Debates of Oct. 23rd, 2007

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Mississauga—Erindale for his excellent analysis of the throne speech. It is a shame that he will be unable to give effect to that by having members of his caucus stand up and vote the way they say they believe, but that is another matter.

The issue I want to raise specifically with the hon. member is this. He mentioned a lack of any reference to new Canadians in the throne speech. In Hamilton we continue to have a huge problem with foreign trained professionals being unable to perform the work in the profession for which they are trained. There are far too many. This is not a caricature; this is reality. We have far too many PhDs driving cabs and delivering pizza. Not that it is not honourable work, but we have more important things for them to do.

I would assume the member has similar problems in his community of Mississauga. Perhaps he would like to expand on why he believes, like I, that the government, whatever it is, needs to do a lot more in this area. If we truly want to build our economy and say to the world that Canada is open to having new people join us, then we need to find a way to ensure we are translating their professional skills into jobs in Canada where we need the service and they need the work.

Could the hon. member talk about how it affects his constituents in Mississauga?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue a very important one, and I thank my hon. colleague for raising it.

More than 50% of the people of Mississauga were born outside of Canada. Many of them have immigrated here particularly because of their amazing and incredible skills. We have attracted them to Canada so we can utilize those skills.

However, as many economists tell us, we are missing out on much economic activity because we are unable to utilize those skills. We are missing out on $6 billion a year of economic activity.

What did the Conservatives do in the last campaign? They exploited that frustration. They exploited that angst. They promised they would fix the problem quickly. What have they done? Nothing.

I admit, it is a complex problem. I admit it requires provincial-federal cooperation with post-secondary education and with many government agencies. However, what have the Conservatives done about that? Nothing.

The Conservatives could introduce initiatives that retrain these individuals. They could introduce initiatives in cooperation with assessment agencies or the regulating bodies to ensure they recruit individuals and upgrade or assess their credentials, but they have done nothing. They have created a kiosk that points fingers for individuals and tells them to speak to that individual or that agency. They have not fixed the problem and I am really sorry about that.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today. I will be splitting my time with the Minister of National Revenue. Like most Canadians, I like to share with the minister at least once a year when he assesses my taxes. I am sure he will look at my file a little differently now that I am sharing with him.

I was really thrilled to be appointed by the Prime Minister to this role. It is a dream come true at some times. Other times it is more of a nightmare. There are a lot of thorny issues that percolate around the agricultural sector in our great country, Canada.

This is an agricultural day on the Hill. A lot of groups are around the Hill advocating and lobbying and so on. I started out my day at about 7 o'clock this morning with a breakfast with fertilizer groups from across the country. We talked about their future and the role they play in agriculture. It was a great discussion of issues pertinent to them, and I look forward to my next meeting with them as well.

Later today I will meet with the animal nutrition folks. They are working their way through a lot of the glitches that have arisen with respect to imported animal nutrition products and how we are going to come to grips with free and unfettered trade, but still ensuring that the food supply is safe and secure for our pets as well as people. We working toward that end.

Tonight a lot of us will end up with the CAFTA group that is here. At the same time the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is putting on another function as well. There is never any lack of things going on in the agricultural files.

There are a number of things I have been happy to pick up from my predecessor, now the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who did a fantastic job on this file. We have a saying in agricultural areas that I am basically harrowing the ground that he ploughed on a lot of these issues. I tried using that logic with a member of the media in Ottawa at one time and the person got it backward. The individual was harrowing before ploughing. Out in the real world we do it in the right order and a lot of it has to do with the environment and taking care of that in our charge.

A number of things in the throne speech have been decried by the Liberals. A lot of that may be alligator tears and a bit of an impression that they never really measured up.

There were a number of Liberal throne speeches. They prorogued a number of times and recessed and did all sorts of funny tricks. Most of their throne speeches ended up in the archives because nothing ever came out of them. I never found any mention of agriculture in any Liberal throne speeches. You have been here longer than I have, Mr. Speaker, and I would challenge you to try to remember back over the years any words of encouragement to the agricultural sector in a Liberal throne speech. I could not find any at all.

Then I started to think that maybe the Liberals put it all into their budgets. Maybe that was when they kept their powder dry in the throne speeches and rather than over promise, they would deliver something in their budgets. I started checking those too and other than a trail of tears leading to the vault from Canadian taxpayers, I could not find mention of agriculture in their budgets either.

There was a lot of neglect on the agricultural file over the 13 years the Liberals were in office. My colleague from Prince Edward Island, who is with us here today, is agreeing with me. He is nodding his head. Farmers on the emerald isle are telling him that as well. I am happy to have that support.

I had a great trip out to Prince Edward Island a couple of weeks ago. The member of the agriculture committee from Prince Edward Island followed me around and re-announced my announcements a day later. That is the greatest form of flattery. He is agreeing with everything we are doing. I am certain we will see a lot of support from the member.

I made a mistake in question period. I should have said the former minister, the agricultural brain child from Prince Edward Island. I want to apologize to the rest of the country for mistakenly calling him the minister. Everybody is going to have a late night trying to get to sleep after that one.

