Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2007

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and have the opportunity to address the Speech from the Throne that was delivered by the minority government last week.

I would also like to let you know, Mr. Speaker, that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Mount Royal.

There is no doubt that we live in interesting times. I dare say I think that characterizes the beginning of this second session of the 39th Parliament very well.

There are many people who cannot remember when they have seen the Canadian dollar as strong as it is, in relation to its U.S. counterpart, as it is performing today. But we have to recognize that sectors of our economy have lost a competitive advantage as a result of the strength of our dollar. In Waterloo region, which includes my riding of Kitchener Centre, there have been more than 8,000 jobs lost, well paying jobs, in the manufacturing sector. They are simply gone.

The Speech from the Throne conveys a vague reference to the hardships that exist in Canada's traditional industry, but clearly we see no plan.

The Conservative government recently announced a surplus that comes close to $14 billion. That is an amazing amount of money, yet at the same time we have reports from Canada's municipal leaders that communities need roughly $100 billion to rebuild aging infrastructure. That is a huge issue in municipalities right across Canada, including Kitchener Centre in Waterloo region.

The last federal budget included $33 billion over seven years for infrastructure, with only a small portion of that being specifically earmarked for municipalities. We need only think back to the tragic bridge collapse in the province of Quebec to recognize the ramifications of neglecting that kind of investment for communities and for Canadians.

Waterloo region is looking for the federal government to invest in infrastructure in a significant way, especially in a project that it has that is incredibly visionary. It is a transportation project as well as a planning tool, a transit system that is key to the management and promotion of the region's growth over the years to come. It is the rapid transit system which eventually will hook us up to the GO Train, which would allow commuters to get off the 401, which we all know is one of the most heavily travelled pieces of highway in North America.

I was looking forward to some kind of specific announcement like that in the Speech from the Throne, and sadly there was none.

I was looking to see more substantive suggestions than the vague notions that were referenced in the Speech from the Throne. Does the building Canada plan include making the gas tax permanent? We do not know. Does it include allocating a cent from every dollar collected through the GST to roads, bridges and essential infrastructure that form the backbone of our communities and cities? We do not know.

Canada depends on strong cities and communities. They are the drivers of our prosperity. The link between healthy communities and productivity, as well as competitiveness, has been well established.

The most recent Speech from the Throne produced by the Conservative minority government alludes to health care, as if it were a challenge that had been met years past and no longer warrants any kind of focus or consideration, no study, no action, no explicit strategy.

I am very proud of our previous Liberal government and the lengths that we went to to address this very important priority for Canadians. The health care crisis that was emerging in Canada was addressed by the historic 2004 health accord, otherwise known as the 10 year plan to strengthen health care. We had a plan. We had specific action and it was done after vast consultation.

However, today it is estimated that 50,000 residents are without a family doctor in my region. That is from an area that is probably one of the fastest growing, most thriving economies in Canada, and yet we still have over 50,000 residents that cannot get primary health care providers.

We were, at one point, officially designated as an underserviced area, but due to an awful lot of hard work by local people at all levels of government, including a great deal of leadership by the Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce, we are now off that list.

However, we cannot rest on our laurels because we need to make sure that health care is there for the people of Waterloo region and the people of Canada right across this country.

Members of Parliament come to this House with a variety of philosophies and I am sure in the main, 308 members come to do what they think is in the best interests of Canadians. I actually had a fairly simple philosophy when I came to this place and I continue to maintain it. And that is quite simply for some, those who are strong and able and can find their own way and make their own success, government's best role is simply to get out of their way, remove red tape, and provide incentives to support a climate where they can continue to prosper fully and to contribute to the Canadian economy and to society.

For others who face challenges and struggles, government has a more personal role to empower this group to overcome barriers. No matter what the fiscal status of our nation, we cannot afford to leave anyone behind any more than we can afford to hold anyone back.

In times of prosperity, in times where we see almost embarrassing levels of federal surpluses, how can we outline a plan for our nation that makes no mention of the more than one million children who continue to live in poverty in Canada? Solving poverty is much more than cutting taxes. Canadians are working, our economy is strong, yet there are still families and children living in poverty. Clearly, what Canada lacks is a national strategy for poverty reduction.

The Conservative minority government identified crime reduction as a priority. If the government is serious about reducing crime and addressing the causes, it has to look at the root causes of crime and one of those is poverty. Solving poverty is essential in itself, but it is also a key to addressing issues such as health care and community safety.

I am astonished that the government continues to turn its back on families by refusing to honour its child care commitments. The government has failed to deliver the 125,000 child care spaces that it promised and has left families with little or no choice in child care.

The government's decision to cancel the child care funding agreements with the provinces and instead provide a small baby bonus for families with young children has simply not delivered the kind of support that families require. As the busy parent of any young child will say, $1,200 a year or $100 a month is bus fare, it is not child care.

Last week I joined many of my colleagues to mark the national Persons Day by celebrating the achievements of Canada's Famous Five. I am always inspired by this group of women, the victory that saw Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Irene Parlby, Louise McKinney and Henrietta Muir Edwards having women declared persons under Canadian law in 1929. The victory of these women represents a significant milestone in the fight in this country for equal rights.

