Debates of Oct. 19th, 2007

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg South.

As was clearly stated in the Speech from the Throne, nowhere is Canada making a difference more clearly than in Afghanistan. We know Canadians want their country to play a world leadership role and that is why Canada joined the United Nations sanctioned mission in Afghanistan.

We are there because we believe Canada should live up to its international responsibilities. We are there because it is the right thing to do. The goals jointly spelled out by the Afghan government and the international community could not be clearer. I am quite sure that none of us here want to jeopardize the progress that has been made by Afghans and their international partners since 2001.

Now is not the time to lose our resolve. Much has been accomplished in the past six years. Afghans have suffered through decade after decade of war, leaving most of their country's infrastructure destroyed. They are looking to the international community to help Afghanistan get back on its feet.

Canada, along with 60 nations and international organizations, is helping Afghanistan to become a stable, democratic and self-sustaining state. Canadians understand that development and security go hand in hand. Without security there can be no humanitarian aid, no reconstruction and no democratic development.

There is no better measure of this progress than the four million Afghan boys and two million girls who can dream of a better future because they now go to school. These children will be the stewards of Afghanistan's long term recovery.

Let us talk about what we all agree on. All members in the House are proud of the progress that Canadians have contributed to in Afghanistan. We are proud of 17,500 community development councils that have been created through the national solidarity program, to which Canada has contributed over $20 million in the past year.

There are over 500 community councils in Kandahar province alone. These make possible development projects that are locally chosen, implemented and owned. Already in Kandahar bridges have been built, roads paved, wells dug and power lines strung. These are essential ingredients in the long term stability and prosperity for the country as a whole.

Then there is the microfinance program. Consider that there are 380,000 participants, of whom about 75% are women. Ten thousand more Afghans gain access to small loans every month to start a small business, to buy livestock or to invest in agriculture. The repayment rate is over 90%. Canada, I am proud to say, is the largest donor to this program, with $56 million in support, and now it is on the verge of self-sufficiency.

The Afghanistan Compact, the joint plan developed by the Afghan national government and over 60 members of the international community in January 2006, guides our engagement. Building on the political and institutional accomplishments of recent years, it lays out detailed benchmarks over 40 areas: in security, in governance, rule of law, human rights and in economic and social development. The whole international community, including Canada, is behind these goals. The Government of Canada is behind these goals and I am sure that every member of the House is, too.

Afghanistan is on a path to peace and prosperity. The international community is determined that nothing will derail the country from this track. That is why there is a 37 nation International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, to which Canada is an important contributor. This international force is there so that the goals of the Afghanistan Compact can be met and so that the Afghan National Army and National Police can be developed to the point where they will be capable of taking over in the future.

Here we come to the crux of the matter. Every member of the House is in favour of peace, but we must recognize that the path to peace will take commitment, determination and patience.

We owe it to diplomatic and development workers and to those who are there as advisors and mentors to inculcate good governance through Afghan institutions and to provide the safe environment they need in which to do their work. It is not just Canadian efforts that are at stake. This is a cooperative endeavour.

Just as Canadians rely on other nations for security in other parts of the country, we are responsible in Kandahar for enabling the work of the United Nations and other agencies. It is a big responsibility and one that we cannot take lightly or contemplate abandoning without carefully weighing the consequences. That is why the Prime Minister has appointed an independent panel on Canada's future role in Afghanistan, which will advise Parliament on options for the mission after the current mandate ends in February 2009.

We firmly believe that the Afghan people deserve a chance to escape the tragic poverty and under-development that has plagued their country for decades. In fact, improving Afghanistan's future is the purpose of our mission. Like Afghans themselves, we believe a more secure, more stable and more prosperous Afghanistan is essential.

Despite strong economic growth in the past few years, it is still one of the poorest countries in the world. Without better education and better health care, it will be very difficult for the Afghan people to get ahead.

Canada and Canadians have much to give and we have a moral obligation to help. Afghanistan is currently the number one recipient of Canadian bilateral aid. Some $1.2 billion worth will be delivered by 2011. That puts us among the top donor nations to Afghanistan.

The Afghanistan compact talks about security, governance and development as the three pillars, and the metaphor is apt. Each pillar is equally essential and the three mutually support each other. The Government of Canada's approach reflects entirely this interdependence. In fact we have actively sought out issues where we can best leverage our resources, where our security efforts will help build capacity in governance, for example, and where our development projects will help ensure a more secure environment.

Let me start by mentioning just one example. We are finishing one of the most important roads in the country, the road from Kandahar to Spin Boldak on the Pakistan border, the shortest route out of Afghanistan to a seaport.

