Debates of Nov. 26th, 2008

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with my colleague across the floor that we have had an incredible lack of vision. It does not take a lot of vision for Conservatives to lead the highest-spending government on record and to have no plan to deal with what they call a pending technical recession.

The government had been warned about the economic slowdown by experts, who argued against their policies. The government failed to act. You have made ideological cuts and you have increased the size of government by 13.8%. You increased the size of government by increasing the size of cabinet, as we learned today.

You ignored all the warnings from all the different economic advisers. All the indicators showed we had the slowest growth in the G8. We lost 200 manufacturing jobs. We have learned that we have lost another 15,000 automotive sector jobs.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I will remind the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville to direct comments through the Chair and not directly to other members. I know she is relatively new to the House. It takes a bit of time to get used to.

On questions and comments, the hon. member for Avalon.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to congratulate the hon. member on her election to this honourable House.

As a former municipal councillor in my hometown of Conception Bay South, I was pleased to hear the member talk about the importantance of municipalities and the role they play in our communities and provinces. Municipal councillors are on the front lines of politics in our country. It is they who look after most of the infrastructure, and infrastructure needs are great for all municipalities.

She referred to Mayor McCallion, who is the longest-serving mayor. I wonder exactly what the mayor and her council would suggest as some plan of action for the current financial crisis.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member for Avalon to our team and congratulate him on his victory.

I am very proud to be representing the riding of Mississauga—Streetsville.

There are many lessons to be learned from a mayor as beloved and respected as Mayor Hazel McCallion. She has been serving my great city for the past 30 years and is continually re-elected with 92% of the popular vote. In fact, she was voted number two in the entire world in terms of mayoral effectiveness. She has led through discipline and fiscal prudence. She has kept us debt free. As well, we are one of the safest and most diverse communities, as I have described, and home to many Fortune 500 companies.

She would not squander a budget surplus of $13 billion on ideological cuts and policies. She would not spend a $3 billion contingency fund, but would put that money away in reserve for a rainy day or an economic downturn. She would put it away in times of prosperity. She would show restraint by keeping government small, she would not increase the size of cabinet or council, and she would not ignore her economic advisors. She would have a strategy and a plan to implement it.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite should know that this government made the gas tax permanent for municipalities. As well, we have the $7 billion building Canada fund.

However, what I want to talk about is transit. We have developed the public transit fund. There is also the public transit capital trust, the FLOW assistance in the GTA, a transit-secure program that we funded, and a GO trip program to work with GO train.

If she wants to use Ms. McCallion, the mayor of Mississauga, as an example, this government paid down debt, debt left to us by the Liberal government. She likes to use the mayor of Mississauga as an example. We have taken that example. We have said debt is a bad thing for this country. It is a bad thing for our future generations, and we have spent money bringing down debt. That is why we think we are doing the right thing, and we will continue to do the right thing. That is what the voters thought on October 14.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that the $33 billion building Canada fund has not been moving. Mississauga—Streetsville and the city of Mississauga are still waiting for $52.5 million to complete their bus rapid transit system.

It is the Liberal Party of Canada that is committed to the cities agenda. We are the ones who recognize that cities are the economic engines that propel our country. We are the ones who are advocating making the gas tax permanent. We are the ones who said we would contribute any surplus toward infrastructure and our cities. We are the ones who proposed $70 billion worth of investment in infrastructure.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burlington pointed out that this government has paid down $39 billion since we came to power in January 2006. That is a remarkable accomplishment.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to split my time today with the hon. member for York—Simcoe.

It is with great pleasure that I am here today to speak to the throne speech, but first there is something I really need and want to do. It is to give acknowledgement and my sincerest appreciation to all who helped me in this last election and to all who have helped me throughout the last 15 years and the last six consecutive parliaments and allowed me to represent the great area of British Columbia known as the central interior Cariboo.

I currently represent the great riding of Cariboo—Prince George, as I have for the last three elections. That riding's geography includes everything from prairies to mountains to lakes to oceans. It is a pleasure to serve that great riding and the great people who live there. I want to say to all of them, and first of all to those constituents who supported me in such a great fashion, that I appreciate it. I think I received around 55.5% of the vote, which is small by Alberta standards but is certainly good for B.C.

For the first time in six elections, I ran what could be called a textbook riding. I actually had a great campaign manager. We had computers and volunteers all over the place. I decided that after all these years, maybe I had better try what they have been telling me for the last 15 years about how to run an election, and it actually worked very well.

I thank my campaign manager, Tom Newell. He is a great guy. He knows this business, and he is a good friend of mine. I thank my staff, who stayed in the constituency office serving the constituents throughout this whole election and made me look good at that level on a daily basis.

