Debates of Oct. 12th, 2004

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Don Valley East. First, I would like to congratulate you on your election as Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my constituents from Laval—Les Îles who have re-elected me for a third time.

In the time allotted to me today I am going to focus on literacy for seniors and the recognition of foreign credentials for immigrants. These are some of the many priorities of our government raised by the Governor General in the Speech from the Throne.

Immigrants who came to Canada during the 1990s now make up at least 70% of our labour force. For a decade now, we have been relying on immigrant labour increasingly because of our growing needs in technology and our aging labour force.

A number of highly skilled immigrants have had a tough time getting a job in our economy, because of the way their foreign credentials are perceived by the employers.

We all have heard of engineers ending up driving taxis because their credentials are not recognized in Canada. Unfortunately, they do not have the opportunity to get training in the practices of their profession here.

These are the same people who were accepted on their qualifications and approved through the immigration process. They entered Canada because they believed in the premise that employers in various provinces across this country needed their skills and expertise. They now find that there are several barriers to their successful integration since these same employers do not recognize their professional degrees or designations.

Many immigrants are caught in a vicious circle of frustrations. They cannot get work experience in Canada, because no one will hire them since their credentials are not recognized in our country. It is a vicious circle.

Accountants, lawyers, social workers end up cleaning offices at night. It is true that our government and previous ones were not far-sighted enough to prepare for the integration of these new immigrants. We should have been more aggressive in implementing strategies to prevent this situation.

That is why the government will put in place a more focused workplace skills strategy, and work with the provinces and territories to improve the recognition of foreign credentials. The Liberal government will also work more aggressively with the provinces and territories, and provincial professional licensing bodies to make certain that together we can find a better and quicker way to profit from the skills of people who settle in Canada. Foreign trained professionals must not continue to remain on the economic margins of a country envied by many as one of the best countries to live in.

Our government has been accused of fiscal mismanagement. Obviously, the opposition has not been paying a lot of attention. It has a short memory. When the Conservative alliance was running this country, I am sure it made errors in judgment and was quite arrogant in its approach to dealing with these issues.

We all make errors in judgment and always learn from our mistakes. This brings me to the Prime Minister's reply to the Speech from the Throne. I will paraphrase what he said. He indicated that our government made sure its expenditures did not exceed its revenues, so that future generations do not inherit a debt. Our $5 billion investment in the establishment, over the next five years, of a national early learning and child care system demonstrates our commitment to laying a strong foundation for this country's future decision makers.

We will invest $45 million over four years in early learning and child care for aboriginal children living on reserves. This shows that this government recognizes that the situation of aboriginal peoples living on these lands can no longer be ignored.

According to the 2001 census, nearly half of the non-reserve aboriginal population was under the age of 25 compared to 32% of the non-aboriginal population. Most of the non-reserve aboriginal population, 68%, lived in urban areas with almost 40% residing in census metropolitan areas, in cities with a population of more than 100,000 people, so we have only begun our work.

I would like to now talk about the reality of our aging population. Before I do that, I want to congratulate the government on its commitment to ensuring the well-being of our elders. We do not need to create an independent budget office, as suggested by the opposition. Our government has successfully balanced the budgets since 1997 while eliminating the deficit.

While doing all these things, we are showing how much we value seniors. We are also showing that this is a government that listens.

Seniors say they need to be more active and involved in their communities. This government has reinvested in new programs for seniors. Between last year and 2005, $8 million will be invested, on top of an annual growth of $10 million. Homes and clubs for seniors in my riding of Laval—Les Îles will be happy to hear that this funding will help upgrade programming and will certainly stimulate interest among seniors and those who, otherwise, would remain passive, becoming virtually prisoners in their own homes.

In 2000, Canadian seniors represented 13% of the total population; in 2016, statistically, they will represent 17% of the population. Many seniors live to the ripe old age of 80 or 90.

This is a government that has not been sitting idle. It has set out an agenda in the second throne speech in less than a year and made strategic investments toward those priorities. These include being host to a first ministers' conference which struck a $41 billion, 10-year deal to strengthen health care. This deal has been accepted by all provinces and territories.

We are working with aboriginal leaders to improve health care starting with a $700 million blueprint. We have seen strong growth in the Canadian economy with Canada's economic output in the second quarter leading G-7 countries with the fastest growth in exports in more than seven years.

Our economy in Quebec is also in full growth. We are benefiting from the substantial transfer of federal gas tax to municipalities in Quebec. This money will help rebuild and maintain our infrastructure, including when it comes to improving our rail system.

Quebec is an entrepreneurial society. This budget provides the tools required to ensure the development of young companies. That is good news for Quebec.

Our government unequivocally supports the regions in achieving their goals. This includes our commitment to affordable housing and the homeless, improved quality of life for seniors, and a commitment to a long term plan to improve our health care system by reducing waiting lists and times.

We cannot do this alone. It will take the commitment of the provinces and territories to work together to accomplish these plans which were outlined in the throne speech.

This throne speech is concrete evidence of this government's commitment to acting on the election promises made to Canadians in the last election.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke often of immigrant communities in the country. I have some of those immigrant communities in my own constituency and many of them of Taiwanese background have come to me with concern that the World Health Organization does not recognize their home jurisdiction or observer status at the World Health Organization.

This issue came before Parliament not long before the last election. The House of Commons voted overwhelmingly to support the observer status of Taiwan at the World Health Organization. It is with great sadness, however, that this community learned that the diplomats of our country stood up at Geneva and in the end voted against the will of Parliament. They decided to collapse under pressure from communist China and oppose the recognition of that small democratic island at the World Health Organization at a time when east Asia and indeed much of the free world was suffering with the problem of SARS.

Imagine a jurisdiction like Taiwan with 23 million people suffering from SARS not having recognition at the World Health Organization. How does this hon. member stand in support of the throne speech when her own government voted against the will of this Parliament, voted against the health of all people, and voted against the basic recognition of what Parliament had said?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the member of Parliament has confused immigration and foreign affairs. Definitely the two are linked in some way, but they are two distinct areas of concern. I would say to the member of Parliament from the opposition that the best person he could speak to might be the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her speech in response to the throne speech which had wonderful words and great rhetoric. However, there is a big gap between the words we have just heard and the actual action of the government. Let me point to a couple of examples.

