Debates of Oct. 12th, 2004

The House resumed from October 8 consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech at the opening of the session, and of the amendment, as amended.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to resume the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, after the psychodrama we experienced last week.

It is important for people to realize what is at stake. In a way, the Speech from the Throne provides the guidelines for what a government wants to achieve during its mandate. It was sad to watch the Liberal Party of Canada table a throne speech as though it had a majority government.

The Bloc Quebecois and the Conservative Party of Canada have exerted intense pressure and sent a very clear message that they will not accept this type of behaviour any longer. Roughly one hour before last week's vote, the Prime Minister finally began to back down. He asked the two leaders of the opposition parties to find an acceptable compromise and the Bloc Quebecois amendment to the amendment was passed.

So we can see in a way the change in the government's attitude, and we hope this attitude will prevail during future debates.

Next week at the latest, if there is not consent today, we will vote on the amendment of the Conservative Party of Canada. However, when we think of it, this amendment is much broader in scope than was the election platform of the Conservative Party.

For example, the first proposal is the establishment of an arm's-length, but not privatized commission to ensure employment insurance premiums are used only for workers' benefits. It goes without saying that the Bloc Quebecois supports this part of the amendment. For the past 10 years, we have been fighting for the creation of such an independent commission, so that the federal government would no longer be able to use surpluses from the employment insurance fund to cover all sorts of expenditures other than those relating to employment insurance.

Over the past 10 years, workers and the unemployed have been deprived of over $45 billion. Since this was one of the main issues during the last election campaign, it is only normal that we should include an amendment to the throne speech to change the situation and create this independent fund.

This is not only the position of the Conservatives. It is a position that was put forward by the Bloc Quebecois during the last Parliament and one on which there was consensus. At the time, the New Democratic Party was present and its members had not decided that they were more interested in not having an election than in upholding their principles. They supported the establishment of an arm's length commission and they should still do so.

I hope that the government will pass this amendment. When we travelled across Quebec and Canada during the last election campaign, the one thing on which everyone agreed was the need to ensure that the employment insurance program is used strictly for employment insurance purposes and not to pay down Canada's debt.

The second part of the amendment proposes a reduction of taxes for low and middle income families. Currently, in Canada, these people's taxes are obviously too high. The federal government could leave some room in this area. Therefore, this second part of the amendment should not present any problems either. I do not see how the Liberals could vote against it.

The third part of the amendment deals with the creation of an independent parliamentary budget office to provide the government with fiscal forecasts. Of course, this proposal may be a little more annoying to the Liberals. Indeed, each year, for the past 10 years, through the current Prime Minister, they have systematically tabled budget forecasts that underestimated revenues and overestimated expenditures, with the result that, by the end of the year, there was always a surplus that had not been allocated.

This means that, for example, some people were deprived of revenues in the areas of health and social programs. They should have been offered something had there been a true debate in our society and had the government not hidden the surpluses behind false projections.

So, the motion before us is a sound one that would shed better light on the government's financial needs. Here again, the House should support that part of the amendment. Let us hope that the Liberals have got the message and realize that, in the future, they can no longer do what they have done for 10 years, that is to hide the real figures.

The fourth part of the amendment deals with the establishment of a non-partisan citizens' assembly to examine changes to the electoral system, including proportional representation. We know that, from year to year, from election to election, public participation drops. Since we are looking for solutions to this issue, it would be a good thing to adopt this proposal.

Finally, there is the issue of holding a vote on any proposed continental missile defence treaty. This part is very important to the Bloc Quebecois because we have been campaigning steadily on this for two or three years. We have made the rounds of schools, CEGEPs and universities. We have gone to meet the people in various constituencies. If there is one thing on which Quebeckers agree, it is the inadvisability of getting involved in the development of a missile defence system known scientifically to be ineffective. The only argument the government has to justify its participation in such a missile defence system is that we should not annoy the Americans.

In my opinion, with a neighbour like that, reality should be put on the table and we should say why we are against it. We must state that clearly, so that, at the very least, there is a vote in the House of Commons, as the amendment proposes. Even among the Conservatives, it is possible there are some who favour the missile defence system; the important thing is that we be able to discuss it in this House.

When we were elected, only a few months ago, no one was saying, “As for the missile defence system, I would prefer not having to state my opinion”. No matter what party a member is from, during the election campaign each of us expressed our opinion on this matter and our desire to have a chance to debate it. This is an issue of importance for the future of our society, especially our young people.

That is why, when we go to the colleges and CEGEPs, and young people ask questions on this topic, we see that they are very concerned about it. They have noticed that for another five, ten, fifteen or twenty years, a system will be put in place that entertains the idea of a continental war, a nuclear war; this aspect must not be emphasized. There are many other proposals on which we must work and which must be supported in order to arrive at peaceable solutions.

There is also a message to be sent to the Americans, namely that this is not the solution and that there are other ways and means to enhance security on the planet Earth. We cannot always protect ourselves only by putting a safety dome over our heads. We must ensure that wealth is better distributed. We must ensure that there is constant dialogue among the nations of the globe.

Our desire to vote on this matter here in this Parliament strikes me as equally important.

What we have before us is an amendment that has been modified to reflect the Bloc Quebecois motion with the consent of this House last week. It guarantees protection of the areas of provincial jurisdiction, and acknowledges the concept of fiscal imbalance, while stipulating that not everyone necessarily believes there is such an imbalance. It does, however, state that this reality does exist and needs to be mentioned in the throne speech, and must be part of the political environment in which we need to operate.

