Debates of Nov. 24th, 2008

The House resumed from November 21 consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

When the matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Simcoe North had the floor for questions and comments consequent on his speech. I therefore call for questions and comments.

There being none, we will resume debate with the hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for their support and enthusiasm. Before I begin, I should mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, who is with us this morning.

I found the throne speech very surprising, but not in a good way. I expected something completely different, given that the government supposedly decided to convene the House because Canada is facing a serious crisis, particularly in the manufacturing sector. Since the House was convened so soon after the election, I was expecting to hear about some very concrete measures in a number of areas, but that is not at all what happened.

At a press conference just this weekend, the Prime Minister did not convey any sense of urgency with respect to addressing the terrible crisis that people are going through right now, especially in my region and throughout Quebec. For example, since the beginning of the crisis in the softwood lumber sector, over half of the 300 processing plants in Quebec have closed, some of them just recently. As a result, in Quebec alone, some 30,000 workers have been laid off over the last few months and years.

It seems to me that all across Canada, wherever lumber is a major industry, such as in British Columbia, this crisis is extremely far-reaching and very bad for all regions like mine. I expected the Prime Minister to come up with a plan to help businesses deal with this crisis, but that is not at all what we got. Instead, we got a throne speech that I found feeble and virtually content-free.

This past weekend, the Minister of Finance suggested that we might have to wait until the introduction of the budget for any measures to be announced. But the crisis is happening now, and it is serious. Unfortunately, the throne speech offered no hope at all to workers or to the people of my riding.

One more example is that as recently as November 21, one of the largest companies in the riding of Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, Uniboard—Panval, announced yet again that it was cutting back on some of its activities. Not only is the company scaling back but the company has also said that, given the crisis, it is extremely difficult to predict when it will be able to start production again, because it produces particleboard panels used to build furniture. When consumption decreases, companies have no choice but to scale back production.

This is a company with 350 employees, in an RCM with 14,000 to 15,000 people. So one can imagine the impact such a closure would have, even though it is true that these people will be eligible for employment insurance. But, once again, there was absolutely nothing in the throne speech about employment insurance. EI provides only 50% of an employee's regular salary, and just for a given period of time. Not to mention there is a two-week waiting period, which we would like to get rid of.

There was absolutely nothing in the throne speech with regard to ways we can weather the crisis we are experiencing. And, with one small exception, there was absolutely nothing for culture either. The government is upholding the cuts it has made to culture and to non-profit economic organizations. These organizations are extremely important to our region.

During the election campaign, I gave some examples for the Rimouski sector among others. I could give the example of SEREX, a research organization in the Matapédia valley sector.

Why is the Bloc Québécois calling for significant investment in research and development? Why is it calling on the two levels of government to increase their investment in research and development? The answer is simple: if we want to create new jobs and if we want our businesses to grow and be competitive abroad, there must be significant investment in research and development in order to come up with new products and new methods of doing things.

At present, businesses in Quebec and throughout Canada do not necessarily have the financial means to invest in research and development. Therefore, the two levels of government—both the federal government and the Quebec government—must do so immediately.

We know that the Quebec government has reduced its funding for research and development over the past years. I find that extremely unfortunate because it has meant a slowdown in the development of new products and new technologies that could increase our productivity. When there is a crisis, businesses obviously do not necessarily have the cash to significantly invest in research and development, even though it is important. If we are to weather this crisis, we must develop new methods to increase productivity and new products as well.

There is something else that was not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. Rather, I should say that it was mentioned, but in a negative way: the consensus in Quebec on how to deal with young offenders was completely ignored, as were our views on the gun registry. The Quebec government's request was very simple: transfer the gun registry and let it run it. The government absolutely refuses to come to an agreement with the Government of Quebec.

It is the same story when it comes to the environment. The throne speech makes no mention of the Kyoto protocol. The government does talk about investing in new energy sources and clean energy, but it also mentions investing in nuclear power. Moreover, the government does not say it is going to stop investing in the oil sands, which cause a great deal of pollution and are currently the main source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

The government needs to understand that if it wants to invest in so-called green resources and renewable energy, then perhaps it should cut back on the production of oil from the oil sands. Then the government could give us the money it is currently giving the major oil companies, so that we could make major investments in renewable energies.

