House of Commons Hansard #4 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was producers.
Carol Skelton Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Madam Speaker, I am sorry to tell my hon. colleague that I am not aware of the whole situation and I would prefer to have my colleague who looks after fisheries comment. My expertise is in regard to the fishermen cops who we have in Saskatchewan. We would gladly give them to the member.
Loyola Hearn Conservative St. John's South, NL
Madam Speaker, I wish to congratulate you on your appointment. It is certainly well deserved. I would also like to congratulate my colleagues on both sides of the House on their re-elections.
There are many old friends back along with new people who will hopefully become friends because in this place we find, despite our political stripes, that for the good of the country we must work together.
I wish to thank the constituents in St. John's South--Mount Pearl who returned me to this tremendous building where we have an opportunity to do so much for them, and hopefully for the country.
The name has been changed to St. John's South--Mount Pearl, which signifies most of my riding. I once had about 70 communities in the old riding. Now I have two cities with one extra town, Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove, a place very near and dear to me. That makes up the total riding.
Most of our speakers have gone over the issues in the throne speech. I am going to do a cursory run through of a number of them and then concentrate on a couple of issues which are of great concern to my own riding and province.
Perhaps we should mention the fact that we are speaking on the subamendment. There are people who have concerns about the subamendment. In fact, some of our premiers today expressed some concern because they were interpreting the subamendment a little further than it actually goes.
The concern is that the Bloc has asked the government to concentrate on the financial pressures provinces are suffering as a consequence of fiscal imbalance and that it should be alleviated, as suggested by the Premier of Quebec. Nobody has any problems with that.
Some of the provinces might have difficulty if the premier or the Bloc in its subamendment had demanded that we use the mechanisms perhaps as would be suggested. That is not the case. It is pretty straightforward and something that we can support.
The throne speech itself has an interesting sentence in it. It talks about creating a strong economy supported by a committed and excellent public service. There is no doubt that we have a committed and excellent public service and it is very supportive of the country and the work that has to be done.
The question is whether government is supportive of the public service because right now PSAC, the union representing the workers, is negotiating with the government and we wonder from some of the signals whether the government is negotiating in good faith. We hope it is and that a resolution will be found quickly so that we can get on with the work.
The speech talks about a review of the EI program. It is badly needed. We emphasized it in our amendment. I hope we concentrate on the plight of seasonal workers because of the downturn in the economies of agriculture and the fisheries. The infrastructure is falling apart in our country. We see very little construction which leads to a dearth of work in relation to seasonal workers.
We have people who need to get out of the workplace. We must look at an early retirement program for people who have been around so long, who have contributed so much, and are finding it so difficult. We cannot forget those who have already been displaced and whom we have ignored.
I hope we live up to the health care agreements that we signed with the provinces. That is extremely important and I hope we do it in the light of proper federal-provincial cooperation.
It is great to see the child care program mentioned, but it has been mentioned now for 11 years and I hope this time, with the minority government situation, that pressure can be put on government to deliver.
We can never forget the seniors, those who have done so much for us. The word is mentioned but we do not see much substance here. That also ties into affordable housing and drug costs because these are the people who are really affected.
Omitted entirely from the speech was agriculture. There was one little reference, three letters I believe, and no reference made to the arts. We have to remember that our heritage and culture must be preserved.
The municipalities will get a portion of the federal gas tax. We do not know how much, when, how thinly it will be spread and we have no idea if an arrangement has been made with the provinces for delivery so that the money given by one will not be clawed back by the other.
That takes me to the issues relating to my own area. During the election we had two major commitments made by the Prime Minister and I will read them to the House. These are not my words by the way but the words of the hon. Minister of Natural Resources. He said “the Prime Minister has given me the responsibility of finalizing the deal on the Atlantic accord as soon as possible. That will bring Newfoundland and Labrador 100% of its offshore oil royalties without affecting the provinces equalization payments”.
What the Prime Minister actually promised was 100% of total revenues. We hope that will be carried out. The minister said today that a a few i 's had to be dotted and a few t 's had to be crossed but he said the same thing at the beginning of the campaign four months ago. We hope the deal is being finalized but we hope it is being finalized as promised.
The other thing the Minister of Natural Resources said concerning Newfoundland and Labrador was “the Prime Minister came to this province and promised to do whatever it took to win foreign overfishing on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, including custodial management. He has listened to the concerns of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and he is acting on these concerns”.
What a farce. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Natural Resources promised during the election to deal with this issue that has drawn so much attention in this hon. House. Just before we went in to the election, the House passed a motion telling the government to deal with this issue.
