Debates of Nov. 25th, 2008

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, the member for Edmonton—Strathcona, and welcome her to the NDP mountain time caucus. In the mountain time caucus we are geographically the largest group in Parliament but numerically we are not in the same position. It is great to have a voice from Alberta speaking in Parliament, in opposition and in our caucus. It gives Parliament the opportunity to hear the differing points of view that do exist in that wonderful province to the south of my riding.

Again, I welcome my colleague and I trust that her role as environment critic will be an excellent one in this Parliament. I have worked with her for some 30 years on environmental issues and I know that her breadth of understanding and commitment to them are very large.

She touched on the issue of the regulatory process. In the throne speech we heard the government talk about reducing the regulatory burden. In its pronouncements in the past year it talked about reducing the regulatory--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I must cut off the hon. member so I can give the member for Edmonton—Strathcona a chance to respond.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and encouragement by the member from the Northwest Territories. I will repeat that we have had a very co-operative, wonderful working relationship for more than 30 years in pursuing common pursuits for the communities that cross the borders between the province of Alberta and the Northwest Territories.

I welcome the opportunity of working with the member from the Northwest Territories, as well as other members of the House, in pursuing policies that will protect the fragile Arctic and the fragile areas of northern Alberta while at the same time creating jobs. However, we must quickly put in place an energy security policy and strategy for Canada similar to what our neighbours to the south have done to ensure that the way we develop our resources is to our citizens' benefit.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your re-appointment to the Speaker's chair. I thought you did a good job in the last Parliament and I am looking forward to working under your guidance in this Parliament.

I want to thank my colleague, the member for Edmonton—Strathcona, for sharing her time with me this morning. It is a real honour to do that. I am really excited by the fact that she is with us in this place and will bring her wealth of knowledge and experience to the debates that we will have and contribute in a very positive and exciting way to the development of this new economy that I know we have the potential to put in place in Canada.

She reflects, in very wonderful ways, the great wealth of talent that we as New Democrats have welcomed to our caucus after the last election. There are 11 new members from across the country with experience and knowledge that will only benefit this place and the country in some important ways.

I would like to mention a couple of items. I googled the member for Edmonton—Strathcona before I came to deliver my speech this morning and she is a powerhouse. She has an unbelievable background of experience in her own province of Alberta, nationally and internationally. I will share with the House a couple of things she has done.

She held a senior portfolio as the chief of enforcement for Environment Canada. She founded Alberta's Environmental Law Centre. She served at the international level as head of law and enforcement for the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation. She spent four years working with Canadian, American and Mexican officials. She served as a senior legal advisor to Indonesia, Bangladesh and Jamaica in instituting programs for effective environmental enforcement for CIDA, Asian Development Bank and World Bank funded projects. This is just the tip of the iceberg to indicate the contribution that the member will make in this place as she fulfills her role as environment critic for the NDP caucus and on behalf of our leader.

I also want to say how pleased I am to be back in this place after the election. It was a tough and hard-fought election. We all worked hard. I dare say that the candidates who ran against me ran good campaigns. It was a clean election and one that we all came out of feeling better about the politics and democracy in this country.

I am just happy that I was the one who came first past the post and that I am able to be here today to speak on behalf of my wonderful city of Sault Ste. Marie in the district of Algoma. It is a riding that is diverse in the ways people make a living and how they take care of each other as a community. It is very important. It is an industrial city with steel, paper and wood. To the east of the city, we have communities that are served by agriculture and farming, and to the north of the city we have the wonderful forestry which is in so much difficulty these days. It is an industry that we have taken advantage of, enjoy and love so much. Lake Superior is in our back yard.

I want to take a few minutes this morning to share a few thoughts that were indicated in the Speech from the Throne, however so briefly, when the government indicated that it understood that it was elected as part of a minority Parliament. I present my thoughts in the spirit of co-operation, which is what I have heard from the government members across the way as they have given their speeches in response to the Speech from the Throne.

In fact, I give my thoughts in the spirit of co-operation because the minister is here today. I will be the critic of that minister's department over the next however number of years that we get to be in this Parliament. When I approached her a couple of days ago to tell her that I would be her critic, she offered to work co-operatively with me and I thank her for that. I say very publicly this morning in this place that I offered to do the same in the interests of the people we all serve. My thoughts will reflect that in just a couple of minutes.

I think I would be remiss if I did not put on the record how disappointed I was with the vision presented in the Speech from the Throne and how disappointed collectively we as New Democrats were with that vision.

No bold picture has been painted as to where we might go as a country over the next couple of years, as we deal with this very difficult economic situation and global meltdown coming at us. We were disappointed with the stay-the-course, steady-as-she-goes, more tax breaks, less government approach to which the government seems so attached. We hope we can help it see some different approaches over the next while as we work together.

Personally, because my critic area is poverty and social policy, I was very disappointed that there was absolutely no mention of poverty in the Speech from the Throne. As everybody knows, in a difficult economy and even in good times, when government makes a shift in a direction that reduces services, reduces government and gives tax breaks to people who are more wealthy, the people who are hit hardest and first are the poor in our communities.

I say that in a spirit of hopefulness. Over the last few days, the Prime Minister has recognized that we might be heading into a recession. It is good that he is willing to say that very publicly, because he has not said that up until now. We hope, in recognizing we have a recession coming at us and the impact that will have particularly on those who are most risk and vulnerable, he will work with his treasurer, his Minister of Finance, and his Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to bring forward programs that will help those who need them most.

I present a few strategies that could be adopted if the government is serious about working co-operatively with us on this side of the House. I invite the government to work with all of us in opposition to fix a few things that could immediately affect the lives of a number of our fellow citizens, neighbours, family members who are losing their jobs as we speak this morning because of the downturn in the economy.

The government, the Prime Minister and his ministers need to poverty-proof our communities. We need to stabilize our communities. We need to move away from the notion that somehow more tax cuts is the answer to everything.