I am talking about renewable energies such as wind energy, solar panels and biofuel. Not enough money is being invested to reduce our dependence on oil to any significant extent. Yet during the recent American election campaign, both the Republicans and the Democrats promised to invest heavily in renewable energies to minimize our dependence on oil.

Why should we reduce our dependence on oil? Probably for two reasons. First, oil produces a great deal of greenhouse gas. Second, by reducing our dependence on oil, we are less subject to market forces. We all know what has happened on the markets in recent months. Oil prices skyrocketed, and many of our companies have been affected. I am thinking in particular of Uniboard in Matane, which is trying to find ways to lessen its dependence on oil. But that takes money, and the company, like companies throughout the manufacturing sector, is unfortunately short of capital.

I will conclude by saying that the throne speech is extremely disappointing. The government did not wait long after the election to convene the House, but it has come up with a lacklustre throne speech with little or nothing in the way of solutions to the crisis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. He represents a region that made it very clear during the election that it wanted the Conservative government to take a different approach. The member himself referred to the cuts affecting regional development.

However, one thing is clear, and I find this remarkable: the current government ignored the results of the recent election. The Bloc Québécois' subamendment—which I will read quickly—states that we will be voting against the Speech from the Throne because “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”.

The Conservative machine continued to steamroll over all those issues, as though there had been no election in Quebec. Thus, this shows a degree of contempt for democracy in the throne speech and we hope the House will adopt our subamendment. It would serve to correct the Speech from the Throne.

The hon. member raised an important issue when he mentioned the cuts made to regional development. One good sign is the fact that the minister responsible before the election is no longer here and there is a new minister. We hope he will have a more open mind. Indeed, the cuts in this area definitely had a negative impact on Rimouski, as they did on the Lower St. Lawrence. We saw the same thing with PÔLE Québec Chaudière-Appalaches, in the Quebec City area.

We are heading into a recession. The Prime Minister said so yesterday. He added the word “technical” to try to play down the situation. Nevertheless, he acknowledged this reality, although, during the election campaign, he denied any possibility of a recession.

Now that the recession has been acknowledged and active measures are required, the first concrete action for regional development in the short term should be to ensure that these organizations are once again able to step in to support our regional economies, should it not?

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup for his question.

Yes, that should be done immediately. We are referring to non-profit economic organizations, as I just mentioned in my speech. He spoke of Chaudière-Appalaches and Rimouski; we could just as easily be talking about Gaspé, Trois-Rivières or Amqui. A group of organizations supported start-ups or businesses wanting to market new products or technologies. These organizations also helped companies with research. When you own a small or medium-sized enterprise you do not necessarily have the staff or the means to conduct research and development and for that you must rely on other organizations most of the time

I have a very concrete example in mind. In my riding, a clean firelog was developed, using a special process, that results in significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions and, at the same time, uses forestry waste. The company in question—not a very large firm—was unable to conduct the research in Canada and it had to be done in Finland. We have to realize that had we invested in research and development, the research could have been done here and probably much more quickly. That is a very concrete example.

For small or medium-sized companies, it is extremely important that non-profit economic organizations be subsidized and capable of continuing to work with them. That will be the key to success for our companies, especially in times of major economic crisis when competition is even fiercer.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There is just enough time for a quick question. The member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have risen to speak in this Parliament. I would like to thank my voters for trusting me and for voting for me. I would also like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your election to the chair.

I have a quick question for my Bloc colleague. There is an election campaign going on in the province of Quebec, and we have just had a federal election. How can the member, in good conscience, not support the throne speech and, following that speech, decide not to work together with this government, even though it called an election and nothing changed? How, in good conscience, could we waste another $300 million of taxpayers' money?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia has 30 seconds to respond.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is not very generous. I have only 30 seconds to respond to such a broad question.

In my opinion, the federal election was useless, as is the one currently going on in Quebec. Let me be clear. An election was called when we were heading towards a major crisis. The House of Commons was called to meet as quickly as possible, but nothing has been proposed. I hope that is not what will happen in Quebec after the election. Since there is an election going on in Quebec, I hope that the government will react much more strongly and quickly.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to speak since the beginning of this new Parliament.

