Debates of Oct. 19th, 2004

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Gary Carr, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your new job. In my former life I was the speaker of the Ontario legislature, having been elected on October 19, 1999. This is indeed a very interesting day for me.

First, I would like to commend the member for her comments about her riding. I have been to Manitoba, but I have not had the pleasure of visiting her riding. The way she described it, it sounds extremely beautiful. I hope some day to be able to visit.

I do not want to be too harsh on my colleague since it is her first speech in this wonderful place, but I do take exception in saying that it was not what we promised in the election. The member is probably not as familiar with our platform, called “Moving Canada Forward”, as I am. She probably did not read it to the same extent I did. If she were to compare our platform to the throne speech, she would find it to be very similar. In fact it is almost identical. That was one of the things for which I pushed. I would encourage the member to take a look at both of them and compare them because, with all due respect, saying they are not the same is empty rhetoric. They are very close.

I want to talk a bit about the Americans and the situation about which my colleague talked. I spent six years playing pro hockey in the United States. I attended Michigan State University on a scholarship. I know very well the extent of co-operation between Canada and the U.S..

In what ways does the member believe the government has not co-operated with the U.S.? Co-operation has been very strong between the two governments. She talked a bit about some comments that were made, but the government, cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister have been very strong in saying that we need to work with our colleagues in the U.S.. Some comments made by some members do not do justice to nor reflect the true intentions of our government. What specifically does she think cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister have done? I think they have been very supportive. The member is quite wrong in saying that we have not been co-operative with the Americans.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. it is a well known fact that the public comments made from the benches across the House of Commons caused a lot of bad feeling. The result of some of those comments were far reaching into the U.S. and across our country.

With all due respect, I was a former member of the Manitoba legislature. My dad ran for the Liberals years ago. I have read everything from cover to cover. I am quite aware of all the Liberal promises. The rhetoric, the promises, the media spin and the amount of finance support that is being put into press releases and grandiose announcements absolutely stymies and amazes me.

For instance, during the last election grand amounts of money were promised for our wonderful human rights museum. In actual fact, suddenly that money cannot be found. It was only a phantom promise, even though very strong residents of our city of Winnipeg came forward strongly and said that the promises were made.

In the U.S. or in any part of the world all of us have to show great respect when we deal at an international level or at any level. When people are sworn at and when public things are said in a derogatory manner, consequences result. Members opposite did not have many consequences when that occurred.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have mixed feelings as I stand to speak on the government address in reply to the throne speech. On the one hand, it is of course an honour to speak on behalf of the people of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry. On the other hand, the speech from the throne offers very little to speak about that has not already been spoken about far too much. It is basically a regurgitation of the same old rhetoric and the vague, unkept promises that have been included in every Liberal throne speech for the last 11 years. Incredibly, the government even had the gall to talk about fiscal discipline, after overseeing a decade of the worst spending scandals this country has ever seen.

We have experienced the HRDC scandal, the 100,000% cost overrun for the useless gun registry, the sponsorship scandal and the unaccountable spending of millions of dollars on Liberal patronage appointees. All this waste took place while our Prime Minister was gutting health care and the military, the two most important fundamental responsibilities of government.

The Prime Minister delights in saying that he has balanced the budget, but anyone can balance a budget by raising taxes and cutting basic services, as he has done. Neither talent nor vision is needed. On the other hand, balancing a budget in a well thought out and responsible manner while contributing to Canadians' quality of life takes real leadership.

Let me give members an example of this government's misplaced priorities that is especially relevant to my riding. The government has done almost nothing to help rural Canadians cope with the devastating circumstances beyond their control, such as drought, floods and BSE. Remember the AIDA program? It failed to deliver. The CAIS program is no better, and the government's response to the BSE crisis is virtually non-existent. Yet the government happily throws good money after bad into a program forcing rural Canadians to register firearms.

Finally, having taken their property rights away and watching their livelihoods die, all the government can offer rural Canadians is better Internet access. I suppose if they have the Internet, farmers will be able to advertise the sale of their farms and look for work in the city.

That is where things are headed as long as the government fails to support our agricultural sector. It is ironic that the government is so fond of talking about high speed communications for rural Canada, when its response to the BSE crisis has been so slow.

In the throne speech the government calls broadband communication one of the fundamentals of rural economic development. What about agriculture? When will the government realize that agriculture is the very essence of our rural economy?

The government has become so arrogant that it thinks it understands the needs and priorities of rural Canada better than rural Canada does itself. Farmers are not alone in being treated in such a paternalistic and ill-advised way by the Liberals. Some of the measures proposed in the Speech from the Throne indicate that families are getting the same treatment.

