Debates of Nov. 25th, 2008

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that some of these issues have been addressed in some amount of detail in previous throne speeches. What we are talking about is the throne speech that is in front of us today which lays out five important pillars and some areas that are significant not only for my home province of Ontario, but for the province of Quebec as well.

The Prime Minister has said very clearly that we are prepared to take a number of incredibly important steps. One of the specifics we have talked about is the additional funding for the aerospace industry. I know that is an important industry not only in my province of Ontario, Manitoba and others, but also in Quebec.

The goal of the Prime Minister has been very clear. We want to see working families back at work. We may not always agree on every single item, but I think we are going to have some very productive discussions about the steps moving forward. Those will come in the debates following the throne speech. I ask my colleague opposite to look at the broad parameters that have been laid out and agree with the government on the general direction.

We want to reform the global financing system. We want to ensure sound budgeting while we address a global economic crisis. We are going to work hard to secure jobs for families and communities. We are going to make our government more effective. Rather than batten down the hatches of protectionism, we instead will burst open further markets for our goods so that we are not overly reliant on one market to the south of us.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your reappointment.

I listened to the discussion by the member for Essex with regard to the auto industry. It is a very trying time for that industry right now. Having worked in the Pillette Road plant as well as plant 3 where minivans are made to this day, I can say that a lot of people are anxious about their jobs. Men and women who have good skilled trades are really concerned.

One of the things we have not discussed is trade agreements. Market share is disappearing for the traditional three because of imports coming into Canada. We have the most open automotive market in the world. We have not seen any leadership by the government on trade issues.

One thing in the Speech from the Throne is more discussion about trade with Asian countries. My specific question for the member for Essex is, which countries is the government looking at expanding trade with in terms of Asia? Is it back to South Korea? Hundreds of thousands of vehicles are shipped into Canada from South Korea and we do not ship any automobiles there, just farm equipment, and that is probably going to dissipate as well because we recently lost our only farming equipment manufacturer in Welland.

We are going to see a greater imbalance, as well as potential trade coming in from China. Will it have open access to our markets here without our having reciprocal access there? It is important to note that, because as we look at the troubles in the industry, we know that we have to regain market share and there needs to be a better balance.

I would ask the member for Essex to describe what is meant in the Speech from the Throne in terms of more free trade with regard to Asia. What are the countries and why can it not be fair trade? Why would the government not move to fair trade instead of free trade? That would be a better balance.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my neighbour and colleague on his re-election.

I appreciate the question, but I just want to be clear for the record. I think the member said that the throne speech refers to more free trade agreements. I am going to quote page 8 of the throne speech where it says, “New trade agreements will be pursued in Asia and the Americas”. It did not specifically say what type of agreements.

To understand the philosophy of this government, there are two important things. I have heard the Prime Minister speak about two very important things with respect to the auto industry. The first is that we need to find ways to help the industry be more competitive against the rest of the world. We started with our auto action plan in that regard. The auto action plan proposes a number of initiatives, including helping the industry retool to produce products that are extremely competitive not only in North America but also globally.

The second thing I have heard the Prime Minister say is very important is that deals are not going to be signed that are not going to guarantee us some access. We bring the issue of South Korean negotiations into this one because this is an important question. Everybody says, “These guys have a signed agreement and it is going to sell the industry out”. The Prime Minister has been clear. First, we have no agreement in principle and the precise reason is that in the negotiations we do not yet have guarantees that we are going to get into their market. We have to have proven demonstrable access to their market before we will conclude agreements. That is the wise position to take. We have not been in a rush to conclude something that is necessarily going to expose our industries to further disadvantage. We want access to markets.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing this time with the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

It is a great honour for me to rise and speak today as the new member for Westmount—Ville-Marie. May I take the opportunity to thank the residents of my riding for electing me and to reaffirm my commitment to them and to all Canadians. I am sure everyone will understand how pleased I am to be here today in this august chamber seated with my Liberal colleagues. Particularly pleased, I must admit, because getting here has taken some time. That should, however, be proof of my sincere desire to make a positive contribution to governing this country.

This is far from the first time anyone has said this but it bears repeating: representing one's fellow citizens in the House of Commons is a great privilege and a most solemn commitment. I therefore promise to be both constructive and productive during the mandate accorded to me. I would also like to say how proud I am to be my party's spokesperson for science and technology. This is, as everyone will agree, a file of extreme importance for this country's future.

As a new member of Parliament, I listened intently to the throne speech last week, hoping to be inspired and to detect a sense of vision emanating from the government. Unfortunately, I was disappointed. There was nothing that grabbed my attention or excited my imagination. More worrisome, I did not leave the Senate chamber with the sense that the government understood what it needed to do in the face of the current economic downturn. In essence, it confirmed my suspicion that the government's cupboard of ideas is bare.

Handling an economic downturn is the most challenging task that any government can face. It has happened to my own party, just as it is now happening to the Conservative government. Experience tells us that to handle it well, we first have to recognize that it is happening. On that score, the government has clearly failed the first test.

I need not remind members of the government's rosy pronouncements over the past year as the global economic situation deteriorated. Even during the recent election, it was somewhat surreal to hear the Prime Minister speak as though the economy were running smoothly on all cylinders. I am assuming he thought that was the case, which is even more worrisome.