However, actions by the Conservative government remind me that the pursuit of equality is still important in Canada today. Women's groups have worked hard in order to obtain or work toward true social, political, economic, cultural and legal equality in Canada. What has the government done? It has silenced these groups by cutting funding.

It is ridiculous to silence those voices on those issues which are so important to Canadian women and Canadian society. Canadian women still make 71¢ for every dollar men earn in Canada and so many of them live with the threat of domestic violence. We must continue to strive for a better tomorrow for our daughters and our granddaughters.

We live in a complex, demanding, diverse nation and we must govern not just for today, but for tomorrow and beyond. The Speech from the Throne offers a range of ideas and mentions many important issues, but it lacks a cohesive vision to address the most important poignant needs in our community. In essence, it says very little about the Conservative government's agenda.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague opposite, who prides himself so much on his democratic principles.

I would like to talk about the province of Quebec, where I am from. For 40 years, the Liberals failed to recognize our rightful position, by virtue of our culture, within UNESCO. During the 40 years in which they were in power, they could not even recognize Quebec as a nation. However, during that same 40 years, they were able to invoke the War Measures Act. Now, that is serious.

I have a question for you here today. Since we are talking about democracy, are you willing to recognize an elected Senate, with senators elected for eight years?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the candour and the tenor of the question of my colleague opposite. I know it is a very sincere question.

I believe that government and all parties of the House should be honest with Canadians. If the Prime Minister and the government do not like the way the Senate is working then they should not come in the side door and attempt to do by stealth when they do not have the guts to go to Canadians and consult with them. If they do not like the Senate they should go to Canadians, open the Constitution and change the formula.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question with regard to trade policy. She noted manufacturing concerns. We have lost 300,000 jobs in five years and one of the reasons has been because of trade policy practices.

Her former leader, the member for LaSalle—Émard, started negotiations on the Korea trade agreement. He gave the file to the member for Vancouver Kingsway who was part of her caucus at one point before he crossed the floor to the Conservatives and continues to work on that actual agreement today. It is of great concern to many Canadians in many different types of manufacturing industries.

I would like to know from the member whether her party still supports a trade deal with South Korea and under what terms and conditions it would support or not support that deal.

New Democrats have been calling for this to cease and desist, especially given the complexities of the auto industry in particular right now. I would like to know specifically what her party is doing to address this and what its policy is on either accepting or rejecting it. If it is going to be accepted, what are the conditions?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a very troubling bilateral pact.

I have written on behalf of my constituents. One in seven jobs in Ontario has to do with the auto or auto related industry. I do not have the knowledge nor the authority at this point in time to definitively outline what our party's position would be on it. However, I have heard from the people in my riding that this is a very troubling agreement. I share the member's concerns on how we go forward to ensure that it is at least fair to Canadian manufacturers.

I believe that the proposed bilateral agreement is very much tipped in favour of Korea.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the member's comments earlier about the issue of the Senate, Senate reform, the Constitution and a referendum, I recall, in the context of Liberal Senator Dan Hays' remarks when he delivered a report in the Senate on the crucial need for Senate reform, that he talked about a long-standing sore point in Canadian national politics. He was quite adamant in insisting that Parliament needed to enact legislation on fixed terms for Senators. Am I to understand that the member opposite disagrees with the hon. long-serving Senator Dan Hays?

The Liberal Senate, of course, did go on to kill our bill in the Senate. However, does the member disagree with Liberal Senator Hays with respect to his view that we need to get right to the job of legislating eight year fixed term limits for senators in the upper House?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not have a problem with term limits, whether they are 8, 10 or 12 years, but I do believe that it is a debate that Canadians need to have. I personally do not support the idea of an elected Senate but that is the kind of engaged conversation we would need to have with Canadians.

The allocation formula as to how many senators are assigned to each region would be a very interesting discussion to have with the provinces and Canadians right across Canada. I feel passionate that one ought not to do by stealth what one does not have the stomach to do through the front door.

I would be all for comprehensive Senate reform but we need to engage Canadians. I do not believe in working around the edges. Term limits, in and of themselves, are not a particular issue for anyone. It is more the larger issue of representation. Canadians truly need an education as to what the Senate does.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today on behalf of the great constituency of Mount Royal in response to the throne speech. I want to address the speech, not only in terms of what it says, but the importance of what it does not say, thereby undercutting its own stated priorities. I will address the missing priorities and the diminishing, thereby, the stated priorities on both the international and domestic levels.

First, the throne speech makes eloquent mention of our shared values: democracy, freedom, human rights, the rule of law and the need for international leadership to protect these values. We agree with that. However, it ignores the most compelling international concerns today and the corresponding assaults on these very fundamental values.

I am referring, for example, to the genocide by attrition in Darfur where 400,000 have already died, where four million are in desperate need of humanitarian assistance, where the violence, including the indiscriminate bombing and burning of villages, sexual violence and assaults on humanitarian aid workers continues unabated, and both the Darfur peace process and the comprehensive peace process are in danger of unravelling, threatening, not only the stability of Sudan but its nine neighbouring countries.

I am not saying that the government is unaware of the Darfur tragedy or that the government has done nothing but it has not identified it as a priority. The best evidence of this is that the word Darfur, even the word Africa, is not even mentioned in the throne speech, let alone addressed in terms of the “commitment, focus, and action” of which the throne speech otherwise speaks.

