Debates of Oct. 23rd, 2007

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must say I am not surprised that the minister would think the Speech from the Throne is indeed excellent, but I think the reality is quite different, especially if we are in a family looking for a child care space or if one is a student looking for student debt relief or an individual who cares about cities. There are many deficiencies.

I think the government missed a wonderful opportunity to paint the future for Canadians. A successful Speech from the Throne is one that paints a future where people see themselves. I do not think many Canadians see themselves in this Speech from the Throne.

Cities do not see themselves in this speech. Gord Steeves, the president of the Canadian Federation of Canadian Municipalities states, “Clearly, the budget surpluses of recent years demonstrate that the government has the resources to provide tax relief to Canadians and invest in our cities and communities”.

That, of course, was the Liberal legacy.

Mr. Steeves states:

We are disappointed that the Government has chosen to forgo this opportunity.

None of these municipal priorities and strategies were fully addressed in today's Speech from the Throne. This will not only hinder the success of our cities and communities in a competitive world; it will impede the realization of the Government's overall objectives because the future of our country is tied to that of our cities and communities.

That is hardly a ringing endorsement of the Speech from the Throne.

I also want to state very clearly that this speech is very much a reflection of the retail politics approach of the Conservative government. I say this because there are major issues in the medium term, the short term and the long term, issues such as Canada's aging society. Where is that? What is the government's plan to address that particular issue?

Where is the government's plan to address the issue of emerging markets like China and India?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order. The plan is for there to be some time left for the minister to answer the question. The member has taken up half of the five minutes. I have to give the minister some chance to reply.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I respect my colleague and I appreciate the question. Let there be no doubt that when Canadians look at the throne speech, they will not see an image of the Liberals. There will be no Liberals who will find themselves represented in this throne speech.

Whether we talk about sovereignty and Canada's place in the world, economic leadership, or dealing with criminal justice or the environment, and I will deal with each of those in turn, this is not a Liberal throne speech. It sets the priorities of Canadians, not the priorities of the Liberal Party. In that sense, I agree with my friend. If Liberals look at this throne speech, they will not find themselves.

In regard to dealing with sovereignty and Canada's place in the world, the Liberal Party had 13 years to deal with these issues. The Liberals had 13 years to assert our sovereignty in the world, in the north, in the Northwest Passage, in Canada's Arctic, and they did not do that. This government is doing it. We are engaged in the necessary steps to make that happen.

In terms of our place in the world, this government and this Prime Minister have done more to put Canada on the world stage in a proud place, standing up for freedom and democracy, than ever happened under the Liberal Party.

It is true, and I do not think anyone in the House would disagree, that we will not find the Liberal image in this throne speech, because we are getting on with broad based tax cuts for families, for businesses and for individual taxpayers and that is not what the Liberal Party is about. We have reduced the GST. We have indicated that we are going to reduce the GST again. Liberals will be deflated by the throne speech because the throne speech is about reducing the taxes of Canadians.

On criminal justice, the bill that has been put before the House is dealing with the priorities of Canadians. If one is soft on crime the way the Liberals are, one will not find one's image in the throne speech. There is no doubt about that. But this is what Canadians are telling us they want to see. We are moving forward. We are tough on crime. We are going to deal with these issues because they matter to Canadians. We are going to keep our streets and our communities safe. That is what people want us to do.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Industry was on a roll and I almost want to hand the microphone back to him so he can continue. He was doing an amazing job of explaining why the Liberals cannot understand the wonderful things we are talking about in the Speech from the Throne, but we hope they will listen very closely to our responses to the throne speech. Maybe they will understand when we finish explaining it to them.

I very much appreciate this opportunity to add my remarks to those of the Minister of Industry as well as those of the Minister of Finance in support of the Speech from the Throne.

Let me say first how honoured I am to be the newly appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. This is an honour I share with all of my constituents in the riding of Macleod. I look forward to working with the minister and with Parliament on finance related policy issues and legislation.

Canadians sent us to Ottawa to get things done. They were tired of all the talk and little action. We promised Canadians that Canada's government would provide a long term vision toward a strong future for Canada. We promised to do it in a manner that was committed, focused and fiscally responsible. That is exactly what we did and that is what we will continue to do.