It is very easy because we have all studied it. We actually have studied it to death. The member from Nova Scotia who sits with me on the Standing Committee on Human Resources and Social Development will agree to this as well. We could do it today. We could move expeditiously to reform the employment insurance system, which, as we speak, only now serves to help less than 25% of those who lose their jobs. Hundreds of thousands of people who pay into employment insurance through their employment and work hard expect that fund will be there for them. However, when they apply for it, they find out that they do not qualify or if they do qualify, there is really very little there compared to what was there 10 or 15 years ago and what is there lasts such a short period of time. We need to move quickly. We are all committed to that on this side of the House. We invite the government to work with us to reform the EI system.

I believe the money is there. If we are to be going into deficit spending anyway, we need to be spending money in those areas. Government has a no more fundamental responsibility than to look after those citizens in its jurisdiction who are most at risk and vulnerable. We could move, if we wanted, to use the money we have at our disposal to put in place a more generous child tax credit so families with children do not have to make those very difficult decisions of whether to pay the rent, feed the kids or put fuel in their tanks to heat their homes.

I would ask the government to consider, again in keeping with the need to invest in infrastructure, a national housing program. When we talk to people who deal with poverty and look at poverty, the first thing they say is that we have a lack of affordable housing right now for people.

I hope I have put on the table a few simple things on which the government could work with us. We on this side of the House are committed to making these happen. If it does, it will reflect the co-operation, good spirit and seriousness needed to deal with this very difficult time coming at us. We need to do something significant about it.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague. We sat on the human resources committee and did some very important work there, including a study on poverty which we commenced in the spring. I know how committed he is to this issue.

A lot of places in the world have become serious about tackling poverty, not only in Canada. Even a province like Newfoundland and Labrador has produced testimonies of the significant work it has done. Recognizing poverty is a problem, putting down benchmarks and producing a plan that says we are going to do something about children and seniors living in poverty and the crushing problems of persons with disabilities who have so little assistance today is important.

I know the member has had the opportunity to travel to Ireland, whereas our parliamentary trip was unfortunately cancelled. I hope we get the chance to do that. If I am back on HR, I hope we have a chance to have a real look at some places that have already reduced poverty or have made a start on a good plan to reduce poverty.

Could the member talk about a couple of things that other countries have done and which he thinks Canada could easily adopt right now to help the crushing burden of poverty in our country?

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me first congratulate you, as the member for Victoria, for the wonderful appointment you have been given. You look very comfortable in that chair, and I think you will do a great job.

I thank the member for his kind remarks and offer him my congratulations. We do not have to reinvent the wheel where poverty is concerned. We can look at jurisdictions like Ireland, Britain and Scandinavia for all kinds of examples and ways that we could be effective in dealing with poverty. Even in our own country, some provinces have begun anti-poverty strategies. They are waiting for us as a national government to become a partner and participate.

I look forward to working with the member on committee to make some of these things happen.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech, and I agree for the most part with some principles. In times of economic crisis and recession, it is important to stimulate the economy and help our businesses. We need a more interventionist government. In terms of the manufacturing sector, we need to help our companies modernize and purchase new equipment so that they can produce more, but we must also provide social protection for people who lose their jobs, through employment insurance measures and social measures to support the workers suffering from the economic recession.

So, I agree with the hon. member, but I did not hear him talk about culture. In the throne speech, the government did not announce that it would rescind the cuts it has made to culture. These cuts greatly affected Quebec, because our francophone culture and our identity are much different from those of the rest of Canada. When the government makes cuts to culture, it is making cuts to our very identity, our language and our means of promoting Quebec throughout the world.

I would like to hear what the hon. member has to say about this, because we are calling on the federal government to transfer the money for culture. More and more, Quebec is calling for cultural sovereignty, because culture is still very important.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member on his re-election to this place. I did not speak about culture and I will not provide him with an answer this morning because it would take too long.

We want to talk about a lot of things over the next while in this place, and culture will be one of them. I am certain our member for Timmins—James Bay, who is our critic, will speak very eloquently and adequately to that when he gets an opportunity in the House.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg South Centre.

I am pleased to rise today to participate in this debate and stand before the House on behalf of the people of Nipissing--Timiskaming in response to the Speech from the Throne.

Before addressing the content of the speech itself, I will take this opportunity to thank the people of my riding for their continued support. My success in the recent election campaign would not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of hundreds of volunteers who assisted in my re-election bid and the thousands who turned out to vote for me on election day. I want to make it clear, however, that I am not simply here to represent those who voted for me but every constituent in my riding.

I take great pride in being the member of Parliament for Nipissing--Timiskaming and I will continue to work extremely hard to ensure that the needs of my constituents are being properly addressed by the current Conservative government.

This responsibility begins today, Madam Speaker, as I convey the views I have received from the people in my northern Ontario riding. They believe that this Speech from the Throne does not satisfactorily respond to a number of issues that are important to them.

And so, in a spirit of cooperation and with the hope of working together with my colleagues from other parties, I would like to touch on three key areas during my speech. I hope that the Conservative government will recognize the importance of these issues and will immediately treat them as top priorities.

The first and most pressing issue is Canada's ailing economy. In less than three years, the current Conservative government spent more money than it brought in. The Prime Minister made the decision to leave no buffer, no room to manoeuvre to help to protect our country's finances in the event of an economic downturn.

Canada is now in a vulnerable position, on the edge of recession. Canadians expect the government to present a plan to help our economy in these difficult times. This plan should protect Canadian jobs, houses, savings and retirement funds.

Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are trying to blame a global economic crisis for Canada's ailing economy. The truth is they must be held accountable for putting Canada on the brink of deficit. The current economic downturn did not start last month but nearly a year ago. We know that Canada had the worst performing economy in the G-8 for the first half of 2008.

Canadians recognize that it did not have to be this way. Canada could have been better prepared by maintaining its reserve fund and investing wisely in increased productivity and creating jobs.