This is not a partisan problem. To put it simply, while the international community hesitates, the people of Darfur continue to die. I would hope that this government will show the necessary moral, political and diplomatic leadership within the international community to ensure that the required concrete action is taken.

Nor is there any mention in the throne speech of the state sanctioned incitement to genocide whose epicentre is Ahmadinejad's Iran. I say Ahmadinejad's Iran because I am not referring to the Iranian people nor to the many publics in Iran who are themselves the object of a massive domestic repression of human rights.

This flagrant omission is particularly disconcerting. As mentioned during the Global Conference on the Prevention of Genocide, held last week at McGill University, the enduring lesson of the Holocaust—and the genocides that took place in the Balkans and in Rwanda—is that genocides happen not only because of the “machinery” of death, but also because of an ideology of hate propagated by the state.

This teaching of contempt, this demonizing of the other, is where it all began. As our own courts have affirmed in upholding the constitutionality of our anti-hate legislation, “the Holocaust did not begin in the gas chambers, it began with words”. These, as the court put it, are the catastrophic effects of racism. These, as the court put it, are the chilling facts of history.

Tragically, Ahmadinejad's Iran, in violation of the prohibition against the direct and public incitement to genocide, in both the genocide conventions and the treaty for an international criminal court, exhibits all the precursors to genocide that have lead us down that road in the past.

Accordingly—and I repeat, this is not a partisan issue—the Canadian government should be a world leader in combating this culture of impunity, referring the matter to the United Nations and its agencies in order to ensure that the instigators of this genocide, promoted by the state, are held responsible for their actions.

On the domestic level, the omissions are again glaring. For example, the throne speech speaks eloquently of anniversaries we are commemorating, the 60th Anniversary of Canadian Citizenship and anniversaries we are about to commemorate, such as the 400th anniversary of the founding of Quebec City.

However, it makes no mention of the fact that we are commemorating now the 25th Anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Indeed, there is no mention at all in the throne speech of the Charter of Rights even though the charter has had a transformative impact not only on our laws but on our lives.

For we have moved from being a parliamentary democracy to a constitutional democracy; the courts have moved from being arbiters of legal federalism, which they still are, to being the guarantors of our rights, because we, Parliament, vested in them that power; and where individuals and groups now have a panoply of rights and remedies that were unthinkable prior to the charter, which is why the charter has emerged as a respected and indispensable centrepiece, not only of our legal culture but for our human relationships.

Indeed, the only justice priority that the throne speech identifies is violent crime. Now safe streets and safe communities are the shared aspirations of all Canadians and the common objective of all parliamentarians and parties.

The point is that five of the six pieces of proposed legislation in the tackling violent crime act were initiated by the government in which I served as Minister of Justice. We were not only prepared to support that legislation in the last parliamentary session but we were prepared to fast track it into law.

However, the more important point here is that the justice agenda is not only about combating violent crime, whose objective we share, but it should include as a priority the protection of the vulnerable: women, children, aboriginals, minorities and the poor. The test of a just society is how it treats the most vulnerable among us.

There is no mention of women's rights, thereby marginalizing, as principle and policy, the principle that women's rights are human rights and there are no human rights which do not include the rights of women, while marginalizing also the needs of veterans and students.

Moreover, not only is there no mention of women's right and the ignoring of the Charter of Rights as a whole, but the government has dismantled the court challenges program, which was a bulwark in the promotion of both equality rights and minority rights, and while we welcome the government's commitment to the promotion and protection of official languages in Canada, it again undermines its own stated objective by the abolition of the very instrument that promoted and protected minority language rights.

Nor is there any provision for an early learning and child care program of the kind set forth in our government's federal-provincial child care agreements, which were jettisoned by this government, thereby denying needed child care to thousands of children, while repudiating a federal-provincial agreement, thereby undermining the government's own stated commitment to open federalism.

There is only perfunctory mention of poverty and the plight of the poor, but no undertaking of making poverty history on the international level or poverty reduction on the domestic level as a government priority. This, notwithstanding the fact that one million children live in poverty; that 2.8 million families, or one in five, live below the low income cutoff ; and that the gap between rich and poor has reached a three decade high, an inequality gap usually associated with underdeveloped nations.

In the matter of aboriginal justice, while we welcome the government's apology to first nations as part of the residential school agreement that our government had negotiated with the Assembly of First Nations and the Conservative government is duly respecting, this is far from making aboriginal justice a priority on the justice agenda as recommended by federal, provincial and territorial justice ministers at the 2005 FPT conference. This includes the other framework agreements that were negotiated, as well as supporting the international declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples.

Further, there is no reference in the throne speech as a matter of principle and policy, let alone a priority, for a comprehensive sustainable civil as well as criminal legal aid program, also identified unanimously as a priority on the justice agenda at the FPT conference in 2005. The lack of such a program also impacts adversely on the most vulnerable of our society: women, children, minorities, aboriginals, the elderly and refugees, thereby further exacerbating their plight.

Indeed, the government's throne speech is diminished by the absence of even reference to these priorities, while its own stated priorities are undercut and undermined by the priorities that are excluded to the detriment of all Canadians.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I would note specifically the comments by the member for Mount Royal regarding the troubling developments in Iran. I share his concern on the impact of the statements being made by the leadership in Iran, the impact that it specifically has on the people in the state of Israel, as well as peace in the Middle East and beyond generally.

