners in the NAFTA .

If the advice of the motion were accepted, Canada would impose upon itself enormous economic costs with little or no environmental gain and it would do nothing to reduce the principal polluters like the People's Republic of China which is exempted from the Kyoto protocol. If we were to follow this advice it would be economic madness with no environmental gain.

The NDP calls on us to strengthen the role of aboriginal, Metis and Inuit people in the Canadian family. Who can disagree with such a motherhood concept? The real challenge though is for the NDP and all parties to take a look at the literally hundreds of billions of dollars that have been spent on programs to assist first nations and aboriginal people but which have today resulted in levels of poverty, unemployment, despair, teen suicide and substance abuse higher than ever before. Something is not working in the way we deliver these programs and passing fuzzy minded motions about making people feel like they are part of a family will not solve the concrete problems experienced by first nations peoples who have been, I think, put at great disadvantage through many of the programs that are currently in place.

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

The NDP proposes that we reaffirm Canada's international peacekeeping role and rehabilitate Canada's reputation as respected internationalists. This is NDP speak for extreme skepticism in opposition to anything proposed by the United States in the international fora. When it talks about internationalism, its internationalism seems to have an especially close place for regimes such as those in Iraq. When it sees any kind of serious effort to impose United Nations resolutions for inspection of weapons of mass destruction in that tyrannical regime for instance, it is opposed to using the tools available to the international community to avoid rogue regimes from developing weapons of mass destruction. I really do not think this is a country that would want to follow the NDP's advice on foreign policy.

The NDP recommends that the federal government be a full partner in funding health care but to ensure that it is a not for profit system. Every doctor in the country profits from the health care system. Thousands of clinics, which operate within the publicly funded health care system, generate a profit. Profit is not a dirty word. The NDP should end its obsession with eliminating the only economic incentive which exists from operating within the health care system. Of course we need full federal funding and we support funding going back to 1994 levels.

The NDP wants to implement a comprehensive strategy for the eradication of child poverty. Everyone would like to eliminate not just child poverty but poverty in general. We would like to eliminate pain and suffering as well. We must understand that we have developed a multibillion dollar poverty industry which has not appreciably seen a reduction in the levels of poverty. Furthermore, the NDP uses statistics based on the low income cutoff line of Statistics Canada which does not measure absolute poverty but relative inequity in incomes. That is not a rational basis for public policy.

The NDP wants to ensure that trade agreements include adequate protection for labour standards in a human rights environment. I agree with the impulse here. I spoke yesterday against the accession of the People's Republic China to the WTO because of its human rights violations. We must be very careful about the kind of caveats we add to trade accords with other civilized democratic nations. These could completely vitiate the purpose of free trade and reduce the opportunity for developing countries to enter into the circle of exchange which has seen living standards across the world increase by so much over the past several decades.

The NDP wants to ensure that Canadian primary producers and farm families can compete with foreign subsidies. We agree with that but in the long run the real focus has to be on getting our farmers and primary producers a fair market price for their products, which they do not have because of foreign subsidies. Rather than ratcheting up a foreign subsidy war endlessly where farmers across the world lose, along with food consumers, we must, as one of our top foreign policies and trade objectives, eliminate price distorting agricultural subsidies throughout the world.

The NDP wants stable funding for strategic infrastructure. We agree with that but by strategic infrastructure we think the government should finance hard, meaningful transportation infrastructure for instance, not pork in government ridings which too often is the case.

The NDP also wants to celebrate immigration and diversity, a motherhood statement with which I cannot take exception.

The NDP wants to reaffirm fair taxes. We knew what that meant when Bob Rae had his fair tax commission and told us that anyone who earned over $50,000 a year was rich. In other words, anyone with an above average income should have a disproportionate tax burden.

The NDP wants to strengthen Canadian culture. We do too but we think Canadians are the best people to direct and finance their own culture and do not need bureaucrats and government programs to do so on their behalf all the time.

Finally, one point that I do wholeheartedly share agreement on with the NDP is number 12 which would strengthen Canadian democracy through parliamentary and electoral reform. We are the only party that shares with the NDP a policy that supports electoral reform to some more proportionate system of representation and of parliamentary reform.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Calgary Southeast has had much to say and of course we have only moments in which to respond, so I will go directly to the heart of this issue, to what I think is this cynical and mischievous suggestion made by so many members of the House when they constantly confuse legitimate critique of American policy, whether it is foreign policy, social policy or whatever, with anti-Americanism.

I think this is one of the things Canadians find deeply disturbing, because the reality is that Canadians are concerned about the slide that is taking place to the point where people feel more and more that we have only one more step before, in meaningful terms, maybe not in geographic terms or boundaries, that Canada will be little more than the 51st state.

If the member had heard my opening comments, I made the point he has chosen to ignore: that not only is it fair game, it is essential that we look very closely at what is happening in the United States of America today before we just allow ourselves to slide into a merger that makes us indistinguishable.

I will quote again briefly and ask the minister to respond to another response I received when I put out the challenge of how people would wish to see Canada's sovereignty strengthened. This is what one person wrote:

I don't believe many Canadians are anti-American, but an awful lot of us hate what we see happening in America today. We don't want any part of the new militarism that says to hell with social programs, let's kick butt around the world. We don't want a health care system that leaves 30% of the people with no coverage, many of the rest paying user fees and dealing with heartless HMOs. We don't want an underclass in our society, but we see homeless people sleeping in bank lobbies in middle class neighbourhoods at the same time as we see high end tax cuts and the end of social housing.

Can this member not understand that Canadians want us to distinguish ourselves from our neighbours to the south with policies that are fundamentally different and that are based on--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member for Calgary Southeast in response.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course I can understand that Canadians want to distinguish themselves in fundamental ways from our friends to the south. Some of my ancestors were United Empire Loyalists who fled to this country for precisely that reason.

However, my conception of what distinguishes us from the United States is a tradition of ordered liberty, a different kind of political tradition from that of the United States. It does not mean that I take an attitude of hostility toward the role played by the United States on the international stage. The hon. member quotes approvingly from a letter criticizing the American attitude of “to hell with social programs and let's kick butt around the world”. Hundreds of thousands of young Americans have died in wars in the past century and indeed they have died in the past months to help to preserve the stability of the world order and freedom in foreign countries.

