House of Commons Hansard #7 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was crime.

Topics

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

4:45 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

Before I proceed to the next speaker, I would just remind hon. members again. The member who just spoke many times referred to the member for Winnipeg Centre as “you”. We are not supposed to be using the second person here. We are supposed to be using the third person. I hesitated to interrupt him, but I have corrected a number of members on this same thing all afternoon. Particularly members who have been here before should know better. I know that we slip up from time to time, but I did not want to let the hon. member for Thunder Bay--Rainy River get away without knowing that I had noticed what was going on.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre.

It is a pleasure to stand in the House and comment on the Speech from the Throne. On January 23, Canadians voted for change because they knew that change was long overdue. Change is what we will deliver and it will be positive change.

Canada's new Conservative government will be turning a new leaf, several new leaves in fact. We will deliver change in the way we do business in Ottawa and that will be by making government more open and accountable. We will deliver change in the tax that Canadians pay so they can keep more of their income to pay for the necessities of life.

There will be changes in the way we ensure the safety of our cities and neighbourhoods, and changes in the help we provide to Canadian families so that they can strike a better balance between their professional responsibilities and their family responsibilities.

Finally, we will look after Canadians by ensuring that they get the medical attention they need when they need it.

Those are the first five leaves that we will turn as we nurture a new tree of Canadian prosperity and security that will indeed grow strong and tall. I would like to address four briefly and spend a bit more time on one.

As the House knows, our first order of business is the federal accountability act.

Our objective, our commitment to Canadians and to Parliament, is to increase efficiency and responsibility within government. This set of measures will directly target some persistent problems. We will increase public confidence in the integrity of the political process by tightening the legislation on political financing and lobbying.

Most Canadians believe that they pay too much tax and we agree with them. We will leave more disposable money in every Canadian's pocket by reducing the GST from 7% to 6% in the short term and to 5% later on. This will help every Canadian, whether they are buying a pack of gum, a piano or a Pontiac.

Nothing is more important for a government than protecting its citizens. For a long time, quality of life in Canada has been characterized by safe cities and suburbs and low crime rates. Recently, some criminal trends and activities have diminished the sense of safety and security of Canadians at home and in their towns and neighbourhoods.

That is simply not acceptable to Canadians, and their Conservative government will tackle crime and stand up for safe streets. Criminals have the idea that they will not be caught and that even if they do get caught they will not be punished.

People like to talk about deterrents to crime and addressing the underlying causes of crime. I do not disagree at all that we need to focus more effort on early stage criminal behaviour before it has a chance to take root. However to me one of the strongest deterrents to crime is the assurance that perpetrators will be caught and that they will be punished befitting the crime once they are caught. Our government will work toward that goal by putting thousands more police officers on our streets and by tightening up sentencing provisions. We will also continually put the rights of the victim ahead of the rights of the criminal.

All Canadian families are different and parents deserve to be able to make their own choices in raising their families. Our government will give them that choice by providing an annual allowance of $1,200 for each child under six years of age, as well as incentives amounting to $1.25 billion over five years to develop child care spaces. While some may say that this is not enough, it is at least truly universal, unlike the previous government's proposal that would reach less than one-quarter of Canadian children.

Canadians want a government that they can trust to be sure and, as I have already said, we will deliver that. I also believe that Canadians want a government that trusts them and, frankly, I trust my children to raise my grandchildren.

I would like to spend a bit more time talking about what is the first priority for many Canadians and that is health care. I would like to tell the House a short story about the letter C. C stands for Croatia, Colombia and Canada. If I asked anyone which of those countries has the best health care system, I am guessing that everyone would say Canada. In many ways they would be correct but not when it comes to the time spent in pain waiting for long health care queues to meander toward a treatment date.

In the course of knocking on 40,000 doors over the past three years, I met a lady from Croatia and another from Colombia. Both had dual citizenship and both were living in Edmonton. The lady from Croatia had needed a knee replacement and was told that it would take up to two years in Alberta. She went back to Croatia and came back to Canada two months later with her new knee in great shape. The lady from Colombia had a heart condition that would not even have been diagnosed in Alberta for at least two months. She went back to Colombia and had it dealt with in less than two weeks.

My own sister in Victoria had to wait for two years for a knee replacement. In that time she lost almost all mobility, could only work part time and was in constant pain. By the time she received her new knee, her foot on that side and the other knee were badly affected by the constant compensation. Now she is waiting for her second knee. This is a woman who is highly educated and highly motivated but she will never have the quality of life or productivity that she deserves.

Thousands of Canadians are in similar situations and damage as a result from extended wait times simply must be addressed.