I want to thank all the Conservative candidates across the country, my colleagues who were elected and re-elected, and our national campaign team. I want to thank our Prime Minister for his leadership, his vision and his determination to serve this country, notwithstanding the fact that we were heading into some very troubling times brought on by external circumstances. I know the people of Canada re-elected our Prime Minister because they wanted someone with a firm hand on the rudder as we move our country through these most challenging economic times.

I want to thank my wife Annie, my constant companion. She was my scheduler. She kept me sane throughout the campaign. Most of all, she walked up to the podium with me on victory night for the speech. It was just great.

I am a lucky man to have a great riding like Cariboo—Prince George. Great people live in it. It is humbling to think that they have elected me this many times, and I appreciate it. They are number one.

In addressing our government's Speech from the Throne, I wear a number of hats. One is as the member of Parliament for the great riding of Cariboo—Prince George; one is as the B.C. Conservative caucus chair; one is as chair of our Conservative national forestry caucus.

I have lived in the central interior, Prince George, for about 50 years. This area is primarily a forestry sector area. Living there has given me a broad range of perspective, particularly in the forestry industry.

The forestry industry is a key economic engine for communities in my riding of Cariboo--Prince George, for the province of British Columbia, and for the entire country.

Earlier this afternoon, I spoke briefly on how the government has responded to forestry workers and their families in these times of trouble.

It is important to note that even prior to the global economic instability that has now manifested, the forestry industry had already entered into some serious and challenging times. Rising energy costs, damage done by the ongoing seemingly never-ending softwood lumber dispute, which the previous Liberal government just simply could not handle and failed to address, and the devastating mountain pine beetle infestation particularly in B.C., have all created a perfect storm for the forestry industry.

I am so proud of our Prime Minister and our government because we understand that when a mill closes in a town, that closure affects every part of the community, and it has in my riding. Folks have had to rely on the measures that the government has put forward to help them somehow mitigate the economic pain.

That is why we have acted decisively. We have taken measures to help not only the forestry sector but all of Canada's traditional industries, and we will continue to assist these industries. We are taking measures aimed at marketing Canadian products abroad and helping businesses to innovate.

Not only did the government protect Canadian forestry jobs by getting the softwood lumber deal done but earlier this year we created the $1 billion community development trust to protect jobs and assist communities facing downturns. We worked hard with each province to identify priority areas for action. The community development trust has a lifespan of three years and right-minded communities across this country need it. We provided funding to fight the mountain pine beetle infestation.

Our government launched the targeted initiative for older workers for those who are struggling through these economic times and may be facing layoffs. We have funding available to help them adapt to perhaps losing jobs that they have held for 25 or 30 years. It is really important.

I met with folks from the Forest Products Association of Canada along with a number of my colleagues last week. We spoke about the challenges facing the forestry sector and also about opportunities. With every challenge there comes an opportunity.

Earlier this year in the report that came out of the natural resources committee, FPAC and members of committee were able to identify opportunities. Perhaps that is why we had such a great report come out of that committee, and it was a unanimous report. We all recognized that while there were challenges, there were also opportunities. We need the government to put initiatives forward that would let us take advantage of those opportunities in the forestry sector.

Our government is looking to the future by investing in innovation; creating new market opportunities, such as the worldwide promotion of wood products from Canada; and cutting corporate taxes so that our mills can stay competitive. We brought in the accelerated capital cost allowance so mills can upgrade to new, environmentally-friendly technology.

As I said earlier, the Conservative government is providing support, support in the short-term, but we are also providing things that will fix the problem in the long-term. It is important that we do that.

As the Minister of Industry said, a ready, fire and aim program is not what a Conservative government is all about. We are doing a number of incredible things that will help the forestry industry in Canada. All of these things are the reason why, in the last election, Canadians gave our party and our Prime Minister a huge mandate to govern in the way they wanted us to govern. They have confidence in us and that is why we are on this side of the House.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me congratulate the member for Cariboo—Prince George on his re-election. It is nice to have him back.

I want to clarify the record. When the hon. member talked about a huge mandate, two out of three Canadians did not vote for that party. The circumstances were that the Conservatives increased their number.

I was pleased that he talked about the forestry industry. It is obviously an industry that is very important to him and his riding. For those who are not aware, and I know most members are, I had the privilege of chairing the committee on international trade, trade disputes and investments for Canada. We did the review on the specific issue of softwood lumber.

