Debates of Oct. 24th, 2007

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's comments and there were a few items that concerned me greatly.

First of all, she commented that more of the funding needs to go to the grassroots level. I am sure she must be aware of the efforts of CIDA and the NGOs that are working there. For example, Mennonite Economic Development Associates does micro-credit work in this area and provides loans as small as $200 to allow women and others to purchase equipment such as sewing machines for example. It often ends up that entire families are employed.

Another statement the member made was that Canada needs to fulfill its international obligations. I am sure she is aware that the Afghan compact extends until 2011.

Finally, I had the privilege of meeting with a number of parents of reservists and others who have returned from Afghanistan, and not one of them has asked for us to discontinue our mission there. In fact, they want us to continue. The reservists and other people whom I have spoken to are willing and ready to return.

I am wondering if the member has had the privilege of speaking with any of the people who have served there, to get their input and personal observations.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question and comments.

No, I have not been talking with reservists upon their return, but I am nonetheless in touch with the military because my riding is home to a military base.

It was in discussing with them that I realized that they know that Parliament is where the decisions are made. Parliamentarians have the responsibility of ensuring that Canada's effort is not disproportionate as compared with that of other countries. The fact is that, at present, it is disproportionate. On that basis, one might suggest that, instead of extending our presence in Kandahar until 2011, we ought to get out of there. By February 2009, we should have looked into more useful ways of contributing to the development of Afghanistan.

When I said that we have responsibilities—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order please. Resuming debate. The hon. Minister of the Environment.

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege to rise and have the opportunity to address the House today on a motion in response to the Speech from the Throne.

I should indicate at the outset that I will be sharing my time with the hard-working member for Selkirk—Interlake.

The government's second Speech from the Throne is about two things: strong leadership and a better Canada.

The environment continues to be a great priority for our federal government. It continues to be a great priority for my constituents in Ottawa West—Nepean and for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

First and foremost, I am proud that our government has a realistic and achievable plan to help combat climate change, one of the greatest threats to our planet.

This past February, the International Panel on Climate Change released its report. The panel consists of a group of scientists, men and women, and was the co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. I had the chance to be at the release of its report and was pleased to be briefed by two Canadian scientists who are among the winners of the peace prize.

The first report was a report to policy makers, basically giving the facts and saying that it is up to them to act. It was not values laden. It just presented the science.

I asked both of those Canadian scientists, “What would you do if you were in my shoes?” I also asked them, “What will it take for us to combat climate change in a meaningful fashion?” They said it would take two things: one, technology, and, two, cultural change. Indeed, these are what our plan is all about.

Back in 1992 when Canada had a Conservative government, the prime minister of the day, Brian Mulroney, went to the Rio earth summit, and 1992 was the first opportunity for a major international forum to recognize that global warming and climate change was a key issue and a big problem. In December of 1992 we signed on to the Kyoto accord, which was a worldwide effort to reduce greenhouse gases or a worldwide effort for 30% of the world's emitters to reduce greenhouse gases. Some five years later, Canada had not done anything to address this problem.

After pen was put to paper, nothing happened. For many years no efforts were made to even ratify this accord, let alone get to work and get the job done. Members do not have to believe me. They can ask Sheila Copps, the Liberal environment minister. They can read quotes from Christine Stewart, another Liberal environment minister. They can read the quotes and talk to David Anderson, yet another Liberal environment minister who said that it was hard to get anything done.

Most importantly, though, we can look to the man who was at the top. The other day in the House I read out a quote from Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's new book. I will read it out again. He stated that “my successors”, and of course his immediate successor was the member for LaSalle—Émard, whose environment minister is the leader of the Liberal Party, “...did serious damage to Canada's progress and our reputation in the process”. Those are not my words. That is not a Conservative statement. That was said by the former leader of the Liberal Party.

