Debates of Oct. 19th, 2004

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Réal Lapierre, Bloc, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with my hon. colleague. As mayor of a small municipality for more than 20 years, I had to deal with chronic underfunding caused by federal cutbacks. At first, these cuts were shovelled into the provinces' backyards of course, such that they ended up piling up in the municipalities.

Cuts were made in many different areas. At one point, we thought we would be able to breathe easier thanks to the infrastructure program.

I had the opportunity to deal with a number of issues under the infrastructure program and I will have the chance to work with my hon. colleague on a very important issue for the municipalities.

Does he think that an eventual infrastructure program could not only be a cure for almost everything that ails the municipalities but also be similar to what we had before? Does he think the program could be improved upon, and if so, in what areas?

[The Deputy Speaker]

I will allow the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel to reply, but first I will hear the Minister of Canadian Heritage on a point of order.

Privilege

[Liza Frulla, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise to respond to a question of privilege raised in the House on Friday last by the hon. member for Calgary Southeast. The member claims that during oral question period on Thursday, October 14, I misled the House with my statements about the member's travel expenses.

I would submit that on that day I was referring to an article that appeared in the National Post on June 16, 2001. The facts reported in that article had already been cited by this House, on May 30, 2001, to be exact.

I am prepared to submit to this House, today, a copy of the article in question, in both official languages. If, during the heat of the debate in this chamber, my words were misunderstood, I want to apologize to the House and take the time to explain that my intention was only to discuss the issues raised in the article and not to attack anyone's integrity.

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, as amended.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[The Deputy Speaker]

In response to a question put to him before the minister's remarks, the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse asked me. As a former mayor of a municipality, he has lived through the whole tragedy of the federal cuts at the provincial level.

To address directly the question about the infrastructure program, there may well be such a program that would please every municipality, provided that all are eligible. The problem with Liberal members is that, once again, they want to play politics. It would be pretty simple to establish a stable, long-lasting program to ensure that the problems of each municipality are resolved.

Take for example the most recent program, in 2000. During the six weeks following the federal announcement of the program, 2,200 applications were made in Quebec alone, while there was enough funding for only 400. The same agreement provided that Quebec was in charge. It submitted projects which were selected on the basis of criteria negotiated by the two unions of municipalities in Quebec, with the participation of the federal government. Add a touch of politics, and you know what happened. When negative responses started to come in, the federal Liberal members told the mayors or councillors that, had they been the ones administering the program, the municipalities would have received the funding. That is what they said. They never dared to admit that the real problem was that there was not enough funding in the program.

What is required is a stable, ongoing program, not just for one year, like in 2000, but every year, to ensure that each community ultimately sees its project realized.

To do this will require hard work. My colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse is assigned to this portfolio with me. We will sit together on the committee, if ever a committee is formed. We have a good Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities), but there is no committee. We do not know what committee will take this portfolio. Once again, it is Liberal logic: create a shiny new deal for the municipalities, but without a department to manage it and with no indication where we are going either.

However it works out, one thing is certain. We will be standing up for every community in Quebec, small, medium or large. We want Quebeckers to have an infrastructure program for all communities in Quebec.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a riding in northern Ontario called Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. It is a large rural riding that is 110 square kilometres. It is bigger than any of the countries in Europe, including France. It is a riding that is diverse. It has a very strong Francophone presence, particularly in the Highway 11 corridor in the northern part of the riding, which includes communities like Kapuskasing, Hearst, Fauquier, Moonbeam, Smooth Rock Falls, Mattice, Opasatika, Constance Lake Indian Reserve and Val Rita.

These are communities that I wish to welcome into the riding. With redistribution, I was the beneficiary of over 20,000 new constituents from the Highway 11 area. I am very happy to be here to represent them and to have had their support. I wish to thank not only the electors of the Highway 11 area, but the electors from across the entire riding for their continued confidence in me. I can assure them that I will continue to work hard on their behalf and continue to get out to the more than 50 communities in my riding, including over 20 first nation communities. There is no greater honour that I could imagine than to be a member of Parliament in the best democracy in the world and in the best country in the world.

That said, that does not come about without a lot of effort. I am proud that I have been a member of a government that for the last nearly 11 years has brought an excellent level and quality of governance to the country that we see in the numbers.

Let me take my few minutes here today to highlight some of the features of our recent throne speech, a throne speech that continues what for me has been the essential message of the government since 1993, when we were first elected. That message is we bring a balanced approach to governing the country. We are not slaves to the debt; however, we have put the country's finances back in the black. We have had seven surpluses in a row, and because of those surpluses, we have been able to pay down the national debt by over $60 billion. We have a ways to go yet, and I am not one who believes we should pay down the debt so fast that we suffer in other areas. The government has brought a very intelligent and considered approach to paying down the debt, while at the same time allowing, through our surpluses, for major investments in our social safety net. Primary among those is our health care system.

Before I say too much about health care, it has been forgotten by members opposite, and to remind all Canadians, that it was this government about five or six years ago that put the Canada pension plan back on a strong footing. We are the first and maybe the only industrialized nation whose national pension plan is on a secure footing. It is important to remind Canadians that they need not worry. The Canada pension plan will be there when they retire. It is actuarially sound, it is being managed well and it is being managed well because the government took steps some years ago to allow that to happen.

Our country is noted for its social safety net around the world. Why do people want to come to our country besides for the peace, tranquility and security that we can offer, the beautiful landscapes, trees and water? What we also can offer is a system of governance, a form of community management, whether it is national, provincial or local, that ultimately puts people first. Yes, there are errors and mistakes from time to time, but ultimately we have evolved a system of governance that really does put people first.

A hallmark of the government's record over the last 11 years has been in putting people first. We have done the best we can to show Canadians that we care about their priorities by not only balancing the books but having made significant major investments in health care. That was the number one issue in the past campaign. When we got past the fact that a balanced approach to governing the country was the underlying most important facet of governing the country, health care was then number one.