I know the hon. member did not sit on that committee, but for the record, all the stakeholders in the industry right across the country came before the special committee and said how pleased they were with the government's support. All they were asking for was some more financial support, because the final ruling was just around the corner. Everybody on the committee, irrespective of party affiliation, were prepared to support them. Unfortunately, an election occurred and it never happened, but that report was issued.

I have a question for the member. He talked about the $1 billion fund. Can he go on record right now and say that his community has received a portion of that $1 billion that was committed by the government to help that community?

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite just said it, the Liberals were working on it when they were in government, but they never got it done. That is another example. They were in power for 13 long years and there were so many things that they did not get done. We came to power in January 2006 and it was not more than 30 or 40 days when we did get it done. We got the softwood lumber deal signed.

I know there is not a lot of love for the Americans on that side, nor down where the NDP members sit, but I am really surprised by that complete contrast. The Liberals did not like the softwood lumber agreement. Surprisingly, the biggest fans they have for wanting to scrap it now just happen to be the big mill owners in the southeastern U.S. It is funny that they should climb into bed with the big U.S. lumber consortium in a coordinated effort to try to scrap the softwood lumber deal.

The community development trust is doing a good job across this country. It is targeted to communities that are dependent on industry. In my neck of the woods, it is the forest industry communities that like it.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate my colleague on his successful re-election to the House, now over 15 years representing the good folks in Cariboo country back in British Columbia.

I am sure he is sitting here thinking that over the last couple of years particularly he is glad that he is on this side of the House rather than being on the Liberal side of the House. The Liberals clambered for the return of money for the softwood lumber mills and then they voted against the softwood lumber agreement that brought that money home. They clambered for millions for the pine beetle issue and then they voted against it on that side of the House. They clambered for a long term strategy for the forestry industry and then they were forced to vote against those types of things, or they clambered for more money for the port of Vancouver and then voted against it.

Can the member talk to us a little bit about what the future looks like for British Columbia because of the measures of the government?

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, by contrast to some of my Liberal friends across the way, and in particular, the leader of the NDP, I want to say clearly that for the forestry industry in Canada, the sky is not falling, honest. I say that with emphasis to the leader of the NDP who believes that if we do not have a day with doom and gloom, it is just not a good day.

The sky is not falling on the forestry industry. If we talk to the leaders in the four sectors, the Canfors, the AbitibiBowaters, the West Frasers, the Forest Products Associations of Canada, they know about the challenges we have. However, they will get through this. The mills that have done their due diligence, that have upgraded their equipment, and that have put some money aside will be the ones that come out in the end. They will once again employ tens of thousands of forestry workers all across this country. I say, good for them, and we will help them get there.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on my first occasion in my new role as public safety minister.

Having the opportunity to serve in that role is something for which I owe a great debt of thanks to the constituents of the riding of York—Simcoe. It is a magnificent place, a horseshoe around that jewel of Ontario, Lake Simcoe, around its south end that so focuses our lives. There are beautiful communities in Innisfil, Bradford West Gwillimbury, King, East Gwillimbury, and of course my own home in Georgina.

Thanks to those constituents, I have had the opportunity now to serve in three Parliaments, in roles as leader of the government in the House of Commons, the unlikely role of minister for sport for a short period of time, and now as public safety minister.

The public safety role is a great role for someone who represents York—Simcoe because citizens of York—Simcoe, my residents, are concerned about the kinds of issues that the public safety minister has to deal with. When a community is safe and its citizens have the opportunity to prosper, and they are secure socially, economically, culturally, they can flourish. Safety and safe communities are what come first to allow all those other things to happen.

That is why our government is taking steps to keep Canada safe. We wholeheartedly believe that safer communities will make for a stronger and better Canada. Through ongoing efforts in crime prevention, law enforcement and national security, we are tackling crime throughout Canada, whether it is youth crime, organized crime, gang violence or any other kind of criminal activity.

Like many other Canadians, I have been troubled during recent years by the rising problem of violent youth crime. This is also a particular concern to my constituents in York—Simcoe. The increased evidence of youth criminal activity is something that troubles them all. It is something for which we need to have an effective response, and it is something that we committed to do in the last election, and it is an area on which we intend to act.

We have of course taken steps, as a government, already through the development of a national crime prevention strategy, but we also have a youth gang prevention approach. This includes funding to help divert youth from being involved in gang activity and criminal activity, particularly drug-related gang activity.

There are so many young people who represent such great promise for the future in communities all across Canada, young people who have choices to make when they are young, who are susceptible to the kinds of influences that can lead them down the wrong path. We need to provide supports that encourage young people in those situations to seek a more positive path, a role that will last them a lifetime, serving society in a positive way and serving their communities in a better way.

