Debates of Nov. 24th, 2008

RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Québec.

There are a number of things that can be said about the throne speech. However, the most important thing is that this throne speech is extremely disappointing, in the opinion of the Bloc Québécois. It is disappointing because it does not acknowledge Quebeckers' interests and core values.

In my opinion, the Prime Minister has remained completely insensitive to how the crisis is affecting the people of Quebec and the economy. Paradoxically, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister downplayed the crisis and its impact on the economy in general. Now that the election is over, we realize that the crisis, which is extremely serious, is having a negative effect on the whole economy of Canada and Quebec. The throne speech is therefore very disappointing in that respect.

In addition, the Prime Minister does not seem to have learned anything from the election results in Quebec. On voting day, 78% of Quebeckers said that they disagreed with the Conservative government's methods and economic policies. Moreover, these are not true economic policies, because all the government has ever done--and the only answer it ever gives us--is to introduce business tax cuts, which are its way of stimulating the economy.

Now we are in a difficult situation, yet the throne speech does not deviate one bit from what has been said in the past two and a half years. It is also very disappointing in that respect.

Before the throne speech, I had high expectations, but I also felt very positive about the announcements made by the Prime Minister, the Conservative Party and the government that the throne speech would focus on the economy. However, the throne speech is nothing but a series of broad statements, with no real substance. We had hoped for measures that would help and support the manufacturing and forestry industries, especially in Quebec, but that is not what we got.

We were told there would be some degree of openness, but did not see any. It is therefore very difficult to vote for a throne speech that does not meet the expectations that were told we could hope for. Furthermore, we also noted that this Speech from the Throne really reflects the last Conservative convention; in other words, it is very ideological. Yet we know that Quebeckers do not espouse this ideology and the Bloc Québécois therefore cannot go along with it. On the contrary, I think Quebeckers made it very clear to us through their votes that they are completely against it.

We are definitely disappointed and we do not believe that the Prime Minister has risen to the challenge. Naturally, we hoped that this throne speech would not have the usual irritants. On the contrary, the Speech from the Throne remains vague about any desire to truly support Quebec's economy or that of Canada in general. What measures did it contain, rather than just sweeping principles? There are no real targets. It says nothing about how the government will intervene or at what level. It is therefore extremely disappointing. It leaves too much to the imagination to allow us to support it and believe that this government really will support the economy.

As we all know, the forestry and manufacturing sectors are facing disastrous situations, especially the forestry sector in Quebec. There is no end to the number of jobs being lost, and the temporary stoppages in pulp and paper mills and in sawmills. We all know that a very large part of Quebec's economy is based entirely on the logging industry.

There was nothing about this. All summer I visited my riding, which is very large. I was in Shawinigan and in the Chenaux region—Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade, Saint-Tite, La Tuque and Parent. All of these municipalities depend on the forestry industry. Everyone, the entire population, is saying the same thing, no matter where they live: why is the federal government not doing anything to help us? The people are saying that the government has done nothing to help them so far and that it is standing idly by.

People need help. They need a government that helps them. That is what they are expecting, but absolutely nothing has been done. The results can hardly be surprising. The people know that the Conservative government has never had a plan to truly help struggling industries, particularly in Quebec. By increasing the number of irritants, the Prime Minister has decidedly demonstrated that he does not seem to understand what is happening in Quebec.

Arts cuts were announced last August and they were discussed at length during the election campaign. Many people feel that these cuts are very significant for Quebec. We saw this from the outcome of the election and we saw it during the election campaign: people were not willing to accept such cuts.

The Speech from the Throne would have been a wonderful opportunity for the government to put an end to the cuts and state that culture is important in Quebec and not only in terms of cultural development. Obviously, that is also an important component because it is the basis of Quebec society and of the Quebec nation, as it relates to language. And also as it relates to economic development. When a government invests in culture, it too reaps the benefits. We do not understand why the government refuses to sufficiently support cultural businesses in Quebec when they are a major economic engine.

It is also evident from the throne speech that once again there is a desire to continue imposing repressive young offender legislation, as well as to dismantle the Canadian firearms registry. Earlier I spoke of the election campaign. These were important issues in Quebec in the last election. People are very upset by the suggestion that the Canadian firearms registry be eliminated. That is not the approach in Quebec. Most people believe it is important. The majority of Quebeckers wanted more control and this tool was the result. Serious events led Quebeckers to decide that firearms control was necessary and would help not only the police but society in general.

With regard to the repressive young offender legislation, Quebec has known for many years that it is not the best model. Quebec has really focused on prevention and services to help troubled youth, an approach which has resulted in the lowest crime rate in North America. Quebec has the lowest rates of recidivism and crime and the fewest acts of violence. Our approach has been successful.

Nevertheless, once again, the throne speech indicates that they will continue to go in that direction. We do not understand. We do not see how we can support such a throne speech.

There is another important issue, the federal government's insistence on creating a federal securities commission. Quebec's National Assembly is united on this issue. All three parties unanimously passed a resolution asking the federal government to not proceed with its creation. At present, Quebec has levers that it controls and absolutely wishes to continue controlling. This desire to impose a commission goes against the will of the National Assembly as well as of a vast majority of financial players who say that Quebec should continue to retain these levers.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions.

First, does this mean the member is voting to have an election in 35 days?

I am delighted he brought forward the point about a crime that I referred to a few minutes ago. Could he elaborate on the success of the other types of procedures: alternative sentencing, retraining and sentencing circles that have proven successful?

As I said earlier, the chief of the Ottawa Police and the professors in the field can give the exact examples and stats on how much more successful they have been in making Canada safer and protecting citizens and stopping citizens who have been victimized once from being revictimized. This is obviously where reducing crime and preventing recidivism that has proven successful is the direction to go. The member has mentioned some good examples in Quebec, whereas in the last term the government tried other solutions without that and was roundly criticized by almost everyone with knowledge in the field with the exception of members of its own party.