Economic development is key to peace and stability in this border region, as G-8 leaders recently agreed. A new road means better access to markets, to government services, to education and health care, and a better route home for refugees. It means that the Afghan national army and national police will be better able to bring security to this critical region. When we rebuild a road, we also create a path to a brighter future.

As I mentioned before, our strategy is to strengthen Afghanistan and put it on the path to self-sufficiency. Above all, this approach means assistance in the form of planning, training and mentoring.

For the Afghan national army, which is well on track to reaching its goals, Canada has had great results with our operational mentoring and liaison teams. These Canadian military units work directly with the Afghan army, teaching them how to be a professional and effective force to the extent that they are increasingly capable of mounting independent operations, which is, of course, the ultimate goal. This approach is shared by all nations as the best way to make the Afghan national army work. It is worth noting that many nations, including France, Croatia and Poland, have recently announced that they are sending additional training teams to Afghanistan to help speed up the process.

Canadians should be proud of the progress we have already made in Afghanistan. However, because of Afghanistan's unique history of war, instability and underdevelopment, none of our goals can be fulfilled without a security presence. Anything else would be fundamentally inconsistent.

The Canadian Forces mission has been approved by Parliament until February 2009, and our government has made clear to Canadians and our allies that any future military deployments must also be supported by a majority of parliamentarians. As for our development presence in Afghanistan, it will continue until at least 2011.

In the coming session, members will be asked to vote on the future of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. As the Prime Minister has stated, this decision should honour the dedication and sacrifice of Canada's development workers, diplomats and men and women in uniform. It should ensure that progress in Afghanistan is not lost and that our international commitments and reputation are upheld.

As was made clear in the Speech from the Throne, our government does not believe that Canada should simply abandon the people of Afghanistan after February 2009. Canada should build on its accomplishments and shift to accelerate the training of the Afghan army and police so that the Afghan government can defend its own sovereignty. This will not be completed by February 2009, but our government believes this objective should be achievable by 2011, the end of the period covered by the Afghanistan compact. Our government has appointed an independent panel to advise Canadians on how best to proceed, given these considerations.

There will always be those who seek to score short term political points whenever the challenges involved in rebuilding Afghanistan become more evident, whenever we transition from an easier phase to a harder one. For such people it is convenient to cling to the excuse, to which I would say first, the current international effort is completely unlike anything that has ever been attempted before. It is conceived entirely for the good of the country at the behest of a democratic government and fully supported politically, financially and militarily by the international community. The second thing I would say concerns the hundreds of thousands of Afghan women who have received small business loans, and the two million Afghan girls who can now go to school. Could we really look them in the eyes and say, “We are sorry, but having encountered some resistance, we have now decided that your country is hopeless. We have decided instead to return to our comfortable, insulated shells”?

Canadians know that such an attitude would not only be irresponsible, but it would go against the values we hold dear as a nation. Every day we see the difference we are making as Canadian soldiers and civilians work with Afghans to help them build a better society. We should not delude ourselves into thinking that they do not want the same things that we want for our own children: security, education, greater economic opportunity and a better future. These are the goals Canada is helping Afghanistan to attain. That is why we believe our continuing engagement in Afghanistan is both necessary and worthwhile.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. member's words on the work that Canada is doing for human rights in Afghanistan. He forgot to mention that by all objective reports, violent incidents in Afghanistan have more than quadrupled this year alone.

I would like to ask him a question about other rights and whether the government is prepared to defend those rights.

Canadian airlines at the moment are being asked to turn over passenger lists to homeland security. Will the member's government stand up for Canadians and refuse to turn over those lists?

On the security and prosperity partnership on which the member's government is forging away enthusiastically and signing away our sovereignty by integrating and harmonizing our regulations in over 300 areas with those of the Americans to better mesh with and fit the needs of American companies, I am wondering if this is in the best interests of Canadians.

Would the government support having an open discussion in Parliament?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has never seen a conspiracy theory it did not love.

What this government does enthusiastically is support the rights of Canadian women and children, all Canadian citizens, and by the way, the rights of other women and children and citizens around the world who need our help. That is what Canada has done for the last 140 years since we became a nation and that is what we will continue to do enthusiastically.

If the NDP, or its predecessor the CCF, had had its way, Dutch women and children would have wound up starving at the end of World War II. South Korea would probably be a communist state today instead of one of the most prosperous nations in the world.

That is what we stand up enthusiastically for. The people we stand enthusiastically side by side with are our traditional strong allies, the nations of the world who share our sense of human values, our sense of rights, our sense of responsibility. That list includes a lot of western liberal democracies such as the United States, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, France, Italy, Spain, and so on.

