Debates of Oct. 7th, 2004

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Rural Communities)]

Madam Speaker, permit me first to congratulate you on your appointment.

I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Brome—Missisquoi for allowing me to join him in commenting on the Speech from the Throne and to congratulate him on emphasizing the importance of collaboration and of what the people expect of us.

As I begin, I would like to thank the voters of Beauce for the confidence they have shown me by electing me for a third consecutive term. I am very proud of that and I thank them from the bottom of my heart.

This week's throne speech has shown once again how much emphasis the Liberal government puts on making sure it respects the priorities of Canadians.

First, with regard to health, we saw in the agreement signed by the provincial premiers and territorial leaders—an agreement for $41.3 billion over 10 years, more than the Romanow report asked for— that once again, the Canadian people are our highest priority.

We are going to work in other fields as well—and I underscore this, as did my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi—on the importance of working in collaboration.

Second, we intend to invest $1 billion over 5 years in a national early learning and child care program.We take as our inspiration the program the Quebec government has established and we want to set it up all across Canada, and that again shows the collaboration we want to employ in giving the best possible service to the people of Canada.

Third, we want to increase assistance to caregivers and to seniors. I think nothing could be more appropriate than what we are planning to do now. The throne speech emphasized this well, and I am proud of it. In addition, we will increase the guaranteed income supplement by 7%, which shows once again how strongly we feel about helping the least well-off in our society.

Fourth, our collaboration will extend to equalization. There will be an important meeting in a few weeks, and I am sure that the provincial premiers and territorial leaders will agree with the Prime Minister on a way to have a more stable and predictable equalization program, in order to provide the best service possible to the population. We have already made a commitment to substantially increase the equalization program from which they benefit, beginning this year.

Then there is our commitment to support the cities and communities, which once again demonstrates the possibility of cooperation, with the federal, provincial and municipal levels working together in a shared interest. Since the Liberal government has been in power, $12 billion has been invested with the provinces and cities to help them with infrastructure, which brings the total of assistance to communities and municipalities for their needs to $30 billion.

Then there is our commitment to use 5¢ of the gas tax for the next 5 years to help the municipalities, cities and communities to meet their numerous challenges. I am sure that, in collaboration with the provinces, the territories, the communities and the municipalities, we will again succeed in rising to that challenge.

We are, of course, going to work very hard to resolve the mad cow and softwood lumber problems, both of which are crucial for Canada and Quebec, and particularly for us in Beauce. I can assure you that we Liberals are committed to finding a lasting solution to these problems.

We are also going to help businesses, since they are what drives job creation. In recent years, 90% of jobs created in the country were in small and medium businesses. We therefore want to give more access to risk capital and specifically to start-up funding to help businesses through the Canada Development Bank. This is good news. We must support all areas of industry. We have already done so and will continue to do so within our areas of jurisdiction, in conjunction with the provinces and territories.

In closing, I would just like to express my views on the amendment to the amendment on which we are to vote a little later on. We are accountable here for our management of the public purse. I am sure the opposition will understand that we cannot accept the amendment to the amendment, any more than could the provincial and territorial governments agree to a similar request from major cities. That is why I am obliged to oppose this amendment to the amendment.

Committees of the House

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Further discussions have taken place between all parties concerning the tabling and adoption of the striking committee report that lists the members and associate members of the standing committees, and I believe that you would find consent for the following motion:

That the first report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs concerning the membership and associate membership of Standing Committees be deemed tabled and concurred in.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Is there consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

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

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

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

Madam Speaker, does the member who just spoke against the amendment to the amendment realize that it is designed to give concrete effect to the commitments the Prime Minister of Canada has made to the provinces and Quebec and act on a request from the Premier of Quebec? Does the member realize that voting against it means voting against the commitments made by the Prime Minister of Canada and the request from the Premier of Quebec? Does he realize that? Does he?

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I understand that, if the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas says that commitments have been made by the Prime Minister, then there is no need for the amendment to the amendment. He should therefore fulfill the commitments contained in the throne speech and be happy with what we plan to do in cooperation with the provinces and territories.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand the point my colleague is trying to put across. But we will never subscribe to the philosophy outlined by the hon. member. All he is trying to do is have us believe that the provinces should no longer have all the powers they had previously.

Take for example page 14 of the Speech from the Throne, which I suggest he read. The provinces are referred to as provincial governments, as if they had become mere municipal governments. This is the danger with a refund for the federal tax on fuel. The money should be transferred to the provinces and there should be some sort of arbitration.

Naturally, municipalities present certain problems, such as public transit systems in several of our cities which are running deficits. Why not take the money and transfer it to the provinces so that arbitration can take place? Instead, the philosophy advocated by the hon. member is designed to reduce the provinces to mere administrations. We will never agree with that vision of Canada.