Could the member add more evidence over and above that which we received from all the experts in the justice committee on that philosophy for improving ways of reducing crime.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his questions. His first question was whether or not we want an election in 35 days. I believe that this question should be directed to the Conservative government. It was the Conservatives who wrote the Speech from the Throne, a throne speech which is unacceptable to the Bloc Québécois and to the majority of the ridings we represent in Quebec. We campaigned against proposals made by the Conservative Party during the election. Seventy-eight percent of people in Quebec voted against the Conservative party's proposals. As we have always said, we defend Quebec's interests. We cannot imagine voting for a Speech from the Throne that basically restates their election campaign rhetoric.

My colleague has asked me to provide other examples. I would be happy to provide him with more examples of successful programs that exist in Quebec. The statistics I cited earlier were obviously general in nature. Quebeckers are in agreement: the more we look after our children, especially at a young age, the more we are doing to fight poverty and to lower crime rates. Youth who have short-term difficulties will not fit into the same mould. We will help them and guide them by getting across to them that they have options other than crime.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I know the Bloc Québécois is against some of the suggested changes to the youth criminal justice system but as we know there was the Nunn report that made a comprehensive study and had some good suggestions.

We were supportive of all the suggestions but the government seems to have perplexingly just picked a couple of those to bring forward in its platform. I wonder if the member, because he is keen on this topic, would like to comment on that.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

We are going to take a good look at the studies the hon. member mentioned. We are going to take a careful look at them. Then we will be able to give him a more complete answer.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to the throne speech. I will no doubt be repeating the Bloc Québécois' arguments, but I am going to try to make them very clear. The Bloc has a number of comments to make about the throne speech.

We saw the government's insensitivity to the impact of the economic crisis on the people of this country. The government is ignoring the concerns of Canadians, while the United States was already taking action during the election campaign triggered by the Conservative government. The government was oblivious to what was happening, because, according to the Prime Minister, there was no crisis and no cause for concern.

Today, he has changed his tune somewhat, but he seems to be using the throne speech to put off decision making that would be happening if the election had not taken place. We would already have looked at real measures to help people through the economic crisis, and we would be adopting them.

There is a lot of talk about the manufacturing industry, but it has been in crisis since 2003. Moreover, the most recent budget brought down by the Conservative Minister of Finance gave very little support to the manufacturing sector. The throne speech is therefore extremely disappointing, especially to Quebec. My colleague mentioned that 78% of Quebeckers had voted against the Conservative Party, sending a clear message to the Conservative government. Yet it is not deviating from the position it took during the election campaign.

The government learned nothing from the most recent election or the message sent by the people of Quebec. The throne speech is an ideological construct. The issue of young offenders was raised earlier. The throne speech is very clear about the direction the Conservative Party intends to take on youth crime.

I would like to quote a paragraph from the section of the throne speech entitled Expanding Investment and Trade.

Canada’s prosperity depends not just on meeting the challenges of today, but on building the dynamic economy that will create opportunities and better jobs for Canadians in the future. As one of our greatest hockey legends has observed, we need “to skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been.”

It is more like a game of snakes and ladders, but without the ladders, just snakes. This illustrates the government's lack of commitment to taking action and implementing concrete measures to control this economic crisis.

The United States is in the middle of an economic crisis. Americans will be buying less. Consequently, since Canada sells its products to the United States, we will not be protected from the economic crisis.

As I said earlier, the Conservative government does not seem to have a real plan for the manufacturing sector. We would have liked to have seen some concrete measures put forward in the Speech from the Throne, or at least have seen the Conservative government take a stance. For example, we would have been pleased if the throne speech had outlined plans to set up a loan and loan guarantee program to allow the manufacturing and forestry industries to purchase new production equipment or if it had announced the creation of a refundable tax credit for research and development.

The throne speech is not very inspiring in terms of genuine help for the research and development sector or a genuine desire to end tax privileges for oil companies. In fact, the Speech from the Throne does not mention that topic.

The employment insurance fund was another component that we found to be disappointing.

We know very well that we must help manufacturing companies get back on their feet, when plants are being closed right in the middle of an economic crisis. As I was saying earlier, the manufacturing crisis started in 2003, and there have been many layoffs. The federal employment insurance fund has a surplus, and it could have helped some workers through the difficult periods of indiscriminate layoffs.

The Bloc Québécois would like to see some clear direction concerning the abolition of the two-week waiting period, so that individuals can have immediate access to employment insurance. Now, when a person loses their job, there is a so-called waiting period. That person must wait two weeks before seeing their first cheque.

This has absolutely no regard for the difficulties experienced by those who have lost, are losing or will lose their jobs. Even though the crisis will not deal as hard a blow as in the United States, there will still be some very serious consequences for our businesses and industries in the manufacturing sector, for example. In this case, the government should immediately do away with the two-week waiting period, so that individuals can begin collecting EI immediately.

We would also like to see the system improved so that more people are eligible. Since 1993, access to the system has been drastically cut. Now, very few people are eligible for EI. The criteria have been tightened, and it is very difficult to receive employment insurance benefits. But we know that there are billions of dollars sitting in the fund. If we had kept this money and not put it into the consolidated revenue fund, it would still be available to those who are without jobs. We have always said that this is employment insurance, and it should be available to people who contribute to the employment insurance fund.

We also need to create an income support program for older workers. These measures would cost about $45 million. It is no secret that a person aged 50 or 55 who loses his or her job has a harder time finding a new job, particularly in the manufacturing sector. It is also hard to go back to school to learn another trade. In situations like that, when people lose their income, how can they even consider going back to school to learn a new trade? At that age, it is more difficult to find another job, even with other skills. It is well known that, these days, employers often prefer younger workers. Older workers may find that they are discriminated against in some situations.

We are very disappointed.