Rather than enabling all families to make the child care choices that work best for them, the government continues to promise funding for only those families who choose to put their children in day care facilities. There is no mention of any incentive or assistance for parents who choose to stay home to care for their children. There is nothing for those whose children require special care.

Every family has different circumstances and the government should enable families to make the choices that best meet their own needs. This government loves to pay lip service to diversity, yet its cookie-cutter approach toward child care disrespects the diversity of families and removes their freedom of choice.

The approach to the provinces comes from that same paternalistic attitude. The throne speech is filled with fine phrases about respecting regional diversity in Canada, but this government will nevertheless continue to interfere as much as ever in areas of provincial and municipal jurisdiction.

There are good reasons for Canada being a federal state. Where government policy relating to regional interests is concerned, the provinces are the ones in the best position to make decisions.

Just as individuals and families should be able to make their own choices with respect to things like child care, provinces should be able to make decisions in areas such as municipal infrastructure, skills training, education, and other areas that, according to both the Constitution and common sense, are provincial matters.

This government is so busy making policy where it should not that it has failed to make policy where it should. The most obvious example is national defence. The throne speech started with a very appropriate tribute to our men and women in uniform, but I suspect that most of our military personnel and their families and, for that matter, most Canadians will find the tribute more than a little hypocritical coming from this government. The Liberals have mismanaged and neglected our military almost to the point of collapse.

The government has not even reviewed its defence policy in more than a decade. I am talking about the decade since the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, unprecedented nuclear proliferation and regional instability. None of these things have been taken into account in the government's defence policy.

Our military has been systematically dismantled since the Liberals came to power, thanks to this government. The Canadian Forces have no rapid reaction force. Thanks to this government, Canadians paid half a billion dollars not to buy helicopters for the navy, and now we will pay again to buy the cheapest helicopter instead of the best.

This government oversaw the demise of Canada's last submarine fleet, and the replacements, like those for the Sea Kings, are the cheapest instead of the best. The government is eliminating the army's tank force. Our military cannot move its own heavy equipment overseas, either by sea or by air. One of our four destroyers is in mothballs because there is not enough money to put it to sea.

Only the dedication, discipline and quality of our military personnel have allowed them to perform their duties so well up to this point. Our men and women in uniform deserve the safest and most effective equipment available. They deserve our respect and appreciation. The government has asked them to do too much with too little for too long. It must stop.

One of the commitments the government made in the throne speech was to build consensus when it comes to setting the nation's objectives. There is already a consensus in Canada that the military needs better equipment and more funding, but so far there is no evidence that the Liberals are interested in that consensus.

The same is true in many other areas. Canadians of all political persuasions know and agree that there is a need to strengthen our democracy. The official opposition of the House and the governments of all the provinces would almost certainly agree that the people of each province should elect the senators who are supposed to represent them. I suspect that there would also be broad consensus on establishing fixed election dates so that government cannot reserve democracy for an opportune time.

There is also a broad consensus in Canada about criminal justice issues. I think a large majority of Canadians and members of the House would agree that our children should be protected by raising the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16.

If the government really wants to act on the basis of consensus, it should start where the consensus already exists. The government has made no attempt to build consensus on anything it has done so far in its mandate. As Treasury Board critic for the official opposition, I listened with great interest as the Treasury Board president tried to make it sound like the government had consulted stakeholders and the opposition on Bill C-11, which deals with disclosures of wrongdoing by public servants. I know I was never consulted. Opposition critics were told of the changes made to the bill a few days before it was tabled, but we were certainly never consulted during the drafting of the bill and it shows.

The government most definitely did not consult the opposition parties on the throne speech. Even if some of us over here will have to vote in favour of its adoption in order to enable the government to continue, this is an unbelievable show of arrogance on its part.

Let me say in closing that I had hoped this throne speech would herald a Parliament built on cooperation and common sense. This is what a minority government situation calls for. But I was disappointed. The throne speech shows no effort to build bridges and no innovation in the areas that matter to Canadians. That is what the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition is meant to fix, and I sincerely hope that it passes with the support of my hon. colleagues opposite.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, may I express to the hon. member congratulations on his victory and welcome him to the House of Commons.

He said a few things that I find quite amusing. He said that anybody can balance a budget if taxes are raised. His former leader, Brian Mulroney, raised all kinds of taxes from 1984 to 1993 and never once balanced the budget.

