Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be in this House a third time.
I would take this opportunity to thank those who re-elected me a third time with a majority of over 50 percent.
I am honoured to have been able to represent them for almost nine years now and I shall continue to work hard for them.
I want to say a few words about my riding. It is a reflection of what Canada is all about.
There is a large anglophone majority of approximately 80 percent and a significant francophone minority of nearly 20 percent.
It is made up of Canadians from virtually every single country in the world and, as well, our first Canadians, including the Metis.
I am fortunate to be able to represent a riding that is as diverse, as rich and as meaningful to Canada. These various people in my riding have learned to work and celebrate together. It is a lesson that we can share with other Canadians. Who knows? Perhaps that is the legacy that Canada can leave to the world, of having people of different tastes, different cultures, different languages working and celebrating together in harmony for the benefit of all.
I want to extend my best wishes and my congratulations as well—
—and to my colleagues of every political persuasion. I wish them good luck.
I want to get to the very heart and soul of this debate by sharing with my colleagues the motion that is before us for discussion this afternoon.
The opposition motion reads as follows, and I want to be absolutely sure to read it correctly.
September 29, 1997—Mr. Solberg (Medicine Hat) moved that this House condemn the government for making their 50/50 election promise on any future surpluses without adequate public debate as to the optimal size of government, taxes and debt, thus threatening to repeat Canada's 27 year old history of irresponsible spending, creating high debt, financed by high taxes, causing high unemployment.
When I read such a motion I have to ask the following questions: Did my colleague listen to the Speech from the Throne? Did my colleague take the time to read it? Did my colleague not hear what the journalists from television, radio and print had to say? Not some partisan petty little shot in order to score political points, but people who are out there to critique.
Yes, my dear colleagues, those whose job it is to try to tell the truth as they see it, rather than the members of the opposition, who are here to try to embarrass the government and to try to do you know what. I see a big grin.
Obviously, you know what they do.
He did not listen to the speech. He did not read the speech. He did not listen to what the journalists had to say on radio and television or in print. If he had, he would not have made that motion. Of all the motions he could have selected, of every single possibility, to show that they were indeed a responsible opposition, an opposition that saw the whole country, an opposition that was not prepared to play petty little politics at the beginning of the parliamentary session, of all the possibilities, he picked this one. He did not see the key themes.
Let me share with the House the key themes. We will balance the budget no later than fiscal year 1998-99, the first time in three decades. We will strive to split our budgetary surpluses on a 50:50 basis over the course of our second mandate. Half will go to a combination of tax reductions and debt repayment. Half will go to strategic investments in our children, our youth, our health, our communities, our knowledge and our creativity.
Those are some of the key points the hon. member who made the motion forgot to read. He also forgot there are several others worth emphasizing: investing in our children, investir de façon importante dans nos enfants.
We all know that investments in the well-being of today's children improve the long term health of the nation. I wish that would have been acknowledged by my colleagues.
We have important new initiatives. We will establish centres of excellence to deepen our understanding of children's development. We will expand the aboriginal head start program.
Are those the kinds of programs that my colleague is condemning? If so, let him stand and say so. Let him not hide behind some opposition motion brought forth to try to embarrass the government.
Did he see the one on investing in quality care and good health?
It is my impression that my colleague did not see the part about investing in good health and quality care. For some reason, he missed that. He did not take the time to listen to or read it.
We will be preserving and enhancing medicare. Canadians want that. We will be responding with expanded needs for home and community care and a national drug plan. Is that what he wants us to eliminate?
If that is what he wants, let him stand up and declare it to everybody, including his constituents.
We will be promoting health and new initiatives to address tuberculosis and diabetes in aboriginal communities. We will be renewing the national AIDS strategy. Are those the programs he wants eliminated too?
Are those the programs he wants eliminated, rejected and put aside? Does he think there are no needs in these areas, that we should not be investing in children, in health?
If he had read a bit more he would have seen that we want and are committed to building safer communities.
Building safer communities is one of the government's key objectives. There is no magic solution, despite what the political background of my colleague who has just advanced this proposal claims. It is hard work, it is complex. Progress must be made a step at a time, with healthy programs. That is what we intend to do.
We will continue with our safe homes and safe streets agenda which has helped us make solid gains in enhancing public safety. I hope my colleague does not want that program eliminated as well.
What about creating opportunities for young Canadians? Was that one of the ones he would have liked simply thrown out?
