Debates of Feb. 3rd, 2004

Request for Emergency Debate

[The Speaker]

Under the circumstances, I assume the request for the debate for this evening is withdrawn.

The House resumed from February 2 consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session.

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer some remarks in response to the Speech from the Throne presented yesterday by Her Excellency the Governor General.

Before getting to the substance of my remarks I would like to take a moment, if I may, to make reference to the new political configuration in the House. The past year has been a tumultuous one for Conservatives everywhere in Canada. The bottom line, after all the tumult, is present here before us all today: a united Conservative Party of Canada.

This past year has been a very busy one for Conservatives across the country. The final result is before us today: the new, united Conservative Party of Canada.

I think I can say without fear of reproach that as parliamentarians, as politicians and as people interested in the welfare of our fellow citizens, we all owe a serious debt of gratitude to the member for Calgary Southwest and the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. These two men found a way to get over past battles and to focus on the future. They reunited the Conservative family in this country and, as I said a moment ago, I believe we are all the better for it. Parliamentary democracy functions best when there is competition, accountability and respect for the rules of fair play and political courtesy.

I am confident that now that the uncertainty is behind us, Canadians will witness a much more dynamic exchange of ideas here in Ottawa. Our friends who form the government will have to start taking more interest in what is going on here.

This will be good for Parliament and it will be beneficial to our democracy and our country.

As I listened to Her Excellency's remarks yesterday I must say I was more than a little disappointed. This was in fact the Prime Minister's first opportunity to address the nation. It was his day to put a road map on the table telling Canadians where he wants to go, what he wants to achieve and how he intends to achieve it.

Unfortunately, instead of a map we were shown a rather blurry set of directions that gave little indication where anyone was going. There were pages and pages full of carefully crafted claims that did little to tackle the challenges we face as a country, and , in the best tradition of the member for LaSalle—Émard, it made ambiguity appear to be a national virtue.

Her Excellency's speech yesterday spent a lot of time touching on issues dear to the hearts of Liberals everywhere. Unfortunately it had little of substance to say about the more prosaic, more important business of governing the nation and paying for the promises.

The pundits tell us we are going to have an election in the spring. Canadians might well wonder why. Why another election? After all it has only been three and a half years since the last one. We are told that our new Prime Minister needs a mandate from the people. He wants members and friends of the Liberal Party to vindicate him; to put their stamp of approval on his long and ultimately successful campaign to evict his predecessor.

That may well be true but I cannot help thinking that a hasty spring election will also be about rushing to re-election before some nasty truths emerge about steamship contracts, campaign dirty tricks and problems with drug laundering. This is probably the most important point. It will be about denying Canadians the opportunity to express their opinions about a host of contentious issues, from the definition of marriage to the actions of our security forces in the Arar case.

One has to wonder just what the Prime Minister and his colleagues think they are going to talk about during this election campaign. What will they have accomplished during the month or two of this government that would be worth taking to the people? A bunch of promises.

The answer to what he will talk about certainly will not be found in the legislative agenda before the House. It is nothing but legacy leftovers and puffy promises. In fact, it is the stuff of Cottonelle ads.

The government would like Canadians to believe this throne speech is a document that lays out a vision for what the Liberal government intends to do for Canadians. This document is nothing of the sort. This document is no more and no less than an election pamphlet for the Liberal Party of Canada. Given this, it deserves a response worthy of an election pamphlet.

Yesterday's speech was a great pile of platitudes and promises that, if the past is any guide, the government has no intention of keeping.

Canadians remember well another election document, the so-called red book that was written by, guess who, the current Prime Minister. They remember his promises to scrap the GST, to renegotiate NAFTA, to create an independent ethics counsellor, to name but three. I am not quite sure whether they are expecting these current promises to be kept. Liberal election documents, it seems, have a very short shelf life, and with good reason.

The second thing about the government's speech that we need to keep in mind is that it has nothing to do with an agenda for Canada and everything to do with an agenda for the Liberal Party of Canada.

The promises and vision so clearly stated yesterday by Her Excellency on behalf of the government, are not intended to improve life for average Canadians, but are meant to improve the chances for Liberal MPs. This is nothing new.

Yesterday's speech spent quite a bit of time talking about social issues, as well it should. The Prime Minister has let it be known that health care will be a top priority for the government.

As a medical practitioner, who could disagree? I certainly cannot. However as someone who has heard the promises for a decade now, I am not going to hold my breath.

I believe we can all see that these promises to improve the health care system are nothing but platitudes and that, as with so many other promises, the Prime Minister and his colleagues have no intention of keeping them.

Last week the government promised to give the provinces an additional $2 billion to help fund their health care system; a laudable promise, but should we have faith? One week the government says that it will pay that amount and the next it claims it has no money. It is like a political yo-yo.

Speaking of yo-yos, the Prime Minister says that public servants play an important role in government and in the formation of public policy. I agree, they do, so why has the Prime Minister been playing games, playing games in fact with their lives?

Since coming to office he has ordered a hiring freeze, frozen salaries, except for his government's senior political staff, and has sent mixed messages to thousands of employees about their jobs and their futures in the public service. The public service needs stability to function properly. Long term planning means just that. It cannot be done properly if the Prime Minister muses publicly, as he has been doing, that he just might or might not make major changes to the public service.

In any event, let me finish my thoughts about the Prime Minister's promise to give the provinces another $2 billion in health care funding. The real story here is the $25 billion the Prime Minister cut as finance minister, not the $2 billion he is grudgingly giving back, strings attached and all. I admit that $2 billion is nothing to sneeze at, but when we are trying to fill a $25 billion crater it is not really that much. It is a little like trying to fill a bomb crater with a bucket full of sand.

The government also says that it intends to work with the provinces to develop co-ordinated approaches for disease control and to help reduce waiting times in hospitals and health clinics. The Prime Minister and his colleagues had 10 years to do these important things and for 10 years they have done little but cut funding and, frankly, play shell games where ministers promised: funding but not now; new equipment but only later; and more personnel but only after negotiations and endless collaboration. In the meantime, the hospital lists get longer, the number of Canadians seeking diagnostic equipment grows larger and the ability of our health care system to respond adequately to a rapidly aging population is diminished.

At the Orleans Clinic, where I am currently retraining to return to medical practice, I met a young woman the other day who told me how the Liberal approach to health care translates into the real world. Her doctor moved to an inconvenient location for her and she was not able to visit him any longer. When she saw this new face in the clinic she said “You haven't been here before. Are you coming here to practice, doctor?” I had to say that I was simply retraining and would be going back to Alberta. She literally begged me to stay so she could have a family physician. Here in this big metropolitan city of Ottawa this woman cannot find a GP who will take her on his roster.

Health care a la Liberal Party of Canada; that is an embarrassment and a shame.

The throne speech has made significant mention of a new approach to providing modern AIDS drugs for underdeveloped countries. As a compassionate nation I support those initiatives, but let me contrast that with a domestic issue. It does remind me of a domestic issue that was handled so poorly by the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party. I cannot understand why individuals infected with hepatitis C from tainted blood were turned down for help from this government. They begged for help and the government cried that it could not hear them. I would like an explanation from this Prime Minister for that approach.

By the way, we did find $100 million. What was that $100 million for? It was for executive jets, Challenger jets. They can fly on Challenger jets while the hepatitis C victims, sorry, can do without.

Aboriginal people face some of the most pressing social problems of any group in our society. What does the government say about that? There will be a new cabinet committee on aboriginal affairs and a new aboriginal secretariat in the Privy Council Office.

We also heard that the government does not intend to reintroduce Bill C-7, the first nations governance act. We did not hear anything original, and that is the problem. There were lots of platitudes and process but no real substance.

Members opposite like to boast that the federal government spends billions of dollars every year on aboriginal issues, but money does not solve all problems, although I am sure we would never be able to convince our friends across the aisle of that fact.

At the risk of being castigated, what I think our aboriginal people need is hope. They need hope that the issues that are important to them will actually be addressed, not just talked about.

Let me tell the House about Skipper Potts, a young native educator from Pincher Creek. This is a man who gives hope to the students in his school. He determined that the kids were not graduating from grade 12 so he set about, with no funding, no big programs and no big help from anyone, to speak with the parents and talk about the school programs, the sports programs and the importance of education in their lives. In a few short years he took the one native graduate in that school to a dozen graduates this year. Skipper Potts gives hope to the kids.

Aboriginal people need improved health care. They need more opportunities for education and employment close to where they live. Like everyone else, they need affordable housing and support for their young people and local communities. They need, indeed they deserve greater recognition for the unique role they have played in Canadian history but, above all, they need hope and commitment. They need hope and a commitment from the federal government to actually do something. They need more Skipper Potts.

Yesterday's speech also referred to education, quality of life and allowing Canadians to develop the necessary skills that will permit them to lead productive and fulfilling lives.

Apart from the fact that education is not the domain of the federal government, I find all this talk from the other side about the plight of our university students most interesting. I wonder where the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues believe the problems arose from if not from their very own policies as a government over the past number of years.

Today our sons and daughters are graduating from institutes of higher learning with large and, in some cases, crippling debt load. Students in medicine, business and other such courses that demand years of extra training are particularly hard hit. They are coming out of school with thousands of dollars in accumulated debt.

Each year, more and more young people are finding that they do not have the financial resources they need for post-secondary education. Those who choose to go to college or university and take on the resulting debt load face an inflexible and outdated loan system.

It is not that there is no money available; there are a number of bursary and loan programs. The problem stems from accessibility, eligibility and flexibility in the repayment structures. The fact is that the whole student loan system should be reviewed, because education is of the utmost importance.