I am not defending the Liberal government in any way but I do have a question for the member. The previous speaker for the Conservative Party talked about the vision of their leader. I think she was talking about the same leader who was standing in the House in the last Parliament and talking about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and nuclear capability at any minute. I believe those were the words.

When she talks about the rhetoric from a particular member of Parliament on the Liberal side, she is absolutely correct. That type of language and that type of talk about our closest friends, the Americans, is not acceptable. I agree with her, but at the same time, the Leader of the Opposition should also watch the rhetoric that comes from that side as well.

My question for the member is more on the agricultural side. As he knows, the dairy and poultry farmers are coming to Ottawa very soon to lobby all members of Parliament and discuss with them the question of marketing boards. There was a time when the Alliance Party was against marketing boards and I am not quite sure what the position is now. I would like to give him the opportunity to tell us what he thinks or what his party's view is, if it is possible, and to discuss the aspect of the marketing boards that protect our poultry and dairy farmers and other farmers as well.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member was in the chamber when our party's leader addressed the emergency debate--and I must say there were very few people in the House from the other side in that emergency debate--and we debated the BSE crisis long into the night. I think our Leader of the Opposition made his position very clear in that he was a strong supporter of supply management, as I am.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, earlier the Minister of Social Development had a chance to speak and talked a bit about the new child care program that he is pushing. I had some concerns about that and I would like to ask the member a question in a minute. We have a multi-billion dollar program beginning and a number of us have great concerns about it. We would like to see people make a choice as to what they do with their tax money, how they support their children, how they find day care, and whether they need it or not.

I have a bigger concern and it is about the rural areas. We see billions of dollars going into these programs, often into building facilities, administrations and bureaucracies, and the rural areas are usually left out. I know that the member is an advocate for rural areas and rural development. I would like his thoughts on whether he feels that a national day care program will treat rural areas fairly or if once again they will probably be left out in this government's treatment of rural areas.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the government's position on child care will do very little for people in urban areas and even less for people in rural areas. The whole point of this, the problem, the imperfection from the beginning, is that it does not give parents an option as to what to do with the care of their children.

As members know, children are our most valued resource in this country. We have to make sure that they are brought up with the care and the nurturing they deserve. If parents choose to look after their own children, I think they should be encouraged to do that. I would strongly suggest that amendments be made to the bill so that we do in fact encourage families to raise their children as they see fit, because the best stewards of our young people are of course their parents.

[Marc Godbout, Liberal, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Minister of the Environment.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating you on your appointment. It speaks well for your ability to be conciliatory with all parties in the House as well as the respect you have earned over the years. I am sure we will all benefit from your expertise and wise judgment.

I rise today as the member of Parliament for Ottawa—Orléans to address the House in response to the throne speech. It is an honour for me to represent the people of Ottawa--Orléans. I am grateful to them for the confidence they have shown in electing me to represent them in Parliament. I would like to assure them once again here today that I will represent their interests to the best of my ability. It is quite an honour for an Ottawa Valley boy to take part in this glorious assembly.

It is with both pride and humility that I accept the honour of representing the people of Ottawa—Orléans in the House of Commons. I will try my best to listen to them attentively and promote their interests in this House and with this government.

I began my career in Orléans 30 years ago. Thanks to my first job, I came to know and appreciate the community and the area of Ottawa—Orléans, to which I now wish to devote my energy and efforts.

I would like to start by paying tribute to this great community of Ottawa--Orléans. As many would say, it is the best kept secret in Ottawa.

I take this opportunity to invite all members of the House of Commons to visit. It is about 20 minutes away from here, and I would certainly be pleased to welcome you with warmth and friendship.

The riding of Ottawa--Orléans is made up of a collection of small and large communities in Ottawa's most eastern sector. Our population is highly educated and qualified as well as culturally and linguistically diverse, which makes it very representative of the whole of Canada. It is also a community where the quality of life is second to none. We have a vibrant arts community and our citizens are renowned for their charitable leadership and community involvement.

More than 100 years ago, the village of Orléans saw the construction of its first hotel, its first post office and its first school. This village and surrounding borough now has a population of over 100,000 people. Since the early to mid-1980s, Orléans has been one of the fastest growing communities in Canada and all signs indicate that this trend will continue.

This means that Ottawa--Orléans not only has many needs as a community but is ready to assume its rightful place in the national capital region and at the federal level. I am therefore very pleased that the government is committed to forging a new deal with cities and communities. This is more important than ever for the inhabitants of Ottawa--Orléans living, working and raising families.