We will continue to do that. We will strengthen our efforts on youth crime prevention and gang diversion as we have done in previous governments. It is one of the priorities I am looking forward to as we hold out a helping hand to make sure that we do not just focus on punishing violent youth crime, which is important, but also on preventing those crimes from ever even occurring.

Organized crime is another area that continues to be a challenge in Canada. We have taken real action with things like our tackling violent crime bill in the previous Parliament, mandatory prison sentences for those who are committing offences with guns. However, there is still a lot to be done.

The other thing that is happening with organized crime is that it is changing, or society is changing it. Organized crime is taking advantage of the world of the Internet, the more complex society we live in to intrude into new areas, inventing new crimes that never even existed before, ones that require greater sophistication.

We need a response to those because that kind of criminal activity affects families, it affects businesses, it affects our citizens' possessions, their health, their bank accounts and their prosperity. We must develop effective responses. We tried to get a bill involving identity theft passed in the previous Parliament, to actually make some of those things crimes.

Unfortunately, we did not have the kind of co-operation from other parties to deal with them in that Parliament. We hope to move forward on that front and a range of other fronts to tackle organized crime and protect our citizens from these new sophisticated criminals they face.

We must not forget, however, that Canada is a country founded on many traditions. Our justice system is based on the rule of law. Our institutions are based on the principles of transparency and accountability. Canadians value their personal freedom and civil rights. That is why our government has committed to explaining how it intends to strike a balance between managing new national security threats and challenges on the one hand, while on the other hand, meeting the requirement for accountability and ensuring the protection of civil liberties.

National security is not limited to ensuring the physical well-being of Canadians. It also means securing our prosperity and preserving freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. I therefore look forward to issuing a statement describing the government's approach to matters of national security for all Canadians.

In the portfolio of public safety, we have responsibilities for law enforcement, through the RCMP and other areas, for Canada’s national security, including through the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. We are also responsible for the prisons and the National Parole Board and all those associated elements that are important to protect our community and rehabilitate prisoners and ensure that our communities are kept safe from criminals.

The border represents another area of responsibility through the Canadian border service agencies and related matters and there is the whole question of emergency services and public safety related to national emergencies. When we look at all those, we can see that there are numerous issues that touch our lives in very real ways.

I talked about technology a bit with regard to organized crime. I expect we will see our government moving on the areas of Internet fraud and on areas where we need to take more decisive action where technology allows criminals to engage, for example, in the sexual exploitation of children. Right now, our law enforcement agencies do not have the tools they need to effectively protect Canadians and young people from those criminal threats. We will take action to try to address those issues so our law enforcement officers have the tools they need to combat crime and protect Canadians.

I also want to see further results in the area of our prisons and parole and how we deal with our criminals in that realm. Our first priority has always been to keep communities safe. We have been doing that as a government and we have been seeing improved outcomes in terms of reduced repeat offences from those released into the community and fewer premature releases. The system will probably never be perfect, but we see opportunities to improve it. One of the most important improvements we have to make is to continue to look for ways to protect and increase the rights of victims of crime. It is only fair that they have a say and an opportunity to participate in decisions that are made on that front.

We also have to ask ourselves if our prison system works as it should. There are populations that are overrepresented in the prison system compared with our broad population. We have to ask ourselves why we have those outcomes. I draw on the preponderance of individuals who face mental health challenges as an example. Why has this happened? What are the roots of that change? We have to recognize that it is a change. It is not something that has always been the case. It is a changing trend.

We also have to ask ourselves if our prison system provides the best support and opportunities to address those issues. That is an area where I want to see some real progress. These are complex challenges that are not easy to address. These are very difficult, complex social issues and we have to make some advances there.

We also need to see progress, and we have an opportunity, one that may be a good-news area for us, on the question of our borders and border security. In 2011 we face what the industry calls a real thickening of the border. The difficulty of a better transition of goods and people across that border is hurting our economy and the American economy. We have to find ways to facilitate the easy transport of goods and people while at the same time ensure that we protect the very vital, legitimate national security interests of Canada and our neighbours. I believe we have an opportunity with the new administration arriving in the United States to take action on that front and work out more balanced and reasonable approaches that will deliver real results.

We are going to work in all of these areas. We are going to work to do what we said we would do. We are going to work to make our communities safer. Tackling crime and ensuring our communities are safer are key priorities we committed in the 2006 election when we were first elected and again in this last election. I am proud to have the opportunity to work on delivering on those commitments to Canadians.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to what the minister had to say. One of the areas I would like to speak about and ask him a question on concerns our treaty exchange of prisoners with China.