I heard it over and again as I travelled more than 11,000 kilometres during the campaign, like many of my colleagues in the House, as you may have, Mr. Speaker, in your large rural riding in British Columbia. Those are hours travelled at night and during breakfast, lunch and dinner so that we had time to meet with people and do the things that we normally do during elections.

In travelling around my riding, I was reminded every day of how much my constituents valued health care. They were concerned about the three hour drive to a hospital, the long waiting times and whether they would even get to see a specialist and, if they did not get to see a specialist, would they have to drive home and return another day. They wanted to what would happen to people who lived far away from a hospital and were sick. They wanted to know what would happen to them when they grew older. Some people wanted to be able to stay at home and not have to face the prospect of living in a nursing home earlier than needed.

Canadians have a lot of concerns about health care in spite of the fact that we have a system that is among the best and maybe even the best in the world in its universality, portability and the fact that it is publicly funded. It is a system where the Prime Minister could get the premiers of the territories and provinces together, as he did in September, and hammer out a deal, notwithstanding the begrudging acceptance of some measures by some of the premiers. The fact that the Prime Minister could sit around a table in public view and then, sometimes quietly with them in private, hammer out a deal that at the end of it all will further improve our system, is a testimony to the kind of country we have.

I am proud to be a part of a government that reflects the balanced approach that Canadians take, not only to their own lives but to the way that they think about their communities, neighbourhoods, regions and the country as a whole.

In having a balanced approach to governance, this includes, beyond health care, a number of other very important facets of our nation. That includes at the same time providing support for our children, whether it is early education, health initiatives or measures to support caregivers who, for one reason or another, must stay home to take care of a sick child or an elderly parent who needs their support.

We have not only taken measures in the past but in the throne speech we have even moved those yardsticks even further forward and will be increasing support for children in the early years and support for those who take care of sick family members. Not only has the government considered the needs of individuals and their families, the young and the old, through very significant tax cuts over the last many years, but we also have looked after our communities as a whole.

It was this government in 1995, after responding to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, that initiated the first Canada-provincial-territorial infrastructure program. I have over 50 communities in my riding that have not only appreciated the federal investment in their communities but now know that under our new deal for communities we will be placing on the table significant and stable funding for many years to come.

The funding will provide our mayors, reeves and first nation chiefs with the kind of confidence they need as community leaders to make the important plans to improve the roads, water and sewer systems, and community facilities that are needed to improve their communities and to ensure their future as communities is very strong.

I could easily go on for a couple of hours but I will end by thanking the citizens of my riding. I want to wish everyone here a wonderful fall and Godspeed as members travel to and from their ridings.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your post. I also congratulate the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing who does indeed have a gorgeous riding.

He mentioned some excellent points concerning the economics of our country and the fact that we are consistently in a surplus position. He emphasized the fact that among the 26 OECD nations, our government has performed best over the last several years and has consistently put forth a surplus.

Some may be critical of that but I will reiterate the reasons for that. It gives us the stable base upon which we can invest in our communities, support our social programs and pay down the debt. By paying down the debt, we are actually reducing the payments that we have to pay which enables us as a country to have more resources and more money to do the things that we want to do for Canadians.

The hon. member has a massive riding, a good chunk of Canada. A good chunk of my province of British Columbia is rural too. Would he explain for the House some of the innovative economic diversification issues that have been employed in the north? Ontario has been a leader with the federal government in investments in economic development in rural areas. Could he also bring us up to date on some of the challenges and some of the solutions that have been put forth to deal with aboriginal communities which, tragically, are some of the neediest communities and which display some of the lowest socio-economic parameters that we have in our nation?

Could he articulate to the House some of the innovative things that are being done in northern Ontario on both of those issues?

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are glad the parliamentary secretary is over here with us. He raised an excellent point. There are those who would, foolishly I believe, criticize us for having a surplus. That surplus has allowed us not only to pay down the debt, we have saved interest money every year from that which we can then plow back into our social safety net and into economic development.

When I leave here I will be joining my northern Ontario caucus colleagues at our weekly meeting where we will discuss the challenges and the need for diversification in our region, which is not unlike other rural regions across the country, where we have experienced our young people going off to school and not always being able to come home right away.

A number of tremendous things have happened in northern Ontario. I will point to Sudbury, my neighbouring riding. It has become a world leader for research into mining technology. I would encourage everyone to investigate what is happening in Sudbury because it is tremendous.

In my own riding my 20-plus first nations are incredibly well led. Our programs should honour and respect the leadership that our first nation chiefs are providing. I had a delegation visit today, the chief of Zhiibaahaasing on Manitoulin Island and Chief Franklin Paibomsai from Whitefish River First Nation, two people who bring to their leadership roles a tremendous interest in the health of their communities, the ability of their communities to produce young people who will go off to post-secondary education and so on.

Fundamentally, the government has, to the best of its ability, demonstrated that it cares about the people of this country and its communities. At the end of it all it is not up to bureaucrats in Toronto, Ottawa or me for that matter to tell our communities what they should do when it comes to diversifying their economies. However, as my colleague has suggested, it is important that the Government of Canada be there to support our local leaders and the ideas that automatically percolate up from our communities.

Strong communities build on that strength. Successful communities breed further success not only for themselves but for their regions. We need a government like ours, one that believes in its communities and one that is prepared, as we committed in the election campaign, to put an additional $2 billion back into economic development. I know my region in northern Ontario through FedNor will continue to work very hard to make sure that diversification and responding to local needs is priority number one.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest these past days to what members have said. One of the interesting things about a Speech from the Throne is that it is, by its very nature, a sort of a blueprint of what the government intends to do and it gives all sorts of people an opportunity to show their talents. I think this is very useful.