What exactly happened to get us where we are today? In just two short years the Conservatives have squandered $12 billion in surplus that was left to them by the previous Liberal government. They also got rid of the $3 billion contingency reserve, their rainy day fund used for economic downturns which are here with us now. This is the money that could have helped Canadians in need by creating jobs, stimulating the economy, and addressing seniors' pensions without going into a deficit.

It is also worth noting that the Prime Minister currently heads the biggest spending federal government in Canadian history. It increased annual spending by $40 billion in just three budgets while at the same time generating less revenues than ever before, and called this good management.

Let us not forget that just a day after the finance minister signalled pending public service cuts the Prime Minister increased the bulk of his cabinet by 20%. Now this sends a contradictory message to Canadians who are told that they have to have leaner, tougher times.

Despite the increased size of the Prime Minister's newly minted cabinet, the three ministers responsible for regional economic development agencies, Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Western Economic Diversification have been reduced. They no longer have a minister. They now have a minister of state, which is a junior position. This is in the midst of an economic crisis where the regions of the country are most vulnerable.

Of even greater concern to the people of my riding is the fact that the agency for northern Ontario, FedNor has been downgraded and absorbed into the industry portfolio. This is in addition to the fact that the Conservatives have slashed FedNor's annual budget by nearly $7 million since taking office. This serves as a clear indication that the Prime Minister and his Conservative government eventually intend to scrap the program altogether.

The importance of regional economic development programs such as FedNor cannot be overstated. An example of economic development that should be examined is North Bay's Jack Garland Airport. It is currently one of 15 public airports in Canada that boasts a 10,000 foot runway. It is often used as an official alternative landing when flights cannot land in Toronto or Montreal or other larger airports. This ensures safety for passengers and pilots, and it is an economic engine for present and future growth to the city of North Bay and the surrounding areas.

Now the government wants to shorten the runway to 6,500 feet. It is worth noting that according to current estimates the cost of reducing the runway from 10,000 feet to 6,500 feet would be about the same amount. The financial change would be negligible but the real change would be a shorter runway that could not be used.

This is a file that has to be examined. I am confident that in the end common sense will prevail and North Bay will keep its 10,000 foot runway for both the safety of Canadians and the economic growth of northern Ontario.

That brings me to my next point: infrastructure. Canada is facing an infrastructure deficit of billions of dollars. We must invest at once in order to reduce this deficit, and we must partner with the provinces, territories, cities and communities. In these difficult economic times, we, the Liberals, understand that the government must allocate funds to the industries that increase our ability to compete and that also create decent, well-paying jobs for Canadians.

Ensuring that Canada has high quality sustainable infrastructure to meet the needs of Canadians is a critical part of managing our economy. It was in fact a Liberal government that launched the first infrastructure program that created the new deal for cities and communities, which provided a GST rebate to municipalities and transferred the equivalent of 5¢ of every gas tax to municipalities for investment in infrastructure. We recognize that provinces, territories and municipalities need long-term predictable funding to eliminate the infrastructure deficit that faces the country.

The government needs to provide better access to services that are essential to fight against poverty. We need programs such as affordable housing, universal child care and public transit. Unlike the Conservatives, whose ideology leaves no room for vulnerable Canadians, Liberals believe that when we invest in every Canadian, Canada succeeds, not only socially but economically.

Also of grave concern is that the Conservatives have given no indication that they will reverse the cuts that they have made to the arts programs. Currently, there are about 1.1 million jobs that flow from cultural industries. Conservative cuts continue to undermine that important part of the Canadian economy. What is worse is that the finance minister has publicly acknowledged that the cuts were nothing more than political decisions.

The people of Nipissing—Timiskaming, and indeed all Canadians, expect and deserve more when it comes to dealing with our current economic crisis.

My Liberal colleagues and I recognize that greater investment in infrastructure, regional economic development, and addressing the growing deficit in social spending are keys to stimulating Canada's failing economy.

Just before he came to Ottawa, the current finance minister left Ontarians with a $5 billion deficit. He made a mess of Ontario's books as finance minister and now he is looking to do the same thing for Canada. Canadians know that it does not have to be this way.

The Liberals are a party that conquered the $42 billion deficit created by the last Conservative government and we are the party that set the country on a track of unprecedented growth prior to the current government.

I look forward to working with colleagues on all sides of the House to ensure that investment in economic development, infrastructure and social programs are part of a comprehensive strategy to reverse the ongoing trend of Conservative fiscal mismanagement.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, congratulations on your appointment to the chair.

I was curious about the infrastructure comments that the member made, particularly for my region, the Windsor-Detroit corridor. A massive infrastructure project there is in the initial stages of getting under way.

There has been a site selection for a new border crossing. It is very important for our economy despite the troubles that we have right now. We do need to have a new bridge replacement and a new plaza. The city as well is pushing for a solution for the roadway system up to the actual new border crossing. It is a little bit controversial because the Ontario Liberal government will not move ahead with a proposal to make it a greener project and although it is an insignificant difference it just seems to be stuck on not doing it.

Given the importance of the corridor and the fact that 40% of Canada's trade goes along the corridor and adding another bridge is very essential, not only just to Ontario and Quebec but the rest of the country with our GDP so tightly wound around basically a private American operator that owns the current bridge, why did his party take the position of objecting to the project going ahead?

In fact, a former cabinet minister was one of the Liberal candidates in our region and did not want the project to go forward. Why would the Liberals not want to support that when it is going to create many jobs, it will green and improve the corridor efficiency, and provide a great opportunity to actually have economic development during this time?

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Madam Speaker, infrastructure is one of the areas that we have to promote and get going. Infrastructure is one of the areas where the more money we put into it, it will grow and stay in the country. What happens with some of the throw-away incentives from the Conservative Party is that people might get an extra $100 a month, but it often goes to products that are made abroad. So it helps retail a bit, which is important, but with infrastructure investment, there is money that gets built in and the money gets spent locally and is invested and reinvested. By the time it hits retail, it has actually expanded to more than the original investment.