Education is the gateway to knowledge, career success and a rich, vibrant and successful culture. Young people thirst for knowledge. They are banging at the doors of universities and colleges everywhere. Surely we owe it to them to see that they can fulfill their dreams.

The Prime Minister has been making much ado about his so-called new deal for the cities. My question is: Why should we limit ourselves to Canada's large metropolitan areas? Yes, they are the home to a large portion of our population. Yes, their municipal infrastructure is in a desperate state of disrepair. Yes, they are engines that drive our economy.

However, if our cities are economic engines, then it is the farmers, the fishermen and the forest workers who provide the fuel. We on this side believe there must be a new deal for Truro, not just Toronto; for Vulcan, Alberta, not just Vancouver; and Mont-Joli, not just Montreal.

It is true that after years of federal neglect, the sidewalks in our urban areas are falling apart and traffic is clogged, sometimes becoming intolerable.

According to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Canada's infrastructure deficit has now reached $57 billion—an alarming level.

The Prime Minister promised the cities he would help fix the problems facing these large cities by cutting them in on a portion of the excess federal gas tax back in September of last year. He was pretty clear on that promise. Everything he could do he would do to make that happen. Now just last month he did a small U-turn or a big U-turn, I am not sure. He has said his commitment remains to be determined. It now depends on negotiations with the provinces and the cities.

That is another flip-flop, and a big one this time. It was a solid commitment to the cities, repeated month after month as the Prime Minister sought the leadership of his party. It has now been downgraded to a long term plan, and not only that, a plan dependent upon negotiations with others. Now we know why the Prime Minister owns all those boats. He is an expert fisherman. He likes to dangle political bait and just see who might take a bite. Clearly the Prime Minister is in no hurry to fulfill this promise, and why should he be? Might I remind him, when he was finance minister he was totally opposed to that plan.

Speaking of the cities, I note that the government is promising to eliminate the GST from municipalities, and is doing so with a straight face. Need I remind the House that these are the same people who brought us “I will axe the tax?” These are the same people, including the Prime Minister himself, who were forced to apologize to the Canadian public for blatantly misleading it during the 1993 election issue. As the old saying goes, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Over the last seven years the government has increased spending by over 30%. At the same time it has failed to cut taxes, as the finance minister, now Prime Minister, promised Canadians he would. The member for LaSalle—Émard promised Canadians a $100 billion tax cut. What did he deliver? The great tax cut in fact was a great sleight of hand. It included such things as increased child benefits and promises to cancel future tax hikes, both of which the then finance minister called tax cuts. When we add it all up, less than half of the promised tax cuts will ever see the light of day.

At the same time the government continues to rake in huge amounts of people's money through a rise in Canada pension premiums, new taxes like the airport security tax and on and on.

[An hon. member]

Employment insurance.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

I heard someone say “employment insurance”, and on and on.

We all remember how, year after year, the former finance minister, today the Prime Minister, underestimated the surplus. Every year he told Canadians that there was not enough money to provide them with real tax relief and carry out high-priority social spending. And every year, he did a U-turn, and presto: another surplus on the record, at least until 2001, when the extravagant expenses of the former finance minister began to catch up with him.

The Liberals call this little game of fiscal hide and seek good politics. Canadians call it cynical manipulation of their money for political gain.

This year again the government is at its Old Mother Hubbard routine and claiming the cupboards are bare, but if my memory serves me correctly, during his recent leadership campaign, the Prime Minister made almost $35 billion in promises. Where will all that money come from? Maybe he will tell us. I suspect it was just another case of platitudes, promises the Prime Minister has no intention of keeping. However, if history is any judge, we can be sure of one thing: any excess surplus will be spent before the next election is called, and we wonder why voter participation has fallen to record lows under this government.

The Prime Minister likes to talk about the need to reduce the debt. And yet in his last three budgets as finance minister he announced huge end-of-year expenses that transformed the billions of dollars in debt reduction into expenditures.

The Liberals talk a good game on fiscal restraint, but the reality is that spending at the federal level is rising faster than at any time since Pierre Trudeau, the granddaddy of profligate spenders.

Look at the whole issue of debt and taxation. Despite all the talk, our national debt is $32 billion higher today than it was when this Prime Minister first became finance minister. Why is this? Is it because the Prime Minister loves to spend money, at least other people's money? In fact over the past seven years alone, the government has increased annual program spending by over 30%. It now stands at an unprecedented $146 billion according to the government's own audited financial statements. How is that for a legacy?

The Prime Minister also likes to talk about investing in a 21st century economy. That is a very pithy phrase, but what does it mean? All this talk, these platitudes about the new economy coming from the government, is just a smokescreen for what is really happening, and that is the continuing escalation of corporate welfare. Clearly the Prime Minister needs to be plain and come clean on this issue.

Canadians need to be reminded that at the same time the Prime Minister cut nearly $5 billion annually from health care, he increased spending on business subsidies by $700 million a year: less money for hip replacements, more money for corporate friends. Welcome to Liberal Canada.

Now the Prime Minister wants to use the Canada pension plan fund for his new industrial strategy. That is like taking the workers' hard-earned money, intended for the support of seniors, and giving it to his corporate friends.

All I can say is that, when the government decides to choose the winners, we can be sure of one thing: Canadian citizens are the losers.

The government in its speech made abundant reference to Canada's place in the world. Indeed, to underline this, it has invited the former secretary general of the UN to address us next month. Personally, I cannot help thinking that it would have been more worthwhile, more useful, to invite the Japanese prime minister, given the problems we have selling our beef there. How about the U.S. President? I am sure the softwood lumber people, not to mention the agricultural sector, would have been happy.

Then again, agriculture has never been much of a priority for the Prime Minister and the government. In fact over the last decade, the largest spending cuts to agriculture came when the member for LaSalle--Émard was finance minister and the current finance minister was the man in charge of agriculture.

Sadly, the tendency of the government to ignore the plight of farm families is also reflected in the voting record of the current Minister of Agriculture. In March 2001, for example, the member for Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant voted against a motion calling on the government to provide an additional $400 million in emergency funding for Canadian farm families. I am sure that sends a positive message to farm families struggling with the fallout from the BSE crisis.

Canada has been too long in a cocoon. We have lost our place on the world stage. We no longer enjoy the respect we once had.

Today our fellow citizens in other countries are being imprisoned, tortured and killed. And what are we doing about it? Our government shrugs its shoulders and says there is nothing it can do. What a lot of comfort that is for the victims' friends and family.

Since the present and former prime ministers assumed high office together, Canada has pretty well gone back to the dark ages in terms of its international relations and commitments abroad. Soft power, quiet diplomacy, are all code words for doing nothing, for a lack of vision, for concentrating on getting re-elected instead of taking our rightful place as a leader in the community of nations.

Our armed forces are in a deplorable state. We have helicopters that will not go up. We have submarines that cannot go down. We have a government that sends its troops to a desert in jungle fatigues. If there was a political equivalent to the Keystone Kops, they would be sitting across the aisle there.

The government has starved our armed forces. It has humiliated them, ignored them, and turned professional soldiers, sailors and air force personnel, our finest, into international boy scouts sent abroad into war zones without weapons or with instructions not to use the ones with which they have been provided. National Defence headquarters has too many spin doctors and not enough warriors. Political correctness rather than military necessity has become the order of the day.

The Sea King saga says all that needs to be said about the government's attitude toward the military. If a picture paints a thousand words, I will never forget the picture of the battered, shattered Sea King helicopter on its side on the deck of one of our warships. That was worth a book.

Ten years ago, the member for LaSalle—Émard spent $500 million of the taxpayers' money to cancel the contract for renewing the helicopter fleet, $500 million just to bolster his boss's ego.

And since then? Years of inaction, year of games between entrepreneurs and public servants, years of playing with the lives of Canadian pilots.

And for what? To save the Liberal government from the ignominy of having to admit publicly that it was wrong.

The bottom line is that our armed forces need funding. Getting rid of boondoggles like the gun registry, the long gun registry and shot gun registry, eliminating corporate welfare, and tightening up advertising rules to prevent millions of dollars going to friends of cabinet would be good places to find some of those funds.

The government has also said that it will be putting the issue of improving our relations with the United States on the front burner. All we on this side of the House can say is that it is about time.

The childish anti-American sentiment that characterizes the government may go over well in certain constituencies and in the press, but at what price?

Our relations with the Americans are at an all time low. Boorish outbursts by undisciplined ministers have closed important doors to this government in Washington. Look at the BSE issue: it is a prime example.

Last year one cow was found to have the disease. The Americans closed their borders. Thousands of people's lives and livelihoods were suddenly thrown into upheaval. Billions of dollars in revenue were lost. Entire communities came under the gun, and the government dithered. For weeks it talked about dialogue with the Americans. It announced inadequate compensation packages. It blackmailed the provinces into signing an agricultural policy framework in order to gain access to further compensation.

On and on the crisis dragged until one thing became crystal clear: the U.S. border would remain closed and we had no power to force it open. We had no leverage. The Americans were not listening because they were tired of our insults. They had no respect for our plight or our pleas.

Let us not forget the softwood lumber issue. There is a powerful American softwood lumber lobby in Washington, and they are far from pleased that Canada has a 30% market share. Not surprisingly, there are constant attempts to reduce that share. So we go from one crisis to the next.

What we need is a plan. Instead of whining about the Americans and their tactics, the federal government should get together with the provinces and develop a strategy to hammer out the most beneficial deal possible with the Americans. It is not rocket science.

Canada needs to get beyond the crisis management stage in our relationship with the U.S. Rather than insults and hyperbole, we should be working on formulating a new strategic partnership with the Americans on a wide variety of fronts that will serve the interests of both countries. That would be the bright and proper thing to do.

