Debates of Oct. 20th, 2004

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[David Emerson, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

It is a great honour for me to be here representing the people of Vancouver Kingsway. The privilege has been made greater by the Prime Minister appointing me Minister of Industry.

I am delighted to be speaking in support of the Speech from the Throne. I am delighted to be part of the team that has delivered Canadian economic performance that leads the G-7. I am delighted to be part of a government that has delivered seven consecutive balanced budgets, a substantial program of tax cuts, and a reduced debt burden that will continue to fall over the next decade.

Without this outstanding fiscal and economic performance, a progressive social agenda would be purely academic. There would be no renewal of our health care system, there would be no watershed program to transform cities and communities, and there would be no national program for the care and development of children.

I have a deeply held belief that the pre-eminent role of government is to look to the future. Our most important job is to hand to the members of the next generation a country they can be proud of: a country of opportunity, a country of powerful humanitarian values, a country that leaves no one behind, and a country that draws people and regions together. In other words, a country that is far more than the sum of its parts.

To do this, we need to take our economy to another level. That means taking our competitiveness to another level. It means we have to shockproof our economy. We do face economic threats and challenges. We do face protectionist actions. We do see constant attempts to attract our best companies. We face critical choices. Companies and operations that anchor large clusters of industry are being offered incentives to go elsewhere.

The pulling up of those anchors would have serious consequences for whole regions and whole sectors. We have to fight back. We have to ensure that this country is, by a significant margin, the place to invest for the long haul.

We have some work to do. Our productivity continues to lag behind the United States'. Research and development by private companies is not sufficient to deliver competitive superiority. Infrastructure investments are required to resolve border bottlenecks, not just at the Canada-U.S. border but congestion at our ports and along the corridors leading to ports and border crossings. We are by far the most trade dependent of the G-7 countries. We have the most to gain and the most to lose from the ups and downs of the global marketplace.

We are as a government driving Canadian trade interests at the WTO through NAFTA and through a variety of other mechanisms. We are giving priority to third market development and we are pressing ahead with border security and facilitation issues.

But let us not kid ourselves. There is much that we do not and cannot control. For Canada to be strong, sovereign and independent, there is only one reliable form of insurance. That is the insurance that comes from being the best.

We have to bring our competitive performance to first place. If we are the most trade dependent country, we have to be the most competitive country. That means a quantum improvement in our competitive position. That will not be quick and it will not be easy. It means a margin of competitive advantage has to be attained that will enable us to withstand protectionist actions like softwood lumber, like beef under the guise of BSE, and now pork.

We are not going to be the best by paying our people the least. We are going to be the best by being a technological leader. We are going to be the best by empowering our workforce with the skills and tools it needs to outshine the competition. We have to be at the leading edge of critical scientific developments. We need a cadre of scientific and technical entrepreneurs who can look at science and see commercial opportunity.

We are going to have to regulate smarter and better than anyone. In many cases, our regulatory regimes are complex, duplicative and unresponsive to innovative approaches. We should not lower our standards, but we do need to re-engineer how we regulate. Regulatory costs are largely invisible and they are seldom measured, but I can tell hon. members they are very large.

We are going to have to support critical sectors. I hear many people talking about sunset industries. They used to point at the forest industry as a sunset industry and now I see people pointing at the automotive industry as a sunset industry. I have to say that there really are very few, if any, sunset industries. There are industries that have become globally competitive and there are industries that need to transform to become globally competitive.

We are going to have to maintain and enhance our leadership in “enabling technologies”, such as information and communications technologies, life sciences, nanotechnology and advanced materials. We are going to have to do better than anyone in commercializing and applying science. Canadian businesses, particularly in the small and medium-sized enterprise sector, are not aggressive enough at applying technology to improve the competitiveness of their businesses. We need to fix that.

An economy that is environmentally and economically sustainable is not just desirable, it is essential. Without it we will not be able to carry the freight of social programs that are so vital to Canadians. The Speech from the Throne recognizes these challenges. It signals the priorities that will ensure our next generation receives the torch with a lead, a lead that it too can build on.

I look forward to working with all of the members of the House as we take Canada to a whole new level of competitiveness.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the minister on his appointment.

I was very interested in a number of comments he made, particularly with respect to some of the issues at the border. It was not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, although there were comments that the government is committed to increasing and improving economic prosperity in this country. I think the minister would agree with me that if there is congestion at the border or if the borders are not working in terms of moving the Canadian economy, there will not be economic prosperity in this country.