Not too long ago we all received information that Canada's positioning in terms of the human resource index which measures our treatment of people in the country dropped from first to fourth place. On top of it all we learned that Canada is now placed 12th among 17 countries pertaining to poverty. In terms of wealthy countries, measuring our responsiveness to children and others living in poverty, Canada rated number 12.

If we put that into the context of the government's handling of the budget and its failure, either deliberately or inadvertently, to lowball the surplus so that the money is not transferred to meeting the needs of children in poverty, we have a pretty deplorable situation on our hands. In fact, Mr. Speaker, you will know that over the last 10 years the government has lowballed the surplus to the tune of about $80 billion. That is money that could have gone to meeting the needs of children in poverty, to students, to cities, to environmentalists and so on.

I would like to ask the member, is she prepared now to put her mouth where the money is and ensure that those surplus dollars are accurately forecasted to begin with and will go to meeting human needs?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my reply to the question will be very simple. It is true that Canada's position has dropped and it is partly in recognition of this change that the government decided to put forward the measures it did in the Speech from the Throne that will later be backed by the budget.

For example, we know that in the aboriginal communities throughout Canada, and I have worked with aboriginals, the level of poverty is very high. The government has shown its willingness and effort that it will be putting into the aboriginal communities, particularly the youth in the aboriginal communities who are the first to be hit by this. I would also mention early childhood education as well, particularly the tax in favour of communities. These will be assisting communities to help those that are poor.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the constituents of Don Valley East for electing me to represent them. I am honoured by their overwhelming confidence. I also would like to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker.

This week Canada was recognized by the world's central bankers as the best fiscal performer among the G-7 industrialized countries. According to the Swiss-based Bank for International Settlements, Canada posted one of the sharpest improvements in its fiscal situation, and consequently has the brightest economic outlook. With the federal books balanced for the past seven years in a row, the federal government is now in a far better position to meet fiscal demands today than it has been in recent memory.

Prior to 1993, the federal government was saddled with rising deficits and an ever increasing federal debt. Double digit interest rates coupled with skyrocketing unemployment rates dashed the hopes and dreams of millions of Canadians. The federal government was awash in red ink and it began to receive severe warnings from the international monetary fund.

I am an accountant by trade, and having worked in both the private and public sectors, I can tell members that the success of any organization depends on responsible fiscal management. I can therefore assure members that the success of this government is no accident.

The current Prime Minister, who previously served as finance minister, immediately adopted a disciplined fiscal policy in 1993-94 designed to quickly eliminate the deficit. The ripple effects of sound financial management were felt throughout the economy. Interest rates began to fall and the unemployment rate began to drop. Gradually the quality of life of Canadians improved as the deficit grew smaller and smaller. That is why we must not squander our current fiscal balance by spending our way back into deficit. This is something the federal government cannot afford to do.

All governments face pressures to spend on competing and often conflicting priorities. Municipalities, provinces, territories and the federal government all feel the pinch to spend more money, but it is the federal government that must be the first to demonstrate leadership and practise sound fiscal policy. It is essential that members of the House and of our provincial counterparts rise above partisanship to address public interests. That is exactly what the Prime Minister intends to do in the coming weeks when he sits down with the provinces and the territories to introduce the most fundamental reform of equalization programs in almost 50 years. Again, I must emphasize that we cannot afford to return to deficit spending to satisfy short term and nearsighted political agendas.

Last week the government outlined its vision for the future with the Speech from the Throne. It is a vision backed with a plan to invest in Canadians. At the same time, it will maintain a sustainable budget that will never let us fall back into deficit spending.

At the centre of this strategy is a 10 year health care plan worth $41 billion. It will ensure that patients will have better access to services. Most important, it will provide the provinces and territories with predictable long term funding. The government also has committed $4.5 billion over the next six years to establish a wait time reduction fund. This will shorten the time it takes for Canadians to access critical care services.

Parents and children can also look forward to a national child care system. The federal government will implement this system in cooperation with the provinces and territories. We will also provide support for those who provide care to loved ones who are aging, infirm or suffer from severe disabilities.

The federal government will also establish a new horizons program for seniors. This program will ensure that Canadian seniors remain active and engaged in community life. The plan also affirms the federal government's commitment to provide a new deal for cities and communities. It will give municipalities more fiscal freedom by receiving a portion of the federal gas tax. The federal government will also help local governments by enhancing existing programs such as the affordable housing Initiative, the supporting community partnership Initiative for the homeless and the residential rehabilitation assistance program.

Prior to the throne speech, the federal government already contributed $12 billion in infrastructure funding to Canadian communities since 1994. It has already provided municipalities with full relief from the GST. This means all local governments will have $7 billion more at their disposal over the next 10 years. In Ontario this will mean municipalities will save $243 million in GST relief for this fiscal year alone.

Other initiatives in Ontario include: $435 million for expansion of GO transit and the York region transit services; $298 million for Ontario municipalities under the municipal rural infrastructure fund; and $56 million committed for affordable housing.

To ensure a clean environment, the government will proceed with its commitment to implement the Kyoto agreement. This strategy will make clean air, water and soil a top priority.

Finally, the federal government intends to assert a stronger presence in the international community. The peace and nation building initiative will have three principal elements: deploy the Canadian corps, which will harness the expertise and idealism of civilians with an emphasis on recruiting the talents and idealism of young people; reduce or forgive debts owed by poor and deserving countries; and increase the Canadian Forces by 5,000 regular personnel and 3,000 reservists.

In closing, when I first visited the Parliament buildings as a newly elected member of Parliament, somebody pointed out to me an inscription carved on the Peace Tower that befits a Speech from the Throne. The inscription reads, “Without vision the people perish”. That is exactly why the federal government has outlined an ambitious and exciting agenda for the people of Canada.

As the member of Parliament for Don Valley East, I am both pleased and proud to be a member of this government. More than anything, I am looking forward to being a part of the larger vision for Canada.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank member for her first speech in the House of Commons. I have constituents who are very anxious for details from the government. The government is good for platitudes and describing where it wants to go, but when it comes to the road map, how we get to where the government wants to go, that is where the problems usually ensue.

Therefore, I have two areas on which I would like the member to enlighten everyone in the House. I have many constituents who are anxiously wondering how they will get their gas tax rebates to their municipalities for badly needed infrastructure. Rural municipalities, towns, villages and cities in Saskatchewan all have infrastructure problems. Would the Liberal member explain to me what the formula will be for redistributing the gas tax in a fair and equitable manner to all communities across the country?

