Debates of Nov. 24th, 2008

RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again, and since the member began his comments with supply management, I would just like to outline a couple of the things that our government did with respect to supply management.

First of all, at the WTO, we made sure that all of our partners had the unqualified knowledge that Canada would stand up for supply management no matter what. That is the position that our government took.

Additionally, if we go back to the actions that we have taken since the beginning of the last Parliament, we were the first party to move on things such as the importation of butter oils and milk protein concentrates. These were flooding in and circumventing our tariffs on dairy products coming in. We filed an article XXVIII on that.

We know that the Liberal Party did nothing on the issue of butter oils, which replaced a large portion of Canadian dairy production. Milk protein concentrates were new ingredients that were coming in to cheeses, replacing Canadian dairy farmers' products. We filed an article XXVIII to cap that and brought in compositional standards on cheese. If those are not things that are done by a government that supports supply management, I would like to know what the opposition parties would define them as. We are supporting supply management. They have been missing in action.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to object to the hon. member for Peterborough speaking for Canadians in terms of wanting nuclear power and planning for nuclear power.

In Thunder Bay--Superior North and across northern Ontario, most of my constituents feel that nuclear power is expensive, dangerous and risky, and they do not want the burial of wastes in northern Ontario. What my constituents want in Thunder Bay--Superior North and what Canadians want across northern Ontario is sustainable energy. We want investments in solar, wind, hydroelectric and geothermal energies. We especially want to see serious programs by the government in terms of investing in conservation.

My question for the hon. member is this. When and how will the hon. member's party be interested in, invest in, and plan for truly sustainable energy sources?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is new in this House, so we will forgive him for not knowing about the many investments that our government has made into new and sustainable energy sources, things like wind and solar, indeed carbon capture and storage in Weyburn, Saskatchewan. He is not aware of these. Indeed, the previous member for Thunder Bay--Superior North, the hon. Joe Comuzzi, was up on these things and understood a lot of the broader Canadian economy.

As I noted in my speech, 40,000 Ontarians work in the nuclear industry. We are a world leader when it comes to nuclear, and I strongly suggest that the member does his research and learns a little bit about Canada's history and our record with respect to nuclear power. We are a world leader. The world is going to need energy. It is going to need clean energy and that is why it is so important to move forward on Canadian nuclear technology and Canadian nuclear know-how. The 40,000 skilled Ontarians who work in this industry are world leaders and our government supports it.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Charlottetown.

It is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak in response to the throne speech. Before I begin my remarks, I would like to thank the people of Kings—Hants for electing me as their member of Parliament for the fifth time. The people of Kings—Hants have given me the honour and privilege of representing them as their voice here in the House of Commons.

In the recent election, Canadians chose a minority Parliament. As parliamentarians, we have the responsibility to work together to respect that choice and to try to make this Parliament work. It is incumbent on all of us, all parties and all leaders, to try to put partisanship aside and to try to make this Parliament work in the best interests of Canadians, particularly during difficult economic times.

It is also important that all of us be completely direct with Canadians about the challenges we face and the root causes of some of these challenges. Financial clarity is particularly important now. After 11 years of surpluses, for many Canadians it was a sad day to see the word “deficit” in the throne speech as the government prepares them for what appears increasingly to be an inevitable deficit. After years of careful planning under the previous Liberal government, in just three short years the Conservatives are poised to return Canadians and the Government of Canada to deficit financing.

Fifteen years ago, a Liberal government inherited a $42 billion deficit from the previous Conservative government. Under strong fiscal management by the Liberal governments of Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Martin, Canada turned the corner, eliminated those deficits and paid down debt.

Canadians will remember that balancing the books was not easy. It required tough decisions and many shared sacrifices. In order to maintain those hard-fought gains, a Canadian consensus emerged, a consensus that governments must take every precaution to avoid deficit financing. That is why Liberal finance minister Paul Martin implemented a contingency reserve, or a rainy day fund, permanently in Canada’s fiscal framework during those years.

As Liberals, we recognize that a government cannot always predict external economic shocks. However, a government can, and ought to, prepare for them.

Economic uncertainty was caused by 9/11, SARS, BSE and international currency crises, but Canada was able to withstand those external shocks and simultaneously avoid going into deficit. Under the Liberals, Canada not only paid down debt and cut income taxes and taxes on business and investment, but as a country we also built a fiscal and economic record that became the envy of the G8.

Just three short years ago, the Conservatives inherited the strongest economy and the strongest fiscal position that any incoming government has enjoyed in the history of Canada. We had the strongest economy in the G8. We had a $13 billion surplus, a $3 billion contingency reserve, the best job creation in 30 years and no deficit.

Since that time, the Conservatives have not only squandered the $13 billion surplus but have also eliminated the $3 billion contingency reserve, the rainy day fund. They have gutted Canada’s capacity to respond today to an economic downturn.