I would now like to touch on another issue. The former minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, the member for Jonquière—Alma, was roundly criticized for making deep cuts to Economic Development Canada. In the Quebec City region, for example, Pôle Québec Chaudière-Appalaches had its funding cut. Quebec as a whole—the chambers of commerce, the Union des municipalités du Québec, the Alliance des Manufacturiers et Exportateurs du Québec, the Government of Quebec, the National Assembly, the Parti québécois and the Bloc Québécois—was against cuts to the funding that helped industries. In Quebec City, for example, the National Optics Institute, a high-tech and photonics research facility, is a major industry. The government made cuts that affect businesses that patent inventions, and that will hurt the high-tech research industry.

Now the government wants to do the same thing with culture. Here again, the newly-appointed ministers do not seem to have stated their true intentions in the throne speech.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois cannot support a throne speech that virtually ignores the economic crisis and its impact on Quebec.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, did my Bloc friend across the way have the same sense of missed opportunity that I did when I first heard the throne speech?

Canadians were hoping for a dynamic document, something that would inspire people in these terrible times that we are going into. The throne speech offered nothing for seniors. It offered no child care for young families, no affordable housing and the jobs that would come with it.

Liberals will ask us on this side if we will vote against this and risk an election. My principles say that I am here to stand up for my constituents, the seniors and young families of Hamilton East--Stoney Creek. I definitely will be voting against something as uninspiring as the throne speech.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this Speech from the Throne is definitely and completely uninspiring in many ways. It overlooks a large segment of the population: our seniors, particularly the workers aged 55 and over who have lost their jobs.

In the midst of an economic crisis, it is important to support the economy and businesses, but support must also be given to social programs. Personally, I think this government did not have its heart in the right place, that is, a little to the left. Governments have certain responsibilities when it comes to social development. Since coming to power, this government has ignored its social responsibilities. We saw this when it did not want to grant full retroactivity for the guaranteed income supplement. It needs to be increased, which is what the Bloc Québécois has been calling for, through certain measures. We hope that the wish list announced by the Bloc Québécois in its press conference will inspire this government in its upcoming economic statement.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague from Quebec City. She referred to hockey legends who talked about skating to where the puck is going to be. I do not know much about hockey, but that leads me to believe that the Prime Minister does not know any more than I do. If you get ahead of the puck, you run the risk of being off side. If the goalie is out of position the puck just might slide between his legs. I see that the Prime Minister does not understand hockey any more than he does economics, even though he wanted to teach it. .

I would like to ask my colleague a question. She spoke about the manufacturing industry. Since 2005, manufacturers have been losing money. In 2005, the Liberals were in power. This situation is the result of the Liberals' economic policy. They were unable to implement potential measures, safety measures, that could have been used to protect the industrial and manufacturing sectors. They did not want to invest in research and development credits to improve the competitiveness of the manufacturing sector. They did not want to invest in research and development in order to modernize the manufacturing industry. The Liberal government of the day missed the boat. The Conservative government has not done any better. Today, it says it will pay attention to the manufacturing sector.

What does my colleague believe the Prime Minister should do as quickly as possible?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the manufacturing industry needs huge amounts of money so companies can purchase leading-edge equipment to compete with other companies in Canada and abroad.

Our manufacturing companies need refundable credits for research and development, which would be a huge help. They need refundable credits and not non-refundable credits. If a company is not generating profits, then a tax credit will not do it any good.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I graciously stand in the House of Commons in support of the Speech from the Throne. However, before I begin, I would like to take just a few moments to speak to my friends in the chamber.

First, to you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my congratulations on being appointed as the Deputy Speaker. I know we have all talked a lot about decorum in the House. Certainly we had great discussion about it last week. I know you will do your utmost to ensure the decorum improves in the House. I also know government members will abide by the rules of the House and behave in a manner that is honourable and worthy of this historic chamber.

I would also like to congratulate all the newly elected members. Their desire to serve the community and the country has brought them to the nation's capital. I trust that they will serve with honour and goodwill toward one another.

As well, I wish to congratulate all the incumbents who have returned to the House of Commons to represent their various ridings. Let us work together in the time ahead so we can mitigate the many obstacles that our great nation faces, for united we can overcome even the greatest of obstacles. Let us place partisan rhetoric aside so we can accomplish the great things that Canadians historically have expected from this chamber. That is our duty and we must answer the calls of all Canadians to stop the partisanship and to steer this nation forward.

On a personal level, I must take this moment to thank the many constituents from my riding of Sarnia—Lambton. I graciously thank them for their support in the recent election. It was overwhelming to see the amount of support from the community and I promise all my constituents, regardless of their ideological preferences, that I will serve them faithfully and truthfully and will honour my commitments to make Sarnia—Lambton a better place for all our families. Thanks, Sarnia—Lambton. It can count on staff and myself to work extremely hard for its interests in this, the 40th Parliament of the Government of Canada.

Last but certainly not least, I would like to thank my husband, Bill, and our son, Will, and Tina and Josh for all of their support and love. Family is very important to all of us and a career in politics can definitely take its toll on family life, of which as all of us in the chamber today are aware.

Let us all be reminded of the strength we find in our families and always be aware that the decisions we make in this chamber will affect each and every Canadian family as much as our own. We should never lose sight of the honour we have had bestowed upon us to be here, working daily to better Canada, our communities and ourselves. Thank you for letting me speak on these matters, Mr. Speaker.

On November 19, the Governor General delivered what will come to be regarded as nothing less than a historic throne speech, despite extreme partisan rhetoric speaking out against the measures contained within that speech. The government, led by the right hon. Prime Minister, has appropriately determined that at this critical juncture of our nation's history, it will take bold leadership to brave the coming economic storm that threatens every nation across the globe.

Recently the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance attended an emergency session of the G-20. At this summit, every leader of the G-20 group of industrialized nations spoke about the fact that we faced a global crisis, not just a domestic crisis. This is the most unique and potentially damaging economic crisis we have faced in years and only defined leadership and strong co-operation in this chamber will ensure that Canada will emerge from these difficult times a stronger nation, a more united nation and a nation that will realize more of its potential than we had ever dreamed of in the history of our Confederation.

