Debates of Feb. 4th, 2004

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is well aware that one of the tenets of the medicare system is the fee for service payment principle, and that of course was one of the recommendations of Emmett Hall.

I absolutely agree with the hon. member. One of the things we have to look at is whether that is the most effective way to deliver health care services. More and more physicians are talking about the possibility of working in community health centres with a health care team, with nurses and other members of the health care team, on a salary basis as opposed to setting up a corporation, as my friend has spoken of, and billing through fee for service.

He is right. There are other alternatives that we have to look to in terms of the method of payment for health care services, and certainly that is one of them.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly concerned about the member's comments about Mr. Romanow and his report. I come from that province. During the Romanow regime, 53 hospitals were closed in that province.

In my particular riding today, in the city of Prince Albert, we have lost 16 doctors who we cannot replace. A third party has been monitoring our health care system and giving a report card. The average waiting period in Saskatchewan for surgery is now 29 months. Imagine taking a car to a service station and being told to bring it back in 29 months for the engine to be fixed or repaired. For MRIs, 22 months are the highest waits for what should be automatic, like an X-ray machine, especially if one has cancer. Most Saskatchewan people are going to Minot, Calgary and Edmonton, Alberta to get their MRIs.

Does the hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas think governments should be prohibiting people from gaining MRIs from Minot, Edmonton and Calgary private clinics for the betterment of their health--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has spoken of history. I believe he is a Saskatchewan member of Parliament. I know that he would want to share the full history with the members of the House and remind them of the absolutely disastrous legacy of Grant Devine, the Conservative premier of Saskatchewan, who unbelievably now is saying that he wants to present himself as a candidate, and I forget which party it was, maybe the hon. member could help me on that one, for the Conservative Party. He wants to be a member of Parliament for the Conservative Party after his record of running Saskatchewan into the ground with massive deficits in health care, one of the most corrupt and dishonest governments the country has ever seen.

If the hon. member is asking for unanimous consent for time to be able to talk a bit more about the history of that corrupt Grant Devine government, I would be delighted to agree to that.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in case my colleague from Prince Albert does not get a chance to mention more about Grant Devine, I will. I am originally from Saskatchewan as well and as I travelled from Manitoba into Saskatchewan during the Grant Devine years, I literally watched a province die. In small rural community towns like Melfort, Kinistino, Tisdale, businesses were closing left, right and centre. There was a sell-off of the highways department. Saskatchewan had the worst roads in the country under the Devine era. There was debt after debt. It was a corrupt government absolutely.

I often said I did not know what the NDP would do when it got back into power because it had a mess to clean up and by God, it has cleaned it up. The NDP does its darndest to balance the budget and does its darndest to provide services to its citizens, a good many of whom are my relatives. I will vouch for the fact that it is not easy, but I understand where the NDP is coming from because it had to clean up a huge mess in Saskatchewan.

Obviously Grant Devine stirs up passion in us because it was such a corrupt government in Saskatchewan. It was one of those shameful moments. We all have our shameful moments at different points that we have to relate to, and the one I have is knowing that Saskatchewan actually had such a corrupt government after having had such great governments in the past under Romanow, Douglas and Blakeney. They were wonderful governments and then Saskatchewan was stuck with someone like Grant Devine. I only hope if he is deciding to run in an upcoming election, that citizens in that area consider the type of member of Parliament they have had before as compared to Grant Devine.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the Speech from the Throne today. A number of comments have been made already about the omissions from the throne speech and the concerns we have as a result of those omissions. We cannot help but wonder what the agenda is when there is no mention of certain facets within the throne speech.

This may be the first time there has been absolutely no mention of seniors in the throne speech, the people who built our country, the people who suffer the greatest with the cuts to medicare. Seniors have suffered some of the greatest trials with cuts to the medicare system. There was no mention of what we are going to do to improve the lives of seniors, to improve their incomes by increasing their pensions and the OAS. There was nothing like that. My colleague from the Bloc will be happy because there was no comment about retroactivity on the GIS payments. There was nothing there.

The forgotten people of Canada were the seniors, the people who built our country. There was no mention of them.

There was also no mention of home care or pharmacare services for seniors. If we have to start somewhere, why not start with seniors by making sure we provide them with those services? The people who have built our country are now in their vulnerable years and what are we doing? There was not a mention, but there was certainly mention of corporations and tax cuts and making sure we stick to those tax cuts. That was in there for sure.

It was interesting to note that there was no mention of Romanow. Of course if it had mentioned the Romanow report, it would have had to mention home care and pharmacare and additional supports within the health care field, such as the 25% federal government responsibility within health care so it can be brought up to some semblance of what it was at some point. Even Monique Bégin, the former Liberal health minister, strongly supported an increase in funding. I recall her saying at one time that it should be at least 50%. Romanow was not even saying that; he was saying we should start at 25% and work up.