Yes, I am very enthusiastic about what our government is doing in standing up for the rights of Canadians and for other people around the world who need our help.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the parliamentary secretary on how well he articulated Canada's international role, especially as it applies to Afghanistan. It has been stated that the security of Canada is intrinsically tied to the security of Afghanistan.

Yesterday we commemorated the fact that at one time women in Canada were not even considered to be persons. It is very fitting that the parliamentary secretary spoke today about the raising of rights for the women and children in Afghanistan.

The opposition claims to speak on behalf of soldiers deployed to Afghanistan and wanting to end the Afghan mission. The parliamentary secretary has many soldiers in his riding and I am sure that he has occasion to speak to these soldiers. Would the parliamentary secretary please share with us what the soldiers tell him in terms of their experiences in dealing with the Afghans?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question and for her years and years of strong support for the Canadian men and women in uniform as well.

Yes, I speak to Canadian men and women in uniform every single day. I was proud of my 30 years in the Canadian Forces but I have never ever been prouder of the men and women who wear uniforms than I have been in the last few years. I have witnessed firsthand on the ground in Kandahar, outside the wire in Kandahar the kinds of things they are accomplishing and the kind of people they are. They are the most spectacular citizens we have in this country in the job they do and the very difficult conditions under which they do it. They and their families that support them deserve our tremendous support.

I can tell the House what the soldiers, sailors and airmen tell me and actually sum it up quickly with what happened this summer. I spent time with the Minister of National Defence in the garrison at Edmonton. We spoke to about a dozen wounded soldiers, some of them seriously wounded. Their message to the Prime Minister through the Minister of National Defence was “Please, please, please let us finish our job”. They are committed to getting it right. I wish more people in the House were as well.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence for his eloquent presentation in the House today. Clearly, he has a lot of knowledge in this area and I am glad that he is a part of our team.

Today I will talk about Arctic sovereignty, an issue that is very important to me as a northerner. I come from northern Canada and am very appreciative of the new approach that the Prime Minister has taken ever since he became Prime Minister to bring sovereignty back to our Arctic.

Canada's Arctic is an essential part of our history and a pillar of this Conservative government's strategy to build a stronger Canada and a better Canada from coast to coast to coast.

Our Arctic is on the verge of major environmental, economic, social and political change. Climate change, the search for resources and a renewed focus on the peoples of the north are driving this change. Sea ice has steadily decreased in the Arctic and this trend is likely to continue. The Northwest Passage is opening up for longer periods in the summer and its use is gaining international attention. At the same time, we recognize the north as a vast well of energy and mineral resources. In short, the opportunities and the challenges for Canada are enormous.

This government is ready and is acting to protect what is ours and improve the lives of all northerners. For too long, people of the three territories were made promise after promise in Liberal government press releases. That era is thankfully over. Our government is committed to helping the Arctic finally realize its true potential as a healthy and prosperous region within a strong and sovereign Canada.

New opportunities are emerging across the Arctic and there are new challenges from other shores. Our government is bringing forward an integrated northern strategy focused on strengthening Canada's sovereignty, protecting our environmental heritage, promoting economic and social development and improving and devolving governance, so that northerners have greater control over their destinies.

In this International Polar Year we have the ability to shape an Arctic of tomorrow that reflects Canada's national interests and values. We come to the international table with some important issues and assets. Canada owns one-third of the world's land mass above the Arctic Circle. There is great natural resource potential within our vast northern lands and seas, and we can count upon the ingenuity, adaptability and expertise of our northern peoples to turn that potential into reality.

But the Arctic is only a piece of a much larger region occupied by eight states with lands that lie above the Arctic Circle, five of which surround the Arctic Ocean. Each Arctic nation has opportunities and faces similar challenges. Canada is seizing the opportunity to reinvigorate our north, stating loud and clear that it is rightfully ours. We are taking the lead internationally to meet the global challenges head on. This is why Arctic sovereignty has been and will continue to be a strong priority of the Prime Minister's government.

Canada's Arctic sovereignty is long-standing, well established and based on historic title. While other nations prepare to stake a claim to Arctic regions more than 200 miles off our coastlines, we are asserting our sovereignty through comprehensive mapping of Canada's Arctic seabed.

Canadian scientists right now are conducting extensive mapping surveys on Canada's largest icebreaker in the Beaufort Sea to establish with certainty where our continental shelf begins and ends. Recently, our Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development visited that dedicated research team aboard the Louis S. St-Laurent and witnessed first hand the valuable and vitally important work that they are undertaking.

Never before has this crucial part of Canada's ocean floor been fully mapped. This research will help Canada gain international recognition of our sovereign rights over seabed resources in the areas beyond the 200 nautical mile limit.