During the good times, the Conservatives spent the cupboard bare and put Canada in such a position that today we lack the financial and fiscal capacity to invest in vulnerable Canadians during the tough times.

It is not just dollars and cents. Canadians feel vulnerable as a result of the looming recession and the global economic situation. Canadians want governments to plan ahead, to prepare for inevitable external shocks, and to ensure that during those times their government is not only prepared to invest in Canadians and to help them through those tough times, but is also capable of doing so.

During the election, the Prime Minister misled Canadians about the existence of a potential deficit.

Today, the Conservatives are trying to mislead Canadians about the cause of the deficit.

This is important in a minority parliament, because if we are going to deal with solutions honestly, we need to deal with problems honestly. We cannot, as a parliament, come up with solutions for the future of the Canadian economy unless we are prepared to admit the truth, perhaps the inconvenient truth, about the cause of some of the problems we face right now.

The deficit was not caused by the global economic situation, but by the Conservative government. Last week Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, said very specifically in his report that the deficit was caused by previous policy decisions of the Conservative government. He referred to policy decisions quite specifically, including cutting the GST as opposed to making other types of tax cuts that could have created more growth and opportunity, such as cuts to income taxes. He also referred to the fact that the Conservatives have increased spending by 25% during their short time in office.

Many people saw this coming and questioned Conservative fiscal responsibility long before Mr. Page wrote his report. Last February a Globe and Mail editorial compared Liberal and Conservative records on the economy. The following is what the editorial said:

Which party took a country that was drowning in debt and instituted tough, painful savings to lift the federal accounts back into surplus, where they have remained for more than a decade? That would be the Liberals.

I continue with the Globe and Mail editorial:

And which party, by failing to heed the warning signs of an economic slowdown and by both cutting the GST and spending as if there were no tomorrow, set the country up for a lean budget on Feb. 26 that could, if the Conservatives don't watch their step, tip Canada back into deficit spending? That would be the Conservatives.

That was a Globe and Mail editorial on February 21, 2008.

Economists agree on what to do if we genuinely want to stimulate the economy. The Conservatives have said they cut the GST pre-emptively because they wanted to create stimulus, but in any of the budgets in which they cut the GST, the word “stimulus” was not used to describe why they were cutting the GST. In fact the Conservatives, and I think a lot of Canadians, know that they cut the GST more out of an interest in buying votes than in building prosperity.

If we really want to create economic stimulus, growth and prosperity, economists agree that we are better off to cut taxes on income, on investment, and on profit, not consumption taxes. In its recent report, “Tax Reform for Efficiency and Fairness in Canada”, the OECD argued that it is misguided to shift the tax base toward consumption. It said that in general, business and income tax cuts are better for economic efficiency, since “such taxes are thought to carry a high excess burden, while GST cuts not so much”.

However, Conservatives did not listen to the economists. Instead they went ahead with their wrong-headed tax measures, and now we as a country are moving ahead into deficit.

In terms of economic performance, there were trouble signs on the horizon long before the current global financial crisis. Canada's economy actually shrank during the first half of this year. We had the worst productivity numbers in 18 years. If anyone is wondering whether the Conservatives understand the economy, they have only to question the wisdom of what the Prime Minister said during the election.

On September 15 he said, “If we were going to have some kind of big crash or recession, we probably would have had it by now”.

That was on September 15. Canadians who took the Prime Minister seriously at that time, Canadians who took his investment advice and invested in the TSX, saw the TSX actually fall 33% since the Prime Minister gave that investment advice to Canadians.

On October 7, the Prime Minister said, “I suspect some good buying opportunities are opening up”. Since then the TSX has fallen 16%. We are finding out that the Prime Minister is not much better as an investment adviser than he has proven to be as an economist.

Canadians are justifiably worried. It will be critically important in the days and weeks ahead as we parliamentarians review the fiscal update on Thursday and as we debate the kinds of ideas that can move Canada forward during these difficult times.

It will be absolutely essential for the government to come clean as to the root causes of the fiscal situation we are in right now as a country. It will become absolutely essential that the government tell the truth to Canadians: that it was the government's misguided tax policies and big spending policies that put Canada into deficit. Before we as a Parliament are able to deal with solutions for the future, the Conservatives have to be honest about the causes of the problems we face today.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague back to the House.

I have a point of confusion with the Liberals' perspective on these policies that the hon. member has just spent his time deriding. If he had an overspend and undertax concern with the way the government in the previous Parliament conducted things, why did the Liberal Party spend so much time supporting it?

If the current fiscal mess we are in, according to the budgetary officer, was caused by decisions made by the previous government that have contributed to the downfall of not only Canadians' savings but also of their security toward retirement, why did he and his party fundamentally support them?