I would like to thank the people of Berthier—Maskinongé for having placed their trust in me for a third consecutive mandate. I can assure them that I will continue to defend the interests of my constituents and the people of the Mauricie region, as well as the interests of all Quebeckers, with strength, passion and determination.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in the House, not because the Conservative government's throne speech has given us much to be happy about, but because I am speaking on behalf of the people of the region that I am honoured to represent.

Well before the throne speech was delivered, the Bloc Québécois made it clear to the Conservative government that it must abandon its laissez-faire ideology, which has been disastrous for Quebec's economy, and embrace the notion that the federal government has a key role to play in supporting the economy and helping people affected by the current crisis.

That is why the Bloc Québécois made a number of constructive proposals to help Parliament focus on what the people need as we enter an economic recession. Our proposals are based on a consensus reached through debate in Quebec during the recent election campaign. A majority of the people voted for the Bloc Québécois to defend their interests.

Over the past few months, the political parties in the National Assembly, business people and unions have all asked the federal government for strong measures to support our economy and in particular, of course, our manufacturing sector. Unfortunately, the throne speech was a great disappointment because none of the proposals put forward by the Bloc Québécois or the economic stakeholders in Quebec were included, even though our proposals were based on priorities that affect Quebeckers and were drafted in response to their choices during the last federal election. That is shameful.

The throne speech confirms the Conservative government's complete disregard for the effects of the crisis on our economy and our people. The Conservative government is trapped in its outdated ideology.

This Speech from the Throne does not offer any revitalization measures to help the most vulnerable manufacturing industries that face international competition. For example, in my riding, the furniture industry still plays a significant role in job creation.

Once again, the government has chosen to do nothing. True to its own ideology, this government still believes that the free-market economy, free enterprise without any state intervention, can fix everything and that any intervention by the government would only lead to negative effects for the industry. That is not true. The government has the responsibility to support our businesses and it must accept this responsibility. Essentially, we have a throne speech that is devoid of any measures, devoid of vision, and that once again ignores the economic base of Quebec, the manufacturing industry.

When will this government realize that it has a role to play in helping the economy, especially during a crisis? The Bloc Québécois is asking the government to stop ignoring this fact and, instead, assume its responsibilities and intervene to help our economy. We are still paying taxes to Ottawa. We are handing over huge sums of money to Ottawa, and we have the right to receive help for our industries.

Over and over, the Bloc Québécois has suggested funding and support options for the manufacturing and forestry industries. For example, we suggested loan guarantees to help companies modernize as well as making the research and development tax credit refundable so that companies can take advantage of it, even if they are at the development stage and not yet turning a profit. I am convinced that these measures would allow Quebec's industries, such as the furniture industry, to expand and rise to the challenge of international competition. We cannot abandon Quebec's entire manufacturing industry, as this government is doing. As I said earlier, the furniture industry plays an important role in the Berthier—Maskinongé region. We want to keep these jobs, everywhere in Quebec that these industries exist.

We have innovative businesses with a skilled workforce that have overcome the challenge posed by NAFTA. Now, faced with a difficult economic trade environment, many of them are in trouble. They need support from this federal government. Unfortunately, this government has ignored our proposals. Its only response consists of cutting taxes on profits, which, I would remind the House, is only beneficial to businesses that are making a profit. Most of our industries in Quebec are not generating any profits. Lowering taxes for companies that are not making any profit does absolutely nothing for our industries.

I encourage the members of this government to read a book called La crise manufacturière au Québec: ça va mal à shop, which translates roughly as, “The manufacturing crisis in Quebec: hard times in the factory”. This just published book takes a look at all regions of Quebec affected by the manufacturing crisis. It talks about manufacturing jobs that have been lost in Beauce. That region has lost 3,000 jobs in five years. It talks about the 800 jobs lost at Goodyear in Valleyfield. And of course, it talks about the Mauricie region, and the jobs lost in the pulp and paper, textile and furniture sectors in the area I represent. It truly offers a good look at the big picture. I urge the members of the government and the opposition parties to learn more about this reality and the job losses in the regions of Quebec. The book also makes some proposals, for example, how this government should invest in and help our manufacturing industries. It is an excellent book.