Creating opportunities for young Canadians is, to my mind, a huge priority. This has been referred to already several times since the start of the 36th Parliament. Surely he does not want to do away with these programs for our young people, push them aside, put them out of existence? That is surely not the case.
We will secure the future of our young people. We have important priorities to make sure the young generation makes a successful transition to the world of work.
We know how difficult it is in usual times, and these are unusual times. It is particularly difficult to ensure that young people who want to continue to learn have access to education. That is a critical priority for the welfare of all. It is difficult to be absolutely certain young people who found it difficult getting started in the workplace have a second chance when necessary. They often need that second chance.
Is that what my colleague pretends is foolish, inappropriate, insensitive, wasteful spending?
Is that what he intends? Another program he wants to see eliminated?
Here is another theme that we have heard nothing about.
We must invest in knowledge and creativity.
Does he not believe that investing in knowledge and creativity is important for the nation and the welfare of all citizens? Is that what he wants eliminated? Let him stand and say so.
We are increasingly an important part of a global village in a global economy. In this new economy, knowledge, innovation and creativity are the keys to preserving and enhancing prosperity.
We want to continue partnerships between private and public sectors. We want to devise targeted growth strategies that focus on knowledge intensive sectors. We want to have small and medium size businesses develop and commercialize new technology.
Because I have additional responsibilities in this area, I want to say a few words about science, innovation and technology. We as a nation have a decision to make. We will invest in a wise, sensitive, significant way in science, innovation and technology to continue to be leaders of nations, and if we do not we will follow. We have made some important investments.
We have made some very substantial investments and I will give you just a few examples.
To the Canadian Foundation for Innovation to enhance the structure of our universities and our hospitals when research is conducted, $800 million over five years. It has been applauded by most Canadians.
I have not heard one person say that was wasteful spending as the member and his party suggest. Perhaps he is not speaking for his party. Perhaps they will stand and denounce this kind of irresponsibility.
We have stabilized with funding to the centres d'excellence.
This is a great program to ensure that universities work with the private sector and that the best projects are funded, so that we are at the forefront, that we are the leaders. Perhaps the hon. member does not enjoy being first. Perhaps third, fourth or tenth is good enough for him. But not for us.
Has he heard about the technology partnership programs where we assist businesses that want to be on the leading edge of the development of technology?
Has he heard about IRAP which has several people out there advising and assisting people who want to develop new programs and projects? Are these the kinds of programs that he thinks are wasteful and ought to be eliminated?
Has he heard about the prime minister's advisory committee on science and technology, a group of particularly talented Canadians who advise wisely on science, innovation and technology so that we can make the very best decisions possible in terms of policy options and in terms of pursuing strategic initiatives and additional partnerships? Does he want to cut that too? Does he consider that wasteful? Is that an insensitive way to spend money? I am surprised he did not talk about that.
I want to talk a bit about another key theme that I suspect might have been discussed by the Reform Party: expanding opportunities in aboriginal communities.
We know we must improve opportunities for aboriginal communities. We all know that, in the vast majority of cases, their financial situation is extremely difficult. While Canadians may take infrastructures for granted, such infrastructures are non-existent on a number of reserves.
So, is this the type of programs the hon. member feels we should eliminate to further reduce the deficit and the debt? Is this what he wants to do? I hope not. I hope his colleagues do not share such unsound goals—
We on this side of the House want to see aboriginal communities become stronger and healthier. We are working to further their progress toward achieving self-government. We believe it will provide additional well-being and economic independence. That is what they want and what most Canadians want for their aboriginal brothers and sisters.
We are ready and willing to work with all interested parties to develop a long term comprehensive plan of action and partnership with aboriginal leaders and people throughout Canada.
We all realize opposition members are here to oppose, and I suppose some would say to criticize. I hope it would be to critique insightfully and sensitively a document such as the Speech from the Throne and say “Here are the initiatives we think are pretty sound. Here are other initiatives the government may want to consider. Here is how to improve them”.
No, we do not hear a positive word from any one of them. Why is that? Why? I hear from the opposition ranks that it is because they are the opposition.
If my colleagues want to say some positive things about the Speech from the Throne, about the prime minister or about my colleagues on this side of the House, we will not ask them to sit down because they happen to be in the opposition. I give them an iron clad guarantee. I have not checked with my colleagues but I suspect I could get unanimous approval.
