Debates of Nov. 26th, 2008

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member made a very pragmatic speech this afternoon. His intervention really hit on some important themes.

I was interested in his comments about the notions of how to deal with stimulating the economy. My colleague mentioned, for example, the difficulty in taking a country out of a prolonged period of deficit. There is no question that Canada has learned from the lessons of the 1970s and 1980s.

Considering that this government in the past almost three years has reduced debt by some $38 billion, would my colleague not agree that we are in a position to move ahead and put stimulus into the economy? Would he not consider that a balanced budget at all costs would also not be the right way to proceed?

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

Madam Speaker, I did not suggest that we should have a balanced budget at all costs. I did acknowledge that there may be a need for such a stimulation to the economy that we would get into a deficit situation. However, I believe also that if that is the case and that happens, we must collectively already have prepared the terrain to get out of the deficit situation.

Therefore, there is a need perhaps to spend on things that are not recurring, such as infrastructure. If we do that, and it seems that we are going to, let us not forget that there are many kinds of infrastructure spending. Let us not neglect the cultural side and the sports side. These should qualify as well. If we do that, then it is not recurring.

The greatest challenge will be to make sure that we do not get into a deficit situation where we are using deficit funding for ongoing operational needs. If we do that it will be difficult to get out of that deficit situation later on.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all I wish to congratulate you. That chair is rarely occupied by a woman. In my opinion, it is in the best interests of this chamber for a woman to take the chair. Perhaps this change will induce better behaviour in our debates.

I would like to ask my colleague for Ottawa—Vanier the following question. We just wrapped up an election campaign during which his party and mine were very critical of and analyzed in detail the Conservative position on the fates of seniors and young offenders, the decision to make cuts to culture, and others. We felt the same way about many issues, but the Conservatives just dug in their heels. I believe that a certain number of Liberal members were elected under the same banner—their position was similar to ours.

Can he explain why today he is being so conciliatory with respect to this throne speech, why he is so sympathetic to this speech and why he is even preparing to vote for an policy contrary to their arguments during the campaign?

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The member for Ottawa—Vanier has one minute to respond.

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

Madam Speaker, I can answer that quite easily.

First, more Conservatives were elected and so they have formed the government. I must say that, frankly, I have absolutely no desire to see Canada go into another election, and I think that 98% or 99% of Canadians would agree with me.

Although I intend to support this Speech from the Throne, I am telling the government that it cannot assume that it always has my support or that I will support all the bills it introduces. You and I agree on the subject of young offenders. If they plan on throwing a 14-year-old in prison for life, there is no way that I could accept that, and I will vote against it. I feel the same way about a number of other initiatives.

The Speech from the Throne is an overview. Since it is an overview, I can cut the government some slack, but with enough rope, it may hang itself yet. We shall see. However, we definitely have no intention of provoking an election. If my Bloc colleagues would like to bring on an election, that is their choice, but I do not think that Canadians would be happy with them if they did. I hope that we can let the government do its job—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona. I would first like to congratulate you on your election as Deputy Speaker, as well as congratulate all new members who are sitting in this House for the first time. I too consider it a great honour to be a newly elected member.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my constituents in Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing for placing their trust in me, and choosing me to represent them and defend their interests.

I should also take a moment to thank my husband, Keith, and my children, Mindy and Shawn, for supporting me throughout this journey that has led me to Parliament. I would be remiss if I did not also thank my mother, Simone Pitre, my six sisters and my brother, who never stopped encouraging me.

It is also important to recognize and thank the families of all MPs for their understanding and patience. There are often missed birthdays, anniversaries and other special days for the families of these members, and I want to go on record to indicate how much I appreciate their sacrifice.

During the election, when I travelled across Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, I was able to meet many of the people for whom I now work. In talking to them, I heard time and again that people are worried about their jobs and the high cost of living. They are worried about their pensions and about not being able to send their kids to school. As I listen to my colleagues speak, I can see that these are universal concerns. These are difficult economic times for all Canadians, my constituents included.

The people of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing are hard-working, and when they cannot work, they want to be treated fairly. They deserve an employment insurance program that works for them and is not just a cash cow for the government.

Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing is a big riding, and members may be aware that there is not a lot of public transportation. Things that many Canadians take for granted, like the ability to get to work or to a doctor's appointment, can be a big deal for many of my constituents. They rely on automobiles to get around and are subjected to higher gas prices than those in major centres. This is not right. It is hardly fair. The people in my riding have noticed this and they have told me how they feel about it. I have raised it in the House already and I will continue to do so until there is fairness for northerners at the gas pumps. It is too vital a component in our economy to be ignored.

I will turn my attention to the throne speech and the reasons why I will join my New Democrat colleagues in opposing it. After the election and the many assurances from the Prime Minister, Canadians were looking for an effective action plan from the government, but they did not get it. Canadians are looking for hope, for economic security, and they are not receiving it. They are looking for leadership and a plan that will guide us through these tough times, and they are not finding it, not from this government anyway.

However, there is hope. New Democrats have come up with a plan that would keep people working and help those people who want to work find jobs. Our five point plan is designed to help people in all regions and occupations.

First, the government needs to create an economic stimulus package to help protect and create jobs. These are not just jobs in major centres. New Democrats feel the north requires the same opportunity through economic stimulation, if not more. I might add that an economic stimulus will have to flow through aboriginal communities as well.

Where is the money for training and education in these communities? If we want people to work, we have to help them develop the tools to work. We want to see the children in aboriginal communities receive an education on a level playing field when compared to the opportunities available for children in cities and towns across our country, and right now that just is not happening.

Instead, what we see from the government is zero dollars for the integration of technology in schools, zero dollars for school libraries, zero dollars for vocational training in secondary schools, zero dollars for extracurricular sports and recreation activities, and zero dollars for providing students with a diversified and stimulating curriculum such as studies in sports and art. That is a lot of zeroes.

There are consequence to this oversight as well. Because of all of those zeroes, first nations schools are unable to provide competitive salaries and working conditions. Band councils must choose between vital services, making agonizing choices and cutting elsewhere. Worst of all is the inability to provide young people with a quality education, the kind that every child in Canada has the right to expect.

I am proud to have been named my party's associate critic for aboriginal affairs, and I look forward to working with first nations and the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan to make sure the government comes to recognize the good work that can be done if it makes our first nations people the real priority.

We also have to make sure our forestry sector is working. New Democrats, especially those of us from northern Ontario, are worried that the government does not recognize the need to preserve our forestry sector. In northern Ontario, entire towns have been dealt severe blows when a mill closes. Some towns in my riding still have their mills going, but these towns are becoming something of a rarity, and that is just not right.

Second, we need to protect the pensions of those hard-working Canadians who built this country, those Canadians whose shoulders we stand on. We need to ensure that their pensions are protected and that they never again slip into debt and into poverty.

Elliot Lake is a prime example of what can be done with an aging community. Elliot Lake has reinvented itself as a retirement town. It is a place where retirees can go and enjoy their retirement. Many of these seniors move to Elliot Lake because they can take advantage of affordable housing. Retirees are now the economic engine that drives that community and it is largely thanks to pensions. However, Elliot Lake is dependent upon pensions that pay out. Where is the protection from the government for retirees and those who are still working and dreaming of their retirement? It is just not there.

Third, we need to immediately suspend the $7.3 billion corporate tax cuts scheduled to take effect in 2009. It seems ludicrous to give away billions more to profitable corporations while the rest of the economy suffers. Let us face it, the oil companies are not going to leave if we do not give them a few billion dollars in tax breaks. They are going to keep right on drilling. It is money we cannot afford to give away right now, not when we are heading toward deficit budgets.

Fourth, we want to see concrete steps taken to fight climate change. New Democrats see climate change as both a legitimate threat to our prosperity and a golden opportunity to reinvent our economy. By creating green collar jobs, we have the potential to help solve both our problems simultaneously: the economic crisis and the climate crisis. It is not difficult to imagine Canada being a leader on the world stage with our transformation to a green energy superpower.

Fifth, we need to bring in meaningful democratic reform and a more open, accountable and co-operative minority government. There is currently a democratic deficit in our country with millions of Canadians feeling left out of our electoral process. One only has to look at the dismal rate of voter participation to recognize that there is a problem. It is a trend that grows from election to election. Canadians are weary of our current electoral model and with the behaviour of those whom they elect to represent them in this very House.