The purpose of Canada's mapping will be to make a submission, due in 2013, which will prove, based on the scientific and technical criteria of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the extent of the area over which Canada has sovereign rights to its continental shelf beyond this 200 nautical mile limit.

With an investment of almost $70 million over 10 years, this Canadian program is a collaboration among Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Natural Resources Canada. The scientific work will help Canada present the best submission possible. These results will provide the maximum extent of the continental shelf outside our border. The work being done will have a lasting impact on Canada's future role in the Arctic.

Canada is but one of a number of Arctic nations that have embarked on this process to delineate the outer limits of their respective continental shelves. Should there be overlaps between Canada's claim and that of another nation, there are legal provisions in UNCLOS for resolving them.

This important exercise is neither an adversarial process nor a race. Rather, it is part of an orderly operation within the terms of the agreement. Under UNCLOS, each country has the right to the mineral and living resources of the soil and subsoil attached to its continental shelf but no country has sovereignty over the ice, sea or sky above it.

It is worth noting that in this regard the North Pole is on the high seas and therefore beyond any state's control. Under international law, no country can validly subject any part of the high seas, which includes the North Pole, to its sovereignty. To date, no science has proven that any seabed or continental shelf extends beyond the North Pole. As it stands, Canadians interests are not challenged in this regard.

As we all know, the sole land dispute in the Canadian Arctic is over Hans Island, which Denmark is claiming. Although Hans Island is only 1.3 square kilometres, a fraction of the size of Toronto Island or Stanley Park, and has limited resources, Canada has always acted to protect its sovereignty over this island and will continue to do so in the same manner as it protects all Canadian territory. To ensure that our position is protected, Canada and Denmark have agreed to engage in discussions on managing and eventually resolving this dispute.

The issue with the United States over the internal waters of the Canadian Arctic, including the waterways of the famed Northwest Passage, relates only to navigation rights in these waters and not to whom the waters belong. No one disputes that the waters are Canadian. The United States contends that these are Canadian territorial waters and that an international strait runs through these waters, which would limit Canada's rights to regulate navigation. Canada does not agree with this and has made it quite clear that these are internal waters of Canada by virtue of historic title. Our legal position is well-founded in fact and in law and is consistent with our rights and duties as parties to these international covenants.

For added certainty, the last Conservative government drew straight baselines around the Canadian Arctic in 1986. The drawing of these baselines was done in accordance with international agreements and the Oceans Act of Canada. As a consequence, all waters landward of the baselines are internal waters and form part of Canada's sovereign territory.

As a matter of public policy, Canada is, nevertheless, willing to permit international navigation in and through the Northwest Passage so long as the conditions established by Canada to protect security, environmental and Inuit interests are met.

Our government is moving forward with new Arctic patrol ships and expanded aerial surveillance to guard Canada's far north and Northwest Passage. Our government recognizes that an increased Canadian forces presence in the Arctic is essential to achieving our goals in this region and that it is critical to our national interest and sense of identity.

The acquisition of new Arctic offshore patrol ships will deliver on the government's commitment to maintaining sovereignty over Canada's northern waters, ensuring that Canada's military has the equipment to conduct patrols over all these oceans. With six to eight Arctic offshore patrol ships, the Canadian navy will be able to operate in all three oceans, providing surveillance, search and rescue, and support to the RCMP, the Canadian Coast Guard and other government departments and agencies. The acquisition of these patrol ships is part of Canada's overall commitment to increase its presence in the Arctic and also includes the development of a deep-sea port and the establishment of a new Arctic training centre.

The Canadian Forces conduct aerial surveillance several times annually in the form of northern patrols and will expand this operation. These patrols improve our ability to quickly identify any crises that may happen at home or abroad. They will be a custom designed program and built in Canada and will be amongst the heaviest, most versatile armed naval vessels capable of sustained operations in ice. They will be capable of operating in ice up to one metre thick and each vessel will also be equipped with a helicopter landing pad.

Recognizing Canada's strong legal position with respect to our Arctic islands, waters and continental shelf, the Government of Canada is committed to asserting Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic and to giving itself the means to do so effectively. It is committed to growth and development, to territorial integrity and to building for a stronger future. We have already committed to a number of important initiatives and will continue to make the Canadian Arctic a pillar of our political platform.

To take advantage of the north's vast opportunities, northerners must be able to meet their basic needs. A strong and sovereign Arctic must be a healthy and prosperous Arctic.

Our government will work to continue to improve the lives in the north for first nations and Inuit through better housing. We will continue to introduce these measures on an hour by hour basis as the north continues to grow to its true potential.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was fascinating to hear about 10 straight minutes on flag waving and Arctic sovereignty and less than 10 seconds about actually dealing with the lives of people in the Arctic.