China is our second largest trading partner when it comes to foreign trade. We certainly have to look to it to expand our horizons. We not only have to ensure we expand those horizons, but we also need to have more trade to create jobs.

I was saddened when the Prime Minister met with APEC in Peru, that he did not go an extra step and speak to the Chinese folks who were there to ensure we engaged them in more trade.

Canadians are in prison in China. Mr. Jimmy Chen is an individual on whose behalf I have been working. It was an opportunity for the Government of Canada to step in and ask that he be brought back to Canada after it was ordered to do so by a judge in Ontario. We do not have a formal exchange with China.

Would the minister take steps to facilitate, with our second largest trading partner after the United States, an exchange of prisoners with that partner so if Canadians are caught over in China, we can facilitate bringing them back to Canada? Mr. Chen is facing a prison term in China of 20 years and it is time—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Minister of Public Safety.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for obvious reasons, I am not going to comment on any individual case that may be the subject of a decision in the future. I can say in general terms that the test we apply, and I intend to continue to apply in my time as public safety minister to the issue of transfer of prisoners, is the question of whether we want to bring Canadians who are convicted of crimes in other countries, sometimes very serious crimes, back here to serve their time within our system. The principal value is one of keeping Canadians and our communities safe. If we believe that in any way there is an undue risk represented by bringing people to Canada to serve out their sentences, then there are all kinds of factors that can play into that. If we believe it is an undue risk to Canadians and their communities to bring back very serious multiple murderers to Canada, we have to put that test of community safety first.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the hon. member to hopefully answer a question that I would have liked to have directed to the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George, but I was unable to do that.

The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George said something remarkable in his speech. He said that the forestry industry was not really in a crisis, that things were not terribly bad.

There was something in the Vancouver Sun today, something that we know happened about four months ago. The town of Mackenzie, which is north of Prince George, totally runs on forestry. Every forestry worker, 1,500 of them, is out of work. This town has shut down. The other 4,500 people in the town depend on those 1,500 people for their shops to run as do every other industry.

People are leaving their homes with mortgages on them. These are 55-year-old workers. The whole town has become a ghost town. In Prince George itself, the United Steelworkers Union has said that out of 5,000 sawmill workers, 2,200 have lost their jobs. That is 50% of the workers who are totally dependent on that industry.

What does the hon. member think is a crisis if that is not?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think everybody is quite aware that there are very difficult economic conditions, particularly south of our border. In relative terms, we are very fortunate that our Canadian economy is much stronger than the American economy.

We have continued to post positive job numbers and economic growth. At the same time the Americans have posted for months and months losses of jobs in the hundreds of thousands and a negative economic growth.

In those circumstances those industries that depend heavily upon export to the United States, especially in growth areas where lumber feeds the housing industry, which has completely collapsed there, will be affected.

We have taken action to do what we can with our community investment trust of a billion dollars earlier this year, through corporate tax cuts and through other measures. Anybody who is being honest with their voters and with Canadians will realize that the Canadian government cannot single-handedly reverse the economic problems of the United States.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join this debate. It is always quite interesting when individual members get up and make their comments. It is like one side sees everything rosy and the other sees everything the exact opposite. The reality is somewhere in between. People have to discuss this with politicians and decide what the difference is between the reality and a lot of comments that mislead Canadians to think differently.

This is my first opportunity in the 40th Parliament to thank my family, my husband, Sam, and all my constituents for their commitment to the political process. Again, if it were not for our families who were out supporting us, I am not sure how many of us would be back. We may have great volunteers and campaign workers, but it is the support from our families and the encouragement we get from them.

Aside from them are our wonderful constituents. The constituents of York West have shown me nothing other than love and respect. This was probably the best election campaign I have ever been through. The weather was wonderful and it was great to knock on doors. I think I knocked on just about every door in my riding of York West and I was received very well. This campaign was much easier than many of the other ones I experienced.

My staff do a great job all through the year. That is what makes a difference at election times. People appreciate the work they do for them. As we move forward in this 40th Parliament, my office staff and I are committed to continue to deliver the best level of service possible. We will clearly be there as we continue on in this Parliament.

It will be an honour to represent not just my riding, but many of the people in Toronto who are working on issues that are extremely important to all of us, to ensure that we work with the government. However, we will also hold its feet to the fire and demand accountability from it as we move forward.

This is the third Speech from the Throne we have had to endure from the Conservatives. It is very much the same kind of rhetoric we have heard in previous throne speeches. Canadians are not third time lucky as they face a very difficult economic reality.