My hon. friend may think the American role in Afghanistan was some exercise in militaristic jingoism, but when I saw the faces of people in Kabul who had been liberated from one of the most oppressive regimes in the world I did not see people who felt that they were pawns in some militaristic American scheme of the military-industrial complex at the Pentagon. What I saw were people who appreciated that at least one foreign power, with the assistance of the United Kingdom, had finally taken seriously their plight and had lent its resources and indeed some American lives to liberate them. I think that is a noble role, which the United States has very often played in the past century, and I think we should be ashamed of ourselves for not participating in that role more vigorously.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Notwithstanding that the hon. member from Calgary indicated he was sharing his time with the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, my schedule will not permit me to speak unless we can switch. My colleague and I have agreed, if it is with consent of the House, that I will go next and he will take my spot later.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Does the House give unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the consent of my colleagues to permit this to occur. I have been at a finance committee meeting and I have other duties this afternoon. The way the rotation goes it would not have been possible for me to rise and I would like to add to this debate. I really appreciate this accommodation, especially my colleague's.

I find it very interesting that the New Democratic Party has come up today with a very broad based, multi-point approach to how it would, in its words, save Canada. I would like to take the opportunity in the few minutes I have to address the last of the issues first and if I have time I will go on to another one. It has to do with democratic reform.

I am so eager to speak on this because of what has been happening around this place, in my observation, for the last eight and a half years and particularly in the last couple of weeks. I have found that probably the more distressing thing with respect to our democracy is not even how we get here but rather what happens to us when we are here. The point the NDP motion makes is that it would strengthen Canadian democracy through parliamentary and electoral reform, including proportional representation. I would really like to know what the party is proposing with respect to parliamentary reform.

The Liberals have a strange idea. They think they can strengthen the role of members of parliament by giving them a raise. We went though that last year. A former Liberal prime minister said that 50 feet off the Hill a member of parliament is nothing. I do not know how we can express this, but it appears to me that within 50 feet of the Hill and inside this place a member of parliament is less than nothing. No members of parliament count around here.

I am speaking specifically of what happens in the House and what happens in committee. I left the finance committee just a few minutes ago and I am fired up about this because what is happening there is so wrong, wrong, wrong. We have a finance committee that right now as we speak is dealing with how to gut a private member's bill. It is incredible. In this case I happen to have some serious questions about the private member's bill being debated there, but the fact of the matter is that it went to committee because it passed the House. A member from the Bloc had a private member's bill and was able to persuade the House, in second reading, that it should be referred to committee for further study. All the members here voted in favour of it and now that private member's bill is being scuttled. Basically the committee will be returning a blank sheet of paper to this place with a recommendation that it not be acted upon, which is bizarre to say the least.

I was caught in a conundrum. How does one vote on that? Shall this blank piece of paper pass or not? If I voted for it, it would have meant I was giving consent somehow to what the committee had done to blank the piece of paper. If I voted against it, it could be implied that I was not in favour of the bill, which was passed by the House. There is something really dreadfully wrong.

I have observed that of all of the time we spend debating in the House, probably the best times are days like today when we have an opposition motion, when opposition parties are able to bring forward an idea that resonates with the people we hear from out in the ridings, whereas from the government's side we usually get the government's agenda.

With all due respect, it seems to me that the cabinet members, the government as they are called, the front benches, are greatly out of touch with ordinary people. They have their agenda and they push it forward. They use the mechanisms that have become accepted in this place because of the traditions we have allowed to develop here which have totally emasculated the whole functioning of parliament.

We see it here in the Chamber, but now we are also seeing it in committee. In fact it has always been thus and I guess until this last couple of weeks I have just sort of gritted my teeth and said I will go along with it, but now I am starting to feel way down deep inside the same frustration felt by our colleague in the previous parliament, Lee Morrison, the member from Grasslands in Saskatchewan, who happened to be my parents' MP. In his last statement in the House he said he was leaving this place and declared that it had been seven years of his life wasted. I am starting to think that too and that is totally regrettable.

Here we are, 301 elected members. The Prime Minister thinks we are so important that he jammed through a pay raise for members of parliament, then he does not permit any of us to use our heads and to demonstrate that we are also leaders in this country and able to make contributions.

We had a fiasco in finance committee last week in which the members of the committee who wished to elect a chairman based on ability, on their assessment of who would best serve the country as a spokesperson for financial issues, were scuttled by the Prime Minister's Office and by the presence of the whip in the finance committee to the point that a different chairperson was elected. So be it, but it was wrong.

It is wrong that instead of allowing members of parliament to make the best decision we get these forced plays. Not only does it mean this for me as a member of parliament from the opposition side, but those members of parliament from the governing side are not permitted to even think for themselves or vote for themselves. They do not deserve a raise in pay. They deserve to get out of here. If this continues, what parliament will need is about five people up at the front who will say “we'll make all the decisions, trust us”, which is what it is now. The only difference is that we have a whole bunch of these blow-up dolls who, on command when someone pumps their little pump, stand up and vote. Then someone pulls the plug and they are down again and we do not see them again. That is ridiculous.

God gave me a brain to use. He gave me ears to hear what my constituents are saying. I am expected as a professional person to come here to represent, to speak, to think, to analyze, and when the final decision is made I will vote the way I believe is right. I think it is unconscionable that the whip from the governing party should say to us “be careful how you vote, there could be consequences”. Of course there would be consequences. We vote wisely and if we do not the consequences are that our electorate may not send us back again. However the consequences are not that someone will put the screws to us in this place. If that is the way this place operates, then let us shut it down. I regret that many of our young people, the pages who serve us so well here, would be without jobs. That is too bad because we have learned to really like them. They serve us well and it is nice for them to be here.

I think that what we need to do is empower members of parliament when they get here, whether it is by a proportional system or a first past the post system or some combination thereof. Yes, I think we should study that, but when we are here we ask that we please be given dignity and respect, respect that we are able to use our own heads, and we ask that we get rid of the shameful control by the Prime Minister's Office. That is the parliamentary reform we need. Some people say that then it will all come apart at the seams, but some of the stuff that happens around here should come apart at the seams.

I believe in the competition of ideas. Let us debate with each other. If I can persuade someone by reasonable argument then obviously among all of us in committee and in the House, the best decisions for the people of Canada will be made.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, it may surprise some people to hear me say that I agree with the fundamental point made by the Alliance member. We do need parliamentary reform. We need parliamentary reform for some of the reasons cited by the member.

Basically the government is arrogant because of its numbers. It is also arrogant because there are so many ways in which it can squash dissent, quell debate and in the end, simply run roughshod over the work of parliamentarians. Members earnestly and conscientiously serve on committees, hear from members of the public who bring forth recommendations to the government and then the government thumbs its nose at them.

It is absolutely incredible that there are autocratic powers which reside with the Prime Minister today. Clearly we do need parliamentary reform.

We need to make sure that when a parliamentary committee votes unanimously, for example to urge the government to end sanctions in Iraq that are killing 5,000 children a month, that the government actually does something about it. When a parliamentary committee proposes major improvements in a piece of legislation to save endangered species, we have to ensure that there is no heavy-handed interference from government members who decide that they want to completely push aside the recommendations made by the committee.

