Debates of Oct. 8th, 2002

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the throne speech a while back and I have to begin by asking the government, why did we even have a throne speech? By their very nature throne speeches should signal that the government is initiating something new, that it is articulating some vision for the future. The lack of anything substantive really makes a joke of Parliament and what should transpire here.

The throne speech was in total contrast to the speech given by the leader of the Canadian Alliance. He articulated a vision for the future that made the throne speech appear like mindless babble. The power struggle within the Liberal Party has resulted in a complete paralysis in the introduction of new legislation or ideas to take Canada forward. The Canadian Alliance and its leader have offered the citizens of this vast country something that will benefit them all and leave their descendants in a better position than they are in now.

How would we as the Canadian Alliance do that? By getting the fundamentals right. We would redirect the focus of federal legislation to correct the problems that exist in our country. The Liberals simply tinker with a few symptoms that are the result of the problems we have.

We have problems with the Canadian economy. The Liberal approach to poverty, the lack of investment, a job deficit, an impoverished aboriginal population and the loss of our young people, our brain trust for the next generation, is to put more of the same policies in place that have already created these problems. Instead of higher taxation and more big government programs, why not put in place plans and policies that have proven to work in other jurisdictions? Lower taxes result in more investment and more jobs.

Let me emphasize this throughout my speech: strengthening property rights across Canada for everyone is one fundamental that we do not have right in our country. Property rights are absolutely essential in ensuring that the incentive to produce wealth and improve one's lot in life are not discouraged.

The obstacles facing our aboriginal population will not be overcome until they enjoy fundamental property rights. Property rights also help poor people improve their lot in life. They allow farmers and ranchers to pursue their livelihood without being hassled by wealthy multinational lobby groups. Property rights would allow agricultural producers to process their grain into value added products that would greatly improve their financial return.

Instead what do the Liberals do? At the beginning of a new session they recycle legislation that will have the opposite effect to what is intended because property rights are not respected. Examples of this type of legislation are Bill C-5 and Bill C-15B that have just been reintroduced without putting in amendments to ensure that property rights are respected. Liberal legislation to protect endangered species and prevent cruelty to animals will not be effective because the fundamentals are not right, that is, property rights are not in place.

Let me also note that one of the biggest flaws in Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, passed by the Liberals back in 1995, is that it does not protect the property rights of firearms owners and because this fundamental right is not properly protected, it will never work. It has resulted in a high level of civil disobedience. Non-compliance with gun registration is so high that to date, approximately only one-quarter of firearms are registered, despite the fact that it should be fully implemented by January 1, 2003.

Another serious fundamental flaw in the Canadian justice system is that criminals have more rights than their victims. Many examples abound and I do not have time to go into them, but Bill C-68 is one of them. Canadians want violence control, not a gun registry.

Another basic fundamental characteristic that Liberals do not have right is effective administration of government programs. The Auditor General's revelation today that there are five million more social insurance number cards issued to people over 20 than there are people in that age group in Canada is unbelievable.

This is four years after the government was warned that this was a huge problem that would lead to great abuses of the system and millions of dollars flowing to people who are not qualified to receive it. By the way, this occurred under a finance minister who is now touted to be the next prime minister of Canada. I do not believe Canadians should reward this kind of mismanagement.

Another example of gross government mismanagement is the firearms act. This boondoggle has now gone 11 times over budget. It will never be of any use to the police. It will never control crime or improve public safety in any way. The error rate is so high that even if the Liberals did lay a piece of paper beside every gun in the country, the information collected would not be useful in any way.

Another fundamental aspect of Canadian life that the government has totally backward is respect for privacy. Again legislation passed without proper respect for privacy will endanger Canadians, put them at more risk as a target for criminal activity and diminish their quality of life.

I must also mention another basic aspect of Canadian life and culture that the government is undermining. That is respect for the family.

Taxation policy undermines a couple's choice to have one parent stay at home and provide care for their children. Overtaxation is also forcing many couples to have both parents work. The basic exemption should be raised.

Marriage as the union of a man and a woman needs to be properly protected and encouraged as the foundation for a family. Under the Liberal government that protection is eroding the right of parents to raise their children in the way they feel will result in well-adjusted, happy and productive citizens of Canada. Liberals do not understand that children live in poverty because their parents are poor. What children need most is their family, not institutions or programs. Liberal values may sound good, but they do not work.

