Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2007

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to give my maiden speech in the House of Commons. Naturally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who made it possible for me to be here: my family, friends, colleagues, organizers and, most of all, the citizens of the riding of Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jeanwho placed their trust in me.

I am pleased to take part today in this debate on the throne speech. Our speech lays out for Canadians the intentions of our government with regard to the future of the country and the legislative agenda that will make them reality. Our Conservative government kept its promises with respect to the five priorities established in the 2006 election campaign, and I feel very proud of it and of the man who perfectly embodies the leadership sought by Canadians, our Prime Minister. I feel this same sense of pride in reading the Speech from the Throne, which mirrors the expectations of Canadians who voted for change in 2006.

I have chosen to focus on one aspect of the speech that was a promise in the 2005-2006 election campaign, and that our government has reiterated, restricting the federal spending power. This issue represents a challenge to be faced in order to strengthen our federation, one of the five themes of the throne speech. Our government will introduce a bill to impose specific restrictions on the federal spending power in new shared-cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. This legislation will allow provinces and territories to opt out with reasonable compensation if they offer compatible programs.

It is important to observe and recognize the advantages of the federal spending power, which has played a role as a factor of social development over the course of our history. It led to the creation, in cooperation with provincial and territorial provinces, of national social programs such as medicare. It also played a leading role in promoting equal opportunity for all Canadians. Finally, it helped guarantee that all citizens would have access to basic social services and programs of comparable quality no matter where they live.

By acting to limit federal spending power, our Conservative government has done something that illustrates the benefits of the type of federalism we practise, open federalism, as opposed to the centralist vision of power embraced by the previous government, which preferred conflict to solutions. Open federalism respects the provincial and territorial jurisdictions while taking Canadians' aspirations into account.

I am proud of the open federalism practised by our government, because it avoids the old dynamic of conflict that characterized the former Liberal government of the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, the Leader of the Opposition. Canadians have had enough of scandals and bickering. They are fed up with the quarrels between centralists and separatists. That is why they chose our Conservative government, to bring real change to Ottawa.

Canadians want governments that get along and work together. Our Prime Minister wants the future to be marked by optimism, trust and respect. The throne speech given on October 16 paints a promising and inspiring picture of that future for Canadians. The direction in which our government wants to take Canada reflects families' priorities and hopes and what they expect of us.

What we want for Canada is in direct contrast to the vision of isolation and perpetual conflict that the official opposition embraced when it was on this side of the House. Our open federalism is a federalism that all Canadians can identify with, no matter where they live. They can all share this vision of the future.

This has long been an important issue in the evolution of the Canadian federation. Until the 1960s, most provinces, aside from Quebec, accepted this federal influence. After a new government was elected in 1960, Quebec's objections grew even stronger. In the years that followed, other provinces began to object to the federal government's presence by way of its spending power. In subsequent decades, there was a great deal of public debate over the political and legal ramifications of federal spending power.

Our government has already demonstrated that it advocates openness and fairness toward the provinces, especially when it comes to the fiscal balance. Our government can boast that it was the first to recognize the need to restore the fiscal balance in Canada. The federal Liberals always denied that there was a fiscal imbalance, and the Bloc was powerless to correct it. We have taken real steps to do so, thanks to the Prime Minister's leadership.

Let us not forget that our government is the one which, in budget 2007, introduced historic measures to restore fiscal balance in Canada by investing $39 billion over the next seven years; by ensuring that our financial relationship with the provinces and territories are based on principles; and by increasing equalization payments and transfers to the provinces.

Naturally, general agreement for this approach of openness to foster Canadian unity cannot be found in this House. One of the five conditions for the Bloc leader's support for the Speech from the Throne is the elimination of the federal spending power, and what elimination means to us is separation.

There is one aspect of the current political debate which some members of this place tend to overlook, and that is the fact that this government delivers on its commitments to its provincial partners, and this is true for Quebec as for any other province.

Our government promised Quebeckers that Quebec would be invited to participate fully and formally in UNESCO so as to reflect Quebec's tremendous contribution to our collective heritage. Our government has delivered.

Our government is the only one in Canadian history to have recognized the Quebec nation. The Liberals form the party of centralization, and the Bloc members, the party of separation, while the Conservatives form the party of the nation.