It reminds me of the throne speech the other night when the Prime Minister quoted the song about Franklin. We must remember that Franklin was some white guy who lost his way in the Arctic and starved to death trying to engineer the age of the pith helmet and the flag waving. It appears we are back to that.

Let me say from our experience what we are seeing in the far north. The community of Fort Albany, which suffered an extreme mould crisis this past summer, was identified by the James Bay Health Authority as a grave threat to human health. Indian affairs refused to participate in a meeting with Emergency Measures Ontario, Health Canada officials and regional chiefs to deal with this. We tried again and again and what we ended up getting were INAC spin doctors.

I spoke with the minister about this situation in September. He said that the community was offering no plan. He wanted to know where the action plan was. Well, that plan was sitting on INAC desks since early August and in mid-September the minister told me that he had never seen the plan.

We are seeing people on the James Bay coast who are in abysmal, disgraceful poverty. He stands in the House to say that we are back to the age of colonialism, that we will walk all over the Arctic waving our flag with our big ships and helicopters but meanwhile these people are living in dreg conditions. I find it appalling and I would like to know why he read only one sentence about how his government will improve lives. It has done nothing.

I would like to know what the government will specifically do about the situation in Fort Albany. As it stands right now, people are still getting sick and they are still waiting for the government to take action.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I do not appreciate being referred to as a colonialist in light of the fact that I am an aboriginal Canadian but I will respond to his question in relation to Fort Albany.

In fact, this community built a number of homes according to a plan that they devised themselves. Indian affairs was not involved with the plan but is more than prepared to help the community address its situation with mould.

Unfortunately, the member did want to create some type of media stunt at a most recent meeting and department officials wanted no part of that. I hope that in the future he will want to proceed in a very professional and parliamentary way and, should he choose to do that, we will continue to work with him on this very important issue.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because I was invited to go to a meeting by the chief and the grand chief of the Mushkegowuk Council. To be told in the House that I was involved in a publicity stunt is an insult and it undermines my professional integrity. I am asking the member to now withdraw the comment.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I guess in turn I would have to say that being referred to as a colonialist is something that I find offensive as well, so I suppose I would ask for him to withdraw that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It appears that we are getting into points of debate and not points of order. I would like to move on to the next question.

The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry has the floor.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party seems to give priority to the militarization of the Arctic to protect Canada's sovereignty.

My question is for the hon. member. Would it not be more logical to resort to diplomacy, with the support of good icebreakers, in order to protect Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic? It seems to me that this should be the way to go, and other countries are doing that.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, of course diplomacy is an important part of maintaining sovereignty in the north. I did indicate that we are working with Denmark in relation to the specific case of a debate on sovereignty. However, I would say that over the last number of years we have seen a massive depletion of our military and I think, based on my appreciation of international diplomacy, that it does make a difference when one is actually capable of defending one's sovereignty in terms of being able to administer diplomacy.

I know that the member and all the individuals who I know who live throughout the north, both Inuit and non-Inuit, would appreciate living within the Canadian context instead of some foreign power that does not hold democratic values as we do in Canada.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that members of the NDP continually try to drag debate in this House down to a lower level.

The parliamentary secretary indicated some of the things that our government is doing. It is important that we have a presence in the north, whether it is through our navy, our air force or our rangers. However, the issue of a research station in the north will answer a lot of the questions that we have about the situation that is changing there as far as climate, pollution and issues like that are concerned.

I would just like him to comment a bit further on the proposed research station in the Arctic.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have made a large commitment, not only to research but also to building a northern port in Nunavut. This will definitely assist the Government of Canada, not only in being able to do further research but also promoting our sovereignty in the area.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will split my time with the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.

I am pleased to take part in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. Obviously, this speech, delivered on Tuesday, does not meet the five conditions set by the Bloc Québécois which—and I am glad to point this out—reflect the values and interests of Quebeckers. This is why we will not support this throne speech.

I am of course looking at the throne speech from my perspective as our party's critic on natural resources. It goes without saying that I was disappointed to see that it did not include any new initiative. I did not see anything related to natural resources, renewable energy, or even to the debate that we are asking for on nuclear energy and radioactive waste management.

In fact, if we take a close look at the throne speech, we realize that it is old news. In the last budget, tabled in March 2007, the government had already announced the creation of a major natural resource projects management office. On October 1, the Department of Natural Resources announced on its Internet site the opening of the office. Then, on October 16, the Speech from the Throne announced the establishment of a natural resource management office. The government sure likes to repeat itself.