Does the member think it is incumbent upon each and every one of us to examine personally as parliamentarians and as political parties our own conduct? Should we examine how we create contempt in the public mind for parliament and how we create a lack of confidence in parliament?

Is the member willing to acknowledge that the kind of anti-politics practised by the Alliance, the kind of notion that the only way to improve Canada is to shrink down government, is an erosion of democracy itself, both people's belief in and participation in the political process? Is it not also eroding the government's capacity to do what Canadians want done such as improving health care, ensuring an accessible education system, building safe transportation and environmental infrastructure in the country, the things that really do matter to Canadians?

The Alliance Party keeps insisting that taxes per force are the scourge of the earth. Does the member not recognize that it is very difficult to maintain public health and education systems and other infrastructures that matter to all Canadians, the cost of which should be shared on a progressive basis through our taxation system?

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I always said in various debates that our conclusions derive from our first assumptions and are then driven by the analytic process we apply to the assumptions.

I want the member to know that I grew up in Saskatchewan in what is probably the birthplace of Canada's socialism. I was a teenager during the good old Tommy Douglas and CCF days. My dad and mom never indicated how they voted even to their kids, but I would venture to guess that there were times when Tommy Douglas got my family's votes because we believed in some of the things he was doing.

Swift Current where I grew up was where socialized medicine began in the whole country. It was our health unit which first said that through municipal taxes health care would be provided for Canadians so that no member of that area would go without needed health care because they were too poor to pay. That is a principle in which we still believe. If the member would take the time to read our policies, she would see that.

It is a disservice to say that we are against everything. It is not an accurate representation of Canadian Alliance policies.

We need to work together. We must solve the root problem of how representatives of the people work here and work through the problems to come up with the best solutions. We could have solutions which in some areas may look left-wing. We could have some solutions that look right-wing. But we could come up with the best solutions in all areas that would best serve Canadians.

Maybe we should think about doing away with labels and start to debate in a meaningful way the actual ideas with which we are challenged. We should allow a majority of members in the House of Commons through their own thinking and analysis to make the best laws possible for our country.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I wish to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie.

When I read the title of this motion, I was worried, and even more so when I learned that it came from the NDP. However, when I read the motion in its entirety, I no longer knew what to think, except that it was very clear that this plan had absolutely nothing to do with Quebec.

I understand that it is a plan to save Canada, based on the assumption that Canadians expect Quebec to leave, and we are anxious to do so. However, this plan raises questions. Canada—and I could speak about it as would a professor speaking about a neighbouring country—is still a confederation which is, in fact, a federation of ten provinces.

These provinces have powers, jurisdictions, and I would even go so far as to say that these provinces—which could be called something else in a country as large as Canada—are essential to the attainment of generous objectives, which are expressed here.

These objectives are generous, but since no account is taken of the need to involve the organization in the provinces, most of these generous ideas remain, in my view, unrealistic. I am not saying that a real plan would not be needed, and perhaps the party will take steps to come up with one following this debate.

I will begin, however, by reading an article which appeared in La Presse on April 4, 1962. It was written by a young journalist by the name of Guy Lamarche. It describes an interview with T.C. Douglas and is entitled “A federal party should not be afraid to affirm Canadian bi-nationalism”. Here is how T.C. Douglas explained, in 1962, what he would do so that there would be no more separatists in Quebec.

I refer you to our program, replied Mr. Douglas. Our social and economic planning will be decentralized and each level of government will be able to act within its jurisdiction. When a problem that is national in scope arises, the federal government will call the provinces together, and they will reach an agreement themselves.

The journalist went on to say:

Mr. Douglas used an example that was in the news: the national hydro-electric system. There was no doubt in his mind that Canada needed one. In this case, the federal government should call the provinces together, ask them to conclude an agreement, and provide the money necessary for its implementation: nothing more.

It is worth noting that 1962 is the period during which hydro-electricity was nationalized in Quebec.

We know Quebec paid for its own hydroelectric development, whereas development of nuclear power in the rest of Canada was done with sizeable federal subsidies.

I read this because the rest of the plan is centralist. It is based on the fact that the source must be here, with the fedreal government and the federal public service.

I would like to speak of Quebec. Taking point 5, on the eradication of child poverty, I would refer to what has been done in Quebec, starting back when René Lévesque was a federalist. He said, “A plan to eradicate poverty must be totally made in Quebec by Quebecers, because they will ensure that measures are integrated with each other, and can be effective”.

I will read a little further on if I may, the conclusion of the text, which we know he wrote himself at the federal-provincial conference on poverty in early 1966.

He said:

It has become imperative to establish a genuine economic and social policy. This policy should be integrated, flexible in its mechanisms and include a social security system centred on the family and based on the right to assistance on the basis of need.

For the sake of efficiency and on constitutional grounds, the Quebec government alone can and should, within its own territory, design and implement such a policy. Quebec cannot not let the Government of Canada assume this responsibility. Quebec does not, however, exclude interprovincial co-operation and mutual consultation.

Mr. Lévesque went on to say:

The social and economic development policy we have formulated will create an integrated social policy, regional development policy, manpower policy, health policy, housing policy and job training policy. not all these policies have been described in the present document, but we feel it is important to indicate in these conclusions that they are all among the instruments we plan to use in order to attain our objectives.

Finally, he said:

The general policy, while we do not necessarily condemn it, does not necessarily correspond, in terms of its spirit and terms of application, to one the Government of Canada might opt for. The people of Quebec will, however, enjoy at least as many if not more benefits than other Canadians.

I just got back from a meeting held here with parliamentarians from the Council of Europe. The issues discussed included children, poverty and early childhood. In the package relating to this conference and prepared for the Canadian parliament, there is a document from the Library of Parliament in which Quebec is mentioned as showing leadership in this area. The document refers, among other things, to the $5 daycare policy.

At the very end, a participant representing civil society talked about the $5 daycare and quoted me as having said that, since 1984—he could have said 1962—Quebec has had an integrated policy that includes this and that element. Quebec implemented that policy. It found the economic means to implement that policy. The participant also indicated that this is what the rest of Canada needs.

If I had said that, I would not have convinced my fellow European parliamentarians nearly as much. Nevertheless, I was very pleased that this person said that.

I am using that example because, to save Canada, which is Quebec's neighbour, it is clear that this model is based on people taking charge, people, community groups and municipalities that cannot be funded exclusively by Ottawa. There must be an integrated plan.

In Canada, this may be integrated right across the country, but socially and economically integrated policies are necessary; otherwise, we will not be getting anywhere.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, just a comment and a question to the hon. member from the Bloc who just spoke. I guess I should not be surprised that members from the Bloc Quebecois would not want to support a motion to save Canada because they are not in the business of saving Canada. In fact, they are in the business, if their highest hopes were to come true, of dismantling Canada.

