Debates of April 5th, 2006

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the first act of this new government was to free up three-quarters of a billion dollars for agriculture, money which of course the previous Liberal government, as it was so good at in so many areas, promised but never delivered.

This government has committed to delivering an additional $2.5 billion over the next five years to assist agriculture and we will deliver on that. This government has committed to fix the CAIS program, which even today that member opposite tried to defend. It is hard to find any farmers in this country who will defend that program.

When that member complains about substance in agriculture, farmers can only wish that in the 13 years he spent on the government benches, when agriculture was completely neglected, he had cared something about substance in those years.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened closely to the Prime Minister’s speech. Indeed, certain major problems followed from the inaction of the previous government, such as the fiscal imbalance and the acts of dishonesty. The outcome of this election constitutes a judgment that these things have to be changed. We will wait to see what documents and what bills are tabled, what actions are taken by the government, and then determine whether the Speech from the Throne is translated into concrete results.

However, there is one factor which is given inadequate emphasis in that speech, and that is competition and competitiveness in our manufacturing sector. I found only one sentence in the throne speech on this subject: “[The government] will promote a more competitive, more productive Canadian economy”.

Can the Prime Minister assure us that this weakness in the throne speech will not prevent us from seeing, in the days and weeks ahead, concrete actions aimed at dealing with the new reality of global competition, as the value of the dollar fluctuates with gasoline prices, exports to the United States and the rest of the world, and the economies of emerging countries which are becoming formidable competitors, in the face of which the previous government did nothing?

Will the government add these elements to the content of its speech? For it is a speech that has nothing to offer our manufacturing industries, which are now losing thousands of jobs. Will the government act to ensure them a place on the international stage and to ensure that our people can keep their jobs? Often these people have devoted 10, 15 or 20 years of their lives to these businesses, and now they are seeing the rug being pulled out from under their feet. What will the Conservative government do for these people who seem to have been forgotten in the throne speech?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking a question on a very difficult, very complex subject which affects everyone over the long term. It is not very easy to discuss this in a few minutes, but I can indicate that our government will have certain plans.

We will start with the budget, which will follow in a few weeks, but we will have plans for research and development, others for worker and apprentice training, and others for tax reduction for businesses of all sizes. In addition there will be numerous initiatives, including our determination to rebuild our relations with our American partners, since the hon. member mentioned our trade relations with the United States.

However, I must again mention the need for political certainty if we are to have major success, if we are to be assured of success, in the area of competitiveness and productivity. In other words, we need a strong and united Canada, and a stronger Quebec within our federation.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the five points that is indeed in the throne speech concerns guaranteed wait times and the work the Prime Minister will do with the provinces to encourage guaranteed wait times.

We have seen many examples recently in the public health care system. Alberta has significantly, within a public system, reduced the wait times for joint replacements, knees and hips in particular. In Richmond, the number of surgeries for children has been significantly reduced because of the partnership with the B.C. Children's Hospital. I am wondering if that is one of the things that we will be looking at.

However, I have a couple of other concerns. At some stage there has to be a definition of waiting lists, what are we really waiting for and how is that measured, because I have not seen that come up just yet from the Conservatives. The implication of more surgeries is important to acknowledge. The implication of doing more surgeries because the wait times are guaranteed means we would need more nurses to assist the surgeons.

We do not have more nurses. It takes four years to educate more nurses to provide the service in a public or a private system. The home support would be necessary for the person who goes home after his or her surgery, and home support beds would be necessary for those people occupying hospital beds now waiting for surgery.

Will the Prime Minister work with the provinces to expand proven innovation in the public system in accordance with the Canada Health Act and what is his plan to provide the supports that are necessary in order for surgeries to occur more quickly?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very big question and I have very few seconds to answer it. Obviously, of the five major priorities we focused on, four are primarily legislative in nature. The other one, of course, is to deal with health care waiting times.

I am pleased to see that the hon. member acknowledges that some provinces have already been working with us to make progress on these issues. These are complex issues, and not just in their definition. They are complex issues in terms of ensuring that our resources are used in a way that would facilitate the outcome. That is the big challenge we have here.

