Debates of April 11th, 2006

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to you. Having served this House longer than anyone here, it seems a fitting place to find you. In his absence, I would also congratulate the Speaker on his re-election.

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

As this is my first occasion since the last election to speak to the House, I want to thank very much my family, my wife Denise, my sons Nathan and Nicholas, and my newest son Noah, who is only eight weeks old. My wife was very much expecting Noah during the campaign, so she gets added appreciation for having gone through the election campaign expecting a baby on the 24th of January.

I also want to thank the people of the riding of Fredericton. No Liberal has been elected twice in Fredericton since Confederation and I have had the honour to serve the people of Fredericton riding for my fifth election. I do appreciate the honour and the opportunity to represent the good people of that riding here.

Given the nature of the standings in this Parliament, we are all going to have to work very hard to make Canadians proud of the institution. I hope to do my part by being as positive as I can be. There is a role in opposition to point out limitations and inadequacies, but that can be a constructive role.

Within the Speech from the Throne, the references to the soldiers in Afghanistan, to dealing with the Chinese head tax and to picking up on waiting times initiatives are all positive and the government is to be commended. Having said that, the repeated commitment to a limited number of priorities does lend itself to the observation that some very important things were left out. I would like to enumerate a few of them.

First, as the infrastructure and communities critic for the official opposition, there is a glaring omission having to do with investment in infrastructure, to which the previous speaker from the New Democratic Party spoke, not only because of the importance of these investments but also because of the importance of the relationship that the former government was able to establish with municipalities. Having been an infrastructure minister in the past, I can say it was well received and very important to the country.

Also left out was a reference to the Indian residential schools agreement and the Kelowna accord. In particular, on the question of Indian residential schools, as was mentioned by the last speaker, I would just make the point that the answers to the questions on Indian residential schools have been that we are waiting for the final agreement. The reason there was an agreement on an advance payment was that we knew the final agreement would take some time and many of the elderly people perhaps would not be able to share in that. An advance payment is, by definition, something that would come in advance of a final agreement. I think the government should reconsider that position.

There was no reference to research and development, or making universities more affordable to students. In the case of research and development in particular, we have come a great way. In terms of publicly funded, university based research, in the early 1990s Canada was in the middle of the pack and now we are leading the world in this area. The research chairs program, the indirect cost program and increases in all the research granting agencies have had that effect. I would hope when the budget is presented that the absence of reference to research and universities in the throne speech will be mitigated by good news in the budget. I see the Minister of Finance grinning. I hope that is a good sign and not that he just finds me funny.

Regional economic development is critically important to Atlantic Canada. I am concerned about that. During the last campaign a lot of references were made to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, which were not necessarily the most positive. I hope the investment has been made, particularly in innovation. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is an entirely different institution than it was when the Liberals took office in 1993, with a new commitment to communities and innovation primarily. I hope that continues and is in fact enhanced.

I want to acknowledge the regional minister for the province of New Brunswick, the Minister of Veterans Affairs. That causes me to think about agent orange and herbicide spraying at CFB Gagetown in my constituency. The area covered is shared by my constituency and the constituencies of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the member for Fundy Royal. I have great optimism, because of his awareness of the subject and his commitment to his constituents, that the Minister of Veterans Affairs will be able to move this file quickly.

I was also surprised at the lack of reference to what I consider to be a huge demographic challenge facing the country. It is most acute in Atlantic Canada, but I think it visits all of rural Canada, in particular, in terms of the shrinking and aging population. It simply cannot be sustained.

Finally, this is the 25th anniversary of the International Year of Persons with Disabilities and the obstacles report, which was a seminal piece of work on disabilities. By leaving that out of the throne speech, I hope the government does not intend to see that year go without attention. I am optimistic that it will not.

There was no reference to culture, which has been the subject of many questions in question period, and I will await the budget to see what will happen in terms of the commitments that were made to the Canada Council and the CBC in particular.

Specifically, on the infrastructure program, my concern is that the Canadian strategic infrastructure fund is, for all intents and purposes, committed fully. Therefore, if this budget does not see a renewal in the Canadian strategic infrastructure fund, not only will that be a huge loss to Canada in terms of our ability to invest both in large and small projects, depending on how the applications are organized, but I think it also signals troubling things for the municipal rural infrastructure fund. It would signal the fact that perhaps some of the speeches that have been made in other House about the constitutionality of the former government's commitment to communities through infrastructure spending might in fact see those programs not renewed. That would be a bad thing, not only for the communities that are dependent on these funds but also for a positive relationship in a modern society.

The former government invested between $1.1 billion and $1.4 billion a year. To my knowledge the commitment made by the government is $2 billion over five years. If the Canadian strategic infrastructure fund and MRIF are not renewed, that would constitute a 60% cut in infrastructure spending by the government. I will await the budget to see if that holds up. I suggest there are many worthy projects across Canada. In my province the Saint John Harbour cleanup is a significantly important issue.