The Minister of Finance has spoken about the government's plan to build on the decisive action it has taken thus far in fulfilling its commitment to Canadians. This commitment is why Canadians sent us to Ottawa. We have a plan, a plan that is not just for the short term to win votes. Our plan shows that we are in it for the long haul. It is a long term economic plan called Advantage Canada.

Advantage Canada provides Canada with five key advantages so that we can compete effectively in the global economy and attract new growth and investment. Let me remind hon. members of just what those advantages are.

First, Advantage Canada provides a tax advantage. In short, our goal is to reduce taxes for all Canadians and establish the lowest tax rate in the G-7 on new business investment.

Second, Advantage Canada will create a fiscal advantage by eliminating Canada's total government net debt in less than a generation.

A third part of our long term plan is to create an entrepreneurial advantage for Canada by reducing unnecessary regulation and red tape and increasing competition in the Canadian marketplace.

Fourth, Advantage Canada will provide a knowledge advantage. This will create the best educated, most skilled and most flexible workforce so that Canada is ready to take on the world.

Finally, Advantage Canada will create an infrastructure advantage. In order to compete internationally, we need to build the modern bridges, roads and gateways necessary to link our nation and make our workers and businesses more efficient.

We have put our plan into action by building on previous initiatives to deliver on the government's vision for Canada. Today, I would like to remind hon. members of some of the initiatives the government has taken, initiatives that are important to Canada and to Canadians.

One of the first jobs to be done when we formed the government was to reduce taxes for Canadians. We did that in our inaugural budget of 2006. In fact, we delivered more tax relief than the previous four federal budgets combined, something to be proud of.

We did not stop there. Our first two budgets, combined with our tax fairness plan, have provided significant tax relief for Canadian individuals, families, students and seniors.

To start with, we reduced the GST from 7% to 6%, which was a tax cut for everyone.

We introduced the Canada employment credit to help offset the costs of working. This recognizes employees' work expenses for things such as home computers, uniforms and supplies.

We are providing a new child tax credit that recognizes the additional expenses involved in raising a child. About three million taxpayers will benefit from this initiative.

What is more, we are introducing a working income tax benefit to help low income Canadians over the so-called welfare wall.

We are increasing the lifetime capital gains exemptions for Canada's two million small business owners to $750,000 from the existing $500,000, and the first increase in that in 20 years.

In our tax fairness plan, we introduced income splitting for pensioners, a move that will provide targeted assistance to many seniors. The tax fairness plan also took action to level the playing field between corporations and income trusts, bringing Canada in line with other jurisdictions around the world.

In budget 2007, we are taking tax fairness a step further with our anti-tax haven initiative, an initiative that will help prevent tax avoidance.

This government also recognizes the importance of improving our ability to compete globally and we have done just that. The fact is that we have moved quickly to improve Canada's competitive environment.

Look at what we have done so far. We are reducing the general corporate income tax rate from 20.5% in 2008 as part of our commitment to 18.5% by 2011. We are eliminating the corporate surtax in 2008. We increased the threshold for small business income eligible for a reduced federal tax rate from $300,000 to $400,000 as of 2007.

We are reducing the 12% rate for eligible small business income to 11.5% in 2008 and 11% in 2009. We eliminated the federal capital tax in 2006 and we increased capital cost allowance rates for buildings used in manufacturing and processing and other assets.

We are also providing a major new accelerated capital cost allowance for manufacturers until the end of 2008. This will allow them to write off their investments and equipment over two years, a much needed shot of adrenalin to help Canadian businesses encourage new economic investment and create jobs.

Of course, our plan for Canada is more than just reducing taxes. Advantage Canada's multi-faceted plan illustrates just that. Just look at budget 2007's historic investment of more than $16 billion over seven years for infrastructure. This brings federal support in this area to over $33 billion.

Moreover, we are reducing the federal paper burden for businesses by 20% and reducing the number of tax filings and remittances for more than 350,000 small businesses. This government set out a challenging agenda for Canada and it has risen to that challenge.

As I mentioned, we have reduced taxes significantly for individuals, families and businesses, total tax reductions over three years of approximately $41 billion. We have reduced the federal debt by $27 billion. Not only that, through our tax back guarantee we are passing on the interest saving on reducing the national debt to Canadians by reducing personal income taxes.

