Debates of April 10th, 2006

RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

It is well known that the Bloc Québécois strongly supports the cause of aboriginal peoples. We have proven it in the past. As citizens of Quebec, we have set an example for Canadian society in terms of the plight of aboriginal peoples and how to ease it.

I believe that my colleague is aware of the advances that have been made in Quebec.

Let us look at the Bloc's position.

The word in English is “soft” on government. I think the Liberal Party should thank us for that. Since it is in such a bad position, I do not think it would be very happy if we pushed too hard on the government right now.

The Bloc and Mr. Duceppe have said that we will work with the government as we did before as long as we take into account Quebec's interests and the Bloc Québécois' interests, which is what we intend to do.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I would remind members that we should not refer to members of the House of Commons by their names.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, just because people do not want an election does not mean we cannot stand up for our principles and fight for things that are not in the throne speech, such as capital gains. It contains nothing for communities, for cities, for the disabled, for the Doha round to help farmers, nothing on drug abuse, education, students, fisheries, forestry, the historic Kelowna accord, homelessness, infrastructure, low income people, mining, a northern strategy, oil and gas, the Pacific gateway, regional development, research, rural people, small business, big business, social programs, tourism, trades and volunteerism, contaminated sites cleanup and International Polar Year.

We are going to stand up and fight for those things regardless of the situation in Parliament. We are not doing it just because we are politically ready or not for an election.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly there are a lot of things that were not in that document. That is why we have pointed a few of them out.

As well, we have tried to see, from previous statements by the Prime Minister, how we could expand the points of interest on which the government should take action, because these are promises the government has made us. I would encourage my hon. friend to do the same thing.

Given the very many topics that were left out, we would surely achieve more if other people on this side of the House wanted to do the same thing and paid attention to the government’s promises, to ensure that they were honoured.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. President, this is the first time I have spoken in the House, except for this afternoon during question period, and I take this opportunity to thank my fellow citizens in the riding of Québec who have elected me for the fifth time. I will live up to the expectations of the people of my riding. As usual, I will work hard and with integrity.

Let us now look at some of the things left out of the Speech from the Throne, although we cannot draw any broad conclusions from that speech about this government’s actual intentions in several areas. Certainly, there are a few general priorities, but I think there are also several omissions in relation to a number of areas and facts of life that all Quebeckers and Canadians are familiar with.

And so there is talk about open federalism, respecting jurisdictions, and, among other things, the place of Quebec in international forums, where areas under those jurisdictions are being discussed. There is talk about a place similar to Quebec’s status within La Francophonie. There is a desire to limit federal spending and to part company with the previous government, which was very paternalistic and, most importantly, centralist.

The Bloc Québécois cannot oppose that. We do in fact see some openness.

In any event, no one can criticize the approach taken and choices made in the Speech from the Throne, which was rather brief and quite succinct. It is not a cause for concern for us, in any event, in terms of the first steps taken on the path that this new government will follow.

Seven out of ten electors did not vote for a Conservative government in Quebec, and six out of ten in the rest of Canada. This is a minority government. We would hope that the Conservatives will acknowledge the facts of life in a minority government, and will be able to work with the various opposition parties, so that we can achieve a number of things in several areas that were not mentioned in the speech from the Throne.

When the time comes to take sides on measures that will probably be part of the budget, we will undoubtedly see whether the budget meets a number of expectations, in this instance the expectations of everyone in Quebec.

We therefore feel some concern about certain of the government’s intentions. In terms of its desire to apply national plans and national strategies, we do not know where that will lead. We are therefore somewhat concerned, because we criticized the former Liberal government quite a bit, in particular for its proposal to impose national strategies and plans. Great care will have to be taken, and it is to be hoped that the new government will do things differently from the previous one.

They also say they want to resolve the fiscal imbalance. Again, this is not entirely clear. Within the government, the Prime Minister says that this will not be done in the coming budget, but will be part of the next one. So we will have to be patient, because this may come later, in a future budget, we don’t know when. But a minority government has to demonstrate that it intends to take quick action to show the people that it wants to effect a change.

We know that this government’s finance minister somewhat contradicted his Prime Minister when he said that this budget would be dealing with the fiscal imbalance. He created hopes that we could have a debate and come up with some alignments, try to determine how far we can go to resolve this fiscal imbalance.

We will have to continue to be very alert, very cautious, and give the public the true situation as to the real intentions of this government.

During the election campaign, they also promised $1,200 to families with young children under six. This indicates another attempt to interfere in fields of provincial jurisdiction, with no regard for the agreement that had been reached, an agreement I worked on with my NDP colleague from Sault-Sainte-Marie. It took a long time to discuss that agreement, a lot of time.

People were waiting for the end result of that agreement. These agreements were discussed in each of the provinces. They were signed, and now there is to be no more of them. They represented $800 million for Quebec.

We would propose a new method, one that would not penalize families, something of which we are very much aware. We have been very clever. We propose instead a refundable tax credit. That would be less of a penalty for many families. We know that $1,200 is not in fact the net amount that will end up in the pockets of the persons receiving this allowance.