I would like to speak to a couple of things, one quite briefly and one a little bit longer. The first one is the place for science in the Speech from the Throne. Many members have talked about the importance of research and development and the fact that since the budgets were balanced the federal government has put roughly $13 billion into research and development. It has not done that out of charity or out of opportunism. I would stress the opportunism because some members often mention that. Thirteen billion dollars is not inconsiderable and it is not the sort of money that grabs votes. If a government is putting money into research and development it is a long term investment. We do not see the results for a long period of time.

However if we do not make investments this year, things will not happen in five or six years time. I would like to mention two small things, not the amounts of money that are involved.

First, I would like to applaud the reinforcement of the establishment of the office of the science advisor. As we all know, the federal government is a very large and, as members opposite will say, particularly cumbersome operation and, by its very nature, it is like that.

The federal government is not like a provincial government or a municipal government which can be quite focused. It really is quite diverse. In fact, because of that it does remarkable work in research and science and virtually every federal department has a research capacity.

Many federal departments not only have their own research capacity, but they fund research in particular areas. I would mention, for example, the Department of Health. The Department of Health has scientists who are doing good research and it funds, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, research in all aspects of health all across the country: in the colleges, the universities, the institutes and so on.

I do not want to keep repeating examples but the Department of National Defence, which is often mentioned here, rarely do we hear members raising the fact that the Department of National Defence has people doing research into all sorts of things. I happen to know they do some research into snow, for the trafficability in snow and the movement of vehicles over snow. The department also funds research.

Having a research capacity is an important function of the federal government and the establishment of an office of the science advisor, with Mr. Arthur Carty, the former head of the National Research Council, as the first occupant of that position, is very important.

This was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne and reinforced. I understand the funding is flowing for that office. I think this office will, coordinate may be too strong a word, but it will become a point of first contact for all research in the federal government. It will help the federal departments, which tend to be quite isolated from each other, to work better in science together. It will also work with the provinces or the private sector, or whatever it is, in the areas of science. I think that is extremely important. I was not surprised by this. I knew it would be in the Speech from the Throne and I was glad it was there.

Another commitment in the Speech from the Throne is to the Canadian Academies of Science. A thousand people have probably just turned off their television sets because who is interested in the Canadian Academies of Science and what does it mean? What is it? By the way, there is no such thing at the moment. It is just a proposal.

All developed countries have something like an academy of science. The United States has one. Russia has one. France has one. They are different in each country, but I will use the one in the United States as an example.

The academy of science is a place where the different sciences come together in that nation. Among other things, it recognizes the best and the brightest. That is one of the things it does. It funds research in all the different areas. The people in the different areas of science talk to each other. In the United States it is a focus for thinking, research-minded people in that country. In addition to that, it is a resource for the government of the United States. I will give an actual example, although it occurred some time ago.

There was a problem with the pavement on the main interstate highways in the United States. A lot of money, as we all know, goes into highways. It turned out over a period of time that there were problems with the pavement that was being used and it became an epidemic. In different jurisdictions it was found there was something wrong with the highways.

The federal government of the day asked the academy of science to look into the problem. The academy of science said that it could put together a panel, that it could do this, that and the other thing, it could produce a report, send people out to test and it would cost a certain amount of money. The federal government gave the funds to this perfectly independent organization, not a federal organization, to conduct a study.

What it did was bring together not just the best U.S. scientists and engineers on highways, but people from all around the world. Those people came together, designed a study, determined what was wrong, gave the best advice they could to the federal government of the day in the United States and the problem was solved. By the way, it involved great expenditures of money. That is an example.

With the proposal in the Speech from the Throne, like the science advisor I mentioned, I believe we are getting near the top of a pyramid of things which have been done--I mentioned the $13 billion before--over the last six or seven years for research and science in Canada. This move toward having an arm's length Canadian academy of sciences is a step we can take now. We could not have taken it seven or eight years ago when research was less strong in Canada.

The government's objective is that Canada by various measures be in the top five nations in the world. I have to say, having become a bit cynical, I think that means we are going to be fifth. We are not going to be fourth; I think we are going to be fifth by the year 2010 in research and development.

The government's objective, which has been the objective for two or three years, is not for fun. It is because our productivity depends increasingly on keeping on top of research and development in all the various fields. These two little things, which are not so little, although they are in financial terms compared with many items in the Speech from the Throne, are moving us toward that position.

I mentioned the year 2010. In various sciences and in various aspects of science, we are already in the top five. In genetics and astronomy, for example, we are already in the top five. As of this year, and I saw this very recently, we are now number one in the G-7 in terms of public funding of research and development. This is a remarkable thing.

I did not hear this mentioned in the election, but it is something which has already been done. We have moved from second last to first in publicly funded research and development. Following that, as I have mentioned, in the years to come we will see improvements in our standard of living and our quality of life resulting from that.

I appreciate everyone's patience in listening to me. I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your new position. You look wonderful sitting in that seat.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it seems rather a contradiction that the Speech from the Throne would put such an emphasis on science, yet here in the House the role of the science, research and development minister has been withdrawn. That minister no longer reports to Parliament, and a science advisor who reports to the Prime Minister just is not acceptable. We need to have a science advisor who reports to all of Parliament. Taxpayers' dollars are being spent on this research. That research and what is coming out of it should be available to the public.

A problem that still has yet to be resolved is how, for example, a project like the Canadian neutron facility is still shuffled from one ministry to the next. A presentation is made to the industry committee. The minister decides as to whether or not it is worth funding. Then it is shuffled over to the ministry of natural resources. Then it goes to cabinet, and there is a shuffle and it has to go through all the ministries again. After seven years the project is still no further ahead and the cost continues to mount for this proposed project because of the indecision of government.

There was also mention of an academy of excellence. The concern that we have with these academies and foundations is that of transparency.