If we are not going to continue paying for a universal health care system in Canada, what are we saying? Are we saying to heck with the people around us, that they pay for their own health care?

Are we going back to the way it used to be when the doctor checked the health of the cow before he saw the patient because he would be paid with the cow? That was the reality of health care in Canada. If someone could not afford to pay, the doctor might get the cow or something else. That was the reality.

Is that what Canada is? Is that the progressive step the Liberal government wants to take? I sincerely hope not.

I listened to the right hon. Prime Minister yesterday. In his comments about the throne speech, he talked about travelling the country for a year listening to Canadians. Quite frankly, he did not have to travel the country for a year to listen to Canadians to find out what to do on health care. The Romanow commission did that very thoroughly and came up with an excellent report that got no support from the Liberal government.

The Prime Minister should have been honest. He travelled the country and was listening to Liberal leadership backers. That was it. Let us at least be honest with Canadians. If he did not listen to seniors who were totally left out of the throne speech, then he did not listen to Canadians. Seniors have been very clear on what they need in order to have fruitful lives in their senior years. They were extremely disappointed that there was absolutely no mention of the seniors in Canada in the throne speech.

Again, to comment on what is mentioned in relation to aboriginal Canadians, I would suggest quite readily that everyone, including the aboriginal people of Canada, get a copy of the other throne speeches from the Internet. I want people to compare what has been said about aboriginal Canadians in this throne speech to the ones that go back 10, 15 or 20 years. People would be hard pressed to find much difference.

We are going to promise to make things better economically. We are going to promise to improve the education of kids on reserves. We are going to promise to improve the infrastructure, the water and sewers. We are going to promise to improve the housing. We are going to get everyone out of poverty. All of that was there 10 years ago and the government has done nothing to address those issues. Nothing.

It is not okay just to put the words in the throne speech. It is not okay just to say we are going to have this wonderful program and put this much money in when what we do on the other side is say, “If you cannot give us this much money as well, we are not going to give you any”. We all know that the communities have a hard time funding a lot of their programs because they only have so much money to work with.

Another area which is greatly disappointing in the throne speech is education, lifelong learning. One of the staff in my office was extremely disappointed because she is recently out of university. She was talking to me about the student loans and what it is like. Her comment was, “Yes, lifelong learning and a life sentence of paying the debt from that learning”. This is nothing, suggesting that we can put more money into loans, suggesting that we are going to make it easier for lower income families to access the loans and to put money into RRSPs. When I heard the Prime Minister say that the low income people can put more money into RRSPs, what it reminded me of, and he is not going to like this I am sure because I am going to compare him to Marie Antoinette who said that if they don't have food, let them eat cake.

It is just not acceptable to say “You low income people living on $25,000 or $30,000 a year who are paying for your rent, your hydro, your food and everything else, you are just falling short by not being able to put money into an RESP for your child”. When they cannot afford to live day by day, it is not acceptable.

What would be acceptable? I am not suggesting that we give students something for nothing, even though I think that would be ideal. We would benefit as a country if they could get an education and everyone who had aspirations to be a doctor or a teacher would not have to worry about being able to pay the money back for 10, 15 or 20 years. It would be great if we could do that. We would not have some of the shortages that we have because there would be more opportunities.

We should at least have low to no interest loans for students. Do not hold them to bankruptcy rules for the rest of their lives, and it seems to be that way sometimes. Give them a real opportunity. Give them the supports because it is not acceptable the way we are doing it now.

Quite frankly, here in Ottawa the Canadian Federation of Students spoke loud and clear. The students are doing that throughout the country. This is not good enough. I hope they come out loud and clear in the upcoming election and tell the government that this is not good enough, that it has to come through for Canadians. It cannot just give big corporations tax cuts, and I am saying big corporations because those tax breaks are not acceptable when others have to pay their way. If the government can do that, then surely it can invest in the future of Canada, because the future is there.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I think we would all agree on in the House of Commons is that we all want to debate issues and priorities and in which direction we want to take the country. Every party has a different perspective and independents have different perspectives and that is healthy.

One of the things that I have seen is just terrible in terms of democracy, and we were supposed to have some reform today but it was vacant again. It is the mere fact that we do not, as parliamentarians, have any type of genuine accounting in terms of the resources that are available to Parliament to make decisions in the country.

I am talking about the fact that the government continues to play the game of saying it has no money one week and the next week it has lots of money, then it has no money again and then it is going to find some by looking through the books. How many years after 10 years in government do the Liberals have to look through the books and find more billions of dollars, all in a manner of moments? That is not right. What we should be doing is understanding our finances, understanding the ability and time when the money is coming in and debating intelligently on how we want to spend it. That is fair.