What we heard was not what could have been expected from this government.

The disadvantaged and underprivileged are among those who have been most forgotten in the Speech from the Throne. Also left on the scrap heap has been the POWA, the program to support workers aged 55 and over who lose their jobs, for example when factories close down. There are now new players on the international market who produce at less cost goods intended for the population of Canada and other countries. So we are seeing factories close because their operating costs are too high.

In Charlesbourg, a company called Chaussures Régence lost 200 jobs on December 31, 2005. They just shut the doors. These new unemployed people came to see me in my office. Some of them have formed a coalition to make a claim under POWA. These people worked in a company for 35 years and then overnight found themselves with no income because they did not have employment protection and insurance.

We are anxious to see what the government’s position will be. It displayed a certain amount of sensitivity before the elections. I hope that it will remember the compassion that it said it had.

The same is true of social housing. They roundly denounced the billions of dollars accumulated by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We do not know either what the government’s position in this area will be.

The parliamentary secretary to the health minister is very aware of the mental health issue. Not only is this an area in which something should be done, but mental health involves several goals that need to be achieved at the same time, including better living and working conditions and adequate social housing. We need an entire system. To do this, we should help the provinces meet the needs of their people instead of intervening in place of them.

The government also presented a national plan to reduce waiting lists. It is not acting any differently than its predecessor would have. They would like to establish provincial plans and be able to give their approval to Quebec’s. We are very sensitive in this regard. There is a commission underway in Quebec, on which all the stakeholders in the health question have a seat. This commission is dealing with the accessibility of health care. The Chaoulli decision gave a green light in Quebec to reform health care or at least to improving its availability.

We will not be in favour of the establishment of a public health agency. I do not know what the new government’s stand will be on this. It must be remembered that health is a provincial matter. It would be much better advised to invest the money in the Canada health and social transfer and in education. The provinces will be able to meet the needs of their citizens. In my view, this is the winning approach and one that is well suited to meet Quebec’s expectations.

That is all the time I have for this. I would have liked another 10 minutes. I have not finished, but that will be for another time.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Quebec. I would like to congratulate her on her re-election.

In her speech, she said she supports the integration of Quebec into international institutions, probably based on the model of the Francophonie. In fact, Quebec and New Brunswick can act on their own behalf during Francophonie summits and at other international events.

My question concerns UNESCO. As we all know, this is a UN body in which only countries have the right to vote. What solution does the hon. member propose to help our government, so that Quebec may be fully recognized at UNESCO?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is sovereignty, for then we would be a country.

Personally, I wonder about the Conservative Party's promise. I would draw two conclusions. First, that the government, and specifically the Prime Minister, was wrong to hold out such a promise to Quebec during the election campaign, knowing that only a country can officially sit at UNESCO. The mistake seems to have just been discovered. The Belgian model has been suggested to him. If he had thought carefully about it, he might have answered differently and he would not have given Quebeckers false hope. During an election is no time to play word games because, once someone is elected, words must be put into action. Maybe he did not think he would be the one in power. However, now that he is, he must keep his promises. Clearly, he has reached a dead end.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her remarks and congratulate her on being elected to Parliament again and having the trust of her constituents.

It was said that the Conservative government's first throne speech neglected to mention several things. But it is Canadians and Quebeckers who were truly neglected for the past 13 years. Previous throne speeches did not focus on priorities. They were shopping lists that tried to please everybody. They were litanies of promises that were not kept.

It is easy to seduce voters. It is not so easy to keep and honour our constituents' trust.

The throne speech, which proposes measures for Canadians, is geared to Canadians' needs. It includes the reduction in the GST, the child care allowance, improved access to health care and measures designed to change the attitude toward the provinces.

This throne speech also shows that the government can be flexible. Take, for example, the amendment that addresses older workers. In my own riding, there are shipyard workers who were also neglected for the past 13 years. I hope they will have a support program and that, thanks to the Conservative government, they can have sustainable jobs. No support program can do that. As we say in Quebec, we are in business when private industry can create jobs.

Lastly, I would like to come back to something that previous speakers said: Quebec is a vital part of Canada. Not only Mr. Harper said it, but the leader of the NDP did as well. I think that my Bloc Québécois colleagues were there. I hope that we can work together to get things done in this House in the interest of Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Quebec, I would remind the hon. member and other hon. members, because it has happened a couple of times this afternoon, not to refer to members of the House by their surnames. The hon. member referred to Mr. Harper. Earlier someone referred to Mr. Duceppe. This is out of order.

The hon. member for Quebec.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat difficult to answer my new colleague from the South Shore because there really is no question for the Bloc Québécois. I think perhaps he is criticizing the former government. However, now that they are in power, we should respond to what is on the table. I find his answer somewhat lacking. He states that there are no major omissions, but what about social housing, employment insurance, the independent fund, and the POWA program. He spoke about the 1% GST reduction. How people spend their money will determine if they pay less tax. I believe families will receive $200 per year at the most. We cannot say that it is not a good thing, but it is not an exceptional measure, although it seems that this is what the member believes.