We are limiting the growth of spending in government, we are balancing the books, and we are taking on the environmental challenge with a plan that is both responsible and capable of being achieved in Canada.

Where are we today? I can say that we are in an enviable position internationally. Our economic fundamentals are rock solid. We are on the best financial fiscal footing of any country in the G-7.

Where do we go from here? We have a solid foundation firmly in place. The Speech from the Throne lays out the plan for the future that will build on that foundation. The government said in the Speech from the Throne that it will bring forward a long term plan of broad based tax relief for individuals, businesses and families. This follows through on our commitment to ensure economic security for Canadians as we look toward the future.

Now we need to work together as Canadians. By supporting the initiatives contained in the Speech from the Throne we can make this happen. The upcoming fall economic and fiscal update will detail progress on our plan, which is built on a foundation of sound fiscal management.

Together we have built a country that is prosperous and safe. Now, with strong leadership and a solid plan, we can build an even stronger Canada and offer an even better future for our children.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to take some exception to my colleague's comments. I am always incredulous when I hear Conservatives take credit for all the money that was left by former governments, the good fiscal policies that left the money so they could actually make some of these decisions.

I have a direct question for him on reducing taxes. You mentioned that it is a good deal. Before we hear your comments, you were talking about the thousands of jobs that have been created, the hundreds of thousands. I want to know what tax cuts do for people that do not have jobs.

In my riding of Kenora thousands of jobs have been lost and across northern Ontario tens of thousands of jobs. These people do not have jobs. You can mention in here the softwood lumber deal, but--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order. The hon. member has been here awhile now. He should know he should not be saying “you” this and “you” that. You are supposed to address your remarks through the Chair.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do need to remind the member and other hon. members here that we do not take lightly the fact that Canadians have lost jobs, but we do take seriously the fact that the unemployment rates in Canada are the lowest they have been in 33 years. As I said before, Canadians are very adaptive. They have gone out and found new jobs. There are job opportunities because of the strong economic growth in this country.

I realize this may not refer specifically to the hon. member's province, but in Quebec alone that province added 70,000 jobs this year. Those are not just part time jobs. Those are real, high paying jobs.

The hon. member asked how tax cuts help Canadians. We cut the GST from 7% to 6%. Every Canadian who spends money benefits from that tax cut. So for anyone to suggest that this tax cut did not help all Canadians is not reflective of the positive decision that was for this government to make. Positive enough with the feedback we have received, we are going to push forward on reducing it to 5% because we realize with this strong economy people are spending money. They want to receive the tax benefits and by reducing it to 5% there is going to be tax reductions for all Canadians.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no fairness in this throne speech. Ordinary Canadians are working 200 hours more today than nine years ago and two-thirds of Canadians are not benefiting from economic growth. I cannot understand where is the fairness when there is over $60 billion of corporate tax cuts since 2000 and just last year alone there was a tax cut of $12.67 billion in corporate tax cuts.

Where is the fairness when corporations such as the big banks are making $19 billion worth of profit and there is absolutely nothing for ordinary Canadians whether it is for child care, universities, home care, public transit, or for cities like Toronto? Where is the fairness in this throne speech?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member uses some very definitive numbers and let me quote some numbers that would reflect perhaps the opposite of what the hon. member is suggesting.

There is $3.7 billion to support low and modest income Canadians through the cut in the GST. Those are real numbers. Those are numbers that Canadians paid less in taxes; $11.7 billion for families with children through the universal child care benefit. Those are real numbers. More than $7.4 billion for Canada's low income seniors and $1.4 billion to provide basic social development programs for our first nations.

I fail to see the argument that the hon. member raises. These are real numbers that Canadians can vouch for because they have seen the savings.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to participate in this debate on the Speech from the Throne, which was delivered a week ago today.

The Speech from the Throne is a broad array of platitudes. It is made up of self-congratulatory statements and promises, some of which are encouraging, some of which of course were made before and remain unfulfilled.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Will you be splitting your time?

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Yes, I will. I neglected to mention that. I will be sharing my time with the member for Don Valley East, and I want to thank you for pointing that out to me.