I strongly feel that these difficult times call for bold measures and strong leadership and I have faith in the abilities of our Prime Minister and this government to guide Canada through the turbulent waters ahead. This is why I want to speak about what I feel are some of the most important aspects of the throne speech, what they mean to our families, our communities and our very nation and why we need to finally come together to put our ideological differences aside for our great nation.

Currently, economic stimulus is important for industry across Canada. For starters, the construction industry needs a kick-start and the Government of Canada acknowledged this in the 2007-08 budgets and more recently with announcements that infrastructure negotiations will take place with an understanding that money needs to flow as soon as possible to municipalities.

Canada has invested $100 a million a year in the apprenticeship incentive grant to encourage Canadians seeking a career to consider pursuing various apprenticeship opportunities. This is vital at this point in time. By providing tax credits up $2,000 for each individual apprentice, all those involved in skilled trades can rest assured that the government will continue to fight for job creation for our young Canadians interested in pursuing careers in the skilled trades. This is why the Canadian government is committing $3 billion over six years for new labour market agreements with provinces to address existing gaps in labour market programming.

When the investment into skilled trades is parallelled with vital infrastructure investment, it becomes clear that the government understands the path forward in this difficult period for our economy. The government understands that the infrastructure issue is vital in every community, not just for gainful employment and economic reasons but for the very safety of the people who cross the bridges, drive on our roads and drink from our water systems.

By 2014, the government will have invested a record $33 billion into infrastructure. Various large scale projects have already been announced as priority projects and more will be identified in the coming weeks and months. Canadians, especially our men and women in the skilled labour workforce, can rest assured that there will be shovels in the ground for construction projects and money will flow for vital infrastructure interests.

In order to provide for these various projects and as a form of stimulus, the Government of Canada has and will work constructively with our municipal and provincial partners to approve key projects moving forward.

There is another key segment of our workforce who I refer to as our unsung heroes. These men and women always put their communities and Canadians before themselves. I am speaking about our farming community.

As Canadians discuss who should receive funding assistance from government coffers at a time when fiscal accountability is at an all-time high, the chamber must recognize the contribution that farmers make to our nation. They put food on our tables, often at much pain to their own families in the trying times our agriculture sector has faced in recent years. However one thing is for certain. When we invest money in Canadian farms, Canadian farmers reinvest that money into our communities. Whether on inputs like seeds, livestock or on new equipment that farmers needs, Canadians can rest assured that agriculture programs like Growing Forward will not just stem the flow of losses from Canadian farms. Rather, this investment will grow the fiscal coffers of our farmers and their communities.

The Government of Canada understands the sacrifices endured over the last several years by farmers and has responded by creating programs like AgriInvest, AgriStability and AgriInsurance. Those programs are the first programs established under Growing Forward and serve to ensure farmers that opportunities in the agriculture sector will be built up in the new economy of this great nation.

We will stand up for farmers where past governments have failed. In addition to this, the Government of Canada will fight for Canadian farmers' freedom of choice for grain marketing in western Canada and will strongly support our supply managed sectors both domestically and internationally.

As we shift from the old economy into new opportunities in science and research, it becomes evident that Canada's new economy will be at the forefront of global research and capability. Funding for projects like the Sarnia-Lambton Research Park in my riding will lead to an estimated 1,000 new jobs in my community. I have already seen this beginning to occur with multiple upstart companies taking formation in Sarnia—Lambton, all with so much promise and potential going forward.

What makes this more remarkable is that investments into new energy projects and research organizations exist alongside the strong petrochemical industry in my riding. What is even more positive is to note that classic energy industries, like oil, gas and coal, are undergoing a renaissance, even in Sarnia—Lambton. Innovation is rampant and has led to clean coal technologies, expansion in existing facilities in my riding and, indeed, across Canada for biofuel production, and even commercial wind and solar farms have sprung up in a region once known strictly for its petrochemical industry.

Let me say loud and clear for the chamber, to the business community and all Canadians that innovation has paid off with huge dividends for Sarnia—Lambton and we will be known as the green valley in due time thanks to the leadership of local industry and other stakeholders and thanks to the investments made by the government.

Indeed, the time has come to realize that cities like Sarnia are home to new and innovative opportunities and investments into science and research, and new energy initiatives have the capacity to completely alter the status quo of our industrial communities.

It is possible to develop new sustainable energy opportunities alongside existing industrial players that have invested into cleaner technologies for the oil and gas sectors and coal. In fact, these investments are absolutely vital going forward and will ensure that as the global economy evolves our industries will be sustainable, profitable and will employ millions of Canadians.

With that in mind, the Government of Canada has set an objective that aims to ensure that 90% of Canada's electricity will be provided by non-emitting sources by 2020. This is a bold initiative that will require partnership with the provinces and territories and will also develop fruitful fiscal rewards for Canadians moving forward with the new economy.

We have world-leading technology in regard to nuclear power and we will capitalize on this. We also have vast reserves of natural gas and petroleum resources. Our great nation is situated to become a true global energy superpower, and the government will guide us to that plateau above all other nations.

Not only will Canada become a true energy superpower, but we must understand that this grants us superb leverage in international negotiations as countries meet to discuss matters of the economy, energy and the environment. Canada will be a global leader in all three of those categories and will achieve prosperity for Canadians in accordance with this reality while providing true and tangible leadership to the rest of the world.

The time has come to shrug off the conditioned response that Canada is a meddling middle power and recognize that this country can shape global affairs for the first time in decades thanks to the leadership of the Canadian government and the tenacity of the Canadian people.

Also of importance I want to take this opportunity to draw attention to a very important declaration in the throne speech that will ensure protection of our most vital natural resource. The Government of Canada will bring forward legislation to ban all bulk water transfers or exports from Canadian freshwater basins. I commend the Minister of Natural Resources and the Prime Minister for taking this bold initiative and for recognizing the importance of this resource. We will protect this resource for Canadians at all costs.