I would prefer that the Conservative Party ask real questions rather than condemn the former government. That has already been done and it is no longer in power. It is now up to them to deliver the goods.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I could note first, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margaret's.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak here today, Mr. Speaker. As this is my maiden speech in the House of Commons, I would like to thank the citizens of Barrie for giving me the honour to serve and fight for their concerns in this historic chamber of democracy.

I must admit that the first time I walked into these chambers, I got goosebumps. I did so because of the respect I have for this chamber.

I truly believe that politics can be a noble cause as long as we remain committed to the debate of ideas and public policy. Today I believe that debate needs to focus on law and order.

In Barrie we take a great sense of pride in our traditionally low rates of crime. However, even our peaceful community of Barrie is unnerved and shaken by the growing rates of crime.

Even in Barrie, a fairly quiet and peaceful community north of Toronto, my constituents are concerned by the apparent increase in violent crime. I promised them that this new Conservative government would be taking a new approach to the treatment of criminals and I am proud that our government is keeping its promises right from the start.

Prior to my election as a member of Parliament, I served on our local council and was a lawyer with a general practice. One thing that sticks with me is that in my municipal ward during my second year at council, there was a beating of a young individual in Tall Trees park. This shocked individuals in the north end of Barrie. It shook their confidence and their sense of security. Those residents in northern Barrie deserve better. They do not deserve to have their safety shattered.

Just this past weekend I was involved in a park clean up in the downtown Allendale subdivision of Barrie, where just a few weeks ago a 14 year old was stabbed to death by a 16 year old. This is in Lackie's Bush in Barrie. These tragic incidents are not simply the exception, but they are becoming increasingly common in Canada. Canadians deserve to feel safe within the confines of their own communities. This is not too much to ask. This is the least we can do for Canadians.

Over the last 13 years we have seen a Criminal Code and a Youth Criminal Justice Act that have become increasingly liberalized. How do we deter young offenders when there is no real punishment for their peers who commit crimes? How do we deter drug offenders when they get a slap on the wrist, a conditional sentence to go watch TV in their own house? How do we deter gun crimes when the offenders get told to take a time out in the corner? I would tell all criminal offenders that if they do not respect their neighbours, their community and their place in the community, then how can they expect their community to respect them, their rights and their place in that community? It is for this reason that I am so proud to serve as a member of the government under the leadership of the current Prime Minister. Canadians are tired of talk. They want action and they want it now. That is what Canada's new government is going to do, take action.

The government will set mandatory minimum sentences for serious violent and repeat crimes. We are going to hold the criminals to account. This means making sure that sentences match the severity of crimes and getting violent criminals off the street so they cannot reoffend. The government will send a strong message to criminals that if they commit a serious crime, they will do serious time. That is why during our mandate we will take the following actions.

We will introduce mandatory minimum prison sentences for drug traffickers, weapons offences, repeat offenders and crimes committed while on parole. We will end conditional sentences for serious crimes, or appeal the faint hope clause. We will replace statutory release with earned parole. Parole is a privilege and it has to be earned.

Holding criminals to account will require more police. Having served as a councillor, I can appreciate how the previous federal government left police forces cash strapped with pie in the sky legislation focused on rhetoric and not good, sound public policy, without any means to implement those necessary changes.

That is why we are also going to work with our partners in other levels of government to make sure there are more police officers on the streets. This is of vital importance, because many of our police forces are currently underfunded and under siege. This situation carries dire consequences for public safety.

The lack of police patrols inevitably leads to more crime. I mentioned two parks in Barrie, Tall Trees park and Lackie's Bush. If a crime occurs, the citizens deserve to have some police presence. Our communities deserve the right to have a police force that has the financial resources and capacity to respond with all the severity of the law.

I do not want to put the police chief in Barrie, Wayne Frechette, in a position where he must choose which criminal acts he can respond to and which ones he cannot. If we have laws in the country, they must be enforced. We need to give our police forces the tools to act.

The federal government is going to act. We will establish a new cost shared program with provincial and municipal governments to hire new police officers, to reinvest savings from the long gun registry into front line enforcement and invest new federal money into criminal justice priorities, including youth at risk programs.

During the winter campaign I had the opportunity to be part of two town halls. The first one involved our Minister of Finance, and the second the Minister of Justice. Both sessions had participation from every key police department, the OPP and the Barrie police, along with contributions by Mayor Rob Hamilton and the chief of police who hosted one of the meetings for us.

The underlying theme of these discussions was that the criminal justice system had become a revolving door. Our police chief would bring criminals into court and see them let out that same day or shortly thereafter.

The residents of Barrie and our police force believe we need to get tough on crime. We need to foster a greater level of tangible deterrents in sentencing and an enhanced sense of personal accountability for those who break our collective trust.

This government believes that enough is enough. We deserve to feel safe within the confines of our neighbourhoods. The Prime Minister will make a difference. This government will act. We will not coddle criminals. We will not waver in our convictions.

I look forward to going back to Barrie and being able to say to my constituents that we will create a Criminal Code that will hold fully accountable those among us who do not respect the rule of law and the dignity of human life.