An important step has been taken, however, thanks to the firm position taken by the Bloc clearly setting out what elements it wished to see added to the Conservative amendment. This week all of us will need to decide, as elected members of this House, whether this amendment by the Conservatives, modified by the Bloc's amendment to the amendment, strikes us as desirable for our ridings.

We have all been told that, now that there is a minority government, no one can take refuge behind party positions. Each of us will have to answer to those who sent us here for the stands we take. I would invite the Liberal members in particular to take a good look at this amendment, to read it in detail. It must contain some significant points if it is to achieve majority support in this House. Then we will at last have a Speech from the Throne that is not the Liberal Party of Canada's but rather a true throne speech reflecting the outcome of the June 28 election, that is the wishes of all of the people of Canada and of Quebec. In Quebec the wish is for the Bloc Quebecois to be the spokesperson for the majority of the people of Quebec.

That is why we are proposing that the Bloc Quebecois support this amendment so that the throne speech will be far more realistic and more concrete, and will oblige the government to set some guidelines that will lead to satisfactory outcomes. By so doing, we will be respecting the wishes of our fellow citizens, who have purposely chosen to elect a minority government in Canada.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, based on the summer, I was very disappointed with the throne speech in one particular area and that was the devastating effect that BSE has had on agricultural producers in my riding. It is just shameful. I know some of the people individually who spent their last 25 years getting a lot of calluses on their hands to build up their operations only to see their equity literally disappear before their eyes.

I would like to direct a question to the member from Quebec and ask for his comments about the BSE situation in the Province of Quebec. Is his party and his members also concerned about the glaring omission in the throne speech to deal with this real travesty that is affecting so many people across the country?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC]

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

We should indeed be learning significant lessons from the BSE crisis. The first one is that such a problem should never again be addressed as a single Canada-wide problem. Any problem in the future should be “regionalized” as early as possible, and the regions affected identified clearly.

Had this procedure been followed for the BSE crisis, Quebec would have been spared, because it already had a tracking system in place, which clearly indicated that our cattle were disease-free. Unfortunately, the federal government's decision to treat all producers the same across Canada caused major problems, particularly to dairy producers.

The federal compensation package is unsatisfactory. It covers the replacement of only some 16% of the herd, as compared with an acceptable 25%. There has therefore been no compensation for the rest.

We must also look at another reality: beef prices are dropping for producers, while they remain unchanged at the consumer end of the chain. In between, meat packers took advantage of the crisis to make maximum, extravagant profits beyond what is acceptable.

The government must react quickly and offer much more than what is currently on the table to ensure that satisfactory compensation is provided for cull cows and butcher cattle. In the very short term, there is risk that people who have acted in good faith and managed to develop quality farms, family farms in many cases, but now find themselves on the verge of bankruptcy and of being choked will have to get out of the market and the industry. All it would take now is for interest rates to rise slightly for the crisis to deepen.

I agree with my colleague that the federal government's current measures are unsatisfactory and that we have to learn from this to prevent the same situation from happening in the future. It was just one sick cow that led to a ban on our beef throughout the world. We know full well that the current U.S. position is not based on science, but on politics. The environmental and health obstacles are basically a new form of protectionism.

We have to learn from this. First of all, the producers need help as soon as possible. Throughout rural Quebec this is a major issue that has an impact not just on individual farms but on regional economies as well. These people are not buying as much farm equipment and they are investing less, which has an economic impact on our regions.

Let us hope that the federal government will use its surplus to improve its contributions as soon as possible.

The first measure that could be addressed is the following. If there had been an independent employment insurance fund for the past several years, there would indeed have been more money for doing something other than paying down the debt. The federal government would have had to use these billions of dollars based on the needs of its various areas of activity, but that was not the case.

Let us hope that with the Conservative amendments on the table and the Bloc Quebecois amendment to the amendment, we will have a Speech from the Throne that better reflects the direction Quebeckers and Canadians want this government to take. Parliament has a wonderful opportunity to set out guidelines for the government and demand that it act the way voters want it to.

Business of the House

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Discussions have taken place between all parties concerning a take note debate on BSE scheduled for later today at 7 p.m. I believe you would find consent for the following motion. I move:

That the take-note debate scheduled for later this day on bovine spongiform encephalopathy begin at the conclusion of government orders rather than at 7:00 p.m.

[The Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session, and of the amendment, as amended.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I shall be splitting my time with the member of Parliament for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell.

It is a great honour to rise in this historic chamber and address the House of Commons as the very proud member for the riding of Brant. Before I comment on the Speech from the Throne, I wish to sincerely thank the community of Brant for electing me as its representative and spokesperson in Ottawa. It is a humbling but a wonderful trust that the citizens of Brant have place in me. I shall do my utmost to ensure that their trust is honoured as I work on their behalf. Truly it is a privilege to serve them.

I also wish to thank my predecessor, the hon. Jane Stewart, who served the citizens of Brant and the entire country for over 10 years with class, integrity and dedication. I shall strive to emulate her very substantial level and record of service.

It was the right hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau who stated:

Our strength lies in our national will to live and work together as a people. Weaken that will, that spirit of community, and you weaken Canada. Weaken Canada, and you damage all the parts, no matter how rich some of those parts may be.

These are words that all parliamentarians can appreciate and understand. With diligence and vision, we can continue our honourable traditions of a society that leads the world in social and economic development, and maintains a diverse cultural community.