The government will work together with the provinces and territories to establish guaranteed wait times for patients who need essential medical services. If people cannot obtain in their own region, in the public system, the medical care they need within the time-frame of the established benchmarks, they can seek that care elsewhere and the cost of that care will be covered by the public system. That is guaranteed.

That seemed to work okay for the leader of the NDP a while back.

Canadians, through their governments, have already made significant investments in the system. Five and a half billion dollars has been earmarked specifically to reduce wait times. That is good but much more needs to be done and it does not simply involve money.

Innovation will be critical to ensure that health care remains timely and sustainable. Alberta has run a very successful trial program that saw a 90% drop in wait times for hip and knee replacements. This clearly demonstrates that dramatic patient centred innovation is achievable within our current public system.

Quebec has recently proposed its own care guarantee for select services and was the first province to do so. Our government welcomes this type of leadership and we encourage all provinces to look at Quebec's innovative approach.

Both Alberta and Quebec are showing that it is possible to innovate within the public system and respond to the needs of Canadians.

Our government welcomes such innovations across the country but these innovations must be consistent with the principles of a universally accessible and equitable health care system. The key to success is to be ready to work with the provinces and territories, give them the tools they need and then get out of their way while continuing to monitor compliance with the Canada Health Act.

There are many other areas that our government will be addressing over time but it is those five priorities that we will use to earn the trust of Canadians. It will be a long and winding road but we have the team, we have the leadership and we have the determination to straighten out the curves and to reach our destination.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Mr. Speaker, I just want to pick up on the justice aspects, the prime aspects.

It is important to have a debate in the House and at committee level about the effectiveness or the efficacy of mandatory sentences, of seemingly wanting to be tougher on crime by imposing longer sentences and putting criminals away longer and all those sorts of things. However, empirical evidence shows, and one of the members referred to this morning, that these mandatory sentences do not work and that our neighbours to the south are the perfect proof of that.

All I am asking, because I know this is not question period and it certainly is not an answer period either, is for some openness from the other side or the other sides that if there is empirical evidence that being tougher on the books on crime does not deter crime, and if there is an openness to suggest that there are other ways, such as, laudably, increasing the number of men and women on the street enforcing those laws, will there be an openness from the hon. member and from the other side to those aspects?

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is a very good one. Wrestling with crime and the results of crime has been very difficult for all Canadians. I will make one comment that an expert is someone with whom my friend seems to agree. However he does raise good questions. Surely all evidence on either side of an argument should be looked at by reasonable people when they reach a conclusion.

One of our concerns with the state of crime and punishment in Canada today is that we see example after example of criminals, young and old, who simply thumb their nose at the system because they are pretty certain they will not get caught and they know that even if they do get caught the justice system will just slap them on the wrist.

That, in our view, simply has to stop. There must be consequences to one's actions but right now there are very few consequences. If we perhaps spent some time delivering greater consequences for criminal acts, then perhaps after a little while these people would get the message and stop the criminal activity. It will not be easy and it will not be short term but we have to start now.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign I had some opportunity to look at the Conservative Party's election platform. I was particularly interested in the section on access to information law reform because it was one of the most specific sections of the entire election platform. It not only said that the Conservative government will, at the earliest opportunity, implement all 88 provisions of Information Commissioner John Reid's recommended changes to access to information, it went on to list them.

Does my colleague have any knowledge, as this is a debate on the Speech from the Throne, as to why the newly elected federal government has pulled back from that very specific commitment? Does he agree with me that this is a reversal of a very specific promise made? Has there been any talk within his caucus as to why the Conservatives might have changed their mind about freedom of information in this country?

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative platform, and I read it and carried it with me for many, many days, did not list those 88 items.

I believe we have heard today that the federal accountability act will include provisions for access to information that are probably stricter than some of the items that were listed prior to the election. There is not a risk of going back on anything. In fact, we are moving ahead with the accountability act and with all the measures to access to information that will make government business much more accountable, much more open to public scrutiny and provide access to information guidelines that will be effective in holding accountability to the forefront.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to members present if I start coughing a little bit during my presentation. As some members know, I had a bit of a health problem last year. I suffered a heart attack. I am on some medication that gives me this dry cough throughout the day and throughout the evening. In my line of business, as everyone knows, it is not the easiest thing in the world to speak for 10 or 15 minutes constantly coughing. I apologize in advance if I bother any members here.

Before I begin, I must again congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your appointment. It is a great honour for one so young and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that your mother must be extremely proud of you.

