Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2007

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, the hon. member incorrectly noted that the NDP voted with the Conservatives and we could have somehow mythologically kept his party in power. The reality is we did not even have enough votes. The independent members actually voted against the Liberal government. Maybe, like many Liberals, the member does not know how to count or he wants to continue to mislead the public on something. I will leave that for him to decide.

The member's discussion about manufacturing was rather interesting given the previous government's promise after promise to me over several years for an auto policy which was never delivered. Interestingly enough, the then minister of industry, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, flip-flopped and crossed the floor to the Conservatives. He did not bring the auto policy that we so desperately need. What he actually brought were the South Korea trade negotiations that are continuing to this day. Why is the member's party supporting that? Why is it that there is no real significant change?

The member noted the situation with Canadian air travellers having to disclose personal information when travelling across the United States, but it was his party while in government, Jean Chrétien and the member for LaSalle—Émard who did nothing when Canadians were put on the NSEERS and U.S. visit list, fingerprinted and photographed at the Canadian-American border when crossing into or exiting the United States. Why does the Liberal Party support the fingerprinting of Canadian citizens by the United States?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a reason that the NDP is very low in the polls, which is because Canadians in general know the NDP's record. On one hand, the NDP members constantly say that they stand up for working families. Yet when there is an opportunity to work collaboratively, especially in the last minority government, they are the first ones to attack the Liberal government. In fact, the New Democratic Party in this House has spent more time attacking the opposition than it has the government. So much for an effective opposition.

Let us look at the NDP agenda and the things it talks about, such as increasing the minimum wage to $10. Let us look at two provincial governments where the NDP is in power. Saskatchewan and Manitoba have lower minimum wages than Ontario. The NDP talks big but once it gets into power, it does the exact opposite.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to open the debate on today's theme from the throne speech: strengthening the federation and our democratic institutions.

We have a great, united country whose foundation is a solid federation and a living democracy. In fact, federalism and democracy have gone hand and hand throughout Canada's history.

Our country's history is one of people joining together to achieve great dreams thought impossible by the pessimists, but it is also a history of people who, through accommodation and respect, build practical, workable approaches allowing remarkable progress to unfold.

The project of Confederation was about bringing together the different regions into a strong and united country based on democratic practices and the rule of law. Sir John A. Macdonald, George-Étienne Cartier and the Fathers of Confederation, through strong leadership united Canadians in a federal union which would deliver a future of security and prosperity for the country as a whole. Their vision was strong and enduring, a firm foundation on which successive generations have built.

Our government is continuing this nation building project today with our commitments for strengthening the federation and our democratic institutions. Strong leadership and a better Canada: that is our objective.

I would like to spend my time today discussing the progress we have already made in this area and highlighting our plans for this new session of Parliament.

Our government made a commitment to practise open federalism, and it is taking steps to ensure that our country is prosperous and united.

Our approach is not new, but it is based on the very principles underlying Confederation.

The union was based on a simple concept: the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments. The objective was not to have a weak, passive federal government, but a government that would respect the provinces' areas of jurisdiction.

Provincial governments are closer to their citizens and are well positioned to determine local needs and aspirations. In contrast, the federal government is well placed to protect the national interest in pursuit of the common good of the country as a whole. As the project of our Confederation first became committed to paper in the Quebec Resolutions of 1864, this approach was clear:

In the Federation of the British North American Provinces, the system of Government best adapted under existing circumstances to protect the diversified interest of the several Provinces, and secure efficiency, harmony and permanency in the working of the Union, would be a general Government, charged with matters of a common interest to the whole country; and Local Governments...charged with the control of local matters in their respective sections.

The steps we have taken recently and the measures we plan to take to create a federalism of openness will produce unprecedented efficiency, harmony and stability in the union, as the Fathers of Confederation envisioned many years ago.

Our federalism of openness means respecting provincial areas of jurisdiction, and that, in turn, means two things. First, a federal government that shows leadership in its areas of jurisdiction. Second, a federal government that unites the country by introducing fair, respectful intergovernmental policies.

We have shown strong leadership in areas of federal jurisdiction, such as strengthening our economy by cutting taxes and helping families, in the process paying down billions on the debt and achieving the lowest national unemployment rate since I was a child; in international trade with the resolution of the softwood lumber dispute; in defence with our leadership in international aid efforts in Afghanistan; and in public safety and security with our agenda for making communities safer by tackling crime.

In the new session this leadership will continue with measures to strengthen Canada's economic union through internal free trade among the provinces; a commitment to action in protecting Canada's sovereignty, particularly in the Arctic; continued pursuit of a safer Canada beginning with the comprehensive criminal justice reforms in our Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act.

We have treated the provincial and territorial governments with respect, which has strengthened national unity. To restore the fiscal balance within the Canadian federation, we have increased the main federal transfers and introduced a new stable, reliable, fair funding formula. We have helped build a better Canada with our historic recognition that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada.

Our 2007 budget contained an unprecedented long term commitment to rebuild Canada's infrastructure, amounting to a total of $33 billion over the next seven years, the largest federal investment in Canadian infrastructure in over half a century.

During this session, we will introduce a bill to place formal limits on the use of the federal spending power for new shared-cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. This bill will formalize the commitments our government made in the 2006 and 2007 budgets, because it will specify the limits on federal power.

In keeping with how we see open federalism, our bill will also allow the provinces and territories to opt out of new shared-cost programs with reasonable compensation if they offer compatible programs. In addition to recognizing the provinces' and territories' ability to provide programs in their specific areas of responsibility, our bill will enable Canadians, wherever they live, to receive services comparable to those available under national programs.

Our diversity as a country serves as a source both of strength and innovation. Through our actions in open federalism, including equitable and predictable funding and clarified roles and responsibilities in our federation, we are offering a principles based approach on which all orders of government can continue to work into the future.