The Speech from the Throne outlines and reflects the goals of all Canadians, that is, to build a society in which our children have the best possible start in life, and one in which all people, irrespective of gender, race, or economic strata are treated equally and respectfully. Specifically, the expansion of the government's commitment to children is very positive and far-sighted. Our investment as a country in our children cannot start at too young an age. It is the earliest investment we should make and it is the wisest investment we can make. The Speech from the Throne recognizes and reflects this investment.

I have recently had an opportunity in Brant to attend the ribbon-cutting ceremony at the Stoneridge Children's Centre in Ohsweken, the home of the proud aboriginals of six nations. There is already a substantial waiting list of parents who wish to utilize this fine facility for their toddlers. More such facilities are required and the commitments in the Speech from the Throne will help tremendously.

I have also attended the opening of the launch pad program, an innovative program which sees schools, social agencies and dedicated caregivers working together to provide our very young children with creative, nurturing assistance, to help them learn, grow, and develop from a very young age. Simply put, the Speech from the Throne reflects a government agenda which is visionary and proactive towards our children.

I am very pleased to represent one of Canada's largest aboriginal communities of 22,000 people which is rich in heritage and tradition. A society is, or a society should be, judged by how it treats its less fortunate citizens. Social and economic factors have combined to result in a lifestyle for many of our aboriginal brothers and sisters which is substandard, unhealthy and simply unjust. The Speech from the Throne is purposeful and clear with respect to our aboriginal population. It states:

We must do more to ensure that Canada's prosperity is shared by Canada's aboriginal people--

I recently attended the 2020 vision symposium in my riding co-chaired by Chief Roberta Jamieson and the hon. Roy Romanow. The need for more aboriginal physicians is obvious. The symposium brought together many interested participants from across the country. Concrete measures were recommended: the $700 million committed to the health issues affecting our aboriginal population; the Canada-aboriginal peoples round table; the aboriginal health transition fund; and the trip taken a few weeks ago by our Prime Minister to Canada's north to observe firsthand the communities in which our first nations, Inuit and Métis reside.

All of those measures reflect a government committed to helping Canada's aboriginal population. Their history with this land and their settling of this land are longer than those of any other people. We must honour their history and their forefathers. We must pay heed to what Edmund Burke said in 1790:

Society is indeed a contract.... It becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead and those who are to be born.

My 90 year old father, Roland St. Amand, was thrilled to attend in the House last week and to see me take my place as the member of Parliament for Brant. He enjoys good health and remains curious and caring about people and events. For him and for all citizens it was heartening to hear in the Speech from the Throne specific commitments to the health care of all Canadians, that is, the 10 year plan to strengthen health care.

I moved to Brantford in the riding of Brant in 1979 and it has been my home since then. It is a mix of urban and rural, with many diverse cultures. It is currently enjoying significant new growth. It has attracted new investors and is an area very much on the rise. With growth, however, comes the need for sustainable infrastructure, transit, roads, clean water, sewers, and a need in Brantford to remediate brownfield sites.

The government's new deal for cities and communities will be of tremendous assistance to communities such as the ones found in my riding, historic communities such as St. George, Glen Morris, Harrisburg, Paris, Burford, Mount Pleasant, Oakland, Scotland, Ohsweken, New Credit, as well as Brantford, the largest city in the riding.

There are other components of the Speech from the Throne which make me proud to be part of the government: the commitment to the protection of our environment; to the enhancement of workplace skills; and to increasing access to post-secondary education. These and other components speak very closely to Brant.

I have been pleased to share with members of the House information about Brant, some thoughts about the Speech from the Throne and how it will assist the good citizens of Brant. I am here to make a difference for the better for those I represent. The Speech from the Throne is a very impressive start.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat the tradition that on a member's maiden speech the person does not receive any questions, so I am just going to make a comment. I would like to congratulate the hon. member on a very well thought out and well reasoned maiden address to the House of Commons. I disagree with his conclusions, but nonetheless I was very impressed to hear his thoughts.

He and I are graduates of the University of Windsor's law school. I was very pleased to see him elected to the House of Commons. He has had a very distinguished career as a lawyer. He will bring pride to the community which he represents. In his concluding remarks he said that he is here to make a difference and of that I have no doubt. I certainly wish him well in the coming years.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Niagara Falls for his very kind words.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by congratulating the Speaker of this House, of course, as well as yourself as Deputy Speaker, along with all the other occupants of the Speaker's chair in the House of Commons on their elections to their respective positions.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the voters of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell for enabling me to make this speech today, along with all the others I plan to make in the days, months and—I hope—years to come in the House of Commons during this Parliament.

In the last election, the voters of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell had a very serious choice to make: who would represent them in the House of Commons of Canada. On the one hand they had your humble servant, with ten mandates under his belt at one or another level, and on the other they had one opponent who had chosen to campaign using nothing but bitter personal attacks. The campaign was a difficult one. Unfortunately the candidate I have referred to was with the Progressive Conservative Party. The other parties' candidates were fine, and behaved properly during the campaign.

In order to satisfy my Bloc colleague over the way, I should point out that there was, of course, no opponent from his party, since there is not yet an Ontario wing of the Bloc as far as I know.

[An hon. member]

The day will come.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

The day will come, he says. I think not. Anyway, things went well, and here I am today sincerely thanking the voters of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell for the choice they made.

I have difficulty reading the calendar on the Clerk's table from this distance without glasses, but I believe that today is October 12. Thirteen days from now, if that is the correct date, I will mark the 38th anniversary of my arrival here on Parliament Hill on October 25, 1966.