I am not disputing the need for more money, but we are spending a lot of money as a country on health care. We need to ensure that the kind of money we are spending gives us the kind of outcomes that we have a right to expect.

We will be working on all the issues the member announced in the days, weeks and months to come. I am pleased to say that this effort will be led by our Minister of Health, who is the one person in this House who has actually run a provincial health care system.

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

Mr. Speaker, after more than a decade of arrogance, corruption and dominating federalism on the part of Liberal governments in Ottawa, the election of a new Parliament has created great expectations in the Quebec public, and for some people, a hope of change. The Bloc Québécois, which is a sovereignist party, has wanted those changes for a long time. We are sovereignists because we think that the only real path for the future of Quebec is sovereignty.

But anyone who thinks that it is therefore in the interests of the Bloc Québécois to obstruct change is mistaken. It is out of the question that the Bloc Québécois would cut off its nose to spite its face; that is playing politics at its worst. We will support the initiatives of this government that achieve progress for Quebec. We will do this because we are firmly convinced that anything that achieves progress for Quebec brings us closer to sovereignty.

The hope I spoke of earlier arises largely from the government’s commitments to Quebec. The Prime Minister has committed himself to practising what he calls open federalism. He has promised to respect the “areas of responsibility as defined in the Canadian constitution”. He has promised to offer Quebec its rightful place in international forums where its areas of responsibility are affected, a place that reflects Quebec’s status within the Francophonie.

He has promised to monitor the federal spending power, “this outrageous spending power” which “gave rise to dominating and paternalistic federalism”. Those are his own words. The Prime Minister has also committed himself to eliminating the fiscal imbalance.

The commitments the government has made are central to the battles that the Bloc Québécois has waged in Ottawa since it was founded. I can therefore assure this House and the people of Quebec that we will support any government proposal that will achieve progress for Quebec. We will do everything we can to persuade the government to honour its commitments to Quebec, because, I repeat, I am firmly convinced that anything that achieves progress for Quebec, anything that gives the people of Quebec confidence, will result in them embracing the sovereignist option with confidence. The Bloc Québécois, as it always does, will therefore play a constructive role, in order to achieve progress for Quebec.

The public expects that this minority government will act accordingly, that it will respect the House of Commons and the six out of ten electors who did not vote for it. In Quebec, more than seven out of ten electors did not vote for the government’s candidates. We see a number of things in this throne speech that suggest to us that the government intends to respect the House of Commons in the actions it takes.

However, many adjustments have to be made to what was said and many important matters were forgotten in this Speech from the Throne. We will therefore be making some proposals to the government in regard to a number of important issues. There were also some government plans that are contrary to our convictions and to the best interests of Quebec. We will vigorously oppose them.

We intend, therefore, to help make this Parliament work. It must get down to business because there are crying problems that have lasted long enough and could be dealt with.

The first of these problems is the fiscal imbalance. It is a serious malfunction in the Canadian federation. The cuts and transfers have destabilized the health systems in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. The fiscal imbalance has also resulted in the drying up of public funding for post-secondary education at a time when education is more important than ever. Now it is the funding of post-secondary education and social programs that is suffering.

Finally, it has led the federal government to waste public funds, even though there were pressing needs in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. This Parliament has a duty to eliminate the fiscal imbalance once and for all. This means, first of all, a substantial increase in the transfers for post-secondary education, and we expect a clear signal from the government in its next budget.

This also implies a reform of equalization. It must be clear as well that the fiscal imbalance cannot be fixed without a transfer of fiscal resources from the federal government to Quebec and the provinces that want them. Finally, the federal government must give Quebec the right to withdraw from any federal programs in its jurisdictions with full compensation, and this right must be unconditional. The Prime Minister promised to do this as well during the election campaign.

The government can solve this problem, and it should act quickly because the problem has lasted long enough. During the last election campaign, the government promised to eliminate the fiscal imbalance. It reiterated this promise in its throne speech. It is time now to create a program and specify the measures that it intends to take. The government will be judged on the results, and it will not have any excuses if it fails, because with the support of the Bloc Québécois, it has a solid majority in the House that will enable it to eliminate the fiscal imbalance.