In conclusion, I would simply like to thank this Prime Minister and our current Minister of Justice for pursuing an agenda of accountability and justice, which has been long overdue in Canada.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the debate has often addressed the issue of crime and putting serious criminals away. I do not think there is anyone in this place who would disagree that those who have committed violent and serious gun crimes should have penalties which are commensurate with the seriousness of the crime.

I am not sure if the member is aware, but in this place one of the things that we found out is that half of the people in Canada's jails today suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects. Many of these people also have been the perpetrators of serious crimes. The member probably will know that there is no rehabilitation for someone who suffers from mental illness due to prenatal consumption of alcohol by the mother.

Maybe the member would agree that we need a comprehensive approach to crime. We have to have a balance between prevention and, as he also mentioned, resources. The policing authorities are not the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada. The police cannot even have enough resources to address the marijuana grow house problems. How is it that we are going to get the resources into the hands of the provinces without encroaching on provincial jurisdiction and indeed without taking over those responsibilities which constitutionally belong to the provinces?

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly amusing to hear that we cannot get involved in areas that are not our responsibility when the previous government continually talked about a new deal for municipalities. Municipalities are not within the domain of the federal government. Certainly if we work with the provinces and the municipalities, as I mentioned, it is one of our platform goals to hire more police officers by giving the resources to those who deal directly with this.

In the last government, mention was made that there were 1,059 vacant RCMP spots. That is unacceptable. This government not only wants to hire officers for those positions and provide the resources to do so, but to work with municipalities to hire 2,500 police officers across this country. As much as we may want to talk about reasons why the status quo is acceptable, which I do not believe is the case, if we look at the statistics for 2004, homicides went up 12%. Last year everyone in the House would have been mortified with some of the tragic incidents that happened.

I find it unacceptable to simply accept the status quo of the current Criminal Code. It does not offer adequate deterrents. To make up excuses why we cannot act would not do justice for the people who have fallen to tragic deaths over the last year. This government needs to act. The Prime Minister will act. It is an honour to be part of this government.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I offer my congratulations to you on your ascendancy to a seat that befits your long service in this place, your wisdom and your stature.

I ask the member, where in this vision would he put the very important activities of prevention and treatment? In my own community we had a treatment centre for people who ended up in trouble with the law. It was doing excellent work, particularly where drug addiction is concerned. The centre was returning people to the streets in better shape than when they had arrived at the centre. In fact, people went on to live constructive lives and made some contribution to society because of the centre.

That treatment centre was shut down by the previous government. It was actually set up by the government before that. It would be an excellent vehicle if it was looked at again and revamped and resourced again, so that it could become a treatment centre that would deal with some of the challenges that we see out there as people struggle, both victims and perpetrators, to better themselves and create safer streets for all of us.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe this debate needs to centre not only on how to help a criminal not repeat, but also the victims.

We need to start focusing on sentencing. One statistic that I find surprising is that in 2003 Nathalie Quann in the Justice Canada report “Drug Use and Offending” made note that the average sentence for a drug trafficker was only 87 days.

Perhaps it is about time we looked at the sentences that are being given. We do not need drug traffickers watching TV on a conditional sentence. Let us give real deterrents for real criminals.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Barrie on a good speech. It was well delivered. I am sure the constituents of Barrie will be well represented in this and in future Parliaments. I also take a moment to congratulate you in your office as Deputy Speaker.

During my remarks on the throne speech, I will speak to a number of things that some parliamentarians, especially the opposition parties, have overlooked. We are talking about change here, not just a change in government but a change in the direction of government. Our primary focus of the throne speech, and I expect the primary focus of the upcoming budget, will be on change.

If we look at the Liberal record of broken promises, of the sponsorship program in Quebec and across Canada and the broken promises to the military, it would be my hope that there will never be a political party of any political stripe that will break its bond with the Canadian public the way the Liberal government did.

We have stated that we will clean up Ottawa by introducing and passing the federal accountability act. We will lower taxes for all Canadians by cutting the GST from 7% to 6%. We will ensure safe communities by cracking down on gun, gang and drug crimes. We will give parents a real choice in child care, with a $1,200 annual payment for each child under six. We will work with the provinces and territories to establish a wait time guarantees.

Those are five clear priorities. That does not mean there are not other priorities. That does not mean we will not look at other issues that face Canadians, their families and the regions of Canada. It does mean we are a government with a direction and a plan, and we will address specific issues in a fundamental way that has not occurred in the country for 13 years.

I would like to address two specific issues in my remarks today. Unfortunately, we do not have unlimited time. There is a lot that needs to be said and we do not have time to say it all. I would like to speak a little about the military and the fundamental, disgraceful Liberal record of supporting the military. I also would like to speak a little about child care and the way the numbers are stacking up. Every time I read an article or listen to someone else talk about child care, I get a different set of numbers, but when we actually analyze those numbers they are quite remarkable.

Let us talk about cleaning up government. Let us talk about delivering our election promises to the Canadian people. Specifically, let us take a look at the Conservative plan to support the military versus what happened under the Liberals. Everything was promised under the Liberals. Nothing, quite frankly, was delivered.

