Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in this House and comment on the throne speech.
After listening to the Speech from the Throne and reading it in detail subsequently, I was encouraged by a lot of what was stated in it. Like many Canadians, I was disappointed that I did not see all that I would have liked to have seen. In a minority government it is my responsibility as a member of the opposition to work to make Parliament work and to try to encourage the government to bring forward some of the things that were missing from the Speech from the Throne.
It is also my responsibility as a member of the opposition to see that the application of the principles outlined in the Speech from the Throne meet the full interests of Canadians and do not cater to some partisan right wing ideology. That is my fear with regard to the Speech from the Throne, because it can be taken both ways. A lot of these things can be taken in many ways. I will try to outline a few of those matters and point out some of the things that could be improved.
One thing that was very much missing was the whole question of health care in Canada. This continues to be the major preoccupation of Canadians and one of our great weaknesses, both perceived and realistic, as seen by Canadians. We see that wait times are not coming down. The Fraser Institute has stated that in many areas wait times have been increasing over the last year.
That is disappointing, because the federal government made a commitment in its electoral campaign to have specific programs to reduce wait times. I do not necessarily agree with these programs, but I would be willing to work with the government and look at what had been put forward by the Liberal government previously and what is being asked for by the provinces. We could also look at what is being brought forward by the medical community and the patient community to improve the situation in Canada.
We could look at how to get more physicians, more nursing staff and more health professionals into the system and how to find innovative approaches to health care delivery in order to make it more efficient. I have not seen any of that. I would be willing to work with the government, through Parliament, to try to improve these things.
There is also the whole area of infectious diseases. When we look at our health care system we can see that infectious diseases continue to be a health threat. A lot of these diseases are coming out of the hospitals and are either difficult to treat or untreatable using current technologies. They are resistant to drugs. This is very costly to our system and a great risk for our population.
There is also the question of pharmacare. The cost of some drugs can put people into poverty. We had committed to working with the provinces with respect to resolving this issue. I do not see any advances being made with respect to this and I think it is very necessary. We all know people who are suffering from chronic diseases. The cost of medication for those people, both prescription and non-prescription medication, can take them into poverty. We have the wealth in this country and I think that if we work together federally and provincially we can resolve these situations.
I neglected to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.
The other question, of course, that is of great concern to me is the question of the Atlantic accord. The government misled Atlantic Canadians, Nova Scotians and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in particular. The government said it would honour the accord but it has not. A Conservative member was kicked out of his caucus for defending Nova Scotians. We have seen a side deal being struck by the premier of Nova Scotia that in no way meets the full intent of the accord.
The accord was to be revenue for Nova Scotia based on its petroleum production, above and beyond any other programs of the day. What we have seen is that the Prime Minister bullied a weak premier into taking a deal that is an either/or situation. It may improve the situation as it exists now five or 10 years down the line, but in no way does it meet the commitment of the accord, which was to be an economic development benefit for Nova Scotia, above and beyond.
It is the deal the Prime Minister presented which the premier refused when he spoke to the Senate. It is the deal that the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley was kicked out of caucus for refusing to accept this spring. I think that is a shame. We have to make sure that we continue to fight to restore the full intent of the deal for Nova Scotians. The member for Cape Breton—Canso has been leading the charge on behalf of Nova Scotians. He has been doing a lot of work out of the limelight. I thank him for that.
In my riding, there is the question of transportation. I was very pleased to see in the Speech from the Throne a commitment to the Pacific and Atlantic gateways. Part of the gateway is traffic going to the northeastern United States and the United States as a whole from my area of Nova Scotia through the Digby ferry, whether it be tourism or the $200 million-plus worth of fishery products annually that go across on that ferry, which is at risk. The ferry is on a short term reprieve from the federal and provincial governments, but we need a long term commitment. I encourage the Minister of Transport to be very supportive and to come forward as quickly as possible with the long term fix. The business community has to make a long term commitment. It has to market its products. It has to market the area. It cannot be done every six months or every two years. It has to be done in the long term.
It is the same for the Port of Digby. The federal government has had the arbitrator's report for two years, a report which indicates that it is Transport Canada's contract that was weak in the privatization of that port. I encourage the minister to take action. I have discussed it with him many times and he is very supportive, but I encourage him to take quick action and resolve this issue. He has had the report in his hands for nearly two years now. I believe that is too long.
Air transport out of western Nova Scotia continues to be a great problem. I encourage the Department of Transport to work with the provincial government and local municipalities for the long term maintenance of the Yarmouth International Airport and its marketing to private carriers.
I was disappointed to see that although the fishery is mentioned there was no commitment as to what the government will do to assist the long term survival and development of the fishery. There was no commitment to small craft harbours, as had been committed to in the Conservative election campaign. The Minister of Fisheries committed to this when he was chairing the fisheries committee of the House of Commons. I have been working with him in a dialogue to try to improve the position he has taken on the preservation of the independence of the inshore fleet.
I think he has the right principle and is trying to do the right thing. Some modifications have to be made because a lot of people are getting hurt and are caught in the trap and should not be. I will continue to work with the minister on that.
On the question of agriculture, in Nova Scotia the pork and beef industries are in dire straits. The pork industry is disappearing as quickly as we can watch. The beef industry is in grave turmoil. We need some innovative and imaginative support from the federal government, working with the province and the agricultural community, to maintain its survival. It is a question of food security for Nova Scotia. A different solution is needed in Nova Scotia compared to western Canada, where there are huge amounts of production mostly for export. In Atlantic Canada, the production is for the local domestic market and it requires a different solution.
The question of Afghanistan is always a subject of debate in my riding. It will be remembered that when there was a debate and a vote in the House on the extension of our mission in Afghanistan, I spoke in favour and supported an extension. But what I opposed then and what I oppose now is using Parliament as a rubber stamp for a government initiative. I can accept that the government makes a decision on military deployment. I can accept that the government makes the decision and takes the responsibility for it, because the government cannot share with Parliament in an open forum some of the information used to make that decision. The government cannot put our military people and our allies at risk. Some of that information must remain secret.
However, if the government wants the support of the House and a debate in the House, it has to be with full disclosure. It cannot be limited to a three hour debate with no information presented. We can strike a special committee of this House. We can swear in members as privy councillors; many members already are. We can swear in new privy councillors in order to evaluate information that may otherwise not be made public. We can see if we have the confidence, yes or no, that we can in a combat mission achieve the goals that we are seeking and if we can do it in the short term. In all cases I think we have to have long term support for the people of Afghanistan. We have to work toward diplomacy and also toward development and security.
On a more positive note, I want to thank the government for promising to implement phase 2 of the Dion plan. This is very important to official language minority communities.
I am glad the Conservatives recognized the value of the Liberal platform, and I will work with them on this. I encourage the government to continue taking action in this area by providing long-term funding and support for official language minority communities across the country.
One of the areas that is now of great concern in my riding, in all of Nova Scotia and probably all of Canada is the question of labour market training. It always comes to a crunch, when right before the quotas are to start the funding is not there. There is a scramble to find funding for a few students. Again, there is no long term planning. There should be a program whereby we permit people receiving EI to follow these labour market forces and make themselves more available for work.