A number of great initiatives have been announced in the throne speech that pertain to agriculture. There is mention about interprovincial trade barriers. We all know the cost and the cause of those types of things as we have these little kingdoms across the country. Some of the provinces, specifically British Columbia and Alberta, have come forward with an agreement called TILMA, which gets rid of that boundary when it comes to agricultural products especially. We hear some discussions are happening between Ontario and Quebec. It is all great news.

We need free and unfettered trade among our provinces the same as we are seeking. My seatmate, the Minister of International Trade, was on his feet today a number of times. He talked about bilateral trade agreements, on which we are working. Those are requirements of a trading nation like our country, whether we get everything we are looking for at the WTO in Geneva this go around or not. We are still going to need bilateral trade agreements to build on that foundation or to take the place of that if a deal does not go through. It is not looking good at this point. There are a lot of different interests at play.

Our main trade negotiator, a fellow named Steve Verheul, has done yeoman service. I have a lot of time for Steve as do most farming operations across the country. He has done a tremendous service for Canadian agriculture in carrying that message and that load to the round tables at Geneva. Steve deserves our respect and certainly a bigger pay cheque than we could ever give him.

He does that job. He is the greatest cheerleader for Saskatchewan agriculture, Ontario agriculture, the Maritimes agriculture and Quebec agriculture. Every form of agriculture in the country is being represented equally and robustly by Mr. Verheul at those tables as we could ever imagine. I just cannot comment enough on the great job he has done.

There are a lot of other things in the throne speech. We reiterate our movement toward free and unfettered trade in the world. We are very close in negotiating some of the trade deals. Some of them we have signed.

I started to check back in history. I wanted to compare our action with what the Liberals did over 13 years and I could not find one action. The member who spoke before me went on and on about what is not in and what is in and how they would do a better job. I guess if we want to compare report cards, that is what the next election will be all about, whenever it comes.

I am happy doing my job. If it comes to pounding campaign signs tomorrow, next spring or next fall or October 2009, when we have actually stipulated the date, I am happy to do that.

However, I am here and I want to govern. I have enjoyed working with my provincial counterparts, teeing off on the great work that the former minister did in Whistler last June, moving forward with “Growing Forward”, getting past that old CAIS program, which even the Liberals have said we should have done earlier. We campaigned and made a promise on that. We are following through on this and we are replacing it.

We are coming forward with user friendly products. They are bankable, they are predictable and they are the best of which we can work.

We have had two rounds of discussions with the farm groups. We are looking forward to a third round. I had a conference call with my provincial counterparts last week. I am looking forward to a face to face meeting in mid-November to carry on with the great work the farm lobby has done in building this new generation of products.

Of course we cannot back stop everything we would like to. There are trade rules that curtail us in certain ways. However, we have been very innovative and appreciative of what the farmers have gone through sector by sector.

Talking about innovation, I came to this job with one concrete principle, having been a former producer. My one and only concrete principle is farmers first. Without a robust farm gate, a vibrant farm gate, none of the rest of my portfolio or a lot of other portfolios make any difference at all.

We are about ensuring that farmers can do what they do best, which is to plant those seeds, raise those livestocks, grow the vineyards, the orchards and so on, which make this great diverse agricultural sector.

I have stayed with that bedrock principle. I have had great discussions with some of the processing sector, which is also facing some anomalies at this point with the dollar rising as quickly as it has and as dramatically as it has. A lot of that speaks to the robust Canadian economy as a whole. Our American counterparts are slipping a little and they are our major trading partners. Some 85% of what we trade goes back and forth across the border on a daily basis.

We are all about free and unfettered trade, but it is easier to get a piece of steak into Montana than it is to get it from Lloydminster into Alberta. That is how crazy that interprovincial trade stuff is.

We are looking at a lot of those issues, working with our provincial counterparts, building a stronger economy around the farm gate. In the statement my parliamentary secretary made today in the House, his S. O. 31, he talked about the contribution of agriculture to the GDP of our great country. The third largest contributor, some 8% of our GDP, comes right out of that farm gate. If we do not stop and think about the great work the men and women in the farm families are doing across the country every time we sit down to a great meal or a great snack, then we are missing the boat.

There has been a disconnect over the years between the gate to plate analogy. I remember years ago being raised on the farm. There was not a Sunday that I can remember that the aunts, uncles and cousins did not come out from Saskatoon or the cities they lived in and enjoyed a great chicken or beef supper, or a trip to the pasture to check on the cows. Of course we had the good old wiener roast down there.

I do not remember ever losing that disconnect. They were all born in farm families, moved to the city to carry on with a career, but they never lost that analogy. They always came back and remembered that foundation, that anchor, which was what Canada was all about.

I have had a tremendous opportunity to look at the future of agriculture. In my mind it is all about science and technology and it is all about innovation.

I made a comment at the biotech summit a couple of weeks ago. I said that when my grandfather was homesteading, his hands were on the plow and he dressed accordingly. Today, the pioneers for agriculture are wearing lab coats. That has dramatically changed over the last 100 years. Over the next 10 years, I think we will see a paradigm shift in agriculture as we start to look at bigger and better things for our farmers and our farm gate.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the presentation given by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, in which he spoke in general terms about his activities within the department. However, I did not hear any convincing arguments concerning the throne speech itself.