I personally have a major interest in the announcement that the Government of Canada will take measures to tackle heart, lung and neurological diseases. Many of our lives have been affected by these diseases and, hopefully, further investment into these areas of research will ensure a healthier future for all Canadians.

Furthermore, the government has pledged that we will defeat the stigma attached to mental health issues. Investments by the government intend to build on the work of the mental health commission. Already we have seen monumental investments to mental health issues. I wish to commend the government on prioritizing this matter and on defeating the stigma attached to mental health conditions. The $110 million investment to the Mental Health Commission for pilot projects is an extraordinary attempt to address this issue head on.

I realize I have covered many areas of importance to Canadians in this speech. I sincerely feel that this government is embarking on a process of change and innovation that is bold and essential for our nation to survive the many obstacles we face. Some of these obstacles are, strangely enough, internalized. However, the foresight of the Government of Canada will ensure that going forward, barriers to internal trade investment and labour mobility will be removed by 2010. This will require innovation. However, we have already seen the right hon. Prime Minister meet with his provincial counterparts in the first of what promises to be many fruitful meetings. There is a broad understanding of the internal limitations being placed on the Canadian economy by such barriers to trade.

The mutual recognition of occupational credentials between all provinces and territories will benefit Canada's labour market and will also assist qualified foreign trade workers who will finally enjoy the same mobility rights as Canadian workers. In an era of skilled labour shortages faced across Canada, this could very well be the difference between overcoming the economic troubles we face or succumbing to the pressures facing our great nation as we shape our new economy.

Yet another trade-related matter of importance that the Government of Canada has shown true leadership toward is the establishment of new trade agreements within the Americas and also in Asia and the European Union. Canada's global commerce strategy will secure competitive terms of access into international markets that will provide incredible potential for Canadian firms and workers and the products they manufacture as we expand our international commerce horizons beyond the current status quo.

In another time of global transition, American president and general, Dwight D. Eisenhower, said, “A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both”.

I like to think of that quote as very applicable to our current timeframe. We have been blessed in our way of life and yet the privileges Canada enjoys are so bountiful that perhaps we are tempted to lose sight of our principles that have guided us to this prosperity. It is our principles that guided us through the last century to ensure that we fought for the freedom of others while providing a safe, secure nation for Canadians. It is these very same principles that lead our economy to go strong and to ensure we are at the apex of nations across the globe regarding the opportunities we could afford our people. For generations, Canada has stood proudly atop this apex of nations as a beacon of hope to others. Other nations see our principles and our privileges and they yearn for the same blessings that at times perhaps we as Canadians take for granted. It is these same principles now that we must ensure we protect and enshrine for all Canadians as we move forward in these darkening times.

Despite the troubled times that we perceive across the globe, we are united in the position that our government will do everything necessary to ensure the prosperity, security and future of all Canadians.

This is why I urge all members in the chamber today to heed my words and to accept the task we have in this 40th parliament which is nothing less than to provide a bastion of hope, a safe haven and voices of reason to all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I challenge everyone to put aside their partisan gamesmanship and join the cause in ensuring that our nation emerges from this time of economic despair as one of the strongest nations in the world. We can accomplish this objective together.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I learned two very interesting things from the hon. member's speech. The first thing I learned is that Conservatives have principles, which is a novel idea in and of itself.

The second thing I learned is that we will be having a meeting with the premiers. This is very interesting because in the first mandate of the 39th Parliament, the Prime Minister could barely give the time of day to the premiers. I think he invited them over lunch once and I think Danny Williams was particularly scathing in his views on the Prime Minister's desires to meet with the premiers.

During the election, the Leader of the Opposition made the suggestion that it would be a good idea to meet with the premiers. However, for his troubles he was ridiculed from one end of the country to the other and it was suggested that was a really lousy idea.

However, one minute after the election, the Prime Minister writes up his Speech from the Throne and puts in the Speech from the Throne that he will be meeting with the premiers, which we actually think is not a bad idea.

I would be interested in knowing the particular principle involved here: ignoring the premiers, ridiculing the Leader of the Opposition or meeting with the premiers?

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are seeing first-hand some good examples of decorum and co-operation in the House. The whole point of my speech is that we need to work together. To do that, we need to be a little tolerant of other people's thoughts and ideas.

The right hon. Prime Minister has made it very clear that he will be meeting with other premiers across the country. We will be working co-operatively with the provinces and the territories in many different areas. As we move forward in the country to address the issues that we face, issues that differ from area to area, we know we need to continue to collaborate with all those involved to bring our great country through this crisis.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Sarnia—Lambton for her speech.

I know the member for Sarnia—Lambton very well, since we sat together on the Standing Committee on Health and the Standing Committee on Status of Women. I believe her comments are sincere. However, I wonder if the member realizes that for the third time now, in the third Speech from the Throne that her government has presented, women are virtually ignored. Women are referred to only a few times, and even then, only in reference to the “men and women” of this country.

I find it odd that when the government addresses a whole community, a whole nation, a whole people, when it addresses Quebeckers and Canadians, that it makes no mention of 52% of the population, a group that is very deserving, if not more deserving, since it is even more vulnerable to the current economic crisis. The speech did not provide for any measures or incentives to ensure that women will not suffer from the economic crisis.

I would like to know why my colleague thinks this the case.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I have worked together on different committees over the last couple of years. I have enjoyed her input and the value she has placed on the issues that she is working toward.

The one thing we have to remember is we just had a general election. The people have spoken once again and entrusted this Conservative government with a renewed and strengthened mandate. The Speech from the Throne was delivered at a time of extraordinary global economic challenge. We are very mindful of the privileges and the responsibilities that we need to address as a government.