Our communities are vital to Ottawa's economic, social and cultural viability. The challenges our cities and communities must face are now so numerous, and at times overwhelming, that it is beyond the capacity of local governments to act alone.

That is why the new deal focuses on striking more productive relationships among all three levels of government and community groups as well as the private and the not for profit sectors, relationships that will lead to local solutions for local problems. These relationships will have fiscal benefits for all communities.

Since 1993 our government has contributed over $12 billion in infrastructure funding, which in turn has leveraged over $30 billion from all partners. I am delighted that my colleague, the Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities, will lead the federal efforts to secure this new deal.

In Ottawa--Orléans, we immediately got down to work. The day after the election I began organizing the first of two economic summits, bringing together all elected public officials. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my provincial counterpart, Phil McNeely, Mayor Bob Chiarelli, and the four city councillors, Rainer Bloess, Herb Kreling, Rob Jellett and Michel Bellemare, who have all committed to begin this strategic economic development for Ottawa--Orléans. We have already identified 11 concrete projects for Ottawa--Orléans.

I pledged to my constituents that I would place Ottawa--Orléans on the federal radar and I intend to deliver.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to talk about the Speech from the Throne, because it is a faithful reflection of our election promises, both nationally and locally, and especially for the young families of Ottawa—Orléans.

Under the leadership of the Minister of Social Development, our government, along with all the partners involved from the various communities and the provinces, will prepare a national plan for preschool learning and child care, based on the key requirements identified by parents and child care experts—quality, universality, accessibility and development.

I am particularly proud of our commitment to help Canada's children. As a trained educator, I am pleased to support the government in this file and offer my expertise. The announcement in the throne speech that $5 billion will be allocated over five years to early learning and child care is truly good news for Canadian families. We must, however, respect the diversity of our population and the self-determination of our communities.

One of our government's key commitments was health care. In less than three months after the election, we have already met that commitment through our agreement with the provinces. This past September's historic agreement on health care will ensure that appropriate services are accessible and wait times will be significantly reduced for all Canadians no matter where they live and their income level. This agreement is part of our 10 year action plan to aggressively address health care in Canada.

All this was accomplished under the leadership of our Prime Minister who did a fine job delivering the goods. I had the privilege of taking part in this negotiation with the provinces and territories and to see the birth of this new evolving federalism.

This agreement is especially historic because our government obtained the signature of all the provincial and territorial premiers in order to ensure fair and stable funding for health within well-defined parameters and an accountability framework. This was possible because the governments recognized that that is what every Canadian wanted.

The government is very committed to health care because it is the one social policy Canadians constantly identified as their number one priority. In our 10 year health care plan, $41.2 billion will go to the provinces. However the government has ensured that the provinces and territories will produce information on outcomes so that Canadians can be assured their money is being spent where it should be, securing for them, their families and community the best access to the best health care possible.

I am also very proud to be part of this government for its work with official languages. It has always shown a strong commitment to Canada's linguistic duality. It has just reiterated its support to the francophone and Acadian communities in the Speech from the Throne.

Our government will make sure the official languages action plan is applied and will continue to promote the vitality of official language minority communities across the country and not, as some would suggest, only those communities where the numbers justify it.

Allow me also to take this opportunity to acknowledge the invaluable contribution and extraordinary work of Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier, who has always been a great defender of the rights of Franco-Ontarians and francophones outside Quebec.

I want to pay tribute to this citizen of Ottawa, who has had an exceptional career in the House of Commons and in the Senate. In addition to his work as an MP and a senator, and his involvement in the community, he was the Chair of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie from 1997 to 1999. He is a role model for all Canadians. Senator Gauthier, we will miss you when you retire at the end of the month. We thank you for everything you have done for francophone and Acadian communities across Canada.

I strongly believe that the Speech from the Throne truly conveys a message of hope to all Canadians for a better and stronger Canada, for safer and healthier communities, for more effective partnerships and respect for the diversity of our people. In my humble opinion, it reflects the priorities expressed to me by my constituents in Ottawa—Orléans, and I am proud, as their representative, to lend it my full support.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the member on his recent election and welcome him to the House.

My question concerns the whole area of the economic summits and the meetings the member organized. I would ask him to elaborate on how these meetings came about, how they are structured, what is on the agenda and what the member intends to accomplish. I think it is an excellent idea and I congratulate the member. Could he take this opportunity to elaborate a little more on this initiative?

[Marc Godbout, Liberal, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important venture. Because of its fast growth, Ottawa—Orléans had lagged in infrastructure and services. Even in the election campaign, we agreed among all elected officials and soon to be elected officials that as soon as the election was over we would establish a full-fledged partnership between all levels of government.