The second requirement to minimize the effect of an economic downturn is to craft one's fiscal policy to include the necessary buffers that would help one weather difficult times; they always happen at some point. Anticipating change is one of the responsibilities of a government. That of course requires that the government formulate its policies wisely, always keeping an eye on the future.

Lowering the GST by 2% was not good fiscal policy and I am sure the government regrets that decision today. Spending like there was no tomorrow over the past two and a half years was also not good fiscal policy. Eliminating the $3 billion contingency reserve was even more reckless policy.

Today we find ourselves in a highly precarious situation and one that could have been mitigated in part by a government with more concern for our country's interests and less simple ambition to get re-elected. What can be done now? I am as anxious as everybody else to see what this government will offer us in the short term to minimize the job losses in the sectors concerned and to reassure seniors who are anxiously watching their pensions and their savings melt away like snow on a sunny day. There is no question about it: this government must take action promptly.

A long term policy is equally essential and this will be the focus of my remarks, particularly regarding the science and technology sector.

When the Liberal government began the process of eliminating the deficit in the mid-1990s, it also demonstrated its serious intent to strengthen Canada's scientific capacity. It implemented important programs such as the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Canada research chairs, Genome Canada and the program to fund the indirect costs of research. It demonstrated a long-term vision that was praised by all the universities and research hospitals in the country.

It also created scholarship programs and grants to encourage greater post-secondary enrolment in our learning institutions.

Finally, it proposed a national child care and early learning program that clearly recognized how critical early learning was to future development.

These were far-sighted programs. These were programs that demonstrated true leadership and a vision focused on a knowledge-based economy. These were programs focused on increasing Canada's research capacity so that ultimately we could mitigate the effects of both globalization or of a downturn in commodity prices, an area where Canada is particularly vulnerable. The result is that Canada is now a leader in university research among the G-7.

Canada also needs to improve its capacity to innovate. Some of the basic incentives to achieve this were put in place by previous Liberal governments. I am glad to say the current government has had the wisdom to build upon some of them. However, there is more to do and Canadians are looking to the government to address the fact that relative to our competitors we are slipping on the important performance indicators of innovation and productivity.

What is the government proposing?

For example, the government promises us a $200 million increase over four years for the Strategic Aerospace and Defence Initiative . But is this really a serious investment? For comparison's sake, let us remember that this government has just spent close to $300 million in seven weeks for a general election that could very easily have waited another year.

As far as transportation is concerned, just what exactly are we going to do to encourage the development of new, greener and more economical technologies in this sector, whether automobiles or other forms of transportation including public transit?

As far as the forestry sector is concerned, what is this government's strategy to mitigate the downturn in this sector? Hon. members will recall that the Liberal Party of Canada had proposed an ambitious strategy for this vital sector at the time of the 2006 election, a strategy involving modernization of the industry and the development of secondary, value-added forestry product processing industries. What is this government proposing?

Canadians are waiting for answers and for action. Canada would like to see a vision and some leadership from this government.

Last week I had the opportunity to ask my first question in the House of Commons. That question was addressed to the Minister of State (Science and Technology) and it asked why the government had eliminated the position of national science advisor created by the previous Liberal government. I regret to say that the answer I received was extremely disappointing. The hon. member for Cambridge simply argued that a national science advisor position was no longer required now that a minister of state position had been created.

I am very happy that we now have the Minister of State (Science and Technology), but we should also have a national science adviser. Having worked with the national science advisor, Dr. Arthur Carty, and with many other Canadian science leaders when I was President of the Canadian Space Agency, I recognized very clearly the value of such an adviser in providing unvarnished advice to our leaders on our national science priorities. The United States and Great Britain have for years recognized the value of such a position and so I have to question why the government does not feel the same way. A good idea is a good idea no matter from where it comes.

Canada faces formidable challenges. At the risk of stating the obvious, bold thinking and a long-term strategy are required for science and technology as opposed to timid responses that do nothing more than tinker with the status quo. Yes, indeed, to borrow from the throne speech, we all need to skate to where the puck will be. I sincerely hope that the government knows where the puck is going.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me also congratulate the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie on his election. He was right. This was his second or third try, and we finally have him where he belongs.

I recall when I was parliamentary secretary to the minister of industry, John Manley, the member came before a committee as the president of the Canadian Space Agency. He talked so eloquently about the investments that the Liberals were making and how we were moving forward.

I read and read the most recent throne speech and did not really find anything. Maybe I was missing something. I want to throw the ball back in his court. Did he read or hear anything specific that the government would be prepared to invest in so we could create the jobs of the future and attract and retain the best and the brightest whom we need to be competitive as a country?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, alas, I did not hear anything within the throne speech that addressed the issue raised by the member. That is why I, along with my fellow Liberal colleagues, am earnestly hoping that perhaps in this Thursday’s economic statement, and certainly well before having to wait until next February, that we will hear something more concrete from the current government that will give us hope the jobs and investments will flow from the throne speech.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his election to the House and on making his first speech. Earlier this week, I quoted from an article in the London Telegraph published during the July G-8 meetings. It lamented the leadership in the G-8, but made a special exception for our Prime Minister. It stated:

Of all the leaders, only [the Prime Minister]...is able to point to a popular and successful record in office. Some will regard it as alarming that, in current times, world leadership should rest with Canada. But the Canadian Tories are a model of how to behave during a downturn. They have kept spending in check and reduced taxes.