I was very disappointed that the throne speech had a number of different promises, suggestions and platitudes but it did not address the principal fact that we have a problem right now. The Prime Minister was $40 billion off in his financial projections. That is not democratic. That is a huge deficit there. It does not matter if it is actually stealing money from workers and using it later on for other situations. The reality is we as parliamentarians need to make educated decisions about those resources.

How does the hon. member feel about the fact that we did not get that reform or commitment in the Speech from the Throne and what does that do for the Prime Minister's democratic reform platform?

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any question that the Prime Minister's words of democratic reform and making Parliament more transparent were just words. He had an opportunity to make some real change and that did not happen.

The member mentioned being out a couple of billion dollars. When I was a summer student I worked at the parks for the Saskatchewan government, a very good government at that time if I recall correctly. We would cash out at the end of the day. I was working in a park store. If we were under a certain amount of money, there was real concern. A few cents were acceptable. If we were over that amount of money, there was real concern as well because we had ripped off the people coming to the store. We had taken more money than we should have. That was a matter of a few dollars. What we see with the government is a plus or minus of $4 billion. At what point is it acceptable? It is not okay. If the Liberals cannot budget better than plus or minus $4 billion, they should get out.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague called my attention specifically to an issue that interests me a great deal and that I defend with vigour.

I would like to hear my colleague on another issue, namely democratic reform, but since I have only two minutes, I will try to be brief.

With respect to democratic reform, does the Prime Minister, who prides himself on wanting to reform Parliament, not have an excellent opportunity—talking about seniors and the guaranteed income supplement for instance—to listen to MPs who unanimously expressed at parliamentary committees the wish that those who were robbed when they did not get the guaranteed income supplement be reimbursed? I would like to hear my hon. colleague on this.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, and if all Canadians were informed that the government has ripped off seniors for so many dollars and is saying that they cannot have it because they did not let the government know within so many years when it really owes it to them, they would be extremely disappointed.

We will continue to get the message out there that the government has total disregard for seniors. The government has shown this by not mentioning them in the throne speech and it continues to show this by refusing to pay retroactively on the GIS.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development (Social Economy)]

Mr. Speaker, as I have not had the opportunity to rise in the House for quite some time, I first want to wish a happy new year to all my constituents in my riding of Ahuntsic, who gave me the privilege and honour of representing them here in the House.

Second, I want to thank the Prime Minister for entrusting me with new responsibilities in the House, and about which I am very passionate.

I want to focus today on what the throne speech said about the social economy, which the Prime Minister has made me responsible for.

I want to begin by quoting the World Health Organization. It states:

Societies that enable all their citizens to play a full and useful role in the social, economic, and cultural life of the society will be healthier than those whose people face insecurity, exclusion, and deprivation.

People will ask me, when my title is read out: What is the social economy? It is a relatively new term but one that has been used over the centuries in different terminology. Cooperatives is one example that is used in the rest of the country. In Quebec we talk about l'économie sociale.

I also want to make reference to what actually is the terminology used by the department to which I also have the honour of being parliamentary secretary. The way social economy is defined in terms of the department is that it is made up of foundations, cooperatives, mutual societies and associations that engage in economic activities with social goals. Through their activities and actions, they support their members, citizens at large and the community.

The concept is based on values of sustainable development, equal opportunity, the inclusion of disadvantaged people and civil society.

The social economy is rooted in entrepreneurship and independent community action. However, its main focus, which is what I really like about this file, is the fact that it empowers citizens to effect change and to effect change at the community level but in partnership with both the private sector, the public sector and a whole range of other partners at the local level.

As I said, the concept itself dates back to the early reflections of the 18th century and even the 19th century where we had the workers' movement, for instance trade unions, in various parts of the world. In the western world the social economy became more in vogue after the 1990s when we saw that the markets began to have a different dynamism than they did before. Market solutions to social problems is a relatively new concept. However, as I said, the form that it took before, the cooperatives, has been around for quite a while, especially in the 1970s.

On page 12 of the throne speech, for those who are interested, the government laid out how it views the social economy. It states:

And the Government will help communities to help themselves.

One of the best ways to do this is to get behind the remarkable people who areapplying entrepreneurial skills, not for profit, but rather to enhance the social andenvironmental conditions in our communities right across Canada.

In the Prime Minister's speech, on page 31 of the Debates of the House of Commons , he stated the following: “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”.

The Prime Minister continued as follows:

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.

He said further:

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.

I think that is why he assigned such an interesting and exciting mandate to me. That is why we must put in place at the federal level tools these groups can use in their activities.