On the question of R and D, it is an area where there was a lot of investment made and I hope it continues.

I mentioned Indian residential schools. Let me also speak of the Kelowna accord. While Indian residential schools deal with our legacy, which needed to be reconciled, the Kelowna accord speaks to the future, a significant investment in education and housing. At the end of the day, these things are not just about principle. They are also about investment and it is long overdue.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member has done a great deal of work in advancing the files of regional development and investment in our cities and communities. The issue of investing in our communities is one which has maybe taken a bit of a back seat in the throne speech.

In the last government commitments were made with regard to sharing gas taxes and other ways to assist communities with their infrastructure, transit and other important priorities, which are key in terms of the prosperity file. Could the member comment on how investing in our cities and communities is good for all Canadians?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the previous speakers spoke to the fact that Vancouver Island was having a difficult time, because of a large growth in its communities, with building the kind of infrastructure necessary to support that growth. There is a cost associated with both growth and shrinkage. At the end of the day, when populations become smaller, they have a smaller tax base but they need this kind of investment to sustain infrastructure that was built, in many, cases for larger communities. Unfortunately, that is very much a reality in Atlantic Canada.

What we need to look at specifically are the programs themselves: the municipal rural infrastructure fund; the Canadian strategic infrastructure fund; the border infrastructure fund; the gas tax program; and the two $400 million per year for two years transit fund. The transit fund was the result of an amendment to the budget last year. There can be no question that it is critically important in terms of congestion, Kyoto, air quality and social cohesion. I call on the government to recognize this worthy investment. It would be a larger winner for the government if it simply made this a part of the budget going forward beyond those two years.

With respect to the rest, I hope the government will build on the successes we have had in these relationships in building Canadian infrastructure.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I too wish to congratulate you on your acceptance of the Deputy Speaker position.

The member spoke about development of infrastructure programs, but he missed one. Although it is not directly related to the federal government, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities green fund is very important. I had the opportunity to sit on that fund for five years. We invested innovatively in infrastructure to achieve green results across the country.

We need to invest in our country in ways that can lead us to a greener future. Investments that simply mimic growth, that do not use the best available technology, that do not move the country forward in ways that are useful to the greater good of the environment and for the citizens of the future are infrastructure investments that are not worthwhile.

Would the member agree that the importance of infrastructure investment toward improving our green future is something the government should take very strongly in the next while?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a good example of the benefit of the relationship that the former government had with the municipalities, and I hope the government carries it forward.

The green fund is a result of the original infrastructure Canada program. The green fund was carved out of that program. It was used by the Canadian Federation of Municipalities for the very purpose of being innovative and to reward communities that wished to do something innovative in terms of greening the country and, in particular, in their infrastructure programming.

My colleague asked if I would commit to that fact. The reality is that during my tenure as minister responsible for infrastructure, the amount of the municipal rural infrastructure program that had to be green went from 50% to 60% of the total. In my own province of New Brunswick it is 80%. Our commitment to the environment and using the infrastructure program for environmental purposes is obvious.

I do think large investment in infrastructure has to be considered not only for the capital that it provides to municipalities, but also for the relationship that the capital investment has made. It allows us to engage in greater planning, share best practices and, as the hon. member mentioned, innovative practices as well.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to represent the citizens of Lac-Saint-Louis in Parliament. I believe the West Island of Montreal, a large section of which falls within the boundaries of Lac-Saint-Louis, is a unique and politically significant part of Canada. It is unique because of its geographic location on the great St. Lawrence River and because of the linguistic and cultural makeup of its population. It is significant because of the insight it can bring to our nation's politics by virtue of being a microcosm of the larger country.

Lac-Saint-Louis is a community of minorities. Its anglophone population is a minority in Quebec while its francophone population is a minority within Canada. As for the number of other linguistic and cultural groups that enrich the life of the riding, not only are they minorities in Canada and in North America, but often they are new to the West.

No doubt, because of its diversity, the West Island is a community of tolerance and moderation. It is a community that rejects radical change that can disrupt meaningful human connections. It is a community that prizes unity over division. It is a community inspired by political visions, rooted in high-minded principles rather than by ideologies that encourage retreat into one's own space. Lac-Saint-Louis is anything but a community of firewalls.

The people of Lac-Saint-Louis are committed federalists. In 1995 they voted massively “no” in Quebec's second referendum. They support the federal Clarity Act adopted by the previous Liberal government. They believe that political decisions should be clear and informed and that rights such as the right to remain in Canada as a Canadian citizen cannot be suppressed by a simple majority of votes in a highly charged plebiscite on a question that is the object of wordplay.

The people of Lac-Saint-Louis know Canada is not a political straightjacket, that it is not, as the Bloc likes to tell us, an overly centralized and centralizing state. In the United States approximately 80% of federal transfers to state and local governments are conditional grants. In Canada no less than 76% are now unconditional. These figures do not portray a rigid, constricting and inflexible Canadian federalism.