Sadly, the Kyoto reporting period begins in some 70-odd days. Kyoto was all about a 10 year marathon to fight global warming here in Canada and around the world. When the starter's pistol went off in December of 1997, Canada, instead of stepping up to the plate and providing real action, began to run in the opposite direction.

[An hon. member]

That's terrible.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

It is terrible and it is sad.

One cannot run a 10 year marathon in 70-odd days, especially when one has been running in the wrong direction for 10 years, as the previous Liberal government did.

The science out there is very strong. It gets stronger each and every day. The report put out by the international panel in February is to a great extent almost out of date, because the science is even stronger than it was just 10 months ago. The fortunate part, the good news, is that we now have a realistic, achievable plan to accomplish real reductions in greenhouse gases.

We can look at the devastation caused by the pine beetle. We can look at schools coming off their foundations up in the Northwest Territories. There is one diamond mine up in the Northwest Territories that had to fly in diesel fuel by Hercules, at an extra expense of $25 million, because the snow roads just do not operate. The weather just does not support them for as many weeks as it used to. We do not have to look any farther than our own country to see some of the devastation of global warming and the beginning of the real challenges.

The goal of our plan is an absolute reduction of 20% of GHGs by 2020. It is not an intensity based reduction, and it also is not just an ambition but an absolute reduction of 20%. The centrepiece of that is a plan to require the big polluters to begin to reduce their emissions by 6% a year in the first three years and then by a constant 2% improvement in the years to come.

That is not the whole program, but it is one of the centrepieces of the program and we are going to work tremendously hard to get this apparatus in place. A good number of the folks in the industry, academia and the environmental movement have been very free with their advice and suggestions as we put the details into the framework. Thus, we began this year by serving notice that the big polluters would have to clean up their act.

We also have come forward with a plan to combat smog and pollution. It is absolutely essential that we begin to tackle this. There is a great quote from the member for St. Paul's that I have used before in the House. She talked about there being only one smog day in Toronto in 1993, whereas in recent years we have seen upwards of 45 to 48 smog days.

[An hon. member]

It's awful.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

This is awful for all Canadians, but it is particularly bad if one is a parent of a young child with asthma. It is particularly bad for elderly seniors who may not be able to go out of their own homes or apartments during the day. It is particularly bad when one can stand, as I have, on the higher floors of apartment buildings and see the haze over our large cities. We can do better and Canadians are demanding it.

Our plan also includes incentives for cleaner cars in order to get Canadians into hybrids, into E85 fuel cars and into energy efficient cars. This is good news. My colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, has a whole series of ecoenergy and energy efficiency initiatives.

At the Carlingwood mall the other day, I spoke to a father from my constituency who has taken advantage of the program, coupled with the benefits put in by the provincial government. He has geothermal heating in his own home and thinks he can make his investment back in nine years. As well, that has great benefits for the environment. I am sure his property values will go up.

We are actually for the first time working with the provinces constructively on fighting global warming by putting our money where our mouth is, with $1.5 billion of support that has been delivered to provinces, not just promised but delivered. It is for things like British Columbia's hydrogen highway. The province is working on a hydrogen highway in time for the Olympics. It will run all the way from Baja, California, to Whistler in time for the Olympics. When we made this announcement, Premier Campbell pointed out that when the first gas station in British Columbia opened there were only 250 cars in the province. So these are seeds. These are investments that I think promise great hope.

In Alberta, we are working on a major effort, led by the Minister of Natural Resources, for a carbon capture and storage initiative. It is a major initiative to trap carbon and sequester it deep within the earth. We can take this technology around the world.

In Manitoba and Ontario, we are looking building a national electricity grid to try to take advantage of and harness the great power at Conawapa, which Premier Doer has been advocating. He has had to advocate this for far too long, but now it finally has some federal support to help Premier McGuinty close those dirty coal-fired plants.

Quebec was demanding $350 million in support. That call fell on deaf ears, but now the money is in the bank and there is a whole series of initiatives in Quebec's plan.