Our government has already done a lot to reconcile the legitimate aspirations of Quebec with our objective of strengthening the Canadian federation. These two realities are not incompatible. In fact, they are mutually beneficial. We have upheld our commitments to Quebeckers, since we are truly defending their interests and will continue to do so. Honouring these commitments is a good example of a principle at the heart of our approach to governing. Once again, we will do what we promised.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the objective of a Speech from the Throne is to establish the overall objectives for the government in a new session of Parliament. It is neither the time nor the forum for introducing a bill or discussing, in minute detail, each bill that will soon be debated. At this stage, I will simply say that our policy on the spending power will reflect our desire to strengthen our federation and increase its effectiveness, and to respect our partners, while still respecting their fields of jurisdiction.

Quebeckers, like all other Canadians, want to see their governments work together to encourage progress and prosperity in the community. With this in mind, our government is pursuing the mission Canadians entrusted us with in January 2006. Our government, under the leadership of our Prime Minister will not deviate from this course.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to welcome the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean to this House. I know what it is like to deliver one's maiden speech. I too did it in the context of a throne speech.

I would like to put a few questions to the hon. member. First, as regards the fiscal imbalance, when do we know, in his opinion, that the issue is settled? Is it when the Quebec government agrees, or is it when a vast majority of Quebeckers agree? If so, what happens if there is a change of government and the new government feels that the issue is not solved? That is my first question.

Second, does the member not believe that municipal infrastructure programs are a form of interference in a provincial jurisdiction? If so, why does his government persist in following the path of the previous Liberal governments on this issue?

Third, does the hon. member support the clarity legislation? If not, does this mean he and the Prime Minister are in disagreement?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we recognized the existence of the fiscal imbalance and we continue to work to ensure that the Canadian federation works effectively, unlike some who had always refused to acknowledge the existence of that imbalance. This is very important for us.

As regards infrastructures, I will not say what should be put forward in the negotiations to limit the federal spending power. In a previous life, I had the pleasure and the honour of serving as a full time mayor and of dealing with municipal infrastructures for seven years, in Quebec. I was a member of the Infrastructures-Québec committee. Clearly, there will always be needs, but the important thing is to continue talks with our provincial partners to make life easier for everyone in Canada. That is what our government is committed to doing, and that is what we will continue to do.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my hon. colleague from Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean. In terms of geographical areas, we are not too far from one another, but otherwise, I feel we are oceans apart. Indeed, Lac Saint-Jean separates us and, I must say, it is an enormous lake.

There is something about the throne speech that I would really like to understand. He managed to get himself elected. It is a fine document, which I read and re-read, just as he did, I imagine. However, the word “forestry” appears only once in the Speech from the Throne.

The hon. member was elected based on this file. I know this because, since we are neighbours, somewhat distant, but in neighbouring ridings nonetheless, I followed his election campaign. There is nothing in the throne speech that indicates how the Conservative government intends to address the crisis in the forestry industry.

My question is very specific. Will he resign his seat? If we give him five or six months to implement a real plan to save forestry in Quebec, is he prepared to put his seat on the line on this matter?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has been in the House of Commons for 6,000 days and has asked 4,000 questions.

It has introduced 288 bills and promised one in my riding's election campaign. It has had two bills passed concerning name changes for ridings. I was forced to talk about the forestry sector throughout the campaign, which is natural given the region I am from. This is yet another of the many bills that would never have been passed.

The Bloc will never have a bill passed because it is stuck in the opposition. I am proud to be a member of the Conservative Party. We have announced that we will fix the forestry problems. We will work to help forestry workers in Quebec as in the other provinces. That is what we will do.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all my colleagues in the House, and I know certainly the colleagues on this side of the House, we are delighted to welcome the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean. We have a couple of things in common. I was a pitcher and he was a catcher, and it is great to work together on the same team.

I am particularly interested as well that we have both shared a number of experiences on municipal council. How does he believe rebalancing the federation in the way the Conservative government is going to will be of benefit?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean should know that his colleague used up the allotted time. However, I will give him a few seconds to answer the question.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will simply say that politics is for people to allow us to represent them. Let us continue to be close to the public, to those who allow us to represent them. The experience that the hon. member and myself share at the municipal level, along with many others in this place, provides us with a good understanding of people's needs, and also allows us to be close to them. This is how we will continue to move forward, for the good of those people who allow us to be here.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On Friday, October 19, during question period, the member for Mississauga South said that I was “caught collecting information from passport applications to send out birthday cards”.