I would like to explain what this office is all about. I was particularly interested because of my role as critic. Every year, $20 million of taxpayers' money will be spent on running and implementing this major projects management office for natural resources. Those watching at home will be interested to know a bit about what this office will be doing. I will quote a text from the Natural Resources Canada website:

The overall objective of this investment [by the government] is to improve the competitiveness of Canada's resource industries while providing the capacity needed to uphold Canada's world-class environmental standards.

No one is against virtue. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois wants to take steps to eliminate red tape and make things easier. That being said, we must remain vigilant. We would not want this office to end up muzzling citizen groups, making it easier to bypass environmental standards and requirements or watering down environmental criteria.

Some people may think that I am overly concerned or doubtful about this office. It is because I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and still am. On December 7, 2006, a representative from the nuclear power sector came to explain that his sector was experiencing development difficulties because it has to comply with many regulations and deadlines to obtain licences. I would like to quote Mr. Wayne Henuset, from the Energy Alberta Corporation, would spoke to the members of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources on Thursday, December 7, 2006. He said:

The nuclear power commission has made the licensing for this very complicated, so we would like to get the licensing a little more streamlined. Then it wouldn't take three or four years to get a licence to build a nuclear plant.

We need more clarity on the regulations. That would be the number one issue.

We can see the link between this request by the Energy Alberta Corporation and the request it submitted to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to conduct a study on setting up a nuclear generating station in the oil fields of Alberta. The government was nonetheless quick to respond to the demands of a major industry that uses natural resources. It may have been a little quicker than it would be in responding to requests from workers, women or minorities in Quebec and Canada.

Allow me to be concerned. We are not against having a more effective and more efficient machinery of government. It is a question of being vigilant and ensuring that this office, whose annual budget is indeed $20 million and ensures the coordination of five departments, can do the work fairly by respecting the rules and requirements of the provinces and Canada.

The Speech from the Throne mentions supply management. In the speech the government reiterates its support for supply management. That is good because it is giving it a chance. Nonetheless, this is not the first time the Government of Canada has given its support to supply management and that did not prevent the former minister of agriculture from making statements that somewhat contradicted the government's positions. Allow me to quote Canada's former minister of agriculture of on supply management. It is not an old excerpt from the archives of Parliament; he said this on May 27, 2007.

He said, “We have the best negotiator in the world in Steve Verheul, (other countries) are talking about changes, and (producers under supply management) don't even want us to be in the room talking about changes. It is the stupidest tactic I can think of. So instead of Steve being in there and going to bat for them, he sits outside the room because all he can say is that we refuse to have any changes because our supply managed sectors can't live with any changes”. I could also quote the Minister of International Trade on the stubborn sectors that held up the Doha round of negotiations.

I am concerned and vigilant, and one can see why. So, I want to tell the new Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food that, as a member representing a riding that is 80% agricultural, I will pay very close attention to what he says, in order to adequately protect producers in my constituency, because they are adamant that the supply management system must be maintained.

There are other aspects of the throne speech that I find disappointing. For example, I did not find anything on the program for older worker adjustment. I want to talk about it again today, because the government really does not seem to understand the need for such a program.

Since 2004, in my riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry, 2,500 jobs have disappeared, primarily in the textile manufacturing sector, including at the Huntingdon Mills and at the Cleyn & Tinker mill. Recently, 1,000 jobs were eliminated at the Goodyear plant, and another 150 at the Gildan plant. Finally, just recently, the Abattoirs Billette had to shut down their operations. This means a loss of over 200 jobs in the riding.

What is the Bloc asking for? It may be worth repeating, because the government does not seem to get it.

The Bloc does not want a program promoting the fact that older workers are now useless and cannot make other employers benefit from their qualifications and work experience. The Bloc wants a program that is simply designed for workers who have tried everything.

I suspect that the minister has not talked to older workers in a long time. Older workers in my riding have clearly said that, despite all their training and reclassification efforts, it is very difficult to retrain at age 58 or 59, particularly in a small town such as Huntingdon, where public transit is non-existent. It is indeed difficult for people who do not have a car to travel long distances and to relocate. What is $75 million for people who devoted their lives to the economy of Quebec and Canada? The Bloc sincerely believes that, this time, the Conservative government had the means to give older workers, in the throne speech, what they need to retire with dignity.

In conclusion, the Conservative government must now face a confidence vote. It must now be accountable to the people of Canada.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I found my colleague's speech very interesting, especially the part where she spoke of an assistance program for older workers.

We are also in favour of providing assistance to individuals who wish to retrain or find another job. However, we must realize that this is not always a possibility. I will cite the example of a massive layoff in a one-industry town where even skilled young people do not have jobs. An older worker who has always worked in the same sector may not necessarily be able to find another job.