The Conservatives have confirmed their support for a deconstructed federalism. They do this subtly and softly by, for example, acquiescing to the theory of the fiscal imbalance. They sometimes do so more explicitly, as did the Prime Minister during the first question period last week when he spoke of a centralizing federalism.

The fiscal imbalance theory suggests that Quebec and the other provinces are financially mistreated by federalism. The residents of Lac-Saint-Louis know that is not true. If the Conservatives go ahead and modify equalization by removing oil revenues from the equation, then provinces without oil, such as Quebec, will certainly suffer.

The Conservatives are playing a dangerous and deceptive game by agreeing with the Bloc Québécois on the existence of a fiscal imbalance when so many facts disprove this theory.

The debt to GDP ratio of the provinces is far less than that of the federal government. Furthermore, federal transfers to the provinces increase more quickly than federal revenue.

What is more, all the provinces have posted budgetary surpluses in four of the past six years.

Finally, when Ottawa made cuts to federal transfers to the provinces in 1995, as part of its successful efforts to slay the deficit dragon created by the Mulroney government, the cuts imposed on the provinces were proportionately much less than the ones Ottawa made to its own programs. If there is a fiscal imbalance in Canada, it is not between different levels of government but between governments and individual taxpayers, and that fiscal imbalance, the real fiscal imbalance, has not been addressed in the throne speech.

Last fall the Liberal government introduced the second phase of its tax relief plan for Canadians. The first phase was the multi-year, $100 billion tax cut announced in the year 2000. In the fall the Liberal government forged ahead and reduced the tax rate on the lowest income bracket and raised the amount Canadians could earn tax-free. The Conservative government owes it to Canadians to cancel its plans to do away with those Liberal tax cuts, otherwise Canadians will see their paycheques, after deductions, shrink this July.

Canadians need and want meaningful and honest tax relief. Canadian families are overtaxed. Many are overburdened with mounting household debts, which put tremendous pressure on family life. Canada now has a negative savings rate of 0.4%. Does the Conservative government really care about families, or is family just a convenient buzzword in the Conservative campaign lexicon?

It is hard to find an economist in Canada who would agree that, given the choice between lightening the tax burden on Canadians through income tax cuts or doing so by reducing the GST, the government should opt for a GST cut. If both are possible, then fine, but aggressive income tax cuts should take priority.

First, a GST cut encourages even more consumer debt and overstimulates an economy whose problem is not weak consumer spending but weak business investment. More investment would lead to higher economic growth in a competitive global economy, where staying ahead of the productivity curve, through capital investment, is the name of the game.

Second, a GST cut will not transfer more money directly into people's pockets. Liberal income tax cuts, on the other hand, would produce extra disposable income for Canadian families that would, in the aggregate, be channelled into productivity-enhancing business investment.

A number of companies that offer mortgages, such as banks, do not even charge GST on their products and services. In those cases, reducing the GST will not lead to savings for the consumer. It will only reduce costs and increase profits for the company.

Some retailers include GST in their prices. Movie theatre operators will not decide from one day to the next to reduce the price to see a movie from $9.95 to $9.86 just because the GST has been cut by 1%. Hairdressers are not going to lower their prices either, and some corporations will benefit simply from their monopoly position to increase their prices ,thereby profiting from the bit of play created by the GST reduction. Gas stations are a good example.

The Conservative GST promise was politically clever and strategic. Some call it calculating. Whatever it was, it was not good policy. As Globe and Mail columnist, Jeffrey Simpson, has said:

Of course, having campaigned on the GST cut, [the Prime Minister] will be obligated to implement it, thereby costing the federal treasury $5-billion-plus and aimlessly stimulating an economy that doesn't need that kind of stimulus. After that, however, the Conservatives' mental cupboard is shockingly bare....

Mr. Simpson goes on to say:

--the Prime Minister knows his party's election platform was just that -- a political document that sufficed for enticing the electorate but will not do for serious governing.

While the Conservative government has opted for a clever but weak tax policy, similarly its so-called child care policy is one dimensional, lacks vision and fails to address the tax system's bias against families with a stay at home parent. Although it was sold primarily as a measure intended to help stay at home parents, as the Globe and Mail editorial board has said, the Prime Minister's plan is “little more than a symbolic gesture” toward these parents.

Again, smoke and mirrors.

Let us be honest. The promised $1,200 taxable annual payment to families is an improvised attempt at a tax cut, but not an honest and sweeping income tax cut like those introduced by the previous government.

The Liberal government pursued an intelligent and comprehensive approach to helping Canadian families. It outlined broad income tax cuts and at the same time negotiated child care agreements with 10 provinces to help build a network of quality, developmental child care. This flexible system would not only have been available to parents who work full time. It would also have been available to those who wanted to use the system part time because one parent was at home. The Liberal government believed it was possible to have parallel policies that reconciled both these contemporary Canadian realities.