I am specifically concerned about the reports of the possible development of nuclear weapons by Iran and I respect the member's point of view in that regard. I would like to hear from him what Canada's role should be to ensure that the proliferation of nuclear weapons, especially in the hands of a country like Iran, can be addressed. I think he would share my concern in that respect as well.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's concern. Indeed, the government of Iran is not only engaged at this point in the processing of enriched uranium and plutonium along the road to develop nuclear weapons, but it has defied UN Security Council resolutions calling upon it to cease and desist from doing so.

The government should take the lead in supporting enhanced sanctions at the Security Council where we can be supportive of those initiatives that are to be taken and work with governments like Russia and China, which have impeded such sanctions and resolutions being adopted.

As well, on the matter of state sanctioned incitement to genocide, we should not only refer the matter to the appropriate agencies of the United Nations, the Security Council and the like, but we should call upon the UN Security Council to refer this to the International Criminal Court for investigation and prospective prosecution, as we did with respect to the Darfuri in that regard, and ensure that all initiatives be taken to combat this culture of impunity with respect to Iran's incitement to genocide, including the Government of Canada initiating a state to state complaint before the International Court of Justice against Iran, which is also a state party to the genocide convention.

We can also call upon the secretary general of the United Nations, under article 99 of the United Nations charter, to refer this matter to the UN Security Council as threatening international peace and security as Iran continues to be a standing threat to the right of states to live in peace and security, free from any threats or acts of force. These are some of the initiatives that I would hope the government might in fact initiate.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on that question in terms of the proactive leadership role that Canada could play with respect to Iran.

The member mentioned the Ahmadinejad in Iran. I take it he sees in that Iran another Iran, one that has democratic roots, one that out of a recent conference in Paris saw thousands and thousands of Iranians, who no longer live in Iran but are expatriates who live in various parts of the world, including Canada, calling upon the government to renew its interest in those pro democratic organizations that could be very influential with respect to political developments in Iran.

Does the member have any additional information that he could suggest would be part of a strategy that Canada could take major leadership above and beyond those he has already mentioned, which are extremely important, in support of democratic movements that consist of Iranians who are expatriates and are willing to get involved in balancing those dictatorial, authoritarian and fanatic regimes that exist in Iran at this time?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I distinguished Ahmadinejad's Iran, and I would associate with that also former President Rafsanjani and Ayatollah Khomeini. Both have incited to genocide in their calls for the annihilation of a Jewish state and both, along with Mr. Ahmadinejad, have been engaged in a massive repression of the domestic human rights in Iran, religious communities such as the Baha'i political dissidents. There have been an increased number of executions in the last year alone.

There are a number of initiatives we can take in that regard on the human rights level. As we learned at the Prague conference, which was held and brought together for the first time dissidents from countries all over the world, it said that we had to make human rights a priority in our foreign policy. We have to lend support to dissidents who are themselves the targets of this repression. We have to stand in solidarity with those who are being singled out for differential and discriminatory treatment.

We should therefore combat in all forms the culture of impunity that Iran has been allowed to escape its responsibilities from, both with respect to the domestic as well as international levels.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my distinguished colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher.

I am happy to rise and speak in this House today, not because there is anything to be happy about in the throne speech, but because I am speaking on behalf of the people in my riding and the most underprivileged people in our society.

When the throne speech was read and the government members made their speeches, poverty was frequently mentioned. In fact, it was only occasionally mentioned, but for the Conservatives, that is what passes for “frequently”, because they do not often talk about it and they certainly do not often do anything about it.

The leader of the official opposition also talked about poverty. We should be able to expect the two main parties to set an example and fight in this House to alleviate poverty. But in many respects they are not setting an example. I would even go so far as to say that this throne speech represents a betrayal of political promises made by this government and the previous government.

I am careful to refer to the two successive governments, because they have done the most damage to the social safety net for the poorest members of our society, in terms of social housing and income support for seniors, especially those who were entitled to the guaranteed income supplement and who have been robbed of over $3 billion. The throne speech made no mention of this, however.

In the previous session and this one, the Bloc has repeatedly raised this grave injustice to seniors.

It is the same thing with social housing. In the past 15 years, the federal government has slashed funding for social housing. Only since 2001 or 2002 has the government begun reinvesting in this. Still, funding in this area is seriously lacking.

Today, I want to talk specifically about employment insurance, as well as other promises that the Conservative government has not kept.

This week is national unemployment week. It would have been nice if the throne speech had had something for the unemployed.

Last week, we discussed, at third reading, Bill C-269, which is designed to reform the employment insurance fund and improve the employment insurance system.

That would have been a great opportunity for the government and the opposition to take strong action for the unemployed. In addition, International Day for the Eradication of Poverty was celebrated last week.

There is no shortage of opportunities not only to express intentions but also to act. Yet, nothing is being done, especially not in the throne speech. We have recently had two byelections in Quebec. In the two ridings I visited, the candidates made commitments in that regard.

I notice in the House one of the candidates who got elected. I take this opportunity to congratulate him on his victory. I would rather be congratulating him today on his government having included in the throne speech measures to address the forestry and manufacturing crises to help those businesses and workers affected by these crises.