I say this every time there is an address in reply to the throne speech and I intend to do it every time. I want to remind myself and perhaps others too of my beginnings here on Parliament Hill. I started here as a busboy at the parliamentary restaurant.

Canada being the country that it is and in its generosity saw fit to give me a number of opportunities in life, including a successful career as a civil servant. Later I was given the opportunity to represent my fellow citizens in three mandates at the municipal level.

Later on, in 1981 I had the opportunity to become the member for Prescott—Russell, as it was called provincially at the time, and was re-elected in 1984, 1988, 1993, 1997, 2000 and 2004 here to the House of Commons. I am therefore the most fortunate of men, to have had the opportunity to represent the people of my country at three levels of government, over a goodly number of years, despite the humble beginnings I have referred to earlier.

I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Prime Minister on the Speech from the Throne that was presented to us by Her Excellency the Governor General. The Speech from the Throne describes well the aspirations not only of the government but indeed of all Canadians. They are those things that we wish for, and our government is here to make as many of them happen as humanly possible, given the minority government situation in which this Parliament will operate.

Only four days after Parliament resumed, a motion was proposed to the House that could well have sent the voters back to the ballot boxes. As for myself, with my experience in the House of Commons, I believe any person who acted in such a way to send us back to the ballot boxes prematurely would be punished by the people of Canada in that vote.

Let me explain. This situation is not new. In 1974, an election took place 18 months after the previous one, in 1972. Why? The New Democratic Party, whose members now sit on my right, which is rather ironic, withdrew its support for the government in 1974. What happened? We saw a motion to amend the budget defeated, followed by an election. What did the public do? It almost wiped the New Democrats off the map. I think there were about 12 out of 40 left after that election; the others were all defeated. In the eyes of the Canadian people, the election was set off prematurely and it was their fault.

And now let us move forward a few years, to 1979. That year the government of the Right Honourable Joe Clark was defeated after a vote in the House of Commons on an amendment to an amendment. The people decided that the government had not done its homework. It did not even get all its members to return to Parliament for the vote. The government did nothing to ask for the support of the Social Credit members in the House at that time. The result was that the government was defeated on that vote. The Social Credit Party has completely disappeared from the House of Commons and none of its members have ever been seen here since. What happened? What did the people do? Those who caused a needless and unwanted election were brought into line by the people of Canada.

I would like to remind all my colleagues in the House of Commons, on my side and on the other, that if we are not serious in this Parliament and if someone—and I do not mean this in a partisan way—tries to exploit a situation to set off a premature election, the people will not swallow it. If it is the government's fault—although I do not think that would happen—the people will speak. If the opposition intentionally plays Russian roulette, as we saw a few days ago, and if it causes a premature election, the people will punish the ones who pull the trigger.

I suppose others might think differently about this issue but I believe history has demonstrated that this is how it has happened in the past. Furthermore, when we and all of our constituents went to the polls, nowhere on the ballot did it say, “We elect you but we want you back in six months, in three months, or even in four days”. The population said by way of its vote, “We elect you for the ensuring mandate”. That is why they sent all of us here.

That is why I believe it is incumbent upon all of us on all sides of the House to behave responsibly. We cannot on one side of the House be arrogant, that is true; and the other side of the House cannot play bumper car politics all the time because it is not going to work in a minority Parliament. Therefore I conclude by asking my colleagues to be respectful of this great institution and hopefully to make this Parliament last the length of time that Canadians expect it to before going back to the people of Canada.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

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

First, I would like to thank the constituents of my new constituency of Edmonton--St. Albert for allowing me to come back here for the fourth time. I was first elected in 1993 for the constituency of St. Albert, which is a suburb of the city of Edmonton. The constituency of St. Albert also covers off a number of small towns on the west side and north side of the city of Edmonton, namely, Spruce Grove, Stony Plain, Morinville and Legal.

As many people know, I had a problem with the redistribution because it divided the francophone community. There is a strong francophone community on the edge of Edmonton. In fact, in the town of Legal one is more likely to hear French spoken on the streets than English, even though it is only 15 or 20 miles from the city; I see that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is pleased with that.

Nonetheless, after losing my battle with the electoral commission I now represent part of the city of Edmonton and the city of St. Albert. I am pleased to do that and to have these new constituents. Over the ensuing time that we have in this Parliament--I do not know if we will be counting it in years but perhaps we will--I hope to serve them well and continue on the work we have been doing to hold the government accountable. Through the work of the public accounts committee I chaired in the last session, there was a serious change in the voters' perceptions of the Liberal government. As a result, we now have a minority and, as a previous speaker pointed out, we must have a new working relationship between the government and the opposition.

On the Speech from the Throne, we also have to take a look at things it did not say. One I want to talk about is the absence of what is said about strengthening our military. In my constituency of Edmonton—St. Albert we are right next to the base of the Edmonton garrison, where 7,000 personnel are based. Many of them live in the northwestern part of Edmonton and in the city of St. Albert. They were looking for a greater commitment by the government other than a few comments in the throne speech.

Let me quote from the throne speech: “...we have to invest more in our military...” and increase the number of troops “by 5,000...and our reserves by 3,000”. But surely we need something stronger and better than “...we need to invest more in our military...”. Where is the commitment? Where is the vision of this government saying, “This is why we are here. This is what we want to do as a government. This is how we are going to lead this country forward”. It is not in this throne speech.