I also want to mention a group that has been actively involved in this area in recent years. I am talking about the Chantier de l'économie sociale du Québec. Following the Speech from the Throne and the Prime Minister's remarks, the Chantier issued a press release, stating:

The Speech from the Throne and the Prime Minister's remarks constitute unequivocal recognition of how important the social economy is to the social fabric and the economic vitality of our communities. The Canadian government is thus recognizing the pluralistic character of our economy, which is based not only on market and government activities, but also on the contribution of a collective entrepreneurship dedicated to the well-being of its members and our communities.

Such government recognition is meaningful, as it requires government to commit the tools and effort necessary for the development of social economy enterprises, as confirmed in the Speech from the Throne and the Prime Minister's reply this morning in the House. These commitments should translate into an efficient response tailored to the specific needs of social economy enterprises, particularly in terms of capital and openness to various entrepreneurial support programs.

That is exactly the point I would like to address now, because what is important is to recognize organizations that have been active for a long time in the social economy.

First, I will focus on some in the riding of Ahuntsic, which I represent. I would also like to pay tribute to them. One example is the Corbeille Bordeaux-Cartierville.

Corbeille Bordeaux-Cartierville—“corbeille” refers to a basket—is a restaurant, a caterer and a frozen food delivery service. It is a business that reintegrates into the work force workers who need training.

There is also a furniture restoration workshop in Ahuntsic-Cartierville, known as AMRAC. It, too, has the goal of reintegrating workers. They restore and sell used furniture. It is amazing what they produce. AMRAC's furniture is very popular in the riding of Ahuntsic.

Another example is the Association récréotouristique Ahuntsic-Cartierville. The Bistro des Moulins, on Visitation Island, is another group promoting the social economy. All of these organizations are supported by the Corporation de développement économique communautaire of Ahuntsic-Cartierville. They provide some funding.

One of the most important groups in Quebec—somewhat outside the boundaries of the riding of Ahuntsic—is the Chantier de l'économie sociale. This organization supports development and counsels businesses and business networks in a way that complements existing networks. For a number of years, it has been one of the essential partners in the economic activity sector in Quebec.

Another is the Réseau d'entrepreneurs en économie sociale, which is a network of social economy organizations. Its goals are to provide promotional and other services to assist growth and development, while fostering recognition of an image based on the quality of the products and businesses involved.

Many of these businesses hire people with disabilities, women and immigrant women.

I will finish by saying that in both the Speech from the Throne and the Prime Minister's speech there were certain recommendations that came out through the consultations that I did as parliamentary secretary and through the consultations I had with the Prime Minister when he was the finance minister and when he was running for the leadership. Some of those recommendations ended up in both the Speech from the Throne and in the Prime Minister's speech.

We will be looking at all the funding programs on the federal level to ensure that they have better access to funding and core funding of social economy organizations. We will also look at regional development programs and make sure they also are accessible to the social economy partnership.

The last comment I want to make before I finish has to do with the Canadian CED Network which is building a fund to mobilize and plan communities. I thank the Prime Minister again for making this one of the priorities in his speech and in the throne speech.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I listened very carefully to the throne speech and it was like I was living in 1993 again, just over and over.

I looked at a statement in here on page 9, talking about the reserves:

...the conditions in far too many Aboriginal communities can only be described as shameful.

That was written in 1993, 1997, 2000 and now 2004. I guess we are not doing a very good job of addressing these dismal conditions that exist on the reserves. We got a reprint. We got a rerun.

I remember hearing it loudly in 1993 that we had one million children, the future of our country, living in poverty, what a disgraceful situation that was, and that we would join with the United Nations and eliminate that by the year 2000. Well, it is 2004. We do not have one million children in poverty anymore. According to Statistics Canada, we have 1.5 million. What progress, what wonderful progress.

We are supposed to get excited over a document that continually repeats and repeats itself, year after year. We are supposed to stay awake and listen to it, and in the meantime we have problems across the whole country. Farmers are going under but there was no mention of that.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to a what I thought was perhaps not a question, I want to draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that in the social economy file there is a group that is working on the prairies with aboriginal groups. It is called the Kitsaki Management Limited Partnership, and it in fact deals with La Ronge First Nation Band Council which created it. In partnership, it has established businesses that generate economic and social benefits for band members. That is why the social economy is one that allows the aboriginal people or other disadvantaged groups in our society to build some sort of business.

According to what I have in front of me, Kitsaki has between 20% and 100% ownership interest in businesses ranging from bulk hauling, mining support operations, hospitality, wild rice, financial services, catering and janitorial services, beef jerky and a sawmill. This is one example and it is one of the largest companies in Saskatchewan, as a matter of fact. Therefore, if the hon. member wants to look at what the social economy can offer the aboriginal people, these are very good examples.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for her speech and for her service as a Speaker of the House prior to her new position.

I come from the background of the social economy. I worked for the Association for Persons with Physical Disabilities and for the CNIB as a board member. I also worked at the multicultural council, mostly in the capacity of assisting people with employment and youth counselling as well as career work.