We can take a look at what happened when we put our troops in Afghanistan. There was a spending spree by the Liberal government because they did not have the tools to do the job in Afghanistan. In particular, they did not have armoured personnel vehicles. To ensure that our troops were properly equipped and trained, they had to go out at the eleventh hour and spend a tremendous amount of taxpayer money on giving our men and women in Afghanistan the tools to do the job. That was in 2001.

In 2001 we had 2,769 medium logistic vehicles, or wheeled vehicles. They were already 20 years old, the wheel rims were cracked and they had no spare parts. All of a sudden the government found itself not just on a peacekeeping mission, but in a very serious war zone. It decided that it would cost $3,500 per vehicle to fix these things up. The government was willing to spend the money because it looked bad, and we had men and women in harm's way. Then the government decided it really could not do that, so maybe it would buy new armoured personnel carriers. This became a $1.2 billion project. It included 1,500 military vehicles, a large number with armoured cabs, 800 commercial trucks and 300 trailers

Fourteen months later this project, which was announced, then re-announced and then announced again by the Liberal government on how it was looking after our troops in Afghanistan, remains unfunded. There was never a dime put into it.

Surely this is not acceptable. Surely we have to change the way we are doing business in Ottawa, specifically in the House. The idea that we can make promises and not keep them is absolutely unacceptable in this place.

Specifically on child care, we have come up with a plan that puts money in the pockets of all Canadians. The largest portion of it will go directly to the poorest Canadians, Canadians of very limited income. There will be equality in child care for the first time.

The Liberals got elected in 1993 promising a child care program. Not one full time space was created. There were a few part time spaces, but no full time spaces. There was no choice.

Rural Canadians and Canadians living in remote locations were totally left out of any child care plan. There was no spending analysis done. There were no predictions on how this could be paid for in the future. There was no plan. There was never any intention of them keeping their word on it to begin with. It was all smoke and mirrors.

Let us take a look at the Liberal spin, how that has affected the media and how that has affected the information sources to which ordinary taxpayers are listening. I was reading the newspapers and some of the reporting on it. I picked up an article by Terry Weber of the Globe and Mail. I encourage members to read it. It states:

According to the government agency, about 54 per cent of children aged six months to five years were in child care in 2002-2003, compared with 42 per cent in 1994-1995.

We see that child care has gone up. It goes on to state:

In the most recent period, three forms of child care—daycare centres, child care outside the home by a non relative and care by a relative inside or outside the home—each accounted for about 30 per cent of all care

My question is this. What is he saying? Are 30% of Canadian children in child care? When we read it, it is not what he is saying. He is saying roughly one-third, 33.3%, are in child care of the 54% who are actually in child care. That is very misleading.

If we get the statistics from Statistics Canada and take a long hard look at what the Liberals have been talking about in child care, a little investigation tells us that of all children in child care, and remember that is 54% of all children in Canada, 25% were enrolled in a day care centre as the main care arrangement. Twenty-five percent of 54% is 11% of the population that is in some type of an accessible day care situation that does not include a family.

When we hear the Liberals' rhetoric on child care and what they have done for children in this country, it is patently false.

It is very encouraging to see a government willing to lay out priorities, willing to stick to those priorities and actually deliver those priorities.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, talking about rhetoric, the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's talked about our military. I chaired the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, of which the hon. member was not a member. He never sat on that committee so he really cannot speak from experience.

The hon. member is being intellectually dishonest when he said that we did not have the equipment and we had no money. He should reflect on the last two budgets alone. I will not go to the last three or four budgets.

Senior military staff came before our committee, one after the other, praising the Liberal government for the investments. They were so happy with what we had done, they applauded us.

Let me clarify this for the hon. member because he talks about procurement and equipment. Today, we are talking about buying heavy lift airplanes. They do not even exist. They are not even on the assembly line. The earliest we could possibly receive them, if we placed an order today, is maybe seven or eight years down the road. We do not just snap our fingers and say that we want airplanes, or that we want jeeps, et cetera. That just simply does not happen.

Maybe in his world or in the world of the a minority government they think they can take an order paper to Grand and Toy and say that they want to order airplanes. That is just not the case.

The hon. member has not got a clue what the military has been saying.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the rhetoric from the hon. member opposite, and he is right. I certainly not sit on the defence committee, but my father was a veteran and my grandfather was a veteran of both world wars. They fought with bolt action rifles, which are better than some of the equipment our military has today.

He does not have to lecture me about the military or my stance or my defence of it because I will look out for the military first and foremost every time.

Look at the Liberal record of helicopters that were promised and taken away. Look at the lack of equipment. Look at the troops coming home from peacekeeping missions, taking their helmets off and giving them to the troops going on duty, even to the point of taking their boots off and giving them to the replacement offers. It is absolutely shameful.

What I have said is very clear. There was a promise of armoured personnel carriers. Not one armoured personnel carrier that was promised was delivered. The only ones delivered were already en route.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in recent years I served with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, where we tackled the issue of infrastructure.

