Debates of April 24th, 2006

Autism

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by people in my constituency of Acadie—Bathurst. The petition is in regard to autism spectrum disorder.

The petitioners request Parliament to call upon the government to amend the Canada Health Act and corresponding regulations to include IBI and ABA therapy, a medically necessary treatment for children with autism, and that all provinces be required to fund this essential treatment for autism and contribute to the creation of an academic chair at a university in each province to teach IBI and ABA treatments to undergraduates and doctoral levels so Canadian professionals will no longer be forced to leave the country to receive academic training in the field and Canada will be able to develop the capacity to provide every Canadian with autism with the best IBI and ABA treatment available.

Child Care

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition again, as I have done on every applicable day of the sitting of the House, from people who are concerned about the government's lack of a plan for child care.

This petition is from a place called The Growing Place, a child care centre in my constituency, which I visited last week. The petitioners say, among other things, that 70% of women with children under the age of six are employed, that a taxable $100 a month allowance amounts to a child benefit and will not establish spaces and that child care is an everyday necessity in the country.

They call upon the Prime Minister and the government to honour the early learning and child care agreement in principle and to commit to fund it for a full five years.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again I come before the House and present a petition signed by many people across the country.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to immediately halt the deportation of undocumented workers and to find a humane and logical solution to their situation.

I might add that this weekend I had the pleasure to attend two rallies in Toronto held at Queen's Park and at city hall. The rallies gathered thousands of people from across the GTA who are concerned about the issues and the plight facing undocumented workers. They asked the government to find a logical and humane solution to their problems.

The Environment

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the citizens of Simcoe North, I have two petitions to table today. The first is a petition signed by 195 of my constituents from the riding of Simcoe North. It is an initiative by a Ms. Kelly Clune of my riding, who speaks out on environmental threats and issues and in so doing serves her community in a courageous and committed way.

The petitioners are concerned and believe that polyvinyl chlorides or PVCs are harmful during all stages of production, use and disposal. Given that this type of packaging is abundant and difficult for consumers to avoid and is in most cases not recycled or diverted from landfill and since sensible alternatives to PVCs exist, they ask that Parliament take steps to ban all PVC packaging.

Taxation

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed on behalf of 29 of my constituents from the riding of Simcoe North. I note that this initiative is supported by no less than 11 associations representing up to 1.4 million retired persons.

The petitioners are asking for fairer treatment regarding income splitting. They note that other modern countries allow spouses living in the same household to pay taxes based on the total family income being equally earned. They ask Parliament to allow senior couples the option of splitting all individual retirement income for all pensions, private, superannuation and RIFFs as examples, in a manner that would equalize the taxes assessed to each spouse.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this last day of the debate on the Speech from the Throne. The government’s throne speech has fortunately been amended by a Liberal amendment and a Bloc Québécois subamendment, dealing with the question of older workers’ income when they lose their jobs.

The government’s approach was to include all of the commitments it made during the election campaign in its Speech from the Throne. However, it forgot about a number of other aspects that have to be considered. This must be taken up by the government in what it is now doing. Its status as a minority government means that it had to accept that amendments be moved.

We hope that at the end of the day this Bloc Québécois amendment regarding the support program for older workers will be translated into a concrete measure in the next budget. We must recall that the program was in place before 1995, that it was abolished by the Liberal government at that point, and that it was not considered to be worthwhile to reintroduce it after that.

Today, it is even more worthwhile than ever. We are living in a time of global competition in which our manufacturing businesses have to face competition from every country in the world, and particularly the emerging nations. The consequences are very difficult for economic sectors such as the textile industry, the lumber industry and the furniture industry, all of them sectors that produce goods for which there is tough competition from the emerging nations, with the consequence that a lot of plants have been closed and people who have worked for the same business for 20, 25 or 30 years have been laid off. Those people have often paid employment insurance premiums for their entire career without ever drawing a penny. Now, when they lose their jobs in sectors where wages were not very high, they get a maximum of 45 weeks of employment insurance. After that, there are three, four or five years of uncertainty.

We hope that our industry and our economy, and the wealth it creates, will be able to benefit the people who are also the victims of this new competition. It is not a question of opting out of globalization, it is a question of putting a human face on it.

We have indeed made gains and we will be looking for markets. The government has to move forward by helping businesses and by having investment tax credits that allow for faster amortization.

On the other hand, we also have to make sure that the people who are victims of closures can enjoy some of the benefits, since our society is creating increased wealth. But there is a problem with the distribution of this wealth. The flagrant aspect that must absolutely be corrected is the situation of older workers.

I saw men and women in my riding, in Montmagny, when the Whirlpool company closed. I also saw some in the textile industry in Saint-Pamphile. I have been meeting them too throughout Quebec in the past few months, when we visit industries, when we have meetings with workers and with company owners who would like to see this type of program put in place.

So we very happy that the Bloc’s amendment to the amendment was approved. We now hope that the government will move ahead. In the next budget speech, which has just been announced for May 2, they will have to find a way of giving form to the commitment expressed in the Speech from the Throne. Indeed, with regard to this subject and many others, a Speech from the Throne is a statement of principle, a statement of the government’s commitments and guidelines.

In such a context, for example, the responsibility act, which the government is still calling the accountability act, is a plank from the election platform. We are going to study it in this House. The principle, as such, is interesting, but there will surely be a lot of amendments made to it before it becomes a viable bill that produces the expected results.