How will the member assure us that when money is allocated to these scientific projects, to the foundations, to the councils, to the academies of excellence, that they will report to us? Can he assure us that we will see exactly where the money is going and how it is being spent?

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that as my colleague began, I could understand where the question would go, which was accountability to Parliament for an institute or a particular project that the federal government is funding.

For the Canadian academy of sciences, first of all I think it should be totally transparent. Wherever it gets its resources, and I hope it gets it from many locations, the source of that funding will be clearly published. If it is private sector funding, provincial government funding, or an endowment from some foundation, I hope that is entirely public.

I would not have this Canadian academy of sciences responsible to Parliament in some other way. Its purpose is to focus science out there and to give governments of the day, not just the federal government because its services could be used by provincial or municipal governments, an independent body.

I deliberately described the example where there was a particular project that was funded in the United States, directed by the federal government. In that case, the money came from there but that academy did not have to give a favourable report in order to get future funding.

I would have to say to the member that while I understand the importance of reporting to Parliament for all sorts of things, in this field an arm's length independent body is extremely important.

With regard to the others, and she mentioned one example, I would be the last to say that things are perfect in the federal system. I mentioned $13 billion. She has to be aware that the Canada Foundation for Innovation alone has been responsible for strengthening the research infrastructure in Canada to the point now where the brain drain, as we used to talk about it, particularly in larger science that needs equipment, has been reversed and it is coming back.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research, which as my colleague knows replaced the medical research council, is now I believe 13 institutes. For example, the Cancer Institute does cancer research and works with the cancer associations in all of our ridings doing good science but keeping in touch with the public. Its funding in the last four or five years has almost tripled. In other words, the money for medical research has gone up almost three times.

She mentioned the granting councils. The granting councils report regularly to the House. Their funding has more than doubled, and I hope that it doubles again. That is not to mention scholarships and a variety of other things the federal government has done.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today for the first time during debate in the House, although I did have the opportunity to participate in the BSE debate last week in committee of the whole.

My riding of Haliburton--Kawartha Lakes--Brock is a rural riding located in central Ontario. The northern half is part of the Canadian Shield familiar to anyone from the Toronto area as cottage country. The southern half of my riding where the majority of my constituents live is agricultural.

My riding also includes Brock Township which is a part of Durham region. Part of my riding reaches into the GTA as well as large portions of Peterborough County essentially circling the city of Peterborough. I have one of the few ridings in Canada that actually reaches across three different area codes from 905 to 705 to 613.

I certainly appreciate the support that I had from my constituents in the election on June 28. Blue skies are back again was something I heard so many times this summer. My riding was the home of Leslie Frost who was the premier of Ontario for many years. There is a proud tradition of Conservative politicians from my riding.

When I ran in the election last spring, I identified half a dozen of my priorities, things that I wanted to pursue in this place as a member of Parliament.

The first priority is protecting family farms. For any of us who come from rural ridings, we recognize the enormous impact that the BSE crisis has had not only on farms but on many other rural communities. Many of us have been very disappointed in the response from the government over the past year and a half.

In my opinion, rather than dealing with BSE as an issue to be managed, the House and the government should have declared this a national crisis a long time ago. The management of that issue should have been elevated from the minister's office to the cabinet table with the Prime Minister himself taking a lead role in addressing that concern.

A second priority for me has been to attract more jobs into my rural constituency. This again is a familiar refrain. I listened with interest to my colleague from northern Ontario when he talked about some of the challenges in the north. I would like to remind him and all members that many of the challenges that exist in northern Ontario actually exist across rural Ontario in the south as well.

In my riding, improving connectivity, expanding access to broadband Internet is a major priority. That is something I have begun working with. I rose last week on a member's statement to thank the Minister of Agriculture who worked with me to get some funding for a program that exists in our part of the province.

The third interest that I have is in strengthening rural health care. It was quite easy for me to focus on this one in my riding. Trying to get more doctors into small communities is clearly the priority in this area. There are several doctor recruitment teams. Although health care is primarily a provincial jurisdiction, certainly the federal government can do more to increase the supply of doctors in Canada, particularly those who come from outside the country.

A fourth priority of mine is expanding seniors services. It is my understanding that my riding has the second highest percentage of seniors of all the ridings in Canada, following only Victoria out on the west coast. We have many seniors for two reasons.

First of all, I come from a very beautiful area. Many people who have owned cottages for years in Haliburton have since made their retirement homes in that area. The second reason we have such a high percentage of seniors is that many of our young people have had to move away. There are no jobs or opportunities in those rural communities that there are in cities. I would like to address that at some point in the future. I would like to be able to say that we no longer have the second highest percentage of seniors because we have repatriated many of our young people back to my area.

My fifth priority has to do with improving access to housing. This is an issue in communities, both large and small, across Canada. Earlier today reference was made to a lack of adequate housing stock on first nations. In many other small communities it is also a problem. I have many ideas in that area which I hope over the coming months and years I will have the opportunity to share with members in this place.

My final priority is focusing on children. As the father of two children under two years of age, I have a personal interest in this area. I sit on the human resources, skills development, social development and the status of persons with disabilities committee. I hope through that body I will have the opportunity to discuss and to make positive recommendations to improve programs and services for young families and for young people.

A second initiative I have launched in this area is called the capital experience. In a capital experience next week I will be bringing two students from each of seven high schools in my riding to Ottawa for three days to learn about career opportunities in public life.

I think many young people in rural communities are not aware of some of the different opportunities that exist in public life. Therefore, we will visit researchers at the Experimental Farm. We will be received by the Saudi Arabian Ambassador. We will come to this place on Tuesday so they can witness question period.

I urge all my colleagues to be on their best behaviour that day because I have told them that this is a respectful place where the serious business of Canada is conducted. I hope that all parties will heed that warning and avoid any sort of unparliamentary behaviour on that day.