The minister said the government has a number of plans in a number of different areas. I certainly welcome that. He did comment that there are many things “we do not and cannot control”, but certainly I would hope that in those areas the government can take the initiative with the United States, also improving the facilities on the Canadian side of the border. This would certainly be welcome and would go a long way to improve the situation.

I wonder if the minister could let the House know when, in his opinion, some of these changes are going to result in the improvements to and the expediting of traffic, which we must have and which I think the minister will agree with me has to take place if this country is to continue to grow.

[David Emerson, Liberal, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is a good one. I absolutely agree that the border is critical. The border has again become an impediment to trade with the United States. It had faded as an impediment for many years and after 9/11 it resurfaced as an impediment.

In my view, there are two things we need to do. One is to strive to improve our competitiveness in terms of Canadian industry. I saw that in softwood lumber, where we were punished by 27% duties by American protectionists. Nevertheless, the industry hunkered down, made investments in technology and improved its efficiency. Today the forest industry has again become strong and healthy in spite of those protectionist actions.

I think the hon. member would have to agree that the improvement of efficiencies at the border will take a while. Some of those improvements have begun, but there will be more to come.

There is an awful lot going on with the smart border initiative, as the member knows. A lot of it will involve technology. It will involve working through some of the nuances of getting along with the American and Canadian border officials, who do not operate in quite the same way and do not have quite the same culture. We need to make some infrastructural investments to ensure we have preclearance facilities, for example, in some transportation corridors where we have some bottlenecks.

We have a lot of work to do. We have made some progress and we will make more in the next year or two.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the industry minister had to say about the throne speech. I would like to point out to him some sizeable gaps in the throne speech, which made no reference to a number of industries.

As we know, several regions of Quebec, and especially the Chaudières-Appalaches area, are facing a crisis in the textile industry. I have not seen one reference to it in the throne speech and I have not heard one statement on how the government would provide assistance to an industry hard hit by the unfair competition of Asian countries.

I would like to hear the industry minister's opinion on this.

[David Emerson, Liberal, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that there are many sectors that were not specifically named in the throne speech, so the textiles and apparel sector is not alone.

I remember working in Ottawa in the 1970s when the textile industry was basically being buried as a sunset industry, yet we still have a strong and transforming textile and apparel industry today. The government has committed to a $60 million program of support to the textile industry. My own department has a $26.7 million program and funding is now starting to flow. I believe it is a sector that will transform, will be successful and will continue to employ people both in Quebec and in other parts of Canada.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your new position. The House, I am sure, is going to miss some of your more lyrical interventions during members' statements, but I think they will probably be missed less on this side of the House than on the other.

I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome to the House the new members of Parliament.

To all new members, I look forward to working together as we tackle probably some of the most challenging problems facing this country.

I am proud that the throne speech provides such a strong commitment to addressing the legitimate concerns of first nations, Métis and Inuit Canadians, that it speaks so directly to the need to forge a new relationship with Canada's aboriginal communities based on trust, respect and collaboration.

We are under no illusions that the problems of the past centuries will be solved in the next few months, but we are making progress. Indeed, the past year has seen extraordinary progress and impressive momentum. Building on a 2004 throne speech, a new committee of cabinet, dedicated specifically to first nations, Inuit, Métis and northerners' issues and chaired by the Prime Minister, has been created and begun its work.

The engagement, commitment and determination of the Prime Minister to advance first nations, Inuit, Métis and northerners' issues provides real hope for change. As early as last March he met with the leaders of the national aboriginal organizations, the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami organization, the Métis National Council, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples to listen to their concerns and solicit ideas.

This was followed by an aboriginal people's round table, held in April, which was co-chaired again by the Prime Minister, attended by 75 aboriginal organizations, 22 cabinet minister and members of Parliament.

Just a few weeks ago we saw a substantial result of that, addressing issues relating to first nations, Inuit and Métis health and the special circumstances faced in terms of the health of northerners at the special meeting of the first ministers and aboriginal leaders in Ottawa. Previously, in his reply to the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister confirmed his commitment to another first ministers meeting with aboriginal leaders.

Moreover, the important role of interlocutor for the Métis people has for the first time been vested in the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, creating an unprecedented opportunity to put Métis issues at the very forefront of the national aboriginal agenda.