As a Bloc Québécois member, I would like to discuss an issue that, I believe, is crucial. Now that Parliament as a whole has recognized Quebec as a nation, I think the government missed out on a good opportunity to make certain gestures after such a fine declaration. This is important to all Canadians, but most of all, to Quebeckers.

I would like to discuss more specifically the federal spending power. For the past 50 years or so, this federal spending power has been denounced in Quebec, by both the Liberal Party in power and the Parti Québécois. The Séguin report, whose author was a Liberal, recommends that, and I quote:

Quebec vigorously reiterate its traditional stance concerning the absence of a constitutional basis for “federal spending power” since this “power” does not respect the division of powers stipulated in the Constitution.

This is merely one element I could mention. Building on the recent recognition of the Quebec nation, the throne speech timidly proposes limiting use of the federal spending power, but only in shared cost programs. Shared cost programs are practically non-existent. Here in this House, the government tends to adopt programs that interfere in provincial jurisdictions, such as the mental heath program and the cervical cancer program. Both of these programs involve political interference in the area of health care, which falls under provincial jurisdiction.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but we have to give the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board time to respond.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to what the member opposite was mumbling on about. It would have been a lot easier for him to read the throne speech without his Bloc blinders on. He did end up in health funding.

The member should know that we have replaced the funding that the Liberals clawed out of the health accord and the social transfers. We have replaced that to the provinces with a 3% escalator. It is principally based and it is based on population.

The member also mentioned the mental health and colon cancer announcements that were made. From the best of my recollection, analyzing the media and talking to people across this great country, those types of projects were very well received in Canada and Quebec. Therefore, I am not exactly sure what it is he is complaining about.

We are doing more for the people on the ground than any federal government has ever done. We are doing it from a minority government position, which is exceptionally hard when people are predisposed to breaking up the country as opposed to making it stronger.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food gave a fine speech, gate to plate. They were wonderful words.

However, representing a province of agriculturalist people who are in the hog and beef industries, their concern is that they cannot pay the bills because the price of the product is so low that they cannot make a living.

There are a lot of wonderful things about the farm gate, gate to plate. What can the minister tell the farmers of Prince Edward Island that might give them a little hope that they might be able to stay in business in the beef industry and in the hog industry?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hog and livestock industries in Prince Edward Island are an island onto themselves but they face the same type of situation that the hog and livestock industries face across the country.

It has more to do with the rising cost of the dollar and our input costs. At this point we have not yet seen the benefit of the dollar but I know the Minister of Finance had a meeting today with some of the retail sector asking why we are not seeing that reflected in our purchasing power at this point. I was not privy to the meeting but I know the Minister of Finance would carry that argument very well.

I did have some tremendous meetings with the livestock and hog sectors in Prince Edward Island when I was there talking about the issues pertinent and germane to the Island. We reached a consensus on some issues. There are other issues that they realize, as I do too, that the depth of hurt they are facing is caused a lot by the 13 years of neglect by the Liberal government of the day, to which the member opposite, of course, belonged.

I also look at his counterpart from Prince Edward Island whose only issue I have ever heard raised in the House is the Canadian Wheat Board, which is a western issue. He is so predisposed with the Wheat Board that he has not asked a question about Prince Edward Island in recent memory that I can think of at all. I am not exactly sure why he is dropping the ball on that issue but I guess he will answer to the electorate in Malpeque very soon.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

As the Speech from the Throne states, Canada is the greatest country in the world. With a population of only 33 million, it has a gross national product of approximately $1,500 billion, and those are real Canadian dollars.

The success of this great economy is the result of hard work and innovation of millions of individual Canadians. Our government wants to build on this success by creating the conditions that encourage both individuals and companies to continue to prosper through strategic investments in the economy and tax relief.

The throne speech reinforces our government's overall approach to growing the Canadian economy. The Advantage Canada plan is at the centre of this sensible approach that ultimately means better paying jobs and solid growth for Canadians. I, like all of us, look forward to the fall economic and fiscal update from the Minister of Finance which will outline the next steps in that plan.

While we have been in government for only a short time, we as Conservatives have done so much to provide the country with effective economic leadership. At the core of our economic philosophy is the belief that Canadians still pay too much tax. As a consequence, over the past year and a half our government has brought forward and implemented broad based tax relief for individuals, businesses and families. To be exact, we have enacted or announced $41.5 billion worth of tax cuts for hard-working Canadians since coming to office.

Members from the Conservative Party believe that Canadians should be able to rely on an income tax system that rewards those who work hard. As Minister of National Revenue, I am responsible for the CRA and its fiscal policy administration activities. That does not mean just collecting taxes. It also means giving money back to Canadians and their families through a number of sensible benefits programs the government has launched. This makes everyone happy, including the tax man.