It is the same for the other aspects of the Speech from the Throne. There is one line, at most, that mentions competitiveness. For example, everything we are told in the Speech from the Throne on the issue of the more competitive economy is that the government will promote a more competitive, more productive economy. This one sentence will have to lead to concrete action to ensure that our manufacturing companies can get appropriate assistance so that they can maintain their positions, move ahead and develop new markets in the face of new world competition.

It is important because of the current increase in the value of the dollar, because of other aspects of competition from the emerging countries and because of the rise in gas prices. These three things are making life very hard for our businesses. Governments must be sensitive to this and provide measures that will enable our businesses to maintain their productivity and their competitiveness. This will be possible with investment tax credits, accelerated amortization and also research and development programs to create new products. For example, a report was made public today on the marketing of new products. The upcoming budget will have to offer some tangible measures to this effect.

At the same time, the Speech from the Throne leaves out a lot, for example, the whole question of softwood lumber. We understood it from the ignorance of the Minister of Industry, who did not even know what a loan guarantee was. We seem to have backed down on our position towards the Americans. The government should go ahead so as to make sure our businesses can get through the crisis. As the situation stands now, we are going to win the legal battle, but there will no longer be any businesses left to celebrate the victory if we do not grant them loan guarantees to enable them to get through this trying period. We also have to send the Americans the message that we support our businesses and do not expect them to close up shop.

The same is true of agriculture. As we saw today, the first oral question from the Bloc Québécois was about this issue, which is a major concern. The agricultural sector is in the midst of an income crisis that will have a serious detrimental effect not only on our farmers but also on the economies of our rural communities. In Quebec, agriculture is the key factor in economic stabilization. Today, if interest rates were to go up by 2% or 3%, it would be disastrous. People are already in difficulty. The government seems to be doing nothing to address a number of issues, including the entry of products from the United States and the influx of new protein-based products that do not meet our agricultural standards. The government must act. Yet the throne speech does not say one word about this. We need concrete measures in this area.

I would also like to talk about employment insurance. In recent years, because of efforts by the Bloc Québécois and other members of this House, the government has set up pilot projects that have resulted in a special status for seasonal workers in areas of high unemployment. This has allowed them to earn a little more money without having their benefits cut.

One of these measures expires on June 4, 2006. It is the addition of five weeks of benefits to the conventional schedule to eliminate or at least substantially reduce what is called the springtime black hole. Seasonal workers who work for 20 or 25 weeks are entitled to about 30 weeks of benefits. Before the new season starts, they are without an income for four to eight weeks. That is what is called the spring black hole or gap.

We managed to get a three-year pilot project established that gave these workers five additional weeks of benefits. This pilot project runs out in June. It is important for the government to announce a three-year extension very soon so that it lasts as long as the other measures that were taken to protect seasonal workers. This would give us a more solid set-up to protect our seasonal workers.

This is not tantamount to giving these people charity. Our regional economies need the seasonal work. It is an important part of our economy. We expect the government to act quickly.

The government took the fact that it is a minority into account. This was reflected in the Speech from the Throne. The government consulted the other party leaders, which made it possible to arrive at amendments that enriched the speech. The proof can be seen in the fact that at no stage was a recorded division needed. Ultimately, the House is satisfied with this amended Speech from the Throne.

Beginning tomorrow, the government should take specific steps to honour the commitments it made in the Speech from the Throne. That is what Quebeckers expect. They expect it especially in regard to an international presence for Quebec and the fiscal imbalance. In the latter case, urgent action is needed.

In conclusion, I hope to see the government take specific steps to accomplish what was promised in the Speech from the Throne, especially the measure to assist older workers who lose their jobs.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first off, I congratulate my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup on the quality of his speech and on highlighting the major shortcomings of this throne speech, namely as concerns the social safety net for the public in general and workers in particular. I am grateful to him as well for stressing the employment insurance program.

I would like to hear what he has to say about the fate of the employment insurance fund over the years. How is it that, today, nearly 60% of workers contributing to EI cannot expect to receive benefits when they are laid off? How did the misappropriation of the fund occur over the past 10 years? We will likely see the impact that has had on the employment insurance program, of course, and on the use made of the funds.

In short, should the money misappropriated from the EI fund be returned to it and how must that be done?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It brings a terrible situation to light.

In the years of Liberal government, that is, from 1993-94 to last year, the government systematically collected employment insurance contributions, year in and year out. However, this money went to something other than the employment insurance plan. The amount misappropriated and used for purposes other than for what it was intended was $48 billion. It went to fund government spending, spending of a totally different sort.

The Liberal government turned employment insurance contributions into a payroll tax, but did not honour the spirit of the fund. Accordingly, programs that appeared totally relevant and improvements to the plan that appeared equally relevant were not put in place. The money had been already allocated elsewhere.

How do they explain the fact that there is no program for older workers—there was one until 1995—when surpluses are being accumulated year after year?

The answer to this question is to put in place, as soon as possible, an independent employment insurance fund, a fund in which the contributions of employers and employees will be used only for the employment insurance program, cannot be used to finance other activities of the government, and cannot be used to finance repayment of the debt. It is disgraceful to have the debt repaid on the back of the most disadvantaged people in society when high-income earners have not had to make such an effort when it was time to do so. There has been no return on investment for those who have done their part, through the employment insurance fund itself. There have been no benefits for them. So this is an important element which we do not find in the throne speech. It would have been interesting to see the Conservatives return to the position they held when they were in opposition, that is, accept the idea of an independent fund, set it up and ensure that we can move in that direction.

