Debates of Nov. 27th, 2008

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin this debate, as all other members have, by thanking certain people. It is the first opportunity we have had to speak in the House since the election. I thank the residents and good people of Scarborough Centre for once again deciding in their wisdom that I am worthy to represent them in this, the 40th Parliament. I was first elected in the 35th Parliament. That is a long time ago, six elections ago. This is my sixth term. It is with humility that I thank the voters of Scarborough Centre.

I thank my volunteers as well, who were present day in and day out to help me achieve another victory. I want to thank my riding association. They were the administrative side, and they were there to help in any way possible. Last but not least, I thank my entire family, beginning with my wife Mary, who spearheaded the campaign once again. I thank my children: our daughter Irene and her husband Tony; our two grandchildren, little George and little Maria; our son Paul and his new bride Christina; and our young son Daniel. To everyone else I give my thanks, and I commit to them once again that I will be here to be their voice in my literature and to represent their views.

Before the election started and as this debate unfolds, I was asking myself what we need to do. I consulted my constituents and many people around me, knowing that this debate would unfold as soon as Parliament opened. As I have asked in the past, what is a throne speech? The other day I responded to another member by saying that a throne speech is a general overview of what the government intends to do. It contains nothing specific. That is why it is good to have a vote, but in essence we should make it a confidence vote because there is nothing specific in it.

What did I do during the campaign? I responded to what the people wanted. The people said that these are very difficult and trying times. They asked me to point out certain facts in order for them to judge. My opponents from the Conservative Party were putting out literature with pictures and inflammatory comments that I will not go into. There were statements that in essence were inaccurate. However, I say that this is a democracy. Let the people judge.

As a member for 15 years, I have accumulated a database of facts. I went back and took out the books. It was not what the member for Scarborough Centre had to say. It was not what other people had to say. It was what the media printed. It was what was on the record, records that you, Mr. Speaker, have read in the past as a member, as has everybody else. I went down the list and saw that we did inherit a $43 billion deficit, and we did bring down the debt by almost $60 billion, and we did reduce the debt to GDP ratio from 68.5% to 38%, which is what the Conservative Party is saying today. I am glad they are pointing it out.

As a Liberal government, we brought eight consecutive balanced budgets. Before the election, the Prime Minister was saying that we needed to have an election because Parliament was not functioning. Canadians were asking why it was not functioning. When they asked me, I would say that I knew we were having problems in committees because there were disruptions. Chairs of committees were walking out and we could not get our work done, if that was what the Prime Minister was referring to.

The government brought in legislation on, for example, crime and justice issues. My opponent was saying we blocked and blocked repeatedly. However, I pulled out my record and noticed that it was odd. I voted in favour of crime bill after crime bill. Why did they not go through? It was because Parliament was prorogued by the Prime Minister.

I stand up here and say, yes, we wanted to do things, but we were strapped in 1993-94. I read a beautiful statement the other day written by the former governor of the Bank of Canada David Dodge, somebody we all know. He is a very well-recognized, internationally astute economist. We have been pushing in Ontario, along with the premier and the mayors, to put money into infrastructure, which was one of our programs in 1993 after we took over. It created so many jobs and stimulated the economy. David Dodge said in London, Ontario, that it is a good time to build those bridges, build those roads which by policy we neglected in the 1990s because we were broke.

I want to repeat his words, “because we were broke”. This country was unofficially bankrupt, so we had to put our house in order, get the economy rolling, and then once that was rolling, indeed, we made those investments that we committed to the people, for example, the Canada infrastructure program.

I know in my area of Scarborough Centre the decisions were made from the bottom up. They went to the then city of Scarborough and asked what were its needs. It identified those needs and we supported them in a one-third, one-third, one-third partnership.

I went down the list and I started outlining what was important and my constituents said health care. The House will recall that just before the election there was a survey that was done which asked, if an election were held today what are the three most important issues for Canadians. Number one at 79%, as very important, was health care; number two at 75%, as very important, was the economy; and, number three at 61%, as very important, was the environment. I agreed with them.

People who have known me around this honourable chamber for 15 years know I have been saying that health care is and will be the most important issue for us here in Canada.