The throne speech recognizes middle class Canadians and their families as the bedrock of our workforce. It reminded us that we must understand their priorities and address their concerns if we are to achieve our goal of a more prosperous Canada. As Minister of National Revenue, I fully support this objective.

I would now like to describe how our government turns fiscal policy into monetary reality for Canadian families and the 25 million individual tax filers in this country. Let us look, for example, at the impact of our universal child care benefit. This benefit helps parents of young children balance their work and family lives. It means a family with two children under the age of six receives $2,400 a year which contributes to a choice in child care. In fact, our government has already distributed $3 billion in UCCB payments to about 1.5 million Canadian families.

Another good example of how the government is delivering valuable benefits to Canadians and their families is the child disability benefit. This program assists families in caring for children with severe and prolonged impairment in mental or physical functions. The program reported over 53,000 recipients in the last fiscal year, with a total of $155 million going directly into the hands of caregivers.

Budget 2007 introduced a non-refundable child tax credit for parents. In practical terms, this means that the government will issue a cheque to more than $3 million Canadian families for up to $310 for each child under 18.

The child fitness tax credit offers parents an annual tax credit of up to $500 to help offset fees paid to register their children in eligible physical fitness programs. For instance, a family that pays a total of $1,500 to register three kids in hockey programs will reduce their taxes owing by $232. Parents will get this tax credit when they file their 2007 income tax return. Besides helping the pocketbook, it will also help address other critical concerns like childhood obesity.

The list goes on. We are helping Canadians with the cost of post-secondary education through registered education savings plans, deductions for the cost of textbooks, tax exempt bursaries and scholarships.

Last year, countless Canadians applied for the public transit tax credit and we fully expect these numbers to significantly increase this year. Early indications have shown that it is having a positive impact on public transit ridership. Last year, the Toronto Transit Commission confirmed the credit had resulted in about a 5% increase in sales just months after coming into force.

We are now working with our partners in the provinces and territories to implement a new working income tax benefit. The goal of this benefit is to strengthen incentives for low income Canadians so that they can earn income from work without sacrificing needed social benefits. Once implemented, we estimate that this will help more than one million Canadians and their families to get over the so-called welfare wall.

Those are some examples of how we, the Conservatives, are working to improve the quality of life of Canadians.

The government has shown Canadians that filing their tax return does not necessarily mean they will have less money in their pockets. For many Canadians, it even means they will get money back.

As members of the Conservative Party, we also believe that the government has an important role in creating the appropriate conditions to help Canadian businesses and organizations prosper. We also believe that we can achieve this by using the income tax system to reward hard work, encourage investment and create jobs, and to help Canadian businesses be competitive internationally.

That is why our government has enacted or announced more than $3.5 billion in tax cuts for business since taking office, cuts that directly impact 1.6 million corporate tax filers throughout Canada. More specifically, our government has introduced the Canada employment tax credit, eliminated the corporate surtax, and increased the taxable income threshold for small businesses and reduced the rate.

We understand that small businesses are essential to economic competitiveness. To this end, we committed to reduce the administrative burden and red tape for business by 20%. In fact, we have already taken steps toward this goal. For instance, the CRA's small business action task force introduced measures to reduce the frequency of tax remittance and filing requirements.

This means the compliance burden for small businesses is being reduced substantially, on average by about one-third, and by up to 70% for some very small businesses. CRA estimates that 350,000 businesses stand to benefit from these changes.

Expanding online access to tax services is another way we are reducing the burden for businesses. Today, I am pleased to announce the addition of several new features to the CRA's My Business Account suite of electronic services for businesses. Our government continues to deliver on its goal to meet the needs of business taxpayers for faster, secure and expanded online access to tax services. The new My Business Account services are a significant improvement in service delivery and help to reduce red tape.

I should also mention another initiative we have undertaken to improve the situation of the business community. We have updated the Canada-U.S. tax convention to facilitate cross-border investment and commerce. This newly signed agreement protocol represents a major milestone in that its provisions will help facilitate cross-border investment and commerce.

We are modernizing our competition and investment policies to ensure they can attract the kinds of foreign investments that create jobs and opportunities for Canadians and let us compete against the best in the world.

One of the most effective ways for our government to improve the quality of life of our citizens is to reduce taxes.

I would be remiss if I did not mention our government's historically and economically important decision to reduce the GST. A lower GST helps families and businesses. It lets individuals and parents keep their money to meet their needs. It also leaves more money in their pockets for them to use to stimulate our economy, which is good for all businesses.

Overall, our throne speech is an ambitious agenda to make--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt. The minister never looks up, so I cannot give him any warning. His time expired a minute or so ago already, so if he wants to he could wrap up really quickly.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have noted throughout my speech today how our government works to turn financial policy into reality for Canadian families and business. We have already made a good start on it. I urge my colleagues on all sides of the House to help us continue this important work by voting for the throne speech.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I and this side of the House, I am sure, would like to congratulate the minister on his new portfolio and wish him well in it.