In the Maritimes, we are seeing tidal power. I was with the Minister of National Defence in his constituency earlier this year and saw the great work being done on tidal power.

In Newfoundland, there is a massive hydro expansion.

For 2012, we are seeking a global consensus, which means that Canada must go first. Leadership means going firs. We must be judged by our actions, not by our talk. We must get countries like the United States on board. We must get countries such as China and India on board.

I will end my comments with good news. We celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Montreal protocol just last month in Montreal. Former prime minister Brian Mulroney spoke and said we should remind ourselves that good should not be the enemy of perfection.

We were able to advance by 10 years that timetable to phase out ozone depleting substances under the great leadership provided by Stephen Johnson, the administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. As well, China stepped up to the plate and provided major leadership.

These comments are coupled with the great work we have done in conservation, in the Great Bear Rainforest and the Nahanni, and the work with the Nature Conservancy of Canada and the $220 million it will match, as well as our efforts to clean up Lake Winnipeg, which I know is dear to Mr. Speaker's heart, and our efforts to clean up the Great Lakes and Lake Simcoe. They are all part of an integrated strategy to move the environmental agenda forward.

My constituents in Ottawa West—Nepean want to see more action and less talk when it comes to the environment. They want the government to continue to work to clean up the environment and they want this throne speech passed. The people of Ottawa West—Nepean do not want an election.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister made reference in his remarks, and more than once, I believe, to the great benefit that is brought to our national energy strategy by the Province of Manitoba and the building of hydroelectric dams in northern Manitoba, with their clean, renewable hydroelectric power.

What he did not comment on, though, is a shortcoming, I suppose, in this concept of a national energy strategy, in that there is no east-west grid as such where Manitoba can easily sell its power. We can sell it north and south and we do sell a great deal to Minnesota and the states directly to the south of us. We also would like to sell it north to Nunavut so that it does not need to have those diesel-powered generating stations. We can ship the power north, in fact, but we also want to sell it east-west.

Could the minister comment on what his government plans to do to enable the east-west trade of our clean, renewable energy?

While I have the floor, there is one other thing I need to ask him about. It is rare that I get an opportunity to pose a question directly to our Minister of the Environment. Our great inland sea, Lake Winnipeg, is in peril in that the Americans are hell bent and determined to open the Devils Lake diversion and flood our waters with invasive biota and God knows what kind of phosphates and chemicals, et cetera.

We are well aware of the issue. I know the minister is well aware of the issue. Could the minister brief us on whether there is any progress in trying to talk some sense into our American counterparts and not put our great inland sea of Lake Winnipeg in peril?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the questions from the member Winnipeg Centre, a member of whom I have a very high opinion.

With respect to clean power, when I was the minister of energy in the province of Ontario, we signed a memorandum of understanding with the Doer government in Manitoba to look at a national grid that could bring more clean electricity into Ontario and help Ontario clean up its act. Regrettably, after that agreement was signed there was an election and not much has happened on that.

Therefore, when I took on this role, we fought for funds to support the provinces, with some $500 million dollars going to Ontario and some $50 million or $60 million going to Manitoba. That money has actually flowed; it is not just a promise or a commitment. That money is in Manitoba's and Ontario's pockets right now. They are working on a government by government basis to do that. It is probably going to require a power of purchase agreement and it is going to require a major investment in the transmission, which I think the bulk of the funds would be used for. I continue to be very optimistic about that. The member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia is the Manitoba member in particular who has fought hard for that.

With respect to Lake Winnipeg and Devils Lake, this is a significant concern. Our primary problem is with the state government, but this House unanimously, and certainly with the government's support, passed a resolution presented by one of the member's NDP colleagues on this issue.

To follow up, I was in direct communication with representatives of the American government and others. In September, just last month, I had a specific meeting on this issue with the head of the Environmental Protection Agency and the chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality. There was only one issue on the agenda. We agreed that the scientific reports should be coming out this fall and that we should take a limited period of time to review them and try to get a high level group of political leaders together to seek to resolve this.