We had the economic summit three weeks ago and so far we have concretized our partnership to include myself, my provincial counterpart, the mayor of Ottawa and four city councillors.

What we are trying to accomplish is in the grey area because often enough in a municipality like ours there was blame on one or the other level of government for not bringing the solution to the issues we were facing.

Right now we are working collectively to identify what the priorities are for the social economic development of our area. We have already identified 11 concrete projects that range from ensuring a more balanced federal presence in the riding to a cultural facility for our riding, along with sporting facilities. Eleven concrete projects will be chaired by community members who will report to the committee.

It is action driven and action oriented. Already we are seeing concrete results from the project. I am very proud of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on his speech this morning.

Earlier we heard from the minister responsible for child care who described the government's commitment to a national child care program. He said that his ministry was a find a way ministry.

I find it interesting given that the government has made the commitment to a national child care program for many years. It has probably been 11 years since it was first proposed by the government. It seems as though the ministry may have been a little lost on the road to child care over those years.

What does the member from Orléans see as being different in terms of the commitment to child care this time around? Is it something we will actually see happen from the government now?

[Marc Godbout, Liberal, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do as a government is not necessarily to have a one size fits all model. I do not think that would ever work in Canada. There are differences among communities.

We are trying to work directly with the provinces in their respective development of child care programs to ensure universality and, for those want a child care program for their children, to have access to a very reasonable fee for that type of program.

Yes, we are looking at other models, one being the model in Quebec which has put in place an excellent program that could possibly be used elsewhere in the country.

We will have to remember that even within a specific province there might be several models that can be explored. I, being the former assistant deputy minister of education of Ontario, know of some specific models in Ontario. The reason this program, I am sure, will be concretized within the next few years is because of the open access to different models that could answer the specific needs of specific communities.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the support given to me for the fourth consecutive time by the electors of Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, and thanks also to the trust that the Prime Minister has placed in me, I am very proud and privileged to be responsible for the environment just as this issue is becoming more crucial than ever in terms of improving our quality of life. It is at this moment that the links ever more clearly joining the environment with economic competitiveness have the effect of changing the global economy; those nations that succeed in reconciling the environment and the economy will enjoy immense economic advantages; Canada must assert itself as a leader in the new industrial revolution, that of the sustainable economy, as it has done in all previous industrial revolutions.

To help Canada succeed in the sustainable economy, the Speech from the Throne gives us some powerful tools. In fact, no fewer than 13 initiatives were mentioned there, 13 levers that will help us both to make our environment healthier and to make our economy stronger. Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to comment briefly on each of them.

I would call it the 13 levers speech. If I take too long I will speed up near the end. It is not my fault if the throne speech is full of good initiatives. Yes, it is my fault.

First, the Government will work with its partners to build sustainable development systematically into decision making. This is the most important of our 13 undertakings and it means that we are dealing not only with 13 separate measures but also with an overall plan. The environment must be at the heart of our collective decision-making, both private and public.

We have to bring together around a single table governments, industry and NGOs in order to make the best decisions and select the best processes for both the quality of our environment and the competitiveness of our economy.

Second, the government will work with the private sector to improve the commercialization of the best new environmental technologies. Major investments funded out of the proceeds of the sale of the government’s Petro-Canada shares will support the development and deployment of these technologies.

Technological innovations must be used to their full potential. Not only our environment but also our economy will benefit from this and we shall at the same time strengthen the environmental technology industries. There are too many good ideas that simply aren’t successfully crossing the final hurdle of commercialization.

At the same time we need to invest in next-generation technologies, such as fuel cells and “smart systems” for energy in the home, as well as technologies to help key industries such as oil sands, mining, forestry, and aluminum production be as efficient and environmentally sustainable as possible.

Third, the government will consolidate federal environmental assessments and will work with the provinces and territories toward a unified and more effective assessment process for Canada. This is part of the more effective decision making process that we must develop, especially within the federal government.

Each year the Government of Canada undertakes environmental assessments for projects that represent billions of dollars of potential investment. It is important to consolidate the federal assessment process in order to ensure that proponents do not face undue delay or administrative dysfunctionalities in that these assessments are consistently applied and always of a quality that protects the health of Canadians and our environment.

Fourth, by 2006, the government will implement a new Green Procurement Policy to govern its purchases. The federal government is the largest employer in Canada and also has an immense purchasing power. It has to lead by example in ensuring that its buildings and fleet of vehicles are as environment--and climate-friendly as possible, and that its procurement has the lowest possible impact on the environment.