I suppose it should be obvious that one of the issues the Minister of National Revenue has to deal with is to continue to nurture and revitalize revenues so they can be redistributed for the various programs. The Conference Board of Canada recently did an analysis of the Ontario budget and came to the conclusion that contributions to equalization in fact exceeded the growth and projected growth in the Ontario economy. That bodes ill for the future of the Confederation in terms of being able to reinvest across this country from sea to sea to sea.

Other than on the area of tax cuts, I would like to know whether the minister, first of all, is going to assess very carefully on an ongoing basis the growth in the Ontario economy and its ability to contribute to equalization. Second, as part of an overall strategy beyond the throne speech, either in a budget or in other announcements, I would like to know whether the government is going to recognize the urgency with respect to manufacturing, in particular in Ontario, and is going to reinvest in strategies that would put the Ontario economy on a very solid and competitive basis as it relates to its responsibilities to contribute to equalization.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as to looking at the Ontario economy and making certain of the amount of money that is withdrawn from Ontario for other programs in the rest of the country, that is really the finance minister's function.

However, let me just say that our government in the last budget allocated some $26 billion or $27 billion to equalization for the provinces. All provinces are not in the same state. Some provinces have small economies and may need more assistance than the larger provinces.

My recollection is that Ontario was being allocated about $6 billion. My understanding also is that Premier McGuinty was quite satisfied with that allocation. He did not make any complaints about the allocation of the $6 billion.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member about what strategy his government has for dealing with the manufacturing sector. Our manufacturing trade deficit has grown sixfold in just three years.

In fact, we are having a meltdown in the manufacturing sector. It is the result of a combination of several factors. The high dollar is one factor, but clearly, overwhelming trade imbalances are developing. Aside from exacerbating those imbalances by negotiating a new deal with Korea, what is the hon. member's government doing to restore our manufacturing sector, which is in such a terrible crisis?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our country and many of the highly industrialized countries are going through a fundamental shift in the economy. That fundamental shift is from traditional manufacturing to service industries. We are not isolated from this general trend in the advanced societies.

As members know, overall employment in our country has been rising steadily. In fact, we have an economy that is admired by all the other G-8 countries. With respect to industries, there are certain industries that are in difficulty while other industries are doing well.

As we go into the future, we have to find ways to fill niches because we have competition from various countries around the world for various products. We also have to make sure that our consumers in Canada purchase Canadian goods of equal value where possible. Our government is doing what it can to drive that agenda.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, Equalization Payments.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Yukon.

I heard the minister take credit again for things that were done long before the Conservatives were in office. Government members are very good at that. I want to make it very clear that we were the envy of the world long before the current government came in.

Today I would like to talk about the throne speech. I would like to talk about some of the things that are in it and some of the things that are not. I want to assure the House that I will be positive when I find positive things in it, but first I am going to talk about what is missing.

We know the Conservative Party is very big on symbolism. We looked at this speech very carefully and noticed that the cover of the throne speech booklet shows a small child waving a flag but the flag is very blurred, just like the vision the government has for this country. There is not much vision there. It is quite blurred.

I am going to talk about health care, which there is not much mention of in the throne speech, and I am going to talk about the lack of services in my riding. We hear about tax cuts for all Canadians, but we would rather have more services put into the underserviced areas of Canada.

The Kenora riding is one of the ridings that has the least amount of services. We have difficulty right in our southern communities of Dryden, Kenora, Ignace, Pickle Lake and Sioux Lookout. They all have their challenges, especially in health care. In many communities such as the community of Dryden, for example, with 8,000 people, people cannot get dialysis. They have to drive and they have to drive a long way. Therefore, a stronger recognition of health care in the throne speech would have been a strong sign to all Canadians, especially in the riding of Kenora.

As for major procedures and significant health care issues, people have to be sent out of their communities to Winnipeg or Thunder Bay. These are long distances, but in small communities we understand that. What we do not understand is a government that does not have a stronger commitment to health care and to making sure that service levels can be raised in all these ridings.

I will speak now about the northern 500 to 700 kilometres of my riding and I will talk about some of the health care issues for first nations that could have been addressed in the throne speech. Right now, many members of the House would not realize that of my 21 fly-in communities, five of them do not have proper health care to any degree. They have a nursing station or unit that basically runs five days a week. Due to weather, we average about three days a week when there is no nurse in the community at all. When these communities were very small, from 200 to 250 people, that was acceptable, but they have grown. Our populations in the north are increasing.

Let me talk about these communities: Poplar Hill, with Chief Elie Moose; Keewaywin, with Chief Joseph Meekis; Slate Falls, with Chief Glen Whiskeyjack; Muskrat Dam, with Chief Vernon Morris; and North Spirit Lake, with Chief Donald Campbell. All these chiefs fight constantly for health care. They would have taken it as a sign from the government in its throne speech if there were a commitment on a vision for Canada to make sure all Canadians can share some level of health care, but they have nothing. They have nurses who fly in, generally on Monday morning or at noon, and they leave Thursday night or Friday morning because of weather situations.

There is talk about providing tax cuts for Canadians and all these other issues, but let us talk about providing services for the residents in the areas of Canada that need it most. For these communities that do not have nurses from Friday morning to Sunday night, doctors' visits are very rare. Health care could have been addressed in a much broader agenda. I know that health care has slipped from number one on the radar screen for Canadians, but it is still number two, and it should have been identified in the throne speech.