Part of that infrastructure really does have to take place and help trade across the border. When we look at the United States, it is our greatest trading partner. In this particular case, we have to do everything to increase trade and facilitate that trade, so that there are no barriers between the two countries. Increasing trade and allowing trade to go smoother is definitely something that has to be considered and improved upon as part of the complete infrastructure program.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to welcome my colleague back to the House. I always enjoyed the brief times we had talking together and I know he fancies himself as an outdoorsman coming from rural Ontario.

The member talked about the surplus and how we squandered surpluses. We must remember that a surplus occurs in a government because of overtaxation. We have taken that money in surpluses and pounded it against the debt. We also made sure we gave back money to the taxpayers through a number of tax credits as well as tax reductions. That has benefited Canadians from one coast of this country to the other.

We also know that the fictitious contingency fund that members on the other side continue to talk about was only there to pay for Liberal pet projects which became a pet peeve of mine. That was one of the reasons I jumped into political life because Liberals were taking the funds and putting it into programs to help their friends.

In the throne speech we said we are finally going to get rid of the gun registry. It has been an ineffective program brought forward by the previous Liberal government. I know constituents right across rural Canada hate the gun registry. How is my hon. colleague going to vote when it comes time to vote on eliminating it?

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is a question which has come up many times. Why have the Conservatives not brought anything forward? It was one of the promises they made a long, long time ago. This was going to be their platform. They were going to eliminate the gun registry. Well, nothing came up, just like many other promises they made. They just did not bring it forward.

Based on what they bring forward that will determine which way I vote. To have a blank statement that says I am going to vote a certain way on a certain issue, any fool would say he or she is going to vote one way or another without seeing it. However, we have to read the detail and find out exactly what the Conservatives want to do. They have made some promises and brought out topics and bills that really do not make a lot of sense. Initially something might look good, but when it comes down to the vote we have to look at the details. I will look at whatever the Conservatives bring forward and I will vote accordingly.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you in the chair. Congratulations.

I am pleased to rise in the 40th Parliament of Canada on behalf of the citizens of the riding of Winnipeg South Centre, a vibrant and diverse riding in the heart of the continent, in order to respond to the Speech from the Throne.

Before doing so, I want to thank the people of my community for their endorsement of me for the fourth time in eight years and to say to them that it is with much gratitude and a deep sense of responsibility that I take my seat here once again. I want to extend a special thanks to the many volunteers who helped me keep my job and to fly the Liberal flag in Manitoba.

It is with a deep sense of responsibility that I am acutely aware that the actions taken by the Conservative government and the response, oversight and decisions by those assembled here will determine how many individuals will live their lives and will determine the opportunities they have or not.

As many people are aware, the Liberal Party has always stood for helping people in communities. As one senior citizen on Grant Avenue in Winnipeg said to me, “The Liberal Party has always been there for us and I will be there for the Liberals”. Creating opportunities through generating prosperity and sound fiscal and economic management are the underpinnings of the Liberal Party.

Against the backdrop of a collapsing world economy, it is incumbent upon the Conservative government to take firm action on the economy, present a plan, outline a vision for the future that will protect jobs, safeguard pensions, and support economic stability, and to do so in a forthright and consistent manner with a balanced message that addresses the realities of the day, not one designed for political gain.

Prior to October 14, the Prime Minister assured Canadians that he would never run a deficit. It was clear he had information at that time that indicated he would not be able to keep that promise without large funding cuts because of a weakened economy, a weakened economy in Canada made worse by the mismanagement of the Conservative government's finances.

When the Conservatives took office, they stripped the government of financial safety measures and went on an aimless spending spree. They spent irresponsibly and left Canada's economy vulnerable to the economic global downturn. In fact, to use an analogy, they were like a teenager who just got a hot rod, blew his or her money on a fancy paint job and a stereo, but took out the seat belts and the air bags.

Having inherited from the Liberals the strongest economy in all the G-8 countries, a $13 billion surplus and a $3 billion contingency reserve for emergencies, unprecedented job creation and no deficit, we are now on the brink of a recession, and the Conservative government's mismanagement is in part to blame.

As confirmed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the government has squandered Canada's fiscal stability and we have now acknowledged the “R” word, a recession. We are told it is only a technical recession. There is nothing technical about this recession. There is nothing technical about people who have lost or are about to lose their jobs. There is nothing technical for the thousands of Canadians who have already lost their jobs under the Conservative government. They are not technically unemployed, just as they are not technically suffering, or technically worrying about their children's education, or technically concerned about their pensions.

The Conservative government needs to get back to reality by being straight with Canadians and not play word games and insult their intelligence.

The throne speech and subsequent remarks by Conservatives in the House reference a prudent course, “essential programs and no more” and to “review all spending carefully and make sure it is aligned with Canadian priorities”. Who will determine Canadian priorities?

Canadians should be concerned about the Conservative promise to put federal spending under the microscope. They might use the microscope to look at the expenses, but programs cannot be hacked and slashed with a machete rather than a scalpel. Canadians need to be vigilant that Conservative cuts are not based on ideology, but truly on value for taxpayers.

In the last Parliament we saw unprecedented cuts to programs related to climate change, the court challenges program, literacy, the Kelowna accord, national child care, arts funding, and so on.

In my city of Winnipeg the Canadian Wheat Board has been under attack from undemocratic processes such as altering voter lists, using numbered ballots, stacking the Wheat Board with anti-single desk appointees, and opening up spending to third parties. In times of economic uncertainty, the government is willing to put at risk 480 direct jobs of the Canadian Wheat Board in Winnipeg and over 1,800 full time job equivalents sustained in Winnipeg by the Canadian Wheat Board expenditures. Many thousands more in Canada who also support Wheat Board activity are also at peril.

The port of Churchill will be endangered. The Canadian Wheat Board is responsible for over 90% of the traffic. The northern rail line in all likelihood will be shut down. Head offices in Manitoba are at risk of disappearing.