We have been basically thrust into a position where a lot of our not for profit organizations in the supposed social economy are on the brink. There is one specific I would like to ask the hon. member about. Why can the government afford tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest in the country but not provide at least a write-off or notification for voluntary service, which is eligible in other countries including the United States?

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. member takes the time to look at the Speech from the Throne he will see on page 12 the voluntary sector initiative that began last year. It has to be expanded. I will agree with the hon. member in that I think we have to do more in terms of helping the social economy organizations. That is one of the reasons that the Prime Minister in fact gave me that responsibility: to come up with suggestions.

If the hon. member has suggestions and recommendations to make, I have been meeting with the stakeholders, and yes, they have let me know that these are some of the problems they face. And yes, it is my responsibility in some ways to make sure that the government responds to those needs. I want to tell the hon. member that I also worked for Centraide, on the executive board, in fact, and some of these issues have come up over the 25 years I have contributed to the voluntary sector.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have never spoken in the House from this angle. I am usually at the other end. This is a new experience. I will try to get used to it.

A lot of the discussion in this place and during the past couple of years has been around this issue of a democratic deficit. It has struck me that there is a democratic deficit, perhaps, in the nation and that maybe one of the things we need to do when we look at it here, if we really want to enhance the role of members of Parliament, is that we should have a situation where the opposition does not simply criticize and the government simply defend.

Maybe we should analyze the issues as they are before us. Perhaps some of us on this side of the House, if we want to have an enhanced role as a member of Parliament, as a backbencher, should be asking some of the tough questions, and maybe the opposition should listen to them.

I read the Speech from the Throne and of course I could stand here and say that I think the commitment to the environment is wonderful and I think the commitment to children is terrific, and it is important, it is all very Liberal and it is what we all believe in, et cetera, but I want to talk about things that I did not see there that I am a bit concerned about.

There is only one spot in the entire document where I saw the words “affordable housing”. We talk about a new deal for cities. It is fine if we are going to give more money to cities and municipalities and fund it directly. Can we then be assured, number one, that the provincial governments or the territorial governments are not going to simply claw back the same amount of money from their contributions? Can we be assured of that? I do not care where the money comes from: GST or gas tax, it does not matter. Can we be assured that it is going to go to the services the municipalities are claiming they cannot afford to provide for their communities? We cannot be, not unless we have some agreements in place.

I would argue that one of the things I would have loved to have seen in the throne speech is a commitment to use Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, a crown corporation, as a true housing company to deliver programs directly to communities and municipalities, and frankly, in the way they used to. I would argue that we have a crown corporation with some of the finest staff in Canada, and with a tremendous board, politically appointed but very much tuned in. These people could work with our municipal partners. They could work with provincial governments where appropriate, but they could also then work with private for profit and non-profit corporations, communities, groups or whatever to deliver affordable housing.

I do not see that in the throne speech. What I see is a blanket statement that says we are going to cut a new deal for cities. Let us get real. The cities want to keep their taxes low and I do not blame them. My wife is a municipal politician and I was one myself. No one wants to increase their taxes. If I can get the federal government to increase their taxes and give me the money, then that sounds like a pretty good deal. It is called lack of accountability and lack of transparency.

I just give a message. If this is the new role for backbench MPs in the government, my message to the government is, “Do not give the ship away. Do not just say to municipalities that we are going to give them all this money without making sure that we have an agreement with provincial and territorial partners who are going to participate equally and who are going to ensure that we in fact do address the shortfall”. Never mind the democratic deficit. Let us talk about the affordable housing deficit, because it is real.

I was in Saint John, New Brunswick, where I saw some of the problems. Saint John has a vacancy rate somewhere in the neighbourhood of 6%. If we take away the homes that we would not allow our dogs to live in, that vacancy rate goes down to 1.5%. Who is doing anything about that?

We announced a contribution of $1 billion total, two tranches of money, $680 million plus $320 million, to be matched by the provinces to build affordable housing. We have not seen it happen in Saint John yet and it is a terrible, unacceptable situation.

We talk about the number of children living in poverty, but do people know that in the greater Toronto area there are 5,000 kids living in shelters? This is in Canada. This is unacceptable.

My message is for those under all governments, and if people want to be partisan, be partisan, but the provincial Tories did not do anything about it either. I am not talking about partisanship here. I am talking about how we should all work together on both sides of the House to solve some of these problems. The first place to start is for us as a government is to admit that there is a problem, that there is a deficit.

What does a kid say when he goes to school and walks into a schoolyard? The first thing somebody says to him is, “Hi, what's your name?” What is the second question? It is, “Where do you live?” We know what the answer is for those 5,000 kids: “I live in a shelter”.