If the rest of the world had comported itself with similar modesty and prudence, we might not be in this mess.

The hon. member referred to the 2% GST cut. Would the member acknowledge that the injection of $14 billion into the economy, through the 2% GST cut, may be part of the reason the Canadian economy is now the envy of most of the industrialized world?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest, to get back to the article in the Telegraph, that the Prime Minister was given a $13 billion surplus two and a half years ago. He was given a very healthy economy. In the past two and a half years we know what has happened. The real test of the Prime Minister and of the government lies ahead of us in the time to come. That is when we will have a true measure of how well the government has performed.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on his election to the House of Commons.

I am very pleased to be here representing the great riding of Sudbury, and many know that Sudbury is the mining capital of Canada. This mining capital has been creating much wealth for our country. This wealth will only be enhanced with investments in research and technology.

As critic for science and technology, does the hon. member see the importance of more research in mining and the importance of the federal government funding the Centre for Excellence in Mining Innovation in Sudbury?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, having been up to Sudbury on a number of occasions in which there is the world famous SNO facility, the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, where world-class research is being done in the area of neutrinos, I realize the importance of that area. Having had the pleasure of going up to Science North on a number of occasions and speaking to young people there, I realize how important science and technology, particularly mining technology, is to that area, which is traditionally known for its mining economy.

In a general way, I believe in the importance of research and development, whether it is in a sector such as the space sector, in which I have been associated, or in an area that has been extremely important for Canada, the area of mining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment and I look forward to seeing much more of you in the House for many years to come.

It is a great privilege to rise in the House once again to represent the wonderful people of my riding. I thank them so very much for giving me this opportunity. It is indeed an honour.

I take this opportunity to thank the people of Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor for placing their confidence in me once again and for giving me the privilege of representing them in this great institution, the House of Commons. This is not something that I have achieved on my own. Many volunteers and supporters have worked long hours on my behalf to ensure that I return to this place where I stand today. I thank all of them from the bottom of my heart.

I take the responsibility of representing the riding and I join in this debate today to put forward my views on how I feel about this throne speech, about the direction of the government and how it affects the people whom I represent, particularly of Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor and most notably for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

A number of issues affect my constituents and they have not been addressed by the government in the past. I have heard the throne speech and I stand in reply to say that, hopefully, some of the large bromides that have been put out in this speech will be addressed, although I will reserve judgment until that very point.

These are some of the issues that I consider to be very essential for our riding, certainly essential for Newfoundland and Labrador, and indeed essential for the people of our country.

The forest industry is in dire need of government help and I see nothing from the government that would suggest that this will change, at least in the throne speech. I see some general comments about how it wants to get involved more. It says that it wants to help improve the situation of the forest workers across the country, yet we do not see the concrete action. I would assume that at this point it would be a little more activist than what it has been in the past.

I know the Conservatives are going to talk about their community trust fund, but I will address more or less what it lacks a bit later. It certainly lacks in its power to help address the situation across the country for each and every person involved, all stakeholders in the forest industry.

The fishing industry is in need of restructuring, which can only happen with help from the federal government. Only a few years ago we had a summit take place in St. John's, Newfoundland. Attending it were representatives from the federal and provincial governments. It was a good summit and many of the things that came out of it have started to come to fruition, but nonetheless, still a lot of things need to be addressed. One of the issues I want to talk about restoring some dignity back into the fishery by way of licence buyouts and early retirement.

The pulp and paper industry, as I discussed earlier, is a major issue for one particular town in my riding, Grand Falls--Windsor, which is now teetering on a big decision that we hope will work out in favour of the community and for the province in general. However, it looks like the company, particularly AbitibiBowater, will make a decision by year's end that could have a great impact on my riding. Hopefully it will not be detrimental.

I have not talked about the small craft harbours program at all, and I say that in jest. We have talked about it a lot. In fact, in the last session, it was said that the deficit for the small craft harbours program, in other words, the money needed for all the harbour and wharf facilities across the country, remained at just less than half a billion dollars. Therefore, we have a long way to go.

In the last election we committed an extra $100 million in addition to what had already been allocated in the past little while. We put in an extra $100 million several years ago, which the Conservative government has renewed indefinitely. I hope it will continue that. I press upon the government the importance of this program, not because it is a fish issue but because it is an infrastructure issue. If infrastructure is what we are talking about, particularly roads, highways, sewer treatment plants and the like, we have to be talking about small craft harbours as well, as they are very important part of the country.

The former deputy minister of fisheries and oceans, when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, said, “The program needs $35 million per year in order to maintain the current infrastructure”, which gives us an idea of the situation in which we are now. There is an infrastructure deficit for the people who go out on the ocean.

I want to return to forestry and talk about profitability. Profitability is based on production costs. Many of our mills in Canada, including, as I mentioned, the one in Grand Falls-Windsor, are in need of major capital investment.