Then, of course, after the speech we had the disaster with the Chicoutimi that cost the life of one of our sailors. These submarines are used goods. On top of the Sea Kings, which should be in the museum, we have these submarines. We have to seriously question if these submarines are going to be of value to us when the minister of defence from the United Kingdom apparently said yesterday or the day before that contracts are contracts, it is buyer beware, and we get what we buy on used goods.

That is not good enough for a country like Canada, which at one point in time had the third largest military in the second world war and was a beacon to the world. It has been a beacon to the world for the last 40 to 50 years. It has been eroding. Now we are down to buying used equipment that puts the lives of our military personnel on the line. That is not good enough, just not good enough.

Then, of course, to add insult to injury, last year the former prime minister saw fit to use $100 million right out of the military budget to buy two new Challengers because, it was said, perhaps a little air pressure was lost on the jet the government had before and therefore it was unsafe, and the former prime minister needed $100 million just on a whim. Within one week the government made the decision to spend $100 million to buy two new planes for the prime minister, but there was nothing for the military.

My constituents are looking for more and they are looking for better and they are looking for vision and a commitment out of this government. We do not find that in the throne speech.

Then, of course, there is health care. Health care is prominent in the throne speech, rightly so, because health care is a major concern to Canadians. But the Prime Minister talks about his “plan” for health care. It is interesting to note that he had a plan before he met with the provincial premiers two or three weeks ago, a plan that was going to cost us something in the range of $13 billion or $14 billion, and within three or four days at the end of the conference suddenly that plan was a $30 billion plan, or even more than that. I cannot remember the specific number.

In the space of four days he changed his plan dramatically and completely and he also got into what he is now calling asymmetrical federalism, where it is one deal for the Quebec and another deal for the rest of the country. That was not in his plan on the Monday morning but it was in his plan on the Friday afternoon. Now, is this vision? Is this clear-sightedness that he knows where he wants to take this country when in the space of one week he can do a complete flip-flop?

Again, it is not good enough. We Canadians all say that we deserve the best health care and we are prepared to pay for the health care, but the Prime Minister has no plan and he has no vision. He does not know what he wants to do except when he is being pressured by someone else, that being the premiers or someone else in the country.

Then he talks about our aboriginals. Rightly so. They have been treated shamefully over many years and it is appropriate that we redress that. But we have always seemed to say that redress comes through the courts, so let us have it out; we will negotiate and if they do not like it then we will see them in court. The Auditor General points out that today the identified claims are somewhere in the region of $200 billion if they are settled in the way the claims are made today. Other Canadians are saying, “Two hundred billion dollars?” And the fight goes on.

There many things we do not know. For example, the previous Auditor General, Mr. Denis Desautels, pointed out a few years ago when he brought down a report that 40% of our aboriginal people do not finish elementary school; that is, not high school but elementary school. Let me ask members this: how do we expect people who do not finish elementary school to be a success in this complex world we live in? How do we expect them to go to university? How do we expect them to get a career? How do we expect them to even get a trade when they do not finish elementary school?

Surely there should be a commitment by the government to educate our aboriginals the same way as we have a commitment to educate the rest of Canadians. Why not? I do not know. But then I think back to Davis Inlet. Do we remember Davis Inlet where the kids were sniffing gasoline? They were shipped out to Poundmaker's Lodge in my constituency, just about a mile from my constituency office, to try to help them get over this addiction.

It was a major international scandal. The government said it was going to do something. It said it would spend $80 million fixing that problem. I think the total bill was around $120 million. But it did not fix the problem. They built a new town on the other side of the inlet and moved everyone, lock, stock and barrel. The Auditor General pointed out that this did absolutely nothing to address the cultural, social and pathological problems in that society. It just gave them new bricks and boards so they had new houses and it started all over again. The problem in Davis Inlet is as bad today as it was then.

The Speech from the Throne has no vision. There is nothing that gets me excited as a Canadian to say I should follow this government. It is a very disappointing turnout indeed.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time since I have had the opportunity to address the chamber at length. I was a member of Parliament from 1984 to 1993. I remember speaking on behalf of the minister and the government on the child pornography bill in June 1993. It did cross my mind, at least fleetingly, as to whether I might ever get the opportunity to speak again in the House, but I was completely satisfied because of the importance of that legislation. In fact, that was the last thing I ever talked about in Parliament. It certainly was worthwhile. I look forward to the government introducing further changes in this bill.

I want to say at the outset, as I said 20 years ago, what a privilege it is and how wonderful it is to be in this chamber and how appreciative I am of the voters of the riding of Niagara Falls for giving me the opportunity once again. The riding consists of three communities. One of them is the town of Fort Erie, one of the great gateways to Canada. At the other end of the riding we have the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, which was the first capital of Upper Canada and boasts Canada's only Lord Mayor, and of course there is my hometown of Niagara Falls, Ontario.

I have said with respect to Niagara Falls, and I sincerely believe it, that no person can ever claim to have lived a complete life unless he or she has experienced Niagara Falls. I am very proud and grateful to come from that part of the world.

Let me congratulate the Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands, and congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, and the residents of Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon. I said to you privately something I will say publicly: I think it is a very great honour to sit in that particular chair and you should take a great deal of pride in that. It is a fact that in the last 137 years no legislative chamber in the world has a better record of protecting the rights of its citizens or of standing up for what is right in the country than the Canadian House of Commons. There is none, Mr. Speaker, so you and all those who, like you, have sat in that chair, can take this kind of pride in the fact that you are a part of this process.