My second question is this. I am still trying to find the implementation plan to the Kyoto protocol. We all want to see what the plan is. Could the member direct me to a website or something that explains in detail how the Kyoto plan will be implemented in Canada? I anxiously await the precise answers to these good questions.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a new member of Parliament, there are too many questions, so I will basically choose those that I am capable of answering.

There are things that are not known and that is that Canadians received the highest tax reduction from the government. The government has been so fiscally prudent that it has not been showing that 35% tax reduction. The government also has been working with the provinces and territories. I think it is the collaboration that will help us all build the infrastructure that we want. The road map cannot be done in isolation. I commend the Prime Minister for being so conciliatory and working with the provinces and the territories.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to congratulate my colleague from across the way for her maiden speech in this place. I know it can be somewhat intimidating to rise to give our first speech. She did a wonderful job.

I want to comment on what my colleague from Prince Albert referred to as platitudes. I would agree with him. It seems that the party she represents is always good with flowery rhetoric, but it does not follow through, especially at budget time with providing the resources that are necessary to do all the great and wonderful things it brags about during throne speeches.

In particular, I would like to draw the member's attention to the throne speech that she just addressed. It states:

Enhancing Canada’s security means that we have to invest more in our military as part of defending ourselves at home, in North America and in the world. We have to earn our way in the world.

How would the member square that with the fact that the Prime Minister, in his first budget last spring, failed to bring in any new money for the operating budgets of our military, for our three services, the army, navy and air force, and utterly failed our military in the sense of bringing forward money to address not only operating deficits, but the new equipment it needed? We are continually forcing the good people we have in our Canadian Forces to make do. All of us are aware of the tragedy that ensues when we continue to do that.

How does the member intend to hold her own Prime Minister and government accountable so that they live up to the commitments they are making, not only to the Canadian people, but to the men and women of our Canadian Forces. They have made these statements in the throne speech?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has stated that the government has platitudes and rhetoric. I do not believe that $100 billion in tax cuts is a rhetoric or a platitude. Nor is the commitment for $41 billion in health care or the commitment for $7 billion in cities.

I would like to remind the hon. member that when the federal Liberal Party took over just 10 years ago, the government had a $400 billion debt and a $43 billion deficit. We have to put our house in order before we can make commitments. I commend the Prime Minister for being so disciplined in bringing such fiscal restraint, but also investing in social programs that were so necessary.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to rise today for my maiden speech in the House of Commons. In addition, I am especially honoured to be the first member of Parliament for the new riding of Edmonton—Spruce Grove, proud to be among my Conservative colleagues and privileged to represent the honest and hard-working people of West Edmonton, Spruce Grove, Enoch, Stony Plain and Parkland county.

My journey to arrive here has been short in time but long in memories. I am blessed to have the support of my husband Bruce, my family, my friends and the good people of Edmonton--Spruce Grove who have put their trust in me to be their voice and to represent their interests.

I am proud to be a part of our Conservative team. Every day my Conservative colleagues inspire me with their fresh enthusiasm. They mentor me with their experience. They challenge me with their beliefs and their ideology. Their knowledge brings substance to our discussions. Most important, they bring humility and humanity to the difficult issues that we face every day as parliamentarians.

I am also proud to serve alongside the Leader of the Opposition. His leadership is one of the reasons that I am here today. His articulate, principled vision for Canada is the philosophical backdrop that I believe is necessary to ensure that this country is able to reach its potential, a vision that is embedded in freedom and respect for the individual.

I understand that the Speech from the Throne is merely meant to reflect an overall notion. It is supposed to be construed at maximum as a blueprint for the government's agenda and at best offer Canadians a small sense of the government's vision.

However this Speech from the Throne was disjointed. It was not only devoid of vision or passion, it was devoid of philosophical consistency and argument. It is not merely from rhetoric that I make this accusation. I sincerely believe that the Liberal government has lost its way. If I dare say, even to the detriment of my colleagues across the aisle who still believe in a Liberal vision, because those who actually lead the government may have once believed in a vision but today they have replaced it with a desire to maintain power.

Governments cannot sustain themselves on power alone. It is no mistake that practical solutions and real public policy did not emerge from this throne speech. Public policy is the building block that sets into motion the practical solutions that emerge from our passion and vision for our country but one cannot exist without the other. Public policy that will build a coherent, workable government cannot flow from words that are not rooted in a consistent set of philosophical principles and a vision for a country does not emerge without the passion that sustains those principles.

The Liberals' desire to maintain power has taken a toll. The Speech from the Throne was indicative of the most serious problem with the government, not that it is Liberal, but that it is nothing.

I was honoured to be appointed senior critic for intergovernmental relations for the Conservative Party of Canada. I believe that nowhere is this Liberal lack of vision and addiction to power more obvious than in federal-provincial relations because when we are dealing with the Constitution there is really nowhere that we can hide.

In almost every initiative in the Speech from the Throne, the federal government is infringing on provincial jurisdiction. It appears that infringing on provincial authority is the only consistent element to the government's agenda.

However, even if we acknowledge this element of consistency, there is still no reliability, no principle, no philosophy that is guiding the actions of the government, no vision for the way our federation should work and no sense of dependability or predictability in the relationship between the provinces and the federal government.

According to the throne speech, the government's vision of federalism is to ignore the most pressing issues faced by the provinces. Their constant and continuous incursion into provincial jurisdiction, if and only when it is politically expedient for them to do so, has become the Liberal way of maintaining power and establishing a sense of political relevancy.

This lack of consistency, this lack of respect for the constitutional authority of the provinces and the unpredictable nature of a government that makes decisions based on power as opposed to principle has left federal-provincial relations at an all time low. This relationship has been continuously undermined over the last decade of Liberal policy-making and today it has culminated in a desire to maintain power at the expense of the sometimes delicate fabric that holds the country together.

In their continual denial of the fiscal imbalance, their refusal to deal with the need to reform equalization, their dismissal of the call for real electorate and democratic reform and their belief that the state of Canadian unity can be bought with sponsorship money, the Liberals have fuelled the flames of western alienation, ignited sovereignist sentiment and created a wedge between the have and the have not provinces of this nation.

This has left provinces no recourse but to assemble a quasi-federal government of their very own in the council of the federation. While the federal government has ignored these pressing issues, the premiers have established a council as a vehicle to find solutions.