People in my community expect much more of their government. Manitoba is a relatively small community. There is a community of interests. The community is speaking with one voice in its efforts to establish an inland port, a transportation hub which is a priority of government and business. There is an expectation the Government of Canada will come forward as a full partner in this endeavour. Winnipeg has many natural advantages for this.

The government also speaks to advances in science and technology, but let the Manitoba Innovation Council be the model.

Funds have been committed and allocated by the government for the cleanup of Lake Winnipeg, but the dollars are slow to flow, and at best, it is a trickle. For two summers water samples have been collected and they sit in a cooler somewhere with no funds available to analyze them. When a commitment is made, the expectation is that it will be honoured.

The residents of Winnipeg South Centre have many other priorities, such as health care and access to health care professionals, as well as access to post-secondary education without incurring debt burdens that cripple young people's ability to go on in school.

The Speech from the Throne speaks about helping all Canadians participate. It also speaks to securing jobs for families and encouraging skilled apprenticeships. Many Canadians want to work. They want to retain jobs. They want to upgrade their skills. However, they cannot do this without the full knowledge that their children are safe and secure. For many the lack of national early learning and child care makes it impossible for them to go to school or get a job.

The residents of Winnipeg South Centre have great concern for those who are vulnerable, particularly children and the poor, and fear that they will be forgotten in the economic crisis in which we are living.

I note particularly the senior citizen who expressed concern that she and her husband feared who would die first, because the other would not be able to pay the rent on their existing apartment and where would that person go.

On the justice agenda, safe communities are a common objective of all. However, I note with interest that while speaking to the issue of controlling crime, there is no mention in the throne speech of other initiatives of great importance in Manitoba, such as controlling auto theft, nor is there anything to address the social determinants of criminal activity.

I wanted to speak about securities funding but, Madam Speaker, I note your indication that I have to wrap up.

I want to make a quick note about democratic reform and reforming the institutions of Parliament. There are small steps and gestures of good faith that the government could address before undertaking a major constitutional reform. These include participation by all candidates in debates in an election, non-conversion of the tools of the House for partisan purposes, and not taking members' words out of context in order to serve another's own purpose.

The residents of my community want straight talk from their leaders. They do not want to hear partial information. They do not want to hear spin for political purposes. The task at hand is great and they want cooperation, fair-mindedness and openness as we move forward.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre for her comments on the throne speech. Even though they seemed a little long, I still appreciate her comments.

One concern I do have is in regard to the Canadian Wheat Board. Of course farmers across the Prairies have voted in favour of changes to the Canadian Wheat Board. Does she not recognize that the biggest threat to the Canadian Wheat Board is to do nothing? The biggest threat to the board not surviving in Winnipeg would be for the board to exist in the same format in which it has existed over the years and not to modify it to meet the needs and wants of western producers. Would she not recognize the fact that producers have been very clear that they want change? They made it very clear not only in a plebiscite but in the election of members across the great western Prairies where the Wheat Board acts. Of course, if we look across the House, how many rural members does the Liberal Party have compared to the Conservative Party?

Does she not recognize the cost to farmers that this organization has borne over this last year? A report which came out last week mentioned the figure of $40 a tonne. On my farm, which is a small farm, $40 a tonne is $40,000. If we apply that across the Prairies, how much money has been left on the table by this organization?

My question is very broad, but regarding the comments she has made on the Canadian Wheat Board, has she focused on what is important to Canadian farmers or on what is important to her and her political background?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, of course I am concerned about farmers and I am concerned about the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. However, I am more concerned that farmers have a fair and open opportunity to speak to the issues. I am concerned that the processes not be thwarted. I am concerned that the farmers indeed have control, that their positions are not misrepresented in this House and outside this House.

If it is a fair and open process whereby the farmers determine the future of the Wheat Board, I have no difficulty with it. However, we all know that it was stacked. It was loaded. Secret meetings were held. Only some proponents were invited and others were excluded. We know how those who disagreed with the government's position involved with the Wheat Board have been ruthlessly treated.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member on her return to the House and on her speech today.

I would like to ask her about her party's philosophy on supporting the Conservatives' continued policy of large corporate tax cuts. Specifically, another point will be shaved off in January and the continuation of the policy will cost another $7 billion to $8 billion. Interestingly enough, the member referenced a number of different serious needs. Many economists have said quite conclusively that putting money into infrastructure and social spending is much more important at this point in time for a number of different reasons, but even for job creation alone.

I would like to ask the member why the Liberals continue to support that policy, especially given the fact that we are moving into a deficit. Canadians need to understand that we are going to have to borrow money to provide large corporate tax cuts. We are going to have to finance these corporate tax cuts out of our public revenues. That is an improper way to look at our economic development. Also, it is not fair to Canadians to see their taxpayer dollars used in such a way. If those dollars went back into infrastructure and social services, they would see job creation and supports in the communities.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member on his re-election.

I agree with his position that money must be spent on infrastructure. We must ensure that those who are most vulnerable in our community are not left behind, but I differ with his view on business tax cuts. In this time in which we are living, it is most important that businesses have the opportunity and wherewithal to create jobs and to ensure that their employees are retained, and one would hope, new ones hired. I am not sure what the member is proposing would work in that direction.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment as Acting Speaker, as well as our other colleagues who have been appointed to the Chair and, of course, the recent election of the Speaker.

Before I begin my reply to the Speech from the Throne, I want to thank everybody in my riding of Selkirk—Interlake for again putting their trust in me and returning me back to this fine House. It is a humbling experience to be the representative of such a fine group of people that we have in Selkirk—Interlake.

Of course, to do the job as a member of Parliament, we could not do it without the support of our families. I need to thank my wife, Kelly, and our three daughters, Cortney, Taylor and Cassidy, for their love and understanding through the time it takes to be a member of Parliament and carry out these great responsibilities in representing everyone in our ridings, not only those who vote for us but every person who resides in our ridings.

Getting elected is a tremendous undertaking and we could not do it without the support of volunteers. I need to thank my campaign team and the hundreds of volunteers who worked on my campaign to help get me re-elected.