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, with the arguments made by the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, we have just realized that, no matter what we say on the Liberal side, Bloc members will never support what we are doing, even if it is good for the public. What is important to them are their arguments and how they want to achieve sovereignty, which the majority of Quebeckers do not want.

When we talk about provincial governments, we might as well talk about the federal government. We recognize the provinces, we recognize their jurisdictions and we respect these jurisdictions. The member asked a question; he could listen to the answer. I know that it is difficult for them, but we will try to work together for the betterment of the public. We will respect provincial jurisdictions, as we did with infrastructure programs. We even provided $100 million for the Montreal metro, which shows the importance that we attach to public transit. This is a first for a Canadian government.

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

Madam Speaker, there are three counties in my riding. Thank you for noting that.

I would like to ask my colleague one question, while of course congratulating him on his excellent speech. Can he explain once and for all to the Bloc Quebecois what a motion of non-confidence is? I would draw his attention to Beauchesne, 4th edition, citation 170. I would ask the hon. member to help me get this across to the Bloc. I have it here in English and will read it:

An amendment to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne is a motion of “No-confidence”.

Could my colleague help me explain that to the Bloc? We will thus be able to get it through to them that what they are asking for in wishing to amend the motion on the Speech from the Throne is, in fact, an expression of non-confidence in the government. That is what they themselves are about to do, presumably, in a few minutes.

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Rural Communities)]

Madam Speaker, I greatly appreciate the opportunity afforded to me by my colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell to explain exactly where the danger lies. This runs counter to what the population wants and what it asked for this past June 28, to see its best interests served as well as possible, without partisan politics.

I think they will be in the majority in committees, and they will be able to work to improve what the Liberal government will be wanting to do. That is where they ought to focus. But instead they are prepared to force another general election, and I find it deplorable that the ones who will suffer will be the taxpayers, considering how much we know an election costs.

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your position which is well deserved. I also want to tell you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Macleod.

I want to start by thanking the people of the riding of Red Deer for again having confidence in me and electing me with an increased majority. I certainly appreciate all those people, all the workers and all the campaign people. It is an honour and a privilege.

It is a little different this time in that now we are the government in waiting. It feels that it will not be very long until we will achieve our goals that we started some 11 years ago in the House. That is a very different feeling than has been.

In listening to this throne speech, and I have heard a great many here, this has to be probably one of the dullest, weakest pieces of regurgitation that I have heard. There is absolutely no vision for the country. If anything, as we travel around the world, we know that Canada is losing its position because of a lack of vision, a ho-hum kind of government which we have had for the past 10 years.

There is no mention of agriculture. There are recycled environmental promises. There is no help for the military. There is no help for low and middle class taxpayers. There is no parliamentary reform, no substance, no accountability and no consultation. The government should be ashamed of this throne speech more than any that it has given prior to this.

We need to add some vision and substance. That is what our leader's amendments have done. To say that this is a non-confidence vote is only in the minds of people who are living in the past, as the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell quite does. It is not a confidence motion. It is simply trying to make it better so that there is some substance.

The throne speech is full of platitudes. As the senior environment critic, I want to deal with that part of it. We talk about the platitudes of how we will fix the Great Lakes. That was 1993 and long before that. We will fix our oceans, yet a million birds are dying in Newfoundland every year because of oil spills. That is because of weak legislation.

We talk about procurement for the federal government in 2006. We asked Canadians to do the one time challenge in 2003, and the government only now is saying that it will start doing it. When the cabinet ministers were asked to drive fuel efficient cars, only one of them did that and that was the environment minister.

Environmental integrity in our national parks, what does that mean? They are nice words. Are we going to fix the infrastructure? Are we going to fix what is so wrong with our national parks?

Kyoto is a great one. We simply stamp on that we are for all the international treaties and go along with it even though every year we increase our CO

2

output. We have no plan and cost to Canadians. Basically we will be part of a carbon trading system which is all about bureaucracy and transfer of money, and nothing to do with the environment.

I spent time in Europe this past summer visiting wind projects, garbage recycling and all kinds of things. My wife really enjoyed the holiday as we visited all the sites. I will have a lot more to say about that in years to come. We talk about quadrupling the wind credits. Germany, where people became committed, added 10,000 megawatts in five years because it had that vision. It put in targets and money and said that it would do it.

In our next throne speech we will show a long term vision. Environment cannot be planned in four year segments, or in this case the government's one year segment. It must be planned in much longer terms. It is a 50 year project, and developing technology. It is by showing investors that they should invest in a country that knows where it is going, that has a vision.

The OECD says that we are last in the industrialized world in terms of living up to environmental standards. That is where we are because of the commitment of the government. This throne speech simply shows that further. We need a commitment to the air. We need to have a clean energy plan. We need to take garbage, deal with it and help municipalities, cities, and provinces by providing the technology that is there.