In these fly-in communities in the north, all residents have to travel for even the most minor of procedures. There are issues. Thanks to the former government, we do have technology in the north that could have been used to make sure some services were brought into these isolated places. In fact, with the technology in place in communities such as Sandy Lake and Big Trout Lake we could actually train nurses if there were some support. The residents accept this burden, but they do not understand why we are cutting taxes for some of the most wealthy people in Canada when services are not being provided for them.

There is also the issue of residential schools, an issue inside the throne speech that I applauded. It is closure at last, but only maybe. The action initiated by the previous Liberal government led to this and delays after the election have brought us to this point. I am glad we are here at this point, but it is important that we get it done, that we start the healing process and move on with the apology, which is in this throne speech. We need this to make sure that we actually get this closed out.

I have a couple of comments on the building Canada plan. The speech mentions very clearly the Windsor-Detroit corridor and the Atlantic and Pacific gateways, but it leaves out a large section of Canada, which I happen to live on, and that is the Trans-Canada Highway.

The Trans-Canada Highway should have gotten something. It is one of the largest transportation networks we have. Any product made in the Kenora riding has to go through one of those gateways to get to one of the southern border points, and it is good to look after those, but what about the Trans-Canada Highway? It travels for 300 miles through my riding, from east to west, and there are many points where it could close down and the network between the east and the west would be cut right off. There could have been some identification about making the Trans-Canada Highway a highway we could be proud of.

There are far too many tragedies, as you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, as I know you travel on that section of highway. There are too many tragedies that could have been averted with some kind of infrastructure program which included the Trans-Canada Highway. If we cannot have pride in our national link, our national highway, what else can we do?

My municipal experience allows me to know that we need a strong, non-partisan infrastructure program. This needs to be led by the municipalities. If the federal and provincial governments get involved and dictate priorities for the municipalities, it does not work. We need to make sure that the people who are using those streets are planning the projects, making sure that they are non-partisan, making sure that they are led by the municipalities so that the projects that actually need to be done are the ones that get done.

On forestry, I will quote directly from the throne speech, where it states, “Key sectors, including forestry”. That is as much wording as forestry got.

In my riding of Kenora, we have lost thousands of jobs. Entire towns have closed. The city of Kenora closed its mill, which not that many years ago had 900 employees. The site is being taken apart as we speak. That happened since the election of the Conservative government.

The throne speech says that the government has taken action to support workers and that it is actually going to cut taxes for all Canadians. Many workers in the Kenora riding do not have jobs. One's tax burden is not too high when one is not working.

Kenora, Dryden and Ignace are all communities that have lost or have downsized plants. Plants in both Kenora and Ignace are totally closed at this point. The Dryden mill, which supported 1,100 inside workers sometime ago, is running with about 500 right now, and it is really a day to day operation.

We have workers who need support. They are going to get a tax cut, but they do not have jobs. That is the kind of challenge they face.

The throne speech contains a lot of great words but we need action. In communities like Red Lake, Pickle Lake and Bending Lake, with the diamonds that are in northern Ontario, there is a lot that can happen.

With respect to the words that are used in the throne speech, “a single window for major project approvals”, we need details. We need to get to the point where there is actually a program, so all parties in this House can take a look at it, see that it fits northern Ontario or any part of Canada and that it actually provides value on the ground, so we can make sure there are jobs for some of the forestry employees who have lost their jobs.

I am happy to see support in the throne speech for the military. I happened to be very lucky this last summer. I spent a week out in Wainwright, Alberta. It was one of the largest exercises for training of reserve forces. There were more than 1,200 there. I want to point out very clearly that in Wainwright they are training combat soldiers. Our soldiers are combat soldiers. They are able to do many other duties, but they have the pride and determination of the best of Canada and they are the best in the world.

On the environment, northern Ontario will feel the effects of climate change as quickly as anywhere in Canada, including the far north. The 21 fine communities I mentioned earlier are all served by ice roads. We are suffering more and more as the climate continues to warm, and we cannot get the goods in to service these communities.

To give an example, in a community like Keewaywin, when the ice road opens, gas drops in price from $2.75 a litre to about $1.25 a litre. We just celebrated Thanksgiving. If a truck can deliver a turkey, it is a reasonable price as it is in the south but turkeys were $85 to $95 up there on Thanksgiving weekend. The ice roads are extremely important.

No one but Canada's aboriginals will feel the effects of climate change as painfully as they will. They have lived in that area for thousands of years. They understand the situation. They need to be sure that the Canadian government is going to look after them and treat climate change as a very serious issue that has to be dealt with.

We are prepared. We have heard the throne speech. There are facts in it that we would like to see examined, but we are going to wait for solid facts and solid legislation. We need solid commitments from the Conservative government. We have heard the fancy speeches and there is posturing and rhetoric going on here now. Let us get down to the legislation. Let us get down to serving Canadians. Let us see the meat and potatoes. Let us find out what we are talking about. Let us debate it for all Canadians.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments with great interest.