I wish to inform the House that this allegation was investigated by the conflict of interest Ethics Commissioner and his subsequent report found no wrongdoing on my part.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I am not sure there is a point of order there, but I am sure that the House will appreciate the information that the hon. member has given us.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Egmont.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House that I am splitting my time with the member for Vancouver Centre.

I am very pleased this afternoon to have this opportunity to respond to the Speech from the Throne on behalf of the beautiful riding of Egmont.

At the opening of the new session, I would like to take a moment to thank my constituents and my family for their support over the last 19 years and over the span of six elections. I appreciate their support. During my tenure, I am proud to have represented them and their interests in the federal arena.

I listened with interest to the speech as the Governor General outlined the five priorities on which the government plans to focus during this session. I would like to make remarks on two of those themes.

I am proud of my work with the Standing Committee on National Defence and of my responsibility as an advocate for Atlantic Canadian issues. As a result, I will address two issues that are of great importance to me and to Atlantic Canada: Canada's sovereignty and place in the world and the government's plan to strengthen the Canadian federation.

First I would like to comment on Canada's sovereignty and place in the world. Canada has a long and proud history of leadership in the international community. From Lester B. Pearson's creation of the first international peacekeeping force during the Suez crisis to Canada's condemnation of apartheid in South Africa, we have always been a strong advocate for diplomacy, peacekeeping and the protection of human rights.

We are a committed member of international organizations such as the United Nations, the G-8, the OAS, NATO, the World Bank, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Through these organizations, we have developed our domestic values of democracy, good governance and respect for diversity.

Canada encourages diplomacy and multiculturalism and has often worked hard with other countries to forge important international agreements, yet we have never been afraid to act when it was necessary to protect what we believe in. After the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, we joined in the fight against terrorism by becoming a part of the military mission in Afghanistan. Today, we continue to be a key part of the UN sanctioned NATO force there.

Our combat mission is scheduled to end in February 2009, which was a decision made by Parliament. As we draw closer to the deadline, it is crucial that parliamentarians have an open, informed debate on the future of the mission. It is our responsibility to represent the opinions of our constituents concerning our continuing involvement in the war. This is not a political question. It is a question of what Canadians want.

We have been doing good work in Afghanistan. I would like to congratulate our troops, who have been outstanding. They have sacrificed time with their families, the comforts of home and, in some respects, their lives to fight for Canada.

Our appreciation and admiration for the men and women of the Canadian Forces is limitless. The House of Commons standing committee visited Kandahar province. We met with the soldiers first-hand and saw first-hand the pride they had in serving their country in that benighted country.

Their efforts have included improving the security situation in Afghanistan, decommissioning weapons, clearing landmines, reconstructing roads, schools and other infrastructure and providing development aid, and training the Afghan police force and the Afghan army. No one can deny the importance of these efforts.

However, it is time to evaluate the success of the mission up to this point, our goals in Afghanistan and our strategy for the future. It is important that parliamentarians and Canadians are informed about the mission's progress and the plan going forward so that we can make the right decision.

Information from the government and from the military on what is going on in Afghanistan on a going forward basis is something that the standing committee has always had difficulty getting. The creation of an independent, non-partisan panel to investigate our options for the continuation of the mission is a step in the right direction.

I look forward to hearing the recommendations in January 2008. However, in the end, it is members of Parliament who will make the final decision. In order for MPs to have all the tools necessary to make the right decision, I ask the government to consider creating a special parliamentary committee to review the mission, in addition to the independent panel. Six hours of debate in the House will not be sufficient. This matter deserves careful attention and examination.

Some of the questions that come to mind regarding the mission in Afghanistan are as follows.

What are the indicators of success? What are Canada's and NATO's specific operational goals and are they being achieved? It is simply not enough to say, with no proof, that we are making progress. Parliamentarians need to be able to assess how close we are to reaching our goals.

Is Canada taking on more of the military burden than other NATO nations? Canada has been involved in heavy fighting in Kandahar province while other NATO nations refuse to allow their troops to operate in the region of Kandahar and Helmand provinces. It is ultimately up to every country to decide what degree of involvement it should shoulder in any conflict; however, we have to ask ourselves why other nations have not been fully committed to this war.