I am sharing my time, Mr. Speaker, with my colleague from Ottawa--Vanier. I was very quick to get into the debate and almost forgot my colleague, and I would never want to do that.

These are difficult economic times and the Conservatives are going to have a difficult time dealing with this. It will require all of to work. The amendment to the throne speech, which the Liberals support, is a commitment that we will work with the government to try to find solutions. We will work in a cooperative manner so our Speaker does not have to rein us in and tell us that we have broken the orders. We will be respectful, as I know he wants us to be.

The laissez-faire, I do not care attitude that we have seen in the past couple of years from the government is clearly something that is very worrisome, particularly as we move forward and try to deal with the economic crisis that Canada is about to face. The numbers are very shocking. When the Conservatives were first elected, they inherited a $12 billion surplus. That is very different from the time when the Liberals were elected. We inherited a $43 billion deficit and had to make dramatic cuts.

The Conservatives had a $12 billion surplus to squander, and they clearly did that. If they had any idea we were running into an economic crisis and had they held on to that surplus, we would have had a cushion, which clearly we do not have now. Instead, in that two years they became the highest-spending administration in Canadian history. Anyone can look it up in the books and see the amount of money spent compared to previous years.

The title of Conservatives somehow gives the impression that they are careful. This government has the wrong title, as it did previously. The Liberals showed what the words restraint and good investment meant, and we managed to do all of that.

The Conservatives made the decision, as well, to leave no buffer, no room to manoeuvre, in the event of a financial crisis.

I must say that I do not think any of us thought we would end up in the economic downturn that we are currently facing, but the reality is that every seven or eight years there will be some sort of financial challenge. No one expected a meltdown but certainly a challenge comes after so many years and we must be prepared for that.

We had a $3 billion contingency reserve for a rainy day. The Conservatives, however, thought we would never need it so they spent it. Well, they spent it and now we have a rainy day. This downpour needs a lot of money but the money is not available because it has all been given away. The money could have been there to help Canadians create jobs. It could have been invested in the auto industry. It could have helped seniors. It could have looked after our pensions. All of that could have been done without having to go into deficit. Unfortunately, we are in a position now where we probably will go into deficit.

As a result, clearly by their poor management, Canada has entered the escalating economic crisis with one hand tied behinds its back. This is because, along with their gross mismanagement, the Conservatives increased their annual spending by $40 billion over three budgets and then spent a massive $20 billion in vote-buying schemes in the lead-up to the last election. Clearly, that was money thrown away because it did not work, it did not get them very many votes and they are still in a minority situation. Now, sadly, Canadians must see their country go into deficit because of the Conservatives' fiscal failures.

In this time of economic uncertainty, we absolutely do not need another election next month. The Liberals will be supporting the amended throne speech at the appropriate time and we will work with the government. Our amendment talked about us working together on issues and working collectively to deal with the economic crisis and we will do that.

The NDP can huff and puff and beat their chests but another $300 million for an unnecessary election in these economic times would be irresponsible. The Liberal Party will not be irresponsible. We will act, as appropriately, in our opposition and we will do our jobs. We will work with the government to point out areas where it can make investments, such as in the auto industry and the forestry industry, and in areas where people are hurting, where jobs are being lost and where we need to do more to help them.

We are calling on the government, though, to move beyond generalities and explain precisely how it will protect Canadians' jobs, their savings and their pensions in this current economic climate.

In the fiscal update tomorrow, it will be very interesting to see just where the government's priorities lie and whether it is prepared to do what is necessary to help the many people who are currently suffering out there. Frankly, we are not holding our breath because we do not know if the government has a plan and we do not believe it has one.

Rather than cutting the GST, one can imagine what that money could have done to support the many seniors out there who are struggling on a limited income. Instead of a $6 billion cut to the GST, the Conservatives should have put that money into the guaranteed income supplement plan, as the Liberals did many times by upping that and increasing it so that our seniors would have a better quality of life. That would have been a big help to them and it would have helped them through difficult times.

One of the things I would like to see the government work on in this session of Parliament is changes to the Canada pension plan survivor benefits. As many members will know, the Canada pension survivor benefits only cover 60% of a contributor's retirement pension. Therefore, if the surviving spouse or common-law partner is not receiving other CPP benefits, he or she gets 60%. Once someone has lost his or her spouse, the surviving spouse still has the same heating bill to pay and the same taxes to pay and they do not decrease just because a person loses a spouse. These things are plunging many seniors into poverty.