This Parliament will also be asked to state its position on Quebec's place in international forums. Since 1965, Quebec has been asking to be directly involved on its own behalf in international relations for areas within its legislative jurisdiction as set out in section 92 of the Constitution. For the past 40 years, the federal government has refused to allow this.

The Prime Minister made very clear promises during the last election campaign. He promised to give Quebec a seat at UNESCO, just as it has as a member of the Francophonie. This means that Quebec would speak on its own behalf and have the right to vote on issues that fall within its jurisdiction. Quebec has this status within the Francophonie. The Prime Minister could use the Belgian model, a model he himself has suggested in the past right here in this House. But according to the Speech from the Throne, Canada will have only one voice on the world stage. This is a blatant contradiction. One might fear that the Prime Minister has already backed down on this critical issue. He also promised to recognize, and I quote, “the special cultural and institutional responsibilities of the Quebec government.” He will therefore have to formalize symmetrical federalism with Quebec.

That will require the government to negotiate an agreement with Quebec. But the Prime Minister went even further: he promised to extend internal jurisdictions internationally. This means that in all areas within its jurisdiction, Quebec will have as much freedom internationally as it does internally. Needless to say, internally, the Government of Quebec can talk to and conclude agreements with whomever it pleases.

Furthermore, to fully keep its promise, the government will have to clearly affirm that from now on it may not negotiate or conclude a treaty affecting the special cultural and institutional powers and responsibilities of Quebec without the consent of Quebec. We will return to this in the days ahead to give the full details, and so bring the government to respect its commitments.

This Parliament will also have to decide how to go about funding child care services. In the last election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to pay $1,200 to the parents of a child under six years of age, to put a stop to the intrusions of this domineering federal government, and to resolve the fiscal imbalance. Yesterday, in the Speech from the Throne, the government was less specific. I hope that this is a sign that it is open to compromise. To judge from its electoral platform, what it is about to introduce will not offer $1,200 to parents. In fact, it will be much less for many parents—because this allowance is taxable—while other parents will see their benefits cut. I am thinking of the child tax benefit and the government support measures for Quebec families. This will particularly affect low- to middle-income families. What is more, this measure constitutes an intrusion into a field of Quebec jurisdiction. Finally, it aggravates the fiscal imbalance, since the government is planning at the same time to tear up an agreement that was supposed to provide Quebec with $807 million over a period of three years.

With a single measure, then, the government is breaking three of its most important promises. As I said, the Bloc Québécois will act as a constructive opposition. So we will propose a modification to the government: convert the allowance into a refundable tax credit. This change will provide parents with close to $1,200 and will be much more respectful of Quebec’s jurisdiction.

Government ministers have promised that the $807 million lost by Quebec with the elimination of the agreement on child care services will be regained once an overall settlement of the fiscal imbalance is reached.

I want to announce to the government that the Bloc Québécois will not agree to the settlement of the fiscal imbalance remaining nothing but an election promise which takes no account of the agreement on child care services that was concluded with Quebec.

One of the government’s priorities is to strengthen the justice system. We have not waited for the arrival of a new government to take action on this subject. The Bloc Québécois was the initiator of the current anti-gang legislation, which has put many members of organized crime in prison. The Bloc Québécois was also the initiator of the reversal of the burden of proof for convicted criminals. Also, if the government is concerned about justice, it should hasten to create an appeal division for refugees, who are presently denied this fundamental right.

Furthermore, the government must promise to conduct an open-minded review of the Anti-terrorism Act in order to achieve the necessary balance between liberty and security. With regard to justice, certain measures proposed by the government are acceptable. However, it should stop trying to convince the public that crime is on the rise, just to advance its political agenda on law and order. Crime rates are falling in Canada and in Quebec. We have the lowest rate of violent crime in North America.

If the government wants to tackle organized crime, fine. However, it will not beat crime by allowing weapons to circulate and simply filling up the prisons. That model is used by the United States, and the result is that many more crimes are committed there than here in Canada.

I therefore urge the Prime Minister to think twice about introducing his program on law and order. I ask him to allow the Auditor General to submit her report before drawing any conclusions about the gun registry. Everyone agrees that the administration of the gun registry is seriously in need of improvement, but that does not mean that it should be eliminated, which would deprive law enforcement officials of a valuable tool and would allow weapons to circulate freely.