Unfortunately, the Speech from the Throne says absolutely nothing about federal infrastructures. In our regions, the majority of infrastructures are in an appalling state, having been abandoned years ago. The federal government is responsible for looking after its own infrastructures and ensuring that they are usable.

There is nothing in the throne speech to indicate that the newly elected government intends to take responsibility again for these infrastructures, and for repairing and appropriately maintaining them.

Like me, my colleague comes from a maritime region and, in his riding as well, there are infrastructures in terrible shape. I am referring in particular to small craft harbours that are the responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The situation is not much better on the Transport Canada side.

The throne speech said absolutely nothing about managing the resource and the fishery. There was but one small word, the word “ocean”. That is all I saw. There was nothing in the throne speech to indicate a new approach to managing the resource and our oceans.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I sat on the fisheries committee together for a number of years. I have always enjoyed my hon. colleague's interventions. He has always approached the fisheries committee with a team approach and certainly has been a steadfast proponent for small craft harbours throughout Canada, not just in Quebec but throughout the entire country. I very much appreciate that.

The difficulty here is that this is a throne speech and we are not detailing every single issue we are going to deal with. There are serious needs in the maritime community. There are serious needs because of a lack of funding and a lack of spending over 13 years of neglect by the Liberal government. There have been 13 years of neglect for our small craft harbours. Certainly there has been a serious rationalization in the number of docks and wharves that could actually be supported and paid for by government. I understand the previous government had to do that. That had to be rationalized. Most of that has occurred. Hopefully we will not see that trend continue.

We have a new Minister of Transport and a new Minister of Fisheries and I expect they will be looking at these issues in a very serious manner, understanding the unique dovetailing between the maritime community and this infrastructure that is very much needed, the same way that highways are needed for the rest of the country. This is something we will want to look at in the future. The member should not be too disheartened that it is not mentioned in the throne speech. There are clear priorities there. Those are priorities that are needed and priorities that we are going to deal with.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Markham—Unionville.

Since this is my first opportunity to address the House in this new Parliament I want to express my gratitude to the people of Pierrefonds—Dollard who gave me their confidence for the fifth time by renewing my mandate. I promise to continue to defend and serve their interests to the fullest. I also want to commend the hon. members from all the parties who were re-elected and those who are sitting here for the first time. Public service is a noble commitment that requires the best of one's self. I want to assure my colleagues of my full cooperation in any matter promoting the general interest of our fellow citizens.

The Conservative government delivered a Speech from the Throne last week that, unfortunately, is sorely lacking in concrete measures to adopt to improve the lives of the citizens of our country. It is nothing but empty words, a list of platitudes—there is absolutely nothing tangible in it. I find it highly regrettable, since Canadians could have expected a lot more from a brand new government that got elected by promising a lot more.

There is nothing new in this throne speech about accountability, for example. It was the Liberal government that took the initiative to issue very clear guidelines to protect federal public servants who blow the whistle on misappropriations and those who commit them. It was also the Liberal government that took the first step to adopt stricter measures for lobbyists who have previously worked in government. The same goes for party financing, since in-depth reforms were initiated by the previous government in order to ensure better transparency and greater integrity.

It was also the Liberal party that undertook to enhance the autonomy of the auditor general, since the government was determined to ensure integrity in public finance management by correcting what needed to be corrected and by prosecuting anyone who broke the law. What concrete measures is the Conservative government proposing in order to go further in this direction? Once again, there is absolutely nothing in the Speech from the Throne on this matter.

The Conservative government gives us only hollow words as if it were afraid to make a real commitment. We must note, of course, the eagerness with which this government took credit for measures that had actually been taken by the previous, Liberal government. Furthermore, this government claims to consider that Canadians pay too much income tax. In fact, it is not at all the interests of the average citizen that the Conservative government wishes to defend but rather those with large fortunes. As evidence, I refer to the GST reduction of 1%. Is anyone going to benefit from this more than those who can buy luxury cars and big new houses for themselves? This measure will have only a microscopic effect on the income of average or low-income citizens. These are the people, though, that a government worthy of its name should be favouring. No major measure was announced in the Speech from the Throne to lighten their burden.

Finally, the government has inherited a very strong economy, which is the result of the economical and responsible management approach assumed by the Liberal government throughout its mandate, and which was clearly beneficial for the vitality of the Canadian economy. It is therefore the economic heritage of the Liberal government that made the accumulation of a large budget surplus possible for the federal government, and this is what enabled the federal government to invest in our social programs, in health and in everything concerning the betterment of citizens.

Even more seriously, there is absolutely nothing in this Speech from the Throne to provide support for middle-class citizens and those most in need, notably where affordable housing is concerned. This government is deliberately forgetting that one of its most essential duties is to act to improve the living conditions of these significant parts of our society. No one should be sidelined in a country as prosperous as Canada. Nowadays the government has the means to do better, notably thanks to the healthy Liberal management of the past decade, but we cannot but conclude that it refuses to do so.