I have been asked many times since I have been back about what has changed and what has not changed. I can tell the House about one of the things that has not changed. It comes within your purview, Mr. Speaker, and it is the individuals who provide you with advice from the table and the individuals who provide maintenance, clean our offices, provide security and drive the buses. I have invariably found them to be polite and friendly and they have made it a complete pleasure to work in this place. That has not changed in the ten and a half years since I have been here. I know I speak for every member of Parliament when I say how much help the people who work on Parliament Hill have been to us. That is the good thing.

I can tell members about something else that has not changed. I had the opportunity to listen to the first Speech from the Throne from the present government, in 1993. I do not know if you get the same feeling, Mr. Speaker, although of course you are completely neutral on these things, I know, but it is like I am hearing the same thing all over again. It has the same priorities. The same topics got covered. One gets the feeling that the same Speech from the Throne is being recycled every couple of years. To me, that was a great disappointment.

It is a disappointment as well for another reason. Mr. Speaker will know the history of the Prime Minister of today. For many years he has wanted to be and has planned for being Prime Minister of this country. That is his right, of course, as a Canadian citizen. He comes from a very distinguished political family.

What disappoints me about the Speech from the Throne is this. I would have that thought for him and those around us, having spent so many years in his trying to become Prime Minister, there would have been something that would have been a little unique, something a little original, something we have not heard before, a new idea in the Speech from the Throne.

I defy anyone to come up with anything in here that has not been recycled with the same old same old. To me, quite frankly, that was a disappointment too.

As well, I am sure the list of topics covered by the Speech from the Throne must be a disappointment to many Canadians. During the election campaign somebody asked me what I thought of the Liberal's day care plan. I told them the truth and said that I thought it was about the same as the last two times I heard it. I am no more or less impressed with it than the last few times I have heard it. It seems to me that it must be very discouraging for people to hear that sort of thing again and again. Part of the problem with this is that it is an area within provincial jurisdiction.

I remember being on a child care committee in the late 1980s. A woman from Snowbank in the Northwest Territories said to us that if we were talking about national standards in day care that she hoped it would not be Toronto's national standards that we were talking about. I was intrigued by what this woman had to say. She said that she knew what was coming. I should mention that not all of us were from Toronto. The woman said to us that if we were to come up with regulations that the children should be out one hour every day because that is healthy for them, that in Snowbank at many times of the year these children would die.

We should not come up with national standards for the city of Toronto because we will get into variations and regional standards. That will be the government's problem. It keeps promising a national child care policy but what we will see, and quite rightly, is that the provinces will speak up on this issue. When they finally sit down with the Prime Minister they will say that they regulate the area and that they know what is best in this particular area.

I suspect that the government will do much the same as what it did in health care if it is serious about it this time. I have no idea whether it is any more serious this time than the last four or five times. The government promised it, but if anything happens it will be the government handing out cheques with not much federal involvement at all. Those who think there will be major changes in this area should not hold their breath.

I was disappointed as well by some of the other things that were not covered. For instance, the government says in its Speech from the Throne on economic strategy that promotion of trade and investment is the fifth pillar of the government's economic strategy. Is that not wonderful? It did not address one of the major issues that can hold this country back in its economic development and that is what is happening at Canada's borders.

Just this morning about half a dozen truckers called my office from the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge along the Niagara River indicating they could not get their trucks into Canada. There are a number of issues, such as the labour issue on the Canadian side, and I urge the minister and the government to get these things settled. These things have been going on for a couple of years. The customs people must be reclassified. If the government wants them to do more work, to take greater responsibility and to get more involved with security it should pay them accordingly and get these things done. This has dragged on as well as the problems generally that we are having at the border. The Americans are very interested in security and I can appreciate that, but if the traffic does not move along Canada's borders it will hurt this country economically, not just along the borders but right across the country.

Economic decisions are being made right now by companies that are not expanding into Canada because they are worried about moving goods and services. The government can talk all the platitudes it wants and keep recycling it, I do not care--and I hope the Canadian voters will have a different view of this at the next election--but it should do something about our borders. If it opens up those borders it will find the consensus that I think it has found elusive up to this point.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Joliette.

I would like to take this opportunity to say hello to my constituents in the riding of Chambly—Borduas and assure them that our political party, which is an important part of the opposition, will work as hard as it ever has to ensure that their interests are always well represented in this House.

One way to do so is to give our opinion on this Speech from the Throne. It is not for nothing that the three opposition parties were so united in their opposition. This Speech from the Throne does not reflect the concerns of the public—concerns that were expressed during the election campaign, that is, quite recently.

As the human resources and skills development critic for my party, I would first like to address this subject in relation to the Speech from the Throne.

My colleagues from the Bloc and I are certainly going to vote in favour of the amendment. I would like to talk in particular about the first part of it on the establishment of an arm’s-length, but not privatized, tri-party commission to ensure employment insurance premiums are used only for workers' benefits.

It is very important that this House pass this amendment. Failure to do so will mean many workers who no longer qualify for employment insurance will be kept in poverty. Eligibility requirements have become so strict that only 38% of those who contribute are entitled to receive benefits.

In response to a question I asked him last week, the Minister of Finance said that the employment insurance fund had been part of the consolidated revenue account for many years—since 1986, if I am not mistaken. Before 1986 it was a separate account.