This will help bring the most advanced environmental technologies onto the market and, over time, the federal treasury will benefit from the savings that more energy-efficient buildings and vehicles generate.

I intend to work closely with the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and the President of the Treasury Board to green government operations. To achieve our goal, we are developing a government-wide performance management framework and common performance measures.

Fifth, the government will introduce legislation that will strengthen the focus on the ecological integrity of Canada's national parks. The ecological integrity of our national parks is important to the health of Canadians and is part of our national identity. Canada's parks are important for sustainable tourism, community revitalization and partnership with aboriginal people.

The Government of Canada has a responsibility to ensure that these special places, our national parks and historical sites, are protected for the use and enjoyment of future generations, and will continue to contribute to vibrant communities and local economies.

Sixth, the government will place increased focus on energy. In the past, Canada has shown that it can transform impossible energy dreams into reality. When the oil sands of the Athabasca were discovered in the 1960s, no technology existed to exploit them and the economics were simply crazy.

It took decades of dedication, and especially sustained federal support of $40 billion in various fiscal incentives and tax breaks, to eventually transform this impossible project into a thriving industry that will provide enormous amounts of both energy and wealth to the country for decades to come.

Yes, Canada is rich in sources of energy of fossil origin, particularly natural gas, oil and coal. We will need them for quite a while. We have to learn to produce them in a much cleaner way and to use them responsibly in a way that does not harm the climate.

Canada also has great potential in generating power from wind, the sun, from geothermal and biomass. What Canada needs now is an energy strategy including a renewable energy strategy. The government will work with the provinces, industry, NGOs and consumers to develop a clean renewable energy strategy that provides a framework for further investments in hydro developments and transmission, cogeneration, wind and other emerging renewable energy forms.

Seventh, the government will support wind-power production, stimulated by a quadrupling of the Wind Power Production Incentive.

In the last decade, wind power has made tremendous progress in some countries. Canada has enormous potential. This government is determined to make Canada a world leader in wind power production, as just one step towards being a leader in other renewable energy sources.

Eighth, the government will refine and implement a national plan for climate change in partnership with provincial and territorial governments and other stakeholders. When Canada ratified Kyoto in 2002, it also adopted a first version of its plan. As stated in the plan itself, the plan was by necessity a work in progress that would evolve over time. We now need to refine our plan in order to make it more effective.

I see that my speaking time is almost up, so I shall be brief.

Ninth, the government will work with the United States and agencies like the International Joint Commission on issues such as air, water and invasive species.

Tenth, the government will bring forward the next generation of its Great Lakes and St. Lawrence programs.

Eleventh, the government will move forward on its ocean action plan.

Twelfth, through the new deal for Canada's cities and communities, the government will enable municipalities to make long term financial commitments needed to help contain urban sprawl and to invest in new sustainable infrastructure projects.

The thirteenth point is about our sustainable strategy for the north. The government will develop a comprehensive strategy for the north.

The Prime Minister has recommitted to make this plan work for all Canadians.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was elected in 2000. What I predominantly heard during the last term, over and over again, was about the Kyoto protocol, how it was so necessary and how we had to get into it. I was on the industry committee, and we tried to find out what the plan was and how much that plan would cost.

Pretty soon it will be 2005. It will have been almost five years. Surely by this stage of the ball game we should know what that plan is, and every Canadian should be able to see the details of the plan. We should also have an idea of how much it is going to cost.

I am challenging the Minister of the Environment not to give me a speech on some other topic but to address those two points. Where can I find the plan for implementing the Kyoto protocol in Canada and how much is the plan going to cost Canadian taxpayers?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the plan has been public since 2002. It has cost the Government of Canada $3.6 billion up to now. Most of the spending would have been necessary anyway in order to address other issues like smog or other issues that are health associated.

We also need to take into account what the cost would be to do nothing. For Alberta or Saskatchewan there may be a big danger relating to accessibility of water. We have seen the result in the north and the member for Western Arctic may testify to that. We need to act as well to lower costs if we do not act.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the minister. In particular, he has been talking about environmental costs. I am interested in how Kyoto and the environmental plan, when they come forward, will impact a couple of areas of transportation and agriculture.

One thing that has been noted by the fertilizer industry of Canada, as Kyoto goes forward, is that the demand for natural gas will rise considerably, leading to a point where it will no longer be economical for fertilizer plants to use Canadian natural gas, thus killing off the fertilizer industry.