The Conservative Party of Canada supports the leadership the premiers are showing and the important work that the council of the federation is doing to advance interprovincial cooperation. However we also believe that these difficult issues require leadership from the federal government.

At the heart of all of this is the fiscal imbalance. I say at the heart because the fiscal imbalance created by the federal government is responsible for the inability of provinces to sustain their core health and social programs, the very things the Liberals claim make up the fabric of this nation.

Let us not forget the Prime Minister was formerly the finance minister and since then the federal government has taken an increasingly disproportionate share of tax money, creating a fiscal gap between the federal and provincial governments.

This persistent gap between the budget results of the federal government and the budget results of the provincial governments will only continue to grow and, at its current rate, it is predicted to reach a potential $90 billion by 2020.

Meanwhile, the provinces and territories will find it increasingly difficult to maintain balanced budgets and deliver health, education and social programs to Canadians.

Despite continued federal denial that a fiscal imbalance does exist, today it is expected that the finance minister will report that the federal surplus is easily more than double what the federal government had forecasted just months ago. This situation is unacceptable. While the federal government is swimming in surpluses we live in a country made up almost entirely of have not provinces.

Despite the continued federal denial that a fiscal imbalance exists, every provincial government, the Conference Board of Canada, the C. D. Howe Institute, the Séguin commission and the Conservative Party of Canada, just to name a few, acknowledge that this serious problem exists.

Even in the face of huge surpluses, the solution that the federal government offers is for provinces to simply raise their income tax to pay for the important social programs that Canadians need. However new taxes and continued provincial deficits are not the answer. It is clear that the current tax structure no longer meets the needs of the provinces and territories.

It is part of the Conservative Party's proposal to give the provinces greater autonomy. The Liberals' approach to the fiscal imbalance is stop gap measures when it is politically expedient for them. Instead, the Conservative Party has called for fundamental changes to the equalization formula, addressing the issues around resource revenue and the fiscal imbalance.

For instance, through the transfer of tax points the federal government could offer provinces the increased revenue necessary to deliver social and education programs without having to raise incomes taxes or go into deficit. It would also ensure that less inefficiencies and duplication would occur through federal intrusion into provincial jurisdiction.

However here is where the real problem lies. For the federal government to be able to implement a proposal such as this one it would have to give up some amount of power and control. To do that it would have to have some faith: faith in the provinces, in the premiers and in the members of provincial assemblies. It would have to have faith in municipalities, the mayors, the cities and the town councillors, the school board trustees, the parents and, last but not least it, it would have to have faith and respect for the individual. However this is something that the Liberal government has lost: faith in the individual and, by extension, faith in the nation. This is increasingly obvious in its politics of federalism when intervention, micro managing and duplication have become its contribution to federal-provincial relations.

This is the most striking difference between the government and the Conservative Party of Canada. We respect the Constitution and the power of the provinces and we respect the individual. Our vision of federalism begins from the notion that Canadians have the ability and capacity to make their own decisions and they know what is best for themselves, what is best for their children, their families and their communities. This is the vision of the Conservative Party of Canada and I look forward to the day that we form the government so the Constitution will be respected, the provinces will be respected and Canadians will be respected.

I also look forward to working with my colleagues, fellow parliamentarians and engaging Canadians in debate on these important issues. I do think togetherwe can find a better vision for Canada.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I can see the member has a good handle on provincial and federal jurisdiction. Would she expand on where the federal intrusion into provincial jurisdiction creates inefficiencies in program delivery?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue in regard to federal-provincial relations. The problem arises when the federal government has its own agenda and policy objectives. It is often rare that these objectives actually coincide with the policy objectives of the provinces.

When the federal government brings these priorities to provincial matters it attempts to set provincial priorities. This then shifts provincial priorities away from the needs of the citizens and toward the programs that the federal government is trying to fund and trying to impose.

As we all know, all provinces have different needs. Provincial governments are the ones closest to the citizens and it is their constitutional obligation to deliver these services to citizens. That being said, the intervention of the federal government then skews the process to the detriment of the programs that actually need to be delivered.

Finally, we should be clear that when the process is skewed, the people who lose out the most are the citizens not being able to have the quality of services they deserve. Money is also being wasted because inefficiencies are created and duplication happens. Again, it is not for the benefit of people who actually need the programs.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to further elaborate on the theme that the hon. member laid out in her presentation, which is the constant intrusion of the federal government into the areas of provincial jurisdiction.

The throne speech promises to further erode provincial jurisdiction with a pledge to assemble a massive, multi-billion dollar government-led child raising program it calls child care. This is an area of provincial jurisdiction. It is not part of the competence of the government. However, at the same time it applies a tax burden on the average family that is so burdensome it is inadequate for one parent to go out into the workforce and raise income by him or herself. As such, both parents have to go out to work.

The overall policy direction of the government is to discriminate against those families who make the sacrifice to keep one parent in the home to raise the children and instead forces upon them a decision that is not their first prerogative, which is a government-led child raising program.

I wonder if the hon. member might expound upon her earlier discourse about the intrusions into provincial jurisdiction with particular reference to this upcoming proposal.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think we still have quite a bit of detail to receive from the government side on this issue. My comment would be that on any program that is being imposed from the federal level onto provinces, as the member rightly said, this falls into the area of provincial jurisdiction.

In terms of child care, we have many needs across this country. Provinces have signalled that based on linguistic and cultural differences they are delivering child care within their own provinces. This is something that we will still need to get much more detail on from the federal government.

However I appreciate that any national program that is being imposed on the provincial governments will entail some sense of duplication. As I signalled, the provinces are already delivering this service to Canadians so there has to be much more discussion along the lines of what this will look like.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, first I thank the constituents of Blackstrap for returning me to Parliament and supporting me as their representative in Ottawa.

It is interesting that since 2000, when I was first elected to this chamber to represent the fine people in my riding, we have had four throne speeches by the Liberal government. Something that I thought was a rarity has become an annual happening, each repeating the same rhetoric but not building on the one before. Each throne speech is more diluted than the previous one.

According to the proper procedure of the House of Commons, the Speech from the Throne is generally a statement of the government's policies and broadly there is debate on that policy. It is very difficult for this side of the House to debate policies that do not exist. The latest throne speech was long on generalities and short on planning.