It was not simply a matter of worries about an oncoming election. There were also concerns that the Liberal Party fundamentally believed and agreed with the Conservative Party. Again we see the Liberals forming a united coalition front on a neo-liberal agenda.

I wonder if he could answer that most simple of questions.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, first, the Liberal Party does believe that cutting income taxes and taxes on investment is actually good for the economy. In fact, the hon. member could learn from looking at what more highly evolved social democrat parties in other parts of the world have done. The Scandinavian countries, for instance, have reformed their corporate tax system to attract capital and to develop growth, prosperity and opportunity so that they are able to invest in progressive social policy.

The challenge here is that the Conservatives do not care about social investment and the New Democrats do not understand the economy. The Conservatives do not really care about the environment and the New Democrats do not understand the economy. The only party that has a good understanding of the importance of a strong market-based economy and the priorities of the environment and social investment is actually the Liberal Party.

The hon. member's party actually defeated a previous Liberal government and a budget that included a national early learning and child care plan, the Kelowna accord to invest in Canada's aboriginal first nations communities, and unprecedented post-secondary investment.

My point is that his party sometimes makes decisions for which it has not been held accountable. As the Liberal Party in the House of Commons, we have the potential of forming a government when we earn the trust of Canadians to do that, and we must have a little more responsibility toward our decisions than is the case with his party.

Last, Mr. Speaker--

[An hon. member]

His party--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. Questions and comments. The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, along the lines of the previous question, I say to my colleague, our finance critic, that I and many of us here were dismayed by the absence of any comment from the Prime Minister on the change that is required to the international financial architecture in order to address the Ponzi scheme that has just taken place and wreaked such havoc in the international markets. From his perspective, what ought the government to be doing to take a leadership role to address this issue?

My second question is on the issue of one of the pillars of our economy, the ability of individuals to have access to post-secondary education. We know that many people in all our ridings are now prevented from having access to post-secondary education by virtue of the amount of money they have in their pockets. That is completely un-Canadian.

We had some good suggestions. I would like my hon. colleague to present in the House the concrete solutions we had that would enable all Canadians to access the post-secondary skills training they require based on merit, not on the amount of money they have in their pockets.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, first, in terms of international financial architecture as we face this crisis, it is important to realize that the recent meeting of the G-20 in Washington is instructive for a couple of reasons.

First, the G-20 was a Canadian invention by the former minister of finance, Paul Martin. To see the G-20 go from being a meeting of finance ministers to now a full-fledged meeting of heads of countries is important. As we see the credibility that the G-20 has earned, and is earning, it will be critically important. That is something of which we should be proud.

It is also instructive that at that meeting the only disciple left, in terms of George Bush's economy approaches, is the Prime Minister.

I have one final point. There is a lot of pressure being put on global leaders now to come up with solutions. They are talking about Bretton Woods too. Bretton Woods took three years of preparation and three weeks of meetings to develop solutions at that time. We cannot expect overnight solutions.

However, I hope, as we are dealing with the current market failure of—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Continuing debate, the hon. member for Charlottetown.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to make a few comments in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

As everyone in this assembly is aware, the Speech from the Throne is what I would call a broad-based agenda of the government. It is not meant to be about specific legislation or specific programs. It is the government's agenda, or vision, for the next short period of time.

I want to very clearly put on the record my vision of our country.

There is a role for a strong central government that acts on behalf of all regions and all peoples in our country. We all have a shared destiny. There is a strong role for the federal government to play in the day-to-day lives of each Canadian, no matter what they do or where they work.

When I read the Speech from the Throne, I found it contradictory. I see some items in the it that I certainly support. I believe they will foster that vision if they are implemented. On the other hand, certain statements perhaps will bring the country back, and I will speak to that.

Let me first indicate that there are a couple of items in the Speech from the Throne that I see as very much a step in the right direction.

The first one that has been talked about is the requirement for a single securities regulator. To quote from the Speech from the Throne, it states:

To further strengthen financial oversight in Canada, our Government will work with the provinces to put in place a common securities regulator.

Compared to other OECD countries, Canada, although it has an immense geography, is very small, with 34 million people. There are 13 jurisdictions. I do not believe we can continue with 13 separate securities regulators. That will not work going forward from a financial administration point of view. We will be better off as soon as we get one single securities administrator acting on behalf of all Canadians.

The Speech from the Throne talks about the need to work toward eliminating various interprovincial trade, investment and labour mobility. In actual fact, it puts a date of 2010 on this specific provision, and I support this initiative.

I urge the Minister of Finance to proceed on both initiatives. There will be objections from certain provinces with their vested interests, especially with the single securities regulator. I urge the Minister of Finance to be courageous and not back down but to move forward.

Another point in the Speech from the Throne is the whole notion of introducing legislation in the House to restrict federal spending power and I object to that.