We see many examples in our society where if people are robbed of their incentive to better their lot in life, they will not. That is a basic fundamental aspect of life that Liberals just do not grasp or protect. It is leading to a serious decline in the quality of life in our nation.

The government is failing to protect farmers from foreign government policies that have a negative effect upon them. The Liberals failed to grasp the fundamental fact of international trade that the freer trade is, the more wealth that will be produced. Also not only will it help our country, but it will be better for any foreign country that is involved in this as well. It would be better than any foreign aid program that ever could be put in place for these countries.

We are losing our young people to other countries because the Liberals do not have the basic fundamentals right. In trying to protect certain corporations, they tax other businesses until they die. Those that need the jobs are devastated and move out.

The problems I am discussing basically are there because of a lack of understanding of the importance of property rights and respect for them. Liberals do not understand the fundamental laws of economics and because they do not, they can never put in place policies that will reinvigorate our economy and standard of living. In fact the throne speech signals that they will put in place more big government programs that will have the opposite effect. We saw that mistake in the Speech from the Throne.

One of the best examples is the Kyoto accord. Not only is it based on unproven scientific theories, but the economic repercussions will in fact impoverish companies that will then be less able to practise environmentally friendly policies. This will be especially true in agriculture. Farmers who are squeezed even further financially, as the Kyoto accord would do, will resort to practices that will be more harmful to the land, air and water.

Let me conclude by saying that my experience here in Parliament has made it very obvious that there is another basic fundamental aspect of Canadian life that Liberals do not understand, and that is the essence of democracy. The corruption that exists within Liberal ranks strikes at the very heart of a free and open society that respects everyone equally. By giving handouts to their friends, Liberals at election time receive kickbacks that allow them to buy advertising and influence people to support them. This violates democracy.

Also, secrecy in government and dictatorial prime ministerial control do not allow the people of Canada to have their proper voice in how this country is run. This creates apathy and cynicism and within that atmosphere Liberals can continue to run roughshod over the citizens of this country.

I wish I had time to talk more about an elected Senate, free votes and private members' business.

This throne speech could have gone a long way in correcting some of these fundamental problems. It did not, so it should be soundly rejected.

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciated the comments of my hon. colleague and his observations regarding the throne speech. He touched on the Kyoto accord and also mentioned the government's neglect of international trade agreements.

The area I come from in British Columbia is suffering under the effects of the softwood lumber dispute. I would like to link some ominous events. Five hundred jobs have been suspended for at least a month now in Port Alberni in my riding as mills have shut down. Even more ominous is the fact that in Fort Langley, B.C., a mill closed down permanently and moved its 56 jobs south of the 49th because of these tariffs, which are costing $800,000 a month.

Interestingly enough, in the little U.S. town of Sumas right across the border there are two gas-powered electrical generating plants. One has to wonder what it would mean for an industry that moves to this little U.S. border town. I am thinking of our first mill, with 56 jobs going south of the border, and what that might mean if Kyoto is signed when our largest trading partner does not sign the energy accord. Will industries simply move across the 49th and set up on the other side, taking the jobs and the investment with them? I wonder if the member could comment further on what he sees as the potential threat for farmers and other industries with this accord being signed.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I think the member has enumerated and described the problem very well. It does not really need further comment.

Because Liberals do not get the fundamentals right, they do not understand that free trade must be free trade. Liberals do not understand that when we engage in international agreements they have to be such that we will not be put at a disadvantage when compared to our competitors. Equality must exist between nations. Because they do not seem to understand that, we will be hurt in the softwood lumber industry, in agriculture and in many other areas. These repercussions will flow throughout the entire economy.

In answer to my hon. colleague, let me reiterate exactly the points I was making in my speech. Unless the Liberals begin to establish a society based on these sound principles, everything they do will fail. It has failed in the past, it is failing now, and it cannot be corrected until the policies and the legislation are based on sound fundamental principles. This is the failing we have with the softwood lumber industry. The basic principles that have to be right are economic principles that respect property rights, and those property rights run across borders. There have to be sociological and cultural principles that respect the family. That is not in direct relation to what the member has raised, but that is a basic fundamental that we have to get right. The third one I brought up I think really ties in with this indirectly: We must have democratic principles that respect all Canadians equally so that they will have their views respected and heard and defended at international bargaining tables. Too often the government favours certain groups and ignores others. That has created a lot of the problems in the international agreements that have been negotiated.

The member has raised some key problems that affect a lot of Canadians and I wish to thank him very much for his question.