The Liberal government took a major step in addressing the needs of children and families, including those with a stay at home parent, when it created the national child benefit in 1998. For example, the national child benefit includes an annual supplement of $243 for each child under seven years of age when no child care expenses are claimed on the family's income tax return. The government should increase this amount for stay at home parents while at the same time maintaining previous Liberal commitments to support a quality educational child care system for families who need it.

The problems of modern societies are complex. Their challenges cannot be met by superficial approaches. The throne speech is a thin document. It is a sketchy road map for a government that is travelling light and not intending to go far on behalf of Canadians.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the Liberal member's discourse today in the House and want to raise with him the difficult situation that families are facing today as a result of neglect by the federal government over the last dozen or so years.

I know the member is relatively new to this place so he cannot bear all the sins of the past, but it is important for him to address the problem we face today in the House which is, among other things, the resolution of finally having a meaningful child care policy for all families. It is one thing to criticize the present administration but it is another thing to take some responsibility for neglecting to address this area over many years and after many promises.

It is important for Canadians to know how the Liberals can stand today and blame others for inaction on the day care file when, after 13 years, promises made were never kept. I wonder if the member can justify in any way that kind of inaction on a clearly defined area of need identified by his own party for many years and which has placed many families in a very difficult situation.

Today we are trying to come to terms with this by trying to convince the present government to make some changes to its promises and to recognize that it must invest in child care spaces to meet this need, as well as provide some tax incentives to businesses and perhaps a baby allowance to Canadian families. However it must also recognize the need for investment in a child care program across this country if we are ever going to meet the needs of families and allow them to contribute to the best of their abilities to our economy without worrying about the care, nurturing and protection of their children.

It is important for the member to address that concern and to explain to Canadians the inaction for more than a decade when the problem was clearly identified, I would say, 30 years ago.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, not for one minute do I doubt the hon. member's commitment to the well-being of Canadian families and Canadian children.

Thirty years ago is going back a long time and, as the hon. member mentioned, I am a recent addition to the House. I am proud to be here and proud to be serving my constituents of Lac-Saint-Louis but I have not yet been sitting here for two years.

One of the major initiatives my government took in my first mandate was to sign child care deals with 10 provinces. The point of my remarks in my speech were not to criticize so much as to suggest that the taxable payment of $1,200 to Canadian families is fine and is appreciated by many, no doubt, but the fact remains that it is a tax cut in disguise, a tax cut that is limited to people with children under six years of age. The point I was trying to make is that it is not a visionary approach to creating a national network of early learning and child care centres.

If we are going to have tax cuts let us call them tax cuts but let us do as the Liberals. Let us have income tax cuts but at the same time let us also invest in a child care system.

My intent is not to simply criticize but to point out that we should pursue at least two objectives at the same time. I believe it is the role of our party in Parliament to push for the government to continue in the direction that we mapped out in our last year and a half.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to resume the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I will be splitting my time today with the Mr.Obhrai, the hon. member for Calgary East.

I would like to take this moment to congratulate you--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I thank the hon. member for his congratulations but I have to remind him, as I have reminded a number of members in the last few days, that the practice in the House is not to refer to members by their surnames but either by their ridings or by their positions. The hon. member just violated that rule.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I do want to congratulate you on your position and obviously those of the Speaker and the other deputies.

I want to thank the people of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex for their overwhelming support in the election last January in giving me the responsibility and the honour of representing them in the House. I also want to thank my family, especially my wife Barb, for their encouragement and support. I also want to emphasize that during my tenure as MP for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex I will represent all constituents in the House regardless of political affiliation.

It is important for Canadians to realize what will be accomplished during the 39th Parliament. The Speech from the Throne provides the guidelines for what our government wants to achieve during its mandate. Of course we will be focussing on the five priorities: clean up Ottawa by introducing and passing the federal accountability act; lower taxes for all Canadians by cutting the GST from 7% to 6% and then to 5%; ensure safe communities by cracking down on gun, gang and drug crimes; give parents choice in child care with a $1,200 annual payment for each child under six and by helping to create 125,000 child care spaces over five years; and work with the provinces and territories to establish a patient wait time guarantee.

This past weekend a small community in southwestern Ontario was crushed when a farmer made a grizzly discovery in a field near Shedden. It has been speculated that the crime committed was gang related. This incident makes it quite clear that violent crime is not a phenomenon that is isolated in large cities. It reaches into suburban and rural communities. Our families have lost the sense of safety and security they deserve. Gangs, drugs and guns have no place in our community.

Our position is simple: Canadian families have a right to feel safe and secure in their communities. If we are to protect our Canadian way of life we need to crack down on violent crimes, and that is what this new government will do.