I call upon our colleagues, and particularly the one to whom I just referred because I am aware that he made such a commitment. I think that he was sincere. I have no reason to think he was not. Does he now realize that he was in the wrong party to make such a commitment? He sought election to be able to play a role in getting tangible measures introduced to help these businesses and workers. This was a unique opportunity. Yet, there is nothing to that effect in the Speech from the Throne.

I am not saying all this to make them argue for no reason, but to make them realize that they are far from following through on the promises made by their government, including the recent promises made during the byelections. It is unbelievable.

It is very unfortunate that income support is not being given to older workers in the forestry and manufacturing industries. The entire regional economy is affected when the government fails to implement concrete measures to make up for the inadequacies of the employment insurance program, to improve accessibility to employment insurance and to benefits. I know that is what the members opposite talk about when they want to get elected. They say they will resolve the problem if they are elected to power.

I would like to remind the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean and his colleagues who are here today of something. I can still hear his recent speeches. When a worker does not receive insurance benefits after contributing his entire life, he suffers and so does his family, the region, Quebec or the provinces involved. When the federal government does not meet its obligations, the provinces and Quebec have to meet the needs of these people by using welfare and other programs.

This is a serious economic crime against workers, their families and the regions. Why is it a crime? Because someone is taking their money. The employment insurance fund consists only of contributions from workers and employers. Out of everyone who contributes to employment insurance, barely 45% can hope to receive such benefits if they have the misfortune of losing their employment. The government itself acknowledges that. Some 15 years ago, 88% of the unemployed had access to EI. This accessibility to employment insurance was cut to 50% for workers who lose their employment. It is scary, but there has not been a riot over this.

The purpose of the fund is to serve as insurance. Imagine an insurance company trying to do the same thing. They insure your house. When you suffer a fire, you go to your insurance company knowing you paid your premiums for house insurance for the past 30 years. The representative asks you where the fire started. Was it in the kitchen or the living room? If you make the mistake of saying it started in the living room, they will tell you that is no good. Your insurance does not apply because the fire should have started in the kitchen.

This is what unemployed Canadians are being told. What region are you in? What is the unemployment rate? Are you a woman or a young person? As we have heard, only approximately 43% of unemployed workers can receive employment insurance. Women represent only 33% and young people, only 17%. Here too, we see the discrimination in their treatment.

I would have liked to discuss some other matters today, but I am sure my colleague will do so with eloquence. What I find very surprising is that the Bloc's amendment included all that. It included concrete measures to support the workers, businesses and regions suffering because of the forestry and manufacturing crises. Our amendment served to eliminate use of the spending power in Quebec and provincial areas of jurisdiction. We were the only ones, however, who voted in favour of that amendment. The Conservatives voted against these measures, although they were the ones who promised it, along with us. The Liberals also voted against the amendment, as did our friends in the NDP, which is beyond me. I no longer understand. I know you know them well, Mr. Speaker, and you probably understand their reasoning, but we do not understand what is happening.

Canadians must realize what is happening in this House. Recently, someone said we have to walk the talk. In this House, several members have made speeches that contradict the positions they have taken. That is unfortunate. As a result, some Canadians are in trouble today because we fail to realize that by not carrying out our responsibilities in this House to correct the situation, we relegate these individuals to poverty.

The issue of poverty will be raised in this House again after the way we have voted recently. There is a lack of consistency there, and we must discuss it.

In closing—given that you are indicating, Mr. Speaker, that I have one minute left—we do not have the right to say in this House that someone lied. However, we can urge our colleagues to tell the truth. That is what I would like to say to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development. He announced in this House that, under Bill C-269, the measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois would cost $11 billion. The minister's own figures indicate it would cost $1.9 billion, an amount already in the fund.

Therefore, I invite you Mr. Speaker, and your colleagues, to verify the minister's statement because, in my opinion, he is obliged to be honest and to correct the statement he made in this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for raising the issue of the unemployed, which is an issue that we all care about, including us, government members.

However, there is one thing I would like to know. The member for Chambly—Borduas did say that the Conservative member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean was elected because he spoke about logging companies during the election campaign. Why is it that the Bloc Québécois candidate in that same riding of Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean did not condemn Greenpeace, which scuttled the ship that was transporting lumber to Europe, since this was jeopardizing the sale of that lumber?

I am putting my question to the member who talks a lot about the unemployed. Is he prepared, personally or as his party's critic on unemployment, to condemn Greenpeace, which is currently campaigning against logging companies, considering that our own member was elected to solve this issue? Is he prepared to condemn his Greenpeace allies? That is my question.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to condemn Greenpeace, but I would invite the hon. member to keep up with the news, because that has already been done. It was done on the very day that this statement was made by our friends opposite.

I want to take the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles back to an issue that he is supposed to be aware of, an issue that affects his riding. Hundreds of workers—primarily women—in the Saint-Émile shoe industry, at Chaussures Régence Inc., were laid off more than two years ago. When he got himself elected, the hon. member made a commitment to solve the issue by restoring POWA, along with us.

Did he do that? He has been in office for almost two years now. He made this commitment to these female workers who, according to the statistics, are among the 33% who qualify for EI benefits. These women are listening today and they keep close tab of what he is saying. They are listening to him.