Some of the general ideological thrusts I certainly can agree with. I certainly support some of the statements dealing with the Arctic. The last time I believe I read a statement about this, the direction at that time was to have three or four major military boats in the Arctic and leave it at that. This speech seems to develop on that and take it one step further, talking about development, research, et cetera, which I find a much better direction to follow.

Canadians are going to be disappointed in some of the other areas that they are looking for. With climate change of course, we have more words, but we are dealing with a government that has done absolutely nothing since it got elected. It canceled the Kyoto accord. It removed any reference to it on its web page. It joined the APEC organization, which is dead against Kyoto. It wants to use what it calls aspiration goals, which members know, I know and every Canadian knows, are totally meaningless.

The speech talked about the Afghan mission. I certainly agree Canada has a role and Canada has a future role in that particular part of the world. It is very important but it is my position and our party's position that the combat mission should end in February 2009. We certainly will have other roles and obligations in that particular country. It is time for other NATO countries to put their shoulders to the wheel.

Again, what the government has tried to do here is put it over to a group of five individuals who are told not to consult the public, have no public consultations, but come back with a report in February. In other words, to turn the channel as it has done with climate change.

However, I want to use the limited time available to me today to talk about a statement in the Speech from the Throne that I believe we as parliamentarians should consider. It is very significant to this country, and that is to introduce legislation to place formal limits on the use of the federal spending power, which of course is implicit in the British North America Act. It has been recognized by our courts and of course it has been going on for years and years.

The Government of Canada has to consult with the other 10 provinces and three territories, respect their wishes, their aspirations and their values, but at the end of the day, the Government of Canada has a responsibility for each and every Canadian for the common good. It has to have a pan-Canadian view. It has the responsibility to act on behalf of the country.

Successive governments from various political stripes have developed programs, they have maintained programs, and they have enhanced programs under this particular ambit. Some examples are the Canada Health Act, medicare, employment insurance, old age pension, the old age supplement, the Canada pension plan, the child tax benefit, post-secondary research, the national housing program, infrastructure, and the new deal for the cities. This is just a partial list.

Each one of them was supported by successive governments, enhanced, improved and changed, but each program required a government with a pan-Canadian view.

We are in a large geographical country with a relatively small population. We have to have a shared destiny. We have to have common goals because many of us in this House and many Canadians believe that Canada is stronger than its diverse parts. We have to have programs, policies and initiatives that respond to our values, our sovereignty as a nation, and as a government we have to act in the best interests of the nation.

We have at this juncture a toxic mix of a government that does not believe in a strong Government of Canada and another party that does not believe in Canada. This is an unholy marriage and it should concern all Canadians.

Many Canadians may ask where this thinking is coming from. It is not coming from Canadians I have talked to. It is not coming from members of the government. People will say that they are proud Ontarians or proud Manitobans but first they will say that they are proud Canadians. Where does this come from? The answer is that it comes from the Prime Minister.

I would suggest that the last time the Prime Minister was elected, he set out his vision for Canada in an open letter to the premier of Alberta. In that letter, he stated that Alberta should build a firewall around itself, that it should withdraw from the Canada pension plan, that it should collect its own personal income taxes, that it should eliminate any association whatsoever with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and that it should ignore whatever provisions there are in the Canada Health Act. In other words, it should break the law, fight the matter in the courts, pay the penalties and allow no federal involvement in health care in that province.

The letter concludes, “take the initiative, to build a firewall around Alberta”.

I assume the letter was addressed to the premier of Alberta, but that same policy, that same line of thinking, would apply to the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, New Brunswick, et cetera.

There might be those who are watching this on TV who think I am making this up. I am not. I will post that letter, that vision of Canada, on my website later today for all Canadians to read and analyze and come to their own opinion.

This is not my agenda for Canada. It is not the agenda of those people who sent me here to Ottawa. This is not about standing up for Canada. People are screaming that they want their country back. It is not the position of members of the government party either. This will be an interesting debate in this particular Parliament.

Before we even start the debate, as we discuss the role of the federal government to meet the future challenges of this great country, we should ask ourselves what John A. Macdonald would think. What would Tommy Douglas think? What would his views be on this direction? What would Lester Pearson think? That is going to be a very interesting aspect.