At the fall meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Association held in Iceland just recently, Canada tried to get a commitment from parliamentarians in the 26 NATO nations, particularly those from Germany, France, Italy and other European countries, to share the burden with Canada on the front lines. Our success, I must say, probably was not resounding, as we did not get a firm commitment from the parliamentarians from these countries to pick up their share of the burden.

Canada's efforts in Afghanistan should be a combination of the three Ds: defence, diplomacy and development. Have development and diplomacy been given enough attention? That is the question. Total defence spending for the combat mission is estimated to reach $4.3 billion by February 2009. The total financial commitment for development is $1 billion over 10 years. Will concentrating more of our efforts on diplomacy and development help us reach our goals more quickly and be more in keeping with our reputation as a force for cooperative change?

If the mission were to continue beyond 2009, what roles and responsibilities would we take on? The panel has been presented with four scenarios: continue training the Afghan army and police so Canada can begin withdrawing its forces; focus on reconstruction and have forces from another country take over security in Kandahar province; shift Canadian security and reconstruction efforts to another region in Afghanistan; or withdraw all Canadian military except a minimal force to protect aid workers and diplomats.

However, as noted by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, in his response last Wednesday, the government seems to have already chosen the first option. If the panel proposes a different route, will the government listen?

In the Speech from the Throne, the government refers to the first option by stating that “Canada should...accelerate the training of the Afghan army and police so that the Afghan government can defend its own sovereignty”, which is a noble objective.

Currently, Operation Archer, the Canadian contribution to the retraining of the Afghan National Army and Afghan police, is comprised of only 30 Canadian Forces members, compared to the 2,500 troops deployed in Kandahar. It is a massive difference in commitment: 2,500 to 30. What is the government's plan to increase the number of Canadian Forces members participating in the retraining of the Afghan army and police?

These are questions we have a right to debate as parliamentarians. I urge the government to give us a forum in which to do that and to provide us with full and complete information about the mission so that we can make the right decision when the issue comes back to the House for a vote.

My last comments are about strengthening the federation. Since I am running out of time, I will save my comments on that initiative for a later date.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me say for the hon. member for Egmont regarding his notification that he will not be running next time that I express certainly on behalf of most of the colleagues in the House the belief that he has had a most honourable stay here. His values, principles and beliefs are well respected throughout the House. Though I and others may occasionally differ with him on an ideological point, I do not think anybody could second-guess his commitment and passion for Canada. I thank him. We thank him.

I was at the NATO conference in Iceland, which the member mentioned, and it honestly was quite rewarding to hear the accolades that Canada was given from all of the participants. As a matter of fact, Canada was singled out by Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer for our efforts and in acknowledgement of the difficult and trying times Canada is going through.

I might also add, however, that the hon. member mentioned in his comments that he felt final deliberations should come back to the House for input and evaluation as far as the continuity of our mission is concerned. I believe the Prime Minister is on record as saying that this is exactly what will happen. Does the member recall the Prime Minister speaking in the House and making that commitment?

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Prince Edward—Hastings for his very generous comments. As he said, we worked together on the NATO association meetings in Iceland. That was the first time that we were together on such a mission.

I certainly am impressed with the whole committee and the way it operated on behalf of Canada in putting forth our views and in supporting our troops. As the member said, we received accolades from countries all over the world about the commitment we have made there and the necessity of a country such as Canada taking a lead role in a very tough area.

However, we have to ask when enough is enough. How long are we going to put our troops on the front lines? Is it two more years during which we can reasonably expect our troops to be on the front lines or is it the next 10 years? It is going to take a long time before Afghanistan becomes a country that can function on its own with its own police force and its own army.

There will have to be a long term commitment to Afghanistan made by NATO and by Canada as a member of NATO, but I think the burden of the front line should be shared with other countries that seem to have forgotten the lessons of the first and second world wars, particularly in Europe.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, which raises the following question.

He said that in past years, his party has always been concerned about human rights. I would like to review a little history to remind him about something because I was not in the House at the time.