This is my first opportunity to stand before the 39th Parliament.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order, please. I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for that. I can assure him that I will make an extra effort to notice him when he is getting up on questions and comments in the future.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

I am sure you will, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for that.

This is my first opportunity to speak before the 39th Parliament. As many members before me have done, I would like to take a few moments before I get into the main body of my speech to thank a number of people.

First and foremost, I want to thank my family, particularly my wife who was extremely supportive not only in the election of 2006, but also in my first election in 2004. As you know, Mr. Speaker, since we have had a close friendship over the past number of years, it was a seat where I was not supposed to win for a number of reasons. My wife seemed to be the only one, besides myself, who had any confidence in my abilities to win that. That confidence was unwavering. I can assure all members that without the 110% support from one's wife and family, this is not a profession that one wants to get into. Once again, to my wife, Diane, I want to give her my thanks and my love for all her support.

I also want to say that friendship to me as well as family are the most important things in a person's life. There are two very special friends who have supported me all my career, Diane and Butch Lasek, and I thank them as well.

My colleague from Selkirk, who is sitting behind me, also deserves some mention for motivating me to be the best parliamentarian I can. It is kind of a perspective thing, I suppose.

Finally, I want to thank all the good people and the voters of Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre who sent me back to Parliament. I can assure all members that it is an honour and a privilege that I do not take lightly. There is not a Canadian who I know who would not feel the same sort of feeling I get when I stand in this chamber and address colleagues and Canadians. It is an honour not to be taken lightly. I am sure at one point in time every member here, when they started their political career, felt the same feelings that I have felt over my career. I want to assure the constituents of Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre that I will do my utmost to represent them and their views to the very best of my ability.

The reason we are here is to talk about the throne speech, of which I am extremely proud for a number of reasons, but primarily for this reason.

When I was first elected to Parliament in 2004, I ran on a campaign promising my constituents that if I were elected, I would do my utmost to clean up the waste and corruption in government. At that point in time, we were first starting to find out the sordid details of the sponsorship scandal. Most of my constituents, quite frankly, were sick and tired of what they felt were self-entitlement practices not just the federal Liberals, but of all governments across provincial jurisdictions. It crossed all party lines.

The message I heard back in 2004 was quite clear and strong. It was that I do what I could, if elected to Parliament, to clean up government, to make it more accountable, more transparent and more reflective of the desires and wishes of ordinary Canadians who wanted to see governments work on behalf of the voters. They felt that they were the masters of the political domain, not the politicians. I took that message very seriously. During the first 18 months, while in Ottawa, I did what I could, whether it be in committee or in this chamber, to bring those feelings from my constituents to the forefront and to do what I could to try to ensure that we had accountable and transparent government.

When we brought down the throne speech, in which the highlight in my opinion was the fact that we would bring in the accountability act, the strongest anti-corruption law ever seen in Canada, I felt that finally I had arrived. I felt that my constituents finally would be able to look at our party and government and say that we had done what we were asked to do, that we had taken some significant steps to ensure accountability of politicians and governments, that transparency was uppermost in the minds of the governing party of the day.

I am very proud that the Prime Minister and my party have introduced the federal accountability act to this place today. It will go a long way to restoring public confidence in all politicians.

I know from time to time, perhaps more often than not, opposition parties will criticize the government. They will criticize it on the basis of the throne speech being too flimsy and not having enough vision or being too shallow. That is just politics.

The Conservatives did the same thing when we were in opposition. It is the job and role of opposition parties to criticize the government and, hopefully, in addition to just criticizing, to bring forward plausible and intelligence solutions. I will absolutely guarantee that every member here feels the same way as I do. I do not believe there is a crook in this room. I do not believe there is a crooked politician in this room.

I believe every member in this place feels as I do. We want an accountable government to ensure our constituents are proud of us and proud of the work we do. We can absorb the criticism because that is part of the political game. However, I feel quite confident that all members in this assembly will do the best they can to ensure their motives and desires on behalf of their constituents are reflected in an honest and above board manner.

The problems we have seen in years past, which led to the sponsorship scandal as we know it now, were the fault of perhaps some Liberals, perhaps some individuals associated with the Liberal Party on the periphery and just maybe it was a little deeper than that. I absolutely believe that is behind us, and it should be behind us.

That is not to say, and I will give fair warning to the members opposite, that I will not bring that baggage out from time to time when I feel it is opportune to do so. I know the opposition is going to be critical of the Conservatives. That again is the political process in which we live. I honestly believe everyone in this assembly knows that we cannot afford to have any events like the sponsorship scandal to ever tarnish the names of politicians and parliamentarians again.