What will they do about the surpluses in the fund that have been misappropriated? What will they do to ensure that the people who have been denied them can have the benefit of them?

I hope that the idea of an independent employment insurance fund is put back on the table as soon as possible, is adopted by this government, and I hope we can look into how to ensure that the funds that were diverted in the past can be used to finance programs that are very much justified. For example, we could convert certain pilot projects dealing with seasonal workers, who survive from year to year, into permanent programs. In that way our seasonal industries would be recognized for what they are, and our regional industries could guarantee their own continuity. We expect this sort of action on the part of the government. Let us learn from the past and close this loophole, which was used by the Liberal government for many years.

It is the duty of the Conservative government not only to denounce what the Liberals have done, but also to put a program in place. In recent years the Bloc Québécois has proposed certain bills. The government could easily revisit them to ensure that this happens and that we create fairness in this employment sector again, because one never knows, even in a period of economic growth, what the needs will be one year, two years or three years down the road. Even in a period of great economic growth, there are always sectors that do not achieve the same results. That is why it is important for the government to take this sort of action.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Leeds—Grenville.

First, I would like to thank the people of Chatham-Kent—Essex for the confidence and trust they have placed in me by giving me the great and noble honour of representing them in this, the 39th Parliament.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my wife, who is sitting here today in the gallery, as well as the rest of my family for the support they have given me over the past few years to help make it possible for me to be here today.

I would also like to thank the Minister of Agriculture for coming to Chatham-Kent—Essex and meeting with 30 farm leaders, including the grassroots group, and five local members of Parliament to discuss and hear their ideas and suggestions toward the creation of a new, workable farm program, one that will ensure future prosperity for all Canadian farmers.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment to the Chair. I look forward to working with you and all 307 of my colleagues in this Parliament.

I would like to take this time to honour the soldiers who gave their lives and to offer my most humble and sincere condolences to their families. We are forever indebted to their bravery and sacrifice. God bless all of them.

Our military is fighting for a strong Canada, defending our sovereignty and giving security to our citizens. Internationally, it is becoming more and more apparent that we are living in an increasingly dangerous and hostile world where many do not share our world vision, but if we are to be a light to the nations, a beacon of hope to the oppressed, we need to encourage others to share in the blessings and benefits of democracy and freedom. We must be ever vigilant.

Our anthem states, “O Canada, we stand on guard for thee”. Standing guard implies a show of force, a deterrent to those who war against free speech, freedom of religion and freedom-loving people, and so we support the government's resolve to strengthen our military and supply our brave men and women in our forces with the equipment and training they so desperately need.

I am proud of the bravery displayed by our forces in Afghanistan. My parents came from a country that was overtaken by a foreign army led by a murderous tyrant who posed a horrific threat to mankind's struggle for freedom. My father fought in the underground and lost a brother to the Nazi death camps. I know at first hand what the fight for freedom has brought my family. If it were not for the bravery shown by the Canadian Forces back in World War II, many, including me, would not be able to share in our blessed freedom. Today, children in the Netherlands gather every May 5 and lay flowers at the graves of the mighty and the brave who fought for freedom. Let me say with the Netherlands what has been said since May 1945, “Thanks, Canada”.

On January 23, the people of Chatham-Kent—Essex voted overwhelmingly to clean up government. I support the government's commitment to change the way we do business in Ottawa with the tabling of the new federal accountability act. The act will bring openness and transparency to government and will renew public trust in our institutions and elected officials.

The GST reduction is also something that is being eagerly awaited by the people of my riding. They are tired of paying high taxes. This reduction is a clear indication of the direction the government is taking and will continue to take, giving back to hard-working Canadians the money they have earned and need. This is a visible tax reduction. Perhaps the government's brave action may spur on similar actions in our provincial governments.

In Windsor this summer, along with leaders in law and security, I had the privilege to sit with the task force on safe streets and healthy communities. I listened as they expressed their concerns and their frustration with a system that is failing Canadians and hog-tying law enforcement officers. I am encouraged by the government's commitment to bring back safe communities by tackling crime and improving the security of our border.

I personally have two sons who serve as police officers and have seen and heard the frustration experienced by the men and women in blue who guard our streets and homes. They need and deserve our support and they welcome a government that is working with them to improve our nation's law enforcement.

As the father of eight children, I, with my wife, am especially proud of this government's commitment to support our families with the commitment to encourage families to choose and to make their choices for child care. As a parent, I can assure members that parents know and want to make the choice for child care. The parents of Chatham-Kent--Essex have repeatedly expressed support for this program.

The people of my riding are expressing an increasing level of angst about patient wait times. Our government's commitment of a patient wait time guarantee is long overdue and is welcomed by all with whom I have discussed the plan. Our government will finally provide Canadians with the quality health care they deserve.

The government has also made a commitment to the great people of Quebec, something that the people of Chatham-Kent--Essex applaud. This government shares with the people of Quebec its vision of an open and federalist Canada that recognizes a Quebec in a united Canada. The prospects of mutual respect and collaboration have proven to attract Quebeckers, as evidenced by the strong results made by this party in the last election.

I am also encouraged by the government's direction of restoring and improving relations with our best friend and trading partner. In Chatham-Kent--Essex, the importance of good relations with the United States is especially so for our vegetable and greenhouse growers, who rely on open borders without delay, as most of their product goes south to over 200 million customers. They must get their products there quickly.