We have the resources, and there are two main resources we are proud of. One is the human resource, the people who work in the mill. We also have a power resource, hydroelectricity, that provides the great benefit of one of the lowest cost structures for power in the country to this particular mill. Certainly it has been a major factor and a major asset.

Although the company states that as owners of the mill they are certainly owners of this particular structure, they must realize that the power harnessed on the river belongs to the people who live in that particular community. That fact must be taken into account in this particular situation.

I want to again address another Conservative government solution, the community development trust, as it was called, of $1 billion. Here is the problem with the community development trust.

In many respects, it is positive for some of the people who have benefited. However, to put this into context, what was needed at the time was a particular program for the forest industry, not just particular programs to get people over to other jobs. Indeed there are programs for transitioning someone from working in one particular job to working in another, but what about targeted incentives, subsidies, for companies to invest in the industry? The community trust fund does not properly address that aspect.

We had a billion dollar fund that was going to do just that.

I appreciate the fact that they want to put a billion dollars into transitioning people from work and want to make other investments of that type, but the problem is that the onus is now not on failing communities, but failed communities. It is almost to the point at which they will thank you for this little investment, but tell you you're just a little bit too late. My colleague, the member for Random—Burin—St. George's, can attest to that. Talk to the people in Stephenville. They will tell you it was just a bit too late.

Let me talk about another issue. In ridings neighbouring my own, a long-standing issue that has not been addressed by the government is that many hundreds of fishermen were unfairly charged taxes by the government when they sold their licences in 1999 and 2000.

I say “unfairly” because they were given wrong advice, in writing, by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans with respect to their income tax return for that particular year. Not only that, the government also settled out of court with some of the people who complained.

How about the other people, the people who were quiet, the people who did not know about this wrong advice they were given? They were left out in the cold. As a result, they paid thousands of dollars in unnecessary income tax. Before the mistake was realized and an appeal launched, time had elapsed. They were told, “We are sorry, but at this point there is nothing we can do”. This issue has to be addressed.

I also want to give homage or congratulations to one individual, Elizabeth Harvey, who lives on the south coast of our province in the beautiful riding of Random—Burin—St. George's, as my colleague can confirm. She has spent many hours on this issue and she should be addressed. The government should give her some straight answers.

I can honestly say what a proud moment it is for my province of Newfoundland and Labrador to now be a have province. This is the day when have not will be no more, as the expression goes. We are certainly proud of that distinction, but it came with a lot of hard work.

We are not just rich in oil and gas, we are rich in the young people we have in this province. They will make our province one of the jewels of the north Atlantic, the economic beacon of the north Atlantic. That is what it is today and that is what it will become, and it will flourish.

Before I say anything else about the fishery, let me just say that it has not collapsed. Rumours of its demise are simply just that. They are completely unfounded. The fishing industry contributes over $1 billion to the Canadian economy. We must keep that in mind. In Newfoundland and Labrador it is certainly still a viable industry.

In response to this throne speech, I want to say that a lot of this has to be addressed in the coming months.

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

Mr. Speaker, I greatly enjoyed the hon. member's fine speech. While it is clear that he is voting against the throne speech, much of what he discussed, particularly in relation to forestry, is of great interest to me and to the people of my riding.

It is clear, however, from the throne speech that the government intends to reduce services in this country to bare bones.

In northern Ontario we depend on a strong CBC for information delivered in a timely, relevant and fair manner. We depend on regional programming that connects us to the rest of Canada, in particular our first nations. It also allows us in Thunder Bay—Rainy River in northern Ontario to tell the rest of Canada our story.

I know the hon. member knows the value of the CBC, particularly in remote and rural areas of Canada. My question for the hon. member has two parts. Will the hon. member defend the CBC against these attacks by the government, and will the member support annual consistent funding for the CBC?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member asked that question. I did not get to it in my speech, but I thank my hon. colleague from northern Ontario for his question. Here is the reason.

When I sat on the heritage committee several years ago, we had Mr. Rabinovich before the committee. One of the things the CBC did, something that I thought was detrimental to regional areas, was cut the dinner-hour newscast from one hour to half an hour. It was detrimental in some markets, but the problem was that it was one decision for all regions across the country.

I absolutely agree with the member in that particular respect. Not only is it a reflection of one particular region that has to hear from itself, but the CBC also allows someone like me or someone in northern Ontario or central Newfoundland to learn about things like organ building in Quebec or modes of transportation in Nunavut. Those are the ties that bind in this particular situation.

Do I support single-year funding? Yes, I do. As a matter of fact, I will go one step further. I would also like to say that we need for the CBC a model developed by the BBC in England, a seven-year funding plan that allows it to make capital investments beyond what it has right now. It allows development of programming and culture within the country. If we want to be that cultural mix and provide a sounding board for the whole country, then that multi-year funding has to be done.

It was a $60 million one-off. It should be $60 million per year, but on a multi-year basis so that the people of the CBC can--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak in response to the Speech from the Throne.

Please allow me first to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. I would also like to congratulate the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock and the member for Victoria, who were also appointed, and of course congratulate our Speaker, who has been a long-standing icon in this Parliament and who has done such a good job in the House. We have a very good team of chair occupants this session. I give you my congratulations again. It is a great honour to serve in the House, and I am sure you will all do us very proud.