Specifically, tonight I have the opportunity to speak on the Speech from the Throne. It is a historic occasion that for the first time there was substantive amendment to that speech. I was somewhat disappointed that the government in this minority Parliament did not make a greater effort to consult with opposition parties prior to the Speech from the Throne.

As the House knows, it is the Prime Minister's responsibility to demonstrate that he has the support of the House and that he has a working majority in this place. With 135 seats, the governing party cannot do it on its own. The Prime Minister should have made greater efforts to consult with the opposition parties prior to the speech last week.

It is also why I was so proud of the leader of my party when he put forward our amendments to that speech. As my leader made very clear, it was our attempt to put some meat on the bones. The Speech from the Throne was vague. I heard one of my colleagues a few minutes ago refer to it as a blueprint. The blueprints I have seen are quite precise and have more specific information on them. I would refer to the Speech from the Throne more as a rough sketch. We have made some progress in this place in the past 10 days to add some precision to that document to make it better and to make it work for all Canadians.

I will quickly touch on the different amendments that were put forward.

First, it is scandalous that the EI rates have been set so high that they generate a large surplus. This is essentially a job killing tax that the current Prime Minister, when he was the finance minister, made no effort to address. He himself has said at different times that taxes kill jobs. It is overdue that we bring the EI situation into balance.

Second, in terms of reducing the tax burden on lower income Canadians, I think we all recognize the challenge that lower income Canadians have faced and continue to face. That is a step in the right direction.

Third, the introduction of independent budgetary forecasting is a step in the right direction. I refuse to believe that it has been by accident for 10 years now that the government has misread the projected revenues and expenses in this place. I do not buy the slice theory. If you have ever seen me golf, Mr. Speaker, you would know I am an expert on slices. This does not bear any resemblance to a slice. In fact I think it was a strategic and deliberate move on the part of the government. I hope that it addresses this.

On the fourth point, which is examining our electoral system, I am an older reformer. One of the reasons I joined the Reform Party in 1990 was to address the democratic deficit in this place. Someone once said that I was country before country was cool. I was talking about democratic deficits and changes more than 10 years ago.

Finally, a vote on ballistic missile defence is another step in that direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. gentleman on his victory and I welcome him to the House of Commons. My question for him is quite straightforward. Seeing that he is new, I will be gentle with him the first time.

The party of the Reform and the Conservatives have always talked about a triple-E Senate, an elected Senate. We in the NDP have always asked for an abolished Senate, completely eliminate it.

The 10 provinces and 3 territories do not have senates. For better or for worse, they seem to operate in a normal democratic fashion. They do not need a second chamber to do the business of government in the provinces or territories.

Why does the member think that we need an elected senate? Here is what will happen. We will have legislation from this House brought over to the other place, and those elected people, if indeed it is an elected Senate, will wrangle, fight, argue, delay and do all kinds of things, which will slow down the business of opposition and government for even longer.

I do not like the system they have in other place now. That is why people like myself think it should be abolished. I would like the members comments on that intervention.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of thoughts on the issue of Senate reform. First, imagine telling visiting students from eastern Europe or some other emerging democracy that fully one-quarter of our parliamentarians, as we enter the 21st century, were still appointed. It is outrageous that we have a Senate that is appointed by the Prime Minister. If we were describing the way our government works to people from many other countries, they would not think that was the hallmark of a modern democracy. The existence of an appointed Senate is an idea that has outlived its usefulness. If there are senators, they need to be elected.

Second, the question essentially is whether we ought to have a unicameral legislature with only a single House or whether we ought to follow the model that is used in most large federations where there is a lower House that is based on the principle of representation by population, which we largely have in the House with some modifications, and an upper chamber that is based on representation for the members in that federation.

My concern with getting rid of the Senate is that it would reduce the influence or the say that the smaller provinces have. The United States has a senate for that reason. Australia and many other countries, many other federations have the bicameral system.

It is time to move beyond an appointed Senate. I do not agree with the notion of abolishing the Senate and having a uniicameral legislature in Canada. If we are to have a Senate, then it ought to be elected and we ought to have representation.

Ironically, what has filled the vacuum in the absence of a more legitimate and credible Senate is the first ministers conferences where they essentially represent provincial interests. I wish the premiers would stay in their provinces more and deal with their own issues. If we had an upper chamber, it would deal with provincial issues in this place.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his maiden speech. He spoke about bringing school kids to the House. Dr. Jane Goodall, the primatologist, was in the audience during question period. I was curious to know what she was thinking while she watched the antics of question period. I wondered whether she found our behaviour better or worse than the chimpanzees she has been studying since 1960 in Gombe, western Tanzania. It is all the opposition's fault. The member should know that.

Medical personnel in rural areas is a huge problem for the whole country. British Columbia has a physicians assistants program. We are now starting to model a very exciting program. The University of Washington in Washington State has an 80% success rate with providing physicians assistants in rural areas. Approximately 80% of its graduates stay in a rural area and they, under the guidance of physicians, are able to provide primary care in underserviced areas. I offer that to the member as a point of interest. If he has any comments to make on the programs that Ontario is doing, which are very good, he might like to mention them in the House.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in any new ideas that people bring forward in terms of doctor recruitment to increase the supply of doctors in our system. With all due respect, I personally hope we can move the health care debate on to a more rational level where we can look to countries around the world for good ideas. If and when people bring forward an idea from the United States, it should not be immediately shot down as American style health care. A good idea is a good idea and if it is being done in Washington State, then we should look at it.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think this is the first time I have spoken when you have sat in the chair, so my congratulations on your appointment.

I want to also congratulate the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock on his maiden speech. I thought it was a very good one. I remember my maiden speech was many years ago, but I do not think I was as comfortable and obviously as relaxed as the member appeared to be. That maybe comes with a long association with the political process. It certainly demonstrates itself.