The greenhouse growing industry around the town of Leamington in our riding is the largest in North America. The hard-working people who operate these facilities and those who are dependent on its well-being deserve nothing less.

Manufacturers in our riding are also committed to timely delivery of the products by way of just in time delivery. We need open borders.

We have a saying in Chatham-Kent--Essex where we remind one another that we cannot curse our neighbours and expect to sit at their banquet table.

We are indeed privileged to serve, in these great halls, a great and brave people, and I am proud to serve today with a government which will ensure that the principles of honesty, integrity, hard work, family values, justice and bravery will be lived out in a place that rewards the people of this great land with a good and honest government that cares for the needs of all its people.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in this place today and take this opportunity to speak in response to the Speech from the Throne that was delivered earlier this month by Her Excellency the Governor General.

As our leader the Prime Minister stated on January 23 Canadians voted for change. They rejected 13 years of scandal and inaction. They rejected business as usual. They said that it was time for government to turn a new leaf. They asked us to make those changes and turn that new leaf.

The Speech from the Throne introduces those changes. It marks a turning point for the Government of Canada. It marks a change whereby the government will be more responsive to Canadians.

Some in this place have criticized that speech. I say it sets a solid foundation from which to launch a new era in our history. I say that although we have outlined five priorities, some of those are huge undertakings and once those foundations have been laid, we can continue forward.

In the recent election our party promised to act immediately on five key issues: accountability in government, choice in child care, cracking down on crime, working with the provinces to produce a health care wait time guarantee, and lowering the GST. The Speech from the Throne outlines these priorities.

It is important to note that the Speech from the Throne is just that, an outline, like a report on a book. It cannot possibly be expected to present all the details.

All of these priorities are important in my riding of Leeds—Grenville and the citizens in my riding are supportive. Two weeks ago we heard some of the details that flow from the Speech from the Throne as the government introduced the federal accountability act. Anyone who has read that will understand how the five priorities, although seemingly short, are merely a shell of the work that has to be accomplished to meet these five priorities.

The Speech from the Throne offered more than only these five priorities. It also spoke to other concerns in my riding. One of these issues is agriculture. Once again we saw farmers here on Parliament Hill today. Agriculture is of great concern in my riding of Leeds—Grenville because it is a rural riding. When there is a problem in the agriculture sector it ripples through the economy throughout my riding and throughout our country. It affects almost everyone.

Over the past few years our farmers have been reeling as they lurch from one crisis to another. The beef industry, the dairy industry, grains and oilseeds, and pork; all sectors have felt the heavy hand of fate. I was pleased to see that agriculture was included in the Speech from the Throne. I am pleased to know that this government is committed to our farmers.

I want to spend the majority of my time today talking about the government's priorities in tackling crime. This too is an issue in my riding, especially because we have two major border crossings along the southern edge of my riding. From my riding we can see the United States. In fact, the people of Leeds—Grenville and other ridings along the St. Lawrence River have a long and proud history with our neighbours to the south, dating from before Confederation. Culturally and economically we have always been neighbours in the true sense of the word.

Despite the global threats of terrorism, the law-abiding residents of my riding who live and work along the border continue to view the border as something they need to work with to help our economy. They must be able to travel back and forth to work to improve that economy.

We also live in a world full of threats. Criminals take advantage of the good nature of our relationship with the United States and continue to smuggle guns, drugs, people and many other items and commodities across that border. This is big business to this element of society in Canada and the United States and it is an expensive business.

As a result, the threats to the men and women who are employed by the Canada Border Services Agency increase each and every year. During the last Parliament we learned that an independent report which stated that our border guards should be armed was altered to state that they should not be armed. I and others stood in this place and asked why the government continued to place our border guards at serious risk. Since then we have seen examples of border guards walking away from their posts when they learned of approaching threats.

We have also learned of the results of another study that has also concluded that Canadian border guards should be armed. I am pleased to say that the Speech from the Throne stated that the government will improve the security of our borders.

I am also pleased that the government, through the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice, is working on options to ensure that our border guards will be better protected from those in the criminal community who would threaten them. We cannot adequately protect our country if our borders are porous because our border security is weak. I applaud these announcements.

I am also pleased that other crime and security measures were introduced in the throne speech. While my riding is not known for crime, the people of Leeds and Grenville certainly have opinions about crime and justice. They were sickened by the Liberal approach to chronic and serious offenders. They do not subscribe to the hug a thug mantra of the former government. They are tired of the revolving door in and out of jails for those committing the worst crimes in our country. They are tired of watching criminals receive double time credits for time served before trial. They are tired of bargains and cop-outs. I know that they are heartened by the announcement in the Speech from the Throne that this government will crack down on crime.

Personally I will continue my pursuit of mandatory prison sentences for people who commit murder with knives. Several years ago a promising young man from my riding, Andy Moffit, was killed here in Ottawa in a bar fight with a knife. In the last Parliament I introduced a private member's bill calling for mandatory prison sentences for those who use knives in killings. For Andy's family I will continue to pursue this legislation. Deterrents for those tossing knives in their pockets, knives that often end up being used in the commission of crimes, must be in place.

Canadians, including those in Leeds and Grenville, have a right to feel safe and secure in their own communities and in those communities they choose to visit. They are pleased that this government will bring in legislation to restrict the use of conditional sentences for serious crimes. They are pleased that this government will bring in legislation to increase mandatory prison sentences for firearms offences. They are pleased that this government will put more police officers on the streets. They are pleased that this government will do all this while addressing the issue of at risk youth to ensure we no longer breed criminals. This government will do this by working with the provinces, territories and other partners to support solutions that end the cycle of violence that can lead to broken lives.