I am putting the question to him. Of course he cannot take the floor again, but let him go and provide the answer to these people, in his riding. Why did he not help them? He is puffing up his chest when he refers to Roberval, but we are now talking about what happened in his own riding, in Saint-Émile. He is aware of the issue.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is my eighth throne speech in ten years, and I must say that, once again, it is meaningless, if not totally useless, where Quebec is concerned. In fact, the more things change, the more they stay the same. This is always a much anticipated speech, but it is always a very disappointing one.

Since the prorogation of the House was announced, there has been a lot of griping from all parts of Quebec, and back home, in Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, people had much to say.

First, I must say that the conditions set by the Bloc Québécois in anticipation of this speech truly reflected what the people have told us throughout the summer, particularly in my riding, where many of my constituents came to me with their concerns about the environment, the federal spending power and Afghanistan.

Allow me to stress the fact that the environment is a central concern for the young and the not so young, who are worried. Young voices can be heard calling us to order where it comes to looking after our planet. I think that is very encouraging. The people in my generation understand, as do those in older generations, and as I just mentioned, the younger generation is very sensitive to the issue. The Conservatives are the only ones in society who do not understand.

I cannot believe that, once again, the Prime Minister is siding with the Americans and adopting the same policy, when there are so many indications that the public is opposed.

I cannot believe that the Prime Minister is siding with the big oil companies instead of the people.

As if repudiating their signature were not enough, the Conservatives are also silent on the issue of a territorial approach. One understands, however, that such an approach would cost Alberta too much and, more importantly, that it would be too profitable for Quebec industries. How cynical.

Once again, Quebec distinguishes itself through its difference, having already gone a reasonably long way to achieving the objectives in terms of the targets set in the Kyoto protocol, yet it is totally ignored by the federal government.

Another thing that makes us realize that the Liberals and the Conservatives are cut from the same cloth is federal spending power. In 1996, Jean Chrétien wrote the same lines on this that we see in last week's speech.

Need I remind this minority government that there is a consensus in Quebec on eliminating federal spending power? Need I remind them that Quebec has been disputing this federal spending power'a existence for more than 50 years? Need I remind them that, regardless of their political stripes, every Quebec government, without exception, has expressed their desire to defend the integrity of Quebec's jurisdictions?

We are far from it with the Conservative Speech from the Throne. In that speech, Quebeckers now have concrete proof that open federalism is a sham.

What bothers me the most about this Speech from the Throne is that, without asking the opinion of the House, the Prime Minister clearly announced his intention to pursue the current mission in Afghanistan until 2011, without first doing what he said he would on June 20; here are his own words:

Mr. Speaker, the government has made it clear that the mission will end in February 2009. A new mission after that date would have to be approved by this Parliament.

The purpose of the mission in Afghanistan was above all to be a mission of reconstruction, a mission in which Canada promised to resolve problems, not create new ones.

For some time now, this mission has taken a rather worrisome turn. More and more military resources are being sent to Kandahar and more and more soldiers are dying on Afghan soil.

In addition to all that, the NGOs on the ground are complaining about the bad management of money being sent by the Canadian government for humanitarian aid. If the objectives of this mission are to improve the quality of life of Afghans, the message we are hearing from the NGOs is quite simple: we have failed.

The Conservative government is clearly aiming to be as much like the Bush administration in the United States as possible. The reputation of our neighbours to the south is constantly criticized by the international community.

It is certainly not by copying our neighbour's warlike policies that we are going to improve the quality of life of Afghans. Take Iraq for example: there is nothing to be proud of there.

Now let us talk about the new Minister of International Cooperation, a new minister in the new Conservative government who is not doing anything really new. In the past, flags were being handed out; now it is cookies.

This minister has nothing new to offer. She has not done a better job than her predecessor, nor has she done a better job than the previous government.

Let us not forget that before taking on her current role, the Minister of International Cooperation was the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women. She did not take it seriously. In fact, the minister lost that role because the whole production was turning into a tasteless vaudeville show. The entire artistic community was disgusted with the minister's lack of leadership. Moreover, with this minister at the helm, women also lost ground.

In response to what was, at best, a poor performance and at worst, a complete failure, the Prime Minister put her in charge of International Cooperation during the last cabinet shuffle. That goes to show how unimportant he thinks this critical portfolio is.

People are expecting a lot from the minister, but they do not have a lot of faith in her. We are very concerned about the announcements in last week's Speech from the Throne. We are also very concerned about the kind of announcements the minister has been making. I should point out that this government's modus operandi has been to announce new programs without announcing new funding.

The total budget for international development assistance has been set, and there has been no new money since. The Conservatives' tactics are appalling.

For years now, we have been urging the government to support the millennium goals and dedicate 0.7% of GDP to international aid as recommended by the UN special committee. Unfortunately, we are still a long way from that goal. We expect more from the government. In light of the surpluses they have announced, what is stopping them?

It is practically impossible to get any answers to our questions. It is also very difficult to get information from the minister about what is happening with the money sent to Afghanistan.

The NGOs on the ground voiced their displeasure, but the government did not respond. It did not even comment, which is not very reassuring.

Too many letdowns give us no choice but to vote against this Speech from the Throne, which contains nothing new or tangible for Quebeckers.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. The theme is: strengthening the federation and our democratic institutions.