My first question is, has the government researched how much farmers will face in increased fertilizer costs? How much will this add to the bottom line. I am sure the minister knows that farmers are already suffering. They have intense international competition and this will continue to drive up their costs. I wonder if the government has thought of that.

I also wonder if the government was aware that many pollution devices for engines, automobiles and tractors take energy to run. They clean out the pollutants that actually cause smog, but they cause more fuel to be burned in the process, thus creating more carbon dioxide. My follow up question is, has the government thought through that reducing carbon dioxide emissions from these vehicles, tractors and so forth, would actually increase the smog?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the first point, it is obvious that climate change has terrible consequences on agriculture. We need to work together to ensure that our agriculture will be sustainable. We do not need to do anything that would not be reasonable.

On the second point, the continent is moving on the automotive industry. California is as big as Canada regarding population and the GDP. We need to work in our own way, and the Minister of Natural Resources is having negotiations with the automotive industry to be sure that Canada will have the capacity to have a healthy industry in this sector, but one that will respect the environment and move ahead regarding our climate change objectives.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was wondering, since we have the minister with us today, if we could extend this debate for five more minutes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there agreement?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate responding to the Speech from the Throne. I will be sharing my time with the member for Burnaby--Douglas.

I want to again thank my constituents for the honour of being here. I want to thank my family for their understanding and support through all of this. I also want to thank my campaign co-managers, Dennis Young and Anna Rae Fishman, for without them this would not be happening either.

I come from a riding that faces challenges very similar to those faced by other municipalities right across the country. The government has talked about making cities a priority. The test for me is how well the quality of life has improved in Hamilton.

Hamilton Centre encompasses downtown Hamilton. It includes not just our precious downtown but also our waterfront, and some of the very wealthiest people in Hamilton, including some of the oldest, established families, some of whom have friends on the other side of the House.

People in Hamilton Centre, like other Canadians, are facing some of the greatest challenges one could ever imagine, the least of which are the number of new Canadians coming in and the needs they have in terms of wanting to lay down their roots, and wanting to raise their families and participate fully in their communities.

Quite frankly, that is not an option for us. That is not a luxury whether we deal with the issue or not. Our economy will not grow without an immigration program that works. If our economy does not grow, it will stagnate, and we will continue to fall behind.

We need to take this issue very seriously. People in downtown Hamilton are trying. The city council is doing the best it can. Infrastructure problems, the lack of affordable housing, and the lack of assistance from the two senior levels of government have left Hamilton city council, like most other city councils across Canada, completely hamstrung in terms of knowing what the pressures are but just not having the money to do anything about them.

I had the honour of attending a world forum on cities. That forum recognized the fact that cities are playing a bigger role within their provinces, within their states and within their countries. One of the workshops was on the whole issue of cities and how they could impact the international agenda. What is happening in Canada is not happening in isolation. The question is, is Canada responding in an adequate fashion or not?

For some of us middle age folk it is hard to appreciate that in some areas of progressiveness Canada is falling way behind our neighbours to the south. We always used to take somewhat smug pride in the fact that our environmental laws were a bit better, that our minimum wage was always a little higher, that our health and safety was a bit better, and that we invested more in communities than our American neighbours. A lot of that does not stand anymore because of the right wing tilt of the Liberals and those provincial governments that have bought into those arguments.

I see one of the members across the way throwing his head back and laughing. When we reach the point where the minimum wage is higher in the United States of America than it is in Ontario then something has gone horribly wrong.

Promises are not good enough. This throne speech document is just promises. The difficulty for a lot of us on this side of the House is the fact that we have heard all of these promises before. The government has said that cities are its priority and yet in the Speech from the Throne it says, “Shelter is the foundation upon which healthy communities and individual dignity are built”. Those are great words. That is a great promise. What is the reality? The reality is that the Liberal government has cut the last existing federal housing program.

Quite frankly, we are one of the few developed nations that does not have a comprehensive national housing strategy. How can the opposition members and Canadians be expected to have faith that the government means it this time? Perhaps that is what should have been put in the bill in a few places, that the government really means it this time, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

The difficulty for the New Democrats in looking at the Liberal throne speech is not that the government is going in the wrong direction necessarily in so many areas. In many of the areas we do agree. However, it is always only words. When it comes to action or money the government goes in a completely different direction, let alone the fact that in the areas where it is going in the right direction it is a halfhearted measure. There does not seem to be the same kind of commitment.

If the government really cared about housing, why did it spend the last four years prior to this Parliament spending $100 billion on tax cuts? The government says that health is a priority, cities are a priority, housing is a priority, education is a priority. They are words, just like in the throne speech. In reality $100 billion of cold hard cash went out in tax cuts. Let me say that the vast majority of people in my riding of Hamilton Centre did not see their fair share of that $100 billion.