No longer can it be said that Quebec's industries are prosperous. It is quite simply scandalous that this government is not taking urgent action. It is refusing to help communities in difficulty, yet it is continuing to help the oil companies in the west without hesitation. The government is saying it wants to support the nuclear energy sector, and it still intends to continue its unbridled military spending. With this throne speech, this government has shown us that it rejects many of the consensuses reached by the National Assembly, the people, the unions and the various socio-economic players in Quebec society. We do not understand.

As a result, the Bloc Québécois will have no choice but to vote against this throne speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the record and for the great Canadians from Quebec who are watching, on a per capita basis the people of Quebec receive more than any other Canadians in handouts and disbursements from the federal government.

Health care in Quebec has been quite innovative. Quebec has many things to teach the rest of Canada on the innovations it has with respect to mixing public-private partnerships, enabling individuals who get sick to access timely quality health care that every Canadian deserves to have in their time of need.

Does my friend not think there is an important role to be played by the minister of health for the province of Quebec to meet with counterparts from their department, the federal government and provincial ministries across the country in the area of health care to see how we can innovate to ensure Canadians from coast to coast receive timely access to quality health care when they need it?

I refer specifically to a couple of things. First, the importance of a national medical workforce strategy. Second, the importance of integrating public and private partnerships and public and private services like they do in Europe to support the public system. I would appreciate his input and comments on these important areas.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform my colleague that health comes under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

In Quebec, the health care system is well organized. We have a department of health and social services. In every region, we have regional agencies, CLSCs, health care centres and youth centres. Our system delivers services to all types of clients, from young people to seniors and people who are incapacitated and need hospital care. We have a very good health care system that is very well organized. We do not need a parallel health care system.

All we are asking is that the federal government transfer the money we send to Ottawa, in order to give more support to our health care sector, which is under enormous pressure because of our aging population.

Ottawa is investing money in a mental health commission. Quebec has a mental health policy. We have mental health practitioners in the CLSCs, we have mental health teams in the hospitals, we have psychiatrists, social workers, psychologists and nurses. We have a range of services. We do not need Ottawa—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member from the Bloc heard the throne speech, was he as dismayed as I was? I waited to hear something around pensions, something for seniors, and it seemed to be lacking.

Is this not an opportune time for some kind of dynamic change to our employment insurance system? The reality is there is inequity about how many weeks people can be on EI, depending on what part of the country they are from. Quebec and Ontario workers seem to be penalized compared to other parts of the country.

I would put another point specifically for the member. Hearing the reports, it looks like the Prime Minister has now targeted the civil servants of our country and has made them scapegoats to divert attention from the real crisis we have at hand.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

Of course, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of economic development that supports social issues. Here, we have a government that does not think about the individuals who are losing their jobs. It refuses to improve the employment insurance system. This system was much more generous in the 1970s and 1980s, when claimants were eligible for about a year.

As for seniors, the guaranteed income supplement exists for seniors who are living at the poverty line with $8,000 per year. We must support these people. This government does not think about individuals, does not offer social protection services and does not make investments to protect people experiencing economic problems. What the government needs to do is invest in our people, while, of course, continuing to invest in economic development—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. Resuming debate. the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage has the floor.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise this morning to speak in support of the government's throne speech entitled, “Protecting Canada's Future”.

I would like to give some of the context in which the Speech from the Throne was drafted. I note the debate this morning really has not given any context of Canada's current standing and what we were really getting at when drafting the Speech from the Throne. I note that a number of opposition members who spoke this morning talked about wishing to see knee-jerk responses and solutions. That is not what the Speech from the Throne is about. The throne speech is a road map. It is about guiding Canada in the proper direction to protect our future.

Before I get into my speech and to provide a backdrop, I want to highlight some news from this morning:

Given the slowdown in the United States, Canada's largest trading partner, Canada's recent economic performance seems to have defied the experts. For example, as car sales plummeted in the United States last month, car sales in Canada rose by 1%.