In 1981, your party repatriated the Constitution without Quebec's approval. What happened to human rights? A few years later, your party torpedoed the Meech Lake accord. What happened to human rights then? Recently, your party refused to recognize my nation. What happened to human rights then?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles should know that he must address the member in the third person, not the second. We have just 50 seconds left, so I will give the member for Egmont time to respond. If the member wants to finish his question, he must do so quickly and in the third person.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have just one question for the member. In light of the fact that one of the most important human rights is to have elected representatives, I would like to know how we can expect his demands for democracy to play out when we try to bring in Senate reform. Is he ready to support the government in its effort to bring in a reformed, elected Senate?

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

As we know, Mr. Speaker, the present Senate does a lot of great work and should be commended for its work, but things can be improved.

As for the way the government is going about improving the Senate, it seems that the government refuses to sit down and talk with the provinces about reforming the Senate. The Senate was designed as a voice for the regions. The government has yet to call a meeting of any region to discuss what changes the regions may desire in Senate reform.

If the province of Quebec is that keen on Senate--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I stand to speak on the Speech from the Throne, but I am having a hard time because there is so much smoke and mirrors in the speech. It is distorted to the extent that it is difficult to tell what is real and what is fantasy.

Here are some examples from the Speech from the Throne: “Canadians now have more money in their pockets because taxes have been cut”. Which Canadians? Certainly not the low income Canadians who have had their taxes increased by 5% by the government.

The speech also states: “Families now have real choice in child care”. That is $100 a month, $60 after taxes, this does nothing for early childhood development.

Another statement in the speech states: “a government committed to helping them get the medical care they need more quickly”. The Fraser Institute has just told us that in fact wait times have gone up. There is nothing in the speech to deal with health human resources which everyone knows is what will help to break wait times and there is nothing dealing with some of the management issues that we need to put in place to bring wait times down.

Another part of the throne speech states: “Our Government will stand up for Canada’s traditional industries. Key sectors including forestry”. I think we will recall that the government has done nothing to deal with the fires that occurred in the Okanagan, or to prevent them. It has done absolutely nothing for the pine beetle that is devastating British Columbia forests. It sold us out on softwood lumber, cheating our softwood lumber industries of $1 billion and now we are back speaking to the United States again about the same old thing. What fantasy world is the government living in is the question I want to ask?

What is interesting about the Speech from the Throne is what is not in it than for what is in it. The government speaks of concern for children but nowhere in the speech is there anything about sport or physical activity, yet one in four children in Canada are obese or overweight, 26% of them; 41% of children off reserve are obese or overweight and 55% of children on reserve are obese. Provincial and federal governments agree that we need to have a sport infrastructure to create daily physical quality activity for these children.

Our Liberal government put this in place. The Conservative government came into power and it disappeared. All the provinces are wondering where the sport infrastructure money is. It is not there. Two years later we still cannot hear about it. So much for caring about children.

As a physician I can tell the House that being overweight and obesity creates heart disease and will create type 2 diabetes, and our children will not live as long as their parents.

We have heard again in the Speech from the Throne about homelessness and housing. The government cancelled the Liberal $1.4 billion homelessness program. It cancelled the deal with the cities with which we were partnering to deal with housing and homelessness. The government obviously never spoke about housing before except in one word in the Speech from the Throne with absolutely no follow through on the sentence. It was just plunked into the middle of the sentence.

We know that in my city of Vancouver middle class people cannot afford to own their own homes. They cannot afford to rent affordable housing for their children. This is what is going on and we know that the government has absolutely nothing to say about it except words.

On arts and culture, why does it not surprise me that there is nothing about arts and culture in the Speech from the Throne? This is a government that voted against the UNESCO convention on the protection and promotion of cultural diversity, a convention that was written by and large by Canada over the past 10 years. The Conservative government voted against it.

We know that arts and culture is essential, not only for a sense of Canadian identity but for social cohesion in this very diverse geographic and demographic country. As well, in a post-industrial era if we wanted to really look at how Canada could be productive and competitive, we need to be able to stimulate creativity, imagination and innovation. That is what arts and culture is about. It is an essential part of an economic development plan.

While the Speech from the Throne is filled with all these wonderful buzz words, with all this fantasy and ideology, indeed I wonder if an ad agency wrote it because it is Pablum for the people.

There is such a lack of vision in the Speech from the Throne. It is so bland, so banal and lacking in substance that one has to wonder what there is to vote against. There is nothing there. It is a nothing speech.