I want to assure all members of this assembly that, while I am proud of my party and the throne speech, I recognize that we will at times agree to disagree, but it will not diminish my respect for any member of this assembly. I can give this one assurance to you, Mr. Speaker, and to members on the government side and opposition side. I will continue to work on behalf of not only my constituents, but on behalf of every member of this assembly to regain the lustre that politicians once had. I believe this assembly needs it and members of this Parliament deserve it.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for the common sense approach that he took to issues of the past, and I congratulate him on that.

He is the member of Parliament for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, which is in southern Saskatchewan and has farming country in the area. This morning the Saskatchewan minister of agriculture was in town calling for an immediate cash infusion of $575 million in emergency funding for producers to get their crops in the ground.

The member and the Prime Minister know that he took over a government with unprecedented surpluses, the best in the G-7. They know that money is available to deal with the farm crisis there. In fact, on March 31 last year the previous minister of finance, also from Regina, put in place $1 billion to deal with the cash shortfall, and that was for the country. The best opportunity to acquire money for these kinds of needs is prior to March 31, and the government missed that opportunity.

We, as a party, are calling for an immediate cash infusion of more than $1.6 billion. Could the member opposite give us some assurance that there will be immediate cash going out there to deal with the farm crunch? It is mentioned in the throne speech.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, first, we will certainly fulfill our commitments that were presented to the electorate during the last campaign, and that is to, at minimum, support the farmers with an initial minimum $500 million in income support programs, which have to be changed.

He is quite right that Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre is a significant portion of rural Saskatchewan. I have many producers in my riding, as I am sure the hon. member does as do members who represent rural ridings across Canada. They are in dire straits. We have a financial crisis that is unprecedented.

Yes, income support is dominating the conversations that I have with producers, but I can assure the hon. member of one thing. Far more than those who are asking for quick cash are the cries for a government to finally to bring forward some long term vision for agriculture. Producers in my area did not seen that from the previous Liberal government. They have not seen that long term vision or any kind of an option plan to deal with the vision. Producers need to know what plans the government has for them. They have to make business decisions based on the government's course of action. They have not seen any long term vision or long term planning from the previous Liberal government. More than anything else, more than income support, they are asking our government to provide that vision, and I can assure members that we will.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I notice the throne speech states that the government would, “ensure that the Senate better reflects both the democratic values of Canadians”.

Does the hon. member opposite believe that the definition of “Senate democratic values and reforms” means naming a campaign co-chair bagman to the Senate?

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite ironic and amusing that this question would come from a Liberal. The Liberals have used the Senate as a landing pad for all the hacks and flaks political bagmen they have had over the years.

I admit that we have had some criticism from Canadians for the appointment of Mr. Fortier to the Senate. As the hon. member well knows, that this is not the typical Liberal Senate appointment. Come the next election, the senator from Montreal will be stepping down. It was done to get Mr. Foriter into cabinet to represent the city of Montreal.

Traditionally, I am sure the member knows this being a student of Parliament, the prime minister has within his purview the right to appoint anyone he or she wishes to his cabinet. Traditionally, if non-elected member is appointed, it is a member of the Senate. That is the process the Prime Minister took to ensure that the city of Montreal would be represented and will be represented well in Parliament.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Ajax—Pickering.

I also want to extend to you my congratulations for your appointment to the chair. I look forward to working with you. I hope we can have conciliatory relationships over the next number of months and perhaps even years.

I would like to preface my comments tonight by congratulating the government on its first throne speech. It is hard to do that sometimes, but I am going to do it tonight. While it is never easy to draft such a document, I commend the government for its efforts.

With that aside, as I said last Thursday in the take note debate on agriculture, while I am now an opposition MP, I cannot accept that my job is simply to criticize government and its plans and priorities. Contrarily, I believe that in addition to putting forth an alternative position on certain issues, the role of an opposition MP is also to propose workable and constructive solutions to problems facing Canada.

I intend that statement to be my guiding principle with respect to how I conduct myself in the House. I will criticize when I feel it is warranted and I will congratulate when I feel it is deserved. In instances when I feel that the government is moving in a direction that is not in the best interest of the people of Huron—Bruce, I will attempt to suggest options to redirect.

We talk of the need for improved decorum in the House. This manifesto is my contribution to that effort.

With the above in mind, I would like to confine my comments tonight to the following key areas.

The first one is primary agriculture. My riding of Huron--Bruce is largely dependent on agriculture and that industry is in crisis. I intend to reiterate some of my comments of last Thursday. I believe they bear repeating as they were predominantly crafted as a result of consultation and input from farmers directly.