In the first years this fund was part of the consolidated revenue account, there were relatively few difficulties. However, the requirements that have appeared since 1993 have gradually whittled the number of contributors receiving benefits from the 75% of workers who were contributing to the fund and were entitled to it to 38%.

All workers are penalized, of course, but women and young people in particular. Women are penalized by the very complex rules, which take into account the rate at which the required hours of work are accumulated. Because many women—more women than men— work part time, only 33% qualify for employment insurance. That is pretty dramatic, and the percentage is even lower for young people.

Hence the importance of ensuring that the government no longer uses the fund as a pot of gold. It uses it for other expenditures, like paying down the debt or transferring amounts to the reserve fund. Whatever the case may be, this fund is not designed for anything but employment insurance, providing social insurance to those who have had the misfortune to lose their jobs.

I have heard much praise of our country's geography from members defending the throne speech. They spoke of our green forests, our pristine lakes, the graceful outlines of our mountains. Great emphasis was put on all that. While I agree that we must take care of our environment, what I have just listed is not the product of governmental policies.

What is, is the hardship caused to many families across the country. I heard hardly anything at all about that in the throne speech. It was touched on only superficially, with fancy words in obscure passages, a couple of lines, for instance, providing that “the government will continue to review the employment insurance program to ensure that it remains well-suited to the needs of Canada’s workforce”. That is all it said.

And yet, we see all the difficulties facing workers when they find themselves unemployed. That is to say nothing of the rules, which are both restrictive and very difficult to enforce. Even civil servants recognize that, sometimes, people are not treated fairly because they themselves have a hard time understanding what the rules mean exactly. They take into account average earnings, regional unemployment, weeks not worked, flexible work schedules, and the list goes on. How can one make heads or tails of all this?

Consequently, people who must rely on employment insurance for their meagre subsistence must put themselves in the hands of the public servants, because very often they do not understand things.

Thus, $45 billion has been diverted from this fund in recent years. This is $45 billion that could have gone to the people who needed it the most. This is $45 billion that has impoverished families. This is $45 billion that was not injected into the economy of any of our regions, any of our constituencies. In the riding of Chambly—Borduas alone, there is a shortfall in revenue of over $38 million per year.

Of course we must vote in favour of the amendment. I invite every member in this House to do so. Moreover, I invite the House to reflect on an amendment that could be made during this session, in order to return the $45 billion to the EI fund, and that this repayment be spread over a number of years, which can be determined later.

Since I have two minutes left, I will be brief, although there is much I could say about seniors. There is $3.2 billion that belongs to them but has not been given to them, because the government did not provide enough information on the guaranteed income supplement program. Since this is a program for the lowest incomes, once again the least fortunate were the ones affected.

In the matter of child care, as far as the economy of Quebec is concerned, there is a shortfall of $230 million annually, because Quebec has its own system of child care centres. As a result of the tax rebate system, $230 million less goes to Quebec every year.

Then there is the matter of manpower training. We should have expected to hear in the throne speech that the rest of the training funds remaining in Ottawa would have been transferred, as they ought to have been in 1997 as well. Not only was the funding for targeted clientele, the disabled, the immigrants, the young and the old not transferred, but with this bill we have before us, they are nibbling away just a little bit more into others' jurisdictions. I will return to that point.

I will make my conclusion very brief. The government has missed a great opportunity, there is no denying that. The member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell has told us the year he started in this House. That is the year I was born. I was surprised at that, because I have seen his past vigour. He ought to have joined with us in stating that the government should have taken its cue from the 2001 report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

That report ought to have come back here to the House and been reflected in the main thrust of the throne speech. It was a unanimous report and contains reference to what have just raised. But there is no sign of it today.

That is why this Speech from the Throne cannot be accepted in its present form.

Business of the House

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that you would find consent for the following motion. I move:

That when the House begins the take-note debate on BSE later this day, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be entered by the Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Committees of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek unanimous consent that the second report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be deemed presented and concurred in.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session, and of the amendment, as amended.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas on his excellent speech. I have known him for a few years and I can assure the House that he will make a very useful contribution here, particularly in light of this throne speech.

This being the first time that I rise in the House since the election, I also want to take this opportunity to thank the voters of the riding of Joliette, who once again put their trust in me, in significant numbers. I thank them and I hope to live up to the confidence they placed in me.

I also want to pay tribute to Joseph Forest, of Saint-Donat, who turned 100 years old on October 9. Mr. Forest is still very mentally alert, as evidenced by the fact that he is a staunch sovereignist. I wish him a happy birthday.

Getting back to the issue before us today, namely the government's throne speech, there is one thing that strikes me. A retired colonel mentioned it Friday on CBC radio, in connection with the tragic events that occurred on the submarine Chicoutimi . A retired colonel is not necessarily someone who follows politics the way we do in this House. He said that people hear the federal government talk about health, education, daycare, municipalities, which are all provincial jurisdictions. However, they never, or hardly ever hear the government talk about national defence, which comes under its jurisdiction.

While it is true that the government says little about national defence, the same may be said for international trade and the employment insurance issue. This throne speech is totally silent on federal jurisdictions. Only in the jurisdictions of the other levels of government, namely the provinces and Quebec, is the federal government full of good and very specific ideas. These are, of course, good ideas based on the centralizing and imperialist vision of the Liberal Party of Canada.