[Larry Spencer, Canadian Alliance, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Madam Speaker, I know that my hon. colleague from Yorkton--Melville, like me, would abhor any kind of family violence. In the throne speech it sounds like the government is going to be protecting children from forces within the family. I would like to ask the hon. member if he agrees that there should have been more specific references to the protection of children from forces outside the family when in fact they are relatively safe within most families.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, yes, the answer is simply that they need to be protected from things that are happening outside the family. Parents care for their children. There are exceptions and I think the law is in place for that kind of thing, but we have new problems facing us and our society. Pornography, especially child pornography, is a serious problem. I think the government needs to address it. Restrictions need to be placed on the criminal activities that are having a very negative effect on the family.

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mississauga West.

I am pleased to respond to our government's throne speech because it gives me an opportunity to outline some of the ways in which Hamiltonians and my constituents of Hamilton Mountain will benefit from the agenda the government has outlined.

The government has indicated its commitment to the values and institutions that Canadians hold dear and has introduced a socially progressive agenda. It is an inclusive vision which demonstrates that the government intends to follow through on its commitments to create opportunities for all Canadians and to ensure that no individual or family is left behind, while at the same time continuing to be fiscally responsible as we move forward in the new millennium.

There were many good programs announced in the Speech from the Throne. I will talk about several of them. I would like to highlight infrastructure, affordable housing, a commitment to alleviate child poverty, and long term investment in health care.

Cities are vital to our economic growth and well-being. Many of the residents of Hamilton, the ninth largest city in the country, live and work within the core of the city. The local politicians are working hard to make it a dynamic and safe place to live. Because of a restricted tax base, cities cannot do this alone.

Hamilton Mayor Bob Wade has particularly welcomed the government's plan to continue investment in urban infrastructure. The government has pledged to put in place a ten year program for infrastructure development. As an older city facing much needed repairs and upgrades in sewer, water and road systems, the City of Hamilton will benefit from this commitment.

In the Speech from the Throne, homelessness and affordable housing is another area the government pledged to address. Since 1998, homelessness in Hamilton has increased dramatically. The number of people staying in emergency shelters on a given night has increased from 172 in 1998 to 343 in November of last year. To date the government has invested $753 million over three years in the national strategy to alleviate homelessness.

The supporting community initiatives project is administered by the Minister of Labour and Federal Coordinator on Homelessness. I must congratulate her. She has done a great job. She has allowed emergency housing services in Hamilton to meet the needs of a growing clientele by increasing the capacity of organizations in the city to provide these services. The federal government will be extending funding for the program.

It is hoped that the need for these programs will be temporary. The government has committed to work with our provincial and other partners to address shortages of affordable housing. There are approximately 3,600 families on the waiting list for affordable housing in Hamilton, with average waits of up to five years. We need affordable housing urgently. In addition to $680 million that the government has already invested over the previous five years to address shortages of affordable housing, the Prime Minister has announced that the government will increase its investment in this area.

While a strong economy has improved conditions for many Canadians, including many Hamiltonians, there are some individuals and families who have been left behind. The government is committed to rectifying this situation. According to the Social Research and Planning Council of Hamilton, approximately 20,000 children in the city of Hamilton are living in poverty. This is an unacceptably high number.

To date, the Government of Canada has committed $2.2 billion to the early childhood development agreement in partnership with provinces and territories. The agreement provides education and funding for healthy pregnancies, births, and infants, parenting and family support, and early childhood development. We have reaffirmed our commitment to continue working with our partners to increase access to early learning opportunities and to quality child care, particularly for poor and lone-parent families.

Currently the national child benefit supplement introduced by the government in 1998 provides $2,444 for low-income families at the birth of a first child. In the throne speech we committed to increasing this amount. We will also put in place targeted measures for low-income families caring for severely disabled children and will work to improve services and education for first nations children.

Another issue that greatly concerns my constituents is the future of our health care system. Last June I sent out a survey to every household in my riding asking them for opinions on the current health care system and their priorities for the future. Over a thousand people took the time to respond and many of these same individuals also came to my town hall meeting on health. We heard that Hamiltonians want a public and universal health care system that addresses their health care needs in the doctor's office, in the hospital, and at home. They want more doctors and nurses, more home care, support for caregivers, a greater focus on overall health and wellness, pharmacare, and accountability of government money spent on health care. Responses from the questionnaires and the public meeting were sent to Mr. Romanow, the chair of the federal Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, which reports to Canada next month.