The throne speech response is one that I had a little difficulty formulating from the standpoint that there was not a whole bunch in the throne speech. I think we were all expecting there would be, simply because we had been through an election. We had a throne speech something like five months earlier. Therefore, we have had two throne speeches in a very short period of time from the same administration.

What I observed was observed by many. I called it an empty vessel. Here was a throne speech that could have delivered so much but delivered very little. The most surprising part about all of this is we have a new scenario. We have a minority government in this place. Three opposition parties were waiting to be consulted by the government on what some of the priorities might be and it simply did not happen. To say it happened, even to a small degree, is stretching it because it did not happen. That means the opposition moved amendments. It means we had what the media described as a potential crisis in the making, which was not the intent of the opposition. We actually ended up with more substance in a series of amendments to the throne speech than we had in the throne speech.

It is important that Canadians recognize the significance of all of this. We are at the front end of a Parliament. We were at the point where we had a government that was used to governing from a majority position that suddenly tried to use its old methodology, which was to declare that this would be a confidence motion. The fate of the government hinged upon supporting the government and defeating these amendments.

Guess what? Four hours later the government was negotiating. We now have a different hue and character to this place as a consequence. This is productive. However, the government still appears to be directionless except when it is dragged kicking and screaming, and that is the shame of it all.

The amendments to the throne speech, which have been adopted, are generally supported by the Canadian population and by all the opposition parties. We now understand that the Liberal Party supports them as well because it supported the amendment. Why there was no reference to any of this in the throne speech is beyond us. There was no content in the throne speech.

It is important for me to talk about my riding, just for a minute. My riding is the north half of Vancouver Island. It is also the adjacent mainland coast from Desolation Sound up to Rivers Inlet. Basically, I have about half of the British Columbia coastline in all its different configurations within my riding. I have a lot of marine issues.

We have a very big resource sector. It is a very scenic area with a big tourism sector and it is a very nice place to live. We have a big retirement sector and an economy that is diversifying itself quite a bit.

The face of the federal government on the west coast is not very evident. When it is evident, so very often decisions are made that are contrary to the wishes of the people. We have example after example of this.

Usually it emanates from either the Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans which is the same thing, or more recently the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. It can manifest itself in trade disputes, as in other parts of Canada with softwood lumber.

We have a very difficult time making the centralized governance of this country, the centralized bureaucracy, and even the regional bureaucracy in British Columbia sensitive to what they are doing to our communities through some of their actions, particularly when they have negative consequences.

There are some priority areas including our salmon enhancement programs. We need to maintain them. There is also the issue of light stations. It is a real litmus test for the government. If it is not going to support those, then it does not care about rural coastal British Columbia. It is plain and simple. It is doing everything it can now to signal that it does not care about that.

We have a lot of energy issues, as do other parts of the country. The west coast is blessed with some of the best wind regimes in the world. We are going to have a major wind farm in my riding that will probably add 150 wind turbines in one location. This will change the energy economics of Vancouver Island considerably. That is just a start.

We have an offshore oil and gas resource in British Columbia, upon which there is a federal moratorium, a moratorium it would not place on any other part of Canada, but we have one in British Columbia. We are expecting the Priddle report and the Brooks report later this month. When those come out, I do not want the government to drag its feet in terms of addressing the moratorium issue. There was no reference to any of that in the throne speech.

We have an east coast offshore oil and gas issue right now where the government is to deliver within one week the mechanism by which it is going to meet its election promise. It will return 100% of offshore resource revenue to the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. We have no reference to that in the throne speech.

We have a major initiative by the government bureaucracy, from the Privy Council, on smart regulations that would do ever so much to assist the entire exercise of statutory and regulatory authority, to increase productivity and to increase the economy of Canada, and to get rid of a lot of the frustrations within industry. There was one small reference to that in the throne speech and that is it.

These are all things that need to be built on in a major way and we do not hear the government talking about it or addressing it.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the Speech from the Throne, and particularly to thank the voters of Ottawa West for again giving me the great privilege of representing my community in this seat of our democracy.

It is a tremendous privilege to sit in this House. It is a tremendous privilege to work with people who come from all over the country, from different parties, and with different views of what is good for Canada and its future, but with a common interest in trying to make this a better country.

That is a very important attitude to have as we enter this new Parliament. Clearly it is a different Parliament than I have ever experienced. Quite frankly, I am somewhat excited and interested in seeing how that changes the dynamic of how Parliament works and how we can work together across party lines to achieve some good things for our country.

Like many Canadians I come from an immigrant background. My father was an immigrant to this country. It was from him that I learned how lucky I am to be a Canadian. It was a fulfillment of his dreams when he came to this country that he finished up his career as master tailor for that great symbol of Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Throughout my life I learned to appreciate the values this country stands for. When I walked into this House for the first time and often since, I have consciously focused on what I owe and what we all owe to the people who sat in this Chamber before us and what we owe to the generations to come after us.

Those who came before us have given us a country that the world envies. They have done it consciously by focusing on the future, on the good of the whole country, and not on narrow parochial interests. The decisions we make in this Parliament will create the future that our children and grandchildren will live with, and that future parliamentarians will have to build on.

That is the perspective I bring into this Chamber all the time. I am very proud to represent the people of Ottawa West—Nepean. It is a very diverse community. I know this kind of comment is more typical of a maiden speech, but I gave that speech 16 years ago. However, it is important to me to recall who I am here to represent.

I represent a very diverse community, many people of very low income, many new Canadians from all over the world, many people who are very wealthy, many people who work for the Government of Canada and many people who work for our high tech sector and at every possible job one can imagine in virtually any community in this country.

So when I look at something like the Speech from the Throne, I look for how it addresses the needs of the diversity of Canada, not if it addresses one particular economic stratum or one particular region of the country, but whether it looks at the range of needs and interests of this country, and looks at what is going to be good for the future.