As for the remission system, it must not be automatic; rather, it must be earned. The government must go one step further and create an ombudsman position for victims and their families, in order to ensure their rights. We have already made this proposal and we will continue to push it.

As for the age of sexual consent, this Parliament must take the time to carefully examine this issue, for we must be careful not to criminalize relationships between consenting adolescents.

Lastly, the first action taken by the government in terms of security should be to re-open the RCMP detachments that were closed by the previous government, despite the decision made by duly elected representatives.

While Alberta has experienced a fantastic economic boom, with the help of the oil and gas industry, among other things, this is not the case in all regions of Canada and Quebec. The rapid rise in the Canadian dollar, which is largely attributable to the rise in the price of crude oil, has been welcome news for Alberta, but it is damaging the economies of Quebec and Ontario. As well, it is causing problems in the manufacturing sector in Quebec. We therefore have to be concerned about older workers who are losing their jobs; consider an assistance program for older workers; consider all the textile, clothing, furniture, bicycle and fisheries workers as well; consider the entire question of the forestry industry; revisit the negotiations with the United States, remembering that we must not back down, after the victories achieved under NAFTA.

These are areas where the government must arrange to invest and to invest better. I am thinking, in relation to jobs, for example, of its entire aerospace policy.

The government has also committed itself to creating an independent employment insurance fund. We must create that kind of fund, we must make substantial improvements to the employment insurance program, particularly when there is already $1.7 million, to date, stored up in the employment insurance fund, after ten months of the last fiscal year.

With respect to the Kyoto protocol, we want to be clear. The government has to honour its commitments. It must recognize that Quebec has to have its own money to apply the greenhouse gas emission reductions itself, because the National Assembly has made the decision to reduce emissions by 6% below 1990. A polluter-pay policy has to be applied, not a polluter-paid policy. At present, the plan proposed by the Liberals, and judged to be too fast by the Conservatives, means that we in Quebec would be paying for damage that occurs mainly in Alberta and Ontario. We will never agree to such a policy. In applying the Kyoto protocol, Quebec's progress must be respected.

There are other important issues, including the role of the army. A foreign policy still has to be defined and the army must be consistent with the policy established. We are in Afghanistan at present. The Bloc Québécois supported that mission. We have called for a debate. As we speak, I know that the debate will take place and I am very pleased that we can debate this issue. In the past, we wanted to put it to a vote. We have held that vote now, but in future, before sending troops to other countries, we are calling for a vote to be held before the decision is made here by this House. That is what the Prime Minister called for when he was the Leader of the Opposition.

We are very pleased that a vote will henceforth be taken in the House on international treaties. That is a step in the right direction. Three times the Bloc Québécois has proposed this.

The government mentioned ethics. It wants to clean things up in Ottawa. I suggest that it start by ensuring that from now on the returning officers in all ridings are appointed by Elections Canada and not by the government in power. That is one of our proposals.

Let us also keep our promises to the first nations, the Kelowna agreements. Let us negotiate from nation to nation, as was done in Quebec.

We should also realize that there was not a word about culture in this Speech from the Throne. It is important to keep the promise to increase the Canada Council’s budget to $300 million a year. Culture is how we express ourselves as a people. Quebec’s culture is an expression of what Quebec is, and our creative people need help.

I also encourage the government to deal with the social housing problem. Decisions have been made in this House. There is nothing in this regard in the Speech from the Throne. If we want to attack crime, we have to deal with the ghettos and provide decent housing. That is how to ensure that young people do not end up in street gangs. That is one of the measures to take. That is the best way to deal with the crime rate.

I should also say that the budgets that were supposed to be granted to the Acadian and Franco-Canadian communities must be respected. These people need all the support we can give them.

We say therefore to the government that we will support this Speech from the Throne. In conclusion, I would like to introduce an amendment. Afterwards we will proceed issue by issue. Sometimes the government will win here in the House, and sometimes it will lose, without it being a question of confidence. There is no blank cheque. It does not matter to us whether a proposal comes from the government, the Liberals or the NDP. If it is in the interest of the people of Quebec, we will support it. If it is contrary to their interests, we will oppose it. That is how we have always acted.