The government has also announced that it plans to fight crime more vigorously, but the directions it is advocating in this regard are retrograde, not to say reactionary, designed basically to please the ultraconservative electoral base that helped elect this government. The government is inspired far too much by measures prevailing in the United States, where we observe that the greater the repression is, the more the number of violent crimes soars. The Liberal government, however, had taken tangible action to reduce crime. Canadians recognize themselves fully in the measured and responsible spirit of the Liberal government’s policies respecting justice, since they reflected a real respect for people and recognized the rights of victims of crime.

The Conservative government should know that Canadians are opposed to the creation of a repressive police state which is a potential source of harmful human rights abuse, and they can count on the official opposition to promote and defend that principle.

With regard to young offenders, the Conservative government is simply promising an approach that will only increase crime, thereby perpetuating if not feeding the cycle of violence.

Instead of its exaggerated and essentially punitive, retrograde approach, the government should instead be making young people truly responsible by giving them a chance to escape the cycle of violence.

But the Conservative government is instead doing the opposite. It is proposing no concrete measures in that direction, not to mention the need to work to improve the living conditions of the most disadvantaged families.

With regard to child care services, the Conservative government is advocating an irresponsible approach, one which first of all destroys the consensus with the provinces established by the Liberal government, in the wake of laborious but judicious consultations.

In addition to making a direct intrusion in a field of provincial jurisdiction, the orientation taken by the government clearly compromises middle-class and more disadvantaged families, for if it is compared with its aborted predecessor, those families are net losers.

With regard to wait times in the health sector, the government is again making claims which violate a provincial field of jurisdiction. The Liberal government had been able to respect provincial jurisdiction, while substantially increasing financial support from the federal government.

Yet the Conservative government is saying nothing about federal funding, even though this is a real priority for Canadians.

In summary, the agenda of this government is a clear disappointment, as it offers no measures to respond to the concrete needs of our fellow citizens.

The government offers nothing concrete to improve federal immigration services, nothing concrete for health and post-secondary education, nothing concrete to improve the standard of living of the middle classes and the most disadvantaged.

Canadians deserve much better, and they can fully rely on the official opposition to remind this government of that fact.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by reading a line that is buried near the very end of the Speech from the Throne: the government “will promote a more competitive, more productive Canadian economy”. That is it.

I was disheartened to see that Canada's future prosperity registered only a 10 word mention at the end of the speech, a brief mention without any details. I might say that while I was disheartened, I was not surprised, because none of the Conservatives' top five priorities are aimed at improving our country's prosperity.

I have heard the Prime Minister say that when these five priorities are addressed, the government will have more, but such short term planning does nothing to create a medium term and long term vision for this country, and there is not a single indication that the government has such a vision.

It begs the question: why is Canada's prosperity not a top five priority? It is amazing. The prosperity of a country is basic in terms of living standards, jobs and creating the wealth that is the foundation for our social programs, and yet it is simply not a top five priority.

It seems the government has no vision for how to take a country of some 30 million people and make it competitive in a world of economic giants like China, India and Brazil. There is no indication that the government has a plan to be more competitive with our closest neighbour and biggest competitor, the United States, yet this is what we have to do. We have to strive to create a Canadian advantage in everything we do.

The need to create a Canadian economic advantage is urgent. Yes, Canada's economy is strong today. However, if we consider the state of the world and the challenges of productivity and population aging we can see that it is not up to other countries to ensure Canada's economic growth.

In simple terms, the world does not owe Canada a living. That is why the government has to be concerned with our prosperity. That is why it is unacceptable that prosperity is not a top five priority.

The federal government must act on two fronts: competitive taxation and support for research, innovation and higher education. On the fiscal front, we must work toward the right balance between policies aimed at attracting and keeping businesses and skilled workers and policies supporting low- and middle-income Canadians.

In addition, we owe to the Chrétien and Martin governments a significant increase in federal assistance for research, innovation and higher education.

However, in each of these areas the government seems intent on creating a Canadian disadvantage rather than a Canadian advantage. This can be summarized very easily by saying that either the government is going in totally the wrong direction or it is missing in action.

On taxes, the government is going in the wrong direction. On everything else, innovation, research, higher learning, training, these things that are absolutely essential for Canada to prosper in the future, it is totally missing in action.

Let us look at taxes first. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce recently recommended:

That the federal government should:

Continue to put the highest emphasis on reducing personal income tax rates across all income tax brackets but particularly for low- and modest-income earners who face the most punitive effective marginal tax rates of all.

The Minister of Finance knows the benefits of reducing personal income tax. He believed in them when he was the minister of finance in Ontario. In 2001 he delivered several snappy responses in that legislature, showing that he truly understood that lower income taxes were the way to go. Let me quote from our Minister of Finance when he was Ontario minister of finance:

It has been the Ontario experience since 1995 that the reductions in the personal income tax have been most effective in stimulating the economy and creating jobs. They boost productivity growth the most directly of the various tax tools available to government. Lower personal income tax rates encourage entrepreneurs; they give employees the incentive to try harder and achieve success.

He then went on to say that the government was putting the money directly into people's pockets for them to spend as they saw fit. That almost sounds as if the minister was reading from Liberal talking points. It is almost as if he were a very productive member of the Liberal war room during the election campaign. He could not put the case for lower personal income tax more strongly and more coherently.