Canadians elected a new government on January 23. They elected a new government to effect change in Canada and to turn a new leaf. We promised to work on five key issues that affect all Canadians. The Speech from the Throne shows Canadians that we meant what we promised during the election and that we intend to keep those promises.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville, for his speech. I would like to ask him about one point he made, which was that the Speech from the Throne sets the foundation for the policy announced by the Conservative government. The hon. member will recognize, as I do, that something very important is missing in the Speech from the Throne. It does not address employment insurance, which affects workers.

The Conservatives promised to create an independent employment insurance fund. They did so when they were in opposition, voting with us on this matter. During the election campaign and after their election, the Prime Minister and his party promised to create this fund. Why is there no mention of this in the Speech from the Throne? This is my first question.

My second question also concerns the employment insurance fund. Like us, the Conservatives recognized that the money diverted from the employment insurance fund over the last 10 years by the previous government--an amount totaling $48 billion--must be returned to that fund. There is nothing on this in the throne speech. Nor is there any indication in the speeches given by members of the current government to suggest that they still intend to return this money.

I would like my colleague to address these concerns. How can he explain this significant omission in the Speech from the Throne?

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question because there are a lot of issues to do with the EI fund and how it was managed by the former government, but the fact is that we are putting forward the five priorities that we fully intend to act upon at this time. We made many promises in the election campaign. Canadians are going to find that this party and this government will deliver on its promises.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that I will be splitting my time with the member from Beaches—East York.

First of all, I would like to thank the voters and all the volunteers in the riding of West Nova who returned me to Ottawa for a third term. It is an honour and a pleasure to be here with my colleagues.

It is an honour and a privilege to be here to speak in response to the Speech from the Throne.

Like many Canadians, I was quite concerned with what I heard on April 4.

Over the last 15 years the previous government had fiscally responsible budgets and built a very strong economy. We eliminated the deficit in 1997. We delivered seven consecutive surpluses. We reduced the national debt by more than $61 billion. At the same time we reduced taxes and made important strategic investments in our social and economic priorities.

Despite such a good economic track record, however, there is a complete lack of vision on the other side of the House. Having inherited such a good financial situation, the Conservatives still have no idea where they want to bring this country. The Speech from the Throne is an important opportunity to outline the government's vision for our country.

The Prime Minister squandered this opportunity and delivered a stump speech that was long on rhetoric but short on substance. His pamphlet from the throne does little to address the issues that matter in rural Nova Scotia and particularly in West Nova, which is why I want to take this opportunity to speak for the residents of my constituency and raise but a few of their concerns.

In many ways my riding is a microcosm of rural Canada and Canada itself. Our local economy is dominated by manufacturing, a military base, agriculture, the fur industry, fishing, tourism and others. Our communities are vibrant centres. I am proud to represent such hard-working and dedicated Canadians. They deserve better than the government plans to deliver.

In an area dominated by the fishing industry, wharves are essential to the long term economic sustainability of my riding. It is important that the government develop and maintain a responsible way to manage these wharves and protect the way of life. The community of Digby illustrates this issue well.

In 1999 the Government of Canada transferred ownership of the wharf of Digby to the Maritime Harbour Society, along with $3 million for its upkeep. The transfer has been a dismal failure. The wharf is in a state of disrepair. Serious allegations have been raised about the use of the funds. After several years of legal proceedings, the arbitrator has finally reported his findings. There is no longer any reason to delay the return of this wharf to the community that depends on it for its livelihood.

When the Conservatives were in opposition, they said they would take quick and immediate action to resolve this situation. During the election they repeated this promise. The situation in Digby is not the fault of government, but it alone has the capability of remedying it. I call on the government to do it immediately, as well as to invest in all our wharves.

The concern that people from southwestern Nova Scotia, and from all regions of Atlantic Canada, may have is investment in regional economic development. For Atlantic Canada, the ACOA is very important. We have made major progress. There have been major investments in Atlantic Canada and there are lots of projects under way.

We are uncertain about what the future holds for us with the next government. We know that the minister responsible for the ACOA should be very familiar with the issues. Still, he is also the minister responsible for Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and foreign affairs. He does not have a lot of time and his parliamentary secretaries are not from the Atlantic provinces. We do not know what the intentions of this government and its prime minister are concerning these investments, and we are asking for some clarifications.

Probably no issue better illustrates the difference in thinking between the current government and 70% of Canadians than early childhood development. The Conservatives have an idea and a principle, and we have to recognize the fact that they formed the government and some elements of their principles have been respected or adopted by Canadians.

Those members talk about choices for Canadians. Not all Canadians want their young children to be in day care or early learning institutions or groups or other things. They may want their children to be in family settings. We must recognize that, and I accept that. However, when those members talk about choices, it means that the options must be there in communities for people to make those choices. Without a true investment in early childhood education, those choices cannot be there. They cannot be there for western Nova Scotia.

The government can talk about all the tax breaks and tax advantage negotiations it wants, but those tax breaks will not get to rural Canada or to the official minority language communities. Those tax breaks will not increase the salaries of workers in day care facilities across this country who have to raise funds to pay themselves a minimum wage in order to take care of our next generation. We depend on these people. That requires an investment. There can be other options such as the at home option.