The vision of Macdonald and Cartier of a country united from east to west, of new Canadians and old, French and English, country and city, together dreaming great dreams and building a brighter future is alive and well and has a place deep in the heart of our government in 2007.

However, our Confederation must be more than the sum of its parts. The federal government must act as a leader in keeping the country strong and united and as a model for democratic values. To perform this leadership role, the democratic underpinnings of our government must be solid in order to continue to meet the expectations of the Canadians we serve. Our initiatives in the area of democratic reform demonstrate our government's leadership in this area. Nowhere is this more evident than our efforts to modernize our central democratic institution, a federal Parliament where the representation of both popular and provincial interests are united within the federal legislative process.

Since Confederation, Canada's Parliament has served the democratic interests of Canadians well, but the government must take action to ensure that this institution, which is the cornerstone of our representative democracy, remains strong, vibrant and adapted to the needs of Canadians in the 21st century.

Our bicameral Parliament includes two houses, the lower house here which is comprised of elected representatives of the citizens of this great country originally founded on the fundamental principle of representation by population, and the upper house which was designed to represent the regions of the country to act as a chamber of sober second thought.

However, in the contemporary era, the Senate has been unable to credibly fulfill its role as an effective representative of the regions in the federal legislative process due to fundamental concerns with legitimacy and effectiveness of that appointed and unaccountable chamber. As for the other chamber, this one, the distribution of seats in the House of Commons has shifted too far away from the principle of representation by population, resulting in the unfair under-representation of the fast growing provinces.

Our government has already taken measures to address this situation as we promised during the last election with BillC-56 introduced in the last session to enhance the principle of representation by population in the House of Commons and give fast growing provinces the representation that their population merits, and by Bills S-4 and C-43 introduced in the last session to begin the long overdue project of Senate reform.

I would like to spend a few moments discussing Senate reform. It is a priority of our government that is urgently needed to modernize our federal Parliament. We put forward an agenda for the Senate reforms that is practical and achievable. As stated in the Speech from the Throne, we will continue to pursue this agenda with the reintroduction of two important bills.

The Senate tenure bill proposed a uniform fixed term for senators of eight years. Rather than leave the length of tenure as long as 45 years, as it is currently, our bill proposed that senators be appointed to a fixed term of eight years. This is a change that would bring renewal and relevance to the Senate. This change would improve the effectiveness of the Senate. It would ensure that senators' terms were long enough for them to gain the expertise and independence necessary to act as a chamber of sober second thought, but at the same time it would ensure that the terms would not be so long as to undermine the legitimacy and credibility of the Senate as a modern institution in what we seek to declare to be a democratic country.

Unfortunately, the current unelected unaccountable Liberal senators spent over a year delaying this legislation before they finally took a decision to not take a decision. This action alone, or inaction more accurately, demonstrates clearly that the Senate must change. Its current form does not function well on this issue, or at all.

As I stated, our government intends to reintroduce the Senate term limits bill this session. I hope that the summer recess gave opposition senators some time for that sober second thought in relation to their position of inaction on this bill where they have refused to exercise their constitutional obligation to vote on the bill.

Our second Senate reform, Bill C-43, offered a means for democratizing the Senate by providing Canadians an opportunity to choose and advise who they want representing them in the Senate. It would provide for the first time an opportunity for voters across this country to have a democratic say in who sits in their Senate. This should hardly be a difficult principle to embrace in a 21st century western democracy. It would provide greater legitimacy and credibility to the work of the Senate as a democratic institution.

I was extremely pleased to attend the swearing in of Senator Bert Brown last week. He of course was popularly elected by the people of his province. I hope that we can look forward to the day when the Senate appointment consultations bill becomes law and all senators arrive in Ottawa with a democratic mandate.

As the Prime Minister has indicated, when the Senate consultations bill is reintroduced, we will be sending it to committee before second reading so that collaboration can begin on this important step toward a democratic Senate.

There are some who have suggested that governing parties of the past could maintain the status quo in the Senate out of self-interest, that we could benefit from the patronage appointments to be made and stack the chamber with partisans who would serve for decades. Our government believes that the Senate should be a democratically elected body that represents Canadians. So far, we have taken concrete steps toward that vision and they are steps that are achievable in the short term. What is more, surveys show that our agenda for term limits in a democratized Senate is strongly supported by Canadians. Surely in a democracy this above all should be a key indicator of what constitutes a good democratic reform.

The Senate must change. If it cannot be changed, it should be abolished. In its current illegitimate form the Senate does nothing to enhance our democracy, even as we aim at the same time to promote democratic values abroad.

I would now like to address a second element of the democratic reform program that we will continue to implement during this new session of Parliament: strengthening the electoral system.

A strong democracy requires both modern democratic institutions and an electoral process with integrity that inspires confidence among voters.

We have already introduced a number of measures that were passed in the last session to improve elections, which were broadly supported.

For example, Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act—the first legislative measure we introduced—fulfilled our campaign commitment to clean up political funding. We levelled the playing field by banning donations from companies and unions, as well as large and secret donations, so that ordinary Canadians can contribute to the political process knowing that their donations will really count.

Bill C-4 was the first bill passed in the last session. We acted quickly to ensure that the party registration rules would not sunset and that those registration rules would remain in effect at all times.

With Bill C-16, setting dates for elections, we have established a four year electoral cycle, preventing snap elections from being called solely for the partisan advantage of the governing party.

As a result, after this House provides a mandate to govern when it approves the throne speech on Wednesday, we can look forward to the next election, now set in law to take place October 19, 2009.

In Bill C-31, we implemented wide-ranging recommendations of the procedure and House affairs committee for improving the electoral process, including important measures for reducing the opportunity for voter fraud, such as a voter identification procedure for federal elections.