I was in a recycling plant where nothing comes out of the stack. It makes money from garbage. It is a resource. It buys garbage because it cannot get enough to generate heat and electricity, and recycle all the products.

We need to take care of our brownfields and have an inventory of our aquifers. That is what a government with a vision for the environment would have had in the throne speech.

We talk about looking at the Great Lakes and studying them. Sixteen million Canadians live and depend on the Great Lakes. We already have an international commission that is toothless. It cannot do anything. A former member of the House, Mr. Gray, has attempted but has not accomplished very much because of the structure of that organization.

Energy is a most important issue today as fuel, heating, electricity and transportation costs go up. We also need a vision for that. We need to emphasize conservation. There is much more we can do in that area. We need to talk about transitional fuels and what we can do there.

Finally, we need to look at alternate energy. I was impressed with the wind projects and farms that I was privileged to see around the world. I went to the universities in Denmark. I listened to 150 engineers working on R and D for that country to become a world leader in wind energy and generation. It is pretty exciting stuff.

Wind energy is growing by 30% a year. I have to congratulate the Quebec government for taking the biggest plunge most recently with its announcement of a $3 billion, 2,000 megawatt project.

How about our agriculture community? How can it be helped? The municipality of Pincher Creek, Alberta, gets $900,000 in increased tax revenue from windmills. I have talked to the farmers in that community who get income from the windmills on their properties. Many of them say that they would have lost their farms because of the BSE issue if it were not for the revenue from the windmills. That was the sort of exciting vision for the environment that we needed to see in the throne speech but we did not. There was no excitement at all.

In Copenhagen I visited the solar city project. There is also a project in Amsterdam. They are rebuilding downtown dilapidated communities and are using solar cells. The street lights are run by solar and batteries. There were no elevators in the old buildings. They have put solar collectors on three sides, and the electricity for elevators and heat for the buildings is provided by solar.

There is so much vision and technology out there, but I do not believe the government is prepared to look at it or invest in it. It is kind of a status quo; do what it has always done. That is not what the country needs at this time.

There are all kinds of restrictions that cause investment to shy away from Canada. There are all kinds of interprovincial grid problems and environmental impact problems. We at least have a promise from the government to try to streamline it.

The federal government can provide some leadership on so much and do something about it. I encourage the government to take a look at the amendments that we have put forward. We just want a further accounting. We want some more vision for the country.

As well the Bloc wants more vision on provincial and federal jurisdictions. We need to really talk about that, not shy away from it or fight over it. We need to work together to achieve that kind of cooperation. That will be the vision for the country. That kind of throne speech would get credit from everyone, and everyone in the House would be able to vote for it.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was pleased to hear about the member's commitment to the environment. I hope that is shared by all the members of his party.

On the issue of the environment, which I think is quite critical to this country, I would also let the member know of a very important piece of legislation that we are looking to bring forward, particularly in the area of green procurement policy, which I think is quite crucial to this country as we move forward with the Kyoto protocol.

The member mentioned several countries around the world that have been leaders in the environmental area, whether it is in procurement or environmental initiatives, yet they also committed to the Kyoto protocol. From what I remember, the Conservative Party is not committed to the Kyoto protocol. I want to know if he and his party have changed their minds on the Kyoto protocol.

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, most definitely not. Kyoto is long gone as an issue. There are really only three countries that have any hope of hitting their target, those being Germany, Denmark and Britain, and that is as long as they can get all of the things passed in time.

In talking to parliamentarians over there, let me say that they realize we need something much more. We need something beyond trading carbon credits and that huge bureaucracy. We need something that will actually deal with the problem of climate change and pollution, and that something has to involve the United States, which is number one, China, which is number two, and India, which is number five. If we do not involve those countries, we really are not going to make much difference.

The government has no plan. We are a huge country. We have a huge amount of territory. We have little infrastructure. We have a very cold climate. Australia used those same arguments for targeting 8% above 1990 levels. We are 6% below 1990 levels. Today we are 26% above 1990 and increasing.

Of course we like to have our GDP reflect our sales to the United States of our energy, particularly from the tar sands. The hon. member knows that as we start mining more and more of those tar sands, that increases our CO

2

even more.

So why would we lie to Canadians and say we can live up to some kind of target, which we have absolutely no hope of or plan for doing? We have not told Canadians what it will cost for electricity, for heat and for transportation. Why not be honest and say that we are going to champion something that will really deal with climate change and clean up the air in the same process? Let us abandon Kyoto, like most other countries are realizing they have to do.

In Russia, Mr. Putin has made it very clear, saying, “Let me join the European Union and have easy access to Europe and I will sign anything”. As far as living up to it is concerned, that is a whole other issue.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for both his speech and his intervention. We know that he is very knowledgeable on the subject of the environment. I look forward to having him in my riding shortly to speak on this matter.