Cracking down on crime and ensuring safe communities is a high priority for our government, including stiffer penalties for serious crimes and fixing our correctional system so that serious crime means serious time. The government will tackle crime. It will propose changes to the Criminal Code to provide tougher sentences for violent and repeat offenders. It will help prevent crime by putting more police on the street and improving the security at our borders.

The wasteful $2 billion, ineffective long gun registry program has been placed as a burden on law-abiding citizens and does nothing to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals. We believe that directing funds away from the long gun registry and putting that money toward more police officers is a responsible thing to do.

Our government will work with the provinces and the territories in aiding communities to provide hope and opportunity for our youth and to end the cycle of violence that can lead to broken communities and broken lives. Sentencing a young violent offender to probation is just not responsible. Our current laws focus on protecting the rights of the criminal rather than the rights of the victim. While we want to rehabilitate our young offenders, our current laws seem to make it easy for youth to choose crime over an education or an honest job. We must impose stiffer sentencing for those who choose a life of crime, especially violent crime.

We must also do more to protect our youth from sexual predators. We will raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 years. We will create a DNA bank of convicted sex offenders and dangerous offenders and establish a zero tolerance policy for all forms of child pornography.

The government is setting a new direction with the tabling of the accountability act and is setting the example in sending a message to all Canadians, a message of hope that will bring honesty and integrity back to Parliament. We want Canadians to know that it is possible for Canadians to have an accountable and honest government. For far too long, Canadians have been subjected to Liberal governments that treated taxpayers' dollars as if they were their own. Honest, hard-working Canadians who pay their taxes and play by the rules saw millions of their tax dollars laundered to Liberal friends.

This is a black mark in our great history. However, it has taught us a valuable lesson. It has taught us that we need to tighten the rules. We will prevent an irresponsible act like this from happening again. Our new accountability act will do just that.

It is possible to eliminate undue influence by big money spending donors by banning large personal and corporate donations to political parties. It is possible to make the federal government more transparent and accountable by increasing the power of independent officers of Parliament, such as the Auditor General.

It is possible to provide real protection to whistleblowers, both public servants and other Canadians, who wish to come forward with information about unethical or illegal activities. I, along with my colleagues, believe that we need to give Canadians the good, clean government they expect and deserve.

The other matter I would like to touch on is the state of agriculture in this country today. Last week we saw thousands of farmers exercising their right to organize and speak freely. Let me say that when farmers speak in this country, we will listen.

Our new government is sensitive to the needs of Canadian producers. It is interesting to see the members from the opposite side of the House criticize our government on this file. During his short time as Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Mr. Strahl has travelled across this country. He has met with--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I cautioned the hon. member earlier not to use the surnames of members of the House and he did it again. I would ask him not to do it any more.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during his short time in office, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has crossed this country. He has met with countless grassroots producers, including those in my riding, and I thank him for that.

He has a great understanding of problems facing our producers, problems that were started and fueled by the past Liberal government, the main one being a flawed, irresponsible CAIS program.

It is now our job to right the previous wrongs. Being a producer for over 30 years, I know how difficult things have become for those who farm. If there has ever been any hope for our industry over the last few years, it is now.

Agriculture is Canada's second largest industry. This industry, especially the primary producer, has subsidized our cheap food policy in this country. It is time that Canadian producers are provided with the support they deserve. Unlike the past government, this government has made a commitment to agriculture, to give it hope, and to give it a future. It is time to turn over a new leaf for agriculture.

This government will get tough on crime. This government will crack down on guns, gangs and drugs. This government will change how Parliament works, so that it will be known by the people of Canada to be honest, open, accountable and with integrity.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my new colleague to the House on his speech. I want to ask him specifically about a couple of things I thought were missing from the Speech from the Throne and see if he might have a few facts as to where he thinks the government may be going. He spoke a couple of times about opportunities for youth. The Speech from the Throne specifically addressed families in a lot of cases, that these were the priorities of Canadian families.

One of the key priorities for Canadian families is education, education in the public schools, but also post-secondary education. Many Canadian families, I am sure the hon. member would agree, are worried about how they will afford to send their children for post-secondary education, be it to university, community college, apprenticeship training or whatever.

The last government made great strides in research and innovation, taking Canada from the lowest in the G-7 to the top of the G-7 in publicly funded research. The issue now has become access to education. How will students afford a post-secondary degree.

We introduced things like millennium scholarships and the learning bonds, and last year in the economic update we introduced an expansion of the Canada access grants for Canadians most in need, which would be disabled Canadians, aboriginal Canadians as well as Canadians from low income families. In the campaign, it became an issue when we introduced a 50-50 plan to assist all Canadian families with education.

In light of the fact that education is such a priority, and the word “education” did not show up in the Speech from the Throne, I wonder if the hon. member might be able to share with me what he thinks the government will be doing to help Canadian students get post-secondary education.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that education is important and we recognize that. When I talk about the issues of crime and keeping our young people off the streets, which entices them into a life of crime, we know that it is important to give them an education. Part of our strategy and part of our platform is to help and enhance further education in terms of students beyond post-secondary education. We wanted to talk about how we are going to give them opportunities and grants, and to build on the skills that youth possess. I look forward to having that discussion with the member opposite.