Emerging from the Canada aboriginal peoples round table were six key priorities: health, housing, lifelong learning, accountability, economic opportunity and negotiation. In each of these a process has been initiated, co-chaired by a member of cabinet, which will involve all partners in a collaborative effort to move the yardsticks and make tangible progress.

Let me touch just quickly on each of these areas.

First, with respect to health, as I mentioned, the special meeting of first ministers recognized the need to address unique challenges. The government agreed to establish an aboriginal health transition fund and committed to an aboriginal health human resources initiative to encourage more first nations, Inuit, Métis and northerners to choose health care professions and improve the retention of health care workers serving aboriginal people.

Second, with respect to housing, many members in this place have seen first-hand the third world living conditions that are a daily reality for far too many first nations and Inuit people. We need to increase the supply of and access to affordable housing. We need to be more creative in how we finance and deliver first nations, Inuit and Métis and northerners' housing. I am very encouraged by some of the innovative ideas that national Chief Fontaine has proposed following the round table. We also need to be develop new approaches to housing so that more market capital can be accessed to build and maintain homes, while respecting the prerogatives of the collectivity.

Third, with respect to education, we have a long way to go to close the educational gap. However, to be sure, instruments in the past number of years have had a tangible impact on the overall level of aboriginal educational attainment. We need to encourage more first nations, Inuit, Métis and northerners to pursue post-secondary education, acquiring the skills and credentials that are so vital to success.

Fourth, with respect to economic opportunity, our goal must be nothing less than to build a country that includes all of its people in its prosperity. We cannot be prosperity without opportunity. For aboriginal people that means growing up in a community with the possibility of building something better for themselves and their children.

Fifth, with respect to accountability, accountability is the hallmark of democratic government; the simple but essential notion that government should be responsible for the moneys it spends. We are proposing the creation of an aboriginal report card, a way of measuring progress against defined objectives. I hasten to add that the report card will be about accountability for everyone.

Sixth is the important area of negotiations of land claims, treaties and self-government agreements. I am very optimistic that together with our aboriginal, provincial and territorial partners, we can make real progress to advance in this crucial area.

In all these areas progress will be made if there really is good will to make a difference, to move beyond the old debates and help create a better future.

Of course, the six initiatives I have discussed today are not the sum total of our efforts. We know, for example, there are tremendous opportunities in the north. To achieve our joint objectives in the north, we need a strategy developed in collaboration with northerners and the Inuit community.

We also recognize the particular challenges faced by many first nations, Inuit, Métis and northern women. The NWAC sisters and spirit campaign is a particularly poignant reminder of deeply rooted wrongs. We will work with NWAC and others to ensure aboriginal women a place of honour and dignity in the life of the country.

It is too often the nature of this profession to lower expectations and dampen enthusiasm, However, I believe we really have reached a decisive moment, a time when we redress fundamental problems too long ignored and render fundamental dignities too long withheld. It is high time to finish the job that was started with the confederation of our country. That work has begun. Our commitment is clear. The momentum is building and the time is now.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary North Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will be familiar with the position I put forward in the context of the throne speech debate, and I will reiterate the issue I raised at that time. In the throne speech, at page 14, there is reference to the circumstances of other people elsewhere in the world and the government purports to offer this advice to people elsewhere in the world:

In so many of the world's trouble spots, establishing order is only the first step. Poverty, despair and violence are usually rooted in failed institutions of basic governance and rule of law.

The throne speech carries on to offer advice to people elsewhere in the world. Taking that advice and applying it closer to home, what specifically does the government propose to do to address the issues which the government itself recognizes in the throne speech? The throne speech talks about the yawning gaps that exist between the life expectancies in terms of issues such as teenage suicide, fetal alcohol syndrome and the like, and between aboriginal Canadians and non-aboriginal Canadians.

The throne speech, however, offers no specifics, no plan, no plan of action, nothing other than a vague promise to try to measure the circumstances by which aboriginal Canadians are suffering these problems.

This is not the first time we have heard this from the government. If one were to look at the throne speeches that we have seen time and again over the past 12 years, it is a reiteration of the same difficulties. If we were to look at the throne speech of 1993, it chronicles the aboriginal frustrations of the day: unemployment, health problems, poor housing, unequal educational opportunity and unsafe drinking water.

Twelve years later there is no change, and the most recent throne speech acknowledges that. In the intervening 12 years we have had throne speech after throne speech which offered nothing but vague promises, promises to forge partnerships, to build partnerships, to develop partnerships and to turn the corner on what the government itself calls the shameful living conditions of aboriginal Canadians.