The previous member asked him a question about Kyoto, which is where I want to go as well. The other member, being a new member, may not know that the hon. member for Red Deer actually occupied three days of the House's time in speaking about Kyoto and is probably the most knowledgeable member here.

I want to ask him a specific question in relation to Kyoto. The U.S., our largest border partner and trading partner, has not signed Kyoto. Most of our development is along the 49th, with the northern United States underdeveloped now. Increasingly, with investment, many of our firms are owned at least in part by U.S. firms, thanks to the low Canadian dollar. If we implement Kyoto without the U.S., will this not cripple Canadian industry as we watch investment go south of the border and the development of the northern U.S. at our expense?

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

To answer the member's question, Mr. Speaker, I really believe that the government of course has no intention of implementing Kyoto. It will talk about it and keep saying the same platitudes year after year, but it has no intention of implementing it because it has no plan and because if the government told Canadians what it would really cost, there would be no way. Basically the country would have to be shut down just to achieve the targets.

As for shutting down the country, I do not believe that most of us want to live in a cave. We would like to keep the standard of living we have. For good or for bad, 90% of our sales are dependent upon the U.S. One in four jobs is dependent on the U.S. I doubt very much that Ontario members would agree to shutting down the automobile industry, for example, just like shutting down the oil and gas industry is not really an option. Again, what we want to have with respect to our standard of living is what the reality is.

Let us be honest and really do something. Let us deal with pollution and thus deal with climate change. We would also then deal with the smog issue and the smog days that affect the health of children and seniors across this whole country. Let us deal with it. Let us have a plan.

Let me point out to the member that my party supports this environmental approach 100%. I look forward to helping the government, while it is still the government, implement something that is real and realistic.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, I also congratulate you on your appointment.

It is my great honour to rise in the House today. To begin, I would like to thank my constituents for providing me this opportunity to serve them and my country. The sense of pride and excitement I feel today is equaled only by my desire to return dignity and integrity to this chamber and my desire to show Canadians that they do not have to settle for the insipid leadership and weak agenda of this Liberal minority government.

Some would say it will be a hard task. I am far away from home, from my family and my friends, but I take inspiration from the riding of Macleod. During the spring campaign, I travelled from the scenic mountain ranges of Kananaskis country and Banff National Park to the northwest corner of the riding, southeast past Calgary and along the beautiful Bow River as it flows through the Siksika Nation, all the way south to the southern border along the Waterton Lakes National Park. I would argue that we have some of the most beautiful countryside in our riding.

Southern Alberta has a diversity of geography and industry, as well as people strong enough to rise to the challenges of both. Macleod boasts Canada's largest wind farms, a proud agricultural industry, major food processing, forestry and manufacturing, and the world renowned fisheries of the Bow and Oldman Rivers. There are coal mining and oil and gas exploration as well as processing, and tourism, including the world heritage site, Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump.

The pioneer spirit still lives in the residents of Macleod. There is a desire to succeed and a warm welcome for people from all countries and provinces to be active participants in our thriving community.

I take my responsibilities as a member of the House with all the seriousness that this demands. I pledge to represent the best interests of the people of Macleod. I pledge to support the Conservative Party of Canada and be a proud member of a government in waiting.

I am also rising in the House today as a member of the shadow cabinet and critic for international cooperation. Imagine my disappointment during Tuesday's Speech from the Throne. It sounded like the February 3, 2004 speech. It looked like the September 30, 2002 speech. It repeated promises from January 30, 2001. But to be honest, the October 5, 2004 speech smelled like something I left behind on the farm in Claresholm.

It is shameful for the over 100 new MPs like me who have worked so hard to get here that the Liberal government could not do better than this. The Prime Minister came to this position as leader on the wings of an angel, the messiah, some suggested. But after 10 years of that auditioning for the job, a dress rehearsal last year, and over three months to prepare for this Speech from the Throne, Canadians sat down on Tuesday afternoon and watched the performance of a rank amateur government in an embarrassing pantomime.

There can be no question that the Liberal government has failed in many areas, especially that of international development. It has failed to contribute to the relief efforts in the Caribbean, specifically in Haiti. It has failed to bring diplomatic security or basic humanitarian aid to those suffering in the Darfur region.

It has failed the proud Canadians who work here at home and around the world with private sector firms, the United Nations, universities, colleges and non-governmental organizations.

It has failed the international community, which used to look to Canada to set the example for principled and effective foreign aid. It has failed nations, communities and people who might have benefited from true leadership and a strong Canadian presence in the development community.

The government has reduced its commitment to development issues to a retread announcement of Canada Corps, a new secretariat to harness idealism and expertise of Canadians and bring that to the world. Is that not the job of CIDA? Is it not tasked with planning and implementing Canada's development corporation program? If so, why has the Prime Minister created a brand new fiefdom in the Department of Foreign Affairs? My fear is that like so many Liberal ideas this throne speech has nothing to offer but jobs for the old boys.