Putting that aside for a minute, because that is not what the hon. member spoke to primarily, the Bloc is grasping at straws here. As far as I know, the Bloc is not against ratifying the Kyoto protocol, at least not that I have been able to detect.

Are they against strengthening the role of aboriginal, Metis and Inuit people in the Canadian family? Maybe it is the words Canadian family they object to because certainly the government of Quebec just entered into an agreement with the Cree of northern Quebec to strengthen their role as a part of Quebec which is still part of Canada.

When it comes to reaffirming Canada's international peacekeeping role, is it the word Canada is it the word peacekeeping that is the problem?

As far as rehabilitating Canada's reputation as a respected internationalist, day after day the Bloc has asked questions of the government in the House about Canada's abdication of its traditional internationalist perspective.

Is the Bloc opposed to ensuring all trade agreements include adequate protection for labour standards, human rights and the environment? This is news. We cannot hardly wait to put this on our website.

Is enabling primary producers and Canadian farm families to compete with foreign subsidies something the Bloc is against or would it had to have said Quebec farm families? Is there something wrong with it because it says Canadian farm families?

Then we have rejecting continental energy and water policies that endanger Canadian control over natural resources. Again, I would have thought that protecting Canadian or at least sovereignty over these resources would have been something that the Bloc Quebecois would have been interested in. It goes on and on.

The one thing that the member from the Bloc isolated and talked a lot about was implementing a comprehensive strategy for the eradication of child poverty. A comprehensive strategy could be a co-operative federalist strategy. There is nothing in this that precludes the kind of strategy that the hon. member talked about. To me this is a case of seeing a centralist under every bed. Just as Americans used to see a communist under every bed, the Bloc is now saying that it sees a centralist under every bed.

Even the former leader of her party, Lucien Bouchard, when he was in the House, voted for the motion to which this implicitly refers. He voted in 1989, as a minister in the Mulroney government, for a motion of the House to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. Was he betraying Quebec? Was he not acting in the best interests of Quebec by voting for that motion? No. He understood, and I am sure the member would understand upon reflection, that when we talk about a comprehensive strategy, it could respect the jurisdiction of Quebec. In fact it should.

The Bloc seems to be grasping at straws. It seems that their members decided this morning not to support the NDP motion because it talks about Canada, so they have to find some kind of picky reason for not supporting it. To each his own. However the member would have been much better served to have supported our motion.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, this attack by the member does not surprise me, but it does disappoint me a little.

As I have said from the start, we subscribe to the general objectives. We are, however, opposed to the way they wish to attain them, particularly when, as hon. members are aware, there are 38 MPs from Quebec here, and what has been discussed has been absolutely everything but the particular problem that Quebec constitutes. This of necessity calls for a reaction on our part.

We have spoken in favour of the Kyoto protocol, and not only have we spoken about it, in Quebec we have also taken action on it. One could take each of these points and say that we in Quebec have already moved on it and even pushed for it. Who were the first ones to call for the agreements—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member but, unfortunately, her time has expired. I would also remind hon. members that they must all address the Chair. The hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie .

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today, following my colleague, in the debate on the New Democratic Party's motion.

First, I would like to say that we now fully understand the reason behind such a motion. I say this in a friendly and brotherly to my colleagues from the NDP, because I am a progressive—I say this quite honestly—and I have defended causes here in the House that fully attest to this fact. However, it is important to understand that the NDP, through this motion, through this type of attitude that is in line with, improves and perfects the vision of nation building that the members opposite have developed, is excluding, is at odds with, and is marginalizing Quebec's reality. I say this in all honesty, and not to be mean to my colleagues from the NDP.

As my colleague was saying, fundamentally, the great majority of us support the principles set out in the motion, but we do not believe that this is the way to meet these objectives. We believe that this way of going about it, by setting Canadian objectives and national standards, will not allow these objectives found in the NDP motion, objectives that are viable and right, to be met.

Allow me to take but one example, the first point in the New Democratic Party's plan to save Canada, which reads as follows:

Enhance Canada's environment, including a national implementation plan for reducing green house gases, and ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, in 2002.

We are not against this principle. However, in Quebec, there is an action plan for climate change. There are only two provinces in Canada that have an action plan that could be described by us, Quebecers, as a national plan.

Quebec has an action plan for climate change. Because of this plan—I will not go back 20 years because some will say that it was Quebec's focus on hydroelectricity that gave it an advantage; I will go only ten years back in time, from 1990 to 1999—Quebec reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 3% per capita, while Alberta increased its emissions by 7%. This is a fact.

We do not necessarily need a national action plan in Canada to meet the greenhouse gas emission reduction objectives . Quebec has demonstrated that it can meet these objectives within its areas of responsibility.

I am saying it today and I will always say it: the mistake made by Canada regarding Kyoto is that the provinces were not consulted for 10 years. The difference between Europe and Canada is that when the 15 members of the European Union arrived in Kyoto, in 1997, they knew what the efforts made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions represented. They knew because they had true consultation, true co-operation. Member countries, sovereign countries were called upon to get involved, thus making Europe a key player in the fight against greenhouse gas emissions.

Where did Canada's national vision to reduce greenhouse gas emissions take us? Nowhere. I would even go further. Had it not been for the Quebec national action plan on climate change, Canada would be the world's worst polluter. And today they are talking about a national plan? This does not make any sense.

How could 15 sovereign countries, members of the European Union, agree on objectives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve significant progress, when our federation has not managed to take this important step? There is a lesson to be learned from this situation. Why? Because it is the provinces that are dealing with the reality. Some day, this government will have to realize that it can never implement a national action plan on climate change, because Canada is different from one end to the other, and because each province has a different economic structure and a different climate.

It is obvious that Quebec's climate is not the same as the one in British Columbia. It is simply not possible to develop a national policy, because Canada is different from one end to the other. And not only because Quebec has a different culture and language, but because our economic structure is different and takes into account different natural resources. We enjoy economic diversity. How can we achieve our objectives? Certainly not through national plans. These objectives can only be achieved through regional plans.

I can understand Alberta saying today “The Kyoto protocol will be terrible for us”. Of course it will, because Alberta's energy situation is not the same as Quebec's. How can there be a national energy policy in Canada when our energy situations are different? We want an energy policy that addresses the notion of wind chargers. Fine, but the reality is that most of the wind charger potential is in Quebec. The geographic realities, the economic structures, and our climate are different. We must adapt our strategies accordingly.

That is why I am saying that the 12 points put forward by the New Democratic Party are, with a few exceptions, principles with which I agree completely. However, the proposed emphasis on Canadian nation building is not the way to attain the laudable principles of this proposal. And when this is understood, so will many other things be understood.