The government has been listening to the concerns of Canadians regarding health care and has acted on their priorities. Last year, total Canada health and social transfer contributions amounted to $34.6 billion: $18.3 billion in cash transfers and $16.3 billion in tax point transfers.

The Prime Minister has announced that he will convene a first ministers meeting early next year to discuss a comprehensive plan for the reform of the health care system. This will include long-term investment from the federal government to ensure that Canadians, including the citizens of Hamilton, get the health care system that they want and deserve.

At my public forum on health, we listened to the stories of several people caring at home for ill spouses, parents or family members. The personal difficulties of caring for a loved one are often compounded by financial constraints placed upon individuals who may have to quit or decrease their hours of work to take on this task. In 1998, the government introduced a tax credit for caregivers to ease this aspect of their problem. In the throne speech last week, the government further pledged to modify existing programs to ensure that Canadians can provide compassionate care for a gravely ill family member without putting their jobs or incomes at risk.

I would point out to my hon. colleagues that there exists a tremendous opportunity here for us to move forward to address the priorities of Canadians and to implement a progressive and socially inclusive agenda for our country. The throne speech illustrates our government commitment to the values that Canadians hold dear: universal health care, the reduction of child poverty, functioning cities, and homes for the homeless. I look forward to working with our partners to implement this agenda for the betterment of all Canadians.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for her dissertation with regard to the throne speech. A couple of things gave me concern. It has been well noted that there has been an increase in child poverty. The government and the House, unanimously, promised to eliminate it. It concerns me that it has not really been a top priority of the government in terms of bringing action to words.

The hon. member mentioned homelessness. I was actually on the homelessness task force in Windsor. Her comments with regard to these being temporary measures concern me because there is no credibility. The situation with the food banks was supposed to be temporary, but what ended up happening? There has been an explosion of them in our communities and they are actually a social crutch due to the fact that the government has cut back on so many programs.

With that, there was mention of the tax credit. I would like to ask the hon. member whether she agrees or disagrees with the Minister of Finance, who is now narrowing the scope of those who can claim the disability tax credit. Does she agree with the minister in terms of narrowing that scope so that fewer persons with disabilities can actually claim it or does she oppose that?

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member takes his job as a member of Parliament very seriously. The role of the opposition is very important but it is not just to criticize, it is to take part and help with solutions for the government as well. I hope that between now and when the budget comes out, probably in February, the hon. member will take part in the prebudget discussions and help with his ideas.

I have had some problems in my riding with the disability tax credit. People have spoken with me about it. We have been able to straighten out the problem for those who have approached me. They were able to get the amount they had before. I am not sure whether I am just lucky in my riding and have been able to solve the problems.

I hope it is not being cut back, unless people do not meet the criteria. That may be the case where a criteria was set up by the government and maybe some bureaucrats let people through who did not meet that criteria. Now they now are tightening up the procedure. That is the best I can answer the question for the hon. member.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague who talked about the homeless. Maybe we need to remind her that seniors account for a large number of the homeless in our big cities, and that their number keeps increasing. While there are homeless young people, there are also homeless seniors.

I have not seen anything in the throne speech that would improve the way the government distributes the guaranteed income supplement. In the last few months, before Parliament was reconvened, we heard a lot about it. Many older low-income people did not have access to the guaranteed income supplement, partly because the forms were very hard to fill out and partly because the government had sometimes failed to contact the people who were eligible. In every region of Canada, some of the poorest people were being denied the guaranteed income supplement.

Does my colleague think that the government should consider full retroactive payment for those entitled to the guaranteed income supplement who did not get it?

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, there was a problem where some people did not realize they were eligible for the guaranteed income supplement.

The government has done a very good job of finding out where these people are, finding out who has not received this money in the past and ensuring that they get it. It did not have to be in the throne speech because the government did a good job of correcting the issue.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to continue. I have addressed the amendment to the throne speech and now I have an opportunity to finish what I was saying when my time ran out, and that is to put forward some thoughts on the Kyoto protocol.

First, one thing I find fascinating is that no matter where we are from, as members of Parliament, we are expected to be experts on all these various subjects. The Kyoto protocol of course involves some very scientific and technological information, stuff that not all of us necessarily would know firsthand, so we have to do some research. We have to try to listen to both sides of the equation.