This government is committed to pursuing a federalism of openness that recognizes the strength and the contribution of each region of our great country. We committed to respect matters of exclusive provincial jurisdiction and to ensure accountability by clarifying roles and responsibilities. We have taken historic action by restoring fiscal balance in Canada and by putting this country's fiscal arrangements back on a predictable, long term, principled track. In fact, by restoring fiscal balance, federal support for provinces and territories was brought to unprecedented levels to support quality services for Canadians.

In the Speech from the Throne, we took additional measures to advance our vision of open federalism.

We promised to introduce a bill to impose limits on use of the federal spending power for new shared-cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, while allowing the provinces to opt out with reasonable compensation if they offer compatible programs.

Our approach is anchored in a desire to make Canada an even stronger federation by recognizing the strength and contribution of each region of this country, and under the Prime Minister and this government, the federation is stronger and more united than ever. A strong federation and a vibrant democracy are the foundations of our united and great country. Indeed, these two elements--federalism and democracy--are inextricably linked in the history of Canada.

Looking back at Canada's history, it becomes apparent that a federal system like democracy was a wise and prudent choice by our Fathers of Confederation, a wise formula best suited to the changing needs and the aspirations of such a diverse people stretched out across this vast land.

Indeed, history has shown that Canada is a country defined by its economic, social, geographic and cultural diversity.

In this context, our practice of federalism allows Canada to strike a balance, pursuing national goals while taking into consideration various local and regional factors, all the while continuously remaining flexible and adapting to change.

In fact, the Canadian federation's flexibility lends itself well to finding solutions to public policy questions and helps it rise to the challenges that we face to meet the demands of this diverse and ever-changing citizenry. It grants security for local interests while lending scope for carrying out the will of the nation as a whole in matters of national importance.

Our federation is a world success story. We are a model to others for effective governance, respect and recognition of diversity and pragmatic consensus.

As a federation, we will always have some regional stresses and strains, yet our great strength has been in how we address them, overcome them and build a stronger and a better Canada.

We have clearly been a success in Quebec with our recognition of the fiscal balance and our settlement of the fiscal balance.

May I say on this note that I look forward to sharing my time with my hon. new colleague from Quebec who will be speaking on this issue, in particular, from a Quebec perspective.

When our government first came into power, it was clear that Canadian federalism was not working as well as it should have been.

It was becoming stagnant and unresponsive to the changing needs of the provinces and territories and the changing needs of Canadians.

What we saw before our government came to power was an unprincipled, what I like to call chequebook federalism, an unfettered use of the federal spending power to the detriment of the federation and to Canadians. Unplanned federal surpluses were used to spend massive amounts in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, often in the absence of consultation with the provinces and territories. This spending weakened the bonds of our federation. It resulted in strains between the federal government and the provinces and territories where expenditures were undertaken without adequate consultation or consensus on priorities and created resentment among the provinces.

This use of federal spending power in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction created new cost pressures on provincial and territorial governments, forcing them to adversely distort their taxing and spending priorities, particularly where initiatives required matching funds. Provinces were then faced with the dilemma of going into debt to help fund the new programs while still having to respond to their local demands of concerns of their citizens, and if they opted out from the program they subjected their citizens to taxation without benefit.

This spending in areas of primarily provincial jurisdiction increased uncertainty, where initiatives were introduced without long term or stable federal funding, leaving provinces facing greater budgetary challenges when the cost of the programs were fully downloaded as the federal government sought to slash spending.

Twenty one months ago, Canadians voted to change the government of Canada, because they wanted to change the direction of this country.

One thing that they wanted to see was a federalism of openness that allowed the provinces to provide the programs and services that their citizens required. The idea behind open federalism dates to well before 2006. It was born out of the idea that the federation is not static but an evolving institution that should respond to the changes and the impacts of a modern world. It was built on the idea of a strong national government working in cooperation with strong provincial and territorial governments, as envisioned in our Constitution and grounded in the British North American Act.

I am very proud of this type of federalism. It is also very different from the counterproductive and centralist federalism that had too often characterized the Liberal government's approach to federal-provincial relationships before we became government.

I am sure that we all hope, with the passage of this throne speech and our government's subsequent legislation, that this era will be well and truly behind us.

Canadians want their governments to agree and to cooperate. They do not want our federation's development to be marked by discord and confrontation.

The right hon. Prime Minister wants Canada's future to be one of vibrant optimism and renewed confidence in ourselves. The throne speech maps out that future in a way that inspires and rallies Canadians because the direction that we want to take our country reflects the priorities of Canadians, their hopes and their expectations.

The future we envision for Canadians will be made possible thanks to an open federalism that all Canadians can identify with and look upon with confidence, no matter where they live.

Open federalism means recognizing the maturation and evolution of the provinces and territories within the federation and respecting the clear and important role that they are playing in meeting their citizens' needs.

It means respecting areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction and limiting the use of the federal spending power. My colleague from Roberval--Lac-Saint Jean will be speaking to the House shortly and he will explain how important this is, particularly for Quebec.

By providing this kind of equitable and predictable funding for shared priorities and attempting to clarify roles and responsibilities in the federation, this government is offering a solid principle based approach on which provincial governments can continue to work.

Restoring the fiscal balance to the federation and proposing limits on the use of federal spending power gives the provinces the financial flexibility and ability to respond to the needs and demands of their citizens and ensure that there are adequate programs to do just that. It gives the provinces the resources and the ability to better meet their citizens' needs by providing better schools, better roads and better health care for Canadians.