I would especially like to thank the residents of my riding of Kildonan—St. Paul, who have asked me to return to represent them for a third term here in Ottawa as their member of Parliament. I am honoured to serve them in what I believe is the greatest riding in Canada.

I also want to thank my family, who have supported me throughout my term in office and who continue to support me. They truly are my source of strength and energy.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the wonderful and dedicated team of volunteers who worked tirelessly to re-elect me in the last election. I am very grateful.

Kildonan—St. Paul is a diverse riding that encompasses both urban and rural populations. However, many issues unite the constituents of Kildonan—St. Paul, none more so than the current state of the economy.

As I went door to door during the election, constituents informed me that economic instability was the issue that weighed most heavily on most people's minds. I also heard from my constituents that they wanted Parliament to work. They were tired of the partisan wrangling across the floor, and their concern was for this Parliament to work across party lines to face the enormous economic challenges that confront our country and the global economy as a whole.

Our Prime Minister noted in his speech on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne that it was his wish that consensus be achieved here, so that we as parliamentarians can work productively and cooperatively in this Parliament of Canada.

This sentiment reflects the feelings of many of us as parliamentarians. During this time of economic duress, we parliamentarians must unite to meet the enormous economic challenges we face, not only as a nation but also as a global community.

Clearly our Prime Minister has taken strong leadership to protect our nation's future. The people of Canada have shown great confidence in the Prime Minister and in this government by electing a strong minority government with an enhanced mandate, even though the world is experiencing an unstable global economy.

Because our government has paid down $37 billion on the national debt, Canada now has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G-7. That is why I was pleased to hear, when listening to the throne speech, that Canada's government has a five-pronged plan to strengthen and assist Canada's economy.

The government will work to ensure that global finance is reformed. Canada delivers sound budgets, long-term jobs for families and communities, and expanded trade and investment, providing an efficient federal government for our nation.

Our government has cut sales taxes, income taxes and business taxes. Our government's early fiscal stimulus in the form of long-term reductions in consumer, personal and business taxes has bolstered domestic spending and improved our attractiveness for investment.

Our government created the universal child care benefit. It increased health care transfers to the provinces and enhanced the guaranteed income supplement. These initiatives help Canadian citizens all across this country to grow and prosper.

To ensure the real estate market here in Canada remained stable, our government acted quickly and decisively by limiting mortgage terms and by establishing minimum down payments. Through our commitment to purchase insured mortgages, CMHC has ensured that our financial institutions will continue to lend to individuals and businesses. Our new Canadian Lenders Assurance Facility created confidence to facilitate interbank lending.

Many things have been done ahead of this economic time that have really built a foundation for us here in Canada. These actions offer great hope to all Canadians, especially to those in my riding of Kildonan--St. Paul.

Confidence that our government, under the leadership of our Prime Minister, will steer Canada through this time of economic downturn, and hope that with this stable fiscal management. the depression will not impact on Canadians the way it has impacted on other countries.

Clearly, all departmental spending planned for the next four years is under review. The Canada health transfer and the Canada social transfer to the provinces, however, will grow as planned. Equalization payments also will grow at a sustainable rate tied to the overall growth of our economy.

I note that the Speech from the Throne states that our government will take measures to encourage skilled trades and apprenticeships. This is extremely important because as young people and other Canadian citizens take education in the skilled trades and apprenticeships, they will produce an economy within Manitoba and within Canada that will grow and will really enhance the foundation of Canada's economic development.

The speech goes on to state that our government will work with the provinces to make recognition of foreign credentials a priority and increase the uptake of immigrant settlement programs. This is important because many immigrants coming to Canada who are very well trained need to be put in jobs that they have been trained for outside our country.

These are measures that will be strongly welcomed by companies and small businesses in my riding of Kildonan--St. Paul. I have had many constituents share their frustrations trying to find skilled workers because there is a shortage of them here in our country.

I also believe it is crucial that our government continue to demonstrate sound and prudent budgeting. The current international economic crisis promises to be challenging, but I remain confident that under the strong leadership of our Prime Minister Canada will succeed in weathering this economic storm.

After all, I will remind the House that it was under our Conservative government that $37 billion of the national debt has been paid down. That is $37 billion that our children and our grandchildren will not have to pay interest on.

It is under our Conservative government that taxes have been cut for families, small businesses and seniors. This impacts on individual Canadians at their breakfast tables in the morning. More money is going into their pockets and that is building a foundation for more economic stability in our nation.

Small businesses and entrepreneurs in my riding were delighted to hear that our government would be increasing their access to parental and maternity leave benefits. That is what our Conservative government is doing. We are providing strong leadership.

Our government is known as one that is tough on crime. The youth criminal justice system will be addressed by our government to ensure that our youth understand that drug dealing, stealing cars, and violent crimes will require tough consequences for them. With that legislation will come the compassionate instigation of funding programs for at risk youth to keep them from falling into a criminal lifestyle.

It is noted that there are many young people who are tempted by what they consider easy money in a criminal lifestyle, and these at risk youth will be provided with programs to ensure that they can focus their energy in a different place.

Our government has already instituted numerous justice reforms to restore the rights of law-abiding citizens and to make our communities and our streets safer.