I believe it is essential that we continue to put on the pressure to get an agreement that will protect Lake Winnipeg. I appreciate the fact that this issue has been a non-partisan issue. We worked quite well with members of all parties when it came before the House of Commons. We will continue to work hard with Premier Doer and his government.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening intently to the minister's speech and he did refer a little bit to the Atlantic with regard to funding tidal power.

However, I was wondering what happened to the hydrogen village that was funded in North Cape, Prince Edward Island three years ago in a technology partnerships program, a public-private initiative. It seems they have fallen off the rails ever since the present government took power.

I wonder if the minister would give us an update on the hydrogen village in North Cape.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak directly to a particular grant given by an arm's length body given by the government. If it were done three years ago and, as the term the member used, “funded”, means that it happened three years ago, I would suspect it would all be up and running if it were done well by the previous government.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on behalf of the people of Selkirk—Interlake to address some of the priorities that our government has in this session of Parliament.

I am especially pleased to join the Minister of the Environment who just outlined the action plan for the environment.

The environment is an important issue to the people of Selkirk—Interlake and all of the people of Manitoba, including yourself, Mr. Speaker, and other members of the House.

The state of Lake Winnipeg is a serious concern in my area, where we rely on the lake for our livelihood and our health. Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba fall within my riding, but I know that all members of the House love the lakes and love everything that they contribute to our economy, to tourism, to recreation and, of course, as a major recharge area for our aquifers.

Lake Winnipeg serves commercial fisheries as a main source of the province's annual commercial catch. Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba combined have 1,100 commercial fishermen and women on those lakes. It is also a vital transportation route to the north and there is a popular summer resort area for cottagers and tourists.

We all know that water is central to the health and well-being of all Canadians, our environment and our economy. That is why the Speech from the Throne reiterated our commitment to a safe and secure water supply. Through our national water strategy, we now have an action plan for clean water. The government will be working with provincial governments and stakeholders, as well as taking action on its own to address and make real and continuous progress on water related issues.

The government has backed up its words with action. We have dedicated over $400 million to our action plan on clean water, and the key word here is “action”. This year's budget committed $35 million on freshwater initiatives to clean up the Great Lakes and Lake Simcoe and to study the water levels of the Great Lakes.

Most important, for the good people of Selkirk—Interlake and Manitoba, our budget measure provides $7 million over the next two years for the clean up of Lake Winnipeg.

As the House knows, recently the Minister of the Environment, the Minister for Democratic Reform and our government House leader were in Jackson's Point on Lake Simcoe in Ontario where they met with community stakeholders and experts who are leading the work to clean up that lake. They also established a mechanism and a fund to deliver the goods.

With regard to Lake Winnipeg, I am pleased to say that we will be establishing a new water stewardship fund for the Lake Winnipeg basin. Like the other lakes being cleaned up by the government, we will deliver the goods on Lake Winnipeg. Most important, we will ensure that these resources are spent wisely and are spent on actually cleaning up the lake and on projects that will actually improve the water quality.

It is a matter of accountability and responsibility. Working with the Manitoba provincial government, we will be taking action that will allow us to better understand how pollutants and nutrients can be controlled in the entire watershed, which covers two states and three western provinces, plus part of Ontario. We will understand how that whole watershed affects Lake Winnipeg.

The goal is to reduce the blue-green algae in Lake Winnipeg, decrease the number of beach closings that we hear about on the news all the time, promote a more sustainable fishery and enhance the recreation.

My fishery generates over $20 million a year in freshwater sales of pickerel, whitefish and other species, and the blue-green algae problem that we are facing is becoming a great concern to most of the fishermen. Even though the catch today is good, we know that the blue-green algae is toxic, is causing oxygen depleted zones in the lake, in both the north basin and the south basin, and it is an issue that we must fix if we are to have a long term and sustainable fishery. The work on Lake Winnipeg will help to serve as a model for larger trans-border watersheds throughout Canada.