We are certainly focusing on our five priorities. They will be the hub of this government going forward. We have a number of other initiatives that we will be following up on, and certainly, making it easier for students to get through their education is one of those.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member indicated that the GST cut this government has proposed will benefit all Canadians. This statement needs some clarification.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives recently released a report that shows that the benefits from this tax were extremely skewed for upper income Canadians. Some 48% of families in Canada have incomes of $40,000 or less. The average take for these families from the Conservative cut will be less than $120. On the other hand, the top 5% of families earning $150,000 will average almost $1,000 in tax benefits.

Does the hon. member, who quite obviously fits into the $150,000 bracket, feel that he is representing all his constituents when he supports this government on this particular tax measure?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I need to also remind the hon. member that I farm. That, over the past years, takes away some of that initiative in terms of how our tax structure will affect me.

Having said that, it is clear that the GST is a form of tax that this government and the people of Canada want. We have said in our campaign, and it is part of our five priorities, that we will reduce the GST from 7% to 6%, and then to 5%. This tax affects every person in this country regardless of how much they make. It is a tax for all people of Canada.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, may I join the others who have congratulated you on your position as Deputy Speaker. When Parliament began, you were sitting next to me. I had this idea that your booming, thundering voice would be a problem for my ears. Now that you are in the Speaker's Chair, I am delighted to see you there.

This is my first speech in the 39th Parliament. I would like to thank the people of Calgary East for electing me for the fourth time and with an even higher margin. I want to thank people from across the country who have generously supported my re-election. I also wish to thank my family, my spouse Neena, my daughters Priti, Kaajal, and my son Aman, who stood by me during my election campaigns over all these years.

On January 23 Canadians asked for a change and they elected a new Conservative government. During the election we told Canadians what this party would do. What is more important is that Canadians told us that they wanted safer communities. Canadians are concerned about the urban crime problem, particularly as it relates to guns, gangs and drugs. They wanted tougher sentences for those who commit serious crimes, particularly those involving guns. I received a letter from a constituent in Calgary. This is what he said:

We bought our house in 1984 when this part of Calgary - Marlborough Park - was quiet and sleepy. You could leave your door open, and I mean wide open, go to Banff for a day, return and find nothing touched. And I know what I am writing because it happened to me once.

I know things have changed everywhere in the world, not only here in my riding. Recent events are forcing me to ask myself, as the elected representative here, as to what officials like myself are doing to resolve this dramatically escalating issue. This is a concern that we have heard right across this nation.

Conservatives have a long history of fighting for the criminal justice system that deals with crime in our society. As a matter of fact, in the last three parliaments I have myself introduced private member's bills for tougher sentencing for break and enter, asking for a minimum of two years for repeat offenders. Statistically, it has been shown that those who commit break and enter are more often repeat offenders because it is a very profitable business for them. Once they commit the crime and go for sentencing, they receive a light sentence. Then it becomes a profitable venture.

This is why Canadians want to see that we are tough on crime. My party campaigned on this plank. Therefore, as we have heard in the Speech from the Throne, we have pointed out our five priorities. One of those five priorities is to ensure that crime does not pay in this country. If a person commits a crime, there will be punishment. This is a part of our platform and that is one of the Conservative Party's five priorities that the government has outlined. People rely on the government to ensure that our streets and communities are safe, so that our children and families can live in peace.

The Conservative Party has always fought for mandatory minimum penalties for those who use guns in the commission of a crime. The RCMP deaths in northern Alberta, the Boxing Day shooting that took place in Toronto, and yesterday's massacre were all done with guns. This indicates that those who use guns in the commission of a crime need to face serious sentencing with minimum penalties. That is what we will be doing. It will become one of the priorities of this government.

We will implement the solutions that address these problems rather than waste money on things like the gun registry. The gun registry has been here for a while. In this House time after time we have stated how the gun registry has become ineffective. In no way has there been a decline in crimes committed with guns. The registry has just created more bureaucracy and has made life difficult for ordinary Canadians.

We are looking for conditional sentences that will ensure that those convicted of a crime causing serious harm do not serve sentences at home, but that those who are convicted of violent crimes serve real prison time. Some will say that we are hard-nosed Conservatives with no compassion and that we want to throw all those guys in jail. No, we are not talking about that. We are talking about violent crimes. We are talking about making our streets safe.

Our system will also focus on ensuring that we provide to those youth who have strayed from the path, not tough sentencing but hope to go back into the community. That is also the priority of the government. One should not say that we are just solidly committed and heartless in the sentencing for crime for everybody. We are saying that for the youth that have strayed, we will provide resources and money to ensure that they become productive citizens of this country.