Our government will end house arrest for those convicted of serious crimes. This has been a very important issue in my riding of Kildonan—St. Paul because my constituents have often wondered why criminals who have committed serious violent crimes are allowed house arrest. It is very difficult to monitor their whereabouts. It is very hard to keep a finger on where these criminals are. We will also introduce legislation to target violent crimes committed by criminal gangs.

The issue of human trafficking is a crime that continues to grow in our nation. Our government is addressing this issue to ensure victims of this horrendous crime are sheltered and protected, and given the opportunity to recover and start a new life. Criminals who live off the suffering of innocent victims will be accountable for their actions.

Our nation, at this time, is becoming acutely aware of this horrendous crime and that education is one of our best weapons. Knowing how perpetrators and pedophiles work, and how youth can protect themselves, be aware and not be caught in the web is very important.

Our country is a very proud nation. It is very proud of our national sovereignty and security. As we know, generations before us have held our Canadian Forces in high regard throughout the world. Our government has provided a long-term strategy to ensure our brave men and women in uniform have the resources they need to protect our security on Canadian soil and to assist when other countries are threatened and oppressed.

Our Canadian Forces have made tremendous contributions to the Afghanistan mission and will continue to work for freedom, democracy and human rights around the world. We see businesses starting to flourish in Afghanistan, schools and hospitals being built, and young women being able to go to school without fear. These are some impacts that the Canadian Forces have made during the Afghanistan mission that have really made a difference in the country.

Our government is also committed to ensuring sovereignty over Canada's Arctic. Canada will not only control and protect our offshore waters but our government will protect our inland waters as well.

As we know, often the equipment has not existed up north to provide for easy access to waters in the Arctic, so we are now proceeding with a new polar class icebreaker named in honour of the late great prime minister, the right hon. John Diefenbaker. This icebreaker is very important because it will allow greater access to our Arctic waters.

Canada has elected a minority government that has an enhanced mandate. This is quite unusual because historically during times of economic duress often governments will fall. That did not happen in the last election. Canadians said, with a resounding voice, that they have confidence that the Prime Minister and the government can steer the ship through the troubled waters of this very serious economic global downturn.

Canadians have sent members of Parliament to Ottawa to work together, to bring Canada safely through these economic times. This is an opportunity for all members in Parliament to lay aside the partisan wrangling and problem solve together.

I have heard ministers say in question period they welcome our ideas. Of course these ideas can be formulated not only in question period, which, in my opinion, happens to be a lot of theatre in a very small window. That is my opinion from what I have seen. I must say that letters, meetings with ministers, and time spent at committee, when new problems arise, they can be solved by all members which will make this a very effective Parliament.

With this in mind, I am hoping that in the coming weeks and months all opposition parties will be willing to work with the Government of Canada in a spirit of bipartisanship and co-operation to ensure that our economy and our country remain strong. In doing so, we will diligently serve our constituents and offer them the hope of a better tomorrow.

Lastly, I must say that when I was going door-to-door during the election, what I heard over and over again was Canadian citizens telling me they were tired of turning on question period. They were tired of the catcalls across the House and they were tired of what parliamentarians felt were very cutting remarks. They were tired of that. What they wanted was a Parliament that worked together to problem solve, especially now in these very tough economic times. This is a very serious issue that we are all dealing with.

I know that members on all sides of the House have the best interests of our country at heart. I know I have many friends on all sides of the House. I believe they are very dedicated people who care very deeply for our country and for their constituents.

I must say that we are in a new era now. For the first time, we are in an era when we really have a demand from the Canadian public to work together in a non-partisan way to problem solve the issues that we are facing at this time.

I wish to thank the House for allowing me to put my comments on the record in Parliament. As I said, I am very honoured to be the member of Parliament for Kildonan—St. Paul. I always think that a member of Parliament is a servant of the people. I look forward to the coming months because, and I am going to be optimistic, I think we are going to have a very collaborative, problem-solving environment in the Parliament.

Why do I think that? It is because we are facing one of the most serious economic times that we have had in many years. We need the talents and the problem-solving skills of each and every member of Parliament in the House to work together to help get us through these troubled waters.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaks eloquently about the threat to sovereignty in the far north. I am not sure whether she has actually ever been to the far north or not, but as someone who has lived in the subarctic, I know many of the problems that are faced in that area of the country. The area of the country that she represents may not know that climate change is probably the greatest threat to sovereignty in the far north.

We may protect it with frigates and we may protect it with all kinds of military operations, but the caribou herds and the people are all threatened by glaciers that are melting and water levels that are rising. I am wondering what the government is planning to do. What is in the throne speech about climate change and how will the government respond to it?

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome the member to the House, and welcome his comments and question this morning. It is a very good question.

As the member knows, under the former government greenhouse gas emissions went up over 30%. I think it is in the range of 32% to 33%. What we have done is put in a plan for a 20% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020.

I thought it was a very astute question because the member is right. We not only protect the Arctic in terms of sovereignty but also because of environmental issues. I welcome any solutions the member might have to bring forward on this issue to continue to build on what we have already started to do. I think this is very important. And yes, I have been to the north several times. It is just a beautiful place.