The members opposite have lost their way, mired in the excitement of choosing catchy names for programs and initiatives. Canada Corps may sound good, but it is without a mandate, infrastructure or international policy framework. Canada Corps is set to become yet another patronage cesspool for disgraced Liberals to swim in. Canadians expect more from their government. International development is an important part of how Canada is perceived in today's world.

The government is stalled. It cannot focus its development agenda, its foreign policy or decide what kind of military we need. An Ottawa Citizen reporter recently called it “analysis paralysis”. Back home we would just say it is time to get off the pot.

The throne speech once again promised the release of an integrated international policy statement. This is fundamental to ensuring that Canada's overseas development agenda moves beyond reactive crisis management to proactive and preventive measures to help people around the world move beyond daily subsistence.

As critic for international development, I will work with my colleagues to ensure that any review of Canada's international policy includes thorough consideration at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. All parties must have input in creating an integrated approach to international development that recognizes how diplomacy, trade, defence and development efforts must work together.

Members of Parliament must also develop an action plan that moves this policy beyond a concept into the real world of aid and development, and truly removes the barriers of communication between the departments involved here at home. By getting our own policy house in order, Canada can better engage in the world.

As a farm leader, I have travelled around the world on behalf of Canadian grain and oilseed farmers. I have fought for open markets and fair trade so that individual producers and rural communities around the world can reap the benefits of viable and sustainable economies. Canada should be a leader in the world, extending our expertise and experience, using our development agenda to reduce poverty, and to contribute to a more secure, equitable and prosperous world.

I suppose I should not be surprised that the Liberal government cannot get its act together to help others in need. All we need to do is look at the way the Liberals have failed our farmers here at home. After 17 months of pain and suffering in the cattle industry, the Liberals have lost interest in making a difference. Producers are still waiting for their 2003 CAISP payments and it is not surprising that they lack confidence that the government can come through on their promise of compensation in 2004. We need details now. We need program delivery now. We need increased processing capacity now.

I would like to end my comments today with a few words about my home town of Claresholm, Alberta. I am very proud to be the first member of Parliament from Claresholm. It is also the home of Louise Crummy McKinney, the first woman to be elected to the Alberta Legislature in 1917. She is one of the famous five that will grace our new $50 bill. We are very proud of this lady.

I would also like to recognize the hard work and dedication of those who worked hard to get me elected. I pledge to live up to their hopes and expectations.

Finally, I would like to thank my family members for all the support and sacrifices they have made for me, not just in my journey to become a member of Parliament but in all parts of my life. While rising today in the House is an honour, the love and respect of my wife, Sandy, my daughter Kari and my son Michael fill me with a pride unequal to any other.

Along with the 98 other Conservatives who sit in this minority government situation, I believe we can accomplish great things for Canada and re-establish this country's respected place in the world.

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, congratulations. I am happy to see a woman in your position. It is a pleasure for me. It is an even greater pleasure for me to have another opportunity to talk about this wonderful Speech from the Throne.

I am awfully concerned about what I have been hearing for the past two days. I seriously thought that the hon. members who were democratically elected here were truly here to represent Canadians and Quebeckers. I am having serious doubts about that.

What I have been hearing for the past two days are strategic discussions about what to do with the throne speech and that worries me and the people of my riding. I received phone calls after the Speech from the Throne was read, after this magnificent day during which I spoke and seconded the motion for the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

People from my riding said, “Ms. Boivin, is a Speech from the Throne a statement of the government's intentions”? Indeed it is a statement of the government's intentions. It talks about a strong economy, the environment, the health of Canadians, children, natural caregivers, seniors, Aboriginal Canadians, cities, and communities in Canada. It also talks about Canada's influential role in the world.

The Bloc may not be interested in all that, but the Liberals on this side of the House are. After this election, I knew that we all understood the important role a minority government plays and that every party will have their say. The parliamentary system involves more than just what goes on in this House, for which I have deep respect and admiration. It also involves all the committees where the parties express their opinion and advance various bills.

They would have me believe certain things today by presenting amendments and amendments to the amendment that do nothing but try to corner the government. As we have already said, we are not chicken and this is not a game. We want to work with people. We want to advance matters.

By the way—and this will make it clear that I am new here—I forgot to mention that I will be sharing my time—and this will please the Bloc—with the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. The House will not have to listen to me for 20 minutes, but 10.

As a new member of Parliament, to put in a plug for myself, I just recorded a program in which a wonderful representative of this House explains to me how stimulating a minority government can be and that everyone's interests can be heard and debated here.

I was listening to the very interesting speech of the member on the other side. I congratulate him, because I know what it is like to make one's first speech in the House. On another point, I was listening to his speech and all I heard is how people on the other side of the House would do better, how they would be a better government. However, I will remind everyone about the result of the June 28 election.