I have put my thoughts on the table on this particular issue. It is my firm belief that to succeed in the future, this country needs a strong federal government, a government that has a pan-Canadian view and a government that acts on behalf of every Canadian. I do hope we have that in the years and decades to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's impassioned remarks about Canadian things and un-Canadian things. Apparently he does not believe in questioning how any particular part of the country should be allowed to fit in to the entire framework that is Canada.

He rhymed off some of the things that were mentioned in a letter that the current Prime Minister was one of five authors of in which the offending word was mentioned one time in the entire letter. People will get the impression that it was start to finish, firewall, firewall, firewall. The word was mentioned one time. The member acts as if he is doing the country a service by tabling this letter, which, of course, has been public knowledge for many years.

[An hon. member]

It has you worried.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

It does not worry us at all.

Does the member believe that provinces, like Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan or any other, should be able to state their place in the country under the terms of the Constitution, which gives them the right to pursue things like health care, policing, pensions and so on, as the province of Quebec has done and as any other province has the right to do under the Constitution? Does he believe those rights should be taken away from the provinces?

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the provinces certainly have a role, a duty and an obligation to do these things but there must be a role for the central government.

What would have happened back in the 1950s when health care was being developed if someone had said “no, that is a provincial jurisdiction”? What would have happened when the Canada pension plan was being developed if someone had said “no, that is a provincial jurisdiction”? We would have none of those plans and programs.

My friend references the letter. Yes, it was mentioned once but in the whole letter that was the final conclusion. The whole gist of the letter is that particular province should get out of everything, that it should withdraw from the Canada pension plan, that it should collect its own personal income tax and that it should eliminate any association with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

I invite my friend to read the letter where it states that Alberta should ignore the Canada Health Act and fight the matter in the courts. If it then loses in the courts, it should pay the penalty and allow no federal involvement in health care policy in Alberta. After going through this whole hodgepodge of initiatives, which that particular province should do, it should, “take the initiative to build a firewall around Alberta”.

I have a question for my learned friend. Is that his vision of Canada? I do not believe that is the vision of the people in Edmonton who sent him to Ottawa.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we will ask the questions around here. I do thank my hon. colleague for his response. It is a matter of legitimate debate as to what role the provinces play and what role the federal government plays.

Clearly, and this Prime Minister is no different, there is a strong role, and he has never strayed from that, for the central government in Ottawa. There is also a very strong role to be played in cooperation with that central government in Ottawa by the provinces in determining what is best for those provinces. There is some leeway. There is some overriding federal legislation, such as the Canada Health Act, on which all the provinces need to stay between the ditches.

Surely my hon. colleague would agree, or not, that the provinces should be in a position to deal with the federal government on, not necessarily an equal footing but a respectful footing, and that their aspirations that apply to their area of the country should be taken into consideration.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the very short answer to that question is yes, there is a legitimate role for the provinces. They need to cooperate and collaborate. The point of what I am saying here is that there is a role for the federal government.

Let us look at the whole list of plans that came forward. All it would take, if someone had the attitude that certain people in this House have right now, which is that the provincial jurisdiction cannot do it, then we would not have medicare, the Canada pension plan, employment insurance, the child tax benefit nor the old age supplement. The list goes on and on.

Yes, there is a role there. Both levels of government need to stop the politics and begin to cooperate, collaborate and act in the best interests of the people they represent.

However, these programs cannot change just to suit the ideological bent of a certain provincial party that is in power in that province. Ottawa must have a strong central government that puts the interests of every Canadian first, that has a pan-Canadian view and is here for the common good.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured, as a member of Her Majesty's official opposition, to speak today on behalf of my constituents of Don Valley East in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Now that I have had the opportunity to review the contents, I am astonished, not by what is actually contained in the speech, but more so by what the speech fails to mention.

As the chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I am shocked by the fact that the throne speech makes absolutely no mention of women or women's programs in spite of the fact that women constitute 52% of the population. This is astonishing given the fact that Persons Day, the day in 1929 when the British privy council office declared that women were persons under the law, fell in the same week as the Speech from the Throne.