I would like to start with his comments regarding health care. It sounds as though he may need to make a call to Queen's Park. Perhaps Howard Hampton, who also represents that riding, could help him out, or he could call Dalton McGuinty and talk to him about the shortages that are apparently in his riding.

We know that this government has provided record health care funding. We put in an escalator clause as well and provided funding for things like the Canada Health Infoway. Clearly, the problem in his riding did not start here in Ottawa.

He did mention something about infrastructure. I am very proud of the $37 billion that this government has committed to infrastructure in the Building Canada fund.

I would like to ask the member very specifically, during the period of time that the former Liberal government was in power, Ontario only received--and it was not a big fund--about 22% of the total infrastructure spending that the government committed. We are actually about 40% of the population and about 42% of the GDP.

Now we have a government that is principled, that has brought in principled equalization formulas and principled transfers to the provinces. I am wondering, now that we are actually going to commit per capita funding to places like Ontario, if the member considers that fair and if that is something he supports. I know I sure do. If we are to have the proper infrastructure that we need in Ontario, specifically in northern Ontario, we need fairer funding. That is what this government has brought forward. I would like to know if the member supports that.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I have to do is clarify some facts for my hon. colleague across the way. He mentioned health care and that I should call Queen's Park. He should know, and I will inform the House, that 60% of my riding is first nations, dealt with by Health Canada, a federal responsibility, not a provincial responsibility. We are in the process of building a joint federal hospital in Sioux Lookout, which does not happen in a lot of places, but it is happening there.

The federal government has tremendous involvement in health and we need to make sure that it looks at it.

As for the infrastructure program, we can talk about the amounts of money that are put in, but what we really need is an honest infrastructure program that fits the needs of Canadians.

The municipalities are suffering, as the hon. member well knows. They have issues and needs. Infrastructure programs have been taken over by partisan politics. That is not right. These projects should be approved on their merit and value to the communities, whether it is in Ontario or anywhere across Canada.

There is a lot we could do if we have the details and we make sure that partisan politics does not play out, but let us make sure that it is of value to the communities. All the communities need our support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question about the theme around which he concluded his speech. He suggested that he wanted more meat and potatoes in the Speech from the Throne. He suggested that perhaps that was a way to justify what would appear to be the Liberal decision to complain about the Speech from the Throne and then vote with the Conservatives, or for the Liberals to sit on their duffs and not take a position.

This is about meat and potatoes. This is about food for ordinary Canadians. This is about sustenance. It is about economic security. If the member is not aware of it in his own region, which he should be, I want to remind him about the statistics that came out just last week from Statistics Canada. A new study showed that in fact the rich are getting richer in this country. After two decades of overall economic expansion, the top 5% of earners saw their average income leap from $133,000 to $178,000. During the same period, earners in the middle of the pack saw average incomes frozen at $25,000, with family incomes nudging up slightly from $42,000 to $43,000.

What we have tried to do in the House and around the Speech from the Throne is give living proof and testimony to the fact that the gap between the rich and the rest of society is growing. It has to be addressed by the government of the day. The support of the Liberals is needed once and for all on this issue. It is not good enough to simply repeat past mistakes, nor is it good enough to stand up in the House and propose an amendment to the Speech from the Throne that talks about tax--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. member for Kenora.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how much time I have, so I will try to be quick.

The member from the NDP should know that her leader ran out right away and made a big proclamation again in front of all the cameras long before we knew any of the details. We on this side gave the Conservatives a chance to show us what was in the throne speech.

I have identified a number of issues that I feel are of value and that we can actually make work for Canadians, in particular in my part of northern Ontario. There is a lot we can do with that.

What we do not do is engage in political posturing or grandstanding outside the House long before we know the details. We want to make sure that we can actually get some of the work done.

Give us the details. Let us clear up the blurry vision that is in this little picture here and let us provide something to Canadians of which they can be proud.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, as I have done a number of times in the House, I would like to give a balanced presentation and mention some of the things that are good and some of the things that are not so good in the throne speech.

The Liberals, when we were in government, paid unprecedented attention to the north. There was $120 million as a down payment for the northern strategy. There was $90 million for economic development. There were four different infrastructure programs. There were lots of exciting initiatives such as the beautiful facility for the Canada Winter Games. From the economic development money we helped out with advertising across Canada, which can still be seen on airplanes, advertising and marketing of the north.

I was excited about the many infrastructure programs such as the recreation centres in Mayo and Marsh Lake. Recently a footbridge was opened at Carcross. With the assistance of that money, a very important road is being built which will go from my area near Copper Ridge and Arkell and Granger down to the highway, which will provide an alternate exit. This initiative has been talked about for years.

When the new Conservative government came in, some of the attention to the north was dropped. There was no mention of the northern strategy for a long time. Northerners convinced the Conservative government that it was very important, and I am excited to see the northern strategy framework finally coming back.

All the Conservatives did at first was make two promises to northerners, one for icebreakers and the other for a northern port. As everyone knows, the government broke the first of those promises, taking away the tens of millions of dollars that had been promised. We went through two budgets and a throne speech without any mention of the port, so we kept pushing and the government finally mentioned it. Many people decried the lack of consultation on that port and the best location for it. I do hope that port actually comes to fruition.