While the minister understood this concept, he is now not doing what he believes will boost productivity growth. He is not proceeding with the tax cuts that would encourage entrepreneurs. Instead, he is raising those taxes and creating a Canadian disadvantage.

Taxes, however, are not the whole story. There is no doubt that the Conservative program is also lacking in terms of research, innovation, higher education and training.

The Conservatives have cancelled $9.4 billion of the Liberal commitments in this area. These commitments were made as part of the November 2005 plan for growth and prosperity. The Conservatives are committing only $1.4 billion, a meagre 2% of their total election promises.

Here is one example which speaks volumes to the fundamental difference between the Liberal plan and the Conservative plan. Our plan was to pay up to half of the tuition fees in year one and year four for all college and university students. This is a major effort and a major expenditure to promote higher learning and increase accessibility.

The Conservatives would have none of that. What did they do? They give Canadian students a tax rebate on school books and scholarships to those who are already enrolled. There is the difference between our two parties in terms of the seriousness that we attach to higher education.

These policies put Canada at odds with almost every government in the developed world. All those other governments are all clamouring to become more competitive in a globalized world. As a comparison, let us just look at what is happening in the United States. The Speech from the Throne spoke of the U.S. as our best and largest trading partner and I certainly agree with that statement.

What the speech failed to recognize is that our best trading partner is also one of our biggest competitors and that our friendly competitor, which cannot be accused of suffering from a left-leaning government, certainly understands that there is a role for the public sector in creating its own competitive advantage.

The current mindset in the United States is explained well in a recent report ordered by the Senate and entitled Rising Above the Gathering Storm. Recommendation C mirrors the spirit of the report:

Make the United States the most attractive setting in which to study and perform research so that we can develop, recruit, and retain the best and the brightest students, scientists, and engineers from within the United States and throughout the world.

All of the report's recommendations focus on strengthening American economic leadership and most of them assume a significant increase in public spending.

If you believe as I do that Canada's economic future lies in the creation of a Canadian advantage, the American intention to implement decisive government measures in order to protect its economic leadership should send shivers down your back. It means that Canada must quicken its pace only to maintain the status quo and even more if it is to obtain an advantage. However, instead of quickening the pace, the government appears to be dropping out of the race.

At the moment, when other countries around the world are fixated in devoting expenditures to increase their research, innovation and universities, our government steps out of the race. At the moment, when other governments around the world are reforming taxes to make them encourage innovation, our government raises income tax and cuts the GST.

At the moment when the U.S. has indicated a new desire to search the world for the best and the brightest, given the aging population, our government is poised to cut the budget of the immigration department.

It is astounding and shocking, and unacceptable, that this government would ignore the prosperity of Canadians and that prosperity is not a top five priority. This side will oppose with all our vigour this total negligence of the prosperity of Canada and Canadians.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as this debate unfolds today, I want to make a comment on what has come across from the government benches. Government members have referred to the past 13 years in a number of interventions today. I guess what it boils down to is that a responsible government is one that does what is necessary to improve the lot of the citizens it serves.

When the Liberal government took over in 1993, we had a reality. The reality was that we were spending $48 billion more each year than we brought in and we were adding to a total accrued debt. Over the past 13 years, the last eight, we have supplied surplus budgets. We have balanced the books and provided surplus budgets.

I think back 13 years and I remember unemployment rates of 12.5%. I know statistics released this week show that the jobless rate is at a 32-year low. I know that did not happen over the last couple of months. I know that happened over 13 years of work, but we did what was necessary.

What I see in this throne speech is that this government is not identifying what is necessary, and that is the prosperity agenda.

I have a question for the hon. member. What in fact are we staring down the barrel of? What is at risk here in not shoring up and making that investment, so that we are able to grow and prosper as a nation?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt that if we look around the world today it is hugely competitive compared with what it used to be. There are the emerging Goliaths of China and India. China has 30 million engineers; almost as many as we have Canadians. So the question arises: How are we going to make a living? The world does not owe us a living. How are we going to compete with these Goliaths? The answer is certainly not on wages, and we do not want to.

It is only through brain power. Every sensible government of the left or right persuasion around the world understands that it is its responsibility to promote that brain power through research, through innovation, support for higher education and training programs. The U.S. government, not exactly left leaning, is seized of that because it is worried about losing its economic leadership.

Prosperity is not a top five priority. We sit on the sidelines and we, as a country, cannot afford to sit on the sidelines as other countries pass us by. That is the shame of this throne speech. There is nothing in it at all for this absolutely fundamental issue of the prosperity of Canadians.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I too am disappointed that prosperity and productivity were not dealt with in the throne speech and they are so important. The previous questioner so adequately and accurately set out what happened to the country under a previous Conservative government when it took its ball off the productivity and prosperity agenda. We all know the numbers.

The member for Markham is a renowned economist. There must be thousands of economists across Canada and I understand that two of them can never agree. Does he know of any economist in the country who would agree that lowering the GST versus lowering income tax vis-à-vis the prosperity agenda is a better way to go?