Budget 2007 also supports healthy oceans. The government is investing $382 million for conservation and protection of fisheries and ocean habitats with initiatives such as $39 million over two years to increase fishery science research programs, $19 million over two years for water pollution prevention, surveillance and enforcement along Canada's coast, and $324 million to enable the Canadian Coast Guard to acquire two new fishery research vessels and four patrol vessels for coastal surveillance and enforcement.

The federal government has direct responsibility for the provision of safe drinking water on federal and first nation lands. Through the first nations water management strategy, the government takes a source-to-tap approach to water safety, providing assistance for activities on protecting source water and for monitoring everything at the tap that people are drinking.

In March 2006, the previous minister of Indian and northern affairs, along with the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, announced a plan of action for drinking water in first nation communities. Last year's budget invested $60 million over two years to help reach the objective set out in the plan of action.

In budget 2007, the government again committed to working with first nations to ensure that all first nations' residents have access to safe, potable drinking water.

Our government has further committed to the development of a regulatory regime to oversee water quality on reserves based on the options presented by the expert panel of safe drinking water for first nations.

In addition to making new investments, the government is prepared to use its regulatory authorities to address water pollution more generally.

In September, the government announced its intention to take action to cut water pollution by setting hard and tough new national standards for sewage treatment. Municipal raw sewage is the single, most significant contributor to water pollution and we will be taking action.

The government has also assured Canadians that the unprecedented $33 billion in the building Canada infrastructure plan will provide long term, stable and predictable funding that will help support infrastructure projects, such as sewage treatment plants. We know that throughout Manitoba, including the city of Winnipeg, we need to spend more money on infrastructure to ensure good, clean water is being delivered to all those communities but, more important, that we are collecting all the sewage and properly treating all that waste water.

The importance of water and the challenges we face means that action must be taken by all levels of government. I am pleased to note that there is a strong foundation in Canada on which we can build. There is a strong base for cooperation and action on Canada's water. Many provinces and territories already have in place water policies and strategies that establish watershed based governance and take concrete action to protect drinking water.

For example, the province of Alberta's water for life strategy is transitioning from traditional planning for water allocation to an integrated watershed management, supported by a shared governance model.

On the other side of this great country, Quebec's water policy is founded on full integration of water management by adopting an integrated watershed management approach. The Quebec water policy is based on citizen involvement, integrated management of the St. Lawrence River and recognition of water as an integral part of the collective heritage of the citizens of Quebec.

Ontario has also enacted measures to protect drinking water supplies in its clean water act, which requires each municipality to have watershed management and source water protection plans in place.

The federal government takes an important role in providing scientific leadership on water quality issues and invests in research and development to protect surface water and groundwater supplies. The government also works collaboratively with the provinces and territories in areas of joint interest. The primary forum for working with provinces and territories on water priorities is the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

Because water quality is a priority issue for all Canadian jurisdictions, enhanced collaboration in water quality research, monitoring and guidelines is a key objective. This has been a key component of the approach taken by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

Working through the council, the federal government plays a leadership role in the collaborative development of the guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality and provides advice on source water quality.

The council is working on developing a Canada-wide strategy for the management of municipal waste water. It is establishing environmental quality guidelines for water. It is analyzing water conservation measures and performance indicators and it is developing national tools for water management, like the water quality index.

Important regional cooperation in water management is achieved through such bodies as the Prairie Provinces Water Board, the Mackenzie River Basin Board and the Red River Basin Board. The Red River Basin Board includes the province of Manitoba, as well as the states of North Dakota and Minnesota.

Canadians can have confidence that their government will continue to work on the plan to achieve real results and tangible improvements in Canada's water.