The second is rural infrastructure. Rural Canada represents only a small portion of the national population but is home to the vast majority of our geography. In short, due to the small tax base on which they draw, rural municipalities are struggling to maintain safe roads, sewers, and water delivery and purification systems while property taxes are higher and overall services are fewer and more scattered than would be available in large urban centres.

The third one is rural health care. With an aging population, this is perhaps one of the areas of greatest concern facing all rural Canadians. Our hospitals are suffering from a serious doctor shortage. That, coupled with an aging infrastructure, technological limitations and various demographic and geographic challenges, has placed an increasing strain on rural health care systems and providers.

The fourth area is economic development. If rural Canada is to survive, new and innovative industries must be fostered. In my opinion, certain national environmental demands can fit hand in glove with the unique attributes of rural Canada. Wind energy production, ethanol, biodiesel and carbon sinks all require substantial geography.

As already mentioned, rural Canada has considerable space that could be harnessed for these initiatives. In addition to sparking serious economic development in the region, these technologies would deliver high end job opportunities that would go a long way to encouraging young people to stay in rural Canada after completing their post-secondary education. This would in turn help to grow the economies of rural Canada, which would also assist with things like renewing infrastructure, recruiting new doctors and increasing the overall standard of living and household incomes of those who call rural Canada home.

I would like to elaborate on those issues, but before I do I will express my disappointment that the throne speech did not focus more attention on these matters. I believe that these four topics represent the spheres of most concern for those whom I represent. That is not to say that other matters are of little importance, but rather, I am suggesting that these are the most fundamental to the long term survival of rural Canada. I would strongly urge the government to give these priorities the attention they deserve.

At this time, I would again like to underscore the message I delivered last Thursday night in the take note debate on agriculture. Our farmers are facing their single greatest economic challenge in the past two decades. We are bleeding farmers at an astounding rate and that is adversely impacting on the whole of rural Canada. Hospitals, schools, churches, and small town main streets are all deteriorating as a result of the farm income crisis.

Last Thursday, most of the members agreed that the problems are grave. Furthermore, most agreed that immediate and decisive action is required if we have any hope of resolving the crisis in the short term and preventing further loss in the future. The problem is that most are unclear on what is needed to put the industry back on the rails. To that, I offer the following points.

First, I unreservedly support the risk management program that was designed and proposed by grains and oilseeds producer groups from Ontario. When challenged to provide an actual working policy item that would help their industry, these groups exceeded expectations.

This producer-designed program would go a long way toward initiating a safety net that would provide real assistance when farmers' backs are to the wall. My party has indicated our support for the proposal and I would urgently call upon the government and the other political parties in the House to affirm their support for the same.

A fully funded RMP is essential. The Province of Ontario is on the record as supporting the RMP. The federal Liberal Party is on the record as supporting the RMP. Farm groups are on the record as supporting the RMP. Numerous backbenchers from all political parties are on the record as supporting the RMP. Let us move forward with the implementation of a fully funded risk management program without delay.

Second, last November, the federal, provincial and territorial ministers of agriculture met with industry stakeholders in Regina. They struck an accord that proposed, among other measures, to establish a national agricultural policy that leads to growth in profitability, not just volume. According to the proposal, the solution should be enclosed in a Canadian farm bill. I would urge the minister to adopt such measures.

Let us equip our industry with tools that focus on building the industry long term. There will always be a place for ad hoc programing; however, if substantial and longer term programing is available, the need for ad hoc injections will be reduced.

As a continuation of my second point, we must move to immediately develop a long term national agricultural policy. We have never had a national direction for agriculture and our industry is suffering as a result. Ad hoc programing is cumbersome and has proven inadequate in overcoming many of the challenges facing our farmers. Farmers need support and investment that they can count on and plan for.

Fourth, Canada is a trading nation. With a small population and a resource based economy, Canada must trade with our neighbours in the international community. That said, when it comes to issues such as the WTO and NAFTA, Canada must work to protect our agricultural sector. Marketing systems such as supply management are domestic structures that must be shielded from foreign attacks. The current system has consistently provided supply managed farmers with a fair return for a quality product. This must continue.

Next is the issue of food security. In my opinion, national sovereignty cannot be claimed without a safe and reliable food supply. If Canada cannot feed its population, then our national security is tenuous at best. Canada has never been hungry and, as a result, we have failed to grasp that food security is paramount. That must end if we are to ensure that Canada never goes hungry in the future.

If governments would adopt these measures, I truly believe that we would put in place a climate that would lend itself to fostering our agricultural industry. This would have spillover effects for the balance of rural Canada and, by extension, for Canada as a whole.