Being mindful of that, if people stop and take a look at what is in the Speech from the Throne, we are ensuring that Canada's continued economic success is going to be able to move forward. We are looking at issues that affect all the population. The Speech from the Throne does not address specific segments of the society. It addresses Canadians as a whole. We are looking at reforming global finance. We are looking at ensuring sound budgeting, securing jobs for families and communities, expanding investment and trade and making government more effective. All these things apply to women as well as they apply to men.

We are looking after all segments of society, and the Speech from the Throne certainly tells us that.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member states that 90% of Canada's electricity needs will be met by non-emitting sources such as hydro by 2020.

How does the member plan to do that unless the federal government commits to an east-west power grid so clean hydro power can come to Ontario and Alberta markets from Manitoba, from where a big chunk of the potential hydro power would come?

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, non-emitting power sources are a priority for the government. When we are talking non-emitting power sources, we are not just talking about hydroelectric.

That definitely, as we all know, is one of the very good sources. It is one of the areas that we are looking at improving and getting more power from, but there are other sources as well. We are looking at wind power, solar power and the bio-industrial conversions. We are looking at all these things.

In fact, my riding of Sarnia—Lambton is home to the largest solar farm in Canada. This is in the process of being developed. The first solar panel started to be installed a couple of weeks ago. This is a huge thing. There is government involvement and government support for all these sources.

If we look at the area along Lake Erie, there are huge wind farms. Therefore, it is not only hydro power; it is all these other issues that we are looking at as well.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to commend my colleague for an excellent summary of the direction in which the throne speech is taking our country. There is great leadership on the part of the Prime Minister, with broad strokes outlining how we will address the economic challenges facing us.

However, last evening I had the opportunity to participate in the Consumers' Choice awards in Vancouver. That is where we celebrated the best, the brightest and the most successful of our business people, people who run small and medium size businesses and also larger ones.

One of the messages they gave to me was they commended us for reducing taxation on businesses and corporations, especially during these very tough economic times. Yet I still hear from our opposition colleagues, the NDP, the Bloc and a few from the Liberals, insisting that somehow corporate taxes should be increased.

What is my colleague's opinion on the folly of increasing taxes on corporations and small businesses during these very difficult economic times.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not in anyone's best interest to start increasing taxes at a time of grave economic difficulties. I do not believe that anyone can be taxed out of a problem.

That was one thing we heard over and over again at election time. People did not want the carbon tax or more taxes. They appreciate what the Conservative government has done. They appreciate the fact that the Conservatives have lowered taxes for individuals and corporations and they want us to continue in that way.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Ajax—Pickering.

I want to begin by expressing my thanks to the voters of Malpeque for allowing me the privilege of representing them in Ottawa again. It is certainly an honour to do so. I appreciated very much hearing their concerns during the election and I will continue to put their concerns forward in this place.

I also want to thank those on my campaign team and volunteers for their tremendous effort and the confidence they placed in me to represent the riding once more.

The Speech from the Throne is the government’s first opportunity in a new Parliament to outline the direction in which it wishes to take the country. It should be a statement of substance given that from it will flow the kinds of legislation the government believes will be in the best interest of our country. However, this throne speech is different, for it is based upon government actions that have greatly diminished its ability to perform the tasks that governments should be able to perform in tough economic times.

There is one party responsible for destroying the ability of our country to face these difficult economic times, and that is the government sitting across the way. The member for Sarnia—Lambton just talked about sound budgeting. That would really be a novel idea for that government. If we had sound budgeting, the country would not be facing the difficulty that it is facing right now from coast to coast to coast. The government took a surplus given to it and basically squandered it away.

Governments have an obligation to, at a minimum, ensure that Canada’s financial house is in order. Previous Liberal governments did that. We took the $41 billion deficit left by the Mulroney Conservatives and not only eliminated it, but left the current government with a $12 billion surplus, the contingency fund, to be called upon in tough economic times. What did the current Conservative government do? It squandered it.

In two short years, the government has moved from being the economic envy of the western industrialized world to putting Canada on the brink of deficit. I believe the Prime Minister was talking about deficit over the weekend, a word he would not utter and be honest about during the election campaign. In two years it moved from a strong, central government holding financial reserves to assist in troubled times to a weakened centre with the financial cupboards practically bare.

No longer do we have the prudent planning with financial resources to partner with provinces and industries in time of need. The government has squandered that away and that is a sad commentary at a time when Canadians really need the central government in our country to assist them in their time of need. The government has squandered the cupboard bare.

Clearly, the Prime Minister is now admitting that the country is on the brink of deficit, something he denied during the election. However, he still fails to accept responsibility and any government should be accountable and responsible. The Prime Minister should admit that his Minister of Finance was wrong in terms of how he budgeted the country. The Prime Minister should admit that he was misinforming Canadians during the election process.

As I said, he fails to accept responsibility. Let us look for a moment at the report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, a position established by the Conservative government. On page 16, it states:

The weak fiscal performance to date is largely attributable to previous policy decisions as opposed to weakened economic conditions...Tax revenues are down $353 million year to date compared to a year earlier, due in large part to recent policy measures, such as the second one-percentage point reduction in Goods and Services Tax and reductions in corporate income taxes.

How bad could this situation become? According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the deficit could reach $3.9 billion next year and $14 billion the year after. I hope he is wrong, but the government has to accept responsibility for the position our country is now in. If nothing else, these kinds of numbers are a confirmation of economic mismanagement at a level unseen in Canada since Brian Mulroney and the Conservative government of that time.

On the deficit issue, the Minister of Finance was absolutely convinced that the measures the government had taken last February were sound. However, this is the same finance minister who drove the Ontario government into deficit when he was minister of finance for that province. It is no wonder we are seeing the concerns on finances in this nation today. In fact, he is the same finance minister who said, “Do not do business in Ontario”. What a shame. His advice was taken and that is a problem.

If the title of the throne speech, “Protecting Canada's Future” means anything, it will mean the government taking a substantially different direction in this Parliament than it did in the last.