I will finish by introducing the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean:

That the amendment be amended by adding after the words “tax increases” the following:

“, for the lack of a strategy to help older workers who lose their jobs, a strategy that should include income support measures”

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The debate is on the subamendment.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we were very interested in the Speech from the Throne, particularly on the position of UNESCO. The problem right now, underlying what is happening at the GATS negotiations in Geneva, is that the government has been given a mandate to trade away basic issues in terms of foreign ownership restrictions on broadcast and telecom. As well, at the same time we are receiving an audio-visual request to trade away fundamental protections for our domestic cultural industry.

My concern is that Quebec might have a seat at UNESCO and Canada might have a seat at UNESCO but the government under trade deals is trading away right now the fundamental benefits that we receive on cultural policy.

Where does the hon. member stand in terms of keeping the government honest and of protecting the important programs that we have for preferential tax treatment for film, domestic content quotas and cultural quotas that are part of UNESCO and part of what we have maintained in this country?

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

Mr. Speaker, whether we are talking about UNESCO or the WTO, the government is saying that from now on, all international treaties will not only be debated, but voted on in this House and that the initiatives my colleague is referring to will be subject to discussion and a vote in this House. I believe the government and I hope it will follow through.

We must be clear: respect for cultural diversity is a victory for Canada and for Quebec. This approach must be upheld. Culture is not a commodity like any other, but south of the border there is a powerful giant whose main industry is in fact culture, which the Americans treat like any other sector, even though it is far from it. Culture is the expression of a nation, the expression of a people. The Quebec nation expresses itself eloquently on this planet through its culture. We expect it to be maintained by the policies that will sustain and support this industry and allow it to blossom.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's excellent speech is one of the best speeches I have heard in response to a Speech from the Throne. It had a lot of very innovative ideas and solutions and outlined a lot of things that were missing from the Speech from the Throne.

However last spring the Bloc Québécois, which has these good principles, sort of strayed a bit and to some extent betrayed Quebeckers when they voted against things in the budget that Quebeckers believed in, such as the environment, international aid, students and aboriginal people. I was getting a bit worried at the beginning of his speech when he talked about how supportive he was of the throne speech and then at the end of his speech how unequivocally supportive he was of the throne speech and a vote.

I would like to know how he is going to stand up for things that Quebeckers believe in that were not in the throne speech, things like social programs, historic agreements for aboriginal people, support for students, regional development items and crime prevention. How will the Bloc stand up for these major things that are important to the Bloc and to Quebeckers that were not in the throne speech?

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

Mr. Speaker, when my colleague began his remarks I thought it was to open a franchise in Yukon for the Bloc Québécois.

We were opposed to the last budget because it had nothing for the workers, nothing concerning employment insurance, with a lot of money in the bank.

I said very clearly that we would support the throne speech that was given yesterday with the amendment put forward by the Liberals and the subamendment put forward by the Bloc. Maybe my colleague's leader will tell him that he should stand and support that and finally to support the throne speech himself. This is what we will do. However we must realize that the throne speech by itself is a motion of confidence but each piece taken one by one is not.

If we think something is not good for Quebec we will oppose it in the same way we did when the Liberals were in government. However when we think it is something good for Quebec we will support it. Whether it is a proposal made by the Tories, the Liberals or the NDP we do not mind. Whether it is good or not for Quebec is the only reference we have before making a decision.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, first, I wish to convey my regrets to the hon. leader of the Bloc Québécois. One of his colleagues, Richard Marceau, is no longer with us. I personally thought he was a very good MP, not only for his party but for all of Canada as well. It is unfortunate.

My question to him is in regard to the lack of an industrial strategy in the throne speech. His party has been very good in helping the NDP in supporting a national shipbuilding policy so that yards in Lévis, Quebec, in Washington, in Halifax, in Fort Welland and Marystown, Newfoundland will have the access to the jobs that we so desperately need.

I am asking him to verify one more time. Is the leader of the Bloc Québécois and his party still solidly behind a national shipbuilding policy that would help all the yards in the country and their workers?