In addition to these bills, which are now law, we introduced additional election reforms that did not have an opportunity to pass before we prorogued.

Building on our political financing reforms in the Federal Accountability Act, Bill C-54, our new bill to clean up campaign financing, proposed bringing accountability to political loans by eliminating loans as a means for circumventing contribution limits and establishing a transparent reporting regime for campaign finance.

Building on a number of measures for improving voter accessibility, Bill C-55, our expanded voting opportunities bill, proposed additional advanced polling days to enhance opportunities and encourage higher voter turnout.

During the second session of Parliament, our government will continue to strengthen the electoral process.

As stated in the Speech from the Throne, we will introduce measures that will enable us to confirm the identity of voters by requiring them to uncover their faces before voting. Like our other reforms, this concrete measure will improve the electoral process for all Canadians.

Public concerns raised about this issue during the September 17 byelections made it clear that we must act.

During meetings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in September, all parties approved the decision to prioritize resolving this issue.

Our government will act quickly to resolve this issue, and I hope that I can count on the support of all members of Parliament to give Canadians the strong, fair electoral process they expect.

There is so much that makes Canada great. We are mindful of the valuable legacy bestowed upon us by the visionary leadership of Sir John A. Macdonald, George-Étienne Cartier and the Fathers of Confederation when they rendered the blueprint for what has proven to be the best country in the world. But it is our strong foundations that enable us to continue building a better Canada that is a leader in the world.

Those foundations are our federal state and our democratic spirit, but we also know, as did those Fathers of Confederation, that as the world modernizes, so must Canada. That is in fact the spirit of Confederation. It is that spirit that leads us to seek ways to strengthen our democracy and improve accountability to Canadians. We must be a democracy worthy of that name in a 21st century world.

Our government has already put forward a full agenda to fortify and modernize our federation and democracy, and we will continue to do so this session. We invite all parties in the House to join us as we build a stronger Canada with a brighter future for the generations that will follow.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's speech and I took notes on everything he said, more or less.

The member spoke a lot about principle, and we hear that a lot from the government. We are always hearing those members saying principle this or principle that. However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that looking for Conservative principle is like playing a game of Where's Waldo?

Where is the principle in the flash reversal on income trusts? Where is the principle in the decision by the Prime Minister to make everything a non-confidence vote, when the fact is that when he was in opposition he said there were too many non-confidence votes?

The Conservatives promised 125,000 private sector child care spaces. A month ago the government said that unfortunately this will not be possible. Where is the principle?

Those members campaigned as fiscal Conservatives. Where is the principle in campaigning as fiscal Conservatives and then tabling the biggest spending budget in the history of Canada?

The Conservatives called for the independence of MPs. Where is the principle when they shut the door on the MP from Nova Scotia and disbanded his riding executive over the weekend?

The Conservatives have said that the plan was always to get out of Afghanistan in 2009. The defence critic brought up the fact that there were internal documents showing the government had no intention of leaving until 2011 at the earliest. Where is the principle in that? The Prime Minister is now saying in his throne speech that it looks like the government will try for 2011.

The Conservatives talk about fixed election dates. Where is the principle when they are always manoeuvring and trying to trigger an election? Where is the principle?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak about principle because we on this side of the House do believe in principle. Our most important principle is doing what we said we would do, and that is what we have been doing since we were elected on clear priorities. We spelled them out and we have delivered on them.

My friend asked: why confidence votes? It is about accountability, a concept perhaps foreign to the other side where those members are all about power. In our view it is very simple. We tell Canadians what we are going to do. We stand behind what we say, and then we deliver on it. The mandate we received from Canadians counts for something. If the member disagrees with that mandate, if he wishes to present another vision, he is free to do that.

Our tackling violent crime agenda is something core. We spoke to Canadians about it and they supported it. The Liberal Party said it supported it, but when it comes to practice the behaviour of those members is entirely different than their words. Those bills were held up without being passed for a total of 1,456 days, and yet those members said this was an agenda they could support. Those were the delays; that was the obstruction.

That is why we have bundled our agenda into one bill, a confidence bill, a bill where Canadians will finally get the agenda they want, a bill that tackles violent crime that will make their communities safer. We hope that for once the actions of the Liberals will match their words and that they will support this bill.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I regularly hear from my constituents who are ashamed of the Conservative government's representation of Canada in the world, subverting peace to fighting in Afghanistan, refusing to meet our point seven commitment to millennium development goals, and of course, shrugging off the Kyoto objectives. It is on this last point that I would like to ask a question.

Why is it that the Conservative government refuses to bring back a piece of legislation that all parties have worked on, that by all accounts from leading experts would help us meet our goals and would help Canada transition to a green economy?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome that question and all the aspects of it. First, on the issue of Afghanistan, we are very proud of what we have been able to do for the people of Afghanistan through our intervention, our support and our development assistance.

My friend says that there is insufficient development assistance. Guess what, Afghanistan is the largest recipient of Canadian development assistance and the results are paying off. That is why in a poll that was released last week we saw that an overwhelming majority of Afghans felt that their lives were better today than they were before Canadian troops were there, making them safer. The Afghans want those troops there, they believe that they are making their lives better, and that they are safer.

This is why we see millions of children in school who were not there before. We see women enjoying rights that they never had before. I know that others may not want to be willing to make the sacrifice necessary to protect people in troubled areas of the world, to protect women's rights, to protect children. Canada is proud to take on the leadership role today that we have taken in the past.

I am particularly surprised when we have members of the Liberal Party raising questions on that, when they talk about principle. They were the ones who took the decision to send those troops into Afghanistan, who took the decision to send those troops into the troubled southern portions of Afghanistan, and they are the ones today who are abandoning those troops and demanding withdrawal. I believe that principle says when a decision is made, we stand behind the decision. We are proud to do that.