The New Democrats are eager to work with other parliamentarians so that the House can work meaningfully. We want to ensure that Parliament works for all Canadians, and we are therefore determined to work with the other parties and propose a program that has a good chance of helping Canadians avoid the worst of this difficult economic situation. We want to offer Canadians the hope that better days lie ahead and that they do not have to worry about their pensions or their jobs, about health care or the environment. They want to believe that they can count on us to defend their interests, the interests of ordinary taxpayers, rather than those of shareholders.

The people of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing can count on me. I will be tireless in my efforts to voice their concerns in this House, as well as the concerns of the millions of working families who voted for the NDP. In these uncertain times, middle class and working families can rest assured that our team will make their interests our priority. That is why the people of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing voted for change, and I will not disappoint them.

I could think of no better gift, on this my 50th birthday, than for the government to adopt the five points that New Democrats are proposing. That would be a gift for all of Canada.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish a happy birthday to the member and congratulations on her election.

I was a little confused when the member talked about co-operation and making the House work. I was pleased to hear that at the end because at the beginning I was confused. We know the NDP is not prepared to support this throne speech. As the Liberal team said, there is an amendment because the Speech from the Throne is a general overview but nothing concrete about what the government’s intentions are. It seems that if the NDP had its way, we would be in perpetual election mode continuously, which is nonsense. By all means, I am not here supporting the Conservatives, but I am supporting the Canadian taxpayers who pick up the tab.

I have a question for the member. She is the associate critic for aboriginal affairs and I congratulate her for that. She talked about first nations, schooling, training and funding. The Liberal government of Paul Martin had signed the Kelowna accord, which allocated funds and programs to address the concerns of which she is speaking. Her party agreed with the Conservative government that prematurely overthrew that government, and all that money was lost. All those opportunities were lost. What is she going to say to her constituents?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the member that at the time when the Kelowna accord was agreed to, the Liberals were in government. They had many years prior to that to come through on the commitments to aboriginal people, and you failed to do that. During the current election, your leader refused to commit to the Kelowna accord at 100%. You committed only half of the money, so you were not serious.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I would remind the hon. member to address all her comments through the chair.

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

Madam Speaker, I am a little bit lost because I did not know it was the member's birthday. Congratulations and happy birthday. I am thrilled to hear it. We will not talk about her age, as she has already done that once.

In my riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek this summer, as members heard in my statement earlier today, I was approached by many seniors who were extremely upset, in fact in tears, because they were getting an increase in a government pension of only 42¢ a month. Can we imagine what that felt like? Seniors expected more from the government, and they needed more. I would like to know from the member, what was the reaction in her community to this minuscule raise?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can say that in my community the issue of having pensions increased is a big issue. These people are actually living in poverty right now. At a time when all of the downloading by the province happened due to the lack of transfer payments to the province, these seniors are actually living in poverty because of the charges that are being applied to a lot of their services. They are having trouble with affordable housing and access to medical assistance. I would tend to think that we need a review of pensions since we have not had one in over 40 years. We need to increase the pensions for our seniors.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a quick question. I am continuing along the lines of the previous questions, because I think this is very important. The previous government, like the current one, did not give seniors who were eligible for the guaranteed income supplement the money they were entitled to, simply because the seniors were not informed of their rights. But these people have the lowest incomes and are the poorest in our society.

Does the member not find it shocking that this government, which in the past voted to hand over this money, still did not announce the correction of this injustice in the throne speech?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I think it is disgusting that the government is not stepping up to address the inequalities our seniors are experiencing. Our seniors have faced a number of challenges as of late. They helped build our country, and we must absolutely take care of them.

We would certainly be prepared to support this, and the problem must really be identified. The problem is that the Liberals have always supported the Conservatives in a number of areas.

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

Madam Speaker, let me begin my response to the Speech from the Throne by wishing the hon. member who just spoke a very happy birthday. I request that she save some of her birthday cake for when I am finished.