What has happened now? In the throne speech the Prime Minister and the government said, and this was the only reference, “we will enhance the rules of enforcement”. An extra boat will be sent out to issue extra citations so that more and more people will be frustrated with foreigners thumbing their nose at us as they bring our resources home. This is an insult to all Canadians. That is an issue that has to be dealt with.
The Prime Minister himself went to the United Nations. All the members said on both radio and television that the Prime Minister mentioned fish at the United Nations. He was trying to deflect the responsibility of dealing with this issue to an international circus. We know what will happen, which is what has always happened in the past, nothing at all. Our resources will be diminished and destroyed while the government twiddles its thumbs.
We are asking the government to step up and live up to its promises because if not there will be another government that will do it shortly.
One other thing I would like to mention in the short time I have left has to do with the issue of education. Many topics were mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, the cost of health care, child care, the health of seniors, the economy and the need to develop our resources. An educated population can do that but very little reference was made to education. We must ensure that every child in this country has the opportunity to receive a full education regardless of geography and regardless of his or her socio-economic status. We have to make sure we have a contributing population so that in turn the country can be developed by them.
I recommend that the government immediately appoint if not a minister at least a secretary of state responsible for the coordination of education. There is absolutely no coordination of education between the federal government and the provinces. Nobody accepts responsibility for the job that has to be done. We better get on with the job. We will do our best to cooperate to make sure the job can be done.
Roger Clavet Bloc Louis-Hébert, QC
Madam Speaker, I just listened with amazement to the member's comments. We almost need a magnifying glass to read the throne speech. When it comes to the situation of the unemployed, we have to search for information, we really need to look extremely closely. The government's only commitment in this respect is to “review the employment insurance program to ensure that it remains well-suited to the needs of Canada’s workforce”. That is a little hard for those who are out of work and for seasonal workers to swallow.
In the riding of Louis-Hébert, we have young workers who do not qualify for employment insurance because of an arbitrary threshold set at 910 hours. These people are wondering why a throne speech, which is supposed to be a statement of intentions, contains so few of them and such little food for thought. A long and hard look is needed. The unemployed are forgotten. They are cast aside. This throne speech does not say much about what will be done to help them.
Reference was made earlier to seasonal workers. My colleague from the Conservative Party mentioned it; and it is also true for several regions, including the Quebec City area. Some people would like to see a little more content in it.
I hope that the Liberals who are running the country will be able to put their words into action and to flesh this throne speech out. Frankly, as it is, it leaves us unsatisfied. There is nothing in it for the unemployed. No remedies are provided; it is a mere statement of facts. This is absolutely deplorable. The unemployed may have been overlooked, but they will not forget the government's decisions or lack of decision.
Loyola Hearn Conservative St. John's South, NL
Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct of course. I think I referred to the fact that the throne speech mentioned a number of areas, such as employment insurance, child care and seniors, with absolutely no substance. Their subamendment coupled with our amendment put some meat on those bones but we should not have to do that. It is not our job. It is up to government to present a vision for the future, not a requiem for the past, which is exactly what we have in this throne speech, a regurgitation of the same old issues that have been raised for years.
People want to hear what the government is going to do, not to hear again that it has a problem here. We know that, certainly in relation to seasonal workers. Because of the lack of attention the federal government has paid to the country, because of the lack of funding to the provinces, our infrastructure, which I will use as one example, is falling apart: our highways, our water and sewer, and general recreational infrastructures. Years ago we could drive throughout this country, particularly in the summer during construction season, and everywhere we would go there were bulldozers, trucks, backhoes, name it. Now we can drive almost anywhere unimpeded because there is nothing underway. These were the jobs that kept Canadians working.
We have seen a fishery mismanaged. We see people in that seasonal line of work out of work. We see our agriculture being ignored. Again, these people are out of work.
We must realize that we must concentrate on dealing with the resources we have because they in turn can create the jobs that improve the economy and give us the money to deal with health, child welfare and everything else. It is a very simple procedure but if we omit one part of it the rest falls apart, and they have omitted the whole works.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Madam Speaker, the member talked about how the infrastructure is in bad shape. I have often had the discussion with regional and municipal politicians about the accountability these levels of government have, which collect taxes from people, to invest in infrastructure and then when they do not have it they turn around to the federal government. The federal government has stepped up, the member is quite right, but where is the accountability of those who collect money from ratepayers at the levels when the infrastructure is their jurisdiction?
Loyola Hearn Conservative St. John's South, NL
Madam Speaker, I know my time is short. I do not argue with that. The member has a pretty good point that it is the responsibility of all levels, municipal, provincial and federal.