As a member of Parliament, I do not agree with this concept. It lacks vision. The country is not about that. It is a policy statement that found its origins in the Reform Party, was copied by the Alliance Party and is here with the Conservative Party. It certainly would not be supported by the Progressive Conservative Party.

Federal spending power has been constitutionally recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. It has been used by successive governments of different political stripes. I submit it has been used to build a better Canada. It has been used to develop and to enhance pan-Canadian values and visions. I will cite some programs as examples.

First, I will talk about the old age pension, which was a very limited amount. I believe it was enacted by former Prime Minister Diefenbaker. It was a small amount of money, but it had a tremendous influence on all Canadians.

That was followed up with the baby bonus. Again, this was a small amount of money that was universally paid to every family that had a baby under the age of 18.

This was followed up in the 1960s by the Canada Health Act. That was an immense change in the legislative framework of our country. It was not unanimous. In fact, doctors and the provinces were against it, but the government of the day was bold, courageous and had vision.

That was followed up with the Canada pension so that every Canadian, regardless of where he or she lived, would have the certain foundations of a pension plan.

The employment insurance program came next, followed by the guaranteed income supplement, so every Canadian over the age of 65 would be guaranteed a certain level of income.

The child tax credit came about in the 1990s and was especially important for low-income families that had children. Then we had the research programs that provided research, especially for post-secondary education. The list goes on and on.

These were programs and initiatives that perhaps would not have been successful or been adopted if we had this so-called restriction on the federal spending power.

This concept creates a firewall or a moat around each of our 13 jurisdictions. It causes nothing but difficulty. It certainly is not my vision of Canada and in the long run Canada will not work if it follows that concept.

It appears to me that this concept grows in what I would call good times. The economy over the last 12 years has been relatively good and the feeling has been allowed to grow that perhaps the 13 jurisdictions that comprise Canada really do not need each other. Perhaps all this talk about a shared destiny is just sentimental gibberish. It really does not affect Canadian values and vision.

Perhaps Canada can be better defined with a strict literal interpretation of the jurisdictional aspects of each provincial jurisdiction to be led by the ideology then in force by the government in power at that time. Perhaps we do not need each other, but I do not think that concept will work in bad times.

Right now our country is facing immense challenges. I would submit to the House and fellow Canadians that it is unprecedented, certainly since the depression of the 1930s. It is now a very serious issue and involves every industry, probably the automobile manufacturing industry more seriously than any other industry, but also the aeronautics industry, the forestry industry, the manufacturing industry, et cetera. From what we hear, read and see what is going on in our country now, there is a role, a very important role, for a strong central government.

Last week we had representatives from the automobile industry in Canada here. Last Thursday the association representing the automobile dealers was here. This morning's Globe and Mail talked about the forestry in B.C. Representatives are here asking for help from the federal government, and I believe the federal government has to respond. However, how will this so-called federal spending power fit in with that concept? It does not fit.

This has been allowed to grow in a restricted ideology that calls for less and less government, deregulation of every industry, whether it is the banking and mortgage industry, lower and lower taxes and blind adherence to capitalism. It allows for greed to set in and once greed sets in and is allowed to grow, we have very unpleasant repercussions. This situation should not be proceeded with and I do not think it will be proceeded with given our current economic climate.

The Speech from the Throne has some good elements that I applaud and will support, but there are some bad elements. However, in the long run, the government and this Parliament should move toward a strong central government that stands up for fairness, opportunity and respect for balance.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the hon. member's speech, especially his conclusion, when he said that we need a strong central government. This helps me understand why the Liberals decided to support this throne speech, which has been widely rejected by Quebeckers.

In the recent election, the Conservatives received fewer votes and had fewer members elected in Quebec. One of the reasons was that Quebeckers found that the Conservative approach did not correspond at all to what Quebec wanted. That is why we proposed an amendment to the amendment to the Speech from the Throne, which called on the House to “denounce the fact that it does not respond to the consensus in Quebec respecting, for instance, the legislation on young offenders, the repatriation to Quebec of powers over culture and communications, the elimination of the federal spending power and the maintenance of the existing system of securities regulation.”

This is what I understand from the hon. member's speech: the Liberals voted in favour of this throne speech because a centralized approach corresponds to their vision of Canada, as it does for the Conservatives.

Can the hon. member not understand why Quebec's solution is to leave Canada and become a country as quickly as possible? Then, Quebeckers would have autonomy and their own decision-making powers. Canadians could have the kind of government they want, like the one the Conservatives and Liberals are currently working together on, in their search for a centralized government.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies whatsoever for my comments about a strong central government. I believe that vision is accepted in most parts of Quebec.

The member asked about voting for it or against it. The Canadian people do not want an election over a Speech from the Throne.