People will understand that the very reason that Quebec wants to become sovereign, apart of course from wanting to preserve its language, its culture and its history, is that these 12 objectives can be attained only if there is a real transfer of powers from Ottawa to Quebec City.

In my very frank opinion, the Kyoto protocol could actually result in failure. Canada will perhaps be responsible—not that I wish it—for the failure of a real international consensus. Why? Because the provinces were not involved. Alberta does not know what the impact will be of the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals set in Kyoto. The government is trying to get Quebec to help pay for attaining these objectives.

In conclusion, these are laudable objectives, but many of them will remain unattained as long as there are no regional policies, no real decentralization of powers to the provinces, because this country is not the same coast to coast. If the New Democratic Party members truly want to attain these 12 objectives, they will have to get one thing straight and that is that the constitutional order must be changed.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member from the Bloc Quebecois on his speech.

The member spent a lot of time talking about Kyoto and the situation in Canada at the moment. We recognize that the province of Quebec has moved to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants in our atmosphere. If I heard the member correctly, and I listened as attentively as I could, I thought I heard him say that we had to solve these problems regionally, that Alberta, to use his example, was not going to agree with the rest of Canada. To extrapolate from his speech, it seemed to me that the member was saying that we should throw it over to an international body to administer.

I question whether that is the right approach to take. Should we not be trying very hard to sort out our problems here at home before we throw them to an international body to resolve them for us?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not saying that we must entrust our problems to international organizations. I will try to explain what I am saying as simply and as clearly as possible.

When it comes to the issue of climate change, why did we not adopt the European model? In 1997, when the Kyoto protocol was signed, the European Union negotiated objectives for greenhouse gas reduction, like Canada. One year prior, the European Union had negotiated objectives for greenhouse gas reductions. When it arrived in Kyoto in 1997, and when it signed the agreement, it knew what the greenhouse gas reduction efforts represented for each of the 15 sovereign countries of the European Union.

We have taken a different approach, a national approach. Canada negotiated for the Canadian provinces, without knowing what the effects of signing the Kyoto protocol would be for the provinces. Because of this, the provinces were not able to prepare themselves.

What I am saying is this: let us adopt a confederation-based model, like a true confederation, as dictated and written by the Fathers of Confederation: real decentralization and real sovereignty for the provinces. This type of model would allow the provinces to know what they are doing and would require them to achieve results and answer to a supranational organization. We would have the results and know where we are going. That is the difference

Instead of nation building, we are proposing a European style confederal union, which would allow us to be equal partners. I can assure the House that we would not be experiencing the chaos that we are experiencing today when it comes to climate change if we had taken the European approach for this simple problem.

How is it that 15 sovereign countries were able to agree among themselves to negotiate greenhouse gas reduction efforts in Kyoto, yet we in Canada are not capable of agreeing among ourselves? Perhaps it is because there is a problem with consultations among partners. Perhaps it is because the federal government acted paternalistically toward the provinces for five years.

Today, Canada finds itself isolated. It will end up paying for it, even though I hope that that will not be the case. Canada, because of its national vision and national approach lacking in consultations, must not be responsible for the failure of the international consensus on the Kyoto protocol.

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

Madam Speaker, I am grateful to my colleagues in the New Democratic Party for providing all of us in the House today with the opportunity to debate so many important issues. While I certainly could speak to many of the points raised in the NDP's 12 point plan to save Canada, I will limit my comments to the issue of peacekeeping and the eighth point as well.

The third point states:

Reaffirm Canada's international peacekeeping role and rehabilitate Canada's reputation as respected internationalists.

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Fraser Valley if he shows up, and if he does not, I will continue on.

Canada's reputation as an international peacekeeping nation is one we have earned through two generations of tireless and selfless work on behalf of the people of the world. Our accomplishments in the name of peace and freedom time and again have earned the respect and appreciation of countless nations and their citizens.

When an international conflict arises, Canada is the nation most often sought to help resolve disputes and restore order. That is a history and a heritage of which each and every one of us in Canada should be proud. It is not a luxury and it is not a laurel upon which we can rest. The government and the people of Canada must continuously prove themselves to be deserving of the trust, faith and hope of the world.

I have a personal fear, one which I believe is shared by colleagues in the NDP caucus, that due to ill-advised foreign policies and shortsighted spending cuts in the area of national defence, we are on the verge of losing our reputation as peacekeepers around the world.

I have said countless times in the House but it is worth repeating that our men and women in uniform are the best in the world. Their courage and their compassion are second to none. They have earned our support and respect. Therefore, when we criticize the government for its defence policy, we are not criticizing our Canadian armed forces personnel, even though that is often how the government portrays us.

The people of Canada must recognize that their government has led them astray. The people of Canada must recognize that the government has squandered too many precious opportunities to demonstrate those Canadian values and ethics that have made us the envy of all others.

One might have thought, one might have even expected, given the leading role played by the Liberal Party and its former leader Lester Pearson in the creation of the modern notion of peacekeeping, that the Liberal Party of Canada today would have done more to secure our legacy. Sadly, for reasons that are unclear to others and myself, the government has turned its back on the principles of peacekeeping. Those are the principles of Lester B. Pearson.

The NDP motion suggests that we should reaffirm Canada's peacekeeping role. I could not agree more.

In the past decade, despite the heroic efforts of our nation's best peacekeepers, our reputation as a peacekeeping nation has declined. That is not because our men and women in the field have stopped shedding their blood, sweat and tears. It is quite the contrary. The reason for this decline has been that our government has departed from those bedrock principles that have guided us so well.

Under the faulty belief that the cold war was over, the government made significant cuts to our military's budget that necessarily had the effect of reducing our ability to respond in an effective or immediate manner to troubles when and where they arose.

I do not claim to be an expert in foreign policy. In fact I am certain that my colleague from Cumberland--Colchester is far more experienced in such matters than I am. What I do know, and what is obvious to anyone willing to look at the cold hard facts, is that our nation has not used its credibility in its foreign affairs to maintain our reputation in peacekeeping.

At the present time our defence department's resources are so low and our people are stretched to the limit. When new situations develop and new requests are made we are forced to make massive adjustments to our troop allocations often at the expense of other programs and interests.

Our military planning should not be a game of musical chairs. Not only do we owe our own people a clear and unwavering commitment to peace and security we owe that commitment, by extension, to the people in those nations who are ravaged by the tyranny of war. That, my colleagues, is the Canadian tradition.

I have risen in this place many times to sing the praises of our military and our war veterans. I have spoken of the vigilance and diligence of our fighting forces irrespective of the missions they have been asked to undertake or to which far corner of the globe they have been dispatched.