However, what has happened and why the federal government has been blamed is that there has been so much downloading that the others cannot afford to do what has to be done. To prove that I challenge the member to look at the budgets of the municipalities and the provincial governments and then ask who has the surplus.
Denis Paradis Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Madam Speaker, first, let me congratulate you on your appointment.
Second, I would like to inform you that I will share my time with the member for Beauce, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.
Permit me to salute and thank my constituents from Brome—Missisquoi for this fourth mandate, for the renewed trust they put in me during this last election. They are certainly proud to have heard the Speech from the Throne delivered to us a few days ago.
Concerning my riding, I will deal with a few issues. Of course, health care is important. The Speech from the Throne talked a lot about it. However, an issue particularly caught my attention in this Speech from the Throne. It is the environmental issue. My riding, concerned a lot about the environment, is facing environmental problems, while, of course, having environmental assets.
Let us start with the negative. There is a problem with the quality of water in Lake Champlain. The government asked the International Joint Commission on Boundary Waters to examine the problems of water quality in Lake Champlain. It did. The commission held hearings this summer and is to meet the local people soon.
As for Lake Memphremagog, everyone has heard about it. In Coventry, Vermont, Americans want to expand a landfill site. Indeed, they want to triple the size of the landfill site. This would be dangerous for our Lake Memphremagog. It should be understood that the people of Magog, Sherbrooke and the whole region drink water from Lake Memphremagog. Thus, the Lake Memphremagog and the Coventry landfill site issues require careful attention.
However, there are also good news. This is an issue on which I worked extensively and which deals with the creation of a reserve at Mount Sutton. This is extraordinary. This is in cooperation with the Quebec government. It is a reserve at Mount Sutton. We have to ensure there is cooperation among the different levels of government to guarantee future generations an abundance of such green spaces in the country.
The Speech from the Throne addressed cooperation at length. What does cooperation mean? It means less bickering. Our friends from the Bloc are not ones to dislike bickering. The Speech from the Throne addresses cooperation at length. Hon. members know that there is always a single taxpayer. He pays at the municipal level; he pays at the provincial level; he pays at the federal level, but it is always the same taxpayer. He asks one thing: that the people he elected agree. In the area of health and municipalities, we saw the desired degree of cooperation, one that works with this government.
In his speech in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister talks about cooperation 11 times.
Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne
An hon. member
When it suits.
Denis Paradis Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC
On page 43 of the Debates of the House of Commons :
If we can make cooperation not just rhetoric but reality.
Denis Paradis Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC
It seems like they do not want to hear the word cooperation.
Further, on page 44, it says, and I quote:
— working with the provinces and territories to secure a 10-year agreement for better health care.
A little further we read:
—I will meet with the first ministers to put in place some of the most meaningful reforms to equalization—
On the same page it says:
—the premiers and I sat down with Aboriginal leaders—
And it continues:
—as we work with provinces, cities and communities on the mechanism and ramp-up for our transfer of a portion of the gas tax—
On the next page, page 45, we read:
We will also be working with the other orders of government on infrastructure—
I am already up to six quotations. Here is the seventh, found later on the same page:
As a government, we will work with the territories and Aboriginal groups—
In the next paragraph, we see:
—in collaboration with our circumpolar partners.
On the next page, we read:
—we will work with the provinces, the territories and stakeholder groups to increase support for family caregivers—
It goes on to say:
When the government of Canada brings together its 13 territorial and provincial partners—
And that is the meaning of the Speech from the Throne. I think it is important that our friends in the Bloc recognize, although it does not suit them to, the degree of cooperation and collaboration that exists among the various levels of government.
We are talking about respect for jurisdictions. They are going to talk about it. Not only do I feel it coming, but I have heard it. They are talking about the fiscal imbalance.
In our constituency offices, people are well aware that we respect provincial jurisdictions. What they are looking for from their elected officials are answers. They do not want any more hassle. “Will you be able to get along together?” I ask the House: will we be able to get along together? I think the answer from our friends in the Bloc still involves a lot quarrelling.
There is this constant desire to sow discord and fuel it. They claim that it is not working and will not work, that nothing is working. That is not our message. The message of the throne speech is a positive one.
They talk about financial pressures, about fiscal imbalance. They used those words in an amendment to an amendment. But before putting this amendment to an amendment forward, did they confirm with the council of the federation that this is what was wanted? Did they check?