We have a minority government. Can we respect the wish of the people in this regard? The games that are being played here do not further the debates in any way. All the themes that I mentioned and that are in the Speech from the Throne are policy statements that are of interest to my friends from the Bloc. Indeed, even Quebec did not have other great criticism to make in this regard, except to say, “We will see what comes from bills and all that, that is the agreements”.

Do we prefer to have our interests represented by the Bloc, which does not want to have anything to do with Canada, or by a government that has shown that it has been able to further the issues, such as health care, with the approval of the Bloc people, who were very pleased with this agreement that was entered into?

When people of Gatineau call me and tell me there are problems here with health care, that is waiting lists and so on, I do not answer—and I am convinced that my colleagues opposite do not answer—, “I am sorry, can you call your provincial member of Parliament”. We try to work together in a spirit of respect for jurisdictions.

I do not know what the people opposite do not understand in this kind of speech. They are clearly engaging in petty politics. I find it deplorable and regrettable. When we think of it, on June 28, Canadians told us that they wanted us to try to work together, instead of engaging in a grandstanding debate just for the heck of it. It is time we moved forward and did something else for a change.

We are proposing an ambitious project in terms of its themes. Some have said that we have been hearing about this for a long time, but that nothing was happening. This is precisely why we should promote these themes on behalf of Canadians. This is what we should do in this 38th Parliament. This is what Canadians from coast to coast to coast expect from their representatives. Are opposition members saying that we will apologize to our immigrants who are waiting for academic equivalence, under the pretext that we must look after the whole country? We have agreements with the Quebec government. We can have discussions with that government.

In this context, I should point out that we have been able to reach agreements with the provinces while the House was not sitting. The government has worked very hard.

Perhaps that is the point of my remarks this afternoon. Perhaps we need to remember, on both sides of the House, the roles we must play, who we are representing here in the House, and our obligation to be accountable to our constituents. That is important.

I like it when young people tell me they listened to the Speech from the Throne. One young man called me at home and said he was happy to see that we want young people to play a role in international affairs. There are young people who are interested in other things than such childishness as shouting back and forth, young people who really want to see their politicians do things that contribute to everyone's well-being.

The Prime Minister's reply to the Speech from the Throne offered good explanations and comments on the speech's content. Collaboration and a willingness to work with colleagues on all sides of the House are more than just empty words to us. The election results are in. It is time to move ahead and get to work. I am ready to work for Quebec and Canada. Are the hon. members opposite ready? That is why I cannot vote in favour of the amendment to the amendment to the Speech from the Throne.

On another note, I would like to say something else. I have had one opportunity this week to thank the voters of Gatineau. I would like to take my remaining time to thank the staff of the House of Commons. As a new member, arriving in an environment that can sometimes be a little daunting, I found my entry here was facilitated by all the staff of the House of Commons. I would like to thank the employees of the House of Commons, all those people who help us get our offices set up and so forth. Thank you, everyone. It is much appreciated. I am still learning to find my way through all the corridors. Thank you, everyone, for your great work.

I am eager to begin living out my dream, working for the good of all Canadians.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Gatineau and I have three messages for her.

First, when the people of Gatineau telephone her, she should pass the calls on to us so that we can tell them the truth. When it comes to problems in education or health, we will tell them the truth. Since 1995, this is the government that has made cuts in health and education transfer payments. The health problems suffered by the people of Gatineau arise from her government's decisions. Perhaps I am telling her something she does not know, or perhaps not, but I must tell the truth. Instead of answering with whatever comes to mind and ignoring the constitutional jurisdictions formally enshrined in the Canadian Constitution, which she says she wants to respect and defend in the name of her great country, she must tell it like it is.

Also, there is magical figure in her speech, namely 38. First, this is the 38th Parliament. The hon. member should think twice before making such comments, because the Liberals got 38% of the votes at the last election.

A minority government is just that. It is a government that must take into consideration the other percentage of voters, namely the 62% of who voted against this government. This means that the government must try to work with a very acute sense of democracy. It means that a minority government must try to rally the parliamentarians representing all the other political parties in the House. It means that the opposition is speaking on behalf of 62% of the voters. It also means, given that figure of 62%, that the government is not in sole possession of the truth, particularly with only 38% of the votes. It means that when we are asked to cooperate with the government, we must not necessarily give 100% support to the Liberal Party's agenda. It means that we should not have to give 100% support to the Liberal vision. That party only got 38% of the votes at the last election, and that is significant.

They say that we are engaging in childish games, but 62% of the population is speaking through Bloc Quebecois, Conservative and NDP members. So, there is a problem. Was it a childish thing to vote on June 28? This is not very respectful to the voters of Gatineau. So, it is childish to work in this Parliament to try to have—and this is the ultimate role of the opposition—a better government in a Parliament with a minority government? So, it is childish to want to improve things, to fight for the common good, to fight so that the government will make decisions regarding health, for the people whom it claims to want to represent? This is our duty. We have a duty to work seriously, to be well informed and to avoid talking through our hats as the member for Gatineau is doing. Let them transfer the calls to us, because we can answer the questions properly.