Unlike some of the speeches I have heard this afternoon, I am one who believes in the role of government in society. I believe that government has a constructive and positive role to play in the life of its citizens and in creating a country. Our predecessors in this Chamber have done a wonderful job of that. We have to attempt to at least meet the standards they have set and hope that when we leave this place, we leave our country a little bit better than when we arrived.

Let me talk about some of my constituents and how I believe the Speech from the Throne and the plans of the government meet their needs.

I have either the second or third highest proportion of seniors of any riding in the country. Why I say one or the other is because the member for St. Catharines constantly debates with me that his riding has now surpassed Ottawa West—Nepean. In that way my riding represents a growing and emerging need of Canadian society. We are going to have to address a population that is increasingly over 65, out of the workforce, and has health care needs, needs for retirement income and a smaller working population to support those many needs.

In a way we have a reversal of what we had in the sixties when the baby boomers were hitting the high schools and they were our main focus in providing for their education and future. Now, those who made the sacrifices in those days are going to need more from their society than the younger people of today.

I am pleased that the Speech from the Throne focuses on the needs of seniors, particularly better health care and support for people who look after elderly relatives or neighbours in their own homes. I hear from my constituents about long waits for surgery, diagnoses of illnesses that may be very serious, and treatments, and the cost of drugs that people cannot afford to just stay alive.

I am pleased with the recent health accord. The commitments in the Speech from the Throne to move forward will in fact address those needs of reducing waiting times, ensuring quicker diagnoses, providing catastrophic drug coverage, helping with home care, and supporting caregivers in the home.

We must also look to our future by looking to our children. The Speech from the Throne takes some very important initiatives. Looking back a bit, I am very proud of the national child benefit which ensured that children in low or modest income families in Canada had greater support in the family financially than they did a few years ago.

I look at what we have done in one important area and that is to ensure that all children have a better chance at having more advanced education. This will become increasingly important for them to live full and fulfilling lives and to make a contribution to their country.

I am particularly proud of the learning bond which will be available to all low income children born as of a certain date earlier this year. Quite simply, there are families in this country who will never be able to afford to give their children a university or college education. This will allow all children to have nest eggs to use for their education when they reach that age. That will not only provide some of the financial resources they will need, but provide the encouragement for them to finish high school because they will know that there is a possibility of them going on and learning more.

Housing is very important to our families, to seniors and to children. I am proud of what the government is doing to ensure that there is more affordable housing in communities right across this country.

I mentioned that my constituency includes a large number of immigrants. I am pleased with some of the initiatives we are taking toward a quicker recognition of immigrant skills and professional qualifications so that an engineer can work as an engineer and not remain unemployed or underemployed but make a contribution to this country.

I will mention two particular areas. Recently we all received a letter from the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers about the money it has had from the government to speed up the recognition of engineering credentials of new Canadians and to ensure that more opportunities are open for them to have jobs where they can use the skills they bring to this country.

We will be initiating a program for the quicker recognition of medical doctors from overseas so that they can contribute to solving our shortage of doctors and specialists in Canada and at the same time be living more fulfilling lives, practising the skills they have brought to this country.

One thing we have to look at as well, though, is what we do to keep Canadians healthier. One of the areas that I think is vitally important to focus on is what kind of natural environment our children and grandchildren will have to live in. Will they have clean air to breathe? Will they have clean water to drink? Will we have soils that are capable of producing a quality food supply?

Therefore, I am proud of the commitments that the Speech from the Throne makes to the environment, to alternative energy and to new environmental technologies. Not only will they help us in Canada solve some of our environmental problems, they will also allow us to contribute to solving the environmental problems of the world. That, by coincidence, is also going to be good for our economy. I have a philosophy about Canada: that we do well in this country by doing good for the world. One of the areas in which we can do that is by sharing our technology, keeping at the leading edge of technology and sharing that with the world when it is going to accomplish some greater good.

To close the circle, if we invest in the education of our children, it is both for their personal development and for the contribution they can make to society, but it is also good for the economy. At the same time, we invest in our universities and colleges through research, but in this Speech from the Throne we commit to going the extra step.

Too often in the past, excellent research has been done in Canada but it basically gets developed outside this country to produce jobs and benefits for somewhere else. That is okay, but I think the initiatives we are taking in the Speech from the Throne to commercialize our research, to actually bring some of that great research we do to market, and to provide the venture capital for small start-up companies that can do this, are very important initiatives.

I certainly know it is very important for a significant segment of my constituents, who have for a couple of years now been either unemployed or underemployed because of the downturn in the high tech sector. The ability for new companies and new ideas to get going offers the opportunity for them to look forward to new employment and to using their skills instead of going somewhere else for employment. There is a wonderful group in this city called the Ottawa Talent Initiative that is working on developing new opportunities for those high tech workers and providing support to their families.

It may not seem significant, and I know it is happening in communities across this country, but just in Ottawa we have approximately 17,000 people from that sector of the economy who have been unemployed for close to three years now. There are thousands more across the country. Those are talents we need to keep in our communities for the new opportunities in technology as they open up. If we do not have those skilled people, whether it is here or in Vancouver, Kitchener-Waterloo, Halifax or Saskatchewan, those new opportunities will not open up in Canada.

Therefore, right across this country it is in our interests to support keeping the skills of that sector current and strong, to work to ensure that the opportunities do open up for them to find employment, and to support their families as they go through this difficult time.

I would like to talk a bit more about cities and communities, but I am aware that I am running out of time. I would like to talk a little more about the importance of fiscal responsibility, because we cannot afford new initiatives if we are not careful with how we manage our fiscal situation. There is a very strong commitment to not go back into deficit financing, to continue paying off our debt and to continue ensuring that taxes remain reasonable for Canadians, but at the same time we cannot forget about investing in our future. That is what I have tried to talk about this evening.