I would also like to congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on your appointment. I would like to congratulate all the members on their election to the House. I would like to thank my wife, Clile, and sons, Jose, Kevin and Carlos, for working tirelessly on the election campaign to ensure that it was successful. I would like to thank my campaign staff and all the many volunteers and especially my predecessor, Bill Blaikie, the former dean of the House, who dragged me out at six in morning to plant gate at various locations, including Revenue Canada and the CN shops.

I would especially like to thank the people of Elmwood—Transcona for placing their trust in me.

Parliament has shrunk the speaking times with respect to the throne speech debate. I reviewed Bill Blaikie's speech from 30 years ago and he referenced that he had 30 minutes. In Manitoba in the last 23 years that I was a member of the Manitoba house we had 40 minute speeches; we have since reduced them to 20 minutes. Therefore, it is going to be very difficult to cover all of the subject matter in only 10 minutes. With that in mind, I have decided to stick with three topics, some issues that I have not heard mentioned by some of the other members at this point that I am aware of.

We enter this House at a time of huge upheaval on a worldwide basis with the economy perhaps in the worst shape it has been since the 1930 Depression. Governments have learned a lot since that time. They know that by injecting massive spending at the appropriate times they can help ease the pain and perhaps even get us through a recession.

There are several ways to deal with the issue. The United States issued cheques, but that really does not work. People simply take that immediate money and buy products that are made in China and it really does not help the economy here that much. I favour an infrastructure approach. I know one can make arguments about it not being immediate enough, but I think that is the way to go. It is investment that benefits Canadians for years to come.

In fact, the balancing of the budget exercise for the last decade, which I was highly supportive of in Manitoba and nationally, has in a way meant delayed infrastructure spending. We have a huge supply of infrastructure catch-up to do and it could not happen at a better time.

In Manitoba we have developed 5,000 megawatts of clean hydroelectric power, which is about one-half of our potential. We export most of it to the United States market because that is where the transmission lines run. They do not run east and west; they run north and south, just like the oil pipelines up to this point in our history. We could develop over the next few years another 5,000 megawatts, or 50% of our total capacity, if the federal government would support an east-west power grid or a hydro superhighway to bring the power east to Ontario and west to Alberta.

On July 3, 2007 the Prime Minister endorsed the plan. In fact he announced a $586 million payment to Ontario as part of the $1.5 billion Canada ecotrust fund. We need the Prime Minister to make this project happen so we can build the energy equivalent to the intercontinental railway that was built in the 1800s to tie this country east and west.

I know that members on the government side from Manitoba are highly supportive of this idea and I wish them well in convincing the Prime Minister to take a strong leadership role in developing this east-west power grid.

We can then build in Manitoba the hydro projects and send the power to Ontario so that Ontario can close its coal plants by the target date of 2014. The coal plants have a capacity of about 6,500 megawatts and therefore, Manitoba is in a strong position to help people in Ontario close those plants.

Instead, what appears to be happening, if we read between the lines of the throne speech, and not even between the lines but right in the throne speech, is that Ontario may be developing nuclear plants. The throne speech on page 11 states that 90% of Canada’s electricity needs will be provided by non-emitting sources such as hydro, nuclear, clean coal or wind power by 2020.

Why does the government call nuclear energy clean? Nuclear creates radioactive waste that stays deadly for a million years and it has to be transported and stored. I want to know how clean that can possibly be.

To achieve the government goal, we will need between 8 and 14 new 120 megawatt nuclear reactors. Where will these be built? It could take years to get approvals. I can see local residents rising up in protest wherever these plants are proposed.

Unlike the federal Conservatives in Canada, president-elect Obama is tying investment in clean energy to the creation of millions of jobs. He has set a goal of putting one million domestically built plug-in hybrids on the road and has put an emphasis on the need for energy efficiency and, along with electrification of transportation, hopes to get the U.S. off imported oil. President-elect Obama has also said he wants to expand and upgrade the United States' electrical grid so it can move renewable energy to areas of the country where it is needed.

This is the Obama version of the east-west power grid that I just discussed. When will this power grid be built? When will the Prime Minister take a leadership role on this file? I look forward to seeing some action from the Prime Minister in the next few months.