Let me speak for a moment on the issue of agriculture spending. There were some questions and responses in the House today. We know for a fact, from members' speeches on the government side, that the government is claiming it put more money into agriculture. The facts do not bear that out. The fact of the matter is the government spent $1.1 billion less in program spending than the previous Liberal government did at the end of its term.

What about spending on agriculture on Prince Edward Island? These are the facts. In 2005 the Liberal government provided to Prince Edward Island farmers, through program spending, $45.9 million. According to the numbers provided by Agriculture Canada, Island farmers lost $15.3 million in the first two years of the Conservative government. So much for good economic planning on its part.

The throne speech stated that the Conservative government will “review all program spending”. That worries me a lot. The question is, what will that mean for our farmers on Prince Edward Island? What will that mean for seniors across this country? What will it mean in terms of program cuts already in place when we still have some industries struggling in this country.

In my own province we have had serious crop losses in potatoes and field crops this fall. The Minister of Agriculture announced 1¢ per pound for those crops lost in the field, which farmers in Prince Edward Island deem an insult.

The government has to do better than that. Cuts and further cuts in program spending will not be the answer. We need additions to program spending for certain industries in this country.

On the environmental issue, which was an issue during the election there was no question about it, while the speech talks about tackling climate change, it says little of the costs of the approach that the government will be taking.

We do know that the government's “Turning the Corner” document, published and distributed in March 2008, stated with respect to estimated economic impacts the following:

Our modelling--

That is the Conservative government's modelling.

--suggests that Canadians can expect to bear real costs under the Regulatory Framework...these costs will be most evident in the form of higher energy prices, particularly with respect to electricity and natural gas.

However, these changes will come at a cost for Canadians. Negative impacts from the Regulatory Framework on Canada's real GDP level will be small over the next 5 years but will gradually increase,--

That is another burden that the government failed to admit during the election, that it will impose upon Canadians. I am worried about a lot that is in the throne speech in terms of cuts to program spending, cuts in the federal public service, and the way the federal government has operated during the last election. We need more support under infrastructure, under regional spending, under program spending for agriculture and for fisheries, for improvements in small crafts and harbours. That is what we need as we go into this downturn in the economy that, in part, was caused by the Conservative government.

I look forward to the government coming forward with a positive economic agenda, not a negative one.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member about supply management. The government says that it will energetically defend this principle. I suppose the member has confidence in the government; after all, he will be supporting the throne speech. That means he supports the fact that the government will energetically defend supply management.

However, I would like to point out that Conservative ministers have made contradictory statements on this subject. Let us not forget that, over the past few months, the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food have made repeated statements that reveal the government's true intentions.

For example, the former minister of International Trade said that, sooner or later, Canada would have to consider ending supply management. The former minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said that agricultural producers under supply management were making it hard for the government to protect Canadian interests at the WTO and that they should prepare for some compromises.

Can the member tell me what he stands for in voting for the throne speech? Is he supporting the government's commitment to energetically defending supply management, or is he supporting statements made by former ministers?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, let me lay it on the table. If the government is saying it is energetically defending supply management, then I am really worried. We cannot really believe what government members say on that issue.

A deal was on the table at the last WTO negotiation. The government did not agree to it, but it did not disagree to it either. What saved Canada's supply management producers' bacon was the fact that India and China basically pulled out of the deal. Otherwise, what would we have had from the minister over there? We would have had an agreement which would have reduced tariffs and would have increased market access into Canada.

That is what was on the table. The Conservative government was willing to coalesce on that issue. That would have destroyed supply management in this country.

We will see, when the time comes, whether or not these words in this document are truthful or not. What was certainly on the agenda at the WTO, that the minister and the international trade minister were agreeing to, was a sellout of supply management in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems passing strange that while I do not doubt my hon. colleague's enthusiasm nor his volume when decrying the policies of the Conservative government, it stands against the evidence that his party and his votes will show when this is brought up for a vote as it has the 42 previous times when the government stood in confidence in this House.

I have heard the hon. member's Liberal colleagues talk about the great benefits of the employment insurance program or the national health care system. When New Democrats in the past have worked in minority Parliaments to get things done, we have always made it our measure to exchange our support for something concrete and real, actual shifts in policy from government. Yet the Prime Minister in this Parliament and in the previous one knew he could count on Liberal support while giving up nothing of the agenda that my hon. colleague has just cited and decried.

What exactly has the Liberal Party done to ensure that some of the policies it pretends to support actually manifest in the real world?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing about the Liberal Party and that is that it lives in the real world while the NDP lives in the clouds and can be irresponsible as the fourth party in the House.

The member talked about the employment insurance program. If it were not for the Liberal Party, there would not be an employment insurance program in Canada. If it were not for the Liberal Party, there would be no medicare in this country. If it were not for the Liberal Party, there would be no supply management system in this country, which we are talking about defending today. The member should stand in his place and thank the Liberal Party for all the good it has done for Canadians since the beginning of Confederation. That is what the NDP should be doing instead of playing silly games.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the residents of Ajax—Pickering for the profound honour of returning to the House and having the opportunity to once again represent them. It is indeed very humbling and I could not be happier to be back.

When I was knocking on doors and talking to people, I could not help but notice this was a very different election. It was different because the issues are so large and the challenges that people are facing are so difficult. I have been in elected office now for 11 years, seven municipally and over four as a member of Parliament. Never before have I seen such anxiousness in people's eyes when talking about issues that are in front of them. People are worried about their jobs. People are worried about how they are going to be able to pay for their mortgages.

I have talked to people who have been laid off, who had planned their entire lives being with one company and having a pension, only to be laid off from that company, have their pensions become non-existent and be given payouts that they cannot use for their future. They have no idea how they are going to fund their retirements. It was clear that being re-elected this time carried with it an additional weight, a weight that perhaps members have not seen for a long time because people, more than ever, are turning to their government and members of Parliament to find solutions and are requiring bold action.