We are dealing with a situation now where people are worried about their families, their jobs, their savings and their pensions. They want us to look at what is going on in this country with the economy and in the manufacturing industry so that this whole thing does not collapse. As a result, we do need, now more than ever, a strong central government that is able to respond to every Canadian, including all Canadians who live in the province of Quebec. We need a strong central government for all provinces, including Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the House agrees with the points the member made with respect to the strength of the central government and the historic role. Primarily, from our experience in Ontario, that role has been one of contributing through equalization to the strength of the federation.

I wonder if the member could simply expand a little. Two of the programs that he talked about were the Canada Health Act and the employment insurance. Ontario does have an inequitable position as a result of changes in the equalization formula. I wonder if the member can see any hope for Ontario through the throne speech that the government is prepared to deal with that serious issue, the lack of equity in the present equalization formula.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to welcome back my colleague from York South—Weston to the House.

He talks about equalization, the Canada Health Act and the employment insurance program. Those are all federal programs that were enacted by the Government of Canada under the federal spending power. If that particular provision that is being mentioned in the Speech from the Throne were back there in the 1960s when Tommy Douglas and others were formulating that, we would not have had that particular legislation and perhaps we would not have had the great country that we have today.

The equalization formula is part of the overall role of the federal government. It gives every province the ability to offer comparatively equal services at comparatively similar rates of taxation. It is controversial. A number of changes have been made in the program over the past two or three years. There are elements of unfairness and it depends on which way one is looking at it as to whether the glass is half full or half empty.

I know Ontario is now an equalization-receiving province, which is unfortunate, but if there is any element of unfairness, this should be worked out in this House.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you in the chair.

As this is my first time speaking in this session I would like to take a moment to thank my constituents for expressing their confidence by again electing me to be their voice in the House of Commons. It is a great honour to stand here in this historic chamber on their behalf and I will continue to work hard to represent them in the way they so much deserve.

I would also like to take this time to thank my campaign team, the many volunteers and Brian and Karen particularly who came out time and time again to work hard to get me to where I am today. I could not have done it without their support and their unending dedication. I am greatly moved and touched by how many people stepped forward to show me their support in various ways through this past election. I thank them all and tell them that their hard work did not and will not go unnoticed.

Most important, I would like to thank my wife, Geri, and the rest of the family. Without their love and support I would not be here today. Geri has not only been my best friend but a great campaigner and member of the team, a fact for which I am forever grateful.

I would like to welcome back my friends and colleagues and, at the same time, welcome and congratulate all the new members of the House of Commons. I wish them all the best as they start their great adventure of serving their communities and constituents. It is a great and honourable responsibility that they have been given. May they never forget this. I look forward to meeting and working with all of them in the future.

I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak to the Speech from the Throne delivered by Her Excellency last week. I stand here today in support of the speech and I would like to take a few moments to share with the House why I feel this way.

I represent the riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London which is situated in the very heart of southwestern Ontario. The riding can best be described as a large rural and agricultural area complemented with a very large industrial base and large automotive sector. With this in mind, I can tell the House how much the Speech from the Throne outlines the many areas important to these communities.

Manufacturing and automotive has been the strength of the area for a long time. One of the major problems facing my riding today is the recent announcement of the impending closure of the Sterling truck plant and so many other plants with scheduled layoffs in St. Thomas and surrounding areas. This announcement hit close to home as I have many friends and neighbours who will be affected by this and other economic activities.

I am pleased to see that our government is suggesting steps to further aid these industries. All of the automotive and manufacturing sectors and even more so now are under increasing strain.

The government recognizes the strategic importance of the Canadian manufacturing sector, especially in light of the challenging financial conditions and global competitiveness that they face. To show our support, the Government of Canada has implemented many measures, including the automotive innovation fund. This fund supports strategic and large-scale research and development projects in the automotive sector.

We will also continue to work with our provincial partners to ensure that the federal measures remain aligned with the needs of the manufacturing sector. We are taking steps to encourage skilled trades and apprenticeships and supporting workers facing transition in these times of economic uncertainty. Our government has outlined in the Speech from the Throne that it will take steps to ensure that the existing programs and services are as effective as possible in meeting the needs of Canadians.

Targeted help will be available to those who need it most. Our constituency offices continue to receive many letters and emails from people who are currently facing the troubling times and employment changes. An example comes to mind. A fellow named Doug who works at the Sterling plant is faced with the plant closing. He has been employed there for 16 years and likely thought he would work there for many more. He has been a welder for 11 years. However that is the job he has done at the plant. He has no certification as a welder. We are working very hard now to try to match the skills that Doug possesses to a certificate that says he has those skills so he can move on in these trying times and find other employment.

Helping Canadians and helping my constituents who are facing transition at this time is important. Our economy will only remain as strong as our workers and our families. Communities are made up of these families and these workers. The strength shown by individuals collectively make a community.