As the Canadian federation evolves, we will continue to focus on measures to strengthen national unity. In the spirit of open federalism, this government has concentrated on its national role by reinvesting in core responsibilities such as trade, defence, public safety and security. We will continue to play a leadership role to promote national interests in cooperation and collaboration with the provinces and territories.

We will also continue to insert the importance of maintaining an open, honest and respectful relationship with the provinces and territories.

We also assert that true collaboration can only occur when resources and accountability are matched with clear roles and responsibilities. Our government believes that the jurisdiction of each order of government should be respected so that all Canadians can see their needs and desires moved to fruition.

That is why our government will introduce federal legislation to place formal limits on the use of federal spending power for new cost shared programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. This legislation will also allow provinces and territories to opt out with reasonable compensation if they offer compatible services.

By forging ahead with our vision of open federalism, we remain focused on building Canada's future prosperity by expanding the many advantages we already possess as a nation.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Before we proceed to questions and comments, I would like to remind the House and all members who might be listening to try and get in who you are sharing your time with if you are sharing your time at the beginning of your speech. There have been a number of occasions today when we had to go to some trouble to get people to mention who they were sharing their time with. In fact, there was one person, who shall go unnamed, who never did mention who they were sharing their time with. I just operated as if they had but I do not like to do that very often. If people would make a point of that, that would be great.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Etobicoke North.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's remarks about the throne speech took me back to the last budget by the finance minister when he stood in this place and talked about how all the acrimony between the provinces and the federal government was a thing of the past and that it was all systems straight ahead. The very next day the premiers of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan said that there were significant problems, especially with respect to the offshore accords and revenue sharing, et cetera.

The minister said in her speech that all provinces were united with this great harmonious system with the federal government and yet the premiers of Newfoundland and Saskatchewan are still very angry. I wonder if the minister is actually connected and speaking with the provinces to learn their views because it sounds like she is not listening.

With respect to federal spending power, the former Conservative prime minister, Brian Mulroney, was accused of being the head waiter for the provinces. Is this another step in that direction?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when I speak with the premiers, finance ministers and other intergovernmental affairs ministers across the country, what they are happy about and what they do reflect on concerning the previous Conservative governments under Brian Mulroney, is that it is nice to have a federal government back in power that respects and collaborates with the provinces. I am proud that the member recognizes that our government has the kind of relationship with the provinces that Mr. Mulroney had.

Let me give some of the provincial responses to the Speech from the Throne. Nova Scotia premier, Rodney MacDonald, welcomed the news that Ottawa is going to--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I would love for the minister to be able to do that but there were so many people rising to ask her questions that I think she has addressed the question from the member for Etobicoke North.

We will go to the member for Burnaby—Douglas and we will try to get one more in if we can.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations special rapporteur on adequate housing, Miloon Kotheri, released his preliminary findings after a cross country tour of Canada, He had some very strong messages for Canada and the Canadian government. He said that he “was very disturbed by the housing situation in Canada”. I also want to quote him saying that he “hopes to see a radical shift in government policy when it comes to housing issues”. He also denounced the decision in the 1990s by the previous Liberal government to summarily abandon what he called a very progressive housing policy.

The throne speech does mention housing but only in the most general terms. It mentions homelessness only in the most general terms. Mr. Kotheri has travelled across Canada and heard from people who are homeless. He has spoken with aboriginal communities where the housing situation is most inadequate. He has spoken to women who are one of the groups most affected by the housing situation here in Canada. He has said that Canada can do better, that there is a surplus and that there are trust funds established with NDP money from the last Liberal budget, I might add, to do something about housing.

I would like to ask the minister why we still do not have a tangible federal housing program in Canada.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I must comment on the level of hypocrisy from that member. That is a member who talks about social progress when it is this party that wants to extend full rights to aboriginal women. It is this party that is supporting the mission in Afghanistan so that women can vote and little girls can go to school. The only people in the way of that is the member's party and the party across the floor. So this party will take no lessons from him on social progress.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with quite a bit of attention about open federalism and I also want to make a comment about these solid relationships that are taking place now with the provinces. Recently, as the minister pointed out, the Conservatives signed a deal with Nova Scotia, or at least a clarification of a deal, but yet we do not see anything in writing at this point.

My question is quite specific because I know numerous other members want to question as well. As intergovernmental affairs minister, when she was going through the process of doing this with Nova Scotia, assuming she had something to do with it, what steps were taken to contact the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to allow it the opportunity to add its voice to the agreement that was supposedly to be signed with Nova Scotia? In other words, if this is going to affect only one province, therein lies breaking one of the basic tenets the Conservatives support, which is to say that it is a one-off deal.

Not only that, but the Conservatives also resurrected a former one-off deal in the royalty regimes with Nova Scotia. Why resurrect a one-off deal from the early 1980s and why would they not include Newfoundland and Labrador in this discussion about offshore resources?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador does not seem to have a problem having his voice heard. What I will say is that the offer to Premier Williams has always been on the table, the same offer that has been there since the budget was tabled. We have constructive relationships from the bureaucratic level with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. We will continue to offer the same deal offered to Nova Scotia and to the provinces in Atlantic Canada to Premier Williams at any time should he like to have a cooperative relationship with the federal government.