I suppose this apparent omission by the government is due to the fact that this past year the Conservatives made history through drastic cuts to the Status of Women, including the closure of regional offices, staff layoffs and the elimination of advocacy from the mandate of the organization.

Canadians are also surprised that the 25th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was somehow overlooked in the throne speech as well.

Another glaring omission is any mention of relief for the estimated one million Canadian children who live in poverty and an estimated half million impoverished seniors, many of whom are women.

I can assure all members and my constituents that a plan to fight poverty will be at the heart of any future Liberal agenda, as it always has been in the past.

What of the aboriginal Canadians where poverty is rampant in communities across the country? The Speech from the Throne does contain a decision to finally offer an apology to the victims of the residential schools program but it in no way discharges the Conservative government from its obligation to implement the Kelowna accord.

By ignoring the aboriginal people, the Conservatives are refusing to provide desperately needed measures in health, education and infrastructure as promised in the accord. Instead, the Conservatives see it far more fit to make “the serious problem of auto theft” a national priority.

On the subject of crime bills, Canadians are wondering why the Conservatives are attempting to blame the opposition for holding up legislation when it was the Prime Minister who sabotaged his own agenda when he prorogued Parliament. The fact is that for more than a year now the Liberals have offered repeatedly to fast track as much as 70% of all the justice measures that the Prime Minister brought to Parliament.

Indeed, when the Prime Minister decided to prorogue Parliament and kill all five of the original justice bills, four of them had passed through the House of Commons and were awaiting approval by the Senate. In fact, those bills would have been law by now if it were not for the partisan games that we are currently witnessing.

This is just a lame attempt by the Conservatives to force an unwanted federal election on Canadians. Who pays the price as a result of this political brinkmanship? Ultimately, it is ordinary Canadians who will pay the price while the Prime Minister dithers and wastes another 18 months with no measurable results.

In order for Parliament to work, the Prime Minister must learn to work with parliamentarians.

On the subject of the economy, the throne speech mentions tax cuts but, after almost two years, the Conservatives new government has come up short on tax relief.

While there has been a 1% reduction in the GST, many leading economists have warned the Prime Minister that the reduction in consumption tax does little to stimulate the economy. Nor does it allow Canadians to keep their hard-earned cash. In fact, the first budget of Canada's new government introduced a tax increase for those who earned the least in our society. Low income Canadians saw their personal tax rate increase from 15% to 15.5% in budget 2006. It is unfair to low-income Canadians to pay for a reduction of the GST when it is far more efficient to reduce income taxes at source and give Canadians a real tax break.

Last week, the leader of the official opposition addressed the Economic Club of Toronto on the subject of how to generate more investment, improve living standards and ensure good jobs for ourselves and for our children. Part of the plan is to continue to reduce corporate income tax.

Under the previous Liberal government, the corporate tax rate was lowered from 28% to 19%. As a result of these tax reductions, companies have more capital to reinvest in the Canadian economy and ultimately offer high quality jobs to Canadians. Unfortunately, the Conservative government's tax record has been, to say the least, sadly lacking thus far.

The finance minister's first blunder was the income trust fiasco, when the Conservatives deliberately broke their promise to Canadian investors, many of them being seniors, who saw more than $25 billion in retirement savings go down the drain overnight.

The new government's next blunder, which was universally denounced as the worst tax policy announcement in 35 years, was to end interest deductibility and therefore deny Canadian companies a competitive edge in the global economy.

When the Conservatives were first elected, they promised to usher in a new era of accountability and transparency into government. Indeed, the throne speech declared that Canada's new government was clean, this despite the fact that the Conservative Party is under investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police, the Commissioner of Elections and the federal Privacy Commissioner.

The Privacy Commissioner has launched an inquiry into whether the Prime Minister violated the privacy of Canadians by compiling a mailing list based on the ethnic and religious background of Jewish communities and other so-called target groups.

The Commissioner of Elections is looking into an alleged multi-million dollar sham where the Conservative Party attempted to cleverly circumvent electoral laws by channelling funding for radio and television ads through at least 66 local candidates in the 2006 election.

The Ontario Provincial Police is investigating the Prime Minister's inner circle concerning allegations that an Ottawa candidate for mayor was asked to leave the race in exchange for a federal appoint.

What of transparency in government?