Page 12 of the throne speech refers to increasing incentives for energy-saving home retrofits. Manitoba Hydro has had the power smart residential loan program for many years, which since 1999 has achieved an estimated 374 megawatts in electrical savings. Participation levels are now over 50,000 people. New retrofit loans hit 40,000 recently. The result is $145 million invested in our homes. Manitoba Hydro is the largest electricity exporter in Canada. Its 2008 annual report shows $625 million in export sales to the U.S.

I am highly recommending another infrastructure project which directly affects my riding of Elmwood--Transcona. The city of Winnipeg is trying to close the Disraeli bridges, which are a major thoroughfare from my constituency to the downtown area. This closure would be one year and four months long. The residents are suitably outraged that the mayor and council would do this and not listen to the 5,000-plus people who have signed petitions for the addition of a new separate, two lane span to this structure which should be built for approximately $50 million, according to the rapid transit report of the city of Winnipeg, with costs shared by the three levels of government, which by the way would be about $17 million for each of the levels of government. This new extra two lane span would be built as soon as possible. Then the existing four lane span would be closed and would be rehabilitated. The city would not be shutting down an area where 100,000 people would be affected. In spite of the traffic chaos this closure will cause, the mayor has charged ahead and refuses to ask the provincial or federal governments for financial help to prevent the complete closure.

I have received an excellent response on this file from the premier of Manitoba, the President of the Treasury Board, who knows the area very well and has represented part of that area provincially, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, and my colleague, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, whose riding borders mine and will be equally affected by the closure. We have the support of Daryl Reid, the MLA for Transcona, Bonnie Mitchelson, the MLA for River East, and Bidhu Jha, the MLA for Radisson. In addition, we have the support of city councillors Russ Wyatt from Transcona, Jeff Browaty from North Kildonan and Lillian Thomas from Elmwood--East Kildonan, who have all done an excellent job of pushing this issue at city hall.

I call upon all of my colleagues to come together to support a proposal for the federal government and the province of Manitoba to offer the city a share of the money needed to construct the extra two lanes.

The Prime Minister announced a $70 million contribution in June as part of a three way cost share with the city of Saskatoon and the province of Saskatchewan to construct a Saskatoon bridge which is six lanes and will only carry 20,000 cars a day. The current Disraeli, with only four lanes, carries 42,000 cars a day.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

On questions and comments, the hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member on his maiden speech.

The member talked about the nuclear option for energy generation. In the throne speech the government reminded Canadians that its undertaking with regard to addressing the environmental crisis in Canada is a 20% reduction in emissions by the year 2020. The member seems to be familiar with the nuclear scenario and probably knows that it takes a minimum of 10 years for the development, construction and startup of a nuclear reactor. I am pretty sure that the nuclear option is not going to add very much to reaching the targets the government purports to support.

The government also says in the throne speech that it will collaborate with the provinces because it is the provinces that are going to decide which options they choose for their energy production. Ontario is talking about going to natural gas-fired plants, an 850 megawatt plant in the southwest GTA. The direction in which the province of Ontario is going, as well as the timeline on nuclear, seem to debunk the commitment of the government to 20% by 2020. I wonder if the member has a comment on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I would answer the question by simply saying that Manitoba has potentially 5,000 megawatts of clean power which could be exported to Ontario to take care of the replacement of the coal-fired plants. This would help the federal government reach its targets. I will point out right now that Germany is exceeding its Kyoto targets as we speak, so this can be done.

I want to take whatever time I have left in my response to finish the third point of my debate which deals with the national securities regulator which was referenced in the throne speech. This idea has been discussed for many years. The smaller provinces have resisted the idea. They see this as an area of provincial responsibility to regulate within their own borders.

Let us pretend for a moment that the provinces give up their jurisdiction and a national securities regulator is formed. Will it be more active than the current Ontario Securities Commission? Let us check some facts.

From 2002 to 2007 the U.S. regulators--

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I saw many members stand for questions and comments, so I would like to provide another member the opportunity to ask a question or to comment.

The hon. member for Essex.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member's speech. I congratulate him on his recent election to Parliament. I am sure he is breathing a heavy sigh of relief that he was not in the last Parliament when his leader would have forced him to vote against the ecotrust fund, the $1.5 billion that this government set aside. The share for Ontario was $586 million, which was for the stated purposes of retiring the coal-fired generation plant in Nanticoke as well as for establishing some infrastructure for the east-west power grid.