Next is the issue of rural infrastructure. Rural Canada faces serious challenges with respect to an aging infrastructure. With the loss of the railway comes an increased demand on our highways. Stress on the sewage and water treatment and management systems of our smaller communities has been intensified in the post-Walkerton climate.

These matters, when compounded with the deterioration of the physical structures required for the delivery of health care and education, pose perhaps the most serious threat ever faced by rural municipalities.

Governments have a tremendous role to play in rural infrastructure renewal. I would urge the government to continue with and to expand upon the infrastructure programing of the past administrations. All Canadians benefit from the spoils of rural Canada, and if we are to continue to enjoy that bounty, we must ensure that rural infrastructure is maintained and improved.

My next area of concern, which is rural health care, falls naturally from rural infrastructure and leads easily into economic development. In short, there is an interconnectivity of these matters that cannot and should not be ignored.

Rural health care needs are very different from those in urban Canada. The distance between residences and the hospital, fewer doctors, technological limitations, costs associated with transferring to larger centres for treatment, an aging population, and certain lifestyle choices all complicate the delivery of effective rural health care. We need to develop and implement policies that take these distinctive challenges into account.

Localized specialization, public education campaigns, increased incentives for new doctors and equipment updates all represent positive direction with respect to rural health care. I urge the government to consider such measures and I offer my assistance with any of the above.

Last, as I mentioned, if rural Canada is to survive and thrive, new and innovative industries must be created and fostered. In the age of green energy and Kyoto, I believe we can find a way to have the environment and the economy of rural Canada symbiotically win. Again, technology such as wind energy production requires large plots of land to build and sustain. Moreover, it requires a skilled workforce to maintain. Rural Canada has an abundance of both.

Effective integration of these environmental sciences into rural Canada will help to grow the local economies, which also would assist with the other areas I noted tonight.

Last week most members agreed that rural Canada is the foundation on which the rest of Canada is perched. A cracked foundation spells obvious trouble for the rest of the structure. As such, I would strongly urge the government to consider what I have said here this evening.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the hon. member has been a long-time member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. He served for a number of years as its Chair and has the passion for agriculture that is so desperately needed in this place, especially with the crisis we are facing today.

Would the hon. member care to comment on that great crisis we are facing today, in that the CAIS program designed by the former government has not met the needs and expectations of farmers across this country from one end to the other? There are very few commodities for which this program has worked to their benefit.

Would the hon. member comment on the CAIS program? What adaptations do we have to make to that program in the interim? Would the member also look at the long term vision as to what we need to do in the industry to meet the needs of this crisis and set our farmers on a solid footing in the hopefully not too distant future?

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has been a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for the last year or so, and in fact maybe for a couple of years, and I thank him for his efforts and his work on behalf of Canadian farmers.

I must point out at the outset that this issue of addressing agriculture is something that is long overdue. We have done it ad hoc for many years because in past recent history we have not had consistently bad years four or five years in a row, but we now are in an unparalleled time in history in terms of disaster.

Therefore, when the CAIS program was initially designed, it was to take over from the NISA program, of course, as all members know. The NISA program was designed for a certain time and it supported certain elements of the agriculture sector, but it did not do a full job. What was wanted was a program that basically looked after all aspects of agriculture, all facets of the industry, and it was to be a one size fits all program. It did not.

As we now understand, given that we have had three or four years of difficulty in the farming sector, we cannot sustain three or four years in a row when a program pays only 70% of the losses. We need to reinstate the third leg of the stool. Of course, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario at one time had the market revenue program, or GRIP, which did exactly that.

We need to return to a program similar to that, perhaps similar to what they have in Quebec in the ASRA program. We believe in the risk management program proposed by the industry here in Ontario and somewhat endorsed by Manitoba farmers. Just today I was given the assurance from Saskatchewan farmers that they felt it was a viable program. I would encourage the government to look at that program because it is one that can be implemented reasonably and--

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I apologize to the hon. member, but I wanted to get in another couple of questions. I thought the member for Western Arctic had a question. I am sorry.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Ajax--Pickering.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this chamber again, now back for the second term. While it is not my first time to rise and speak in this session, now that I have the opportunity, I do want to thank the electors of the riding of Ajax--Pickering for the tremendous privilege of being in this House and getting the opportunity to represent them in this different capacity as an opposition member.

Certainly, I share some of the sentiments I heard from hon. members around the need to work collaboratively, to discuss issues, to hopefully find consensus, and to the best of our ability make this minority government work.

However, with regret, there are some issues that do need to be raised as a number of issues were simply missed in the throne speech. I hope that the fact they were missed does not mean that they are going to be ignored because they are extremely important issues.