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

Mr. Speaker, of course we will maintain the proposals we have always made concerning the shipbuilding industry. We will do so at the first opportunity. I know that my colleague has supported our proposals.

However, we will do more in that, and that looks strange. A sovereignist party will propose a buy Canada act in Ottawa. One day we will have a buy Quebec act in Quebec.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a vague reference in the Speech from the Throne to a concept called fiscal imbalance, which I know is an issue of great interest to the Bloc and Quebeckers. I am familiar with the Ontario argument in that regard. One of the aspects that concerned me was that the province of Ontario did not include the valuation of tax points transferred from the federal government to the provinces, that is the taxing authority, in the determination of the so-called imbalance.

Would the leader of the Bloc care to comment on the value of the tax points that have been transferred to the provinces and whether that is a legitimate element in the determination of a fiscal imbalance?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will tell my hon. colleague that during the debate even his former leader finally recognized the existence of what we call the so-called fiscal imbalance. He said this publicly during the debate.

There is indeed a fiscal imbalance. There is the Ontario proposal and the series of proposals which will also be made by many other provinces. According to the Séguin report, ultimately, there is too much money in Ottawa for its responsibilities and not enough in the provinces and in Quebec for their own responsibilities and jurisdictions. To be clear, the main budget items are health and education. But the provinces do not have the resources to deal with these.

Equalization must be reviewed on the basis of the ten provinces, and not just five. Non-renewable natural resources must not be excluded, something which would cost Quebec some $650 million. We must be very clear on this subject.

All of the indices have to be considered. Then we must agree on an equalization policy that is fair, remembering that if certain provinces are receiving equalization, it is often because they have not received the necessary industrial investment.

A dollar invested in equalization may be equal in terms of quantity to a dollar invested in industrial policy, but it is not equal in terms of quality.

From 1970 to 2000, $66 billion was invested in oil, natural gas and coal; Quebec paid for about a quarter of this. In the nuclear industry, it was $6 billion; Quebec paid for nearly a quarter. For example, Ontario Hydro operates with nuclear energy. We therefore paid for a quarter of Ontario Hydro’s development, while Hydro-Québec did not receive a penny from Ottawa. Over the same period, $72 billion was invested in natural resources unrelated to Quebec, and $329 million was invested in clean energies, with not a penny to Hydro-Québec.

So this is the discussion we need to have, and I urge the government and the entire House to have it.

Business of the House

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I believe you would find agreement for the following motion. I move:

That on Thursday evening a take note debate will take place concerning agriculture issues and that this debate take place under the format established by Standing Order 53.1(1) except that the debate would begin at 7 p.m. and end no later than 11 p.m. and that the Chair would not receive any dilatory motions or quorum calls during the debate.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

(Motion agreed to)

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

In that case, I consider the application for the emergency debate brought by the hon. member for Malpeque to be dispensed with and I refuse the request for the emergency debate in the circumstances. That is just to clarify things.

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

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again I congratulate you on your re-election to the chair.

On behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus, I salute the appointment of the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona as Deputy Speaker of the House. It is the first time that a New Democrat has held such a position and I can think of no better and no more respected parliamentarian for the job.

We extend our congratulations to the right hon. member for Calgary Southwest as he takes his seat as Prime Minister in this place.

We would also like to congratulate the member for Toronto Centre on his re-election and appointment as leader of the official opposition.

Congratulations also to the leader of the Bloc Québécois, who is returning to this House as the member for Laurier--Sainte-Marie.

On behalf of all New Democrats, I wish good luck to all members elected in this last election.

As I begin my address today, I wish to thank the people of Toronto—Danforth for once again entrusting me to serve as their representative in Parliament. I am deeply honoured.

I am doubly honoured today because I am privileged to lead this larger and stronger caucus of New Democrats. We take up our seats to get down to work on behalf of the working people of this country. This is above all else the place where great things have been achieved, and it is the place where great things can be achieved still.

Sadly, for 12 years the capacity to reach higher and move forward has been wasted. While government coffers have grown fatter, investment in people has grown leaner. While ordinary families are working harder to make ends meet, the federal government offers less in return for hard-earned tax dollars. While federal governments promised great things to the people of Canada, they only delivered great disappointments.