On the question of the environment, this is another excellent contrast of the previous Liberal government that spoke a lot and did nothing and allowed greenhouse gases to rise massively. Our government is delivering with a program, an agenda of tackling greenhouse gas emissions and delivering actual, real reductions in greenhouse gases, as well as taking action to clean up our water, our air, address pollution and protect endangered spaces.

I could on and on, but Canadians are happy to finally have a government that is taking action.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech on democratic reform. The new Conservative government has been very committed to democratic reform in the last session and will continue to be in the next session. The minister indicated the positive aspects of democratic reform. My question for the minister is, if we do not get support from the opposition parties, what is the downside to Canada and to Canadians if democratic reforms are not passed by this House of Commons?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Burlington for his question. He is indeed a remarkable new member in this House of Commons who has been serving very well. I know the constituents of Burlington are pleased that they finally have a voice that stands up and advances their agenda to improve their lives in a very constructive way.

I know as well that the people of Burlington do care about the quality of our democracy and something that troubles them, as I think it does trouble all Canadians, is the state of affairs in our Senate.

We have been trying very hard to get constructive changes to the Senate, but an entrenched, unaccountable, unelected Liberal majority continues to protect their privileges. I can understand it because it is consistent with their behaviour in the past. It is about privileges. It is about entitlements. It is about a culture that has taken hold of a portion of that institution and certainly of that party.

Canadians have had enough of that. That is part of what the last election was about. It was about restoring accountability and having a government that did not work for the benefit of those who had the entitlements within, but rather of having a Parliament and a government that worked in the interests of Canadians. That is what we are seeking to do.

Unfortunately, if we continue to see, as we saw with Bill S-4, a Senate which is unwilling to consider any change, however modest, however simple, one that would not even affect them personally when we talk about term limits being reduced to eight years, everybody who was there would be grandfathered. It would only affect new appointments. Yet, they are so resistant to any element of democratic change that might change the character of entitlements they have.

If we find ourselves so frustrated and that institution proves itself so unwilling to modernize and change in a way that it has not for a century and a half, then we will be faced I think with the unfortunate alternative that all that is left on the table is abolition. Canadians want change in the Senate. They have spoken loud and clear that the Senate must change and our government is making our best efforts to bring about that change.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question. The member talked about electoral reform. He has had some requests from the public for proportional representation. What is his party doing on that front?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government undertook an extensive consultation process through the first half of this year. I believe the report was released last month summarizing those consultations that were representative of the entire country.

What we found is that Canadians did want to see some changes. They did want to see political parties more engaged, but they did not want to see a fundamental change in our political system and a move to proportional representation. That came through loud and clear in that study.

Not surprisingly, we just had a referendum in Ontario on the very same principle and in that referendum I think close to two-thirds of Ontarians spoke loud and clear. It was heartening to me to see that the actual results in a referendum were consistent with those from the study.

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the topic of the Speech from the Throne.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

We said that we would listen with care to the Speech from the Throne and we did. Certainly Canadians expect speeches like this to be full of promises and this one certainly did not disappoint. However, governing is not about making speeches or even promises. It is rather about what governments do.

One of the police forces north of Toronto says it well on the side of its cruisers. It has written the words “Deeds Speak”, and they certainly do speak when it comes to the Conservative government: the Atlantic accord, Kyoto, Kelowna, income trusts, tax increases, lost jobs, exported jobs, court challenges, literacy programs, stacking the judiciary, reckless spending, disappointment, broken promises. Indeed these deeds do speak.

The Prime Minister has said that MPs in the House have to, as he eloquently put it, fish or cut bait. He said: vote in support of the throne speech or Canada would get an election; support all the legislative initiatives that would be coming, whether we agreed with them or not, or Canada would get an election; and let his minority government function as a majority, even when the people of Canada did not grant him a majority, or Canada would get an election.

As a result, some people have called the Prime Minister a bully. Bullies like taking advantage. They look for situations they can dominate, one-sided battles.

The Prime Minister's brain trust may be telling him right now that he can afford to bully us. The Prime Minister's advisers say that the opposition is weak, that we do not have as much money as the Conservatives do, that our leader is not as experienced, that we are not as organized and that we even have some MPs who are too independent.

If the truth be told, there may be something to that, and trust me, we are working on it, However, at the end of the day, it does not matter. Canadians did not send us here to play games of brinkmanship or hurl dares. In fact, too much of what goes on in this chamber is considered by most people watching it to be a national joke.

What does matter is that all voices be heard, that all citizens be represented and not just the Conservative demographic.

Someone needs to stand up more often in this chamber and speak for the two million income trust investors who lost tens of billions of dollars in savings after the government broke a solemn promise.

Someone needs to challenge the people from the maritime provinces after the government ripped up the Atlantic accord.

Somebody must lead the way for those Canadians angry and upset that after yet another two years we have done nothing about climate change.

Somebody has to give more hope to our first nations people and the disadvantaged that the fight for equality and progress will in fact continue.

Somebody needs to give voice to those families who have seen income taxes and mortgage rates increase at the same time, who know record government spending means they will never see a tax decrease as long as the government is in place.

Somebody needs to get up and fight for all those workers who are losing their jobs as the dollars soars. Export sales are shattered and our finance minister smirks.

Millions of Canadians are not impressed with speeches and promises, and neither am I. Millions of citizens want fairness and justice and hope. They want their Canada back.

Maybe on this side of the House we are not ready. We may not have enough money. We might not be as organized as those guys, but I we have never been more determined. They may be richer over there. They may have more pollsters. They may have a longer campaign plane, more square feet in their headquarters and a bigger election machine. However, as Winston Churchill said, “It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog”.