What has changed? Clearly nothing has changed. What specifics does the government intend to embark upon to address these issues?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the intervention of the member for Calgary Centre and my Conservative critic. I know he brings an enormous background in the files that he will be engaged in debate, and I appreciate that. I would also in his absence recognize the Bloc critic who spoke earlier. I paid particular attention to his intervention.

In terms of the characterization of this throne speech, the last two have been within a year, as offering nothing new, for the first time since the early eighties the community and the Government of Canada have engaged in a very meaningful way. The round table last April was historic. I was there as the minister of infrastructure and housing and the atmosphere at the time was optimistic and engaged. We are talking about 75 national organizations representing not only the aboriginal communities at a national level, but representing the communities themselves.

As a result of that, to speak to the question of specifics, this collaboration led to the establishment of six areas for action. I mentioned them in the speech, but I will not repeat them. This is a collaborative exercise. If we are going to treat the community with the kind of respect we talk of, then there is a responsibility to collaborate in a way that has been evidenced since the round table. In Winnipeg on November 13-14, for example, I and a hundred others will be specifically putting down action plans in terms of both early childhood and K to 12 education, just to use one example.

The other round tables have resulted in the accord in terms of aboriginal health. A meeting was held in conjunction with the first ministers meeting on health. Again, the community will say that it was the first time in many years that it has been so engaged.

We have to work together. These problems have been longstanding, as I said, over centuries. However, there is a genuine desire to get on with this and I encourage members of the House of Commons here today to help me in that task.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

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

I will begin by thanking the residents of Simcoe—Grey for electing me to represent their interests in the House of Commons. As all members will know, it truly is an honour to be given such a responsibility and trust by the residents of our home communities. I look forward to giving them representation that reflects their goals and wishes, representation that treats their tax dollars responsibly and representation that includes consultation, not simply explanation on how things are going to be.

As many of my colleagues have so far, I would also like to comment on the throne speech. Millions of Canadians expected action on the gun registry, democratic reform, agriculture, BSE, tax relief and a modernized and effective military, as well as criminal justice reform. The Liberals continue to ignore these priorities.

As I am limited in time, I will raise a couple of issues that are of great concern to my riding and of course to Canadians across the country.

Two issues of great importance to the residents of Simcoe—Grey concern the BSE crisis and the lack of adequate infrastructure funding.

Sadly, the throne speech gives the BSE issue barely a mention and, on helping municipalities, it takes a step backward from the great Liberal election promises of the past. My constituents want to know why they had to wait more than three months for a document totally lacking in hope and vision.

As we have seen in throne speeches of the past, the Liberals have mastered the art of empty promises. There is nothing new in the speech. It recycles the same old warmed over promises we have heard for a decade in other throne speeches and election platforms.

In a quick flip through Hansard we will find these promises and schemes dating back years. Unfortunately, we will not find follow up action or solutions to problems that continue to affect Canadians.

As we heard last Thursday night during the emergency debate on BSE, Canada's beef producers are in a desperate state and yet the government continues to fumble around for answers and solutions. The government failed to prepare Canada for an eventual case of BSE. We could have solved the problem ahead of time. Now we have all had to live with the consequences. The government continues to fail our cattle producers, lacking the competence to get our borders fully open to export.

In my riding of Simcoe—Grey we have many cattle farmers. I told some of the heartbreaking stories of the many farmers who have lost their way of life during the emergency debate. Kandy was an example. She was a seed stock farmer and 75% of her herd were American sales. She has sold off a registered herd that she spent all her life developing. With the border closed she had no choice.

I also talked about the majority of the compensation money going to the processors. My constituents do not understand how this could have happened and they fully expect that this will happen again.

The response from the minister was that the government had tried to manage the program properly and that it had wanted to audit the processors' books. We already know where the money went. It is clearly because of the government's inability to manage our tax dollars wisely; its inability to manage the compensation program wisely.

When it comes to providing funding to municipalities to help them rebuild their roads, sewers and other public services, the government continues to slide. What happened to the great promises of reliable funding? What has happened to promise to transfer a dedicated portion of gas tax revenue? Has it disappeared until the next election?

In my riding, as in ridings across the country, we have a serious need for renewal. Aging infrastructure combined with a growing population has tied the hands of local governments. They need help and they need it now. They need the gas tax revenues to be distributed equally across the nation, not just be focused on cities and public transit.