The member is threatening to vote against the throne speech because Mr. McGuinty has failed to act on money we have delivered. Can he explain that to the House?

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona has one minute to answer.

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

Madam Speaker, I think the member should talk to his colleague, the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, who is firmly committed to the east-west power grid. He might be able to explain the issues a little more clearly to the member.

I want to finish my comments about the Ontario Securities Commission and its dismal record in dealing with white collar crime in this country. The U.S. regulators, as I indicated, convicted 1,236 white collar criminals between the years 2002 and 2007. Does anyone know how many were convicted in Ontario over that period? Does anybody want to take a guess? The answer is two. Two people have been convicted.

In fact, Conrad Black committed his white collar crimes in Canada while the Canadian watchdogs were asleep at the switch. It took the U.S. regulators to finally convict him. The Canadian white collar criminals who were running the Bre-X and Norshield scams and frauds have been given a free pass. Canada does not prosecute white collar crimes, so unless the government intends to hire aggressive--

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the hon. member for Prince Edward—Hastings.

It is a great honour and privilege for me to be standing in this place once again representing the wonderful riding of Leeds—Grenville. I want to take a moment to thank the people of my riding for their continued confidence in me and especially the volunteers who put in many hours to achieve the success that we had. I am aware of the tremendous support and the tremendous responsibility that has once again been bestowed upon me.

In my riding, we can study and understand rural Canada like nowhere else. Words that define the riding include: history, agriculture, manufacturing, industry, culture, security, trade, natural resources, forestry and economic development. History would include such large scale and well-known assets as the Rideau Canal, which is a world heritage site, and Fort Wellington with its own unique story. Just down the road near Kingston is Fort Henry.

Each community in Leeds—Grenville has its own significant historical assets as well, far too many to list. Our agricultural community includes everything from supply managed products, such as chicken, eggs, dairy, to those outside supply management, such as corn, vegetables and beef. Our manufacturing, industrial, forestry and natural resources sectors, although hard hit by global change, as in many other ridings in Canada, are still important employers and producers.

Just last week I attended an important event for a new industrial plant that accepted its first shipment of raw material and will soon have its grand opening. Over the past number of years, I have been pleased to work with and support the UNESCO recognized Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve that is bringing new value and interest to my riding and to those in the surrounding areas. This is all part of the beautiful Thousand Islands.

Despite its relatively small population compared to its size, Leeds—Grenville boasts an expanding and vibrant arts and cultural community that attracts people from a wide area to visit and to work in the riding.

People in my riding are concerned with trade and with security. Much of the manufacturing that takes place produces goods that are shipped outside of Canada. Trade and expansion of trading partners is vital to the continued success of those industries. I have two border crossings in my riding that lead to the urban concentrations of our largest trading partner, the United States. As well as trade, the residents of my riding use these bridges to visit friends and often relatives on the other side of the border. Security and open borders are important to Leeds—Grenville.

Finally, especially in these times of economic change, the riding relies on continued sustainable, innovative economic development and this development has been supported in the past by the federal government through the work of the Community Futures Development Corporations and by FedNor.

The final ingredients in the riding are the ones that make it a truly unique and remarkable place, the families who live, work and choose to raise their families there, the seniors who choose to live out their golden years in our paradise and the communities that they all foster by being part of the area.

It is because of the support and responsibility that these families, these seniors and these communities have given me, the support and responsibility that I spoke of a few minutes ago, that I was so pleased to hear in the Speech from the Throne delivered by Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean just last week. It spoke to the lives, the hopes and the aspirations of the people in my riding of Leeds—Grenville.

In my limited time, I want to touch on some of the elements of the throne speech that my constituents support. During the summer and during the campaign, I explained to my constituents that our government had taken early and substantial action to prepare for the current economic problems because we saw it coming. From lower taxes to incentives for manufacturers, to protection for farmers, to increased trade, to reducing the national debt, there are a number of areas where our government has acted and acted well in advance of this fall's economic meltdown.

The Speech from the Throne pledged to work internationally to reform the global finance system and to work with our allies and trading partners to re-examine and renew the rules that support the global financial system, and they are welcome news indeed.