Does the hon. member realize that she is a member of a minority government? I think so, because she mentioned it several times. Does she also realize the impact of listening to the opposition, which represents the overwhelming majority of Quebeckers and Canadians who voted against the Liberal Party?

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is quick to talk about education because I talked about childishness. I know that when the teacher is talking in the classroom, students try to listen as much as possible. So, if members opposite want me to believe that, in this 38th Parliament, they have great respect for listening, I have some difficulty with that.

That being said, I am very respectful of the democratic process, and this is what I was talking about. I repeat once again that it is true that we try to talk about all representatives. However, it must be understood that 135 members were elected in this government and, as far as I know, none of the other parties, individually, come close to this number.

Thus, when people from Gatineau call me, it is because they want to see solutions, they want to see action. They do not want just empty words, of which we have had an abundance in this House in the last few days, just for the sake of making it clear to us that we are a minority government. I do not know any other way of telling you that we are a minority government, but we understand that we are. Perhaps colleagues opposite could get to work on the bills instead of playing these little games.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I really want to take part in today's debate on the Speech from the Throne for several reasons. I particularly want to comment on the amendment to the amendment put forward by the Bloc Quebecois, which amends the amendment to the Speech from the Throne put forward by the Conservative Party of Canada.

During the few minutes I have, I would especially like to focus on what has already been accomplished by our government and why this is not really necessary.

I have to say that I listened very carefully to the remarks the leader of the Bloc Quebecois made yesterday. I wonder if the hon. members noticed what the leader of the Bloc Quebecois said at the beginning of his remarks. He said:

The Bloc Quebecois believes that only sovereignty will allow Quebec to freely make all the collective choices that are appropriate for it.

He went on to assure the House of his party's openness, rigour, realism and constant focus on its ultimate goal. He said:

—at all times, the interests of Quebec will guide the Bloc Quebecois.

I find what the Bloc leader's remarks and ensuing amendment to the amendment are not saying much more meaningful and instructive than what they do say. Let me explain.

Throughout the election campaign in Quebec, the Bloc's strategy has been to hide its real agenda: Quebec's separation. It definitely did not want to talk about it. This reflects exactly the perpetual paradox and the dilemma the Bloc is unavoidably confronted with, as a party which claims to be defending the interests of Quebec in this House while at the same time promoting sovereignty for Quebec.

Looking at the outcome of the last election, one cannot conclude that the Liberal platform was rejected by the people of Quebec and Canada, on the contrary. When we look at the Speech from the Throne, which is a reflection of this platform, we can see how Quebeckers and other Canadians can benefit.

Like other Canadians, a majority of Quebeckers want their various levels of government to work together. The Bloc Quebecois has been confusing the interests of Quebec and the goals of Quebec's sovereignists for a while now. There is a distinction between the two, which really needs to be made.

I must admit that, while I am not surprised by the actions of the Bloc, their choice of words does surprise me somewhat. One may well wonder whether their leader is aware of what has been accomplished in this country in the past few months as far as intergovernmental relations are concerned.

In the Speech from the Throne, our government has set out its vision of the challenges that await all citizens and the policy it plans to put into place to successfully meet those challenges. This means achieving tangible results for the entire population, Quebeckers included, and exercising in a very concrete way a positive impact on the living conditions of our fellow citizens.

Will the Bloc at least acknowledge that the commitments made in the throne speech respond to the needs of Quebeckers? That at least needs to be acknowledged. Think, for instance, of our approach to health care. Children, seniors, natural caregivers, everything to do with the environment. We are going to address all these initiatives concurrently

How are we going to do so? In a cooperative effort with our partners in the federation. Here I am referring to a flexible federalism in which there is serious discussion of the issues confronting us. I am referring to flexible federalism focussed on cooperation and not confrontation; a flexible federalism that is conducive to achieving the best possible results for all of the people of this country, including Quebeckers; in short a flexible federalism with the goal of improving the quality of life of its citizens.

Taking health as an example, I think that everyone in the country— with the exception of the Bloc of course—celebrated the health agreement, that ten-year plan that sets out the responsibilities and objectives all of us in Canada are pursuing. This plan fully respects provincial areas of jurisdiction and has received the support of all premiers in the country, including the Premier of Quebec, who described it as a great victory for Quebec.

All Canadians of good faith were pleased, but not the Bloc. The leader of the Bloc talks instead about a minimal minimum. He thinks it is good when Quebec makes a gain, because then it is better prepared to become a country. In other words, from a Bloc perspective, Quebec cannot move forward within Canada. A gain in Quebec can only be made at the expense of Canada, and the opposite is also true. So, it is impossible to advance anything without everyone winning.