We cannot close our eyes to the fact that violent crime has escalated. We need to take dramatic action. The government will put more police on the streets. That is one way of ensuring that our streets become safer. I received a letter from a constituent who is concerned about crime on the streets. Putting more police on the streets will give confidence to people that our streets are safer.

We also want to improve the security at the borders. We want to ensure that those who maintain our borders also have the weapons to ensure that they feel secure as well.

Most important, we will work with the provinces and the territories to help communities provide hope and opportunity for youth. We will be supporting crime prevention programs and we will invest in youth at risk programs.

The government has five clear mandates. The government is focused on five areas. This is a minority government. We do not know when we will be back at the polls. We do not make throne speeches like the Liberals used to do. They would put everything together and not deliver on anything. We want to deliver on the promises we made.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my honourable colleague for his speech.

Let us examine the facts. In the Speech from the Throne, the government stated that it would create 125,000 new daycare spaces. I do not think that will be nearly enough. Nevertheless, the government must not only support daycares and other organizations in creating these spaces and making them available, it must also guarantee this support and ensure resources. I am talking about financial resources.

The Speech from the Throne addressed the issue of early childhood development. If the new government eliminates the $5 billion child care program we established, can my honourable colleague explain how the government plans to reduce the cost of daycare? This is a cost parents must bear.

I would also like him to explain how this new government's new plan will allow workers to earn a decent salary.

This new plan must include funding for daycare infrastructure and the necessary resources. Given these three elements, if the government eliminates the $5 billion agreement signed with the provinces and territories, can the honourable member explain to us how it can reduce the cost or increase funding and necessary resources for Canadian parents and children?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on January 23 Canadians demanded a change. During the election campaign the Liberals came up with all sorts of programs, but Canadians did not buy their programs. That is why those members are sitting on that side of the House. Otherwise they would have been sitting on this side.

The fact of the matter is we believe that Canadian parents know how to raise their children. That is why we will be giving them $1,200 for every child under six. We believe that Canadian parents know how best to raise their children, and not what the Liberals said, that people will buy popcorn and beer. We trust Canadians. They know how to raise their children. Why do the Liberals think they know how best to raise children?

We are interested in early childhood development. We have come up with a program that Canadians want. It is one of our five priorities. That is why they elected us to sit on this side of the House.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech. I have some comments.

I understand that the Conservative Party wants to reduce crime in Canada because crime is on the increase. The party's platform calls for tougher sentences for criminal offences. But paradoxically, the Conservative Party wants to make cuts to child care in Quebec and Canada. Personally, I believe that the child care system does a great deal to prevent crime.

In Quebec, day care centres play an important screening and prevention role. To reduce crime, we have to do more than put people in jail; to reduce crime, we also have to prevent it. Day care centres and institutionalized child care systems help reduce crime through various prevention activities that target children under six. These activities continue in the schools.

I would like to hear what the hon. member has to say about this. I have some concern about the proposed approach, which seems to consist in criminalizing everything and putting people in jail. We have to punish criminal offences, but we also have to work on preventing crime.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that we need to have measures to prevent people from straying from the path. We have committed to work with the provinces and territories to help communities provide those things for youth and people who have strayed from the path.

We are only talking about violent offenders. We are not talking about not having prevention programs. I agree with the member completely that we need to also have prevention programs that go hand in hand on both sides, not only on one side. The Conservative Party is committed to that as well.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure today that I present my reply to the Speech from the Throne. First of all, since this is my first speech in this 39th Parliament, I would like to thank the citizens of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. A great majority of them, over 22,000, have entrusted me with the mandate to represent them in the House. I thank them for their confidence. In the months and indeed the years ahead, I shall defend as best I can the interests of Quebec and of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

I will be directing most of my attention today to the environmental aspects of the Speech from the Throne. Where the environment is concerned, the best one can say is that this throne speech is vague, soft and inadequate, particularly as regards the federal government’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating climate change not only in Canada, but also in the rest of the world.

In the battle against climate change, this is a major step backward. Why? First, because there is nothing in this throne speech to clearly indicate that the federal government intends to respect Canada’s commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.

Why else is this a major step backward? Because in the throne speech of October 2004, on page 12, we read that the Government of Canada will respect the commitments on climate change that it made in signing the Kyoto protocol. In October 2004, the government clearly and solemnly affirmed before this House and the people of Quebec and Canada that it intended to honour its commitment.

A few years later, in April 2006, there is but one small sentence about climate change and compliance. We hear that the government “will take measures to achieve tangible improvements in our environment, including reductions in pollution and greenhouse gas emissions”. As for international compliance in the campaign against climate change and the desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at source, it is obvious that the federal government has decided to step back from its commitments.

We on this side of the House are not surprised at this withdrawal by the federal government. Why? Because even in the days that followed the election campaign, the Prime Minister indicated to the Canadian public that he wanted to promote a new protocol on climate change, even though we already have one, the Kyoto protocol.