In the Georgian triangle region, which includes the town of Blue Mountains, it will have issued one million building permits by the end of this year. It needs the dollars to support this infrastructure. In the Georgian triangle area it gets 50,000 to 200,000 visitors per day during peak seasons, weekends and holidays in the priority urban and emerging centres.

We also have Wasaga Beach in my riding. In a census Statistics Canada has recently established that this is the fastest growing municipality in Ontario and it is the fourth fastest growing municipality in Canada with a total growth of 8% per year, and this is due to migrating urban populations. It needs the dollars to support its infrastructure.

Also, in another area of my riding, Essa township, there are 500 residents who have to pay $6,000 per household to upgrade their sewers and water mains. This is over and above the taxes that they pay every year.

I was very pleased and very much supported the amendments to which my leader forced the government to respond. We forced the government to respond to the real priorities of Canadians. These issues are now on the public agenda because of the initiative taken by my leader. It is unprecedented for such substantive amendments to be made to a throne speech.

As a result of our amendments, the government has committed itself to a vote in the House of Commons before a decision is made on missile defence, an assurance it had previously refused to provide. I must admit though that I was a little concerned when I read what the government House leader said:

The vote is non-binding. It's advisory in nature. Parliament will have that debate and provide that advice to the government, and ultimately the government will decide--

To me it sounds as though the government will continue to govern as though it has a majority. This is unacceptable.

We have successfully made the point to the government that it must consult with opposition parties and take their views into account to make this minority Parliament work. We, as Conservatives, understand and have taken the clear message that we will work to make this minority government work.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to congratulate the member on her first speech and on her election as well.

I would like to know whether she is as upset as my constituents are with the comments of her leader regarding what some have described as the waffling of Canada or the converting of it to a Belgium-like system.

I would draw to her attention a press release which states, “The Canadian Centre on Minority Affairs has described the opposition leader...on qualified support for the Action démocratique du Québec proposal for the weakening of the federal system as opportunistic and irresponsible at the time when the majority of Canadians supports the strengthening of our federal system”. It goes on with this criticism.

Not only are the Francophone minorities, which I represent, the English speaking minority in Quebec, who are also greatly concerned, but now the multicultural community is equally upset with the comments of the Leader of the Opposition.

Does she support the Leader of the Opposition in his quest to dismantle Canada in the way with which we are now familiar?

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, what my constituents are really angry about is the sponsorship scandal. What they are angry about is that they have to pay $6,000 out of their own pockets when this $100 million is lost and handed out to Liberal friendly ad agencies.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Simcoe—Grey on her maiden speech in this House. I would like to ask her a question about one of the points of the amendment that were put forward by her party and that we support. The second point of the amendment aims at reducing the tax burden on low income middle-class families.

I would like her to explain how she would like this second point of the Conservative Party's amendment to be implemented and tell us who stands to benefit the most from those tax cuts and the reduction of the tax burden for the middle class.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that personal income tax cuts would be appropriate so that it is fair across the board for all Canadians.

[Charlie Penson, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for her maiden speech in the House. She did an excellent job.

She raised some interesting subjects. She asked the question about tax relief, which is something that is long overdue in this country. We have a government on the other side that has raised taxes something like 80 times in the last 10 years. It seems to me that the government has no lessons to teach anyone in the House regarding the need for tax relief.

Low and medium income families are struggling these days to make ends meet. I would like my colleague to address a little more fully about how both parents are having to work to support the income habits of a government that needs to raise taxes all the time to support its friends.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, in one part my riding of Simcoe—Grey there are many single parent families. Providing those families with personal income tax relief and changing the tax brackets, as we had recommended during the last election campaign, would be a welcome opportunity to help them deal with their bills on a daily basis.

We also talked about reducing the taxes on gas because of the driving they have to do for their jobs. In a rural riding like Simcoe—Grey there is no public transit. People must rely on their cars to get to their jobs and that would appreciate some of the tax being removed from gas.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment. It is an honour to speak before you today. This is my first opportunity to speak in the House.

I would like to thank the wonderful people of Langley for the honour to represent them in this 38th Parliament. My commission is to represent them, and it is about them and their needs that I want to speak about today. I am honoured to be Langley's first member of Parliament because Langley finally has its own riding. I would also like to thank my wonderful wife, children and family for their support and prayers.