What, for example, do we know about the new plan for continental missile defence? What deal has the government made in relation to this initiative in order to create some movement in other areas?

Our relationship with the United States is a close one, both by geography and necessity. Their worries, particularly when they are all consuming, become our worries. This is the case with terrorism.

Much has been made of the measures that have been put into place in the U.S. since 9/11. Some say there have been excesses. There may well be excesses. However, the Americans are determined to improve their border security. The longest undefended border in the world has become far less so since 9/11. Nothing we do will change that. Let us see how we can deal with the concerns being expressed by our neighbours in a way that will satisfy their legitimate fears, while protecting our sovereignty and the interests of our citizens.

The government's decision to create a department of public safety and emergency preparedness is one positive step, but we need to do more than merely create an administrative shell.

Is there a real political desire to make this into an efficient department, or is this just window dressing? Are we going to really do something, or are we just trying to put one over on the Americans? How can we seriously enhance our own public safety and our own national security system, while at the same time protecting civil rights?

These are just some of the most important and urgent questions that need answers. It is pointless to cut corners and just do some administrative shuffling. No major changes will come out of this, I am sure.

There is a further issue that the government has so far failed to adequately address and that is the question of validation and recognition of foreign credentials. This is an issue that affects not only skilled immigrants wishing to come to Canada but also individuals with foreign credentials who already live here. We have all heard stories of individuals with Ph.D.s driving taxis and engineers working as bellhops.

In last year's throne speech the government promised to do something about this. It promised to break down the barriers of foreign credential recognition, to fast track applications by those skilled workers with jobs waiting for them here, and to position Canada as a destination of choice for talented foreign students. So far it has failed to live up to these grand promises. The lines are as long as ever, the frustration as great, and the loss to Canada as important. In sum, the government has ignored the issue of skilled immigrants for as long as the Prime Minister has been in Ottawa.

We should be developing a more coordinated approach involving provinces and professional organizations as active partners. Canada needs skilled workers and other countries are producing them. Let us solve this equation by getting off our collective duff and figuring out how to meet the demand for skilled labour within the boundaries imposed by our social goals.

I should mention as well that it is not only those wishing to come to our country who have difficulties. I participated in surgery here in Ottawa two or three weeks ago. Observing with me was a Canadian medical student. He is studying in the Dominican Republic. His folks are both physicians here in Ottawa. He will pass his board exams in a year. When he passes his board exams, having studied in the Dominican Republic, he will be admitted to the U.S. There he will find a residency. When he asks in Canada if he can, with the same board exams, get a residency position here, the answer will be no.

There are 200 other Canadian students studying with him in that school. What sense is there when we take a Canadian from the City of Ottawa and force that person to go overseas to study, where the qualifications are good enough to get into the U.S. but are not good enough to get into Canada? The government says health care is its number one priority.

The last issue I want to deal with today is one dear to the hearts of all of us and that is the state of our democracy. It goes without saying that our democracy and our democratic institutions have gone into steady decline, a spectacular decline I think, some of it since the Prime Minister came to cabinet about 10 years ago.

I remember the Airbus scandal, the Pearson airport affair, the Somalia inquiry, Shawinigate, the HRDC boondoggles and the advertising scandals. On and on the list goes. Ministerial responsibility has now become a thing of the past. No one is responsible for anything any more. Another scandal? No one is responsible.

Did a minister pass on gossip to the RCMP that resulted in an innocent man, a former Prime Minister, being tarred and feathered in the media? Not my responsibility. Did a minister close down a public inquiry into military affairs because an election was forthcoming and friends of the Prime Minister were being asked uncomfortable questions? Not my responsibility. Did a Prime Minister involve himself in financial dealings in his riding that all agree failed the smell test? “You call who you know”, came the reply. Remember that line? It surely has to be a classic in Canadian politics.

The government's response to scandal has been to put the hand-picked ethics counsellor on speed dial. No matter how questionable the ethical circumstances, the Prime Minister and his cabinet could count on the ethics counsellor to exonerate them.

The Prime Minister has already publicly acknowledged the unacceptable nature of such a subjective appointment. He and his colleagues campaigned on the promise of an independent ethical watchdog. But, you guessed it, these were just more empty platitudes. What we need, what Canada needs, is an ethics commissioner who is chosen by Parliament and answerable to it.

It seems so simple. It has been promised twice now. Yet we are as far away from having a truly independent ethics counsellor today as we were a decade ago. We are as far away because the new proposal being put into place, being brought forth by the government, will leave members of cabinet free of real scrutiny. Where has the source of the real scandal been? The cabinet. Our House is ill and we need to find a remedy.

For a decade the Prime Minister sat in the House and said nothing as committees were neutered, free votes squelched, private members' bills ignored and democratic debate muzzled a record 82 times. Not a word was heard from him until his leadership ambitions became an uncontrollable lust.

Suddenly then, it was the democratic deficit here, there and everywhere. That he and his cabinet colleagues were the prime authors of this deficit phased him not a whit. He needed an issue to help destroy a Prime Minister and he found one in the democratic deficit.

The member for LaSalle—Émard tells us that things are going to change, that parliamentary secretaries will have more responsibilities, that committees, with members from all parties, will have more work to do, that there will be annual first ministers meetings, that Parliament will address patronage appointments.

That is all very fine on paper, too much so in fact. I share the opinion of many Canadians that this is just one more fake promise.

Since coming to Ottawa I have watched the Liberal government bamboozle, bully and ignore parliamentarians to a point where many say we truly resemble that famous description offered by former Prime Minister Trudeau some 30 years ago. Why anyone should believe things would change now is simply beyond me.

I do not intend to go into the bog that is the Prime Minister's dealings with his business holdings and the effect these may have on his ability to do his job properly and impartially, nor do I intend to dwell upon the clear lapses in veracity surrounding the Prime Minister's access to his blind trust.

I will note however, because it captures the essence of what many of us feel about this subject, that the issue of government subsidies to the Prime Minister's former shipping company has once again come to public attention and in a particularly egregious fashion.

As the House is no doubt aware, it was revealed last week that the Prime Minister's former shipping company and its subsidiaries received not the paltry hundred or so thousand dollars the government said, but millions upon millions of dollars. All of them from the public treasury, all of them from the taxpayer, doled out between 1993 and 2002 when he was the finance minister.

I do not intend to go any further on this for the moment, but I reiterate that the discrepancy between the two figures, the amount of that discrepancy and the fact this figure only came out now, give me and many Canadians great pause for thought.

For a decade now the Prime Minister and his colleagues, in this and previous cabinets, have presided over some of the most dubious practices in modern Canadian politics. They said nothing as the ethics counsellor turned into a lapdog for the Liberal Party. They opposed attempts to make government more transparent. They refused to support an inquiry into the HRDC grants and contributions scandal.

They refused to hold Alfonso Gagliano, or anyone else, responsible for the sponsorship scandal. Instead, they rewarded Mr. Gagliano with an ambassadorial appointment, and a pay raise to boot.

It is hardly a record most people would be eager to take to the people.

Speaking of elections, a new red book is no doubt soon to be hitting the bookstands. It will be chockablock with yet more promises and platitudes, swaddled in the vague and ambiguous language for which the Prime Minister is so justly famous. But this time things are going to be different.

There are big differences between the Conservative Party's vision for Canada and the realities of Liberal rule. While the Liberals feast on filet mignon aboard their new Challenger jets, we will be in the trenches fighting for the equipment so desperately needed by our armed forces. Liberals will be pork-barrelling by the millions. We will be working to allow hardworking Canadian families to keep their money. The Liberals will be adopting policies that undermine Canadian families. We will be toiling to strengthen our shared traditions. When the Liberals sit on the fence as our friends are attacked, we will stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies. We will work to build our communities, strengthen our nation and stake out our role in the international community.

Canadians are great people and with the right leadership, I truly believe Canada can once again become the greatest nation in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the motion be amended by adding:

And this House regrets that the Speech from the Throne is an advance copy of the Liberal election platform filled with empty rhetoric and promises that does nothing to address the very real problems facing Canadians.

[The Speaker]

The debate is on the amendment.

Resuming debate, the right hon. Prime Minister.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to congratulate the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, the mover, and the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Over the past year, I spent a great deal of time travelling across Canada to listen to Canadians talk about their hopes and their concerns. Recently, I was asked if I had grown tired of it—all the flying, the dinners, the speeches. The answer is no. It is an incredible privilege to witness Canada's diversity, its distinct regions and Canadians' ambitions for their country.

One of the places that I visited was Charlottetown, Labrador. It is a small port of roughly 350 people. I met with a group of children who told me about what interested them, what they were going to do and who they were going to be when they grew up. Through their eyes the future was an ocean of opportunity. Canada was where their ambitions would be launched. Let me say that these small children have big plans.

Two weeks ago I went to Toronto to meet with the fourth graders from Fenside Public School. Two of the students are here today, Steven Natskoulis, the creator of the famous Flat Mark, and Peter Lu, with their teacher Karlo Cabrera.

[The Speaker]

Order. I know the Prime Minister of course will not want to refer to the presence of persons in the gallery of the House.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that at some point they will be sitting here.

Each of the grade 4 students wrote a page or two telling us of their hopes and dreams for Canada. For instance, nine year old Peter wrote, “My wish is that everyone in Canada is free like the birds flying in the sky, that people should be free because everyone deserves to be free”.