We have reason to be worried, today, as we see the federal government’s backhanded dismissal of the Kyoto protocol, and see it concurring with certain other countries on the international stage. I am thinking, for example, of that Asia-Pacific partnership headed by the United States and Australia, which is taking part in the action against climate change and yet setting no reduction targets or timetables.

Is this what Quebeckers expect of the federal government—to simply let things slide in dealing with this issue? The answer is no. Eighty-seven percent of Quebeckers want the Canadian government to respect its commitments on climate change. In recent weeks, in March, I went on a tour of all the regions of Quebec.

I visited over 13 regions. I met with representatives of regional environmental councils and citizens in each of them. They told us that they expected the Bloc Québécois and the opposition to force the Government of Canada to honour its commitments. Clearly the government has not heard what Quebeckers have to say. They expect the government to honour its commitments.

Not only is the government saying on the international scene--Canada is presiding over the Convention on Climate Change--that we will not honour international commitments made by our country but, in addition, the government is already preparing the public for a reduction in allocations to environmental organizations fighting climate change. Even before tabling the budget, the government has announced to Quebeckers and Canadians that they should expect a 40% reduction in moneys allocated to the fight against climate change.

Not only are we backpedalling with regard to international and national objectives, but we are also reducing funding provided to organizations and companies to reach our targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions.

We can see the government coming for miles. It will give the excuse that greenhouse gas emissions increased by 24% in recent years in spite of over $4 billion in investments and that we are not going to reach our objectives. That is exactly what the Minister for the Environment said in her speech last week. It is as though the government were trying to use the failure of the Liberal's approach to avoid honouring its own and Canada's commitments. Or, as though the lack of or inappropriate action of the Liberal government in the fight against climate change provided the Conservative government with a reason to not take action.

We expect this government to respect the will of Quebeckers and to clearly indicate its intentions, both within Canada and internationally. An important meeting will be held in Bonn on May 15 of this year. The Minister of the Environment will preside over the deliberations. We expect her to stand up and confirm that we will meet the objectives of the Kyoto protocol. We expect nothing less from the minister. If she refuses to demonstrate this willingness, which the government has clearly expressed, we will be left to conclude that the Canadian approach has changed significantly, giving way to a new approach in the fight against climate change. That is the danger facing us, no more and no less, in the weeks and months to come.

We must bear in mind the words used in recent weeks by the government, the Minister of the Environment and the Prime Minister. The desire to propose a new protocol, despite the existing Kyoto protocol, corresponds to the desire clearly expressed by the government to renege on its international commitments.

We would have preferred that the Speech from the Throne clearly support the existing protocol. Furthermore, we expect that government not to reduce the funding or budgets allocated to the fight against climate change in the next budget. Lastly, we expect the government to adopt a territorial approach that would allow Quebec to carry out its plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In the fight against climate change, we are hoping for a common approach adapted to each province. This will ensure improved performance in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and everyone will come out ahead. This should be the government's preferred approach.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc for his continuous commitment to the environment and to working for the well-being of the environment. I share his concerns about the language being used by the new Minister of the Environment. There is a code being used that is very worrisome. As she dances all around the issue of Kyoto, she has never said that she will tear up the accord, but she has certainly said that the Conservatives do not see themselves to be bound by Kyoto.

I would like to ask my colleague if he agrees with me that the newly elected Conservative government should know that it was Canada that has stipulated to or is bound by Kyoto, that it has nothing to do with the Conservative Party and its policies. On behalf of the Government of Canada, we entered into the Kyoto accord. It is binding and it stipulates that we have a certain code of conduct and code of practice for the coming years.

Would he agree that there is a worrisome disconnect between the minister's obligation as the Minister of the Environment for Canada and her own party's reservations about the Kyoto accord?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is trying to give two speeches. In this House, we usually hear one for the rest of Canada and another for Quebec.

Two speeches are being given on climate change. In the first, on the international stage, the government is saying that Canada has no intention of withdrawing from Kyoto. However, at home, the government says it has no intention of incorporating the objectives for reduction set out in the protocol into a future plan on climate change in Canada.

That is the problem. We are having a hard time understanding the tricks of the government, which says one thing on the international stage, but another here in the House.

We want the plan the government will be tabling to include the objectives for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 6% between 2008 and 2012 and to set out how the government plans to achieve these objectives. Otherwise, the government will to all intents and purposes be taking the laissez-faire approach, the American approach. It will lead us inevitably to an increase in greenhouse gases.

To put it very succinctly, the speeches of my colleagues the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Minister of Industry and even the Minister of Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, who said as late as last week he did not believe in the objectives of the Kyoto protocol, make it abundantly clear that this government has thrown the protocol overboard.

Our intention, however, is to ensure that the government honours Canada's commitment in the coming weeks and months. It is what Canadians and Quebeckers want.