In the city of Calgary, 50% of the people who live in shelters have jobs. They actually go to work every day. They walk out the door. They send their kids to school and they go work at a minimum wage job. They meet them back at the shelter that night and, God willing, have something to eat and a place to sleep. What does that child say in the schoolyard? “I live in a shelter. I live at the Y”.

This is unacceptable. I want to say to my government that it is time we admitted there is a problem. We cannot fix it overnight. The problem did not occur overnight. It is from decades and decades of neglect by all governments, municipal, provincial and federal. All parties involved in the process have stood by and neglected this situation. Now we find, in a country with as much wealth as Canada, that we have 1.8 million Canadians living in core need, which means they are paying 50% and 60% of their gross pay for shelter. This means that at the end of the month there is not enough money left to buy food so they go to a food bank. This is unacceptable.

As a member of Parliament, I am willing to accept my share of the responsibility. I think everybody should. Instead of just standing up and saying, “you bad government, you must fix this”, why do we not collaboratively come up with a way to fix it together?

If we want to do something about the democratic deficit that allows backbench MPs in the government to stand up and do something other than just sing the praises of throne speeches, that is fine with me, because I have seen the problems on the ground. I was the minister responsible for eight months and I cried some nights when I saw the depth of the despair that Canadians are living in. It is absolutely unacceptable.

There is another deficit that I want to talk to members and the Canadian people about. We have a serious problem that has occurred in this country since 9/11. That is where the real deficit is. There is racial and religious profiling going on in our communities. It is going on in our police departments. It is going on in the RCMP. It is going on in CSIS. It is going on in government. Anybody who looks like me would not understand it, because it does not happen to me, but it happens to dark-skinned people in this country. Whether they are Muslim, Hindu or Sikh, it does not matter. It happens.

I can tell members first-hand the story of Mohamed Attiah, who worked as an engineer--and still does, thank God--for AECL at Chalk River. Ten days after 9/11, CSIS and the RCMP walked into his office, interviewed him for a couple of hours and left with no charges, allegations or anything. He went to lunch, but when he came back from lunch his security pass had been cancelled, his door locks had been changed and his employment had been terminated. Why? Supposedly some kind of connection to al-Qaeda. I investigated this with the solicitor general and we found that Mr. Attiah was totally profiled and targeted for no reason other than the fact he was a Muslim. He has been in the country 30 years and is a Canadian citizen.

It is absolutely unacceptable. It is happening in Canada right under the noses of parliamentarians. I call on every member in the House to stand and say we are not going to allow it to continue, that we are going to fight that deficit. That, Mr. Speaker, is the true democratic deficit in this country.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for a very passionate speech. On this side of the House I appreciated some of the passion he contributed. On the other side they needed a cup of coffee to get through it.

Nonetheless, I want to at least note that the issues about cities, municipalities and all those things, on which we have had a lot of discussion in the House of Commons, will not be solved by simply providing something back which should not have been taken in the first place.

I am concerned with the fact that we have so many municipalities in Ontario that are literally looking at double digit tax increases coming up in the fiscal year. I want to ask one quick question related to that and a second one related to the second part of his speech.

First, what types of things should they lock the money in? If the government's intention is to lock this money in municipalities and make them do certain things then what should those things be?

The second and most important question has to do with the racial and ethnic profiling that is happening. I live on the border in Windsor, Ontario. We have watched the United States government fingerprint and photograph our citizens. Doctors, lawyers, professionals and working class people who have employment in the United States have actually been pulled over, fingerprinted and photographed and the government has not spoken up about it yet. When will the government do that for our citizens?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Prime Minister say that the United States has to respect our passport. I think so do we.

Mississauga is a bit of a border community too. It is not very far away. There are two borders actually. I have constituents who phone me all the time. A constituent called me yesterday to say that he was pulled over and questioned for three hours. This is a man who has been in Canada for 30 years with his family and is a Canadian citizen. There was no reason to detain him for that length of time. He felt degraded, cheated and improperly dealt with.

Yes, we have to send a strong message. The government must stand up for Canadian citizens going into the United States. However I will tell members that it also happens to Canadian citizens coming back into Canada. It is a two-way street. The Americans should absolutely respect a Canadian citizen but Canadian people who work at the borders have to respect that as well.

As far as the other issue on the municipalities, the municipalities, in my opinion, give us the best services of any level of government. We see it and we know what they do. It is the garbage, the police, the fire, the parks and recreation, the roads and the snowplow. We all know what we get. It is not like the senior levels of government where all the money goes in a black hole and we cannot figure out where the money went or what it is going to. Let them do what they do best and serve their constituents.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member and his comments on partisan politics. I could not agree more.