That is about as eloquent a statement on liberty as I have read in a while, for young Peter's words challenge us to put people at the centre of our every effort. In fact, that, putting people at the centre, is what good government is all about: enabling citizens to take charge of their lives, making them free by removing barriers and fostering opportunity. Canadians want in. They want to build Canada. They want their government to understand and help them to achieve their potential. They want us, quite simply, to get it.

This government does get it. Our goal is the success of Canadians in every region of our country. To achieve this we must strengthen our social foundations. We must build a 21st century economy and we must ensure that Canada's role in the world is one of influence and pride.

We begin with our values: fairness, generosity, respect, caring. We create a more level playing field for all, not by lowering the stage upon which we stand but rather by raising the heights toward which we reach.

There are some who argue that the path to prosperity lies only in self-interest, a vision that diminishes us all and provides no place for the less advantaged. We on this side of the House and in that corner reject that vision. Canadians reject that vision, for our path is one of shared prosperity and shared prospects. To those on the other hand who say spend and spend more, we say that never again will Canadians borrow from their children and their grandchildren. Never again will we ask them to pay our way.

Ours is an ambitious approach but it is as well responsible and balanced. We are moving neither right nor left but in the direction that Canadians demand; we are moving forward.

What kind of Canada do we want? What kind of country do we want to build?

We want a Canada where our universal health care system sets an example for the world and is a proud example of our national values at work; a Canada where people with disabilities and their families, where the elderly and their families, have the support they need. A Canada at the leading edge of the 21st century economy. A Canada where good jobs are accessible in every region of the country. A Canada overflowing with artistic creativity, where our official languages are celebrated from coast to coast to coast.

What kind of a Canada do we want? What kind of a country do we want to build?

We want a Canada where every child arrives at school ready to learn; a Canada where everyone has the opportunity for post-secondary education regardless of geography or means; a Canada where universal literacy and lifelong learning are part of the national fabric. We want a Canada with safe and healthy neighbourhoods, with clean air, clean water and plenty of green spaces; a Canada where we close the gap in life chances for aboriginal people; a Canada that respects and celebrates the great diversity of our population; a Canada which is at the leading edge of the world technologies; a Canada where today's small businesses are tomorrow's global leaders; and a Canada where there is no glass ceiling for women entrepreneurs.

We want a Canada that speaks on the world stage, heard by our closest neighbours and our distant friends, with equal conviction and independence. We want a Canada where no individual, no community, no region of the country is denied the opportunity to fully participate in the building of an even greater nation.

This agenda is ambitious but Canadians expect no less of themselves and they should expect no less of their governments. The time to make this agenda real is now. The throne speech has proposed the first significant steps, concrete actions on the things that matter most.

Health care is the nation's first priority, quality care, timely care, care that is accessible regardless of income, portable right across Canada and fully funded. We are committed irrevocably to the principles of the Canada Health Act. They are part of who we are, a moral statement about fundamental fairness that all Canadians should stand equal before their health care system.

For most of our fellow citizens, the test is the length of time that they have to wait for an important diagnostic result for badly needed treatment. Their judgment is that critical waiting times need to be reduced. We agree. We must ensure that care delayed is not in effect care denied.

That is why the new national health council is so important. Accountability requires having the right information on what is actually happening out there in doctors' offices and hospital wards. Quite simply, measurement matters.

During the past year, Canadians have seen and felt the challenge of SARS and West Nile virus. Clearly, we need new ways of managing global health risks. Public health is more than just a local matter. No one jurisdiction can manage the challenge alone. We need an approach that is collaborative; national; in fact, global.

To this end, we will establish a Canadian public health agency, centring a network of excellence and expertise across the country, and linked to its counterparts globally. We will create with our partners a network of labs and services to rally public health expertise from across the nation to help those on the front lines deal with health emergencies.

Last Friday, I met with the provincial and territorial premiers, and we agreed to work closely on this task in the coming months—working as we should in common cause for common purpose.

It is in our communities that we truly experience Canada. It is in neighbourhoods that we develop our personal values and commitments, and come to understand our larger responsibilities to our country and to the world. Here, newcomers learn about their new home. Here, we develop and express our citizenship daily.

Canada's municipal governments, big and small, urban and rural, are responsible for creating the conditions for communities to thrive. And they are cash-strapped.

They are working from outmoded financial models. They need stable, reliable and predictable funding. Many lack the resources to deliver affordable housing, modern transit, green spaces, clean air and water--the prerequisites to healthy and safe communities.

They carry much of the responsibility, often without adequate resources, for integrating recent immigrants and serving the increasing number of urban aboriginals. As a country we cannot permit this to continue.

We all want our municipalities to be great places to live, to be able to compete for talent and investment, and to play a role in strengthening our regional economies.

We want our small towns to be able to share in our prosperity. We want our large cities to be international and internationally competitive, to be centres of commerce and culture, and we want them all to provide safe and healthy homes for our families.

That is why we have made a new deal for Canada's municipalities one of our highest priorities. That is why we have created a new secretariat. We want the voices of our municipalities to be heard nationally. That is why we have asked former premier Mike Harcourt to head an advisory committee to help shape our policy thinking while respecting the jurisdiction of the provinces.

Recently, some have questioned the depth of our commitment and wondered whether we would match rhetoric with results. Well, we have answered those questions. The new deal is a real deal.

We are committed to providing a portion of the gas tax if, eventually, that is what works for municipalities

Yesterday's throne speech announced a significant down payment, a 100% GST rebate for municipalities. They will now get back every penny of the tax spent in providing municipal services and community infrastructure.

Furthermore, we will act now--not in a year or even a month. I am pleased to announce that as of two days ago, February 1, the GST rebates for our municipalities have already begun to accumulate. This will mean $7 billion over 10 years for housing, transit, clean air and water, and roads in communities right across Canada.

However, this new deal is not only about money. It is about engaging municipalities as partners, and so too, it is about engaging and building on local initiatives.

Enhancing quality of life in our cities is about wanting to help each other. It is about a willingness to work together to build great places to live.

Today this willingness is everywhere in Canada. We see it in the efforts of a million Canadians working in the voluntary sector. And they have our support.

We see it in the efforts of the people who are applying entrepreneurial creativity—not for profit, but rather to pursue social and environmental goals.

That is what we call the social economy—and while it may be a less familiar part of our economy, we must not underestimate its importance. Its contribution to the social fabric and to the economic vitality of our municipalities, urban and rural, is real and is growing.

Here are some examples. The social economy is about community groups like RESO in southwest Montreal, with which I have been involved since the start of my political career. RESO is a large coalition of unions, businesses, community groups and active citizens, all concerned about the future of their communities.

Several years ago they joined forces. Southwest Montreal, a struggling district in the 1980s, today is revitalized. RESO played a pivotal role then, and still does

The social economy is everywhere. For example, just a few blocks away from the Parliament buildings is the Roasted Cherry coffee house. This wonderful social enterprise was created to offer employment and a welcoming environment to young Canadians, particularly those at risk. The creators of this coffee house understood how valuable it is for youth at risk to work side by side and to share their life experiences with other young people who are still in school.

Through the interaction, youth at risk can see that anything is possible. What is more, the coffee house management sets aside part of its profits to create scholarships to encourage these young people to go back to high school.

Canada abounds with similar examples.The people who are dedicated to these efforts understand the power of the social economy. The people themselves represent a powerful social resource, and it is high time that the federal government recognizes this.

We intend to make the social economy a clear, key part of Canada’s social policy tool kit.For the first time, these organizations will have access to our small business programs.Over the course of the next year, we will work with these groups to develop the tools they require.

Just as entrepreneurs are essential to a strong economy, social entrepreneurs are essential to strong communities. They require our support, and this government will offer it.

A great place to live starts with a neighbourhood with clean water, unspoiled land, and air we can safely breathe. We have much to do and many old habits to break.

The Speech from the Throne sets out an ambitious agenda on air, water and climate change. It reconfirms our intention to meet the Kyoto challenge. It makes environmental technologies an important part of both our economic and social agenda. We must be ambitious if we are to leave the planet in better shape for future generations, and so we must.

The throne speech commits the government to an aggressive plan to clean up federal contaminated sites and to return land to its natural state. This will ensure in our municipalities opportunities for new housing and new parks.

This will ensure in the north an environment as clean as our children believe it should be. It will ensure that we do not leave a heritage of pollution to aboriginal communities.

For that reason, as Her Excellency said, we are committing $3.5 billion over 10 years to this goal. What could be a better investment than an investment in our children, in our future and in our health?

We are not stopping there. We need to do more. We need to do more for Sydney, Nova Scotia, for example, where the tar ponds have stood as a national disgrace.

There is one aspect of Canadian society, one aspect of our history, that casts a shadow over all that we have achieved. The continuing gap in life conditions between aboriginal and other Canadians is intolerable. It offends our values and we cannot remain on our current path.

To turn the corner will require a new partnership. It will require a shared commitment to improving aboriginal governance, essential to self-government and economic development.

We will expand health care, education, skills development and entrepreneurship. We will match our training programs to real economic opportunities from Voisey's Bay to northern pipelines, as is being done in a pioneering fashion in Alberta's tar sands.

With our partners, we will tackle head-on the particular problems faced by the increasing number of urban aboriginals and Métis. We will not allow ourselves to be caught up in jurisdictional wrangling, passing the buck and bypassing their needs.

Who would have imagined the remarkable and hard-earned economic success Canadians have achieved in the last 10 years? Red ink has turned to black. Job creation is up. Interest rates are down. We are on the right track.

However, we cannot be complacent. The markers keep moving in the face of global competition and technological innovation. We need to boost our competitiveness and productivity, not as an end in itself, but rather because today’s world demands that we do so in order to keep and create good, well-paying jobs for Canadians.