The governing party has spent many months and many millions of dollars organizing for an election. It has been tearing down its political opponents daily instead of governing. It has reached new levels of negative messaging in the country and, unfortunately, it has confused the public service with the naked quest for continued power since it seeks a majority government at all costs.

The Prime Minister's fish or cut bait dare is an obvious attempt to goad other parties into entering an election on the Prime Minister's terms, by seeking to nullify the role of opposition members of Parliament who represent, after all, a majority of Canadians. The Prime Minister is hoping he will get that election he so badly wants.

I would like quote Jim Travers from the Toronto Star who said quite eloquently:

[The Prime Minister's] "fish or cut bait" ultimatum is one test of Parliament's growing irrelevance. Those no-name representatives of the people are essentially being told to stand-down from their elected task. Under threat of an imminent campaign, public policies tightly scripted by an inner circle that only occasionally intersects with ministers or the civil service are to be approved without amendment or improvement.

Let me admit something, I would love to give the Prime Minister an election. I certainly do not fear the voters in my riding. I think they would enjoy the chance of having a clear voice right now between our vision of the future, our quest for social and economic justice and that of a programmed and muted automaton Conservative candidate.

Fortunately, I am not the leader. Wisely, the leader has picked his moment rather than allow the bully to call the shots. He has chosen to fight on issues Canadians are passionate about rather than the thin and tasteless gruel of a throne speech written by the milquetoasts in the PMO.

Fortunately, the leader of the Liberal Party has clarity and vision and above all, the wisdom to understand there is no point having an election when the governing party has already spent millions trying to precipitate it. That is not to say there will not be a vote soon. We know there will be and the results of it will shock a number of hon. members opposite who will be lining up for cardboard boxes. However, it will not be this week.

We will not be pushed. We will not be prodded. We will not be goaded. We will not be intimidated. We will be resolute and we will get the results Canadians want, like those brave people in my riding, who were not cowed by the Prime Minister when I was thrown out of his party, who stood with me. Or those brave people today in the riding of Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, who are standing beside that brave member who stuck up for his constituents and suffered the results at the hands of the Prime Minister.

We will all fight for those who grieve for the environment. We will fight for those who cannot abide to see our government steal from investors. We will fight for the families whose taxes have risen, for the first nations that have been ignored, for the manufacturers and exporters and retailers that are shedding jobs and sales because of the government, for homeowners worried about what rising mortgage rates are going to do to the value of their homes in the real estate market, for the people of Atlantic Canada who have been slapped once again by the Prime Minister and for all those who hoped the new government would give them hope and promise and change, but who have seen more arrogance and narrow focus, exclusion and incompetence than any of us feared.

Our leader was right. There will be no election this week, no giving in to the bully. Instead, soon, we will feel the winds of change, the force of millions of people who the government does not stand up for, does not represent, does not respect. Then they will be blown back and the country will be restored.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the speech of the hon. member for Halton is very hard to swallow. First, the Leader of the Opposition makes constituency outreach as part of his new task. When he was a member of the Conservative Party, he told his executive that it was not allowed to communicate with other riding associations in the area.

The member talked about negative advertising. He put out in my riding a ten percenter that was complete lies, calling me a liar. I would be happy to table it in the House. He is so much off mark on what he had to say because he says one thing and does completely the other. If he wants an election, he can call a byelection. I can quote him saying that if people cross the floor, there should be a byelection. He has crossed the floor. He should have a byelection if he wants an election. We would be happy to face him in Halton.

The member commented on a number of things. He claims he likes to answer questions directly. My direct question for him is this. We are proposing changes to the Senate to make it more democratic. Is he in favour of a more democratic Senate, yes or no?

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reason I went to his riding to have a town hall meeting was because he was afraid to. It was very worthwhile listening to so many of the hon. member's constituents, who did not have the opportunity to pose questions to their own member.

They told me that when they tried to contact the member for Burlington, he had no answers for them. He would not tell income trust investors why the government had reversed its position. Because I represent half of the city of Burlington, I was left with no option but to try to ensure that the other half of the city was well represented. Unfortunately, Conservative members of Parliament are prevented from having effective representation. I had no choice; they compelled me.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to get this into a debate over some issues of substance as opposed to personalities. One of the things I am interested in is manufacturing.

The member talked about issues related to manufacturing and his concerns about that. I expressed similar concerns to the previous administration when I was promised an auto policy. It did not deliver on that. The current government is continuing down that path, which gives me great concern.

Also, with what is being debated right now, the only economic lever will be a corporate tax reduction, which has not historically led to improvement in manufacturing. It has not created more jobs. I know the member's leader has been racing the Prime Minister in terms of how many more corporate tax cuts can actually happen. Ironically, in ridings like mine we are witnessing plants going to Mexico and those companies are getting a tax cut at a time when they are relocating Canadian jobs and throwing people out on the streets.

In terms of the Liberal position right now, is it just for corporate tax cuts? Is that all the Liberals have in the repertoire dealing with manufacturing? If they have something else, I would like to hear it.

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a substantive issue. The answer is, yes, we do and he will hear about it in due course.

The problem right now with manufacturing job losses is that it is not a proposal for the Conservative Party to cut corporate taxes in the future. That has nothing to do with the losses we see today. The losses today are because of Canada's competitiveness gap and we are losing jobs to jurisdictions that have a more competitive environment. That is why they are getting the jobs. There is no question about it.

One of the problems we face today is a dollar at parity. A dollar at parity has a lot to do with the economic policies of our country. We have seen government spending rise to a level that we have never seen in the nation before, and the Minister of Finance has seen that situation develop. High government spending has always been inflationary, which is something the Conservatives pointed out in past times of Liberal governments.