I would like to know what the member thinks of the promise that was given by the Liberals when they went into Saskatchewan and the western provinces and said that they would address western alienation but that the population had to send a Liberal MP to Ottawa and then they would get something. What does the member think about that? What is so good about it?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, people will politic no matter what. We are not going to change that, particularly in election times. People will make the suggestion that sending a government member is better for the constituency. I would not try to be naive enough to suggest we can change that.

However there are things that have been neglected that I think need to be looked at in Saskatchewan. In northern Saskatchewan the Metis housing situation is unacceptable and deplorable. I think the government can indeed do something about that by working with the province of Saskatchewan.

When there is an opposition member who holds a seat, that person should not be excluded from having input into the solution. If that member is responsible, and we tone down the partisan rhetoric on the issue, then I believe we will find ministers willing to sit down at the table with opposition members and find ways to solve them.

Again, not to be naive, we are never going to take out of the system the cut and thrust of debate, nor should we. We have different views as the Liberal Party than the Canadian Alliance or the Conservative Party might have, and different views than the New Democrats might have. That is what we have policy functions for. That is why we put together red books, government programs and speeches from the throne.

However the point is that once we get into the job, we should do what we do in committee and do what we do when we travel together: work together. It can happen.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the hon. member for the NDP speak about seniors. That was one of my main topics today because seniors were totally left out of the throne speech. Of the 23 pages in the throne speech, only about 10 words referred to seniors, and I cannot accept that.

Statistics Canada has reported that between 1991 and 2001 the number of Canadians aged 65 or older increased by 12%. Moreover, it reported that this trend will increase more rapidly as of 2011, when the oldest baby boomers reach the age of 65. It also reported that between 1991 and 2001, the number of Canadians over 80 years of age increased by 41%. If these trends continue, experts now predict that by the year 2011 there will be over 1.3 million Canadians over the age of 80. I cannot believe that the throne speech did not even refer to them or talk about them.

The effect of this coming of age will be so significant that the United Nations has described it using the term “age quake”.

Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus, or CARP, has said that the impact on society will rival that of the industrial revolution. That is what it is talking about with our seniors. Yet seniors' issues warrant only 10 words in the whole speech.

The changing demands of an aging population will dramatically affect how government will need to address the economic, social and health care needs of Canadians.

Yes, to the hon. member who just spoke. I was the mayor of Saint John for four terms so I know what the member was speaking about.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

A darn good mayor.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

I thank my colleague for that comment.

We had CMHC and we were building homes for seniors and others but the government took away all the money and cut out CMHC. As the hon. member said, there is a need for us to look after all our seniors.

This coming of age will force significant changes in how government operates in a wide range of areas from, as he has stated, affordable housing to transportation and from tax policy to national security.

And yet, despite these powerful warnings, the Government of Canada has done horribly little to prepare itself. The Speech from the Throne failed to make seniors and seniors' issues a priority. That was a grave mistake.

For the past two years I have repeatedly called on both the current Prime Minister and his predecessor to name a cabinet minister specifically responsible for seniors. After all, do we not have a Secretary of State for Youth? Can we not agree that our seniors are facing challenges unlike those facing any other age group?

I admit that I was greatly disappointed when the new Prime Minister ignored the advice and failed to name a seniors minister. I was disappointed but not surprised. Every day we waste is a day less that we have to prepare.

We are now faced with a huge challenge that must be addressed within a progressively shortening timeline. If we do not overhaul the institutions of government, they will be overwhelmed.

Let me make clear that the coming of age is not a bad thing. I know all about it. I am of the coming of age. It goes without saying that we should celebrate the fact that more Canadians are living longer and healthier lives. We should be proud that our senior citizens are among the most active in the world and that they continue to make a significant contribution to our country in a broad range of areas. I have often said that when speaking about our senior citizens we should put more emphasis on the word “citizen” and less on the word “senior”.

Two months ago the Prime Minister offered some vague comments about no commitments, about eliminating mandatory retirement ages. The time has come for us to recognize that mandatory retirement is discrimination, plain and simple.

Countless Canadians remain both physically and mentally capable of doing the same job at age 70 that they did at age 30. We live in a free country that respects free markets yet, in some cases, we order our citizens to retire, and that is wrong. I believe that retirement should be left to the individual choice in as many cases as possible. The only criterion that should matter is the employee's ability, not the employee's age.

In order to fully appreciate our new reality we must understand its root causes. Canadians are living, as I stated, longer, healthier lives because we have become a much healthier society. Not only have we made great strides in the fields of medical science, we now place greater emphasis on preventative medicines. Moreover, we have improved our lifestyles with better nutrition and more exercise.

Back when I was mayor of Saint John, I was a proud proponent of the participaction program. In fact, I was invited up here to Ottawa with that participaction program when I was mayor. To this day I remain a strong supporter of the Senior Friendship Games. Both played a vital and unequalled role in the promotion of physical fitness.