I do not think a direct transfer to parents is a bad idea. I would support the federal government because it ran on that. The government has the right, and I would even say the responsibility, to do that. How to do it is the question?

Can there be a compromise? Can the government recognize the fact that 64% or 66% of the people in Canada voted for other parties who had another vision? Can the government not give some direct transfers to families and still invest in early childhood education across this country? Can the government not recognize the fact that expenses do not stop at six years of age, that investment has to be continually made in those children?

If the government is going to make transfers, then why look at a system which would give more money to the wealthy and less to the needy? Why not increase the amount of money in child tax credits, for example, which assists the more needy? There are compromises to be had. I want to work with the governing party to achieve those compromises in the interest of all Canadians.

Another area that the government talks about, and which I agree with, is tax relief, but I believe it has to be strategic. It has to be well done and it has to be done in a way that would sustain our communities and our society, and invests in our competitiveness for the future. A reduction in GST alone will not assist a lot if it comes with a decrease in basic personal exemptions, and if it comes with an increase in taxes to lower income Canadians and moderate income Canadians. It will not help those families.

However, it will help the person who is buying a brand new Mercedes Benz. One-fifteenth of the tax on that would be a bit less money. A reduction in GST alone will not help families in Nova Scotia that are struggling to make ends meet where the vast majority of their revenue is going toward buying basic needs that are already GST free. Why not look at a way to have a balanced tax reduction that would help those who need it the most?

Education is not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. Does the government not recognize the necessity of secondary and post-secondary education?

Is it not true that the costs of this education are rising in Canada, especially in the regions, whether in the minority or majority language? Students’ debt load continues to increase.

We had presented a plan to that effect. The government may not want to accept it as is, but it could at least study it in order to see whether there are any elements that could be adopted. Could we not invest in our institutions? Could we not ensure the competitiveness of our country and future generations?

We have to recognize what has been achieved in Canada since 1992 with investments in our universities and investments in research and development. We have also talked about the brain drain and the exodus of Canadians who have to go to the ends of the earth to find work. In recent years, we have realized that people want to come to Canada. In Halifax, there are even investments for companies such as Research in Motion. We have seen some 1,200 positions created thanks to investments from the federal government.

This way we would encourage people to carry on, we would encourage our governments and the development of our universities.

I speak of universities, but I could speak of community colleges or trade schools. I could speak of all sorts of educational opportunities that are out there supporting our economy that our students and our workers need access to and that require investment.

I recognize that the governing party won the election and it has an agenda to put forward. I ask those members to recognize the fact that they won a minority government, and Canadians expect them to compromise and to work with the other parties. Maybe Canadians were tired of us in government and wanted a change, but that does not mean that they wanted a whole scale change in policy and direction, and the ways things were going. It is time to study and look at those things.

Canadians in Atlantic Canada are still afraid of the Prime Minister. In my riding, they sometimes call him a shrub. I am a francophone, but I believe that is the proper English word for a small bush. We must demonstrate that we are still an independent country. This is Canada. We must demonstrate that we can govern ourselves for the betterment of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the voters in Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for placing their trust in me for the second time. I want to assure them that I will do everything I can to represent them effectively.

I thank my colleague for his remarks. He touched on something that is dear to my heart and an important issue to the vast majority of voters in my riding: port infrastructure. As my colleague knows, there are several ports in the beautiful lower St. Lawrence region. We also have a pressing need for investment.

I would appreciate knowing the hon. member's opinion on the port infrastructure divestiture program and the urgent need to renew that program. In his speech, he gave one example. I will give another. People on both sides of the St. Lawrence, in both Les Escoumins and Trois-Pistoles, need an immediate response from the government. They are waiting for an answer. It is disappointing that the throne speech says nothing about transportation infrastructure, particularly ports.

I would like to know the member's opinion about the urgent need to renew the program. When municipalities or corporations so choose, when intermunicipal boards are created, they should be able to take advantage of divestiture programs in future in order to help the regional economy recover, in my region as in his.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to have been part of the previous government and I am also very proud of our accomplishments.

As a parliamentarian, a member of Parliament, an individual and a citizen from a rural area, I must admit that all of our programs did not function fully everywhere. The port divestiture program was good for Montreal, Halifax, Vancouver and perhaps St. John's. As far as the smaller ports are concerned, there were major difficulties. In some cases, it was an utter failure.

It takes maturity to overhaul these programs and recognize that for some facilities, whether the public ports or part of the infrastructure, an overhaul is absolutely necessary. We all pay a little bit through our taxes for maintaining the economy of all these regional and rural communities.

I am talking about the port of Digby, but there are others in our country. The hon. member knows about a number of them I am sure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech. I always enjoy listening to him in the House because he certainly gets a lot of words in during his speech in the House. He has mentioned a couple of things that I certainly agree with that are concerns about the Speech from the Throne.

The first is child care. I had a chance last week to visit three more child care centres in my riding which were really concerned that after years of hope we finally had made some progress. People had a real sense that something was coming that was going to transform child care in Canada and they were disappointed.

I want to ask the member specifically though about the issue of regional development. He touched on it briefly. In Atlantic Canada, there is a great deal of concern about regional development. ACOA is an institution that has made a big difference in the economic well-being of Atlantic Canadians.