I would like to talk a little about the community of St. Thomas, my hometown. I was at a couple of events there this weekend. Friday night was the United Way event where we were doing a roast for a fellow who had been involved in the community for as long as he has been there. He is the local funeral director, so it was very easy to stand and roast him on Friday night. One could think of some of things that may have been said. Al Hughson is his name and he has been involved in the United Way for as long as I can remember. We roasted him well.

I would like to tell a little side story. CBC-Radio was in town taping and doing interviews, which there has been a lot of lately in my home town, on the different plant closures and what has been happening. The interviewer came to me afterward and said that we had spent the whole night talking about what a great community guy Al is and how hard he has worked for the community but nobody mentioned the troubles facing the community. I said that those things go unnoticed in a community like this because we know we must pull together. I said that we know it is because of guys like Al and the other people who were in the room that night that the community has the strength that it has.

I met up with the interviewer again on Saturday night when she was doing more interviews with us as we judged the floats for the Santa Claus parade. We were looking at one of the largest parades and one of the largest turnouts I have ever seen in St. Thomas, especially when the economy is not all that great. It was great to see it. While we were judging some of the floats, it was amazing to see how many of the manufacturing facilities and their employees still pulled together and had some of the best looking floats. They were still out there working for their community. As we rode down Main Street in a horse-drawn wagon, and I do apologize to the horses, the people were 10 deep on each side of the street. The Santa Clause parade is a special time and the kids' smiles are quite incredible, but I knew, looking at the kids and their smiles, that behind each of those children are parents who have quite a bit of strain because their employment is not as certain as it might be. However, that is what the community is about and that is how we work together as a community.

Like other communities in southern Ontario, we look to other things that the government has done. The community development trust supports initiatives such as jobs training and skills development and creating opportunities for affected workers. Community transition plans foster economic development and create new jobs, infrastructure development and plans to stimulate economic diversification.

To encourage, support and assist these individuals entering skilled trades and apprenticeships, our government has created many incentives to help people excel in these areas. Some of the incentives our government has given to assist individuals are investing in the apprenticeship incentive grants and, through the apprenticeship, job creation tax credits. This encourages employers to hire apprentices. The government is investing $3 billion in the new labour market agreements with the provinces to adjust the gap in labour market programming for those who do not currently qualify for training under the employment insurance program. During this time we will need to train many workers to transition to new and different employment opportunities. This commitment complements the transfer of active employment insurance assistance and training measures and funding under the Employment Insurance Act to the provinces and territories to provide them with flexibility to focus on job training and employment support on local and regional market needs.

In the area of securing jobs for our families and communities, our government is making strong commitments to keep our families secure in their role as the backbone of our economy. Our government will continue to strengthen Canada's workforce for the future by carrying on in our support of student financial assistance.

We may see a different face on students as we move a forward, specifically in some areas of southern Ontario. As people go back for retraining and people move on to different places in their lives from the employment situations they were in, we will see that the face of a student may not be the typical face that we are used to seeing and we will need to train these workers to move on and transition from one job to another.

While families are struggling with financial difficulties due to global economic crises, there will still be the need to make education decisions for their family. In budget 2008, we committed to streamlining and modernizing the Canada student loans program. We also proposed a new consolidated student grant program. This exciting new program will assist those families who struggle with the costs of higher education.

Part of making these programs effective means continuing to work together with stakeholders, the provinces and the territories, and we are committed to doing this.

My riding also has a very vibrant seniors population. We have seniors who are both young and old but mostly young. Seniors are a vital part of the community. They know that our government has their best interests at heart and will work hard to ensure their financial security, especially during this time of global economic uncertainty.

Last year the government provided close to $5 billion in tax relief for seniors and pensioners. Our government doubled the allowable pension income amount, increasing the age limit for maturing their pensions and registered retirement savings plans from age 69 to 71. It introduced pension income splitting for seniors and pensioners. This is probably the one most oft talked about policy change that we made in the last year. Certainly it is the one people who visit us in the office talk about the most.

In budget 2008 we increased the guaranteed income supplement exemption benefit to low and modest income seniors who chose to continue working. As I said before, there are many young seniors in my riding.

Because of my riding's makeup, it is also faced with dealing with energy, the environment and agriculture. We have put those three together and it has become a very good marriage. Energy security is the main priority for our government and in the riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London my constituents have taken many steps in the area to develop cleaner and more beneficial energy sources.

A very large wind farm has been developed on the north shore of Lake Erie. It has over 60 turbines and is currently generating megawatts of good, clean wind energy. This summer some MPs and congress people from the other side of the lake came to a look at it. Here is a case where we are ahead. The other side of the lake came to see what Canada was doing, which was a good thing to see.