Many issues out there must be dealt with, such as social infrastructure, as well as the hard infrastructure. We need to invest in our cities but we need real investment. We need a real commitment, not just a lot of talk about doing all kinds of things. We need to look at where the money is actually being invested in infrastructure and in the other parts. We do not need to hear announcements and then never see the money delivered, which is what the government has done far too many times.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for York West on her re-election win.

The member talked about some of the measures that were taken in the last Parliament. I would just remind her that the measures we took, in terms of this 1.4% of GDP stimulus in the last year, helped to put Canada in a much stronger position and that these were permanent measures, unlike the kind of bailout measures we are seeing in other countries, permanent measures that will continue to provide stimulus in the economy.

I wonder why it is that she continues to frame this notion of a $13 billion surplus, which we admittedly put back in the pockets of Canadians, why would she not admit that that being part of that stimulus, including the $38 billion in debt reduction, has put Canada on this stronger footing so that it can get in front of the very difficult economic circumstances we find in front of us.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between the ideology of the Conservative government versus how we think as Liberals. We believe in investing in people and ensuring that a $13 billion surplus is spent carefully and not squandered by just throwing it away. I never supported the idea of $100 a month going to child care. If that money is invested in something permanent it will provide opportunities for families to move forward.

That surplus could have been used in many ways but instead it was literally squandered, which is what I gather the economist in the Prime Minister believes is the way to do it. I hope we will not use that kind of stimulus for the economy to bail us out. We do not want to do what Bush is doing, which is sending out a cheque thinking that people will spend $500 and it will solve all their problems. The reality is that we need to invest in industries, like our auto sector, forestry, infrastructure, and create jobs.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am somewhat confused. I am listening to the members on the opposite side of the House talk continually about this $13 billion amount of money that they hoarded in Ottawa when the provinces were living on their credit cards.

As a member who represents an Ontario riding, where was she when the province of Ontario and all the provinces were crying out for money to put in place the structures for hospitals and for our post-secondary education? Where was she advocating instead of keeping this money in Ottawa? It does not help the provinces.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of money was sent. The $13.2 billion came as a result of good management on this side of the House. That is clearly what it is because we know how to manage the finances. We know how to ensure we are investing in the things that will create positive revenue that will be reflected all across this country as we move forward.

We were the only government in the history of the G-7 that produced seven consecutive surplus budgets. We always made sure that we were paying the debt, that we were working with the provinces and that we were always ready for a rainy day so that we would have a cushion to ride through difficult times, which is exactly where we are about to head now, except that now we do not have a cushion. There is no rainy day fund at all.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was a municipal councillor prior to her arrival in this august chamber and, as such, would know, quite intimately, how the Conservative Ontario government, involved with the current finance minister, sold off Highway 407 to the detriment of the people of the GTA. Now we have permanent gridlock in the GTA, in part because one road is a toll road and another road is not so the non-toll road gets jammed with traffic and the toll road does not.

I wonder whether the hon. member could comment on this foolish notion that the finance minister is flying, which is that we should sell off assets in order to pay for their foolishness.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it sounds very much like Mike Harris days. I guess we should not be surprised given the fact that several of the major ministers in the current government were all part of Mike Harris days and made the kinds of cuts to Walkerton that created tremendous illness there, and in a variety of other areas, such as selling off Highway 407 and the real assets. I expect the next thing we will hear is that it has sold off the CN Tower because, as history shows, the Conservatives are poor money managers. Every time there is a Conservative government in power, we end up in a huge deficit and it is the Liberals who must clean it up.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as most of my colleagues have done, I would like to begin by thanking the people of my riding, whom I have had the honour of representing in the House of Commons since 1995. On October 14, the voters of Ottawa—Vanier gave me a sixth mandate and I am very grateful to them for this. I am also grateful to the hundreds of individuals who have been involved in the campaigns of candidates of all parties who were vying to represent the riding. The involvement of those several hundred people has contributed to a healthy democracy. I salute them for the sacrifice of their time, their energy and their funds to ensure that the democratic process is indeed operating properly.

During those 37 or 38 days of campaigning, we had the opportunity to debate national issues, of course, but also some local ones as well. Among them—issues which I will have the opportunity to defend during this 40th Parliament—is one in particular that I would like to mention now. I have in fact already presented petitions on it since the start of the session, the fifth one today. It concerns the possible construction of one or two new bridges in the national capital region. As a result, heavy truck traffic could be taken out of the downtown area of the national capital and directed toward established and developed communities. The solution put forward by the consultants or experts and chosen by the National Capital Commission (the NCC)—at least until proven otherwise—would prove disastrous because it would merely transfer the problem to long established and well developed communities. A far more attractive solution is available to the NCC and I hope that it will select a better solution guided by the wisdom of those advising it. We will have an opportunity to revisit this issue.