I found it particularly ironic that the Governor General opened the 38th Parliament by acknowledging a 60th anniversary of the D-Day landing and how important that day was to Canadians and to the world. From the veterans, she said, as a country and as individuals, we gain in pride and in purpose from their deeds and their service.

We closed Parliament talking about D-Day. Just days before the Prime Minister dissolved the 37th Parliament, we asked the Prime Minister why, when the government had money to take over 70 government sports staff, that only 60 veterans were sent to the D-Day celebrations in Normandy. Where was the respect when the government had a chance to honour our veterans by allowing more of them to attend that historic memorial?

Not surprisingly there has been an increasing number of cases brought into my constituency office concerning the Department of Veterans Affairs. In my riding there are constituents deeply affected by the lack of support given to veterans' widows and those affected by chemical and biological warfare.

It is commendable that we honour these Canadians through speeches, but history shows that there has been no tangible action taken to follow through on those words.

The speech also noted that this 38th Parliament begins with a commitment that all parliamentarians, regardless of political affiliation, will contribute to real progress for Canadians, for the country and our future. It is unclear how the progress will occur when the government's plan consists of little more than the same generalized promises that have not resulted in changes since they were first announced.

Canadians are faced with a throne speech from a federal government that does not appear to have fully accepted that it is in a minority position.

The government's message about children, caregivers and seniors is a series of vague statements. There are statements like, “we will explore other means”, “ask Parliament to consult”, “put the foundations in place”, “drawing on upcoming recommendations”. These are not phrases that suggest concrete action or progress.

The government has been in power for more than a decade and is still fumbling for solutions. The cornerstone of the government's plan for children is a national system of early learning and child care. Child care is very different in each corner of the country where local and provincial governments have already realized this.

By the time regional, cultural and economic adjustments are made for each part of the country, we end up with anything but a national program. That is important in my riding where there is a large rural population. Regardless of the good intention of universality, such programs inevitably are less accessible.

The government's plan also overlooks the importance of respecting provincial autonomy. Child care is a provincial responsibility and there are serious logistical, jurisdictional and economic issues that must be better explained by the federal government. Universal daycare is something that will require the cooperation of the provinces and the federal government and the decision cannot be made unilaterally by the federal government.

Equalization is mentioned briefly in the Speech from the Throne. There is a tremendous opportunity to enhance federal-provincial relations through a fair equalization formula, a formula that respects provincial jurisdictions as laid out in our Constitution.

This speech also makes brief reference to Canadian families who care for young children as well as the elderly. Many of our baby boomers are caught in the situation where they have school age children and aging parents. They are now being called the sandwich generation.

The Governor General stated that the government recognizes the vital role of Canadians who care for aged or infirm relatives, or those with severe disabilities, and that it will assist people with disabilities in becoming more self-reliant by looking at possible tax measures.

Looking back earlier this year, we cannot forget that it was the same government that informed some 106,000 Canadians with disabilities that they were no longer automatically eligible and would have to reapply for a disability tax credit that they had been receiving for years. I fielded many calls from people afflicted with blindness or amputated limbs who wondered how they could suddenly not be considered disabled for the purposes of taxation.

The Council of Canadians with Disabilities has picked up on the lack of measures aimed at helping the disabled, stating in a press release that the Speech from the Throne is disappointing for persons with disabilities as it offers to our broad and diverse communities even less than was previously acknowledged in the February 2004 Speech from the Throne and the March 2004 budget.

The throne speech is also notable for what it does not address, including important issues such as the action on the gun registry, democratic reform, tax relief, a modernized and effective military, and criminal justice reform. Also glaringly absent was any significant discussion of agriculture.

What the government has described as one of the key pillars of our economy, the agriculture industry, is on a downward spiral economically. In recent years all farmers, western and eastern, have been plagued by a number of obstacles such as drought, grasshoppers, frost, subsidy wars, trade disputes and of course the ongoing BSE border closure debacle. Farmers are losing their livelihood and the only mention the government saw fit to include was a reference buried in other topics, such as automotive, aerospace and other manufacturing and resource based industries. Yes, that is what agriculture got in the throne speech, a mere mention.

I said earlier that the throne speeches that I have listened to for four years have been consistently watered down. In the throne speech earlier this year for example, the Liberal government mentioned the agriculture industry in one paragraph. It said:

The government is dedicated to Canada's farm economy and to taking the steps necessary to safeguard access to international markets and to ensure that farmers are not left to bear alone the consequences of circumstances beyond their control.

Our farmers are still waiting for real action. It is possible that the government still does not realize how desperate the situation in agriculture has become. It reduced the level of attention paid in the throne speech to this serious problem. This is both regrettable and disturbing.

All Canadians had hoped for decisive, constructive and positive policies in the throne speech. It is a shame that the opposite is true.

[Roger Clavet, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although she was not the first to mention it, I want to commend our Conservative colleague for pointing out how disappointing the throne speech was, not for what it said, but rather for what it did not say about the people who were overlooked. She mentioned, for instance, our farmers.

A lot of things went unmentioned in the Speech from the Throne. This is surprising from this government, which is never at a loss for words at the talking stage, but fails to deliver when action is required. The Speech from the Throne was unusually silent on a lot of issues.

Let me take this opportunity to thank the constituents from Louis-Hébert, since this is the first opportunity I have had to publicly thank them for their support. They can rest assured that I will represent them well. Since I defeated the former heritage minister, I fully expected not to see another of those Heritage Minutes which say almost everything there is to say about the state of the nation in just one minute.

But there are many of those Heritage Minutes in the throne speech, especially minutes of silence. My hon. colleague mentioned some of the issues that were not mentioned. One of them has me particularly worried. I find it more troublesome than the others, and I am talking about parental leave.

This Speech from the Throne can be examined from all angles and in both official languages, but nothing will be found about parental leave. And yet, parental leave is something that exists; it is tangible.

Just a few months ago, the Prime Minister of Canada claimed, boasted, I would almost say crowed, about the special agreement in principle he had reached with the Government of Quebec. Words are cheap. At such times, words come easily to our Liberal friends—our friends in government. But all at once, the search for fiscal ways and means begins. How will this partnership actually work? What will the actual effect be of this agreement in principle on parental leave?

I looked and looked for myself, and could not find one word. Mum's the word. There is nothing about it in the speech. Yet it is as clear as spring water. The federal government was going to recognize Quebec's jurisdiction over parental leave. That is not hard to figure out. It can be done, even in a speech that consists of intentions, a Speech from the Throne. You can turn it over and over in all directions; there is nothing there.