In this Parliament, we have one minister from Nova Scotia who is the minister for both ACOA and foreign affairs. We believe in Atlantic Canada that Canada has a big role to play in the world. We also think it has a big role to play in Atlantic Canada. I wonder if the member could give us his view about how concerned he might be about the future of regional development in Atlantic Canada.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see the important position that the member from Pictou received. He is a well respected member of the House and as Minister of Foreign Affairs I wish him very well. It is a very difficult portfolio. However, being a cabinet minister takes up all of the time of this member of Parliament and to think that one can do that and be the regional minister for two provinces.

In Quebec, the government did not even think it had enough members of Parliament for a minister to be responsible for Montreal. It had to bring in a senator from outside to do that. However, the government brought in a member from Nova Scotia to be responsible for ACOA.

What I fear is the signal that it sends, of the importance that the Prime Minister gives to ACOA and regional economic development. It seems a little like an afterthought. He had a minister with seven other responsibilities and two parliamentary secretaries from other parts of the country. Therefore, I am quite fearful and we will be watching it closely.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour and privilege to once again join my colleagues in this House to discuss and debate issues of pressing concern to our constituents.

I would like to thank the voters of Beaches--East York for the confidence they have once again placed in me as their representative. I am grateful for their continued support and I will work hard to ensure that their views are well-represented in this House.

I must say that the recent Speech from the Throne was very disappointing to me because it failed to address a number of issues of pressing concern to Canadians.

The speech contained some catchy phrases but very few real measures to address the concerns of Canadians. Canadians deserve more than government slogans. Nowhere is the need to go beyond slogans more apparent than in the area of early education and child care.

The government has adopted the phrase “choice in child care” to represent its views on the issue. In light of what the government has said about its intentions so far, I can only assume that the phrase is meant to be ironic. In fact, if the government insists on moving forward in the direction it has suggested, it will leave many parents with no choice at all. One cannot buy something that does not exist, and the government's plan will not create any new child care spaces.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business says tax incentives for business will not create new child care spaces. This approach did not work in Ontario under the Harris government and it has not worked in New Brunswick. The minister responsible admits that this is true, but proposes to move ahead with it anyway.

The minister believes that the not for profit community will create new spaces, but does not say where we will get the money for this. The minister has talked about a one time only funding to cover some of the capital costs of starting up a child care facility. The experts agree that this approach will not work either and this government knows it will not work.

The only way to increase the number of quality early learning and child care spaces available to Canadians is through sustained, multi-year funding. This is the one approach this government refuses to consider.

Early education and child care is not just a social policy; it is also an economic policy. Our prosperity and productivity are directly affected by how much we invest in early childhood development. So is the level of poverty in our society.

As the governor of the Bank of Canada, David Dodge, put it, “the first step to improving skills is to build an excellent infrastructure for early childhood development”.

The development of the brain starts very early in life and the early years are the most important for cognitive development. The level of support we provide for early education has a big impact on the ability of our citizens to learn later in life. As such, it has a direct impact on their economic prospects.

The vast majority of Canadian parents work. Approximately 70% of women with children under the age of six are employed. For these women, child care is not optional; it is an economic necessity. Depending on their income level and the number of income earners in their household, the proposed child care allowance is likely to provide them with somewhere between $1.50 and $4.00 a day for child care; a fraction of the actual cost. This is not a child care policy. I hasten to add that this is also not an effective income support policy.

A recent report by the Caledon Institute pointed out that after taxes and clawbacks of other benefits, the overwhelming majority of Canadian families will receive much less than the proposed $1,200. The biggest losers will be the modest income families in the $30,000 to $40,000 range. To quote the Caledon Institute, “The distribution of benefits makes no social or economic sense”.

In fact, the plan does not live up to basic standards of fairness. It would pay working poor families less than upper income families and would also favour one earner families over single parent families and two earner families. This is a double injustice.

When it comes to ensuring that the needs of children are met in this country, we already have an appropriate mechanism for income support. It is called the national child benefit.

If the Conservative government wants to improve income support for parents, including those who choose to stay at home, it should increase the Canada child tax credit and raise the income level at which a family qualifies for it.

Not only does the government not believe in early education and care, it appears from the throne speech that it does not place a high priority on education at any level. There was no mention of post-secondary education in the throne speech.

By contrast, the previous Liberal government assisted more than 20,000 students in low income families with their first year of tuition by creating the Canada access grants.

In our economic and fiscal update last fall, we proposed to extend these grants through all four years of an undergraduate degree. We also proposed a new fifty-fifty plan to pay for half of the first and last year's tuition for all undergraduate studies. Given the current government's seeming lack of ideas in this area, I think I speak for my colleagues in saying that we would not mind if it borrowed one or two of ours.

There were a number of other priorities that were neglected in the throne speech as well. There is no time to recount all of them but very briefly we would like to call attention to the following areas.

There was no mention in the Speech from the Throne of affordable housing, a very critical area of need. In particular, the government should clarify whether it intends to follow through on the commitment of $1.6 billion in additional spending outlined in the Liberal budget.

Cities were also neglected in the throne speech. There was no mention of infrastructure, additional money for public transit or continued transfers of a portion of the gas tax. In short, there was no vision for the future of our cities.

I am also concerned about the lack of priority given to the environment. The government has stated that it has no intention of meeting our targets under the Kyoto protocol and has already cut a large percentage of federal funding for climate change programs. It talks about a made in Canada solution, as if project green, our Kyoto implementation plan, were written in some other country. Canada is now in the embarrassing position of chairing the post-Kyoto implementation of the UN framework on climate change with a government that is not committed to Kyoto itself. The government should clarify whether it intends to pull out of Kyoto or whether it intends to simply ignore our commitments under the protocol. Either way, it is a disgrace for Canada.