I recently had the opportunity to travel to Calgary. I met with some of our crown corporation officials during the day and in the evening I attended a dinner at which the Prime Minister spoke. Of course everyone was quite astounded that close to 900 people would be in attendance at that dinner.

I got to talk to a number of oil company executives, people who, generally speaking, are afraid of the impact of the ratification of Kyoto. They had spent some time during the day meeting with the Prime Minister and putting forward their concerns. They shared those concerns with many of us that evening.

I use this example because these are fairly learned individuals. I am not talking about people who, as some suggest, may be some charter members of the flat earth society and who may from time to time speak on this issue from this place. They are individuals who have done their homework and have had their staff and various companies do the analyses. They are expressing concerns, and I do not take them lightly. We have to listen to their concerns.

One thing I heard from them was that we could not put the burden of the war on climate change on the oil industry. I agree with that. In fact that evening the Prime Minister said in his speech that it was only one part of the solution, one part indeed of the problem.

I received a letter today which highlights my point about people who are learned and who know the situation. I will not mention the gentleman's name but he is a professor of geology from Kelowna, British Columbia. The letter identifies the real issue in Kyoto. He says that he believes climate change is the result of the melting of glacial ice which occurred 10,000 years ago. This is a professor, so I assume he knows a little of his stuff and has studied the matter.

His answer to what causes climate change is that naturally occurring events result in changes in solar radiation which lead to climate change: the eccentricity of the earth's orbit; the tilt of the earth's axis; the procession of the earth's axis; and sunspot cycles. He does not believe that human action, the things that we do in the production chain in our daily lives such as driving our vehicles and building our homes, is causing climate change. I do not know.

It seems to me that the average kid in grade three thinks that what comes out of the smokestack or the back of an automobile tailpipe, or burning coal or that kind of thing does something to the atmosphere. Yet we have a professor who says that the problem is caused by naturally occurring issues around the axis of the earth, which obviously we have no means of controlling.

I look at that and ask if that makes any sense. I am not a professor of geology. I have not studied the scientific impacts of this. However, in terms of common sense, it leaves me somewhat frustrated. We all know there are things we can do to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

I was in Calgary recently and I met with the president of Nascor Inc. I would invite anyone to see this company's operation. It builds prefabricated walls, floors and trusses for homes that are very highly insulated with byproducts, by the way, from the oil industry. It is right in Calgary and it has done studies showing that if its housing systems were used in the construction of a home it would increase the cost of an average home by $500 but that it would reduce the cost of heating that home by 50%.

Nascor Inc. has a system which, if it were used nationally across the country in the construction of housing, would probably on its own meet the Kyoto requirements that we are talking about. However we are not about to institute a national building requirement that says that we must use this company's product. The company has to go out and promote its particular product, and it is doing that in the housing industry.

What we can do, and I say this to those who are opposed to the Kyoto protocol, we as the national government can ensure that any of the housing projects in which we are involved will at least be insulated to the same level that Nascor's housing system would insulate and therefore reduce the cost of housing. The natural benefit of doing that would seem obvious. We could save people money in heating their homes and we could meet the Kyoto protocol requirements.

There is another aspect to saying that what we do has no impact. There is the impact on transit and how we move people. Again I go back to Calgary. In the area of Garrison Woods, a community with which some in this place might be familiar, a project was developed by Canada Lands Company Limited, a company that is a crown corporation of the Canadian government. Sixteen hundred units have been built in this project and not one door is more than a five minute walk away from municipal transit. It is a very creative project and is celebrated as a true success story in municipal planning and development. Once again, if people can walk five minutes to get to a bus, maybe if that bus is available, on time and reasonable, they will use that public transit vehicle and leave their automobile at home.

That is another area where obviously the government has led the way in terms of Canada Lands and one in which we can lead the way in working with municipalities, with our partners. I received a news release today about the $250 million that was given to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for green infrastructure. This is another area I submit that would lead to us meeting the Kyoto requirements in the Kyoto protocol.

We have to make a decision as parliamentarians. Maybe it is because it is the opposition's job to be a little obstreperous and to oppose the government, because that is what it is told to do every day when it goes to a caucus meeting, but there are some thoughtful people in the opposition. There are some thoughtful people in the oil fields. There are some thoughtful people in Kelowna, British Columbia. I have to say to them that they cannot possibly believe that human activity does not have a serious impact on the quality of the air that we breathe. It is just not reasonable to suggest that it is all a part of the ice age, the melting of the glacial ice cap. It is just not reasonable to believe that.