There was also much mention made of the behaviour of the members of the House of Commons. That is why, on the first day of this 40th parliament, I let my name stand on the list of candidates for the Chair. I felt that it was important to focus on the desire expressed by voters for better behaviour from us all. Naturally this is a responsibility we all share, including whoever is in the Speaker's chair. I am pleased that all candidates for that position, and all party leaders in their congratulations to the winner, repeated that same message and that our Speaker acknowledged that he himself bore part of the responsibility.

Finally, and we will have an opportunity to revisit this later, I raised the need to start the planning immediately of the events to celebrate the 150th birthday of our country in 2017. I know that we are moving into a period of downturn, of instability and of political difficulty, but a brighter future is coming and it is up to us to start planning right now for this great celebration of 150 years of Canadian federation. We will get back to this.

The throne speech has some good points, I have to admit, and some bad points—I hope the members opposite will acknowledge that—and it is also missing some things. There is no mention whatsoever of seniors or fighting poverty. The throne speech is also silent on Canada's linguistic duality, and I know, Madam Speaker, that you are sensitive to this. If the throne speech reflects a government's commitment, then associations across the country saw the government's lack of commitment on this issue.

I have to say that the government did redeem itself somewhat last Friday, when it rejected a decision made by the CRTC in August. At the time, the CRTC did not grant any licences for French-language community radio in our region, but did grant two licences for English-language radio. I have already congratulated the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, who made the decision to refer the matter back to the CRTC so that it could do its homework a bit better and take into account the Official Languages Act, as we amended it in 2005.

We will see what happens.

Among the good points in the throne speech, I would like to mention the move to recognize newcomers' foreign credentials, the reduction of interprovincial trade barriers—having been the only minister responsible for internal trade, I can say that there is much work to be done on this front, and I wish the government well—help for certain industries, investment in research, banning of bulk water exports and, naturally, the much stronger focus on food safety. I believe that all parties could support these measures.

There are also bad points. I must admit that I have a great deal of trepidation about the government's planned justice bill. We will see what it has in store for us. The government's environmental track record is not exactly outstanding, and some of us may have concerns about initiatives involving the private sector.

The throne speech focused mainly on the economy. I believe that the government has a duty to stimulate the economy, especially in anticipation of the recession that is on the horizon—if it is not already here—and the deficits that, sadly, will come far sooner than they might have, as my colleagues have said. Still, I believe we will need to go beyond this.

We will need to go beyond this need to stimulate the economy. We will have to at least look at the very structure of how we operate in terms of debt accumulation. Right now we and others around the world are dealing with the debt problem by adding more debt. At some point that whole house of cards is going to come crashing down.

We need to collectively engage in a debate about what growth is sustainable, what level of debt is sustainable and how we achieve savings. Right now, Canadians basically are not saving at all. The Vanier Institute, if I am correct, has determined that 131% of a family's disposable income is spent. If 131% of a family's disposable income is being spent annually just to keep the family's standard of living where it is on average in Canada, it means that family will keep on accumulating debt. That is not a sustainable position.

In the same way, the last time Canada faced a recession, in the early 1990s, Canadians were saving at a rate of about 10%. Today we are hardly saving at a rate of 1%.

How do we dig ourselves out of this hole? Governments will have to provide incentives, will have to provide encouragement and will have to show the way. That is the reason for the reluctance of going into deficit. It was a Liberal government that got us out of deficit in the 1990s and it was not an easy thing to do. We had better start planning an exit strategy right away as well. These are matters that have to be addressed.

There is another matter in the Speech from the Throne that is of great preoccupation locally. I will quote a very innocuous paragraph. It is in English on page 10. It states:

Fixing procurement will be a top priority. Simpler and streamlined processes will make it easier for businesses to provide products and services to the government and will deliver better results for Canadians.

I have to take exception to that. One area in particular is information technology procurement where there has been serious talk of bundling all contracts so that only large contracts would be given out, or perhaps one large contract, of $1 billion plus over a period ranging up to 20 years. If we did that, basically we would be freezing out 5,000 small and medium size enterprises in this area alone, let alone the rest of Canada. That is the wrong way. There has been no case made, or presented to this House at least, to justify this. I know it is the large corporations that are lobbying for this, obviously.

If the threshold to bid is $1 billion or more, then obviously the small companies will all be frozen out and I think our economy will suffer. It is very well known that it is small and medium size enterprises that are the backbone of our economy and we should be very careful about how we deal with them. That is one issue that I promise constituents I will be getting back to, because I think it is the wrong approach.