We have to understand what the priorities are. It is in the track record. There is talk about a child care program, but we have been here before many times, at least back to the 1993 Speech from the Throne.

If we really want to push the issue of Liberal promises, why is the GST still in effect? I remember all the promises made by the former prime minister, but it is still the same party, in order to go from that side of the House to this side of the House. I should say that side of the House; it is awkward sitting over here. In order to go from the opposition benches to the government benches one of the big things was the GST, and guess what? We still have the GST. We do not have a comprehensive and adequate housing strategy, but we still have the GST.

If health care is such a big priority, why over the tenure of the current Prime Minister as minister of finance did he cut $25 billion from health care? If it is an absolute priority, why did he become the first finance minister, to the best of my knowledge, that has ever cut $25 billion from health care? If that is how priorities are treated, then the Liberals have a funny way of governing.

[An hon. member]

What about the $41 billion they put back in?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

A member asks about the $41 billion put back in.

If health care is so important and if it needs that kind of money, why was $100 billion put into tax cuts instead of health care? Why was there $100 billion in tax cuts instead of affordable housing? Why was there $100 billion in tax cuts instead of investment in necessary infrastructure, roads and sewers for our cities? Let us follow the money and that will tell us what the priorities are, not the words. Let us see where the money goes.

I want to spend a moment talking about an issue that is incredibly important to steelworkers in Hamilton and across Canada, and quite frankly, workers right across the nation in all different kinds of industries. That is the whole matter of the CCAA, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. That law says that in a bankruptcy the banks will get their money first, insurance companies will get their money first, major suppliers will get their money first, and who is last? The workers' pensions are last.

The current government House leader made a lot of commitments to Tony DePaulo, who was the NDP candidate against him in the last election, especially in the dying days of the election. He said that he and his government care about steelworkers and that they care about protecting the rights of pensioners. The proof will be in the pudding. We want to see some changes to that law. The banks should not be ahead of pensioners who have worked their entire lives and deserve the dignity and the safety of a pension plan that they have worked so hard for.

There is a whole host of issues on which we will hold the government's feet to the fire. There were a lot of promises made. Words are not good enough. In a minority government we can actually do something about it. I intend to use my precious vote to do everything I can to force the government to bring about the kind of quality of life that all Canadians deserve, and not just words.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, in his remarks the member for Hamilton Centre talked of a number of things and about following the money. If we follow the money, then $41 billion for health care tells us something.

The member talked about the steelworkers in Hamilton. There has been a lot of news lately about the difficulties faced by Stelco. A recent report said that GM and DaimlerChrysler were looking to pull away their contracts from Stelco, which could be the last straw.

I have always been fascinated contrasting Stelco with Dofasco. Dofasco talks about its assets being its people.

Could the member talk about what it is that is causing the difference between the results that Dofasco achieves, which seem to very good, and the results that Stelco achieves? Are there management problems? Are there different labour agreements? Is it a different type of business strategy that it has implemented?

I wonder if the member could comment on that because it is of great concern to many Canadians.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the member's opening remark about the $41 billion, if health care is so important and such a crisis and a priority, why was it not done before? Why did the government make the $100 billion in tax cuts before making the investment in health care? That is the wrong priority as far as the NDP is concerned.

I do not know the member yet and I guess over time I will know the answer to the question. I would hope that he is not attempting some kind of comparison that because Stelco has a union is the reason it is having some of these problems as opposed to Dofasco that does not. I would hope that the member would understand that they produce different kinds of steel.

The management at Dofasco has been very wise. It has always taken the steelworkers' collective agreement and historically has always added 2¢ to 5¢ an hour, just a little bit more, and has made sure that everything is the same. As long as the workers are treated with the same kind of dignity as are the workers over at Stelco, and they get the same kind of benefits and wages, it is easy to make the argument that they may not need a union in that place. However, they also know that their union really is the steelworkers' union because that is who is bargaining for them.

When there are strikes at Stelco, some of the greatest donations come from the steelworkers at Dofasco because they know that indirectly that is their union fighting for their benefits.

Do I think there is a management problem? On the front page of the Hamilton Spectator a few weeks ago, management acknowledged that it made mistakes.

We can deal with how we got here as one issue. When we talk about the CCAA and changes to the Bankruptcy Act, that is about today and tomorrow. It is about protecting those very workers about whom the hon. member cares, as does everyone else here.