As we know, as far as health is concerned, they tell us that things need to be administered in the way the Liberal government has imagined it, whereas the federal government and the Liberal government of Canada have never administered health systems. This Speech from the Throne does not stop at health. No doubt they have said all they had to say on that, so now they start in on education. They call it learning, and tell us that learning is not exactly the same as education. Frankly, that is just playing with words. They talk about recognition of foreign credentials, when professional bodies came under provincial jurisdiction. In Quebec in particular, this is a debate that has gone on for ages, with the doctors' and other professional bodies. It is not up to the federal government to come barging in to help solve such a highly complex problem when Quebec has been working on it for a good fifteen years if not more. I had the opportunity of sitting on the Conseil supérieur de l'éducation and the Comité sur l'éducation aux adultes some years ago, and it was already an issue being discussed in depth at that time. Solutions are needed, but that said, adding the federal government's two cents' worth is not going to help.

When it comes to all the other elements, like child care, it is the same thing. There is a level of detail of great concern to the other levels of government in Quebec and the provinces. The provinces have also looked at the problems that exist in some of our public systems, such as health, education or day care services, and they have solutions that are often much better in terms of implementation.

As I was saying, it has a great deal to say about learning and about recognizing the foreign credentials of new Canadians. However, on something so fundamental to a sovereign country like Canada—something Quebec wants to become one day—as its international policy, which is its number one prerogative, the only sentence in the speech is, “This fall, the Government will release a comprehensive International Policy Statement that will reflect this integration.” What should have been at the core of this Speech from the Throne was all the concerns of Canada, Canadians and Quebeckers about international issues, but there was nothing.

There is the hot issue of the day: Canadian participation in the missile defence shield project, the one being pushed by the American authorities. With all the time that has passed since the June 28 election—the House even resumed two weeks late—one might have expected the government to be in a position to tell us something more than “there will be an international policy this fall”. They go on, moreover, to say that “Parliamentarians and other Canadians will have the opportunity to debate its analyses and proposed directions”.

We might now have expected a position or some parameters relating to the government's reflections, but no. Because they are aware that this is a touchy subject, and involves questions of federal jurisdiction, they prefer to keep mum about this particular hot potato and likely will end up trying to present all of the people of Canada and of Quebec, as well as all the members of this House, with a done deal. Not only is this unacceptable, it is undemocratic as well.

Now for employment insurance. The member for Chambly—Borduas was very clear about this in his speech. If there is one area that still falls, regrettably, under federal jurisdiction, it is employment insurance. I always think to myself that Mr. Godbout , the man who made it possible in the early 1940s for the federal government to reclaim jurisdiction over this from the provinces, must be turning over in his grave.

Employment insurance has been a terrible problem for years; ever since the Liberals “reformed” employment insurance in fact. The truth is, it started with the Conservatives. The House probably remembers the Axworthy reform. At that time I was working with the unions. Along with our young people, we fought that reform because we could clearly see where it was leading. It led us just where we thought it would, to the misuse of public money: $45 billion, as my colleague has said.

There have been drastic cuts in accessibility. Now only four out of ten people who pay premiums and lose their jobs ever get any benefits. It is no longer a social safety net at all; it has become a Canada-wide lottery. It has been denounced many times. In 2000, the ministers went to the Chicoutimi region. The hon. member for Jonquière is here to confirm that for us. The ministers said they were going to solve the problems. And what did we get as a bill? Something merely cosmetic.

A few weeks after the election was called, the Liberals thought they could fool the people with other cosmetic changes to EI. It fooled no one in the regions of Quebec and no one in the Atlantic provinces.

What we might have expected is not what is written in the Speech from the Throne. There we find a sentence that is probably receiving quite a bit of scrutiny, to the effect that the government will look into the employment insurance program to ensure that it remains well-suited to the new realities. What does that mean? Are they going to change it to suit the interests of multinationals that still prefer having a workforce incapable of achieving minimum economic security? Such workers can be forced to accept poor working conditions and low salaries in order to meet legitimate competition from developing countries. Is that what we want? That is what the Axworthy reform was.

Are they finally going to respond to the concerns of Canadians, Quebeckers, workers who want to have a real system, since they are paying for it? The same is true for employers.

Therefore, this is a subject that the Liberal government should have been prepared to meet head on with answers. My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot spoke of this during question period. Year after year, we end up with surpluses much higher than the Minister of Finance predicted. It is true for the current finance minister and it was also true when the Prime Minister was finance minister, and when Mr. Manley was finance minister.

The surplus is systematically underestimated. Perhaps this is a way to provide funding based on conditions set by the federal government in areas where there are acute problems, such as health. That was what Mr. Chrétien did when he came up with $2 billion at the last minute after having said that he would probably not be able to do so without scraping the bottom of the barrel.

We need to have a good look at the real numbers in order to have the discussions that we should have with the provincial premiers on federal transfers to the provinces. This is not just about equalization. I think that everyone agrees on this except the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party of Canada.

We need an institute that could assure us of the validity of the numbers.

Everything I have talked about that was not elaborated on in the Speech from the Throne is in the amendment moved by the Conservative Party. It talks about an independent employment insurance fund to be managed by those who pay into it. It talks about having a free vote on the missile defence shield. It talks about the need to create an agency to ensure that the fiscal forecasts of this government are verified by an independent body.

All these items—and there are more in the amendment moved by the Conservatives—are not just concerns of the Conservatives and the Bloc Quebecois. They are concerns of Canadians and Quebeckers. The best illustration of this is that two-thirds of the members here in this House are not from the Liberal Party of Canada, but from the Bloc Quebecois, the Conservative Party, or the NDP, and the government has to realize that.