A congresswoman from Ohio made a great statement. I would love to steal it from her, so I will. She said that Lake Erie was in fact the Saudi Arabia of wind. We are happy that our side is using our wind and we welcome the United States to share it with us and use the wind from their side too.

Eco-energy for a renewable power initiative is providing $1.5 billion to support the development of renewable energy sources, such as wind, biomass, small hydro, solar and geothermal. This program directly benefits the riding in the areas of wind and solar energy. Many jobs and opportunities will open up as a result of our government supporting the security of our energy.

In Dorchester, a small community in the north part of the riding, there is a company called EnerWorks that is really riding the wave. It uses solar power to heat water. It is now selling its projects and products throughout Canada and creating less energy usage by using solar power to create hot water in homes.

This weekend it was announced that a group just south of London was putting together a solar farm. It is using an agricultural area but laying it out as a solar farm to collect electricity.

The great thing about the Speech from the Throne is it outlines many ways for Canadians to participate in bettering their economic future. I have just shared some examples of them. Canada is built on a promise of opportunity, the chance to work hard, raise a family and make a better life. The government will work hard to break down the barriers that prevent Canadians from reaching their full potential. We will continue to help families, the backbone of maintaining and securing a strong economy.

We also talked about other clean energy and agriculture in the riding. An ethanol plant has recently opened in the town of Aylmer, the south part of the riding. It makes ethanol from corn. It is clean fuel grown by local farmers. The grand opening is in December. It is brand new and starting its first batches of ethanol. The government is helping farmers produce energy with what they grow on the land. Farmers are returning a profit for growing good crops and clean energy to go into vehicles because of it. It is a good mix and it works well in the riding.

Elgin—Middlesex—London is a great place to raise a family. I raised mine there. Everyone has left, except for my wife and I. The strength is families. I mentioned earlier the parade and how families were pulling together. In the Speech from the Throne we promise to improve the universal child tax benefit and to take measures to increase access to maternity and parental benefits to small business.

I am a small businessman. I have trouble using the word “small”, but as a small businessman it is important that the government helps. Small business is the driver of the economy in an awful lot of areas of our country and the importance of government helping exists.

We have acted on helping families care for loved ones with disabilities. We will assist Canadians in buying their first homes. We have extended the homelessness partnering strategy. We have also helped more Canadians find affordable housing.

Last, but certainly not least, we have taken creative measures to tackle heart, lung and neurological diseases and build on the work of the Mental Health Commission. Canadians have renewed their confidence in our government and we are committed to direct all of our energy towards addressing the challenge. Canadian families face these challenges day in and day out. We will need to work together to do that.

Crime and security is still an issue even in rural southern Ontario. Keeping Canadians safe is a priority, not only in the area of economic uncertainty but in their homes and their communities. We have promised to take tough action against crime and work with partners to improve the administration of justice. We will strengthen legal provisions in key areas such as youth crime, organized crime and gang violence. We will focus gun laws on ending smuggling and strong penalties for use of guns in crimes, while at the same time not criminalizing law-abiding farmers. We will make Canada’s criminal justice system more efficient and assure citizens that justice is served and served swiftly.

The safety of our families and communities is our main priority. Victims must be the ones supported by the criminal justice system, not the criminals. In light of the current global instability, our government has made plans to accelerate some of our initiatives. For example, our government has budgeted $33 billion for infrastructure. We have reached agreements with all 13 provinces and territories and are working with them and municipal leaders around the country to ensure we get the job done. Our government is committed to expediting the building Canada plan to ensure that these projects are prompt and that our promises to our communities are delivered as quickly as possible.

As members have heard throughout this speech, the throne speech draws a plan that will help Elgin—Middlesex—London, a plan that will help Ontario and a plan that will help Canada. This is a plan that also offers hope to families and communities. This is Canada’s plan for moving forward.

As was touched upon many times in the speech, this is a time for working together at all levels of government and with everyday citizens. We must join hands and face this together. The solution is there for us and our combined efforts will make it happen.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his success. I am glad to see him back raising issues that matter to all of us.

As a fellow representative from Ontario, I am quite concerned with the vagueness in many parts of the throne speech at a time when Canadians are clearly looking for some very direct help and assistance. In particular, a concern that I expect we both share is the auto sector, an area that we know affects thousands and thousands of jobs, thousands of people, thousands of families throughout Canada, especially in Ontario, which is suffering immensely right now.

I am interested to hear my fellow colleague’s comments on what he thinks should be done for the auto industry, given the fact that as of today we still have not heard specifically what will be done to help the auto sector in Canada.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague back to the House as well.

She is right. I spent a great deal of time since the election, and even during the election, talking to auto workers. Many of them are in my riding and many families are connected through the auto industry. It is not a made in St. Thomas problem. It is not a made in Elgin—Middlesex—London problem. It is not a made in Ontario problem. It is not even a made in Canada problem. It is a made in North America problem. It may be even greater than that, but let us at least stop at North America.