Inflationary spending breeds higher interest rates. Higher interest rates attracts capital from around the world. As capital inflows to our country, because we have petro reserves, we see our currency rise in value. We are considered to be a petro currency country.

The combination of high government spending, a recurrence of inflation and oil reserves in Canada have driven our dollar higher. That has erased the competitive advantage a lot of our manufacturers have and our job losses in large part are a result of that. I fear they have only just started and we have to reverse this trend.

I would be very pleased to work with the hon. member opposite to find ways to restore our competitiveness instead of eroding it as the Conservatives have done.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share this time with my colleague.

First off, let me say that disappointment is the word that comes to mind. Every year and a half or two years, government presents Canadians with a throne speech. If nothing else, that throne speech is supposed to be visionary. It is not intended to be just an agenda for an election that might occur in the weeks or months following a throne speech. It should be a document that lays out for Canadians where the government of the day intends to take the country because, in spite of the great inertia in regard to the elements needed for change in our society or in any society, governments have a huge role to play when it comes to making changes for the betterment of its citizens.

This throne speech lacked any vision whatsoever. It is very unfortunate and very sad that the government missed an opportunity to lay before Canadians its real vision, instead leaving many Canadians, including myself, to wonder what the hidden agenda is. I will list a few of the many things that were missing. There certainly were a lot of words, but no vision, no reference to substance and no context were attached to them. It was simply the mention of many words.

Where was the real substance on climate change?

Where was the real substance and the real plan on Canada's mission in Afghanistan?

Where was the vision when it comes to post-secondary education and the need to support research and development and the scientific community in this country?

Really, where was the mention of a vision for our first nations, for aboriginal Canadians, many of whom have come to suspect that really and truly they are not on the agenda of the government?

What about poverty?

What about municipalities?

I would like to quote the president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, who said:

By simply re-branding existing infrastructure programs, the Government fails to invest the additional resources needed to meet the challenges it acknowledges in the Speech from the Throne.

It is okay to acknowledge challenges, as the president of the FCM says, but it is another thing to have a vision and to have a specific set of ideas to put any vision into effect.

My northern Ontario riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing is blessed with some 55 communities. There are roughly 24 first nations and the rest are small and large townships, villages, small cities and towns. When I meet with mayors and chiefs, they ask me to bring the message forward that the federal government needs to continue to be involved with local government at the municipal level and with our first nations. Their message for the federal government is that it needs to improve its participation, to up the ante and to recognize the challenges faced at the local level in our communities when it comes to dealing with infrastructure, poverty and local economies.

In the case of northern Ontario, we are really struggling, with a forestry sector that, like manufacturing, generally is being hit very hard. Added to the manufacturing woes in forestry, of course, there are the specific problems facing Canada because of the very terrible softwood lumber deal that this country has with the U.S., a deal, by the way, in which we threw away years of progress in the courts and before various trade panels, years of progress that we were about to reap the benefits of had the deal that was accepted by the government not been accepted. That deal, by the way, was rejected by the previous government in the late fall of 2005, and within a few days of taking office the current Prime Minister adopted it, rejecting our deal, and called it his own. Quite frankly, it is a deal that has not done anything. If anything, it has hurt our forestry sector.

What about child care? I agree that if families are able to and decide to keep their children at home from birth right through to first year of kindergarten it is perfectly fine. In my case, a couple of my children went to child care and a couple of them stayed home with one of their parents.

I think it is important that there be a real choice and an infrastructure of child care in this country that allows families who choose to participate fully in the workforce to have access to a network of child care centres and early learning facilities across this country, a network that is consistent and properly funded, with workers who are properly paid, a network, indeed, that allows our families to help build our local economies and the country.

The program that the government put in place with its so-called $100 a month really does not do it, I do not believe, and statistics will demonstrate it. That program has not created a single new day care space. One hundred dollars a month taxable puts barely $50, $60 or $70 a month in the hands of families to provide day care. In most locations, that would provide barely a couple of days of day care.

To move on, I mentioned forestry but there is also manufacturing in general. Yes, there are certain things happening in the world that are difficult for any government to deal with, but it is the government's responsibility to respond. Where are some specifics on the capital cost allowance measures that can help our companies take advantage of the situation as it exists now to upgrade their technology so that indeed as the next cycle comes along they can be ahead of that cycle? There are other things the government can do to make sure our manufacturing sector does not go further into decline.

It is well and good to have strong economies in Alberta and perhaps in St. John's, Newfoundland and other specific locations across the country. That is fine. It makes the overall numbers look good, but there are pockets and regions, and I point to many communities in my riding and throughout northern Ontario, that are definitely suffering. They need the opportunity to participate fully in the national economy.

I will speak a little about northern Ontario. I mentioned that there are a great number of first nations there and a great number of communities that depend on forestry. It is very sad for me to relate to this chamber that just this past Friday the Weyerhaeuser plant in Wawa shut down for an “indefinite” period. There does not appear to be any real prospect of a reopening in the near or mid term.

I do not want to create any false hope for the workers in this plant. One hundred and thirty jobs have been lost. The workers are being told, sadly, that they should make arrangements for their lives and for their families. I wish them well. I will be there at the first opportunity in the next week or so to do what I can to help. Along with the provincial member, we will work with the community, the workers and whoever else will come to the table to make sure that the consequences of that closure can be minimized.

Let me speak a little about our first nations. The leaders of the communities in my riding have worked very hard. They are excellent leaders. They have worked hard to make sure the communities can do the best they can in the current situation, but they fail to see in this government any real exhibition of a willingness to see them as true partners even though they are their own level of government. They are not municipalities. They have a relationship with the Government of Canada and it is important that we recognize that.