After exhausting their employment insurance benefits, workers find that they have to sell everything, their homes and their assets, for which they worked so hard. They have to sell what took them a lifetime to acquire and spend the rest of their working life on social assistance until they retire. That is a very sad lot for those who have fought their whole life to build Quebec and Canada.

In its first throne speech, the government had promised to put in place an assistance program for older workers, like the one that existed previously, but it did not do so.

Could my colleague talk about her reaction to the fact that the government makes promises but does not deliver the goods?

Is she even more concerned that now, not only has it not delivered the goods but it is no longer even promising them?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. This gives me the opportunity to explain that, before the Conservative government implemented a program for older workers, the municipality of Huntingdon introduced a pilot project, thanks to the leadership of the mayor, Stéphane Gendron, and the cooperation of all the community partners. This was before the Conservative government took hold of the idea.

Despite the weeks of training and all the efforts made to help people retrain, while some were able to do so, not everyone was successful. The program is targeted at those individuals.

In assessing the amount needed to be able to support these individuals and these older workers, we do not think it is unreasonable, especially since, for many years, the employment insurance fund has been turning a profit, which could be reinvested in this program.

I met with many older workers and some of them broke down in my arms. In Montmagny, some ten older workers from Whirlpool committed suicide. After speaking with the grieving families and with the co-workers of those who had committed suicide, we think it is reasonable and only right for the Conservative government to stop turning a deaf ear, to listen to the public and the demands of the Bloc Québécois, and offer these people, these workers aged 55 and over, the possibility of retiring with dignity.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles should know that he has 90 seconds for the question and answer.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this will only take me a couple of seconds. I want to thank my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry. I am very fond of the city of Valleyfield.

Can she explain whether funding for the POWA is shared with the provincial governments?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my answer will be short. Quebec proposed that the federal government fund 30% of an older worker assistance program.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take the floor today. As this House is aware, the Bloc Québécois will vote against the throne speech. We have said so from the start. We had five official requests, which were not out of the ordinary. They are five essential, reasonable priorities. As usual, the government did not want to listen to us. As usual, it had its own agenda. The government places a great deal of emphasis on militarization, and it is going to invest a lot of money in that.

I will start by talking a bit about Afghanistan. Why is it that we are sending soldiers to Afghanistan and yet we have no information here? We never have any reports about what is happening there. We know nothing. We do not know how many soldiers have been wounded, what is happening or whether our troops are in good condition. We have no information. Even the Standing Committee on National Defence gets information in dribs and drabs. This House has not sat for five months. As parliamentarians, we should at least be able to know what is happening to our soldiers in Afghanistan.

I read in a newspaper that 15% of Canadian and Quebec soldiers returning from Afghanistan suffer from mental illnesses. That is a very high number, and it might be even higher than that. So why is it that we in the House have heard nothing about this? Why is it that we have to read about this in the papers? Why has neither the Minister of National Defence nor the Prime Minister told us anything about this? This is very troubling.

We talked about withdrawing the troops by 2009, and we were going about it responsibly. We said that we had to meet with the UN to discuss readying troops from other countries to go to Afghanistan. We did our part and we have to bring our soldiers home. But in the Speech from the Throne, the government said that it wanted to prolong the mission until 2011. It even wants to put together a committee that would pay someone $1,400 per day to study this issue even though we know that the decision has already been made. That is outrageous.

For those of you who do not know, tonight is homelessness awareness night in Quebec. People in 22 municipalities will be sleeping outside tonight. Members of a number of organizations and homeless people will spend the night out in the cold, trying to keep warm as best they can. What does the throne speech have to offer these people? Absolutely nothing. The employment insurance fund has a $54 billion surplus, yet the throne speech promised nothing for these people and nothing for the POWA that people have been demanding for so long.

I know that my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry has some problems in her riding. Some of her constituents have even committed suicide. It is unbelievable to think that people can be driven to suicide after having depleted all of their resources. This is unacceptable at a time when the government itself is running a surplus and the employment insurance fund is overflowing to the tune of $54 billion.

We have always asked the Conservative government and all of its predecessors for an independent employment insurance fund. Such a fund could be used to help the homeless. It could be used to increase employment insurance benefits or even to increase the number of weeks people can receive benefits. It could also help businesses by reducing their employment insurance premiums. Fifty-four billion dollars is more than a hill of beans. That is a lot of money.

What is the government doing with that money? It is helping itself to it. Where does it use it for? We have just learned from the throne speech that this money will be spent on military equipment for the Arctic. I have nothing against the Arctic, but these are billions of dollars not being spent where the need is the deepest.