I have to congratulate the government for mentioning housing for first nations and Inuit people in the throne speech. I have talked about this issue a number of times.

We have talked about a world class Arctic research station, and I am always supportive of that. Fifteen years ago I coined a phrase that we needed more research in the north, for the north and by the north, that we needed more researchers in the north. I decried the lack of scientific infrastructure in the north last summer when I visited Sweden with Arctic parliamentarians and saw how much other countries had. This summer in my article on sovereignty in The Hill Times I mentioned that one of the ways to advance sovereignty is by doing more science with both the infrastructure and operation and maintenance in the north. I am delighted to see the proposal for a world class Arctic research station. We have been working for a long time for a northern research station in Whitehorse that would look at climate change at a time when it is so important for the north.

I was happy to see seabed mapping mentioned in the throne speech. Unfortunately, there were not a lot of details. Once again, I am not sure if this is like a number of other items that are in the throne speech that are already being done either by the Conservative government or other governments and are just being reannounced. Seabed mapping was put in place a long time ago by the Liberals.

I am hoping that mention of this means that the Conservatives will accelerate the schedule. The schedule is so tight right now that it is going to end right on the last day. We cannot afford to lose part of Canada if the mapping is slowed down by mechanical failures or the climate. Hopefully this means that the government has accelerated the schedule and the mapping is being done right now.

I was astonished to see the government put the slush boat scandal into the throne speech. That took money away from northerners by replacing icebreakers with patrol boats that can go through one metre of ice when many people know that the ice can be as much as 18 metres thick, including old ice in that area. For a good portion of the year those patrol boats will not be able to patrol the north.

I was delighted that tourism was mentioned in the throne speech but, like a number of other items, there were no details. The jury will need to remain out on that issue.

We all know that during the Conservatives' term they have made some tremendous cuts to tourism. Cuts were made to the tourism marketing funds that were available, taking away the GST rebate, cuts to museums and students. Some of those programs have been reinstated but they still have not reinstated all the GST rebate, for instance, for individuals. That is more important for my riding than perhaps any riding because it is the largest private sector employer. I am glad that it is there but we will see what it means.

On infrastructure, I will follow up on what my colleague said and what I said earlier today, which is that it is good that infrastructure is there. I am speaking on behalf of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Association of Yukon Communities, the Nunavut Association of Municipalities, the Northwest Territories Association of Communities and all municipalities in Canada when I say that the municipalities must get their fair share and a percentage of the funding they had under the four Liberal infrastructure programs which helped them so much.

As everyone know, we have a skills shortage in the country. I heard about this at length at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce meeting last week. I am delighted that there was money in the budget or discussion in the budget of increasing funds for aboriginal skills training so they can take advantage of opportunities in the north. This is one way of solving the skills shortage.

I would liked to have seen additional emphasis on other ways of solving that problem as well related to immigration, older workers, improving the integration of immigrants into the workforce, integrating disabled people into the workforce and so forth.

I was very happy to see a water strategy, which is very important for Canadians, but once again we will have to wait and see exactly what that means. I would definitely congratulate the Prime Minister and the government for proposing Canadian citizenship in the throne speech for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi which has been unanimously supported by the House. I would also like to thank MPs and senators from all parties who are members of the Parliamentary Friends of Burma and had this on their agenda since May. I am delighted that the government has agreed to granting her honorary Canadian citizenship.

I will now discuss the things that are missing for the balance of my presentation.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

You were doing so well.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I know the member enjoyed that part but I need to talk about the failings and, unfortunately, there are some very substantial failings. I am talking about the big four items of major importance to Canadians. It is almost inconceivable that so many major issues affecting Canada were not addressed.

The first issue is child care. When the Prime Minister visited my riding, a demonstration was held concerning the fact that the government had cancelled the Liberal child care program. Some media said that the demonstration was the biggest demonstration ever against the Prime Minister. I do not necessarily agree but it was certainly a strong sentiment that Canadians would like a national child care program.

Second, of course, was taking $5 billion away from our aboriginal people in the Kelowna accord and not replacing it. This is not debatable. Everyone knows what a shame that is, especially when the deal was with the honour of the Crown and not a particular party, but with Canada and the first nations people.

Climate change is a huge issue for the north. More than anywhere else, the effects take place in the north. We certainly need adaptation for the damage that climate change is causing to our infrastructure and to our wildlife. We need to adapt to these things.

When the local environmental organizations explained that over 100 of our programs had been cut, and some of them have been put back but certainly not with as much money or not with as good conditions, such as the EnerGuide program, then it is certainly bad for the people of the north. As I said, it affects them more than anyone else. There is a lack of attention to these greenhouse gases and the investments that we are making in renewable energies, in wind power, in solar power, in large final emitters, in car emissions, in clean coal and in carbon sequestration. Those are areas in which it is important for the government to keep investing.

One of the most bizarre lines in the speech was “middle class Canadians--