The current government cancelled the Kelowna accord adopted by the premiers, the territories and provinces, the aboriginal leadership and the Government of Canada in the fall of 2005. There was every hope that the expenditures to flow from that agreement, in excess of $5 billion, would do a great amount of good work in terms of housing and education, in social services and for supports in terms of health. For example, diabetes rates are far too high in our first nations communities.

There are a lot of things we can do better. It is time that we learned the lessons from the past. There is no past government that can pat itself on the back entirely and say that it did a great job. We all have lessons to learn. It is the responsibility of the government to build on those lessons and move forward. Sadly, we are not seeing that. What I hear instead is this: how quickly can we have a change in government so that we can have a change in attitude and a change in approach?

Let me talk about poverty. Last week for a short while I was able to attend and participate in the rally on poverty that was held out front here. The fact that any child in this country lives in poverty is sad. This will not be eliminated overnight, but as is noted in the Liberal amendment to the throne speech, which will be voted on tonight, we call upon the government to end its “18 months of inaction” on poverty. We need to make poverty history. We must build on the good work of past Liberal governments on such initiatives as the Canada child tax benefit, affordable housing, literacy, the supporting communities partnership initiative, and the working income tax benefit.

The work was being done. Progress was being made. We call upon the government to turn that corner and recognize that something needs to be done in all the areas I have outlined.

Mr. Speaker, I see that you are indicating the end of my time. Thank you for your indulgence.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with attention to the comments from the speaker opposite, the Liberal member of Parliament. As he well knows, one of his colleagues in the other place, Liberal Senator Dan Hays, before he retired, had some pretty remarkable words to say in respect to Senate reform. He said that the need for reform in the Senate is a “long-standing sore point in our national politics”. He said that the first thing parliamentarians need to do is legislate fixed term limits for senators.

Given that subsequent to this the Liberal dominated Senate virtually killed our Conservative bill in respect to this, and given that the member made no comment in respect to Senate reform, which was a part of the throne speech, I would like to know where the member and his colleagues in this place stand in regard to the crucial need for Senate reform vis-à-vis Dan Hays' comments.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that question is important to the member, but it is certainly not important to a lot of my constituents, who are dealing with job losses, the need for child care and the need for our first nations to have good water and housing. There is a broad range of concerns.

However, if the hon. member wants to ask about Senate reform, it is certainly his right. I will do my best to answer him. I did not hear the remarks that he alludes to.

The Prime Minister has made something of a career out of bashing the Senate. In my view, it is always possible to improve any institution of government. We have worked together over the decades to improve the work of this place and the same can apply in the Senate.

The kind of Senate reform that the Prime Minister and his party talk about is a sort of a throwing the baby out with the bathwater approach. Until the member, his colleagues and the Prime Minister have some agreement from the provinces, which are partners with the Government of Canada in the Senate, and until can say they have the provinces on side, I do not think his question is even relevant. It is like asking about proportional representation now that Ontario is the third province that has rejected it. Why talk about proportional representation when the voters are not ready for it?

I do not think the voters, the public, are ready for the kind of reform that the member talks about.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's debate and presentation. He is a former chair of the industry committee. I would argue, all partisanship aside, that he did a very good job. I have been in the House of Commons for five years and we actually have had consensus building on that committee. He has departed to another committee, but certainly his work in the previous committee as well as the current one has been very positive.

The hon. member noted that the capital cost reduction allowance issue is very important. In fact, the industry committee tabled 22 recommendations in a common report supported by all parties, including a capital cost reduction allowance for equipment. The finance minister instead did a two year window, but I actually tabled a five year window, plus a renewal period after an evaluation, because industries like mine in Windsor, for example, where there is the tool, die and mold making industry, need to have the third, fourth and fifth year to make those investments in terms of the time rolled out.

I would like to ask my colleague why he believes it is important to move on this. For example, I believe this is much more effective than a general corporate tax cut, because once again, I have industries leaving my constituency that are going to get taxpayer funds to set up somewhere else, whereas actually getting equipment in on the ground floor will protect Canadian workers and their jobs and provide the livelihood that we all want.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's remarks about our work together on the industry committee in the last Parliament. Indeed, we worked together very well and he was an excellent member of that committee.

For the viewers, the capital cost allowance allows a company to write off over a period of time its capital investment in equipment as an expense, a little bit each year. That allows that company to plan for replacing equipment. If the capital cost allowance write-off period is too long, it hampers that industry relative to another.

With the rapid change in technology in our society and in the world, we need to give companies a better ability to respond rapidly. Therefore, an accelerated rate of capital cost allowances can help industry, especially when it comes to climate change technology, auto technology, mining technology and forestry technology. We need to give our industries a leg up when it comes to preparing for the future. It requires a mix of corporate initiatives but that is a very important one.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share my time with my colleague from Hamilton Mountain.

I am proud to stand in solidarity with my NDP colleagues and millions of Canadians who oppose the Conservative government's wrong-headed direction. The throne speech should be an articulation of the government's fundamental principles and yet in this document the government has reached a new level of cynical doublespeak. While claiming to be concerned about poverty, homelessness, climate change and rising costs in post-secondary education, the government has outlined steps that will make the problems worse.

The government has turned its back on communities. Our local governments are left with heavy lifting, forced to face today's complex challenges on their own while a federal seat sits vacant.

I would like to start by talking specifically about Victoria. There is a growing consensus in my community that all levels of government should focus on housing. As of this April, 953 families and 406 seniors were on the wait list for social housing. The city of Victoria's homelessness task force report released last week speaks to the urgency of acting now. Even the Victoria Downtown Business Association is asking the federal government to allocate some of the surplus to housing.

I also consistently hear about Victoria's need for affordable, quality child care. Last week the Prime Minister gave a misleading answer in response to my question. Contrary to his assertion, his failed policies have not created one child care space, in my riding at least. On the contrary, day care centres are closing and desperate parents are on mile-long wait lists. The Union of B.C. Municipalities has called for a national child care system. The business community has lamented the domino effect of federal child care cuts on its province's workforce.