That is why on January 23 Canadians voted for change. That is why they voted for New Democrats to balance that change.

The history of this place has taught us that minority parliaments function best when there is consultation, cooperation and compromise. Today I am cautiously optimistic to see that the lessons of history have not been lost on the new government, as they were on the last.

Yesterday's throne speech indicated at least some measure of flexibility. We saw a glimmer of this possibility when Her Excellency announced that the government would issue into Parliament a long overdue apology to all those who were forced to pay the Chinese head tax.

New Democrats call on the government to include both redress for head tax payers as well as to extend the apology to include all those who suffered under the Chinese Exclusion Act. This is a step in the right direction, but there is so much more to be done.

However, the NDP is disappointed by the omission of some very important issues, such as a clear commitment regarding the poverty of first nations, employment insurance reform, investing in our cities and communities, funding for post-secondary education and skills training, a strategy for the north, and legislation to prevent floor-crossing while holding office.

However, despite this disappointment we are encouraged by the government's acknowledgement that it does not have a majority. In the days and the weeks that follow we will be turning a critical eye to the actual substance of those issues, both absent and so briefly touched upon in yesterday's speech.

I remind members of the House that some of our greatest achievements are the result of minority parliaments, minority parliaments in which the government of the day worked with New Democrats to make a difference in the lives of ordinary Canadians. Canada's flag, old age pensions, public health care and a social program that was the envy of the world were all created in minority parliaments of the past.

Too many problems face Canada today to be satisfied with limiting the ambition of this Parliament. That is why New Democrats will use every tool available to work with Parliament to deliver what we are calling the working families first agenda. With ordinary families working harder than ever to make ends meet, they deserve action on the issues they face each and every day. We are failing our parents and our grandparents, the people who built this country, because too many of them cannot get the basic care they need.

That is why New Democrats will fight in this Parliament to enact the principles in the NDP's seniors' charter, so that seniors can have access to good quality, long term care, so that seniors and people with disabilities can get the home care that they need and so that no senior is ever forced to choose between buying medicine that they need or buying groceries as happens far too often today. Seniors have waited long enough.

In 1993 Canadians were promised a national child care program, but for 12 years, despite majority governments and budget surpluses, that promise was not kept. It is the will of Canadians and a majority of the House to at long last build a truly pan-Canadian child care program. We call on the government to build upon the current agreements. Working together we can achieve more for child care in the next 12 months than the previous government achieved in 12 years.

Our young people also need help to prepare them for the workforce. In last spring's budget the NDP forced the government of the time to reinvest in transfer payments for post-secondary education and reduce the burden of student debt. The Liberals had preferred a major corporate tax cut about which they never told anyone. However, we must go further than this now because mortgages are for houses, not for education. We also have to invest in skills training to meet the needs of employers and to compete in the global economy. Our children and youth have waited long enough.

In a country as rich as Canada, first nations, Inuit and Métis people deserve better than third world living conditions and second-class treatment. It is an absolute national disgrace that 95% of aboriginal people live below the poverty line. Despite the disappointments of the throne speech, we must follow up on the important and long overdue work achieved at Kelowna and we must quickly deliver settlements for victims of Indian residential schools.

Canada's first peoples must no longer be denied the quality of life that most Canadians take for granted. This means proper housing, health care, basic infrastructure such as clean drinking water. Aboriginal people have waited long enough to be properly considered nation to nation.

Canada is headed towards an environmental disaster. Those living in Canada's north can see it and are experiencing it. Climate change has dramatically affected their lives. Sea levels are rising. Pack ice is melting. Our forests are in jeopardy.

Climate change and other factors that we could do much about are even threatening one of the last intact ecosystems on the planet, the great Canadian boreal forest.

This government has not only the opportunity but also the responsibility to take action.

Indeed, the federal government has the responsibility to end the cycle of press releases over policy by taking meaningful action to stop climate change. Canadians have waited long enough.

For 12 years, workers have been promised changes to employment insurance. The Liberal Party has let them down. Today, two-thirds of unemployed workers are not eligible for employment insurance. It is shameful.