What must the government do to ensure that Canada continues to be one of the world's top economic performers? First, we need a sound foundation.

Some in the House will tell us that we can spend our way to the promised land, but they are wrong. That has been tried and it does not work. Neither social justice nor economic strength can be achieved under a government that answers first to its creditors and only second to its citizens.

As the Minister of Finance has said, the government is committed to fiscal prudence, unalterably committed. We have proved that by maintaining a balanced budget even as other nations have slipped into deficit. We have proved that by steadily reducing the debt ratio. We have also proved it by reforming the Canada pension plan so that all Canadians, today's pensioners and tomorrow's, have a public pension on which they can count.

Hard decisions taken in 1995 to get our fiscal house in order have allowed us to reinvest in Canadians' priorities, our social programs, science and technology, and to return more of their hard-earned money to them.

Since 2000, low and middle income Canadians have been reaping the benefits. As of January 1, 2004, our most recent tax cut took effect allowing them to spend more to invest in their own future. These tax cuts, combined with low interest rates, have allowed more Canadians than ever to buy a house of their own.

We have cut taxes for medium and small businesses too. Cutting taxes for small and medium sized businesses, those that are creating most of the jobs in the country, has allowed them to hire more people. It has allowed them to invest in their businesses. It has allowed them to build a vibrant Canada. We have cut those taxes to help create jobs and to build a more dynamic economy, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Equality of opportunity is the pillar of a successful society. What parent has not held up their newborn child wondering what tomorrow holds, knowing that their future depends on the best possible education? Readiness to learn is shaped at the earliest stages of childhood, and that is why early childhood development is a national priority. That is why we will accelerate the implementation of the federal-provincial agreement on early learning and care. That is also why we will provide communities with the diagnostic and remedial tools they need to assess and enhance the learning readiness of their children.

Equality of opportunity is also why we must do more to encourage families to save for the education of their children. The registered education savings plan and associated grants have been very successful, but not all families have received the full benefits of these instruments. A change is required to increase the awareness and use of the RESP among low income families. To that end, the government will develop a new learning bond for every family and for every child born to low income families.

Building on the Canada education savings grant, we will provide a starter grant, a new incentive, to encourage savings for post-secondary education. Over time the value of the learning bond will grow and over time the government's contribution will be increased as well as resources permit.

It is our responsibility to provide a solid foundation for the future education of our children. This is among the finest commitments that we can make. Today we have taken an important added step toward fulfilling that commitment.

The situation facing those who are about to decide on a post-secondary education path, or those who are currently embarked upon it, requires immediate action. To this end, the Speech from the Throne sets out our plan to overhaul the student loan and grant program. We will increase access for moderate and low income families to better reflect the higher costs of education. We will help those who earn while they learn and better address student debt. We will help low income students get in the door with a first year education grant.

In the new economy education comes in many forms. Over the last several years I have visited many union training centres. They are an essential part of our education system and they should have a much stronger relationship with government.

There are many union leaders, some are in the gallery, with whom I have had--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

The right hon. Prime Minister knows that referring to the presence of persons in the gallery is against the rules. He would not want to set a bad example for other members, however interested, and I would urge him to refrain from this.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

There are many union leaders, none of whom I will point out anywhere, Mr. Speaker, with whom I have had the opportunity to work and whose advice the government could benefit from. That is why we intend to work with unions on their training sites, businesses in the workplace, through the sector councils to develop a new workplace skills strategy boosting literacy and other essential skills.

In the same vein, all of us have heard stories of highly trained immigrants who cannot get a job because their credentials are not recognized. We have also heard of Canadians who cannot get their credentials recognized when they move to another province. Neither case is acceptable. I raised these issues with the premiers last Friday. There was unanimity at the table that we must work together to achieve demonstrable progress as soon as possible.

A world made small and integrated has changed the international rules of the game. I believe Canada has a unique perspective. We must lead the way in developing new thinking about how the international community governs itself.

Everyone agrees: globalization must be made to work for everyone, if it is to work at all. In that context, few countries are as well positioned as is Canada to be the catalyst to make this happen.

In the same vein, peace and freedom, human rights and the rule of law, diversity, respect and democracy are the values that form the foundation of Canada's experience and our success. They are, in truth, potentially our most valuable export. For this reason, we must take up the challenge of building democratic societies, assisting countries broken apart by conflict and giving them life and hope.

One of the distinct ways in which Canada can help developing nations is to provide the expertise and experience of Canadians, in justice, in federalism, in pluralistic democracy.

This is also an opportunity to more fully harness the idealism of young Canadians in this effort. We will therefore create a new initiative, which I am announcing today, called Canada Corps, to help Canadians to participate in this international assistance program, particularly by harnessing the energy of young Canadians and allowing them to learn while they contribute.

This same spirit animates the proposed legislation that will provide anti-HIV/AIDS drugs, and others, at low cost to African countries. I am pleased to advise the House that we will proceed with this legislation. And in recognition of the former Prime Minister's efforts, it will now be titled The Jean Chrétien Pledge to Africa Act.

Building on this, Canada's National Science Advisor will work with the research community to identify additional steps we can take to bring the benefits of our research to bear on the challenges faced by the developing world, from learning technologies to environmental and life sciences.

Our long-term goal as a country should be to devote no less than 5% of our R and D investment to a knowledge-based approach to develop assistance for less fortunate countries. We in Canada are rich in medical science and research. We have a moral obligation to share our capability with those in desperate need.

Our engagement with the world is why it is fitting and most welcome that next month Kofi Annan will be speaking in our Chamber. This demonstrates the importance to Canada of multilateralism and the reform of its most fundamental institution, the United Nations.

My first foreign trip as Prime Minister was to meet with the countries of the Americas at the Monterrey summit. This was an important opportunity for us to develop our hemispheric relations and, significantly for Canada, to take a first step in our new relationship with the United States.

Our government is committed to a more sophisticated approach, not only to manage our shared objectives but also to manage difficult issues such as BSE and softwood lumber, which have exacted such a terrible and troubling toll right across the country. Indeed, it was these subjects that formed a major part of my meeting with President Bush. We want to buttress our mutual understanding by having greater parliamentary engagement with members of the U.S. Congress, greater engagement between Canadian officials and their counterparts, between the representatives of our provinces, our territories and American states and between mayors.

It has been 10 years since we have conducted a review of Canada's foreign policy: the extraordinary influence of the United States worldwide; the economic emergence of China, India and Brazil; the explosion of the global movement of people, goods and capital; the new threats of non-state terrorism; and the rise of new doctrines, such as the responsibility to protect in the wake of genocides, Rwanda and Kosovo. All of these things have changed the way the world looks at itself.

However during these past 10 years Canada too has changed, but our outreach to the world has not, and it needs updating. Therefore the government is developing a contemporary approach to our foreign policy objectives, our trade and our investment needs, our defence requirements and our development assistance programs. This may seem remote from the daily experience of some, but in truth it is about our role in the world. It is about our interests and it is about how to make our trade and our diplomacy advance. It is about ensuring that as we invest in defence that we do so to meet the next challenge and not the last one. It is about our values and how to make international assistance reflect them.

The ideas that I have described here are part of an outline of a future Canada. To achieve that future, Canada requires the participation, the engagement and the active debate of all Canadians. That means a democratic debate, resting on open discourse where good ideas win through persuasion and not coercion.

Canadians do not send members of Parliament to Ottawa to simply fill seats. They send them here to fulfill expectations. I believe that begins with adherence to rules and procedures that ensure the integrity of the institution and the individual. That is why we have a stronger code of conduct and new ethical guidelines. It is why we will also have an independent ethics commissioner and a Senate ethics officer. Let there be no doubt about it, the new ethics commissioner will report to the House and will have the authority to review the actions of all members of Parliament, including ministers and the Prime Minister.

The government has a new expenditure review committee to ensure that spending remains under control and accountable, and is closely aligned with the priorities of Canadians. It is also why we will promote continued public service excellence and achievement. Our goal is nothing less than the finest public service in the world, and I believe that goal is shared by each and every public servant.

We will do all of this and we will do more. We will re-engage Canadians with their Parliament. In 1901, after barely a year in the British House of Commons, Winston Churchill gave a speech in which he lamented the party discipline that overrode free thought and free debate. Nothing would be worse than that independent people should be snuffed out and that there should be only two opinions in England: the government opinion and the opposition opinion.

“I believe in personalities”, Winston Churchill said. This government believes in personality too and the responsibility of private members to represent their constituents as they see fit.

I have no doubt that some votes may not go our way, but it is my firm belief that from debate comes strength and from dispute comes clarity. Some in the House and perhaps in the media may try to say that a lost vote is an embarrassment for me or for our government. Well, do not believe them. The real embarrassment would be to have members of Parliament playing silent extras in the epic story of Canada.

I am proud to announce that the government will table tomorrow an action plan for democratic reform. Our goal is clear: to make Parliament what it is supposed to be, a national forum in which citizens of Canada, from every region of our vast land, make their views known and their interests heard, a place where the voices of all Canadians and all its regions are included.

What does that mean? I said that alienation in the west and in British Columbia is not a myth, it is a reality. We must address that reality. It is a question of earning people's trust. So too, we must ensure that the north has greater control of destiny. We must ensure that the people of Quebec recognize themselves within Canada. We must ensure that Ontarians see their ambitions fulfilled and that the hopes and dreams of Atlantic Canada, as reflected in the report, Rising Tides, are realized.

We are entering one of the most important decades in our history. A decade where we will seize the opportunities before us. And with a new Parliament, and a new government, we will honour the unparalleled values of our proud nation, a nation confident in its future, our country, our Canada. And that is only the beginning.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to say that it is an epic experience to have the speech by the Prime Minister.