Seniors were also left out of the Speech from the Throne. Issues that have direct bearing and impact on their well-being were simply not mentioned: the privatization of our health care system that affects all of us, but especially our aging population; the improvement of long term care, which is very fundamental and needs to be developed; affordable housing, which I mentioned earlier but bears mentioning here because it is something that affects the senior population very directly and it is absolutely necessary that we do something about that. These are areas that were left out.

I might say that I was also quite surprised not to see a mention of women's issues. These are all women's issues but for women in general, the pay equity issue was not mentioned and the gender based analysis which has to be done sooner or later in this country if we are to ensure that we have equity.

Again there is the issue of diversity and multiculturalism. The Prime Minister did not even appoint a minister for multiculturalism. When I asked the question of the minister a couple of weeks ago, she said that the program was being reviewed. Multiculturalism is not a project. It is not a program that is funded. It is a philosophy. It is a policy. It is a vision of this country. It affects every department and it needs to have a minister at the table to enforce that philosophy and to ensure that every department across the government implements the philosophy of multiculturalism, otherwise people are left out. exclusivity is lost because policies have to be formed by the multiculturalism and diversity philosophy. If not, policies in this country will be developed and will miss the mark. They will miss the fact that some policies will create barriers without anyone knowing about it.

Multiculturalism is fundamental to this country. We have a multiculturalism act. A section in the Constitution talks about multiculturalism but we do not have a minister for the first time since 1972. The present government is the first ever not to appoint a separate multiculturalism minister. This is offensive, to say the least, to the issue of diversity. The government likes to talk a great deal about diversity in this country and yet does nothing about it. I have no minister to go to. No one has a minister to go to. Quite frankly, multiculturalism is not part of the title of the minister who answered the question and therefore she is not the minister responsible and should not have answered the question. On the day I asked it there actually was nobody in the House to answer the question which says something about the government's position on that issue.

I really feel that the government has a long way to go before it comes anywhere close to meeting the needs of the nation.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time you have been in the chair when I have addressed the House I would like to congratulate you on your appointment as acting Speaker.

The Prime Minister will ask Parliament to approve the choice in child care allowance. I wonder why the member for Beaches—East York does not support giving $1,200 per child. Does she prefer the status quo, which is zero? It is clear where the government stands. Now it is time for the Liberal Party to stand up for universal child care.

Canada's new government's approach requires no federal-provincial negotiations, no funding for academics, researchers or special interest groups, and it cuts out the political and bureaucratic middle men. It will provide real support and direct payment as soon as Parliament approves it.

The previous government spent a lot of time talking about child care but, after 13 years of rhetoric, no one can find those universally free, readily accessible, federally created day care spaces. Ordinary parents who work hard, pay their taxes and play by the rules do not have a taxpayer funded lobby group. They do not hold demonstrations and make regular trips to Ottawa for news conferences but they support our plan. We intend to support them by keeping our promise of making choice in child care a reality.

The national child care program never materialized and now Canadian parents are waiting for the opposition parties to stand up for them, like the government is standing up for parents, the experts in child care, mom and dad. Where did all the money go with zero spots created under the previous Liberal government?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that is not true. In Toronto, the $5 billion investment would have provided 6,000 new spaces this year alone, never mind the commitment for the next 10 years. I will not even go there.

The fact is that just because the government has a slogan that says “choice in child care allowance” does not mean there is any choice. There is choice for some parents but not for all parents. It is quite clear, because this taxable, that it would actually raise the income level of families to $30,000 or $40,000 where they would lose. Not only do they not get enough of the $1,200, they only get about 32%, they also lose other benefits like the child tax credit because this would raise their incomes.

This is not a choice. It would not create any new spaces and if there are no spaces what do they choose from? They cannot choose from anything. This gives absolutely nothing. This is empty rhetoric and it would actually hurt families. It chooses among some and not others. It chooses some families and leaves out others. Single earner families would benefit but double earner families would not. Low income families would benefit and upper income families might. This is absolutely unacceptable.

There are no spaces to choose from. No spaces are being created. The $1,200 child care allowance is a figment of somebody's imagination. The way it would work is totally unfair. It would hit some families but miss others. It is totally unacceptable and there is absolutely nothing to choose from.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time on my feet in the 39th Parliament I would like to extend my thanks to my constituents for returning me to this place. I am deeply honoured and hope I live up to the trust they have placed in me.

For the most part, I agree with what the member for Beaches—East York had to say. I thought it was interesting that the member specifically talked about cities. Being from Toronto, of course, the hon. member would know the importance of a city's agenda.

It took 12 years to get to the point where the federal Liberals finally acknowledged that one cannot have healthy regional, provincial and federal economies without having healthy local, municipal economies. They were finally ready to start putting some money there, many thanks to the NDP budget, Bill C-48, which actually flowed serious money into that agenda.

The member's interim leader said in the past that the Liberals would be absolutely opposed to anything the government did and that they would vote against it. If, through negotiation, we could actually get something in front of this House that advanced the cities' agenda in a serious way, would the Liberals step down from this petulant position and be prepared to vote and actually pass legislation that would help cities or will they just continue with their arms crossed, holding their breath, stamping their feet, saying they want to be back in government and that until that changes they are not prepared to do anything positive?