The answers to the problem are out there, but we need to work together to solve it. Last week the Minister of Industry spent time in Washington with the industry minister from the province of Ontario at his side, working together on the problem. That is the answer. This is not a top-down solution. It cannot be. I do not think it will work that way. We will have to work together with the province.

The United States is working on the problem at the same time. It has sent away the presidents of the Detroit three, asking them to come back with a plan with which it can help. That is a great first start, but I am not sure we can start the solution. The solution has to start collectively, and we have to work together with it.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague back as well.

As a small business owner myself prior to Parliament, I share some of his concerns over the direction of government.

I hope the trip to Washington by the Industry minister and his partner in Ontario was not seen as a success. They did not meet with a single senior legislator who has any influence on what is happening with the auto industry in the United States. They could have accomplished more by simply meeting in Toronto rather than spending taxpayer dollars to go to Washington to sit with staffers.

The problem may not have been created in Elgin—Middlesex—London or St. Thomas and other places, but the deregulation philosophy that his government purports is the very one that put us in this trouble in the first place. It is the one that leaders in Europe and other parts of the world are saying needs to be revised, yet the Prime Minister made a speech in South America just this past week that echoed President Bush's same sentiments of keeping on the same track on which we have been going. Remedying the problem with the same issues that put us here in the first place is no remedy at all.

Is the member's government willing to consider a reform of our regulatory instruments so we can avoid future crises in the marketplace and in investment cycles? Surely his government has played some role in the collapse of this economy and contributed to the one around the world.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member back to the House also.

He made a very good point. There is plenty of room to spread the blame, but that also means there are plenty of hands to help with the solution and that is truly at what we are looking.

In my speech I talked about how communities pulled together when asked. We have seen Canadians pull together and fix problems. We have seen Canadians from all walks of life work together to solve problems. We saw it during the BSE crisis. Canadians buckled down and said that they would buy beef even though there was a Canadian beef problem, and they did. That really helped.

In the last two months Canadians have said that the auto sector is in a little trouble. What are Canadians doing? They are buying more cars this year than last year. In an absolutely terrible economic time, they are buying more cars. That is the way Canadians work together to help to solve the problem.

We recognize the problem. As the member mentioned, even leaders in Europe recognize the same problem. The automotive industry is in a worldwide crisis, not just in North America.

I am not sure the solution can come from one little place in Ottawa. The solution has to come by all of us working together.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Congratulations on your appointment, Mr. Speaker. I wish my hon. colleague congratulations as well.

I will make this question very quick.

The member talked about community. I can certainly sympathize and empathize with him. I have over 200 communities in my riding, the largest of which is only 13,000 people, so I know what he talks about when he means community spirit.

I have a question, however, on the community trust fund.

The member zeroed in on retraining. He talked about the fact that people needed to be retrained in instances of economic downturns. Many people in the fisheries in my area are between the ages of 55 and 60. I am sure many in industries like forestry in his riding are going through the same situation. How does he feel not about retraining, but about an early retirement program that would give these people the dignity to ease their way out of the workforce and allow more young people in to the workforce? It frees it up for younger generations.

My question is not about retraining. If my colleague talks about that, I would sooner he sit down and we can go on to someone else. I would rather he talk about transitioning people out of the workforce and in to retirement.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor is a fantastic riding.

What I did not mention anywhere in my speech, and I would like to get a plug in for it, is our fantastic commercial fishery on the north shore of Lake Erie. Therefore, we do not like to forget the other fishermen in Canada.

As I said in my speech, many seniors live in my riding, both young and old. I do not like to ever speak for them as to which age they feel on a particular day. To answer the member's question about early retirement, those who want to will and those who do not will carry on doing productive work or community work, and we will love having them do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London has given a very insightful overview with respect to retraining and linking it, for example, in the technology areas, ethanol and wind farms. Certainly, coming from a manufacturing community with Sterling Truck, I appreciate that linking of opportunity and training with the changing economy.

My question is more in the area of the trades. We have had quite a bit of experience with the Construction Trades Association, with pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship training, but not much was in the throne speech on the rehabilitation of old apartment buildings, new construction starts and more affordable housing. The linkage argument still carries. If we are to train young people, they have to be in the market, and then there is availability and supply and demand. Would he like to comment further? Does he see the government, in its budget, coming forward with more emphasis on housing?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we talked about the labour market agreements with the provinces. Some retraining certainly happens through them.

I love the idea of linking the trade system to the building of affordable housing. In my case, another one I would love is to use the training in the preservation of historic buildings. We are losing some of the skills in stonemasonry and that type of thing and it is something else we could certainly work on. I hope that we can work together on that problem.