It may be important for the Government of Canada to distance itself a little from the temptation to go to court all the time. It should give up such proceedings and simply transfer to Quebec its due, some $700 million per year for parental leave. That is something concrete that does not appear in the Speech from the Throne.

Once again, I congratulate the hon. member who rose before me, because she precisely identified this complete lack of content. Since my hon. Conservative colleague pointed out the poignant silence on the subject of farmers, does she believe it would be useful to move from words to action, to say more things a little more specific about the fate of thousands of people in this country, to put some meat on the bare bones and come up with tangible achievements?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the member brought to light the comment of an agreement in principle with the government of Quebec. I can tell the member that he is going to hear a lot of this sort of talk from the government across the way, which says different things in every part of the country.

We in western Canada have heard about western alienation. During the campaign one would not believe how many times western alienation was addressed. We saw it at football games which the Prime Minister attended. He came to Saskatoon and lauded our city, and convinced us all that he was addressing western alienation. As the member said, in Quebec he will address its issues.

He is everywhere, all over the map, in every region. I cannot imagine all the things he has promised Atlantic Canada or the western part of our country, but the member will find that there is not a real good map of where our Prime Minister is going or where the government is going. I wish the member luck in trying to read this map.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to divide my time with the member for York South—Weston.

It is a great honour and privilege for me to stand here today for the first time to address my colleagues from all parties on behalf of the citizens of Lac-Saint-Louis, a riding that encompasses the western most part of the island of Montreal and that borders on the St. Lawrence River, one of the world's great waterways and once the doorway to the earlier discovery of an entire continent.

Before I deliver my thoughts on the throne speech, I would like to formally thank my electors for the confidence and trust they invested in me on June 28 and to reiterate my commitment to serve them to the fullest of my capabilities.

I wish to assure my constituents that I will make every effort to live up to the honour they have given me by electing me to represent them in the House of Commons.

I would also like to point out the contribution made by my predecessor, Clifford Lincoln, to the life of this House for more than 10 years. Not only was he a champion of environmental causes, but he also earned the respect of all stakeholders in broadcasting, arts and culture in his capacity as chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I would like to underscore the integrity, dedication, diplomacy and vision Clifford Lincoln brought to parliament hill, and to many other aspects of his years of ongoing public service to Canada.

Community life is at the heart of the life of a country. Major events or simply the events in our daily lives find their deepest meaning within the framework of clearly defined local communities, be they city, town or neighbourhood. Our daily trips to work or school, whether by car or public transportation, are dependent on an infrastructure that is created and maintained by local government, often with the financial support of another level of government with greater revenues or borrowing power.

The government's communities initiative is recognition of the vital importance of community to our national life. It is also an expression of the fact that we Canadians often distinguish ourselves from our neighbours to the south by the quality of life of our cities and towns.

I subscribe to the premise that geography influences culture, in subtle and sometimes mysterious ways. The residents of my riding, some of them there for generations, have been profoundly marked by life in this majestic St. Lawrence and Great Lakes ecosystem.

I like to believe that, like all Canadians, we on Montreal's west island have learned to respect the beauty of our natural environment, but also to understand that nature, like other forces greater than ourselves, such as the forces of economic and technological change, often have a random quality that requires us as individuals to look to each other for help and support. I like to believe that on Montreal's west island geographic reality has somehow led us to develop strong communitarian values.

One of the most powerful expressions of community caring is how we as individuals come together in the aid of those who are vulnerable, especially those who are vulnerable because of illness or handicap, physical or mental, temporary or chronic.

In my riding there is an extraordinary network of volunteer community groups dedicated to the well-being of our fellow citizens in need. This network was created through the efforts of tireless volunteers, many of whom are now seniors. What they accomplished in developing the volunteer sector in my region, they did at the time without government subsidies, for the most part. These pioneers of the volunteer sector were, on many levels, the first to encourage governments to become involved financially in what is now called the social economy.

I am thus heartened that the government in the throne speech has included a commitment to enhancing the lives of Canadian seniors.

In addition to its numerous community clinics and med stops, my riding of Lac-Saint-Louis includes the only federally owned and operated hospital in Canada, the Ste-Anne's Hospital, a true centre of excellence in the area of post traumatic stress syndrome and related illnesses. The citizens I represent are deeply committed to the federal government's role in administering Ste-Anne's Hospital.

In addition to the Ste-Anne Veterans Hospital, my riding includes the Lakeshore general hospital, which serves Montreal's west island and the region from Lac des Deux-Montagnes to the Ontario border.

Those who administer Lakeshore Hospital, including its excellent staff of doctors and nurses, have doggedly pursued the Hospital's expansion and modernization to accommodate the needs of a growing community. Last year the hospital received capital funding for a new state of the art ambulatory care centre complete with operating theatres. However, because of operating funding constraints, the centre is not being used to maximum capacity. It is my sincere hope that the recent health accord will benefit Lakeshore Hospital through the additional funding it will provide to the provinces, in this case the Province of Quebec.

I would also like to commend this government for its increasingly comprehensive vision for health care, a vision that goes beyond the traditional approach by also focusing on home care and end of life care.

I should also mention, in connection with end of life care, that my community is increasingly well known for its new West Island Palliative Care Residence. Like the Lakeshore Hospital that sits adjacent to it, the residence has become a hub of volunteerism providing a new impetus to the volunteer spirit throughout Montreal's west island. The residence, created through the persistent and inspired advocacy of its executive director, Teresa Dellar, and supported by the tenacious efforts of former member of the national assembly, Russell Williams, is a beacon of hope for individuals and their families who must deal with the realities of terminal illness.

I am sure that many Canadians are pleased with the government's emphasis on the environment in the Speech from the Throne. Environmental policies go beyond environmental protection and the health of Canadians; they are also at the heart of social justice.

The throne speech's focus on the Arctic is a concrete sign of the government's desire to link environmental and social justice issues for Canada's aboriginal peoples. Scientific study has shown that much of the toxic pollution that originates in areas far away from the Arctic finds its way through wind currents into the fragile Arctic ecosystem and enters the food chain of those who inhabit the north.

I am proud to say that an institute in my riding, the Centre for Indigenous Peoples' Nutrition and Environment, is engaged in research on the state of the traditional food systems of Canada's aboriginal peoples, including the Inuit in the north. I am also proud of the role an organization such as this, located in my riding, can play in advancing the government's priorities in northern Canada.