To address these and other crucial issues, I have long advocated for the federal government to adopt a community focused approach. This means having the federal government act as a collaborative partner with the provinces to help municipalities implement their own local solutions. What a community approach would not do is impose unnecessary policy barriers that prevent communities from solving their local problems, like the Conservatives' resistance to the harm reduction approach and other strategies identified in communities.

For example, despite best efforts, the Conservatives still have not found their way to supplying the $150,000 in capital funding that are needed for Victoria's access health centre. This is an innovative project that provides one stop access to services needed by homeless people. It would prevent illness and save health care dollars. However, the Conservatives' shortsighted, narrow view of the federal role stands in the way of communities moving forward.

A couple of weeks ago I hosted a prebudget town hall in my riding and the messages I collected to bring back to Ottawa are unequivocal. They are to invest in our citizens, communities, housing, child care, learning and training, the environment and to build a green economy, but Victoria has been let down by a government that chooses to prioritize tax cuts over investments in our collective well-being.

The surplus and tax cuts will be important issues in this session of Parliament. The Minister of Finance says that he does not want to leave a debt for our children. I would say that the Conservative government is in the process of racking up an enormous debt that our children will have a hard time repaying. We must not forget that this massive surplus came about because of the major cuts to social programs by the Liberals in the 1990s. The national housing program was cut; tuition costs and student debt have tripled in 10 years; child poverty is worse than when Parliament promised to eradicate it; our municipalities are struggling with a $60 billion infrastructure deficit. Furthermore, the federal government refuses to commit to making our economy respectful of the environment, in order to address the imminent dangers of climate change.

The majority of Canadian families have stagnating or falling incomes and are forced to work longer hours and spend less time with their children. They need better transit and home care, more affordable housing and child care, and better protection from toxic products on the market but the government does not believe in social policy. In fact, it reduces everything to economic terms and perpetuates the myth that profits from deregulated markets will trickle down. The trickle seems to be stuck.

There is much talk about the tax burden, but what about the burden on low- and middle-income families who no longer have access to affordable housing or child care? What about the burden on people who are on long waiting lists for major surgery? What about the people struggling to repay staggering student debts? What about the burden on women who earn on average 71¢ for every dollar earned by a man? There was nothing about pay equity in the throne speech. And what about the burden on the environment?

I think that as long as these burdens continue to enlarge the hole in the social and environmental fabric, the answer for how to use the surplus will be clear.

As the NDP's literacy advocate, I have been appalled at the disinterest of the government to the needs of adult learners. A lack of functional literacy impedes an individual's ability to lead a full life and secure a better job. It also impedes Canada's ability to stay competitive. Leading economists have joined the chorus of voices critical of the government's shortsightedness on adult literacy which costs the economy tens of billions of dollars every year.

The NDP has been calling for a comprehensive, pan-Canadian strategy on literacy and lifelong learning. Tax cuts do not educate anyone, another reason that I oppose the government's direction.

In addition to tax cuts, the Conservatives are pursuing their quest to gut the capacity of the federal government through a radical agenda of privatization. The government is intent on selling out the public interest to deliver the greatest possible profit to a small minority, regardless of the cost to the rest.

From following through on the ridiculous Liberal scheme to sell federal buildings and lease them back, to the proliferation of public-private partnerships, the name of the game is spending public money for private profit.

On a similar but much broader front, the Conservatives are implementing the Liberals so-called security and prosperity partnership. Behind closed doors and away from the eyes of citizens and their elected representatives in Parliament, the government is hollowing out our country as it pursues its agenda of deep integration with U.S. corporate interests.

I take this opportunity to call on the government to bring the SPP agenda to the public scrutiny of Parliament.

Because the Conservative agenda does not reflect Victoria's priorities, I oppose the Speech from the Throne. Because these policies will incrementally convert Canada into a neo-Conservative country that we will not recognize, I stand opposed to the government's direction. It would be unconscionable not to.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, when I said that it was a shame that during National Poverty Week there was nothing in the throne speech about poverty, the government suggested that there was a lot on page 10. I did not find very much there. I wonder if the member thinks there was a lot of anti-poverty initiatives in the throne speech?

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne, the government made a reference to parents' concerns about rising costs in education and made references to poverty but offered no plan at all or no steps that would help us reduce this prosperity gap.

It seems that when the government acknowledges that there is a prosperity gap it still keeps going in the wrong direction.

As the president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities said with reference to the increasing gap municipalities are facing in dealing with the challenges that the former Liberal government and the present government have downloaded to them, the government may have recognized the challenges but provided no additional resources to address them.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite may want to note that there has been considerable economic advances and success in this country, which everybody is gaining from. Admittedly, much needs to be done on the poverty side and our government is serious about this issue too.

In our throne speech we talk in terms of some of the steps to improve the lives of Canadian aboriginal people. I offer to the House the final settlement in respect of the Indian residential schools and the upcoming apology in respect to that. I am grateful that our government is taking care of those needs and addressing some of those issues in our country.

The throne speech mentioned strengthening the federation and our democratic institutions. I would hope the member would agree that unless we have strength in our country and in our institutions some of these other things can take a beating. We need to ensure that we are on top in the modern era with our democratic institutions.

I have a question for the member who is from British Columbia. In the last session, the Conservative government introduced a democratic representation bill, Bill C-56, which would have amended the formula for the allocation of seats in the House and would have ensured representation by population, particularly for the growing population in the province of British Columbia.

Could the hon. member assure the House that she as an individual and her New Democratic colleagues would support the legislation when it is reintroduced in the House? I heard no mention in her speech and I would be very interested in getting a response on that now.