I know that a number of people, probably on both sides of the House, would have a number of questions for the Prime Minister. I would therefore ask for unanimous consent to enter into a short time for questions and comments.

[The Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have just heard the new Prime Minister state his intentions to be an agent of change.

Last week, the Bloc Quebecois stated its expectations with regard to the Speech from the Throne. At that point, I identified the major concerns of Quebeckers who are calling for change, and the issues on which we could measure the Prime Minister's intentions.

The first issue is the most fundamental one for Quebec: respect for its difference. Second, there is the issue of social justice, as seen in the pillaging of the employment insurance fund. Third, we are concerned about the direction the Prime Minister wants to take in foreign policy and defence. The fourth issue is the democratic deficit. The fifth concerns the environment and sustainable development. And finally, there is the issue of government ethics.

The Prime Minister has not responded to any of these. He talks about them but offers no real solution. This is a throne speech that worries Quebec a great deal, one that looks exactly like all the others we have seen in the past. This speech could just as well have been written by Jean Chrétien.

The Prime Minister talks about change. If there is one change that Quebeckers have been waiting for, for a long time, it is a change in the federal government's attitude toward the distinct identity of Quebec. What the people of Quebec are waiting for is that Ottawa will move from a position of denial to one of real recognition of this Quebec difference.

In his speech, the Prime Minister announced that he will be doing exactly the opposite: he will continue to deny the existence of the Quebec nation, no better or worse than other nations, no better or worse than the Canadian nation, but simply different.

The Prime Minister recognizes the first nations, the aboriginal nations—something Quebec did long before Ottawa, by the way—and that is good. But why can he not do the same for the nation of Quebec?

The Speech from the Throne opened with some rather banal observations, but one little sentence caught my attention. That was:

We have our Canadian values—

I could have said exactly the same thing, referring to our Quebec values. The nation of Quebec also has its own values, different ones, and a different way of doing things. This throne speech not only ignores the different nature of Quebec, but announces that it will do everything to remove such a difference.

The Prime Minister has told us, and I quote:

Jurisdiction must be respected. But—

The important word is the word “but”, because his throne speech is stating that, given the multiplication of federal intrusions into Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, jurisdiction will be ignored. Jurisdiction must be respected, but if the needs are there, Ottawa will interfere, even if it lacks jurisdiction or even expertise. Quebec and the provinces will be shown how to handle emergencies, although this government is responsible for the administration of almost no hospitals, with the exception of a few for veterans and the military.

But Ottawa knows best. Ottawa knows everything. It will hire lots of public servants to keep statistics. That is not what we need. We need direct public services, which were cut by this Prime Minister when he was finance minister.

Of course there are needs in health, education and in terms of family policy. We know that, but these needs were created by the current Prime Minister when he cut transfer payments and steadily created the fiscal imbalance.

He chose to give the municipalities the benefits of the GST. We are in agreement there.

But, if the Prime Minister cares so much about health care and education, why not do the same for school boards and hospitals, which also pay GST? For those claiming to be concerned about health care and education, this is something concrete.

The intrusions announced by the Prime Minister abound: health care, education, labour—we learned this morning—families, day care, early childhood education, people with disabilities, research, training and municipalities. The Prime Minister wants to define Canada's priorities, priorities that will once again be imposed on Quebec.

Curiously, there is not a single word in his speech about parental leave. But it is a good example of what makes Quebec different. Quebec is the only jurisdiction in Canada that wants to implement its own, distinct, parental leave program. We had to go to court to get things moving. The Prime Minister has decided to appeal the decision because Ottawa wants to continue to stick its nose where it does not belong, because it finds it unacceptable that Quebec express this difference.

The Prime Minister also makes no mention of the most basic problem in Canada today: fiscal imbalance. While Quebec and the provinces are scraping the bottom of the barrel to fund basic health services, education and help for young families, Ottawa is paying out billions on administration, office furnishings and polls, not to mention sponsorships, the gun registry or the endless scandals at HRDC. Over five years, there has been a 39% increase in the cost of operating the federal machinery, its departments and its programs. That is where our tax dollars went.

On top of that, the Prime Minister tells us he is going to increase the number of intrusions. Having strangled Quebec financially, at a time when needs are growing, the one with the funds takes advantage of the situation to intrude still further.

In no way are the expectations of Quebec and the provinces being met as far as funding, transfer payments and equalization payments are concerned. He has decided to continue with building a Canada in which all the decisions are made in Ottawa and the policy of strangling Quebec financially. If there has been any change at all, it is in the speed at which this Canada is being built; it has picked up.

There is only one conclusion Quebeckers can draw from this statement of intention: sovereignty for Quebec is more urgent than ever.

As for social justice, an important value for Quebeckers, the Prime Minister skipped over this, as usual. There is not one single word about employment insurance, yet this was a serious blot on the Prime Minister's copybook when he was finance minister. His government helped itself to more than $43 billion from the employment insurance fund. This behaviour bears a strange resemblance to that of employers who help themselves to money from their employees' retirement fund and take off with it, often to some tax haven. The Prime Minister has some personal expertise in this area.

Only four out of ten contributors to the fund will be eligible for benefits if they lose their job. The situation is even worse for women and young people.

The Prime Minister, who loves to draw attention to his success in business, knows very well that any insurance company doing such a thing would have gone bankrupt in no time, and its directors would have ended up in court.

The Auditor General says the government failed to respect the intent of the Employment Insurance Act. What more will it take for the Prime Minister to understand that this profound social injustice must be addressed? By ignoring this injustice, he is confirming that he has no intention of changing his attitude and that he is using employment insurance as an employment tax.

How does he who presided over massive cuts in that area plan to address the glaring problem of social housing? Not a word about that.

How does he plan to address the unfair treatment of those seniors who were denied the guaranteed income supplement? Not a word about that either. Seniors are being told, “We are looking out for your good, and we have got your goods”.

This goes completely against Quebec's values, and against my understanding of the Canadian values of solidarity as well. There is nothing new in the area of social justice.

The Prime Minister announced his intention to address the democratic deficit through measures to enhance the role of MPs. That is all very fine and well, but it does not go far enough. The first test will be for the Prime Minister to allow a free vote in the House on the missile defence shield; we want a free vote on this issue.

In addition, the Prime Minister does not say a word about allowing MPs to debate and vote on international agreements entered into by Canada. Yet, there lies the main democratic deficit. While more and more of these agreements affect the lives of people, parliamentarians do not get to debate and vote on them.

Quebeckers are hit twice as hard by this democratic deficit, because they are represented at the international level by a government that does not recognize Quebec's distinct character.

Moreover, the Prime Minister said that the debate on foreign policy and defence is being postponed until next fall, after the election. This is not very democratic, especially since the Prime Minister has already announced that Canada would participate in the missile defence shield, spend billions of dollars on new military equipment, yet allow the Bush administration to develop the foreign policy and have Canada play a complementary role. Washington decides and Ottawa follows. George W. Bush makes the decisions and Canada's Prime Minister follows.

In this speech we should have seen something about the true sources of contention with the U.S.: the missile defence shield, the softwood lumber issue, mad cow disease, or expanding the St. Lawrence Seaway just to keep the U.S. Army happy.

His new Minister of National Defence is a hawk who is for the war in Iraq. At the end of the day, all the fundamental decisions have already been made and the Prime Minister is saying that we can debate all of this after the election. In fact, the Prime Minister is cynically adding to the democratic deficit.

The only area where the Prime Minister seems be taking the right step is on the issue of decontaminating federal sites. On the face of it, that is good news. However, he has it all wrong when it comes to climate change.

The Prime Minister is placing the burden of Canada's commitment to reduce greenhouse gases on individuals when he says, “Environmental stewardship must be everybody’s responsibility”. Pollution comes from a few sectors in particular. I am talking about oil, gas and coal production. The Prime Minister is quite familiar with this sector since he has participated in it.

One day the Prime Minister should explain to the public how he intends to meet Canada's commitment to reduce emissions by 6% based on 1990 levels, while doubling oil production from the tar sands for export to the United States.

How is he going to do that? Is he going to make Quebec pay for the oil industry again? The Prime Minister is careful not to enforce the only valid principle under the circumstances: the polluter pay principle. To read his comments and to hear and see his reactions during debate on Kyoto, he might well favour a polluter paid principle in order to please his friends in Western Canada. Whose interests is he protecting?

There is not one word about the mandatory labelling of GMOs. There is not one word about the widening of the St. Lawrence, a project harmful to the environment and Quebec's economy, just to please the U.S. military.

What about ethics? The Prime Minister has failed in this regard. A bit like those Groupaction reports, all he is promising, for the third time, is to appoint an independent ethics commissioner who reports to the House, as we have long demanded and which seems impossible.

What about the decisions, totally lacking in credibility, made by the current ethics counsellor, Howard Wilson? Will the Prime Minister have those decisions, including those which directly concern him, reviewed by the new commissioner? Will the Prime Minister launch a independent public inquiry so as to finally shed light on all the patronage scandals and misappropriation of funds that accompanied the Liberal government's propaganda campaigns when he was second-in-command?

Will we get to the bottom of the HRDC scandal, which has been under investigation for the past four years, as well as the sponsorship scandal and the CINAR affair? Who is he protecting this time? Will they try to cloud the issue, like his predecessor did?

Speaking of ethics, it took the opposition's stubbornness for the full amount in federal contracts received by the Prime Minister's family business to be made public. We now know that he received $161 million in contracts and not $137,000 as the government claimed for so long. The Prime Minister is saying that when he heard the amount, he knew it was not right. It took him three months to tell us that. He thought things would blow over. That is what he thought. How can he talk about transparency without blushing?