I have heard criticism after criticism from members opposite and from the media that there is no leadership being shown. By announcing that there will be a vote in Parliament on the Kyoto protocol before the end of the year, contrary to the statements being made in somewhat emotional ways that there will be no plan, there will be a plan put before Parliament before the vote is taken.

Will it dot every i and cross every t ? Will it solve every problem? I doubt it. We need to take the time to study the issue fairly in an unbiased way. We need to recognize that there is a serious problem in pollution and work together with the industries in Alberta and right across the country so that we leave a better climate and a better atmosphere for our children.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like my friend across the way to clarify a couple of things.

He talked a lot about the rhetoric around the debate and the vision for the future and leadership. We do not want a leadership that is foolhardy, that says we all jump off the cliff together.

When he talks about Kyoto, we want to make sure that he is honest with the public, that there is a clear distinction between pollution and climate change. I often hear them mixed up. Everybody is against pollution.

Do we have any cost benefit analysis for anything that we do and the investments that we make? To penalize behaviour through disincentive taxes, to perhaps reduce gasoline consumption, to change industrial activities or whatever would be done through some subsidies that would cost. Also, penalty taxes to shape behaviour would be tremendously disturbing to the economy, but perhaps that is what we need to do.

However, the cost of that versus the benefit has never been laid before Parliament. In fact it has never been laid before the Canadian people anywhere. We need some kind of cost benefit analysis. Canadians are prepared to dig into the issues, look at them and make a judgment, but the scenarios are being kept away from them. It is all on emotionalism. It is much like what I would describe the member was trying to promote this afternoon, that it is the patriotic thing to do, or it is the reasonable good thing to do, because it makes us feel good.

We all want to feel good about doing right for the environment, but where is the cost benefit analysis? Tell me why some of those things were even denied his caucus. When they were discussing the issue, they were kept from that caucus.

I am suggesting that we had better be very careful before we spend a lot of money which would have very little benefit for climate change, because that is what it is all about, climate change.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, normally one gives the answer he or she wants to give to the question and does not answer the question. I will answer the member's question by giving him two examples of actual savings that have occurred.

Sterling Pulp Chemicals Limited has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by almost 95% in its facility in Buckingham, Quebec by turning waste into fuel. After it made an initial investment of $1.1 million this company now enjoys a $2.28 million per year savings in lower energy costs. That is number one.

Number two, British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell have made long term commitments to make the transition out of fossil fuel, which is what we are talking about. They are spending large amounts of money on renewable energy. BP, whose new slogan is “Beyond petroleum”, has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by nine megatonnes in just three years and has added $650 million U.S. to the value of its operation through energy efficiency.

These are facts. These are from the private sector. These are companies that have taken the lead. They are not sticking their heads in the sand and saying, “We are not part of the problem”. Instead they are saying, “We want to be part of the solution”.

Everybody should be honest and recognize that it is not the melting of the ice cap that has led to the problem we are facing with climate change but in fact it is human activity. We should change it, not because it is patriotic, but because we owe it to our kids to change it. The first way to change it is to start admitting there is a problem, which is exactly what we have done by signing the Kyoto protocol.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has talked tonight about honesty and leadership.

My question is simple. With regard to his position, are they still seeking credits with regard to the signing of Kyoto?

The Prime Minister has stated to the world community that he will sign the agreement and implement it. At the same time, he has come back to Canada and said that there is a credit system that he will unilaterally introduce to the whole actual agreement.

With regard to the actual credit system, is that something they will complete or will they actually live up to the Prime Minister's world commitment?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, first, let me say that when this country exports clean fuel to the United States, which allows it to not have to use another source of fuel, we should get credit for that because we are working with our partners in the United States, which is all I hear about from over there, to ensure there is compliance.

I also have heard that one of the the biggest problems is the fact that George W. Bush, who happens to come from Texas, no small wonder, is opposed to ratifying Kyoto and yet he has approved over $3 billion in American money toward meeting the Kyoto commitment. There is no question that this is a joint effort but Canada will show the leadership that is required by having a vote in this place. It is my hope that we will ratify Kyoto and get on with the commitments the Prime Minister made.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank you for correctly identifying the four regional county municipalities that comprise my riding. I will be sharing my time with the member for Châteauguay.

To take part today in this debate on the throne speech seems almost bizarre. A Speech from the Throne is usually a sign of major changes, of a significant shift in government measures. In this case, one week after the throne speech was delivered, we have already gone back to the old routine.