I know the residents of Leeds—Grenville would like to see Canada share our financial rules with the rest of the world so that the situation can be avoided in the future.

Over the past few weeks, I have been receiving emails and letters from constituents who are concerned about Canada going into deficit. They want a guarantee that large continued deficits such as we have seen in the past are not on the table as a viable option. They are heartened to note that the government has paid down some $37 billion on the national debt, which gives us the lowest debt to GDP levels in the G-7.

Contrary to what we hear sometimes in this House, folks in my riding are not concerned that the government is no longer racking up $12 billion surpluses. They know that surplus is merely excess taxation. It is not free money for the government to play with. They know that our government has given these large surpluses back to Canadians in the form of tax reductions and needed services.

They will also be pleased to see that our government is continuing our examination of every government program and expenditure to ensure that we are receiving value for our money and we are spending on programs that make sense for Canadians.

Leeds—Grenville is like many other ridings in the industrial heartland of Canada in that it has participated in the restructuring of the manufacturing industries. This could be devastating news except for our government's commitment to retraining and helping older workers and younger workers gain the skills they need to move on in the workforce, a commitment that is once again restated in the Speech from the Throne.

The speech also reiterates our government's commitment to the skilled trades with encouragement for workers and employees. We have already taken steps to assist them with tax breaks and we will be taking more in the near future, as we promised during the election campaign.

This past spring and summer, we saw an unprecedented rise in the price of gasoline and diesel fuel, followed by a spectacular fall.

Leeds—Grenville is a rural riding. It is almost impossible to live without a vehicle because public transportation does not exist as it does in large urban areas. Hundreds of people travel every day to get to their jobs. Goods have to be moved from place to place within the riding but they have to arrive in the riding by truck. Many other people work in the transportation industry. In an emergency, we do not talk about being blocks away from a hospital or a fire hall, we talk about kilometres, even travelling to another community.

In short, the cost of gasoline and diesel fuel affects the day-to-day lives of the residents of Leeds—Grenville and they have no other options. That is why the residents of Leeds—Grenville rejected a carbon tax and why the residents of Leeds—Grenville will always reject a carbon tax. Their daily lives rely on gasoline, diesel and other energy.

Residents of Leeds—Grenville are also concerned about energy. They want our energy sources to be secure and they want to be able to budget for their energy use. They want their government to help secure our energy.

The residents of my riding are also concerned about the environment. They do what they can to reduce the amount of energy they use because it is the right thing to do, but there is only so much that they can do on their own. They will be pleased to see that our renewed commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Canada continues. They will be pleased to know that we will work on their behalf to find ways to tackle climate change both institutionally and by finding ways that they can participate and do their part without causing them grave economic distress.

What others do not do, the folks in my riding expect the governments and authorities will take steps to ensure that they can move forward in a positive way. They seem to be happy with what is in the throne speech. Our government has, from the beginning, vowed to keep our country safe by strengthening the sentences in the justice system for serious criminal offences, and I am pleased to see that this was once again restated in the throne speech.

I would continue in much greater detail with my words today but I wanted to express something of the background of my riding, which I think I have been able to do that, and of the people who live and work there and explain why, as hard-working, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, they and I are supporting the Speech from the Throne.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on his return to the House. He truly does represent one of the nicest and prettiest ridings in all of the country. I was in that riding on the weekend as a matter of fact and it is almost as nice as Scarborough--Guildwood.

I assume, because the member's riding is so heavily dependent on tourism, that he must have been terribly upset that the Speech from the Throne did not have one word in it about tourism. Since his riding is so dependent upon tourism, and particularly American tourists, he must have been much more distressed that it did not make one word of mention about replacing those American tourists, who will not be coming back anytime soon, with say Chinese tourists.

He must have been very distressed that there was no mention of negotiating with the Chinese government the approved destination status. In fact, Canada is not even on the negotiation list, although 134 countries have already signed off on approved destination status.

My colleague must find that this Speech from the Throne certainly does not respond to the needs of the people of Leeds—Grenville who are highly dependent on tourism.

Does the member not think that if the Prime Minister saw this economic downturn coming that he was remarkably silent during the election?