The Prime Minister is also a strong supporter of tax havens. To date, his company, Canada Steamship Lines, has saved over $100 million by opening a financial holding company in Barbados. He told Canadians and Quebeckers, “Tighten your belts and pay your taxes. I am not paying, because I am going elsewhere”. Canada is good for contracts and subsidies, but not for paying taxes. That is what Canada Steamship Lines says; it belongs to the PM's family and used to belong to him.

Under these circumstances, how can he talk about ethics and transparency? There is a great deal of cynicism on the part of the Prime Minister. When it comes to ethical issues, the Prime Minister is doing exactly like his predecessor, except that, this time, we are not talking about a few thousand dollars, but millions of dollars. The situation could get worse for all our fellow citizens.

The Prime Minister had told us to expect changes; he did not deliver. As I said, his throne speech could have been written by his predecessor, Jean Chrétien. This is not a new government. What we have here is the fourth Chrétien government, taking the same attitude in refusing to recognize the Quebec nation, multiplying intrusions and perpetuating the fiscal imbalance that is choking Quebec.

The Prime Minister also clearly showed his intention to perpetuate the social injustices that he himself created by remaining totally silent on issues such as the funnelling off of money from the EI fund; the fact that elderly people were deprived of the guaranteed income supplement; and the acute problem of social housing.

The Prime Minister claims to want to eliminate the democratic deficit, but he does the opposite. His foreign policy is based on the direction taken by the Bush administration. He says there will be a debate on foreign policy and defence after the election, once the money has been spent. He refuses to allow members of Parliament to debate and vote on international agreements.

Speaking of democracy, his cynicism is unprecedented. He also claims to want to protect the environment and to respect Kyoto but, in fact, he is making sure that polluters are protected.

This Prime Minister refuses to respect Quebec's distinctiveness. He is going against the values of solidarity of Quebeckers. He is protecting the interests of rich companies instead of protecting the environment. He would rather defend the interests of the Bush administration than those of ordinary citizens. He is a strong believer in the worst practices related to globalization, tax havens and flags of convenience. He is very proud of Canadians, but not enough to fly the Canadian flag on his own ships.

His sense of ethics is flexible to say the least. If there is a change from the previous government, it is that this one is more cynical. This is why I am moving the following amendment to the amendment:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following: “and that this House finds that the Speech from the Throne denies the existence of the nation and values of Quebec and that it reiterates the federal government's desire to increase its intrusions into the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces”.

This amendment to an amendment is seconded by the hon. member for Drummond.

[The Speaker]

The question is on the amendment to the amendment.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Elk Island.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish that we could have engaged the Prime Minister in some questions because he wanted to have some debate in the House.

He wants to improve parliamentary democracy and make this a place of true debate. I was very sad that unanimous consent was denied at that time.

However, I would like to ask a question of the leader of the Bloc who just spoke. I feel deeply concerned about the fact that, as per his subamendment, he actually expects the government to talk about a Quebec nation within the country in the throne speech.

Canada is a nation and Quebec is one of the provinces, as are all of the other provinces. To say that it has some unique characteristics is certainly true and acceptable.

However, for the Bloc members to continue after 10 years to say that they no longer want to be part of this wonderful country is a great regret to me. I wish that they would change their theme, that they would start singing a new song, and participate fully and wholly in our Confederation in order to make Canada a very strong country from coast to coast.

I know that this has been their raison d'être for all these years. I was hoping, through debate and by reaching out to the Quebec people, that we could make them feel warm and comfortable in our Canadian family.

I would like to hear the member's comments on that specifically, since that is the subject of the subamendment.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here for more than 13 years. Far from changing my mind, my presence here has strengthened my resolve to make Quebec a country because I truly have a better understanding of what goes on here. It is regrettable that, after ten years, my colleague still does not understand that Quebec is a nation. It is such a shame.

The first nations are being recognized, and rightfully so. In 1985, under René Lévesque, the Quebec government recognized that the first nations were not simply groups of individuals, but nations that are no better or worse than others.

I thought it was utterly stupid of former Prime Minister Chrétien to say that Canada was the best country in the world. To George Bush, it is the United States. Every country is the best. It is utterly ridiculous. God cares for every nation equally, even those at war. This is a concept we have to get rid of.

We do not want to be better or worse than any other nation, just different. We are a nation. I am not surprised that my colleague fails to understand; he knows so little about Quebec. His party does not have any support base in Quebec, and I think his question explains why.

What is even sadder than hearing my hon. colleague ask this question—as I said, I understand—is knowing that some Liberal members from Quebec have the same opinion. It saddens me to see that Liberal members from Quebec can sit here and say that Quebec is not a nation, that it does not exist. We have something called the National Assembly. Why National Assembly? Could it be because there is a nation? Maybe. If we were only a society, it would be called a societal assembly, I suppose. But it is called the National Assembly. It was federalists who did that.

Jean Charest also talks about the nation of Quebec. All parties in Quebec refer to the nation of Quebec. Still, there are people who do not understand that. To them, everything has to be exactly the same. It reaches its height in a fit of integrated and institutionalized madness.

When we discussed the mad cow crisis, the former minister of agriculture and agri-food told me, “There is no question of making this a regional issue. In Canada, everyone is equal; the same regulations apply everywhere, and it will be the same thing for mad cow disease”. When you make a mad cow into a symbol of national unity, there is a serious problem. That is where we are at. All the little boxes have to be equal; Prince Edward Island has to be the same as Quebec. We are not a province like the others. We do not even want to be a province like the others; we want to be a country like the others.

In the opinion of this freshly-arrived Prime Minister, things are going to change. From now on, not only will all provinces be the same, but Moose Jaw and Quebec City will be the same, too. I mean no disrespect to Moose Jaw when I say that.

We are a nation. We have a fundamental belief that we are a nation, no better or worse than the rest, but certainly different, a nation that can make its own way in the world, one that has a diversified economy, ranking 14th or 15th in the world. There are smaller countries than ours. There are Nordic countries—I am thinking about Denmark—that are smaller than us and are doing very well. We would have a better relationship because you would then understand that we are a country, we are a nation. We are a nation that does not yet have a country. It will happen, and you will be welcome there.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish others would get into the debate as well.

I certainly agree with the Bloc members when I observe that on many instances the federal government has encroached on provincial jurisdiction. I think that is wrong and I agree with them.

From the western perspective, the problem with Ottawa is in that sense very similar to the problem that Quebec has with Ottawa. The federal government has adversely used its spending power. It has intruded into areas of provincial jurisdiction and usually to considerable detriment to the outcome, for example, health care. I think there is a lot of room for working closely with the provinces. We must always recognize the supreme jurisdiction of the provinces over the delivery of health care.

There are a number of other areas. I recognize and acknowledge that. I also recognize and acknowledge that Canada is a wonderful country. Canada is comprised of all the provinces from Newfoundland and Labrador in the east all the way to British Columbia in the west and the Northwest Territories.

I was born in Saskatchewan. I am a member of the Saskatchewan community and a strong Canadian. My parents immigrated to this country when they were very young, and so I am a first generation Canadian. I cannot forget how my grandparents were grateful that they could come to this country.

I love Canada and I wish that they too loved Canada as the rest of us do.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have things in common. My grandfather too came from another country. He was from Great Britain. My mother's maiden name is Rowley, and she is a proud sovereignist and Quebecker. This has nothing to do with the fact that my grandfather was born in London.

I also love Canada. It will not stop me from loving Canada because Quebec is a sovereign country.

I am sure the hon. member likes the United States. Does he want to be an American because of that? Certainly not. It is because he is proud to be a Canadian. We see the difference and the importance in being a sovereign country. I am sure that the member believes in that.

I also believe that Quebec should be a sovereign country. Sovereignty is good for Canada. It is certainly not a disease for Quebeckers and that is the point.

I respect the United States as he respects the United States; however, he does not want to be an American. I respect Canada, but I do not want to be a Canadian. I am proud Quebecker and I want to have friendly links with Canada and that is it. I have nothing against Canada, just a plain difference.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, may I begin by breaking a rule and noting the presence of the Prime Minister in the House. I wish to thank the Prime Minister for sticking around to hear what we have to say to him.

I want to congratulate the Right Honourable Prime Minister. He has been a conservative politician for a very long time, but there is no way he can suggest he is progressive.

What counts is not what is in the throne speech, but what is not there. This speech does not reflect the Canadian values, and it offers no assistance to Canadian families.

This to me is a good example of what is wrong with this attempt by the Prime Minister to sort of fake to the left as he is going down the political field. It is a fake. It is not just a fake to the left. It is a sort of fake left. We see through it and many other Canadians will see through it as well.

The word “Romanow” does not come up in the throne speech even once. The Liberals have been talking for 10 years about the need to modernize medicare. How is it possible that the throne speech would not mention a home care program, a drug insurance plan, and the Romanow commission recommendations?

I thought that the Prime Minister might make up for the absence of the word “Romanow” in the Speech from the Throne today. I listened carefully what he had to say about health care. Still, it was as if there had been no royal commission on health care by the former Premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Roy Romanow.

This was something that was commissioned by a government that he was part of. The Prime Minister will have a chance to comment after I am finished. We will have a 10 minute question and comment period. I am sure he is skilful enough that he could get up and in the form of a question, answer my question or make a comment as to why he did not mention the Romanow report and why there is not a commitment to closing the Romanow gap.

I am sure all the premiers have told him behind closed doors, even though they have to sing his praises when they come out, that they want Romanow. They want what Roy Romanow recommended, particularly with regard to funding of health care.