Actually, car sales rose by about 1.4%.

The U. S. economy has shed more than one million jobs in the past 12 months while Canada's economy, at the end of October, had created 223,000 new jobs in the same period.

The throne speech is about protecting Canada's future. When we talk about protecting Canada's future, we are talking about protecting the gains. Canada is not an island. Our largest trading partner, the nation with which we share the largest undefended border, is the epicentre of the global economic crisis. We are mindful of these things. What we are talking about is protecting the gains that we have made.

On October 14 the people of Canada entrusted this government with a renewed and expanded mandate, a stronger mandate to lead Canada through these difficult times. While embarking on this new mandate, our government is committed to providing the strong leadership that Canadians expect. We will protect Canadians in difficult times and work with them to secure our future prosperity. We will support Canadian workers and businesses in their pursuit of a better future.

Our government is committed to ensuring Canada's continued success in this time of global uncertainty. The Speech from the Throne lays out the government's plan to help protect Canada's economic security through five principles: by reforming global finance; by ensuring sound budgeting; by securing jobs for families and communities; by expanding investment in trade; and by making government more effective.

The Speech from the Throne also sets out our plan for governing that builds on the work of the previous mandate. We are focusing on priorities that make a difference for Canadians, the types of priorities that have delivered the types of results I outlined at the beginning of this speech, the types of priorities that have allowed us to outpace all nations in the G-8. As we enter this difficult time, Canada remains the only country in the G-8 that has an ongoing budget surplus, paying down debt while reducing taxes.

The Speech from the Throne sets out our plan for governing that builds on our mandate. We talk about: securing our energy future; tackling climate change and preserving Canada's environment; expanding opportunities for all Canadians; keeping Canadians safe; contributing to global security; and building stronger institutions.

I want to zero in on a number of priorities that are in the throne speech. Rather than talking about everything at a 35,000 foot level and glancing over things, I want to talk specifically about a number of issues that are concerning Canadians today.

When we entered into the election, I heard about a lot of issues that I am not hearing about today. Only a couple of months ago the primary issue was the price of gas. I am sure a lot of members in the House will recall hearing about the same thing. That was the foremost issue on the minds of Canadians. Today is no longer the foremost issue on Canadians' minds. Their concerns have shifted to other things. What I am hearing a lot about in my riding of Peterborough is industry.

Peterborough is a manufacturing hub. That is our heritage and our history, ever since Thomas Edison located Edison Electric, which became Canadian General Electric. Members have often heard me refer to Peterborough as the electric city and my riding as the electric city region. Peterborough was the first city in North America to have electric street lights and that is because Thomas Edison located General Electric in Peterborough and the ability to generate hydroelectric power off the Otonabee River which flows directly through the region.

Industry has always been a major part of what we do in Peterborough and it is of major interest. The auto industry is very significant in my riding. General Motors is the largest private employer in Peterborough. A number of parts suppliers also operate in my riding and they employ people as well. Obviously industry is very important to the people of my riding and it is important to me as their representative.

There were specific commitments made by our government in the throne speech. I would like to highlight some of these and our commitment with respect to industry:

To further reduce the cost pressures on Canadian business, our Government will take measures to encourage companies to invest in new machinery and equipment.

The Canadian manufacturing sector, particularly the automotive and aerospace industries, has been under increasing strain. Our Government will provide further support for these industries.

I note that through Advantage Canada, our economic plan, and recent budgets we have made significant progress toward creating a business environment aimed at promoting long-term investment, innovation and job creation across all sectors of the economy. Again I go back to the comments that I made originally. While the U.S. has lost a million jobs, Canada has added 226,000 jobs over the exact same period. Indeed since our government has been in power, over the last not quite three years, we have added over 800,000 jobs to the Canadian economy. More than 17 million Canadians are working today full time. It is a record. We see unemployment at a near historic low at 6.1%. We see the effects of the measures that our government has taken.