We must be proactive with industrial strategies for this country that stop the hemorrhaging of good jobs. We must stand up for our sovereignty which means not backing down on issues like softwood lumber. For too long Canadians have been denied anti-strike breaking legislation. New Democrats will continue to fight to protect the basic rights of workers.

As millions of baby-boomers prepare to retire, pension protection has never been more important. In the last Parliament we won protection for workers wages. In this Parliament we will fight for the pension security that workers deserve. Working families have waited long enough.

The previous government called protecting health care the fight of its life. The problem was it did not throw a single punch, forgot about the issue and forgot about the fight.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I put this to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Health. Work with us where their predecessors failed. The NDP also has an MP here in the House of Commons who ran a provincial health system. We call on the government to join with us to introduce new rules so that no federal transfers can be used to subsidize a profit-making private insurance system. We have to put patients ahead of profits. We must ensure that doctors and health care providers cannot work in both the private and the public systems at the same time and also ensure that these tough new rules, along with all the provisions of the Canada Health Act, are strictly monitored and enforced. Canadians have waited long enough.

Canada's electoral system predates the telephone. Our country has changed but our electoral system has not. We must take responsibility to reverse the trends of declining voter turnout and the lack of representation of women in Parliament. The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that he likes the reforms that were embodied in Ed Broadbent's ethics package.

I call on the government today to begin the necessary reforms, because every vote must count.

Canadians have waited long enough.

I might add that I am very proud that our caucus has a historic high with 40% of our members in this Chamber being women.

I also want to speak about Quebec, where I come from.

For ten years now, the debate over Quebec's proper place has been split between those who want to leave and those who want the status quo.

The federal Liberal government treated Quebec with real arrogance and disdain. It tried to buy votes there with the scandalous sponsorship program. Quebeckers do not want to be bought. They want respect.

It is time now to speak of reconciliation. It is time to create the winning conditions for Canada in Quebec. It is time to draw people together to create a progressive society and for a more ethical, democratic and transparent government that listens to the people. It must re-establish dialogue and honour its promises and the agreements signed with governments.

I want to offer our support to the brave women and men in our peacekeeping forces and our civilian forces working with them. We mourn the loss of life. We welcome a full debate on Canada's role in Afghanistan, an effort the NDP has been calling for for many weeks.

As I close today there is one final issue I wish to touch upon. It is an issue that the hon. Ed Broadbent spoke of so eloquently during his last days in the House. He said:

[Members] should see what can be done in the future to restore to our politics in this nation a civilized tone of debate...However we may differ, we are all human and we all have the right to have our inner dignity respected, especially in debate in the House.

We have at this juncture in our history the means and the public desire to achieve great things for this country. History will judge us well if instead of partisan opportunism and games unfit for schoolyard bullies, such as we have seen in the past, we rise above those easy indulgences and truly pursue the good of the nation.

We can choose whether this place is a surrogate for the campaign trail or whether we treat the people's House with the dignity and respect that it deserves. Instead of self-serving opposition, let us instead offer principled proposition. Let us all approach the challenges of the nation with a spirit of goodwill and collective responsibility.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are lots of people who would like to ask a question, so I will try to be quick.

I would like to congratulate the member on a well delivered speech. He certainly believes in everything he said.

I want to be specific with regard to one issue that has been a burning issue in my heart since 1993 when I first came here. I have probably delivered dozens of speeches with respect to crimes against children. I have also probably delivered dozens of speeches trying my best to get government to do everything in its power to abolish child pornography, an evil and terrible thing. Not just a few but literally hundreds of young children across this country are affected by child pornography. Many of the people who belong to victims' societies are parents and siblings of little kids who have been tortured and murdered over the years. Child pornography is getting out of hand to the point today where it is recognized as being a huge multi-billion dollar industry.

I am specifically concerned about crimes against children and the defences that always seem to come up. We do not seem to be able to get rid of child pornography because we are infringing on certain rights such as the right to freedom of expression and freedom of speech, et cetera.

When it comes to the welfare of our children, I will do everything I can to protect them. Will the member and his party do the same?