However, at the end of the day, when we want to talk about protecting our oceans, our lakes and our rivers, Canadians want to look for solutions to fix their problems, to stop the nutrient loading of our precious resource, Canadians only need to look in the mirror. We all have a role to play. There are things that we can be doing in our homes and in our own yards to ensure that what is being put into the watershed will better protect our lakes and oceans.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had the occasion to consult with my constituents after the Speech from the Throne was delivered and they had some questions for the hon. member.

On the issue of child care, the residents of Vaughan want to know what happened to the 125,000 new child care spaces the Conservative government promised Canadian families.

The second question is on the issue of health care. While the residents of Vaughan worked diligently to build a hospital in our community, the Speech from the Throne is silent on health care. Why the indifference to such an important issue?

The third question is on the issue of cities. Cities like the city of Vaughan are the engines of the Canadian economy. They attract people, investments and capital from all over the world which creates and expands opportunities for Canadians. Why has the Conservative government chosen to ignore our cities and communities?

The fourth question is on the issue of Afghanistan. Canada's involvement in Afghanistan must remain true to its original purpose and intent. We remain committed to the Afghan people and the reconstruction of their society. We will hold the government accountable if it fails to deliver on that noble goal for, if it does fail, it will be failing our troops and the Canadian and Afghan populations.

The final question is on the issue of the environment, on which the hon. member spoke at length. Climate change is an ecological crisis that threatens the world. It is a global issue that requires a global response. Nations that embrace the environment will lead the global economy of the 21st century. Why has the Conservative government rejected the Kyoto protocol?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of child care, I can say that in my area, a rural area, I hear constantly from parents who are very grateful and happy to receive the child credit benefit of $100 per child per month. They really believe that is the right approach to take. It gives them the ability to choose which form of child care they wish to pursue, whether it is community child care, private child care or whether they want to take care of their children at home. It is the only fair way to treat all parents in rural areas.

It is tough for farm families in my riding who are greatly removed from centres to drive into town, drop their kids off at an accredited child care facility and then make the trip all the way back to the farm. Many farmers and ranchers live 20 or 30 miles from the nearest community and some are even beyond that. This was the right approach for them and it is an approach that I support 100%.

We are working with the provinces by delivering $125 million to help them create new child care spaces. The provinces are in the driver's seat in creating those new spaces. We are supporting them by giving them direct financing to assist them in that regard.

With respect to the environment, we sat here for 12 years and nothing was done to meet the Kyoto protocol. Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien committed us to an action plan to have a Kyoto protocol put in place for--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. There are a lot of members rising and a lot of time has been used up. There were more questions than the member could possibly answer.

The member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on page 11 of the Speech from the Throne there is an absolute bombshell for the people I represent in the riding of Winnipeg Centre. At paragraph 4 on page 11, the government reaffirms its mad, ideological crusade to abolish the Canadian Wheat Board.

I can tell my colleague from Selkirk that the Conservatives are in for the fight of their life if they intend to tear down this great prairie institution because we will not let them. We intend to do everything in our power to stop this ideological crusade.

Will the member not admit that there is no business case for abolishing the Canadian Wheat Board? It is simply pure ideological madness.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the member for Winnipeg Centre, I am a farmer and I can tell the member that farmers in my riding are split on this issue. Farmers across the wheat board area have said very clearly that they want choice. The Speech from the Throne said that we would honour the decision by farmers who decided that they wanted choice in marketing their barley. We will proceed with that.

Most farmers, whether they are on one side of the issue or on the other, are not pleased by opposition members who continue to say that they were too stupid to understand the question when they were voting in the plebiscite on the future of barley marketing in western Canada.

However, we will honour the democratic decision that farmers made to move ahead with choice. Farmers who still wish to market their products through the Canadian Wheat Board will still have the ability to do so because the Wheat Board will be there in the future to provide that service to farmers.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Sydney—Victoria.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the Speech from the Throne.

My constituents of Newton—North Delta and Canadians in general anticipated a more detailed action plan from the government, but all they got were some vague statements in the Speech from the Throne.