This government thinks differently. When we all decide together, all governments, to truly reach common goals for Canadians, then everyone wins. Canadians are at the heart of our concerns. The health accord proved it.

It will be the same thing with our other promises in the Speech from the Throne. It is the same thing with learning and child care. We plan to lay the foundation of this system in cooperation with provincial and territorial partners. We anticipate that the provinces will be flexible enough to address specific needs based on their own situation. We already know that although Quebec is not officially part of the agreement on the multilateral framework on early learning and child care, it receives its share of federal funding in proportion to its population.

I could give the House many more examples to show how flexible Canadian federalism and our intergovernmental cooperation policy are. I could mention for instance the National Child Benefit, the public pension plan, the immigration agreements, the labour market agreement, the Canada-Quebec agreement in principle reached on May 21, 2004 setting out a Quebec parental insurance system, and so on.

Can you see what our government's achievements in these areas are leading to? It is truly remarkable. With a flexible approach that allows for innovation, takes into consideration the priorities of the provinces and relies on the very principles of asymmetrical federalism, the various orders of government in our country are entering into a new era of intergovernmental relations.

Both as a Canadian and as a Quebecker, I am proud of the results we are achieving by working together. I am proud of our government program which was introduced earlier this week and which meets the needs of the people of Quebec.

We know that no government in this country shares the vision of the Bloc simply because, despite the positive image it tries to project, the Bloc is pursuing a political goal and defending an option that a majority of Quebeckers have never supported.

I urge the members to vote against the amendment to the amendment put forward by the Bloc, because the Prime Minister himself said in his speech yesterday that he would respect the areas of provincial jurisdiction. Also, this Parliament should never abdicate its responsibility for the public finances of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the remarks by my colleague, the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, who is also President of the Queen's Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

My colleague indicated that she was rather surprised at the words used by my leader, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, in his reply to the Speech from the Throne. For my part, I was rather surprised at the words the government used in that speech.

Today they say it is implicit and that the Prime Minister intends to respect provincial jurisdictions and Quebec's jurisdiction. If it is that obvious, why does this government not act consistently and decide to vote in favour of the Bloc Quebecois' motion and the amendment? That would be consistent. That is what the people of Quebec expect, not the hidden agenda of the government that is, in principle, supposed to represent Quebec's interests. That is what it has been claiming for years. Except that the reality is otherwise.

All the Throne Speech confirms is the government's intention to make Quebec a mere regional component within Canada. It is a more centralizing throne speech than even Jean Chrétien could have presented in this House.

If such is not the case, I would ask the President of the Queen's Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs how she can explain that on page 14 of the French text of her document, she uses the word “administrations” to describe the province and the provinces. It is as if the provinces had suddenly—in this flexible and asymmetrical federalism—become mere administrative bodies that could be compared to any other organizations or municipal administrations in Quebec or Canada.

How can she explain the fact that, if this is a decentralized speech that respects Quebec's jurisdictions, page 14 in the French speaks not of provinces but of “administrations?”

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder who has a hidden agenda here if it is not the Bloc.

The hidden agenda of the Bloc is to achieve Quebec's sovereignty. It had a lot of difficulty admitting this during the election campaign. It had so much difficulty admitting it. It has so much difficulty hiding its objective that it has introduced an amendment to the amendment about respecting jurisdictions, which we are already doing, and about fiscal pressure, which we are already addressing. Coincidentally, there is a sentence in our Speech from the Throne that says:

The Government invites members from both Chambers to join with it in the same democratic spirit: committed to unity--

This is strange, because the Bloc's amendment to the amendment was not about the unity of the country. Once again, the Bloc is hiding, is secretive; it thinks that it represents the interests of all Quebeckers. This is false. They rejected its sovereignist option twice and, if they try a third time, will do so again.

Speaking of regional components, I am sorry, but many times in this speech we talk about the provinces and territories. When, in this Parliament, we put forward a motion to recognize Quebec as a distinct society, who voted in favour of the motion? The Liberal Party of Canada, while the Bloc voted against it.

That being said, who is defending the best interests of Quebec appropriately? I would like to know.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first speech in this House. I would like to react somewhat to what the minister has said.

I am a social worker by training. What brings me here is more or less the same as for the minister, as we have the same background. She too is a member of the Ordre des travailleurs sociaux. What we learn in social work is to defend the rights of the oppressed and to listen to what people have to say.

in the last election, the people of Quebec said that the Bloc Quebecois was the party most capable of defending their interests. Why? Because the people of Berthier—Maskinongé and throughout Quebec were scandalized that the employment insurance fund had been robbed. The jobless were robbed and had to resort to welfare. These are disadvantaged persons.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry, we are out of time. I would like to get a short answer from the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.