While we recognize the strategic importance of the manufacturing sector and the challenging financial conditions and global competitiveness that our industry faces, our government has cut taxes to lower the cost for business. We have helped business compete and create jobs. By 2012-13 the Government of Canada will have provided more than $9 billion in tax relief to the manufacturing sector. Our government is implementing scientific measures to strengthen the auto, aerospace and defence industries and improve access to capital for small and medium size enterprises in the Canadian manufacturing sector.

The finance minister has moved very swiftly over the last month to make sure there is liquidity in the market, to make sure the banks can continue to lend. That is supporting our manufacturing industries. It is supporting business. It is supporting small businesses in places like Peterborough and in all 308 ridings right across the country. That is why the actions being taken by this government and outlined in the throne speech are so critically important.

I note as a matter of background that in budget 2008, in support of Canadian industry and specifically the manufacturing sector, the Government of Canada implemented specific measures, such as the $250 million automotive innovation fund. This fund supports strategic large-scale research and development projects in the auto sector. I note with some success that we have got commitments for operations such as the Essex engine plant near Windsor. This specific fund has been drawn upon to transition that plant, to make it more competitive and to ensure Canadian jobs in the future. It is a very important fund.

Again, the $9 billion in tax relief over five years includes broad based tax reductions and a temporary accelerated writeoff for investments in machinery and equipment. This tax relief is supplemented by strengthening access to capital.

Canadian companies have been taking advantage of the accelerated capital cost allowance. They have been investing in new equipment. For example, Quaker Oats, Pepsi-QTG in Peterborough, has invested some $26 million in its plant over the last couple of years. That is taking advantage of the accelerated capital cost allowance. That is allowing it to be more efficient, to compete, to be profitable. It is protecting 700 manufacturing jobs right in the heart of Peterborough. These measures are indeed having an effect.

What underpins industry in Canada? What allows industry in Canada to compete? When I have talked to industry leaders in Canada, they tell me that what they really need is infrastructure to support their core operations. They will make those investments if we provide them with the environment, with adequate and proper tax measures, competitive tax measures, and if we allow them access to capital. We have to make sure that our banks are in a position to support industry and finance those investments. What they really need is modern infrastructure that can support business.

That is why our government crafted building Canada, which is a $33 billion fund. It is the largest federal government infrastructure investment since the second world war. What did the throne speech have to say about building Canada? What further commitments did we make to the infrastructure that supports Canadian business?

First we noted that the government has acted with leadership to implement an infrastructure plan that is helping provinces, territories and communities of all sizes modernize the infrastructure that contributes to a stronger economy, a cleaner environment and more prosperous communities.

Through our government's unprecedented building Canada plan, we are providing long-term, stable and predictable funding to meet infrastructure needs across Canada. The government will continue to work constructively with our partners at the provincial and municipal levels to identify and approve infrastructure projects more quickly to get the money out the door. It is great that we have budgeted some $33 billion for building Canada. My party has demonstrated outstanding leadership to budget money where it is going to make a difference. However, it is equally important that the money is not just budgeted but that it flows to our partners at the municipal and provincial levels.

While our government is making a historic $33 billion investment over seven years through to 2014, the plan also provides provinces with predictable, flexible and long-term funding to restore infrastructure in Canada. The government has signed a framework with each and every province, which is critically important because the money has to have a way to flow.

I would also like to note that while we have provided predictability for the provinces, we have also provided long-term predictability for the municipalities, something they have asked for forever. When we made the GST rebate for the municipalities permanent, it allowed them to budget.

When I met with the municipalities in the winter of 2006, some 10 months after I had been elected, they indicated that in order to be able to plan from an infrastructure standpoint, what they really needed was at least a 10-year window so they would know what kind of money they could count on from the federal and provincial governments to ultimately plan their infrastructure priorities.

What have we done? We have told them how much money they will be getting over the next several periods and that they can count on the fact that the gas tax transfer will be permanent. We have also given them full refundability on the GST, a measure which saved the city of Peterborough about $700,000 a year. It is a very substantial amount of money in a city with a budget of some $80 million. Everyone can see it is a very significant amount of money.

What else do industries need? We are providing industries with the competitive environment they need. We are supporting their investments. We are making sure the banks are behind them. We are providing them with the world-class infrastructure they are going to need to get their goods to market. And then what do they need? They need markets.