Unlike the Conservatives' election platform, I noticed health care failed to become a priority on its own. Perhaps the government is admitting its failure to put a comprehensive plan in place up to now, more than 18 months into the Conservatives' mandate. The government has disappointed Canadians by not delivering on the goals of reducing wait times. I doubt we will ever see a federal commitment from the minority Conservative government which this very important issue requires. If anything, the Conservatives' goal to reduce the federal government's role in cost-sharing programs leads me to believe that this will be just another broken promise as they have broken many other promises that they made in their last election platform.

Another vague reference in the throne speech is to taxation and the government's plan to reduce the GST by yet another penny, but where did the last penny go? All Canadians know where it has gone. It has gone to increase the taxes for the lowest income tax bracket.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

That's crap.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true. That is exactly what the finance minister said in his speech when he tried to mislead Canadians. The hon. member for Peterborough sitting on the other side is trying to give the same impression.

In fact, we all know it is true that the Conservative government has raised the taxes for the most vulnerable in our society. With a $13 billion surplus, the government could do more to reduce taxes for the most vulnerable in our society, for seniors, working single parents, youth, the disabled and the other disadvantaged people.

When I speak to businesses and the chamber of commerce and when I go to the Scott Road market in my riding, all they talk about is competitiveness and how we can be competitive on the world stage. The only way we can stay competitive is by decreasing taxes for the corporations.

When the Liberals took power from the Conservatives in 1993, there was a $41 billion deficit left by the Brian Mulroney Conservative government. The Liberals balanced budgets one after the other to put the finances of this country on a strong financial footing. That is not where it stopped. In fact, we also reduced income taxes from 28% all the way down to 19%.

The Conservative government has to follow the Liberal lead to attract businesses here for the long term. To retain those businesses, we have to make a commitment to lower corporate taxes even further to protect the Canadian economy and Canadian jobs now and in the future.

Yesterday I noticed when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development was speaking that she did not have a clue. She was speaking to Bill C-362 on old age security and giving seniors the benefits they deserve, but in fact, she was talking about income taxes or the pension plan. And when it comes to pension plans, the Liberals are the ones who put the Canada pension plan on a strong financial footing.

In the throne speech we listened to the mantra of the Conservative government to get tough on crime. If the Conservatives were truly tough on crime, they would not have prorogued Parliament, but they would have dealt with all those crime bills, all of which I voted in favour of at every stage. That is exactly what my constituents of Newton—North Delta were looking for.

Canadians are even more disappointed with the Conservatives now because all they are doing is playing politics with this issue, instead of respecting the work that has been done and passing these laws to protect Canadians. The Prime Minister would rather take the stand that only his party is tough on crime, but how can that be when legislation is delayed for months and perhaps a year? The last time that I heard in this House that we wanted to fast-track those crime bills was in October 2006. It has been a year. If we had acted on those bills, they would have been law by now and we would have protection for the most vulnerable victims in our society.

When it comes to the environment, the government has also failed. When we talk about the environment the people of Newton—North Delta think first of one thing, the Lungs of the Lower Mainland, also known as Burns Bog. This is a huge carbon sink in an ecologically sensitive area right in the heart of metro Vancouver. The bog is home to many species of plants and wildlife, many species that are rare and endangered and exist nowhere else in Canada. It is a very special place to me, my family and my constituents of Newton—North Delta.

The Burns Bog Conservation Society and its director, Eliza Olson, whom I recognized in this House last year as Earth Day Canada's hometown hero, tell me that the current design for the Pacific Gateway project and especially the South Fraser Perimeter Road will pose a danger to Burns Bog and its ability to absorb tonnes of carbon dioxide. This is something we cannot allow.

There are alternatives. People have asked me why the government is not listening to them. There was not a single mention in the throne speech when it comes to the Pacific Gateway and this environmentally sensitive site and the routing that I am talking about. The alternatives offered by different people, groups and experts will create a greater vision than the Conservative minority government is willing to commit to so far.