Selkirk—Interlake is just a fantastic riding. I always say that I get to represent the best riding in all of Canada. I know everybody here thinks they represent the greatest riding in all of Canada but I can say that, aside from the fact that my rural riding is beautiful, I have the greatest people in all of Canada in my riding and that is what makes it the best riding in the nation.

My riding is a big riding with 91,000 people and 71 communities spread out over 56,000 kilometres. We have 10 first nation communities and 27 Métis locals. We have a real balance in European representation with Ukrainian and Icelandic descent, along with the original Selkirk settlers and the recent immigrants who have moved into our communities. It is a dynamic area that is always very exciting. Often, people do not realize that although it is a very large riding, a very agrarian riding with lots of ranching and farming, it also has the two great lakes of Manitoba, Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba. We have some tremendous fishing on those lakes, both commercial fishing and sport fishing.

The Speech from the Throne did focus in on the tough global economic crisis that we are facing. The news always focuses in on how it is impacting the auto sector, the financial sector and the housing market but we often forget about the importance of rural Canada. I do want to talk about how important that is.

While we have this watchful eye on the manufacturing and service industries, we need to think about our agriculture industry, our fishing industry and other resource-based industries. Rural Canada is very important to the overall economic stability of this great nation. In 2006, there were 327,000 farm operators working on about 189,000 farms across the country. That is only 1% of the national population but that 1% makes a huge impact on the economy of Canada.

On top of that, there are more than 52,000 people who are directly involved in commercial fishing in Atlantic Canada, on the Pacific coast and in the inland freshwater fishery.

In Selkirk—Interlake, there are 2,500 cattle ranches, over 2,000 mixed grain operations and 1,200 commercial fishers who are actively involved in the fishery on both Lake Manitoba and Lake Winnipeg.

The Canadian fishery was very productive in 2000. It generated over $4 billion in revenues for the country. It has been increasing at a rate of about 2.8%, which is significant growth. In terms of trade, the fishery exported over $3.9 billion of commodities in 2007. Canada is the seventh largest exporter of fish and seafood. The value of the catch of the commercial fishery out of Lake Winnipeg alone, and this is freshwater fish, is $18.2 million. It has a number of spinoffs because of its importance. The inland commercial fishery is something that is very near and dear to my heart as well as supporting that fishery.

We do have a small craft harbour program. The government, in the last session, increased the annual funding to the small craft harbour program to $20 million per year. Last year, we increased it another $10 million over the next two years to help deal with some of the small craft harbours that are in desperate need of repair and environmental cleanup.

In August of this year, I made a number of announcements for fishing harbours in my riding at Easterville, Arnes, Matheson Island and others to ensure that we deal with safety issues surrounding landing the catch and also ensuring that people have the facilities to get in and out without damaging their equipment.

We are also putting money into the Lake Winnipeg water stewardship fund. This is important because we must protect the overall viability of our lakes. Lake Winnipeg is not only a major source of the commercial fishery but it is also a major source of freshwater in our aquifers. It is a major recharge for most of Manitoba and it also supports a huge tourism industry. Some of the nicest beaches in Canada are located in my riding.

We have $18 million that has been put into the action plan for clean water just for Lake Winnipeg, to establish the Lake Winnipeg water stewardship fund. Out of that $18 million, a lot of that money is already starting to flow to help address the environmental issues that are surrounding the lake. We also established a $3.65 million fund to help community based organizations, industry organizations and municipalities to use those dollars to leverage against municipal dollars, provincial dollars and even other federal departments to look at reducing nutrient loading into Lake Winnipeg. This is for the entire basin, not just the inner lake. It is for Manitoba, Saskatchewan, parts of Ontario and Alberta that actually drain all the way into Lake Winnipeg. Over $1 million were set aside this year to deal with it.

The fund has five goals to reduce nutrient loading. First, we want to reduce the blue-green algae blooms. We want to ensure that there are fewer beach closings. We need to keep in place a sustainable fishery and provide a clean lake for all recreation and restore the ecological integrity of the lake.

As I mentioned earlier, agriculture is a key economic driver in the Canadian industry. Eight per cent of Canada's gross domestic product is generated from agriculture which is equivalent to $86 billion. In Canada, agriculture generates one out of every eight jobs, which means that agriculture employs directly and indirectly 2.1 million people. That is all generated by 327,000 farmers who generate 2.1 million in this economy. Agriculture and agri-food exports in 2007 was $31.7 billion representing 6.8% of total exports.

When we look at these spinoff benefits and job creation, we always have to ensure that we have strong agriculture policy. For every $1 of direct GDP created in primary agriculture, an additional $1.08 of GDP is indirectly created. For every job created in agriculture another, .91 indirect jobs are crated in the overall economy. We are talking truckers, people working in retail stores selling groceries and working in the food distribution system. For every $1 that we create in the GDP in the food processing industry, which is huge when we take a look at our packers and food processors, an additional $1.81 is created indirectly in the economy. Similarly, with food processing for every direct job created in the food processing it creates another 2.5 jobs in the economy.

Agriculture is a significant driver and one that we cannot ignore, which is why this government has revamped our entire agriculture policy programs with Growing Forward.

AgriInvest is a self-directed investment tool for farmers. It generates to help offset the top 15% of farm revenue. We provided over $400 million to kickstart those funds.

AgriStability will continue to work with producers and promises to address the need of dealing with these short-term ebbs and flows in the marketplace and the cost of inputs. There will always be a need to change and revamp the program but we have made significant improvements to the old CAIS program and most farmers are thankful for that.

We have AgriInsure, which is the old crop insurance program. We are looking at ways to improve crop insurance to make it more consistent across the country but also to deal with the challenges of trying to include the livestock industry under that.

We have the great new program AgriRecovery to help offset disasters, things that are completely unpredicted and things that we cannot manage through any type of program except through some sort of ad hoc relief and working with the provinces to develop programs that address those needs.