It has now been disclosed that the current Conservative government is far more secretive than any previous government. Not only are access to information requests taking longer to be released, they are far more likely to be censored and to have information withheld. Moreover, many requests have to be vetted by the Privy Council Office, the bureaucratic office of the Prime Minister.

Canadians would like to know what this has to do with transparency and democratic government.

Certainly the people of Nova Scotia are questioning what is happening in the constituency of Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, where the entire Conservative riding association has been suspended for daring to oppose the Prime Minister. They democratically elected a candidate of their choice, a candidate who is currently a distinguished member of the House. He was kicked out of the caucus for simply defending his province in Confederation.

This turn of events is not surprising, considering the Prime Minister, after 18 months, has yet to call a first ministers meeting and address provincial grievances head on.

In closing, once again I thank my constituents of Don Valley East for electing me to be their representative. I intend to work hard on their behalf and I intend to do everything I can to make this Parliament work. That is, after all, what Canadians elected us to do.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the record. Oftentimes we are faced with some inaccuracies coming from the other side.

I note that the funding for Status of Women was increased by 42%, bringing it to its highest level ever, at $15.3 million in the last budget, and the member voted against this.

My question has to do with taxes. I want to also point out that I think most Canadians obviously support a reduction in the GST, which is something that maybe the Liberals do not understand. We have had many Liberal members who have publicly stated that they would raise the GST if they came back into power.

Does the member agree with the Liberal approach to the GST? If so, how much would she raise the GST by and how quickly would she do it?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government never lets truth stand in its way. In its first budget the Conservatives cut $15 million from the Status of Women. When the women's groups started challenging them, they reinvested that $15 million, so it zeroes out. They have not done any 42% increase.

In terms of the GST, all economists, anybody who has any common sense in economics, say that the $5 billion is misspent. That lack of revenue could have been better utilized in social spending.

The Conservatives need to learn economics 101, which is that consumption taxes are not important. We have to eliminate poverty through reduction of income taxes.

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

Mr. Speaker, in her conclusion, my colleague touches on the issue of poverty, about which I would like to hear more from her.

In the throne speech, the Conservative government has chosen a so-called offensive strategy in matters of defence, crime and public safety and security. The vocabulary can be found in this document.

The government uses an attack approach and goes full steam ahead with everything connected to its ideology. However, when it is a matter of—to use one of its expressions—addressing poverty, the silence is resounding. And yet an entire segment of our society—comprised of youth, families and the elderly—is affected.

Thus, I would like to hear more about this from my colleague, whom I thank for her speech.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question. As the chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, we have heard from poverty groups. Poverty affects mostly women, especially women who are single and divorced and who have children.

In terms of addressing poverty, they have overwhelmingly told us that they need a change, a reduction in income taxes. Instead of reducing income taxes, the Conservative government increased it from 15% to 15.5%.

In terms of child care spaces, the Conservatives created no child care spaces. The $100 baby bonus gave nothing to families struggling to make ends meet.

I agree with the hon. member that the attack on crime is really smoke and mirrors compared to what should be done for poverty.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Don Valley East for an excellent speech.

I want to point out that when we consider we have an aging population, where in a few years the ratio between workers and seniors will drop from five to one to three to one, how can the Speech from the Throne be silent on the very important issue of immigration? Immigrants represents the greatest hope to fill labour shortages in the country.

Finally, is the reaction to the Speech from the Throne shared by the residents of Don Valley East? In my area the residents of Vaughan are asking how a nation improves its standard of living and quality of life by reducing investment in people, workers, seniors, students, children and families, and how does a G-7 nation improve its quality of life by cutting in areas like research and development, education and the environment?

The citizens of Vaughan have rejected the Conservative vision of the country. Has the hon. member found the same thing in her riding?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right that the Speech from the Throne is missing in specifics in a lot of areas. I have been on television and have talked to my constituents. They find that the government has no vision whatsoever. How do we take the country from here to the 21st and 22nd century?

The Conservatives have nothing for research and development. Despite the fact that the Canadian Foundation of Innovation received its first funding from the Liberal government for $800 million, the Conservative government cut it to $500 million.

It is very important to note that this is a visionless government, but we will have to work and fight to get there.