This Speech from the Throne contained no major changes; there was nothing significant indicating to Quebeckers and Canadians that the government would try to find ways of solving important problems quickly.

Why do we find ourselves in this situation? Because, within the Liberal Party of Canada, which is currently in office, there is a huge debate as to who will succeed the current Prime Minister. Will it be the former Minister of Finance, who left the cabinet and now seems to be playing the role of leader of an opposition party that does not exist? This situation even has an impact on the throne speech that was delivered to us, which was nothing more than a collection of very loosely related statements that provided no vision, when we would have liked to see a clear vision in this throne speech.

Today, we may have had a more concrete example of that. Members will remember that the throne speech contained very little on the softwood lumber issue. There were very few clear indications that the Government of Canada would defend the workers and the industries and would see them through these rough times until we win the fight against the Americans in this dispute.

The plan presented today reflects this kind of wishy-washy throne speech that offers no indication that the government has the energy and the determination to get through this situation.

Point of Order

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I had promised to table in the House, before the end of the day, the document released earlier by the Minister for Natural Resources.

I just got it and since I only have five minutes left to table it, I wish to do so at this time.

Again, I apologize to the hon. member for interrupting his excellent speech.

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

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I would like to indicate to the hon. member that he has until 6 p.m to complete his speech. No one will speak after him. The vote on the amendment to the amendment will be held at 6.15 p.m. The hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I find it very impressive that this action plan on softwood lumber would be released in Vancouver this afternoon when debates on this very issue, including an emergency debate requested by myself, have taken place in this House. The government did not see fit to table it in the House. This is consistent with the two lines in the throne speech concerning softwood lumber and agriculture.

It is becoming obvious that the government is taking a piecemeal approach to management. It has come up with very few comprehensive solutions that would make the regions feel supported by the Canadian government in our dispute with the Americans.

I would also like to touch briefly on the infrastructure program for urban centres. I think that the issue of urban transportation is interesting but there is a major shortcoming in that all rural areas in Canada and Quebec also need substantial investments. Initially, funding was provided to each municipality under the infrastructure program, and projects were carried out across Quebec and Canada.

With respect to urban transportation, the new infrastructure program is designed exclusively for large urban centres. While it may be well targeted, I cannot understand the need to exclude those who want to make sure that our rural areas have appropriate transportation, water and sewage systems, in order to make life easier.

In the throne speech, not enough attention is paid to the important segment of Quebec and Canada that the rural community represents, or to rural life and to the support this community needs.

[An hon. member]

What about air transportation?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

There is obviously the entire issue of air transportation where, while we are talking about the Speech from the Throne, regional air routes are systematically being dismantled. It has gotten to the point where it will no longer be possible to fly between Mont-Joli and Quebec City, a service that has existed for more than ten years.

This is another example of what the Speech from the Throne should have included: measures to offset the incompetence encountered in the current market. There is also the fact that Air Canada, among others, which has stopped serving several locations, is getting off scot-free. It has to deal solely with market realities. This is a very clear sign of the government's apathy when it comes to the issue of market regulation.

We have also witnessed a very weak response when it comes to the use of milk byproducts. This has led to the situation today whereby a significant share of Canada's dairy market, 2% or 3%, has been lost because of the systematic importing of American products, which get by because they contain less than 51% milk products. I think that it is important that we have every opportunity to save our supply management system. In addition to talking the talk, there needs to be real action. That is what farmers expect from us.

In closing, the Kyoto protcol must be signed as soon as possible because if there are costs, if there is a price to pay for action, there is an even greater price to pay for inaction, and the generations yet to come need us to make these choices now. Moreover, in the region I represent there is an extraordinary potential for wind power and that will be able to be exploited if the Kyoto protocol is signed and implemented.

Today I was reading an article about a number of companies in Quebec and in Canada that have taken steps to improve their energy-related practices. I personally believe that, once Kyoto is signed, there will be some very dynamic and energizing action in a number of industrial sectors. The catastrophic scenarios painted for us, the huge job losses, will be replaced by a scenario of job creation, significant job creation in fact. As well, we will have succeeded in improving the condition of the planet.

I will close on that note because it is indeed 6 p.m. I think the government has missed the boat. It has given us a throne speech that lacked the content the public was expecting of a mid-mandate throne speech.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It being 6 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment to the amendment and of the amendment now before the House.

The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.