I would start with early childhood development but more broadly on the issue of education. Fundamentally, what the throne speech misses, what the Conservatives as a party miss, is the fact that early childhood development is not about day care. It is not about simply taking care of children. It is about creating a continuum for learning that starts from the youngest age, goes into post-secondary, and then into lifelong learning.

It is about the fact that when children are in those most formative years, they need nurturing and caring environments. Whether those environments are provided at home or in an early childhood learning environment, the fact is parents need real choice.

Simply providing something in the neighbourhood of $3 a day is not going to achieve that. If we were to say to parents, “Instead of providing public school, we are going to give you $3 or $4 a day and good luck to you”, would Canadians think that was appropriate? Absolutely not.

In the same way, it is totally inappropriate to treat early childhood development in that way. It is a lazy policy. Instead of trying to deal with creating spaces, creating nurturing environments, and creating real choice for Canadian parents, the government is going to send them a cheque in the mail and say good luck. That is not good enough and we need to do a lot more.

In my constituency we have a huge preponderance of families. The vast majority, where both parents are working, require high quality child care facilities, and this is an issue that must be redressed. It is simply not acceptable to scrap the agreements that we entered into as a government in the previous session, toss them out the window, and say, “Here are a couple of bucks. I hope things work out for you”.

On the issue of post-secondary education, I was extremely disappointed in the document. We recognize that our competitiveness and our strength as a nation is dependent upon the type of education that we are able to receive and upon the quality of that education. We have been making great advancements, not only on the education side but also in research and development with the partnerships we have been working on with post-secondary institutions. This document ignored that. It simply said it is not one of the priorities and that is not acceptable.

Our future and our strength as a nation are very much dependent upon our ability to invest in the education of young people, in post-secondary education and in those facilities, whether it is our fifty-fifty plan or, more importantly to me, the idea that we make post-secondary education accessible for all. That is not just about tuition. That is about saying that regardless of their background, they have the opportunity to go. If they are coming from extremely wealthy families, reduced tuition may not be the smartest thing to do. Maybe what we need to be doing is focusing on those individuals who come from less fortunate circumstances who need the assistance to get the education they need to thrive, have a successful and happy future, and contribute to our economy.

Perhaps the most tragic oversight in this document though, the one that perplexes me to the greatest extent, is the environment. The reality is that our environment is in mortal peril. If we were go to our Arctic, we would see the dramatic changes that are occurring. We would see what is happening to our climate when the ice continually recedes and turns into water which then absorbs more energy and fuels that process even more. We would see permafrost give way and the carbon then be released. We would see the fact that our planet simply cannot sustain the carbon that we are putting into the atmosphere. It is reaching a point of saturation and there is a recognition that we as a globe have a crisis that we must face.

What do the Conservatives do in the wake of this crisis, at this time of great need and leadership? They say they are going to abandon Kyoto. They are going to slash funding to environmental projects. They are going to ignore it as an issue and not reference it as something that we need to put front and centre.

The environment deserves to be put front and centre. It is an area that we have taken leadership on and we need to continue to do that. We need to go back to our Kyoto commitments. We cannot say we will not bother because it is difficult. Instead, we have to find out how to get there, how we can be leaders in this area. We need to find out how we can get to the point where we can lead the world in terms of what we are doing with respect to the environment.

We as parliamentarians must be the voices for those who do not have a voice, whether it is a child in the back of a classroom who has been forgotten and needs additional help, whether it is a person who has been forgotten on the street who no longer has any hope, whether it is somebody in a neighbourhood where they do not feel they have a future, or whether it is young people who say to themselves that this society does not have a place for them.

Beyond just speaking for our constituents, it is our role as parliamentarians to also speak for people who do not show up, whose problems have major implications for this nation but who do not have the ability to articulate for themselves.

Citizenship to me in Canada must mean hope and opportunity. It must mean hope and opportunity for all of our citizens, whether they are an aboriginal on a reserve, whether they are a young person in a difficult urban environment, whether it is someone who is homeless, or whether it is somebody with a learning disability. Every level of government has a responsibility to ensure that we do not leave Canadians behind. We really must do more to improve on this.

Another oversight is cities and communities. I am deeply proud of what we were able to do in the last session of Parliament. We were finally able to recognize that municipalities deserve a seat at the national table. They deserve to have their issues taken seriously. They deserve to be recognized as the engines of growth in our economy. Municipalities have been under-resourced, ignored, and dumped on, and for the first time they were taken seriously, given resources, listened to and brought to the table.