Canada is a trading nation. As everyone in the House knows, Canada succeeds by virtue of the markets that it accesses. We know that Canada's predominant trading partner is the United States of America, but Canada's economy can become overly dependent when we have all our eggs in one basket. We do not want to have all our eggs in one basket, so we can look at some of the new agreements that our government has just signed. These are mentioned in the throne speech.

We are going to pursue new trade agreements in Asia and the Americas, as well as the European Union, to open markets for Canadian firms. Canada's global commerce strategy includes an aggressive trade negotiation agenda aimed at securing competitive terms of access in markets that offer significant potential for our products and expertise.

The government will work toward finalizing bilateral trade agreements that bring greater prosperity to Canadians. Canada and the European Union are taking steps to prepare formal mandates with a view toward launching negotiations on an economic partnership as soon as possible. This has been a priority issue for Quebec Premier Jean Charest in particular, who has talked often about the need for an economic partnership, a trade deal, with the European Union. Our government is acting on that and we will get results.

I note that just this weekend we signed another bilateral trade agreement. The government will proceed to ratify the results of these trade negotiations that have been concluded with the EFTA nations, Peru, Colombia and Jordan. Canada's global commerce strategy again talks about this aggressive trade negotiation which is going to open up opportunities for Canadian business.

I talked about Peterborough a little bit and I talked about our industry. I talked about how Peterborough is a manufacturing hub. Indeed, if we look at the province of Ontario, we will find that Ontario is a world leader when it comes to nuclear energy. Some 40,000 skilled workers in the nuclear energy field live and work right here in the province of Ontario.

Peterborough, as the home of General Electric Canada, has always been a leader in nuclear energy. We have industries around us like Numet, General Electric, and Camco, that employ people from my riding.

The government made a specific commitment to nuclear energy in the throne speech. Canada is a world leader when it comes to nuclear energy. Parts of many of the generators around the world have been built in Peterborough at General Electric. Most of the very significant hydroelectric generators all around the world have been built in Peterborough, generators for the Hoover Dam, for example, the Churchill generators, generators all throughout Asia and South America. They were all built in Peterborough.

We have the know-how of how to build these things and how to generate green electricity. It is in Ontario and some of it is in my riding. When the government makes a commitment to ensure that the regulatory framework is ready to respond to the provinces that choose to advance nuclear projects, that is supporting industry in Ontario.

What we know is that nuclear energy is a proven technology and it is capable of providing large scale output. It is safe, it is clean, and it is emission free. In Canada and around the world investments are being made in nuclear power to meet energy, security and climate change goals.

It is clear that nuclear power generation will continue to play a role in Canada's energy mix since it contributes 15% of Canada's electricity generation and 50% of the electricity supply in Ontario alone. I note that in looking at other competing nations, in looking at France for example, another G-8 nation, France generates some 90% of its baseload capacity from nuclear energy. That has allowed France to outperform other nations when it comes to things to climate change. It is a realistic solution for Ontario's energy needs moving forward, for Canada's energy needs moving forward. It has been talked about as a potential solution for the Alberta oil sands in working toward bringing its greenhouse gas emissions down as well.

The government continues to support the work of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, a strong independent regulator that will oversee applications for all new nuclear projects. As noted in budget 2008, we also support Atomic Energy of Canada Limited with new funding and new leadership that we believe will see AECL through to the future.

Another industry that is critically important in Ontario and indeed in your home province, Mr. Speaker, is agriculture. What has our party done for agriculture? What did the throne speech have to say about agriculture?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Nothing, nothing.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I hear the hon. member for Malpeque. He is jumping up and down. He is so excited about the commitments that we made in agriculture and how the party is moving forward in agriculture and really supporting our farmers.

The throne speech specifically talked about how the government is going to work to protect the supply management system in Canada. It also talked about support for marketing choice for western grain farmers, something that I know the hon. member for Malpeque is very excited about. It is something he wants to talk about. It is something that the government is going to work toward.

We believe in a strong agricultural industry in Canada and we are working toward that end. That is why rural Canadians and rural Ontarians, in particular, voted en masse for our party, for the government, for the Prime Minister, for the finance minister, and the agriculture minister.