I have heard that the council of the federation is not unanimous on this matter. Let there be no misunderstanding: things are going well. Members have seen the health accord signed by the council, the premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada. We have seen that, and see what is coming with respect to equalization. I think that that too will work very well.
It is essential that we work together rather than divide and conquer. I do not think that Quebec's premier needs the Bloc Quebecois to convey his messages to this House or to the government.
Let us consider this issue for a moment. Allegations were made about the fiscal imbalance. An entire theory has been built around this topic. That is not what matters. What matters is that, for each issue, we can sit together, negotiate and ensure that a win-win situation is achieved. That is what matters. That is what the Prime Minister of Canada is doing with the provincial premiers. That is what matters to us. We do not want to squabble; the time for squabbling has passed.
I will conclude with an example, on page—
Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne
Some hon. members
Absolutely not.
Denis Paradis Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC
My colleagues do not want me to conclude. I realize that my time is running out.
On page 4 of the Prime Minister's reply to the Speech from the Throne, he was wise to emphasize the following:
Our growth in living standards: first among the countries of the G-7.
We rank first.
Our job growth: fastest among the countries of the G-7.
Our budgetary surplus: alone among the countries of the G-7.
And the Prime Minister added:
There is today a new confidence among Canadians. We are focused on possibility. We are ready to compete, to excel, to showcase what we have to offer.
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Madam Speaker, would you be kind enough to tell me if I am limited to one question or if I can also express an opinion?
Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jean Augustine)
We are at the question and comment period.
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Madam Speaker, I was a bit stunned by the last speech. The member used the term cooperation as in to cooperate to make proper use of the taxpayers' money. But is it being properly used when $45 billion is taken out of the EI fund and spent for purposes other than that for which it was originally intended?
Is the hon. member aware of the poverty that exists in his riding precisely because of the misuse of that money and other restrictive EI measures?
The hon. member talks about proper use of the taxpayers' money and cooperation. We will never fail to decry unfairness just to avoid hurting anyone's feelings. When the poorest of the poor in our society are eligible to a Guaranteed Income Supplement but do not get it because the money was spent on something else, there is reason to be upset.
And if that does not make the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi upset, then I would worry about his constituents in dire straits, like those I just referred to.
Denis Paradis Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Madam Speaker, my colleague does not need to become annoyed. To start with, there may be a point on which we both agree, and that is the fact that we should absolutely do something to bridge the widening gap between the rich and the poor. This is a message in the throne speech. It is important that our society reduce this gap.
The hon. member mentioned two more points. First, a word about the EI fund. There is no such thing as a separate fund in which we put money aside for EI. That is not the way it works. Right now, this fund is included in the general revenues. This matter could eventually be debated, but, for the time being, there is no separate fund. It is lumped with public finances, like all other revenues and expenditures. We have years with a surplus and others with a deficit. It is all part and parcel of the same thing. Many years ago, back in 1986, the Auditor General told the government that that was the way to proceed.
Secondly, let us talk about the wise use of tax money. My colleague is right. It is important to use it wisely. That is what is suggested in the throne speech. We know what the federal government gives to the municipalities, and we know on what it agrees with them, for example concerning the infrastructure. These moves should be applauded. We should be glad that a government recognizes the needs in matters of health, municipal infrastructure, and the environment. That is really how the money Canadian taxpayers pay to the federal government, the provinces and the municipalities should be used. There is only one taxpayer.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place between all parties in the House concerning the tabling and the adoption of the striking committee report that lists the members and associate members of the standing committees. I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following, although I think it would be perhaps lengthy to read the entire report of the names of all MPs. I seek consent for the following: 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.
Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jean Augustine)
Does the member have the consent of the House to put the motion?
Ken Epp Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the House and the member opposite that he said discussions had taken place, but we are unaware of those discussions, unfortunately. That may be an internal party thing, but we are not aware of it. That is why we at this time decline unanimous consent. We will certainly reconsider if this has been done.
Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jean Augustine)
Resuming debate, questions and comments. We have 34 seconds left.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Madam Speaker, in under 34 seconds, I will remind the hon. member that it is the throne speech and not the Bloc members that is at the heart of all these squabbles and conflicts,
In fact, I would refer the hon. member to an article published in Le Devoir on October 6, dealing with the throne speech and environmental issues. It was entitled “Ecologists fear constitutional wrangling”.
This statement does not come from the Bloc members. All the tension and the squabbles stem from the throne speech, because the federal government in being intrusive.
Denis Paradis Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Madam Speaker, I just want to point out that, for everything pertaining to this issue, we said that we would work in cooperation and in consultation with the provinces, our partners. So, there are no squabbles. We will come to an agreement.