Canadians across this country continue to be concerned about health care, our environment, transportation needs and crime. These are just some of the issues I will be working on on behalf of my constituents in Langley.

It is appropriate that I should make my maiden speech in reply to a throne speech that should be dedicated to defining and reforming the government's role in a modern society. I am here today to represent my constituency and to stand up for an ideal, the power of our action together to create a more equal and productive society.

As an elected representative, I am the conduit for communication between the residents of Langley and Parliament. As such I have included a few quotes from some students at Langley Meadows Elementary School. They share with us why Langley is such a great place to live.

Selassie said, “I like Langley because it has many beautiful and nice nature places to go. It is great because it has water parks, ice rinks, restaurants, stores and so many other fun stuff. It is big, but not like a city”.

Partik said, “I think that Langley is such a great town because it is nice and peaceful which is really what more people want. Here in Langley the parks are nice and relaxing”.

Ben said, “Langley is a wonderful city. The schools are great. Our school has nice teachers and we get a good education. In our school we have good computers and we get to stay on them for a long time. We also get awesome field trips”.

Perhaps one of these young community advocates will one day take up a seat in the House to represent Langley with so much heart and goodwill.

Langley is actually two communities with rich heritage and great diversity, Langley City and the Township of Langley. The first nations people, the Sto:lo, are thought to have been the principal occupants of most of the Fraser Valley throughout the last several millennia.

The Langley Township area was where the European settlement was first established. Fort Langley, built in 1827, achieved global attention during the Fraser Valley gold rush. The crown colony of British Columbia was created in 1858, thus Fort Langley was proclaimed the birthplace of British Columbia.

In 1873 the Township of Langley was incorporated. Langley Township is made up of various communities including Aldergrove, Brookswood, Fernridge, Fort Langley, Murrayville, Walnut Grove which is my home, Willowbrook and Willoughby. The township occupies 316 square kilometres and is now home to approximately 91,000 residents.

Langley is also known as the horse capital of B.C. Its horse industry has been valued at over $40 million. Approximately 1,000 horse farms in Langley have produced over 6,500 horses and ponies which represents approximately 16% of the provincial total.

The original settlement of Langley City was known as Innes Corners, established by gold rush enthusiasts William and Adam Innes. In 1955 the City of Langley was incorporated as a separate municipality. In the years since then the population has grown from approximately 2,025 to approximately 25,000 today.

Combined within just 10 square kilometres, the City of Langley contains established suburban residential neighbourhoods, a natural wetland of regional significance, parkland exceeding 300 acres, high density residential development, and a beautiful pedestrian oriented downtown.

The township and city share a regional shopping centre, and one of the most active industrial and commercial land bases found in the Fraser Valley in the Lower Mainland. With a diverse economic base, including well established agricultural communities, state of the art manufacturing industries and a strong retail sector, the Langleys offer excellent potential for investment and business. A favourable tax base, a skilled labour force and the proximity of Langley to Seattle, Vancouver, and overseas markets have made Langley an attractive area for investment and development.

Langley is a constituency that is known as the place where city and country meet, a community of communities, and the place to be. I believe Langley is as close to an idyllic community in Canada that we can find. However, Langley does not exist in a vacuum.

In the three and a half months since I was elected, a young Langley man has been convicted of serious sex offences against young girls in our community. In another instance, an 11-year-old Langley girl was abducted by a stranger and sexually assaulted until she managed to escape her captor.

During my short tenure, I have already established priority issues to work on in the coming year: transportation, auto crime, illegal drugs and child pornography legislation without loopholes.

Transportation is a major issue in Langley. The majority of Langley residents must drive outside of the community to their jobs. This increases traffic congestion to, from and within the community, a problem which has become critical.

A rail line runs right through the middle of Langley and is one of the main contributors to traffic congestion in the central part of Langley. With the planned expansion of the Delta Port container facility, the rail traffic through Langley is expected to more than triple from 9 trains a day to a whopping 34. As it now stands, when a train cuts through the city every major intersection is blocked simultaneously, making responses from emergency vehicles impossible. This is a critical situation which must be resolved as soon as possible.

It is a high priority to secure funding for Langley rail overpasses. I believe that working with the city and township of Langley, CN and CP Rail and all levels of government, we can and will ensure that Langley residents are not just seen as collateral damage by the bureaucracy. I will be talking to the hon. Minister of Transport and the hon. Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities with regard to this important issue.