In conclusion, Canadians have renewed their confidence in the government. The government is committed to Canada's continued success in a time of global economic instability.

All our energy will be directed to addressing the challenges Canadian families, businesses and workers face both today and in the future.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Peterborough is pretty good at trying to reinvent history but pretty poor in terms of actual facts. In his speech, he talked about the gas tax rebate and the refundable GST to communities. The fact of the matter is that was started by the previous government.

This is what the government that the member is a member of has actually done. It is strange that the throne speech is entitled “Protecting Canada's Future”, when no prime minister and no government in Canadian history has jeopardized Canada's fiscal future as much as that party and the Prime Minister over there have. The Conservatives have taken the fiscal capacity of the country and undermined it. They have taken surpluses and undermined them. They talked during the election campaign about not going into deficit, yet look at the Prime Minister's remarks today; they are now going into a deficit and blaming it on the global economy when it is really their party and the Prime Minister, and their actions that undermined Canada's fiscal security in terms of the country.

However, my question really relates to what the member talked about with regard to agriculture.

The hon. member said at the end of his remarks that Canadians, by voting the way they did in rural Canada, showed confidence in what that government was doing. No, they did not. The Conservatives got more seats. But we know that party got less votes than it did in the last election. Let us talk about that. That is not more confidence; that is less. The parliamentary system gives them more seats, yes, but the question is, what are they going to do for primary producers in this country?

We know in the last term you used every undemocratic action going to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board. You paid out $1.1 billion less--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I know the hon. member for Malpeque knows to address comments through the Chair and not directly to other members.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is kind of a conundrum, I guess, that the hon. member for Malpeque finds himself in. More farmers elected more Conservatives right across this country, but somehow, in his own mind, that has not indicated a stronger level of support from agricultural producers for Conservative members. I am sure sometime between now and perhaps the end of the day he can come up with a means of justifying what he has just indicated, but certainly I do not think it will be rational.

He started off by mentioning a number of things that I would like to address. The Liberal Party often talks about massive surpluses that it used to have. The Liberals used to run these massive surpluses, everybody knows. Well, they could not project them, frankly. They would come out and say they figured that the surplus would be somewhere around $3 billion. Then they would excessively overtax Canadians and then come out with, “Surprise. It's a double-digit, multi-billion-dollar surplus”, and that of course led them to spending money in ways that did not benefit Canadians.

Indeed, the last Liberal budget had a 14% spending increase, but without the kind of principled focus that budgets should have, the types of things that really drive results here in Canada. I mentioned that in the last 12 months 226,000 new jobs were created in Canada and auto sales in Canada were up. In the United States, a million jobs were lost and auto sales were about half of what they were. That is the difference. That is the leadership of our Prime Minister.

Then again, on the agricultural file, our producers know that they can count on our government when it comes to things like the WTO. They know that we will stand up for supply management. We demonstrated it. The Liberals, in 13 years, never demonstrated any support at the WTO for supply management whatsoever. They were missing in action.

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

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that what is preventing the government from eliminating the supply management system is the motion adopted in this House under a minority government, which the current government is forced to respect. As soon as we have a majority government in Canada, particularly a Conservative one, supply management will be swallowed up by the huge global market, by the open market that the Conservatives wish for. That is obvious and, in that regard, Quebeckers have proven to be very wise indeed—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I see that the Conservative members are defensive because they know that it is actually true.

Something else is rather paradoxical. Today we are discussing a throne speech in this chamber; however, the real throne speech was delivered by the Prime Minister in Peru on the weekend. He said that there will be a deficit and there will be a recession, even though he qualified it as a technical recession to soften the blow. That is quite the opposite of what the Prime Minister said during the election campaign.

The banks have been helped; industries are going to get help, and that is fine. Will the government use common sense and, in keeping with the Prime Minister's statements on the weekend, will he also ensure that the most disadvantaged in our society, those who will lose their jobs in this recession, can count on an adequate employment insurance system? For example, we could eliminate the two-week waiting period that currently penalizes people who lose their jobs and need this money to make ends meet at the end of the month.