It was the shocking and tragic events of September 11 that reinforced how truly vital their contribution is and how we must always be prepared. Now more than ever our unique abilities are needed. Now more than ever our men and women in uniform will be called upon to protect our freedom both here and abroad. We must be ready for that call and must provide our people with the tools they need to do their jobs. We cannot afford to wait.

I recognize that the Minister of National Defence has recently agreed that the time has come for us to review our country's defence policy. While I applaud and share this view it must be noted that this is a view that has been held by countless others, myself included, for a number of years. The minister has turned a blind eye to the troubles of our military, in part out of cabinet and caucus solidarity, and in part, because he is uncertain about where to take us. That is the problem. It is not that the government is suffering from a lack of will. It is a lack of vision that has paralyzed it.

The Liberals came to power faced with the towering duties and obligations that we have earned through a lifetime of global service and they simply did not know how to start addressing the many issues on our plate. They claimed that in the new post-cold war world Canada would not need to be as strong as it once was. We warned them that they were wrong. They claimed Canada's military could continue to be as effective with only a fraction of the resources at its disposal. We warned them they were wrong.

There are times when a person enjoys being vindicated and proven right, but I doubt that any of my colleagues on the opposition benches would say that they got any joy from being proven right when events showed us how wrong our government was.

The fight against the evils of the world is a never ending battle. There is no time for us to stop and take a breather. We do not have the luxury of taking a shift on the bench and letting others take our place. Any government or any minister who feels that we can let our guard down if even for an instant should take a long hard look at how our world has changed in the last six months. That is the problem.

Even the most forward thinking government policy can be derailed by sudden events and unpredicted circumstances. That is why we must always prepare for the worst, not for the best. That is why we must always have a robust military in place that is capable of handling any situation that we throw at them.

That means having airlift and sealift capability to transport our own people and equipment to where they are needed, not looking to President Bush to do it. That means having helicopters and aircraft that are younger than the pilots who fly them and not looking to President Bush to once again take over and meet our needs. That means giving our men and women in uniform the uniforms they need to have. We cannot cut corners.

We have been warned by our American friends through their ambassador and by our NATO allies through Lord Robertson that we are not doing enough. When we let ourselves coast, the nations of the world, the good, the bad and the indifferent, all take notice.

I for one am not satisfied with the status quo. I for one am not willing to stand idle as we let our reputation as a peacekeeping nation fade away into the pages of history. We have a duty. It is a duty that we must take seriously. It is a duty that we have earned with the blood and sweat of our nation's best. Let us never forget it. Let us never forget the lives that are at stake. I feel very strongly we must look after our military and it must be a priority.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I regret that I was not able to hear the introductory comments of the member who has just spoken because I was tied up in an interview. I did arrive in time to hear her speak passionately on Canada's important role as peacekeeper and I commend her for that.

I agree with her that we cannot keep adding more responsibilities and taking on more missions by our peacekeepers and then not give them the support that they require to do their job and to ensure their safety and protection.

In the broader context, and I do not want to erode for a moment the importance of that issue because I share that concern, does the hon. member share the concern that has been articulated by many informed critics of what is happening in the world today?

In particular I want to pay tribute to a former member of the Progressive Conservative Party, a member in the House for many years, Douglas Roche, who is now an independent senator. He expressed his concern that for the entire array and battery and range of comprehensive programs, services, responsibilities, and mandates of the United Nations, that it has a $10 billion budget to work with annually whereas at the very same time the world continues to spend more than $800 billion a year in armaments.

Would the hon. member comment on what she sees as the responsibility and internationalist role for Canada in addressing what is surely a major concern that we all, as parliamentarians, ought to be focussing on?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. leader of the NDP for the question. The UN has been critical of Canada recently. NATO has stated that we have not put enough money into our military budget for the job that it has to do.

Canada is known around the world as a country that reaches out to bring peace whenever there is a conflict. We have done that in Bosnia and around the world. We will continue to do that but we can only continue if we give our men and women the tools to do their job.

Last week one of our men in the military in Afghanistan sent a note home to ask if his parents would send him a box of food because he was hungry. I cannot believe we have done this.

I know the hon. member has heard about the Raging Grannies. I will appeal to them and if they can sew I will ask them to get other seniors who can sew across this nation and within 30 days we will have all 750 uniforms for our men over there. We will send our military personnel the uniforms they need and should have.

There was a report called “Caught in the Middle” produced by retired colonels, generals and admirals in Canada. They stated that our military was caught in the middle and it needed $1 billion more every year for the next five years to stabilize it. That amount is to stabilize it and then we need billions more on top of that. We do not want terrorists in Canada and we must ensure we have a military with the tools to look after itself.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the very broad motion brought forward by the NDP. It is a kind of scattergun approach. It covers almost everything under the sun. Much of it is easy to agree with because it is pretty much motherhood and apple pie.

For example, everyone wants to strengthen the role of aboriginals, Metis and Inuit in Canadian society. The only ones who have not done anything about it or do not seem keen on it are the Liberals. They are continuing the same flawed, paternalistic, colonial based system that has been the bane of aboriginal people in the country. No matter how many reports come out saying the system does not work they continue to plow down the same route.

It is easy to celebrate immigration as a cornerstone of Canada. The NDP motion talks about restoring respect for diversity. I do not see any lack of respect for it. Canada is a shining example of respect for diversity. We do not have a 100% success rate but there will always be flaws in any human based system. In Canada there is broad respect for the diversity in our midst.

There is broad understanding of the need for a good and well managed immigration system. The problem is in achieving the good and well managed aspect. The minister is proposing retroactive changes to the immigration system that would make it almost impossible for people to get into Canada based on the merit system. One would be more likely to get in by going to people smugglers and slipping them the right amount of money than on one's own merits.

That is a shame because Canada is understandably proud of its immigration system. Our nation is built on immigration. All of us who are not aboriginal have immigrant backgrounds. The system needs to be celebrated but it also needs to be fixed. The government would do well to concentrate on that.

I will talk about 3 of the 12 proposals the NDP has brought forward in its 12 point plan. Point number 1 says we should:

Enhance Canada's environment, including a national implementation plan for reducing green house gases, and ratification of the Kyoto protocol--

The proposal is half right. There is broad consensus that Canada should be a leader in reducing greenhouse gases. There is broad acceptance at both the provincial and industry level that reducing gases and pollution is a good idea. It is a good idea not only for health reasons and because we want to do our part. It is a good economic idea. Time and again it has been shown that a clean environment and clean industry is in everyone's interest in the long run. It is in our health interests, it is in the interests of long term sustainable development, and it makes good fiscal sense.

Simply ratifying the Kyoto protocol sometime this year is not the answer. Ratification of the Kyoto protocol in 2002 is part of the motion but I cannot agree with it.