In my past position with the Insurance Corporation of B.C., I came to realize that our federal government must lead the way in ensuring that vehicle immobilizers become standard equipment in every new vehicle registered in Canada. An immobilizer is an electronic device that prevents the vehicle from being started without the proper key.

Auto thieves target vehicles that are not protected by an immobilizer. Auto crime has reached epidemic levels and is costing Canadians almost $600 million per year in insurance claims. The majority of vehicles being stolen are used to commit other crimes, usually by an offender with a drug addiction. I will be working on a private member's bill on this important issue.

Langley is not immune to marijuana grow ops, the illegal drug trade and prostitution. It is organized crime and drug addiction that fuels most of the crime. I intend to work with my colleagues to see detox and rehabilitation facilities established. It is time for our justice system to use mandatory sentencing and to send offenders with drug addictions to detox. I look forward to serving as a member on the justice standing committee to deal with issues like these.

Langley is located approximately 40 kilometres southeast of Vancouver. It is one of the most beautiful communities in Canada and I encourage every member to plan a visit to Langley.

I close with the words of another young student, Courtney, who said, “Come on! Come see Langley. It's a great place to live! Langley is quiet and peaceful. All the people are very nice and so are the houses. Langley is a beautiful city. I suggest you come on over and enjoy all the fun things to do”. Thank you, Courtney. I could not have said it better myself.

I am honoured to be chosen to represent Langley. I believe in the potential of inclusion, the power of opportunity, honesty, accountability, and our responsibility to share it and make it available to all Canadians. For every day that the people of Langley send me to the House, that is what I will stand for. I look forward to working with my colleagues in this 38th Parliament.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member's speech and I do agree with him that he represents a very beautiful constituency. I had the pleasure of being there in July and stayed overnight in Hope, that is perhaps just a short distance from his riding. It is truly a beautiful area. Later I visited a number of places in B.C. and Alberta. I want to congratulate the hon. member both for his first speech and also for his election.

I asked a question of his colleague a while ago which she would not answer. Perhaps I could ask the hon. member a slightly different question to see what his constituents or perhaps he thinks of the following. The Leader of the Opposition said in a speech in Quebec City and I quote from a newspaper article:

Rather than devolving more authority to provinces in areas like cultural affairs and international relations, perhaps the federal government, working with the provinces and particularly with Quebec, could establish francophone and anglophone community institutions for jurisdictions in areas like the CRTC and the CBC, or the Francophonie, the Commonwealth and UNESCO.

Does the hon. member favour having a francophone CRTC, which would presumably only then report to the government of Quebec, and where that would leave the one million francophones living outside of Quebec? I am one of them as are two-thirds of my constituents. Perhaps a number of them are in his own constituency. I know that Radio Canada has a station in Vancouver. There are a number of stations in the Niagara Peninsula, Welland, Acadia and so on, right across the country.

Should we agree with the Leader of the Opposition's point of view that the minorities like the one I represent, and of which I am one personally, do not need to be represented?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the compliments. I am glad he was able to enjoy Langley. I encourage him and all members to return.

The concerns that Langley residents have are with accountability. For me to comment on a newspaper article would be inappropriate. Canadians want a change. They want honesty and integrity. They want the government to be honest.

I want to focus on accountability. I want to know what happened in the sponsorship scandal. I want to know that our children are going to be protected. I want to have legislation that protects our children and the loopholes removed for child pornography.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member could comment on a subsidiary issue to the one raised by the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. I too would like to congratulate the member for Langley. The citizens of Langley can be very proud of the representative that they have sent to the House. I am sure he will do an excellent job representing their interests.

The member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell raised the question of constitutional arrangements in this country. I wonder if the member for Langley would have a comment about the present Prime Minister. I think I would find agreement that whatever else people say about the Prime Minister, one of the things we could all agree is that he has not had any original ideas whatsoever including the subject of the Constitution during his political career. I think there is probably unanimity that we have heard nothing new from the Prime Minister on that score.

Nonetheless, I wonder if the member could comment if he finds that he is in agreement with that. There have been no new proposals from the Prime Minister and indeed in the Speech from the Throne. This is a recycled version of the last four, five or six speeches. One constituent of mine said he had heard the same speech three or four times. I agreed with him. I can only take some comfort, and I hope other members can take comfort, that this is the last time that we are going to hear this Liberal Speech from the Throne. The government has run its course.