Perhaps the only red flag in the speech that causes me some concern is the rehash of that old Brian Mulroney ideology about limiting federal spending and allowing provinces to opt out of shared programs. These programs are the glue that hold the country together.

Medicare will be gone if we allow provincial governments to opt out of shared programs. The federal government should be standing up for accessibility and portability for all Canadians, so that they can have access to social programs and medicare no matter where they live in the country, no matter what their language or who they are. That is not going to happen.

Mutual respect, which is a word used in the Speech from the Throne for this devolution of powers, actually in our language as Liberals means partnerships.

We spent a great deal of time as a government developing the social union framework agreement that allowed us to build partnerships with provinces and municipalities working together to create something that binds us as a country. This is gone. We see that the partnerships are gone. Obviously, it worked because we were able to develop shared programs on child care, the Kelowna accord, and we were able to develop a deal for cities in the country.

However, since the current government came into power, aided and abetted I might add by the NDP, it has actually had one agenda and that is to dismantle social programs, to dismiss the most vulnerable in our society, and to disregard agreements that have been written together by governments in the country.

Indeed, we are coming close to the Prime Minister's dream of firewalls around the provinces. But Liberals will continue to do what we do best: we will continue to respect Parliament. We will continue to ensure that Parliament works and that parliamentary democracy is honoured. We will be watching closely as the Speech from the Throne unfolds. We will stand on guard for a united, compassionate and strong Canada. That, Mr. Speaker, I promise you.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the hon. member's speech, especially given her experience in the House, but also because as a physician I believe she has some insight into one of the areas of greatest concern to Canadians, one area where there has been significant federal spending, namely health care.

From what I have been reading there are many who are saying that if we want to tackle wait times, which the government promised to do two years ago and has not done a thing about, we need to spend more money in this area for diagnostic equipment for doctors and nurses.

How would this work if we had limited spending power, would we have medicare today? That is the first question. The second question has to do with municipal infrastructure programs. How does the hon. member see infrastructure programs? We have a government that talks very nicely with a lot of platitudes about flexible federalism and limiting federal spending power, yet I am sure that it is concocting that it can invest in arenas and cultural centres across the country. How would the member look at that?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am actually very pleased to answer the question. Anyone who understands anything about medicare, the Canada Health Act and health care financing across the country will know that the way to resolve wait times is to set the protocols, and to look at how we devise a system in which we have people to deliver the care.

There are three million Canadians today in Canada who cannot find a family physician. We need doctors, nurses and technologists. We had set up a plan as Liberals to deal with this. We had developed a health human resources strategy. That is gone. We have not heard a word of this since the government came into power. Anyone who asks questions about it gets absolutely blank stares and no answers.

We cannot bring down wait times without having human resources. As well, we know that there are management issues which the provinces can do very well. There needs to be a pool put together of all of the wait lists so that people can move in and out of the pool based on the various doctors or nurses. That is the way to work it. Provinces can do that on their own but we need to support them.

Many municipalities and small provinces do not have the ability to deliver the equal programs and we need to give them the opportunity to do that with federal spending.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was hard getting out of that chair with a shiver going up my spine because of the fact that she is going to be watching over us. I hope that she and her colleagues do not watch over us the same way they watched over taxpayer money during the sponsorship scandal.

Something really baffles me. The Liberals, my colleague across the way included, always talked about supporting crime, supporting agriculture, the environment and all these things, but nothing ever happened until, all of a sudden, their backs were against the wall and they realized they may not get elected again for a long time. This is I guess typical. There seems to be a theme here.

The government is doing a lot of good things that Canadians want to see. We are working on the environment. It may not satisfy her, but at least something is getting done on it instead of the reverse. We are fighting crime.

My question for my colleague is, first, will she ever admit that we are actually doing something? Second, she had 13 years, why did she not do some of the things she talked so much about?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I would like to ask the hon. member for Vancouver Centre to keep an eye on the Chair because in 30 seconds her time will be up.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting. We know that in the last 10 years statistics in crime have gone down remarkably in this country. The police chiefs have told us that and justice institutes have told us that. It does not mean that we are devoid of crime but crime has gone down. Let us speak to the issue of crime, for instance, and the concept that the government has developed a strategy for the war on drugs. As a physician, I can tell members--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Lanark—Renfrew—Lennox and Addington.