In the spirit of these great programs we should have a national senior fitness program that actively encourages seniors to take up some form of physical activity.

My view has been greatly inspired by the findings of the Active Living Coalition for Older Adults and Smart Risk. These two groups have drawn a clear and unmistakable link between exercise, healthy living and injury prevention.

While we must increase our focus on the positive aspects of aging, we cannot ignore its unfortunate effects. As last year's SARS outbreak clearly demonstrated, our aging bodies can become more vulnerable to threats to our health.

Because the health concerns of someone aged 50 and older are different from those aged 50 or younger, we must ensure that our health care system reflects our changing times. This means that our health care system and institutions must put greater emphasis on long term care, home care and gerontology. It means looking at a national strategy to help reduce the cost of prescription drugs. It means looking at tax credits for families who care for an aging or sick relative in their homes. It means taking the steps necessary to ensure that seniors are able to remain independent and free to go about their lives without concerns about health and safety.

This concept is not new. After all, that was the original purpose of the veterans independence program; to ensure that our veterans could remain in their homes for as long as their health allowed.

When it comes to the VIP, I cannot believe it was not addressed in the Speech from the Throne. Here we have the widows of veterans who passed away from 1990 to today and they will get the VIP, but all those widows of veterans who passed away prior to 1990 are not getting a penny. I have stacks of letters from veterans' widows from all across the nation. They want to stay in their homes but they have been denied the VIP. It has created two classes of veterans' widows, and that must be addressed immediately.

In the fall, however, the government made the decision to cover widows, as I stated, eligible from 1990 onward.

In the past few months I have been contacted by many of these veterans' widows who are praying and begging that each and every member of Parliament on both sides of the House will make them equal. Although they spent the majority of their married adult lives caring for their families while their husbands were overseas fighting for you and me, Mr. Speaker, so we could stand here tonight in this safe place of Canada, they will not receive the benefits of the VIP.

I was really shocked that the Speech from the Throne did not refer to the VIP and to making widows equal under the program.

We had hoped that the government would treat veterans and their families equally. In its first three terms the government had to be forced into helping our merchant navy veterans. Whether it was a hunger strike on the steps of Parliament or a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court, our nation's heroes were forced to fight against the government they had fought for. From merchant navy vets to those whose pensions were mismanaged by government officials, the government's record on veterans affairs is sorely lacking and it saddens me to report that this tradition continues.

Last Friday a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of veterans used in chemical weapons testing during the second world war. These soldiers were taken from their units, brought to secret camps and gassed by the Canadian government; not some other government, but our government. The purpose was scientific research. We did to our own soldiers what the Geneva convention prohibits us from doing to enemy soldiers in time of war.

Sworn to secrecy, these brave patriots have lived with the scars of that time for more than 60 years. They deserve immediate compensation. They deserve better and I am not alone in this assessment. The Canadian Forces ombudsman has recently passed to the minister a favourable report outlining in great detail the case for compensation. I know that all members join with me in anxiously awaiting the government's response on this critical file. How we treat our veterans today is a clear sign of how we will treat our armed forces in the future.

Some years ago I participated in a NATO meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia, where Lord Robertson from London, England, sent a message to all of us. He stated in a video, to all of us who were in St. Petersburg, Russia, from Canada, that he wanted us to put some money into our military where we used to be at the top with all of the others. He said we were at the lowest end of the scale and we must do something.

I listened to the speech yesterday and heard how seniors were left out. Instead of announcing a bold new program like the seniors independence program advocated by the Royal Canadian Legion, the throne speech offered false hope and bad faith.

Instead of upholding the charter and striking down mandatory retirement, the speech offered empty promises. Instead of offering a new direction for health care, the speech kept it on life support.

The government is seeking to continue its agenda of neglect. The government is preparing to extend its life by four more years. The government is trying to get Canadians to offer them a fourth chance. I am sorry, it is three strikes and it is out if it does not start doing something for seniors, the military, and the vets. It must do it now.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for Saint John. With her usual skill and forthright manner, she has communicated what many in the Conservative ranks have stated for a long time. It is not just the veterans who have been insulted by this particular Liberal government but in fact their widows.

I do not understand why it is that Liberal members can come to the House day after day and simply neglect the widows who have raised their families, who have stood beside their spouses in the interests of Canada. What does the member suggest? What is her solution in this particular case?

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

Members in the House, particularly those on the government side, must realize that these widows must be treated equally and it must be done right away because every other day we are losing another one.

Extra beds must be put in veterans hospitals because we are getting calls everyday. I mean it. Hundreds and hundreds of veterans do not have anyone to look after them. They fought for each and every one of us and we owe it to them to make them number one. That should be done right away.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It being 5:43 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment to the amendment now before the House.

The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?