If the member has any comments or questions on that, I would appreciate hearing from him.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I believe Canadians want change and I believe and hope that the leader of the official opposition will be the new prime minister.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, like the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, I also want, and I do so with great pleasure, to congratulate all the new parliamentarians who have made their maiden speeches at this important stage of the parliamentary process: the Speech from the Throne. Under British tradition, to which the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell is strongly attached, the Speech from the Throne is a time when the government sets the course, so to speak, for the next few years.

Let us note this historical moment, which the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell will remember with emotion a few years from now, when, in hindsight, he will be able to appreciate the very important role played by the opposition parties in improving on the throne speech, which, let it be said in all modesty, was not very substantial.

Some may want to tell me about the role of the opposition in the British tradition. I know that the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell normally refers to the opposition as Her Majesty's loyal opposition, and that is no doubt the proper designation. We are, of course, more or less comfortable with such slightly exaggerated references to Her Majesty.

My point is that, naturally, the role of the opposition is to improve government. This is such hard work that, at the end of each day, all the members of this House go home exasperated.

I take this opportunity to thank the voters of my riding who have allowed me to come and represent them here, in the House of Commons, for a fourth term.

The hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, who is to some extent the father of the fight against Internet pharmacies, knows that we will have an opportunity to work on that issue in committee.

I also want to wish good luck in particular to a certain young member who has not been known in the past for being totally non-partisan since, in a previous life, he was the president of the Liberal Party. Because of the passion and desire to serve that he is showing, I do extend to him my very best wishes. I am thinking of my neighbour to the north, the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier.

That having been said, I want to come back to the substance of the throne speech. I must say that, for the first time since I came to this House, we have before us a Speech from the Throne that has been substantially improved through amendments put forward by the opposition.

The hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, my good friend the member for Papineau, will remember that shortly before the adjournment, just before the election campaign, the degree of Liberal self-confidence was particularly inappropriate. They said we would suffer losses in Quebec. I remember the members for Bourassa and Papineau saying solemnly and with unbelievable confidence that only 15 Bloc Québécois members would be elected in Quebec. Incidentally, I would like to thank Quebeckers for electing 54 Bloc Québécois members, all of whom are very keen to work to protect Quebec's interests.

Of course, when the opportunity arises, we will cooperate with the government, since there are times in a Parliament when partisanship must be set aside.

When the Bloc Québécois assumed leadership on seven occasions in building a coalition on very important issues, it stayed away from any partisan behaviour.

My first example is an important issue, namely the reform of the employment insurance fund. A few years ago, when employment insurance was called unemployment insurance, two thirds of our fellow citizens who were active members of the labour force qualified for benefits. All this changed when the Liberals took office in 1993 and implemented a reform that had initially been proposed by the minister at the time, Lloyd Axworthy, and then the minister from New Brunswick, who was not re-elected in 1997. Thanks to Lloyd Axworthy's work, we had a reform whereby, today, slightly more than 30% of our fellow citizens who are active members of the labour force can collect benefits when they are looking for work. Of course, we have to contribute to this insurance program. It is funded equally by employers and workers. We all understand that employment insurance is for that transition period during which people who have lost their job are looking for a new one.

How could we end up with such a reform so unfair that it was condemned by just about everyone in Quebec? It is not only sovereignists who expressed their discontent with the employment insurance reform.

You know that eligibility criteria are extremely unfair. I think that the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, who is from the progressive wing of his party, will remember how this requirement of 910 hours is unfair to young people. How can you explain that someone without experience, who often has had training, but who has not had the chance to have a first job, should have to meet such a requirement? The result is, of course, that new entrants in the program cannot qualify.

However, as concerns the extreme injustice and unfairness, can you imagine that the government was able to collect surpluses in a program that should provide workers with an income when they are looking for employment. The member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques fought hard in this regard.

All this to say that there was an amendment to the Speech from the Throne, with the vigilance—

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

No, an amendment to the Speech from the Throne cannot exist.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, who, as we know, is very knowledgeable of parliamentary business, is telling me, through you, that an amendment to the Speech from the Throne cannot exist. He is telling us that we have taken a slightly comatose and fictitious action when we rose in the House to vote on the amendment and the amendment to the amendment.

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

The amendment to the motion.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I know that the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell would like to join me in congratulating all the opposition members who worked at making the Speech from the Throne fairer and more respectful of the expectations of our fellow citizens in Quebec.