I have written to ministers, I have stood in the House, I have presented petitions from my constituents asking the government to treat the Pacific Gateway project like the St. Lawrence Seaway project of the last century so that we can protect the children who go to school in my riding. Do not get me wrong; when it comes to the Pacific Gateway project I want make sure that I clarify that it is very important for our economy to move on this, but at the same time we have to make sure that we do not sacrifice people's quality of life and their health. We have to protect the people who are impacted by that project in my riding of Newton—North Delta.

If the minority Conservative government truly has an interest in enhancing trade with the Pacific Rim as well as protecting our environment, then it should address the concerns of my constituents by exploring the alternatives to the proposed designs and providing the funding to do it right the first time.

The people of Newton—North Delta should not have to shoulder far more of the burden in terms of harm to their health, their environment and their lifestyle in order to benefit trade throughout Canada. We need leadership on this essential international trade route. Unfortunately, I do not see it coming from the government because it has not acted on this in the last few months that I have been raising this issue with the appropriate ministers.

When it comes to child--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order. I have been trying to tell the hon. member a number of times that his time has expired.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Newton—North Delta went through the Speech from the Throne and itemized many of the shortcomings that I agree wholeheartedly make this a speech that is unworthy of our vote and support. The obvious question that comes to mind is how members of his party who have been completely critical of virtually every aspect of the Speech from the Throne in good conscience can either stay in their places and not vote at all or vote in favour of a Speech from the Throne which on principle and in fact they claim to be opposed to in virtually every way.

Does it not weigh on his conscience as a member of Parliament to not stand up for his principles and to not be an official opposition? Does he not understand the role of the official opposition? If all the Liberals are going to do is rubber stamp whatever the government wants to do, how are they being an effective official opposition? I would argue that they are not.

I know my colleague is relatively new to this place, but I ask him again, how in all good conscience is he going to allow the Speech from the Throne to pass without any activity from the official opposition in terms of doing its job and opposing the government?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you, the hon. member and the House that in fact it was the Liberals who signed the landmark agreements, whether it was on child care, the Kyoto protocol or the Kelowna accord. It was the previous Liberal government. The NDP brought that government down so that the poorest of the poor could pay more taxes, so the elderly could wait longer for health care, so that children could give up hope on Kyoto and real action on the environment, so that aboriginal people could give up hope on the promises of the Kelowna accord, and so that working families across this country could give up on child care. For the NDP, it was worth a few more seats to see this country go in a reverse direction on the gains made for all Canadians.

What has it meant? I can say that the New Democratic Party traded its soul for a few more seats. Now the NDP would rather trade with the Conservatives in the House for political gains instead of getting things done for Canadians. It would rather see more inaction and try its luck for a seat or two more while Canadians once again wait in vain for a responsible government. Canadians do not want an election now.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre would probably make the statement that parties in the past voted the Liberals out based on their record of scandal and I commend him for standing on principle on that issue.

The hon. member would probably like to correct a few items in his speech because he knows them not to be true. Specifically, this government has removed 885,000 low income Canadians completely from the tax roll, the overwhelming majority of those being low income seniors. He should know that we have done that by increasing the age credit from $1,000 to $2,000 and increasing the pension allowance from $4,066 to $5,066. He talked about the GST, which is a regressive tax. For many people who do not pay income tax, it is the only tax they pay.

The Retail Council of Canada said before the Standing Committee on Finance that it was the single largest increase in real disposable income in Canadian households. I wonder if the member is aware of the testimony that the Retail Council gave about the GST cut, if he is aware of all the tax saving measures that we brought in for seniors, even things like pension income splitting. Nobody has benefited more from tax cuts than families and seniors. This government has brought in $41 billion in tax cuts.

I am wondering if perhaps the member might be interested in correcting his facts.