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

Mr. Speaker, my concern and the concern of many Canadians is that in these difficult times we need specific concrete solutions to the problems facing average Canadians. One area is that of job loss and the security program we have had in place called employment insurance. Something in the order of $55 billion has been taken out of that fund and put into general revenue. At the same time, 20% to 30% of those people who are applying for employment insurance are eligible to receive benefits, and the benefits do not last as long as they should in these difficult times.

Does my hon. colleague agree that we should be zeroing in on the employment insurance program? We should ensure that those people who are displaced from work get the maximum amount of benefits possible in order to sustain themselves while the economy is foundering. We need to ensure that those people once again obtain well-paying jobs, but in the meantime they need access to that program which has been taken away from them over the years.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the EI fund was spent by the former government and there is now a dedicated fund that is set up just for that purpose.

In my view the important thing is to look at the overall picture. What did our government do to build a stable foundation for this economy? Our Prime Minister predicted tough economic times. What did he do? He put the money back into the pockets of Canadians. He cut taxes for ordinary families. He brought in the child care benefit. The money went into the pockets of families across the nation. He gave tax breaks for children's sports. He also gave corporations tax breaks.

Looking at it all, the money was not spent on special programs. The money did not go into a black hole. It went back into Canadians' pockets. This stimulated the economy. People continue to spend. They continue to provide a life for their families that reflects the lifestyle they want and they provide education for their children. It is very practical and down to earth. We are taking care of Canadian citizens. They have a right to choose the way they spend their money. That is when new businesses occur. That is when entrepreneurs reach out. Women are starting home businesses. They are a real contributor to the economic engine of this country.

The Prime Minister has done practical things.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the member on her third re-election. I had other questions and comments to make but the member from the NDP asked specific questions.

The member said that we must lay aside the party wrangling and all the catcalls. I could not agree more, but if we are going to do this, the Conservatives have to find a way to change. A moment ago the member said that the EI fund was spent by the previous government. That is inaccurate. Those funds were invested in Canada and in Canadians.

If the Conservatives expect us to change, I want to remind the member that when her party first came here as the Reform Party, that party made innuendoes about limousines and fancy exercise rooms, and who could forget the pigs on the lawn, and then that party's members changed their minds and took the pay.

We showed that we are willing, but the Conservatives misled Canadians. Even the newspapers said that. The Prime Minister said that they have done more in two years than the Liberals did in 13 years. If that is the case, why did the Conservatives say that Parliament was not functioning? When the Conservatives talked about crime legislation, we stood with them. What did they do? They prorogued Parliament and everything fell by the wayside. If the Conservatives are truthful with Canadians, we will support the government.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was not here when there were pigs on the lawn of Parliament Hill so I cannot comment on that, but the member has made a very good point.

The big difference is that our government has put $37 million back into the pockets of Canadian families. That is phenomenal. Governments are learning how to do business in a new way.

I do not want to place blame on anyone, but I will say that Canadians have made a concerted effort to tell us that they have a lot of confidence in the Prime Minister and this government to steer our economic ship through troubled waters. They brought us back with a huge mandate. Part of that involves working collaboratively. I know that when a few issues are pointed out, we try to do it in the most gentle way possible. However, the difference is that the money was put back into Canadian taxpayers' pockets rather than doing other things with it because we know that Canadian families know best how to spend their own money.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I will be sharing my allotted time today with the member for Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by congratulating you on your reappointment, and the Speaker on his re-election to the chair. I am confident that all members share my goal of supporting the Speaker in making this, the 40th Parliament, a far more dignified and productive one than experienced in recent years. I wish to join my fellow New Democrats in offering my congratulations to the Prime Minister, the leader of the official opposition and the leader of the Bloc québécois. I extend particular congratulations and good wishes to fellow new members as we tackle the myriad challenges we face in handling our responsibilities effectively on behalf of our constituents. I wish to thank those members who have extended a hand of welcome to me, despite our different party affiliations.

It is with a considerable sense of honour and gratitude that I rise in the House today to deliver my inaugural speech in this 40th Parliament. I share the honour of several others in this House of continuing a family tradition. In my case, it represents a somewhat longer time gap. My family roots can be traced back to William Steeves, Father of Confederation. I know little detail of his motivations to join those founding this Confederation, except that he supported this historic union in the hope of providing good governance. That same goal was my singular reason for seeking election.

I am deeply honoured to have been elected as the member of Parliament for the constituents of Edmonton--Strathcona. I am grateful to the countless enthusiastic Edmontonians, from ages 8 to 80 years, who came from every corner of my constituency and across the city to join my team in getting out the vote on election day. I am awed by the time and energy Canadian communities volunteer to our democratic process. It should be honoured.

I encourage all members of this House to not lose sight of the privilege we share in living in a nation where we can freely participate in the electoral process without threat of violence or corruption. It is no lesser a privilege that our affairs are dictated by the rule of law. We do well to recall that the very definition of a democracy is a nation governed by rules, made and enforced by those we elect, a government that remains open and transparent, where laws enacted by the majority are effectively implemented and enforced, including laws for the protection of our health and our environment.

It behooves this House to be diligent in ensuring that the needs and interests of all Canadians are placed at the forefront of our minds when making decisions affecting their lives, their families, their children, their communities and their futures. My constituents did not just elect a new representative to speak on their behalf. More important, I have promised to doggedly pursue a more participatory democracy. I will pursue reforms to bring Canadians proportional representation to this House. I will also champion more constructive and inclusive means to ensure their direct engagement in the decisions affecting them.