The Prime Minister talked about long term stable funding for health care. Why not Romanow? I would hope that the Prime Minister at some point answers that question. He says he wants to debate, let us have one.

What is it that he has against the Romanow commission that he did not mention it in either the Speech from the Throne or in his speech here today? Is he committed to meeting the recommendations of the Romanow report, particularly with respect to the fiscal recommendations of the report? That is very important to us. If the Prime Minister is not prepared to do that then this faking left leaves something to be desired. Of course, it leaves something to be desired in any event.

As concerns foreign affairs, it is strange that the throne speech would not mention the missile defence system project put forward by George Bush, even if this is the Prime Minister's top priority in foreign affairs.

Here is a good example. The Prime Minister has made a career lately--just lately because I do not remember him saying much about this before, but in the last year or so--of talking about the democratic deficit. Why not a commitment in the Speech from the Throne to have a real meaningful debate in the House sponsored by the government.

We could have the government put down what it thinks about star wars or national missile defence. Let us have a debate and let us have a vote on it. Will we have a free vote like the Prime Minister promised? He promises more free votes. Will we have that kind of free vote on something as significant as whether or not Canada will participate in something that the Liberals have always said they are against, which is the weaponization of space?

I say to the Prime Minister, why not? Why no commitment to this kind of debate? That would be a real commitment to dealing with the democratic deficit.

The leader of the Bloc mentioned a whole lot of other things that he would like to see Parliament deal with: the ratification of treaties and all kinds of things.

Here is a topical example for the Prime Minister. I would hope that he might get up at some point and say to us whether or not he agrees with the idea that this should be decided on the floor of the House of Commons and not revealed by stealth over a period of time by various statements made by the Minister of National Defence or others that they have just eased a little bit more into national missile defence but that they still have not had a debate in the House of Commons nor have they consulted Canadians.

The Prime Minister likes to quote Bono: “The world needs more Canada.” I agree. But the Prime Minister will not commit himself to increase our international development assistance, which is one of Bono's proposals.

There was not a word, not a commitment. It might have been a kind of a tip of the hat rhetorically, but there were no commitments there to international development assistance or to meeting those goals. Maybe we could say this about the Prime Minister: at least he is not being a hypocrite.

I think I am on my 14th throne speech, Mr. Speaker, and I have seen a lot of commitments to increase development assistance that never ever got realized.

Now maybe the Prime Minister is just an honest guy; he is not even going to pretend. And of course, as I am reminded by my colleagues, the Prime Minister when he was the minister of finance was responsible for cuts in development assistance and of course for cuts in many other things.

This strikes me as odd. I am sure that somebody watching might wonder how the Prime Minister can pretend that he has somehow landed here from another planet and has come upon the crime scene. He is able to pretend that this is a shame, that this should be done and that should be done, all these things that were promised in the red book. They have not been done during the 10 years when he was the minister of finance. He is prowling around in a crime scene that has his fingerprints all over it and he is saying, “Terrible. We have to do something about this”. Maybe the Prime Minister has something theological to tell us about this incredible power to forgive himself that he has been able to muster.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

My colleagues are getting very excited, Mr. Speaker. It is hard for me to contain them, but let me deal with another subject.

Let me turn to the theme of democracy. If the Prime Minister were really sincere, he would hold a referendum on the principle of proportional representation instead of just making minor and superficial adjustments in the chairmanship of parliamentary committees.

There have been some other little tinkerings that the Prime Minister has been able to wonderfully spin over the last six months as real parliamentary reform. I happen to be one of the last surviving members of the 1986 McGrath committee and the things that we recommended then have still not been implemented. Also, what the Prime Minister has suggested as part of his package--unless he surprises us tomorrow with something real--does not come anywhere near what we recommended back in 1986.

The guts of our recommendation with respect to committee reform was that when members are appointed to committees they should be appointed for the duration of a session or a Parliament and they should be beyond the reach of the whip: no more goon squads.

If the Prime Minister can do that tomorrow, he will have done something. If he can say that from now on when Liberal members begin to have independent thoughts they will not be yanked from the committees, and that when they leave or have to be replaced, they can replace themselves, that they, not the whip, will decide who their replacements will be, that is what the McGrath committee recommended. That then would give true independence to committees, or at least a kind of independence that committees have never had.

So I urge the Prime to take seriously that recommendation as well as others. Otherwise, if the whips, and ultimately the Prime Minister, retain that leash, if at any time the people on the committee can be yanked if they are threatening to make a career ending move, this is not parliamentary reform.

But democratic reform, and the Prime Minister used this phrase, is not just about the House of Commons. We all love this place, some of us more than others, but it is not the only thing happening. How we get here also counts. That is where electoral reform comes in, I say to the Prime Minister. Why could the Prime Minister not have announced--and perhaps he is willing to consider--an all party committee to look into electoral reform, to look into forms of proportional representation? It does not have to be a commitment to a particular kind of electoral reform. Why not allow a debate to take place either here in the House or across the country about ways in which we can make every vote count?

If the Prime Minister is concerned about the health of Canada as a democracy, then he should be concerned that there are so many people out there who feel that their votes do not count. In various first past the post scenarios that voters encounter, they feel that it does not make a difference. We could design a system where it did make a difference and where everybody wherever they vote would be contributing to the ultimate makeup of their Parliament. I commend that particular suggestion to the Prime Minister.

Again with respect to the democratic deficit, I did not really expect the Prime Minister to deal with this one: the trade agreements. What is more antithetical to a healthy democracy than to have more and more decisions made not in legislatures, not in parliaments and not by elected people, but behind closed doors as a result of arguments being made by high-priced trade lawyers, bean counters or whatever? That is not democracy. For more and more of the things that we were able to decide in this House when I first arrived here almost 25 years ago, we are not able to decide those things anymore. They are decided somewhere else. I say that is the real threat to democracy.

The fact is that we cannot decide what kind of drug patent legislation we want to have. We must have the kind of drug patent legislation that conforms with trade agreements. The fact is that apparently we could not allow a Canadian company to do a portion of the census work that is now being done by Lockheed Martin because a former minister of industry, now the ambassador to the UN, said it was the trade agreement that made him do it. When it comes to sovereignty, when it comes to culture, when it comes to all kinds of things, we have seen the ability of this House to make decisions constricted by trade agreements.

Again I would say to the Prime Minister that if he is concerned about democracy he should look at the way in which the trade agreements are taking away the power of parliaments to make decisions in the public interest. Nothing could be more threatening to that ability of countries or parliaments to act in the public interest than chapter 11 of the NAFTA, the investor state dispute settlement mechanism. While the Prime Minister was part of the last government, I thought for a while that the former minister of trade, now the Minister of Health, at one point was actually coming around to the view that there was something wrong with that investor state dispute mechanism.

But now he defends it--although now he does not have to defend it anymore as somebody else has the job of defending it, of defending the indefensible--and we in Canada are left as one of the few countries in the world that has this mechanism built into an agreement with our biggest trading partner. It will never be in the FTAA. It will never be at the WTO. The European Union and others have seen what a threat this is to their ability to act in the public interest, particularly with respect to the environment, which the Prime Minister expresses a concern about. Is the Prime Minister not concerned that if we act in the best interests of the environment, and if that act conflicts with the profitability of certain corporations, if they are foreign corporations they can they take the Canadian government to court? Should that not be a concern? Is that not anti-democratic?

So I will say to the Prime Minister that I think he should be looking at the trade agreements but I do not really expect him to, because I remember 1988 when the Prime Minister first came here. It was right after he was first elected that we had the final debate and vote on the free trade agreement. I do not know if the Prime Minister remembers this, but just after the vote I remember stepping into an elevator with him right out here--with the Liberals of course voting against it--and saying, “You're not really against this thing, are you?” Because he was a right-wing business Liberal, the Prime Minister, and he still is. He knew enough not to answer the question. He just smiled and got off the elevator.

The Liberals have been, after Mulroney, the architect of more and more free trade. They have shored it up politically and rhetorically and with more agreements. So it is hard to take all this democratic deficit stuff seriously without some kind of commitment to electoral reform, without some kind of re-examination of the trade agreements, particularly chapter 11, and without real parliamentary reform that actually puts members beyond the reach of the whips when they are on committees.

There is a lot more I could say. Right now the steelworkers in Hamilton are worried about their pensions. They are worried about the future of Stelco but they are also worried about their pensions. Was there some kind of commitment in the throne speech to do something about safeguarding the pensions of the workers who count on these pensions? I would have thought that the Prime Minister might have had a passing interest in Hamilton. Maybe he just does not want to even think about Hamilton, and the steelworkers get sideswiped because he does not want to think about Hamilton so they do not get thought about. But we should be thinking about them. We should be thinking about workers all over this country who are insecure about their pensions and about what happens to their pensions when the companies that they work for go under.

What about the strategy for the auto industry in this country? Nothing was mentioned. There was no hint of an industrial strategy. Perhaps the auto strategy has to be left up to one of the leadership candidates for the other party, who seems to have her own auto strategy.

In any event, as I have said, I have heard a lot of throne speeches and I would say that this one was particularly light on details. Maybe that is because we are so close to an election and the Prime Minister does not want to have to defend anything in particular.

But I will say to the Prime Minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that the NDP is on the move. And the Prime Minister knows it. That is why we have had this sort of fake to the left while he is going down the political football field, but it is not going to wash, because there is no Romanow and no debate on missile defence, and a whole lot of other things are missing. If the Prime Minister really wanted to be authentically moving to the left, we would have seen it in this particular Speech from the Throne.