Canada has always taken a broad view of the concept of community. For Canadians, the word multilateralism flows naturally. It does not elicit the fear of having our identity submerged in the larger world because Canada is a reflection of the larger world. We have never been a homogenous society. Ours is a society first populated by native Canadians and by those French and English speakers who came later, and now includes people from every corner of the globe, many of them fluent in both of Canada's official languages as well as their own.

In conclusion, democracy is one of the greatest gifts our predecessors have bestowed upon us.

Throughout history, there has been no shortage of controversial topics that Canadians, and we as their elected MPs, have had to address. This will certainly be the case in this 38th Parliament.

I am afraid, however, that we might lose sight of the fact that our democratic institutions were created to allow individuals and groups to deal with issues, that are at times emotional and divisive, in a constructive manner and in a context of respect and understanding for one another.

Democratic dialogue permits the recognition of the value and legitimacy of the opinions of the other, the realization that even though we may not agree with our colleague, he or she is motivated by the same intellectual honesty and good faith we are. It is this realization that ultimately allows us to move on, and once a matter has been democratically decided, to work together to resolve other issues on which we might better agree.

It is this spirit of mutual understanding and respect that I hope will guide us through this 38th Parliament.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very privileged to rise today and to offer a number of observations with respect to the throne speech.

Before I do that, I would like to congratulate members who have been elected for the first time to the House. I have always found it a humbling experience recognizing the responsibility that our constituents and Canadians place on us. There really is no greater humbling experience than to have the opportunity to be here.

Second, I would like to congratulate those who have been returned. I am sure they will be peers who will offer the kind of advice that will help new members carry out their responsibilities. In short, it is a great place to be. I am pleased to be here and I thank the constituency of York South—Weston for sending me.

It is always convenient for us to talk about all of the things that cumulatively we want to do, that we strive to do, but unless we have a sense of the fiscal discipline, which really is the platform and context within which we can deliver on promises, and if we are not upfront in terms of fiscal discipline, then we are not being upfront with the people of Canada.

In the throne speech the concept of fiscal discipline is introduced and, as a reminder, we have looked at the past two or three decades to find the precedents where we have not provided a legacy for future generations that is sustainable in fiscal terms. We know that in the 1990s, beginning in 1993, the Liberal government of the day under the leadership of the former prime minister and the minister of finance, the present Prime Minister, had to grapple with realities to put our financial house in order.

Too often our corporate memory is such that we are selective in terms of things we want to remember and in terms of things we do not want to remember. One thing we should remember is that all of the possibilities with respect to dealing with our environmental challenges and prerequisites, our opportunity to strive for a higher level of social justice, and the ability to invest in young Canadians who will be future workers in the workplace and to invest in new technologies are entirely dependent on setting in place a base of fiscal responsibility. We are the beneficiaries today of the hard choices that had to be made back in those days.

Underlying the theme of the throne speech is the notion that while we are investing in health care and our ability to broker peace in the world, that at the same time, we must also create prosperity, and from that prosperity continue to pay down on a debt that would fetter future generations in terms of the kinds of decisions that they must make.

I would like to emphasize that past parliamentarians on both sides of the House have had to struggle with that equation: how do we pay down on the debt, but at the same time invest in the social, economic and environmental issues that will create a higher level and quality of life for Canadians?

It is very shortsighted for us to not understand the need to build a consensus within our federal relationships.

While the throne speech did not come right out front and say how we are to do this, what it did do was use the consensus that was built with respect to the health care program, the 10 year program that was arrived at through deliberations with the provincial governments. The throne speech emphasizes, I think, how important it is that the culture of Canadians--and I would say the culture of this House--has to support the search for finding a consensus.

Often we hear talk about the democratic deficit. We tend to think of that democratic deficit in terms of how Parliament is elected and whether we should have proportionate representation or whether the committee system and the structures can work better. But often we do not talk about the culture, which is to try to find those ways non-confrontationally and in lessening the usual degree of partisanship to work on shared values.

Certainly, the health plan, in the whole nature of discussions with the provinces and in fact the final result, was proof positive that people of goodwill representing all Canadians can search out for a consensus on a major issue such as health care without pointing fingers as to why we came to the state that we did, and proof positive that solutions and resolutions can be found.

In the throne speech, and I think crafted through it, is this notion that there are challenges out there for us to look at other issues and approach them in the same manner.

I think it is also important that we as Canadians recognize the changing diversity of our communities. We live in the global village, where we must find expressions that represent public opinion accurately and truthfully. Again, the throne speech talks about the challenge for us, not only to try to find resolutions to international conflict and play a major role but also to use that same approach here in Canada, recognizing that our policies have to mirror the expectations and aspirations of Canadians not only at home but abroad.

The throne speech also talks very seriously about defending the charter, the charter as the manifestation not only of the rights of minorities within our communities but also of the aspirations of all those who come to these shores, and about that value that Canadian society in the changing milieu continues to be an inclusive and dynamic community. I think the throne speech is a very well crafted expression of that value.

The throne speech also is an outlining of the opportunities that exist in this marvellous country, the opportunities that exist through the full spectrum, be it from labour through to professionals, to the investment community and to the corporate community. Huge possibilities exist.

I see the throne speech not just as pillars supporting something that is nebulous or just layers in a cake that are layered upon; I see it as a statement of aspirations and possibilities, be it in investing through environmental technologies or be it in resolving international issues in playing our major role and in looking at the world and finding Canadian leadership possibilities.

No matter how we look at the throne speech in terms of either substance or what it declares it stands for, it is a document and a representation of a government that is searching for inclusiveness and for fellow travellers to participate in the world as it exists, in creating not only a better world but a greater country. It is inclusive with respect to reaching out in this minority government to both sides of the House and all parties. As such, this is a throne speech that deserves the support of the House.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague on his return to the House of Commons. As well, there is one thing that is overlooked a lot of times and that is our clerks at the table. We want to congratulate them for coming back and as well, of course, the sergeant-at-arms and the person who I think has the greatest job in all of Canada, the button man up there, who makes me look good or look bad.

That aside, the reality is that the throne speech is about as relevant as a campaign promise. It means absolutely nothing unless there is a budget very quickly behind it that follows with the meat and potatoes of that substance.