There will always be a need for improvement but I believe the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is well aware of what programs will be best to deal with each individual disaster as they occur across this wide country.

In the last election, Conservative Party's platform talked about making even more improvements to agriculture policy. One improvement is setting up over $500 million over the next four years to deal with agriculture flexibility programs. I know some producers in certain areas of the country will say that is for certain risk management programs they might have within their own provinces. However, I personally see these dollars not tilting the playing field from one province to the next, but actually reaching out to help those commodities that are falling through the cracks, that are not best served because of long-term market conditions and have not been well served by current programs. It will reach out to things like livestock and horticulture that need a few more dollars to get along.

We also announced that we will provide $50 million to increase processing and slaughter capacity in this country. That is especially important for areas where we do not see significant slaughter capabilities. If we look at packers in Manitoba, B.C. and Atlantic Canada, there is nobody to help support our livestock producers, especially under the current market conditions south of us. We need to have local packers and processors.

We promised in the last election to cut the federal excise tax on diesel fuel in half, which will generate $47 million in savings just for farmers, and that is significant. I would like to take a little credit for it because in the 38th and 39th Parliaments I had a private member's bill in the House to eliminate the federal excise tax on any diesel fuel that is used in farming or in the commercial fishery. Two cents is a great improvement and it extends to everybody in Canada. I know my trucking friends are very happy with that promise.

We also pledged to continue to work toward providing marketing choice to grain farmers across western Canada, which includes through the Canadian Wheat Board. We will continue to support and strengthen supply management in this country and carry its message strongly and clearly to any international discussions we have at the World Trade Organization.

Despite all this government support, the sad fact remains that not only are the taxpayers of Canada providing support and subsidies to farmers but farmers are subsidizing the cost of food. If we look at the stats that I got from Statistics Canada, it shows that for small farms earning under $100,000 of revenue, 90% of farm income is derived from off-farm sources. When we look at large farms, 55% of their income is derived from off-farm sources. If we look at very large farms, and I am talking of farms with sales of over $.5 million of gross farm revenue, even in those situations 35% of their revenue is generated from off-farm income.

Despite the support that is coming from the Government of Canada, to maintain a viable position somebody in the farm operation, and often it is both operators, must leave the farm and take jobs in town or generate some sort of other farm income through an in-home type businesses. Farmers are very entrepreneurial and resilient and they will look at whatever it takes to ensure they maintain their operations and land base.

Yes, farmers may be asset rich but they are always cash poor. We know that the biggest challenge for farmers these days is not just managing the marketplace, animal health or trade issues. It is being cashflow managers. With the tightening credit crunch that we are seeing across this country and around the world, farmers will be in even more need for access to equity and dollars to ensure their farms continue to operate on a day-to-day basis.

In the last Parliament, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food made significant movements and improvements to labelling in this country, especially when it comes to the issue of products of Canada. In the last session, I was pleased to chair the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and we did a lot of great work as well in looking at some of the shortfalls in product of Canada labelling.

Now we know that when people go into stores to buy a can of beans or processed food like pizza that says “product of Canada” on the label, it means that over 98% of the ingredients in that can or package is really from Canada. It is not just made in Canada, it is grown in Canada. Consumers can take a lot of refuge knowing that they are getting high quality and safe food because it is from right here in Canada.

We also know that in the instance where we process food here that is imported from other countries, they can still make use of the made in Canada label, which is important. We still want to create those jobs here and recognize that this food was processed under our inspection regulations and our environmental and labour standards. We know it has created jobs and opportunities in our country. We have to recognize that.

We have also moved forward with biofuels, which is very important not only in helping the environment but also in helping our farmers, improving the market opportunity for our agriculture producers for selling some of their lower value grain stuffs, now also with cellulosic ethanol, being able to move some of our byproducts and biodiesel using some animal waste. That really creates extra revenue flows in farm operations and it is something that we will continue to support.

I am disappointed that not all parties in the House support biofuels under the guise of the argument that it increases food prices. As a farmer, I will not stand here and advocate for cheap food policy. I want to ensure farmers can generate the revenues out of the marketplace so they do not have to get off-farm income nor rely on government subsidies to maintain their operations.

That is why we have to continue to concentrate on trade expansion, ensuring that we have access to markets especially in these uncertain times with the World Trade Organization and not knowing whether we are ever going to get a final deal. Canada will go out and aggressively search out new markets to open the door for our agriculture producers and the entire Canadian economy for greater opportunity to market in higher valued markets around the world.

As the Minister of Trade and Minister of Agriculture have said, we will pursue the European common market. We will also pursue countries in Asia and ensure that we have as many doors open to us as possible.

One of the challenges we have right now is the country of origin labelling from the United States. There is no question that COOL is a program that is in violation of both NAFTA and WTO. It is creating a great deal of uncertainty in the marketplace here, but more important, it is already driving down the market price. We are seeing cattle and hog prices plummet. We are seeing opportunities to sell in certain areas of the United States diminishing. We have to ensure that we take aggressive action against the United States on this very protectionist policy.

The Minister of Agriculture has already stated publicly that we will take trade action to ensure that the NAFTA rules are respected as it comes down to marketing product in the United States. When it is processed in the United States, it is a product of the United States. We also know it is in violation of WTO under the whole country of origin rules.

I want to go back to the importance of our rural economy, our rural communities and our small towns in our ridings that so many of us represent. The percentage of people living in rural Canada continues to decline. In 2001, 20.3% of all Canadians lived in rural areas. That is only 6.1 million people. In contrast, 80% of Canadians now live in large urban centres.

These small communities are supported by agriculture, the fisheries, forestry, the energy industry and the mining industry. We have to ensure we continue to support those communities.

There has been a lot of rhetoric floating around House about our cuts to corporate Canada. We have to remember that 98% of Canadian corporations are small and medium-sized businesses. These are the businesses are on our main streets. These are the cafés, the grocery stores, the pharmacies that are up and down our main streets, supporting our people who live in rural areas. They employ over 5 million people, just in small businesses. When we add in self-employed and the medium-sized businesses, two-thirds of Canadians are employed by small and medium-sized businesses. In 2007, 100,000 jobs were created by small business, accounting for over 40% of all jobs created in Canada. Despite all the rhetoric about cutting taxes, those tax cuts benefit our local communities.