What I think we need to have here as a perspective is this: will the decisions we take today, tomorrow, and in the next however long this 38th Parliament lasts give us a better country in 10 or 20 years? Will a child born today have greater opportunities 10 years from now? This, I think, is what we have to focus on, not just today's political squabbles and not just the short term pressures. We must have the courage to think beyond today and tomorrow and make sure that the next generation of people that sits in these seats will say that this 38th Parliament did good things for Canada and left them something to build on.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member as my neighbour. She represents the constituency directly north of mine and I know her to be a very devoted member of Parliament, committed to her community and to her country.

She remarked on the issue of health care today. I would like to ask her a question that is of particular concern to our respective communities. When she remarked on health care, it turned my attention to a hospital that is in her constituency but services all of the western part of my constituency. It is called the Queensway-Carleton Hospital.

I have met with the hospital board members in the past and they have explained to me their concerns. They are continually obliged to pay lease payments to a federal organization called the National Capital Commission. The fact that the National Capital Commission owns the land on which that hospital operates is a hindrance, an encumbrance, to the hospital's plans to expand, provide new services and possibly sublease to family doctors and other medical practitioners.

As a result, I have met with the head of the NCC to discuss the idea of transferring that land over to our community hospital. I have put forward a motion, Motion No. 135, which would accomplish just that. For the price of a dollar, the NCC would sell the property directly to the hospital, in the same way that two other hospitals in the Ottawa area have received their property from the City of Ottawa.

Given her government's professed commitment to health care, I am wondering whether she believes that the Liberal government will support this motion. Does she believe that the Liberal government will call upon the NCC, through the Treasury Board, to sell the land to our community hospital so that every dollar the hospital has at its disposal can be used for patient care and every square foot of property on which the hospital operates can be developed to expand the services that are available to our respective communities?

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interest of the newly elected member for Nepean--Carleton in the hospital in my riding. Quite frankly, if he were that interested in helping out the hospital, he might not have cancelled two appointments with the National Capital Commission to discuss this very issue, choosing instead to speak to the media.

The land of which he speaks is the greenbelt around the national capital. It is something that the National Capital Commission holds in trust for the people of Canada as part of the planning of the capital. Much of it holds the Gatineau Park, the Mud Lake conservation area, and the Mer Bleu conservation area. The hospital has appreciated having that location for a very minimal amount for a lease of 40 years.

I personally think the NCC is not prepared to abandon what was bought in the national interest and has been kept in the national interest. I certainly am prepared to work with the National Capital Commission and the hospital to make sure that whatever arrangements for the extension of that lease when it ends in nine years are favourable to the hospital.

The member should ask his own colleagues whether they think a hospital in Ottawa should have preferential treatment over any other hospital in the rest of the country.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech by the member for Ottawa West--Nepean. I heard her remark about her pride in the national child benefit.

Over the period that the national child benefit has been in place, child poverty has actually increased in Canada. A commitment was made in the House back in 1989 to eliminate child poverty by 2000 but in fact it has increased over that period. It does not seem like the most effective program. I would like her to comment on what can be done to address the issue of child poverty in Canada.

She also mentioned the Canada learning bond. I do agree that it is great to encourage families to save for their children's education but it seems to ignore the crisis in post-secondary education that we are facing right now with incredibly high student debt and high tuition fees. I do not see anything in the Speech from the Throne to address those important issues. I would like the member to comment on that as well.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the national child benefit. I think the member will concede that there are differing opinions about whether child poverty has lessened or has increased over the years. I am very proud of that benefit because it was an initiative that arose initially in my riding of Ottawa West--Nepean and eventually was adopted by the Liberal Party right across the country as its highest priority before it was put in the budget the following year.

Investing in our young people now, giving them an incentive to increase their education, to look forward to opportunities, is certainly one of the ways of reducing child poverty. It means that the next generation will be better educated, will have more opportunities and will be better able to provide for their own children.

As far as post-secondary education in general goes, the member knows that is primarily a provincial responsibility. With a little more time if the clock were not running out, I would list our investments in research, in millennium scholarships, in better tax treatment of student fees--

[The Deputy Speaker]

When the House resumes this debate, the member will have three and a half minutes left on questions and comments to further that list.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking you for allowing me to speak in the late show. My question is intended as a reminder of the one I asked of the minister on October 6 concerning the employment insurance fund.

My question is twofold. One aspect concerns the regulations, which are so restrictive that fewer and fewer unemployed workers qualify for EI benefits.

At the time, I also reminded the minister that no concern was shown for that in the throne speech; quite the contrary. The throne speech reflects something akin to a sense of satisfaction on the part of the government, when all it is saying is that it will check whether the EI fund still meets the needs of the workers.

The minister recognized that there was a problem, not only in Quebec but across the country. That is already something.

My question concerns the steps he intends to take to remedy the situation. This is not an easy situation, especially for those who are out of work.

Things have changed in recent years, especially since 1997. At the time, 75% of all contributors were eligible for EI benefits, compared to only 38% these days.

What this means is that the government has tightened up EI rules so much that fewer and fewer people are now eligible for EI benefits. This situation affects women and young Canadians particularly, since they are the ones with insecure or part time jobs.

I would like to get an answer on this from the government, the minister or the parliamentary secretary.

The second part of my question deals with the EI fund itself. A total of $45 billion were taken out of the EI fund. It is in fact a disguised tax.

The minister told us that it was because we no longer have a separate EI account. But that does not explain why the government has taken money out of the EI surplus, money that should have been used to pay EI benefits to the unemployed. That surplus was used for other purposes, namely to pay off the debt or cover other expenditures, or simply went into the consolidated revenue account.

I would like to hear from the minister or his representative what their recommendation will be about the future use of EI money.