From the day our representatives went to Kyoto we have asked the minister to tell us what his targets are and how he would achieve them. We have asked him to tell us on a sector by sector basis how the protocol would work and what role he sees the provinces playing. We have asked if the provinces agree to it and how it would work for them.

Are we putting so much emphasis on cleaning up greenhouse gases that we are ignoring other forms of pollution? Those who say we could dam rivers and produce clean hydroelectric power are missing the point. We would not have greenhouse gases but we would flood valley basins and displace people in those areas. It would cause other ecological problems. Sure, hydroelectric power could reduce greenhouse gases but it is not as simple as that.

No job analysis of the Kyoto agreement has been done by the government. There is no detailed, sector by sector analysis. There are no numbers. The minister says it would cost $500 million a year. Industry says it would cost 450,000 jobs. The Prime Minister says he rejects all those numbers but cannot provide any numbers himself.

The Prime Minister has not put anything on the table about a cost benefit analysis and how it is going to work or how he got the provinces to buy into it, or how industry will play out. He has not put anything on the table indicating how it will affect our relationship with the Americans.

Nothing has been done on the government side. To ratify Kyoto without any of the facts, if it is not a recipe for disaster, at least it is a recipe for a severe problem between federal and provincial jurisdictions and industry that will hopefully drive us toward economic recovery.

I would also like to talk about the trade agreements. The sixth point states:

Ensure all trade agreements include adequate protection for labour standards, and for human rights and the environment.

This is a longtime NDP wish list.

We should ask ourselves if we are committed to free trade as a principle. The principle of free trade is a sound one. A rules based trading agreement between us and any other country, and certainly between us and the United States is necessary if we are going to have a chance of seeing Canadian concerns addressed in an international forum. Rules based trading is key to our future prosperity.

I want to ring the alarm bells. For the past five years we have watched the Liberals sleepwalk into a potentially disastrous situation which is now facing the country with regard to our softwood lumber industry. We have had five years of advance warning that the softwood lumber agreement will expire. What has the government done during those five years? It has told us not to worry, be happy, that the agreement will be settled well ahead of time. We are now three weeks away from the expiration of the deal.

From coast to coast our softwood lumber industry is being seriously affected by the duty put in place by the Americans. The Prime Minister told us last fall that it would be settled by Christmas. He then told us it would be settled by the expiration date of the agreement. He has been telling us that he is confident it will be done by March 21. Now he is hopeful it might be done. He now says the issue will be taken to the WTO. Maybe the government will take it to NAFTA. Maybe the government does not have a clue what it is going to do about the softwood lumber issue, the most serious trade agreement problem this country has.

Thousands of people have been displaced out of the industry from coast to coast. In my province 20,000 have become unemployed. There is no plan to address their immediate concerns. There is no plan to address industry concerns. There is no plan to address concerns from coast to coast on a file that the government has mismanaged for five long years.

A rules based trading agreement only works when everybody agrees to play by the rules. I do not think the Americans are playing by the rules. The Prime Minister and the international trade minister are also not doing their part by not raising the priority of this issue to the highest level possible or putting as much emphasis and as much time into the softwood lumber problem as was put into the last trade mission to Russia. As much as we would like to expand our trade with Russia, and as good as it might be, the total trade in all products in one year with Russia is not 10% of our softwood lumber industry.

Does the government have a trade mission going to Washington to sit on the doorstep and solve this problem? Not a chance. The government put it on the back burner, wishing and hoping and pleading that something may happen. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. The Liberal government has not done what it takes to get this issue settled. It will come back to haunt the government as it is already haunting the Canadian industry, one of the most important export industries in the land.

Hip, hip, hurray to the hon. House leader of the NDP with respect to the last point in the NDP proposal dealing with modernizing the democratic system. Right back to when he was a keen member of the McGrath commission, back in another era almost, the House has repeatedly said that we need to modernize, we need to democratize, we need to get parliamentarians back on the top of the ladder instead of at the bottom of the pile.

Canadians will applaud us for every effort we make to encourage democratizing this place. I certainly encourage the last point. It is an excellent idea. There is no shortage of ideas, but what there is a shortage of is willpower in the Prime Minister's Office to make it happen. Let us proceed with that last point post haste.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I begin on a positive note by welcoming the hon. member's support of the 12th point in our plan which calls for parliamentary and electoral reform. I have had an opportunity to work with him and others over the years to try to secure various forms of parliamentary reform.

Although we have not had an opportunity as parliamentarians to seriously look at electoral reform, I hope that someday we will. I recall asking the Prime Minister a year or two ago if he would consider forming an all party committee to look at electoral reform and he rejected the matter out of hand. There is a great desire on the part of Canadians to think differently about how our electoral system works and whether or not if it was reformed it could create parliaments which were more representative of the views of the Canadian people both nationally and regionally.

I was interested in the member's remarks on Kyoto. I can understand the concern to know what the costs of implementing the Kyoto accord would be. What I do not understand is this one-sided fixation on what the costs of implementing Kyoto would be and why there is no complementary attention being paid to the costs both nationally and globally of not implementing and ratifying Kyoto.

The member is not an unintelligent member of parliament. Surely he does not belong to that camp which rejects the whole theory of global warming and climate change. If he is, then it is a whole different conversation.

However if he regards that as a fact and something we should be concerned about, why is he not on his feet like we are, calling on the government to produce the studies that show the costs of not implementing and ratifying Kyoto? It would seem to me that ultimately in a global sense, not necessarily in a national sense, the price of not dealing with climate change could be greater than anything we could measure in terms of traditional economic indicators.

Would the member join with us in asking the government to produce the figures as to what not ratifying Kyoto would cost?

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would join with the member in saying that all of us would like to see any figures from the government on any impact of Kyoto. The problem with Kyoto is some people see it as a panacea.

I would argue with the NDP that the problem with standing up every day with the one-sided argument that it will all be death, destruction, hellfire and brimstone if we do not approve Kyoto is not viable. To say that if we just reduce greenhouse gases everything will be fine does not look at the other side of the equation.

I mentioned earlier that we could reduce greenhouse gases significantly. We could dam the Fraser River for example and not burn as much fossil fuels and have nice clean hydroelectric power, but at what cost? We would kill the river. We cannot just say it is a net gain. There are tradeoffs.

The government has given us no figures on the impact on employment, the impact on sectors, or the impact of not doing it. It does not have a clue. As near as we can tell, the government has signed it as a publicity stunt or a general acceptance that we should all be more environmentally concerned. That is easy to agree with. It is not good enough as a government to just say it has not done any cost analysis one way or another, or no environmental analysis, that it just kind of agrees with it and it may cost $500 million and 450,000 jobs a year. That is not good enough.