I look forward to this time in the House. It is always great to be back here. I am proud of the work we have done as a government in bringing forward the issues of rural Canada. In developing policies in the 40th Parliament, we need to ensure that we do not forget rural Canadians, our farmers, our fishers and everybody who lives in the rural areas.

I looking to improve decorum in the House, maintain a mutual respect and a higher level of debate.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, allow me to congratulate you on your appointment. I am very pleased to see a female at the chair once again. I would also like to congratulate the member for Selkirk—Interlake on his third election victory.

In the member’s closing statement, he talked about remembering members in rural communities. I agree with him, but I want to remind him and members absent from the House at that time, it was a city member, the former Liberal Member of Parliament for Toronto—Danforth, Dennis Mills, who made Canada aware of the family farm. It took a member from the city of Toronto to bring attention to the importance of our farming communities.

I agree with the member that we need these products and that there is an importance we should attach to the farming communities. However, a vast number of the population lives in cities like Toronto, Montreal, et cetera. We consume so much of what they produce. Our cities today are hurting. Under the Prime Minister and the previous administration, now my city of Toronto and my former city of Scarborough, now part of the Greater Toronto Area, are hurting because infrastructure money is not coming in, jobs are in jeopardy and the list goes on.

I am glad he touched upon the labelling. Bill C-52 needs to be addressed in the way we heard during the election. I agree that we should have a strong agricultural policy, for which Canada is noted. If that is the case, will he then take it to his government and stress the importance of also supporting the cities with the funding they need?

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

Madam Speaker, I suppose it is all a matter of perception. From where I sit, we see all the support going into the big cities and we do not see enough coming our way. When we look at the infrastructure being invested, especially into the major urban centres, we see a lot more dollars being spent than what we are seeing spent in rural Canada.

There has always been this argument. Do we look at funding from the standpoint of a per capita basis, or do we look at it from the standpoint of need? Need is very subjective in the eyes of the beholder, but by basing it on per capita all the dollars are going to flow into urban centres where 80% of Canadians live. I made that fact known today.

We have to address the issue of ensuring that the economy functions overall and that Canadians are getting the services they need. This is one of the reasons I jumped into political life. I am a cattle farmer. That is what I do for a living. I ran a small business in livestock export as well. I moved cattle around North and South America to our various clients.

The real issue is that rural Canadians are not second-class citizens. We have to ensure we have the same level of service from financial sectors, infrastructure and service from government that is available to people in urban centres. The member has to remember that when we have to drive to our post office, it is a 20 or 25 mile drive in some situations, whereas everybody in an urban riding may go down to the end of the block or, even better, have their mail delivered to their door.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your new responsibilities, and I wish you the best.

I also thank my colleague for his passion for rural Canada and for his hard work as chair of our committee during the past session.

How we maintain sustainability in rural communities is important for many of us who represent these areas.

With respect to agriculture, I remember a year or so ago our committee had many recommendations on food security. One of them was about championing local initiatives and about maybe having a federal procurement policy to buy locally for federal institutions and prisons. This recommendation was supported by all members of all parties on committee. Yet when we took this suggestion to the government and the department, we were told we had to be careful of trade obligations.

How can we advance the role of local food initiatives and local food supply and support local farmers when we have this cloud of trade obligations? How can we move ahead and ensure that we have access to good quality food?

I met this morning with a representative of the Island Farmers Alliance from Vancouver Island. He pointed out that there were obstacles to all the local food initiatives, one of them being the meat inspection regulations in British Columbia, which prohibit a farmer from selling from his or her farm gate to someone else. Even in my area in the Slocan Valley a lot of farms have been shut down because of that.

How can we on the one hand ensure we have good quality food at the multinational level or the corporate levels and not get any more unfortunate incidents? At the same time, can we have flexibility for our producers at the local level to contain this thriving agricultural industry that supplies good quality food to people in the immediate area?

Could I get some comments from my hon. colleague? Maybe he is aware of some initiatives undertaken in his province. British Columbia is having a really hard time with these new regulations, which are standard. They do not seem to take into account local initiatives and certainly do not support local farmers.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to welcome back my friend from British Columbia Southern Interior. I have always appreciated his hard work and honesty and his passion on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. We do not always agree, but we share the same focus, which is to ensure that the lives of our farmers are better and improved because of the polices we develop.

There is no question that buying local is becoming more trendy. I encourage consumers to seek out local food and buy local products from their farmers' markets or direct from the farm gate.

There is no doubt that farmers in rural areas in Canada may not have the same advantages as certain farmers who are located close to large urban centres like Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal.

Farmers in my riding are largely ranchers and do not grow fresh vegetables or fruit because they cannot in central Manitoba. They still have to depend upon export markets.

The trade issue is important. With respect to our grains, our oilseeds, our livestock and red meats, half of what we produce is exported, so those farmers have to keep a wary eye. They have to keep a balance between wanting to sell local but also wanting to have access to export markets.

That is why I will continue to advocate for more open doors on the international scene so our farmers can sell to these more lucrative markets, especially Europe and Asia, and not have all their eggs in one basket, as they have in the past number of years.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke very eloquently about rural Canada. I thank him for his support of the cattle ranchers in my riding. The House may not know that the Prairies actually begin in the west end of my riding. The member's love of rural Canada is clear.

I am sure the hon. member knows the importance of a national broadcaster for rural and remote parts of Canada. Will the hon. member ensure that his government will not reduce funding for the CBC, yes or no?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to welcome the member to the House. The member should know that my sister, who may not appreciate this, actually works for CBC as a broadcaster. The government has increased funding to the CBC. People in my riding enjoy CBC radio and CBC television. I do not see any reason to be concerned about the future of that organization.