Nowhere is this more critical than in the hinterland. I have long advocated for the right and opportunity of members of the affected communities--farmers, trappers, fishers, first nations, Métis, immigrants and women--to have a seat at the table. This is the real democratic reform Canadians have called for.

Now more than ever, as we face dire threats to our environment and mounting economic distress, it is incumbent upon us as members of Parliament to open the doors to our decision-making processes. If we are truly committed to seeking answers to climate change, to safe food and drinking water, to clean air and liveable communities, it behooves us to hear directly from and respond to those who bear the brunt of impacts downwind and downstream.

It is my hope during this Parliament that we can move away from basing decisions on polls and hand-selected advisory groups. Our federal laws and policies will be strengthened when they are grounded in the voices of the communities most directly affected, when we engage Canadian communities in exploring solutions that speak to their special needs and circumstances.

Canadians want their federal government to assert federal jurisdiction and powers. They have called for bold measures to protect our environment for the benefit of this and future generations. Strong federal laws are in place. Federal agencies and tribunals are mandated. As an advocate for federal engagement in these areas for over 30 years, both inside and outside government, I decry the announcement by the government of its intent to claw back the powers of these agencies and tribunals, to label the valid assertion of federal measures and powers as mere red tape.

Contrary to the assertions made in the throne speech, less regulation cannot be equated with more effective government nor certainty for investment. Empirical evidence shows that industry looks to regulation as the key determinant for shifting investments toward cleaner production.

For those reasons, I register my vote opposing the Speech from the Throne.

Now is the time to set aside petty partisan debates and work together to expedite the necessary economic and regulatory reforms, to convert our fossil fuel dependent economy to a more equitable, secure and greener future.

Parliament has already wisely passed laws prescribing specific targets for greenhouse gas reductions. Stricter pollution control standards are, hopefully, imminent for release. The next step is to direct the federal spending power, our fiscal measures and our regulatory arm toward incenting conversion to a greener economy.

We must deploy these powers at our disposal, revamp the outdated national building code to prescribe energy efficient buildings, reconsider these fast-tracked approvals for export of coal-fired and nuclear power and raw bitumen. We must considered stalled investments in tar sands expansion as a welcome window of opportunity to redress the cumulative health and environmental impacts.

Let us expand partnerships with provincial, territorial, municipal and aboriginal governments by significantly increasing our share of the cost to expedite on a much larger scale initiatives for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

The throne speech wisely lends support to such an initiative. Let us make it monumental. The result will bring all Canadians a triple bottom line benefit: energy savings to struggling families, farms, businesses and governments; reduced environmental and health impacts; job creation and job choice. This is what can be deemed a sensible policy for our time.

For many, the retired, those on fixed incomes and struggling students, reducing energy costs is a necessity, not a frill. Many in the House may be shocked to learn of the extent of poverty suffered in Alberta. These sad truths were revealed to us just this past week in reports by the food banks and the Edmonton Social Planning Council.

We must join forces to right these wrongs, to close the growing prosperity gap, to accord the equal right to a better qualify of life for every Canadian.

I welcome the opportunity of working with all members in the House to achieve this reality.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have had a chance to meet with the new member and I welcome her to the House. I originally came from that part of town, the south side of Edmonton, which is a great area where I spent many years. I welcome her to the nation's capital and look forward to working with her.

In one breath she said that we should set aside petty party politics and work together and then in the next breath she said that she would be voting against the throne speech. I think, in the spirit of cooperation, we need to find solutions to deal with the economic crisis that we are facing not only in Canada but around the world.

During the campaign the leader of her party kept talking about the kitchen table, not the boardroom table, and about standing up for working individuals but he did not provide any tax incentives to help the profitable companies and encourage them to continue on in good business practices. He only reinforced the negative bad business practices of the big three auto sectors and bailing them out.

Could the member try to explain how if we reward negative behaviour and penalize companies that are positive that is standing up for the working people? if there are no businesses making money and employing people there will be no one working, no kitchen tables and no boardroom tables.

Could you please inform me of your ideology and how that will help our economic situation?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will remind the hon. member from Kelowna that when posing questions or comments he should address his comments through the Chair and not directly to the member. The hon. member for Edmonton--Strathcona.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to respond to the question put to me by the member opposite and I thank him for his greetings from Alberta.

Contrary to what the member asserts, the New Democratic Party is fully in favour of giving full support to the alternative economy. It is not only through dirty jobs that we can employ Canadians. Our goal is to provide a choice in employment.

However, we need to stand back and look at the kinds of businesses and jobs that we want to incent and create for the future of our children. It does not behoove us to continue to beef up and buoy up those industries that are destroying our environment and causing health harms.

At this point in our economy, where there is slowdown in areas such as the tar sands, it gives us a genuine opportunity to stand back and identify and redress those harms that may be created and perhaps avoiding them.

I welcome the opportunity to work with the other members in pursuing a strong economy but through targeted measures and targeted incentives for the kind of economy that will create good jobs for the future for a clean and healthy liveable community.