Because of all that, we remain committed to fighting to protect the environment. In my riding, the Centre for Electric Vehicle Experimentation in Quebec, or CEVEQ, is conducting studies on electric automobiles and buses. It is doing a fantastic job. It is barely self-sustaining.

Help could be provided to the centre to enable it to expand its research and make faster progress, but no. The government would rather kiss Kyoto goodbye and follow China's lead. It is shameful to think that Canada could be comparable to China where the environment is concerned. How far back is this taking us? It makes no sense.

Immediate measures are required, but they are not being put forward. There is nothing planned in this regard. We have heard about some air pollution reduction effort, but in my book and that of ordinary people, that does not mean much. Real efforts are needed, but there is nothing planned right now—no measures and no intention to revert even the slightest to Kyoto. That is extremely serious.

Quebec is being penalized because it has made enormous efforts to achieve the Kyoto objectives. Because of the federal government and because of Alberta, among others, with its tar sands which create five times more pollution that any other pollutant, we in Quebec will be penalized. That is absolutely unacceptable.

Everyone has heard about the crisis in the forest industry, everyone knows it is a reality, and yet no measure is proposed in the throne speech to deal with it. It is all just nice words and rhetoric, and it is totally meaningless. There is no concrete commitment. It is old stuff. This is not my first throne speech. I have been here 14 years and I have seen quite a few. This is extremely disappointing.

The federal spending power is a very important issue for Quebec. We are told that the government is committed to negotiating and reaching an agreement on the spending power, but that is utterly false. This government does not want to eliminate the spending power: it wants to control it. In any case, there are hardly any joint Quebec-Canada initiatives left, because over time we have managed to set up our own programs.

Everything that we are told in the throne speech about the spending power is absolutely false. They will create programs that we will probably not need, that we will not want, or that will not be useful to Quebec, because we do things differently. We will be stuck with those programs, and we will again be fighting with the federal government, rather than try to work and move things forward.

A large number of us have been here for many years. We defend Quebec and a number of major issues. One issue that is very dear to us involves women. However, the throne speech is totally silent on this issue. In fact, the term “women” is not even mentioned. That is really terrible.

In my riding, all the women's centres, which we so desperately need, are located in one large town. The female staff in these centres does an extraordinary job with young women and other women in need. These people are doing their utmost to fund their facilities. Yet, the throne speech does not provide a single penny to these people. This is extremely disappointing, and this is why we will definitely vote against the Speech from the Throne.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's speech. She indicated that she was not happy with the throne speech. That did not create any surprise for me. What did create surprise was the fact that she said that we did not have enough information on Afghanistan. It seems as if she is relying on the newspapers for her information and is disappointed that they have not supplied her with adequate information. I suggest the member take some time to spend with those who have served in Afghanistan and listen to their stories.

Recently I hosted a town hall meeting in my riding at which I invited one such person to share his experiences and to outline the plans and priorities of the Afghan compact. With that information, the residents in my riding have been informed about what is happening there.

Rather than relying on newspapers for her information, has she taken the time to speak to some of the reservists and those who have returned to share their experiences?

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not wait for the newspapers to provide me with information. I am capable of speaking to people, to those who have worked in Afghanistan.

There is also the issue of wives of soldiers at the front, who have no means of support. This is a reality. They are looking for ways to get psychological help. It is very difficult to not know what is going on when their husbands are overseas—especially in Kandahar, where the battles are particularly tragic.

I have nothing to learn from my colleague. I read the papers and I speak to people. I know that there are people suffering, that some have been killed in combat, and that others are experiencing psychological problems after being sent over there.

This government is hiding all of that. It does not want us to know. It is worried that there will be increasing pressure from the public and from Parliament to bring back our troops as quickly as possible.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating our colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot on her victory, as well as the new member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean.

That said, we find this to be an odd government. Indeed, of this government, the philosopher Pascal would say that its centre is nowhere and its periphery, everywhere. No one knows where it is going; it has no direction. We are trying to determine what is guiding the government's actions.

The poverty that exists in our society is unbelievable. Our colleague began her speech by telling us about the homelessness awareness night. Although Canada is a rich country, we are seeing more poverty than ever in Canada and Quebec.

We must reconcile the need to have an efficient production system with healthy distribution policies. One way to fight poverty is through social housing.

All members received a copy of a study conducted by the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association—an association based in English Canada—which talks about a $700 million decline in funding for affordable housing. Is my hon. colleague not saddened by how this government has abandoned people with housing needs? Does she have any hope that, together, the opposition parties can make this government listen to reason, despite its cruel insensitivity in this file? Just how discouraged does she feel?