To approve Kyoto we should have hard facts on our side. I agree with the House leader of the NDP that if we can have hard facts on how much damage it would do not to approve Kyoto, let us see those too.

As near as I can tell, the Liberals created this whole thing on the back of a cigarette package on their way over to Kyoto. They did not have a clue what they were negotiating when they went there. They came back without a clue on how to implement it. They have no idea how much it is going to cost. They just wanted to sign it. No one else would do that.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the motion brought forward by the NDP caucus today having to do with saving Canada as a sovereign nation and strengthening our distinctive contribution to the world. In doing so our motion calls on the government and calls on Canada to adopt our 12 point plan to save Canada. I would like to go over as many of the points as I can.

Madam Speaker, I will only have 10 minutes because I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

The first on our list is to enhance Canada's environment, including a national implementation plan for reducing greenhouse gases and the ratification of the Kyoto protocol in 2002. This is something that has been debated today. It is one of the things that has caught the attention of the House.

Unfortunately, it has been a debate primarily among the NDP, the Alliance and the PC/DR coalition caucuses as to the wisdom of ratifying the Kyoto protocol. The NDP has been arguing that the costs of not ratifying are more significant and salient than the costs of ratifying, which the Alliance and the PC/DR coalition regard as more significant and salient.

I would like to make the point one more time that in our view, there are costs to pay in not ratifying Kyoto, both environmentally and politically. That is to say in terms of impeding whatever momentum there may be now for ratifying the Kyoto accord and for arriving at global environment solutions, there are political costs to pay as well as an environmental cost.

We do not believe that this would be a panacea, as we have been accused of believing, but that it would be a first start, a small baby step. We realize in some ways how insignificant Canada's contribution to this can be arithmetically. However Canada's contribution to this could be quite significant politically by helping to create the momentum by which some day even the United States may feel that it has to ratify the Kyoto accord.

We would like to strengthen the role of aboriginal, Metis and Inuit people in the Canadian family. A good place to start would to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples that reported several years ago. This is an outstanding injustice. It is an outstanding inadequacy in our national life. The sooner we get around to addressing it the better.

I would have thought that the government may have wanted to support it. I understood at one point that the Prime Minister regarded this parliament and this mandate as a time in which he would address it, but since September 11, it appears that it has disappeared off the Liberal radar screen.

We would like to reaffirm Canada's international peacekeeping role and rehabilitate Canada's reputation as respected internationalists. This refers to the way in which, in our view, the Canadian government, in dealing with the war on terrorism, in participating in the international military coalition led by the United States and in a variety of other ways, has not respected international law and has departed from Canadian tradition. We would like to see that tradition reaffirmed and respected.

We talk about re-establishing the federal government as a full partner in funding health care and post-secondary education as public not for profit systems. If there is one social reality with which Canadians identify as being a particularly Canadian social reality, a particularly Canadian value system, it is the value system we find incarnated in our health care system.

That health care system is at risk, as are so many other things we have regarded as distinctly Canadian over the years. They are at risk partly because of inaction on the part of the Liberal government, particularly on health care. They are at risk because of the Liberal government's withdrawal from the full federal-provincial partnership that medicare once was. They are at risk because of an unwillingness on the part of the government to consistently stand up for Canadian values in the global marketplace, whether it is the pressure to Americanize or privatize our health care system, the pressure on the wheat board or on the various other ways we have decided to do things differently.

We have decided to do things not just differently but better in my judgment and I think a lot of Canadians share that judgment. We are saying that Canadians want to preserve what is distinct and what, in our judgment, is better about the way Canadians have decided to organize their economic and social lives.

We want to implement a comprehensive strategy for the eradication of child poverty. This is something that the parliament of 1989 committed itself to in the fall of that year. Yet here we are two years after that year, the year 2000 being the year by which child poverty was to be eliminated, and child poverty is no where near being eliminated. We say it is about time we declared the equivalent of war on child poverty. It could be by federal-provincial strategies. We can do it in a co-operative federalist way. We do not have to offend Bloc sensitivities or anyone else's sensitivities, but we have to get serious about eliminating child poverty.

We need to ensure that all trade agreements include adequate protection for labour standards, human rights and the environment. Ever since the implementation of the free trade agreement in 1988, the NDP has been concerned about the role that these free trade agreements have had on eroding Canadian identity and Canada's ability to control its own economic and social destiny.

The model that was imbedded in the free trade agreement then went on to be replicated in the NAFTA, the WTO and now stands to be replicated in other agreements reached at the WTO under the rubric of the GATS, and perhaps a new agreement on investment somewhat like the MAI that was proposed but then did not make it. In our view all these things are a way of elevating property rights, investors rights, corporate rights over the rights of ordinary people to decent labour standards, to a clean environments and to control over their own lives through their respective democracies.

At the heart of the matter for us is the conviction that free trade agreements, as they are now constructed, are constructed in a way to limit the power of government and of democracies to seek the common good and to protect the public interest. We will not rest until we have multilateral trading rules which are just that, trading rules, but not rules which trump the rights of labour, the rights of the environment and the rights of national legislatures and subnational legislatures to act in the public interest.

We talk about enabling primary producers and Canadian farm families to compete with foreign subsidies. As a country, we need to decide if we want to protect and enhance rural Canada. Are we willing to pay the price? Other countries are. We cannot just keep lecturing other countries about their policies and how damaging they are to Canada. We need to decide ourselves whether our farm communities and our agricultural economy is something we want to preserve and protect and we need to pony up and pay to ensure they are protected.

Instead we have a government that has left our agricultural sector much more unprotected than even international agreements require. In fact, it has used international agreements as a cover for withdrawing even more support from our agricultural sector and from our farm families and communities than it was required to. We say that has to end.

We talk about rejecting continental energy and water policies that endanger Canadian control over natural resources. We all know they are acting in their own self interest. There is nothing particularly demonic about it, but the Americans would like to have a continental energy and water strategy, to the extent that they do not have one already, that would make it possible for them to exploit at will and without restriction our energy and water supplies.

I am sure the member who follows me and others may well speak about some of the things that are left like reaffirming fair taxes, celebrating immigration as a cornerstone of Canada, restoring respect for diversity and humanity in our immigration policies and strengthening our cities. Our cities are deteriorating. The Liberals are fiddling while literally our cities deteriorate before their very eyes.

We should be strengthening pluralistic and democratic discourse by means of appropriate regulation to limit media concentration in the country.

I remember appearing before the Kent commission 20 years ago. We were concerned about media concentration then. It looked like decentralized, scattered ownership compared to what we have now. Yet the government does not seem to be concerned.

Finally, I end where I began with respect to reforming parliament and the electoral system so that the House can be more representative of the views that Canadians actually hold so that we would not constantly be a prisoner of Liberal inaction and Alliance fearmongering.