There could be no greater imperative in a time of challenge like the one we are in to start off by being honest, by ensuring that we tell people the real goods about where we are at, and the challenges we are facing. In that regard, it is deeply frustrating to have the government continue to not tell the truth, frankly, when it comes to where exactly we are.

It was only a couple of weeks ago, during the election campaign, when the Prime Minister adamantly said there was no deficit, that the government was not going to run a deficit and, in fact, it would be stupid to do so. Yet now, mere weeks later, we are being told a deficit is inevitable, that we have to accept it, and it is going to be a part of our reality for the coming days and years.

Those who are facing problems with respect to their pensions, earnings, and watching billions of dollars disappear from capital markets were told it was a good buying opportunity during the election. Since then, we have seen markets come down over 20%. The reality is we are not getting the fundamental truth about our fiscal situation. It is being downplayed or sloughed off. We are using expressions like “technical recession” when people are facing real challenges and need real leadership.

Perhaps the area of greatest concern at this particular moment is in the auto sector. The big three have gone to Washington and so far have been unsuccessful in finding a way out of their very difficult path. The reality is that the new administration in Washington is not going to come until late January and it is going to be too late by then certainly for some of the companies that need assistance right now, that need a plan.

If we do not do anything, if we continue sort of a laissez-faire attitude that has been so pervasive from the government over the last three-plus years, we are going to be in a situation where the Americans are going to come forward with a plan and they are going to demand the repatriation of American jobs. We are going to watch Canadian jobs move from Canada to the United States and watch one of the most vital industries to Canada, certainly a vital industry to Durham, be eroded piece by piece until we are left with something that is a shadow of what it was.

People demand action on that and they demand answers. Simply waiting for Congress to take a position, which is obviously going to only predominantly benefit the Americans, is something we cannot afford to do.

The second thing that I think is deeply troubling from the government is that it is only recently that it has even begun to acknowledge that there is in fact a crisis when it comes to climate change. Now it is to the point where it is saying there is a problem and it is using some language. It has introduced a couple of vacuous plans to pretend that it cares, to feign interest, but we have to do so much more than that.

It was one thing when the Americans were so far behind us in dealing with the environment, but now that a new administration is coming in and it recognizes that the new economy is going to be driven by post-carbon technology, it is imperative that we get on board this train and do it in an awful hurry. With Europe far ahead of us and the United States soon to overtake us, if we are without a plan and continue the attitude of doing nothing and crossing our fingers, we are in enormous trouble.

If we thought the Internet was a boom, if we thought that new technologies around bandwidth and using the Internet was something that was spectacular in terms of its growth and the number of jobs it created, it is a garage sale compared to the technologies that will drive the post-carbon technologies.

If we are not involved, if we are not at the heart of developing those technologies and making sure there are Canadian success stories, we are going to watch as those jobs are created in Europe and the United States. We are going to continue to lose ground. We are going to continue to be in a difficult place.

Let us think about where our nation was in terms of its ability to meet a challenge only three and a half years ago. We had a $13 billion surplus, an economy that was strong, and an unemployment rate that was low. We were leading the G-7 across most economic indicators. Let us think about where we are today. All that has been blown bare.

We are now having to look at strategies that are infinitely more creative because we have blown our fiscal capacity. Our ability to meet the challenges that now face us in a period of global turmoil has been gravely reduced because of the government's mismanagement of the public funds and its refusal to ensure, at the bare minimum, that we have a contingency fund. Instead, the government has tried to frame this as if a surplus were a bad thing, as if having a contingency fund were a negative thing.

Without that, there is but one option, and that is a deficit, which is where we are. It means that when difficult times hit, we lack the capacity to take action, and we have to begin to do some of the things the Conservatives are now talking about, such as potentially selling off assets or cutting programs. What worse time could there be to sell into a firestorm, to get rid of government assets at the worst possible time, to cut back programs when people need them the most which affects those who are most vulnerable?

We should take a look at some of those who are the most vulnerable and in most need of action, at some of the areas where the government is most silent.

We talk about crime. The government talks about its focus on getting tough on crime. The truth is it could not be softer on the sources of crime.

We take a look at youth at risk and the money the Conservatives are cutting from those programs, and the refusal to go aggressively after those early indications that people are going down a dark path, the refusal to engage those who have so little hope. We recognize that if we really care about getting rid of crime, we have to go after what causes it. We have to look at communities that feel they do not have a future. We have to look at individuals who are growing up with very little hope. We have to deal with that, and the government is refusing to do it.

With respect to poverty, there has to be an acknowledgement by the government that there are people without opportunity. There are people who are working hard to make ends meet yet they are unable to afford even the basics such as groceries, electricity or their monthly rent. Even after working many hours, there are people who are left in such a precarious position and they are wondering about their future. If they lose their jobs they could be over the edge in a moment. There is no plan to deal with that. There is no plan to help those people, to lift them out of their situations.

As if that were not bad enough, from a position of compassion, the impact on the economy is devastating. The more people who are pulled out of the system, the more individuals who are not spending locally, are not driving the local economy, and are not able to make a meaningful contribution to society. That deepens the spiral and makes the situation much worse.

Those quiet voices that we should be most listening to as government, those people who need our help in the greatest way are the ones who are being most ignored by the government.

For cities and communities, we talk about municipalities facing grave challenges with the massive infrastructure deficit. The government has spoken very little about the need for infrastructure. This should have been a central piece of the Speech from the Throne. There is a need to drive infrastructure in a way that shows bold vision and recognizes that if we do not spend on infrastructure, we are not going to have a strong economy, that recognizes that cities and communities are not to be scolded, put down or talked about in dismissive terms, as has been done, but that they are the engines of our economy and if they are allowed to suffer and erode, then we do not have a future as a country.

The reality of the throne speech is that it fails to be anything more than a collection of rhetoric. It is more spin and gloss without any substance.

Members of this House have an obligation to take real action on these issues, to work together and to be honest about the challenges that we have in front of us.