How disappointing for those municipalities to look through the Speech from the Throne, that flimsy document, and see virtually no reference to the cities and communities agenda. After all of that progress, the government is going to let it slip away because it is not a big enough priority. I submit it is a priority and it should be put front and centre.

Some of the issues that the Conservatives have chosen to deal with are half measures and I will take accountability as one example as we dealt with it today. The truth is it is selective accountability. The Conservatives talk about restrictions on lobbyists, but they have a lobbyist on the front bench as the defence minister.

In my opinion, if the government is going to deal with the issue of lobbyists and say that once someone leaves government they cannot become one, it should also deal with the other side. If a lobbyist has been lobbying for a certain company and then gets elected as a parliamentarian, the notion that they would sit as a cabinet member is ridiculous. This is a clear example of selective accountability.

With respect to tax cuts, the Conservatives have said on the one hand that they are going to give Canadians some money back. That is great. Canadians are going to get 1% back on the GST. On the other hand, the government is going to take away the tax cuts that would actually give more to low and middle income families. If someone is looking to buy a jet this is great news, but it is not great news if someone is going to buy groceries.

We need to take a look at this document and ask two questions. How do we really make a difference in the lives of Canadians? What are the real priorities of Canadians? I can tell the House that this document did not speak to the priorities of the constituents of my riding. I will fight with all my effort to ensure that what we work on in this session of Parliament is a reflection of the true needs and priorities of Canadians.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Patrick Brown Conservative Barrie, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member for Ajax—Pickering has to do with all this talk about supporting municipalities. When the last government was in power, I served as a city councillor and was astonished by the press conferences and rhetoric around supporting municipalities, and that money did not arrive for the municipalities. Where was it? That was the biggest problem with the past government. It was more about making speeches than presenting ideas and public policy that could be implemented.

In the municipality that I come from, Barrie has a budget that ranges over $200 million. This brand new deal for municipalities amounted to less than $1 million. The promises that were made were forecasted five years down the road. Talk about leadership for today not leadership five years down the road. It was a government that did not actually get tangible results in the last Parliament. The Liberal government had 13 years to deliver. How come there were no results?

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House about the experience of the municipalities in my riding. The fact of the matter is that the city of Pickering, over the next five years under the plan that was signed, will be getting $7.9 million, the town of Ajax over $6 million, and the region of Durham $41 million.

By the way, once the agreements were signed with AMO, the first year's funding flowed directly to those municipalities. For the first time, not only were they receiving money but they had a predictable source of new revenue that they could work with. What an accomplishment. It was not just a one time cheque or a one time action or announcement but ongoing, sustainable five year funding that they could look at and base their projections upon. That is a real accomplishment.

I was also a councillor with the city of Pickering and the region of Durham for a period of seven years. For the longest time I watched at the provincial level as we got dumped on and ignored. One of the reasons I was so excited to run as a member of Parliament was because we finally had a leader who took up the cause of municipalities, who recognized that they deserved a place at the national table, and finally, in a real and tangible way, delivered.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I do not mind the member for Ajax—Pickering pointing out that there are some serious gaps in the present government's Speech from the Throne and raising for all Canadians the fact that there is little in the Speech from the Throne about education, agriculture or cities.

I would accept that but for the fact that I cannot help but hear the words of the Liberals ringing in my ears when we raised exactly the same point with them when they presented their last federal budget. We told the Liberals there was nothing in the budget speech about education, agriculture or cities. What did we get back? We got nothing but disdain and disparagement from the Liberals, who treated us with ridicule and scorn for daring to raise those important issues.

If it were not for such a double message that we are getting from the Liberals, I could accept it, but it is very hard in the debate concerning the Speech from the Throne to accept this from Liberals. They are asking day to day why we keep beating up on the Liberals instead of the government. That is why, because we could not get through to them on these important issues.

They have created a situation where in fact Canadians are left scrambling with some very difficult situations because in fact the government cut transfers to education and did not put the money back. When they tried to redress the issue with health care, they took the money from education and the social transfer to boost money for health care. We now have $3 billion less in transfers for education today than we had before that episode under the Liberal government.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud of the record without going over all the details of it, but that is not the point today. The point today is that we have a new government and we need to hold that government to account to ensure the programs and services that we care about, and the priorities of Canadians that we represent get articulated and taken care of.

Fundamentally, my focus, sitting here as a representative, is not to be a historian, but instead to focus on the new government and to ask how it is going to answer the priorities that need to be redressed for Canadians.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:45 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, on Monday, April 24, at the conclusion of the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the question be deemed put and the motion be deemed adopted.

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent to move the motion?

Resumption of debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

5:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.