My question is quite clearly on a different topic. The member talks about investing in Canadians. He is absolutely right, but the reality, as seen in today's media, is that the transport minister is indicating support and the government needs to move quickly to support the aerospace industry for Bombardier Canadair.

We in the NDP do not have a problem with that. If the government is going to use tax dollars to upgrade or entice or work with private industry in order to create long term jobs in the Montreal area, we think that is a good idea, but why is that attitude not displayed toward our shipbuilders in this country? Why is it that the former finance minister, Mr. Manley, said the shipbuilding industry in this country is a sunset industry?

In the industry minister's own riding of British Columbia, the B.C. Ferry Corporation of the British Columbia government allowed a half billion dollar contract to a German company to build three ferries in British Columbia. Not one Canadian job is produced by that outsourcing. The reality is that we have the companies in this country. We have the industry available in this country. Most important, we have the capable, highly skilled workers in this country to build the ships that we as a nation need. I remind the House that the Coast Guard vessels need to be replaced. Our military vessels need to be replaced. Our laker fleet needs to be replaced. For example, ferries and tugs right across this country need to be replaced.

Those replacements can be done right here in this country to help out British Columbia, Quebec, Port Welland and especially those of us in Atlantic Canada. We are not asking for handouts. We are asking for development aid.

If only we had that development and the proper policy. By the way, the wheel does not have to be reinvented. The policy is already done. Mr. Tobin, the previous industry minister, got labour and industry together and developed the policy. The fact is that it has been sitting on the shelf for three years.

Once again we are asking why this Liberal government is so lackadaisical and so nonchalant when it comes to a proper shipbuilding industry in this country. The Liberal government did it for the auto industry and does it for airplanes. Why can the government not do it for ships?

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question that has been raised by the member. I cannot give chapter and verse with respect to the shipbuilding industry, but I can say that the government, through its regional economic development strategies, sector-specific within the regions, has attempted to invest and reinvest in a full spectrum of industries that have found themselves in a decline due to changes in the marketplace and in the world order as a result of changes in modes of transport and so on.

I do not think, though, that the member's point with respect to the shipbuilding industry is enhanced by his lead-in, which points fingers at another industry that finds itself caught in the competitive global environment, the aerospace industry, which also affects the jobs of thousands and thousands of Canadians. If I may suggest, I do not think it enhances the argument, which I take by inference is focusing on the shipbuilding industry, to say that we should not invest in other parts of the economic spectrum, where jobs equally are extremely important, both the direct jobs in the aerospace industry and the indirect jobs, the spinoff jobs and the multipliers that come from it.

Equally, the shipbuilding industry is caught up in an extremely difficult international situation and is equally entitled to both the regional and the sectoral concerns and considerations of the government. I might add it is my understanding that several years ago there was a report on the shipbuilding industry that had all party support. In fact, the government has embarked on the implementation with respect to labour strategies, investment strategies and support strategies for the shipbuilding industry.

Perhaps it is time that we re-evaluated just exactly what has been accomplished. I would suggest that the member take the government up on that by taking that matter before the relevant committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleagues in the New Democratic Party. I can see they wish I were still a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

As I begin, like many of my colleagues here in the House, I would like to thank my constituents; the voters of Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia have given me a very clear mandate and entrusted me with a second term.

I do not have much time left, just about five minutes. I wanted to talk about ten different things, but I will not be able to get to them all. But there is one issue that I care deeply about and it is the first I will raise—the fisheries.

I went on a tour with the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine before returning to the House, and we realized once again that the situation in the fishing industry is a complete mess; in the east it is almost a catastrophe. I know that on the British Columbia coast they have the same problems, but perhaps at a different level.

There is one thing the people mentioned over and over—protecting the resource. Since the federal government has taken responsibility for managing it, the resource has continued to shrink and its protection has not really been guaranteed. People want us to insist that the federal government assume its responsibilities and protect the resource to allow it to regenerate and allow the industry to continue.

Perhaps we should remind people that groundfish, particularly cod, have just been under the second moratorium in 10 or 12 years, which means that in those years we have learned nothing about managing the resource and the federal government has not taken steps to protect it and allow it to regenerate. That is one issue.

There is another very important issue threatening the safety of fishermen, right now, and that is the question of small craft harbours. We heard it everywhere along the Lower North Shore, the mid North Shore and all through the Gaspé. I am sure they are saying the same thing in Newfoundland and in the Maritimes, too. Never has anyone seen government infrastructure abandoned like this.

This does not come from me but from a study commissioned by Fisheries and Oceans Canada and recently released. We learn that, in the short and medium term, the government cannot meet the needs of the fishery because insufficient investments were made over the years. Today, it would cost something like a billion dollars just to upgrade the necessary infrastructures. We are talking about infrastructures designed to provide some protection to fishers. When you set sail with a fishing boat and the nearest port is 60 nautical miles away, you have very little chance of making it home safely through a storm.

That is the situation fishers are facing at present. All Fisheries and Oceans Canada is doing right now, since there is no government funding available, is to put up fences and close down wharves. People are tearing down the fences or making holes in them to have access to their boats. I saw a fine example of this in Grande-Vallée. Come fall, how are people expected to hoist boats onto the wharf when the fence is padlocked? They are forbidden access to the wharf with a truck, a crane, anything. How will the boats be taken out of the water? Tell me how a government can act like that with its own infrastructures.

This government has been irresponsible. I am referring to this government, because hon. members will recall that the present Prime Minister was finance minister as far back as 1993. He is one of the ones responsible for the cuts in the fisheries. These he imposed upon us without proper thought. A government's primary role is of course to look after its citizens, but it also has to look after its responsibilities.

Instead of invading areas of provincial jurisdiction, as it has in the past and aspires to again according to the throne speech, it ought first to look after its own infrastructures and ensure that they are in decent operating condition, so that fishers and pleasure boaters can make safe use of them.

The government has just introduced a bill that also concerns the coast guard. It deals with safety, another very important element. Over time we have become aware that the Coast Guard is underfunded to such an extent that it has become incapable of fulfilling its various missions.

Today, instead of putting funding back, what we are hearing in the projects presented to us, and reading in the ministerial press releases is “But it won't cost a penny more”. If it does not cost any more, that is because it does not solve the problem. All that is happening is a transfer from Fisheries and Oceans to Transport.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Proulx)]

It being 6 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the amendment now before the House.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.