When I listened to the auto executives in the United States the other day, I remembered, as the parliamentary secretary to industry, that we had the auto people come before our committee. Do members know what they said to us about why they were competitive here in Canada and why we had a healthy industry? It was because of health care.

We know also, and it is on the record, some of the statements from the Conservative members. If they had their way, along with Mike Harris and his group, they would privatize health care. That is not something I am saying. Those are words that were uttered from their mouths, specifically in interviews that are on the record.

I went down the list and I outlined these points to my constituents, and pointed out that the largest investment in health care, $58 billion, was made by the Liberal government as a result of the Romanow report. Mr. Romanow said in an interview with Peter Mansbridge, that the Liberals not only met his expectations, they exceeded them. We met that commitment for Canadians. On infrastructure, as I mentioned earlier, unprecedented investments were made.

They asked me also to point out why the current Prime Minister reneged on certain commitments. I asked, what commitments? So they asked me to dig them out. One of the things they were very adamant about and they are still asking questions is a need for clarification on the in and out advertising scam from the last election. I said that I agreed with them, but the committee has been put on hold. If we believe in democracy, we will allow that to unfold and get to the bottom of it.

Canadians want to know what happened with the former member of Parliament, now deceased, Chuck Cadman. Canadians want to know why the largest tax increase on income trust at 31% was there and why seniors lost their future moneys. Canadians want to know why today the government is not putting forth the money that was allocated for infrastructure.

In 10 minutes it is really impossible to say what we want to say, but I look forward to any questions that the members might have.

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

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to the hon. member for his re-election again to the House.

He talked about a number of things. He mentioned infrastructure a couple of times. Surely he knows, as I know and everyone in the House knows, there is no new money for infrastructure with $7.3 billion in tax cuts. He talked about the debt that this country is about to start accruing. Cancelling those tax cuts would be a big help in going in that direction. Tax cuts, by the way, that are for the most profitable companies in Canada, not struggling companies and not small businesses.

The hon. member clearly thinks that his party would do a much better job in government. Therefore, I would like to ask the member a very simple question. Why is he supporting the Speech from the Throne?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are supporting it because we made an amendment, because Canadians today cannot afford another half a billion dollars for another election, because as I said in my statement, the throne speech is a general overview of the government's intentions. It has not given us a budget. It has not given us anything specific. It would be unfair to Canadians. It would be unwise. It would be a bad example to those who are watching us. They have asked us to co-operate. I think this Liberal team is showing the willingness to co-operate, giving the opportunity to the government to bring forth specifics.

Now, on the infrastructure, if I may, the member asks why? We proved it. We have a record that speaks for itself, not a record that we made up. These are facts, not innuendoes.

Also permit to me point out, on infrastructure, in the 2005 budget, the Liberal government renewed the municipal rural infrastructure program, the Canada strategic infrastructure fund, the border infrastructure program, and the public transit capital trust. That was $11.5 billion between 2007 and 2014, which the Conservative government unfortunately cancelled. How did we do it? We did it in a balanced way, the Liberal way.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side honour the member's time as parliamentary secretary to the minister of industry. He knows the file.

He would have read and seen on television that emissaries of the government went to Washington. I wonder what he makes of the fact, given his experience working with senior ministers of industry, effective Liberal ministers of industry, that they were unable to meet with anyone of influence in Washington? What does he make of the fact that in the United States the bailout bailouts, so-called, the economic stimulus packages, are in the percentages of GDP which, calculated by Canadian terms, would be in the billions of dollars? And if there is not an economic stimulus package delivered today to the workers who need it, the savers who need it, the pensioners who need it, in the order of billions of dollars for Canadians, what would he make of that, given his experience?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really was not prepared for that question, but I will say that this little trip was done in such a clandestine way. This trip was for Canada, not the Conservative Party. We do not distinguish between red, blue or whatever party. We as a Liberal team, when we used to go abroad for the good of Canada, invited other members. Now we have been shut out. I do not know what the Conservatives are afraid of. I do not know what they are scared of.

As a vice-chair of the defence committee some time ago, we were invited to one meeting in that previous mandate. The Conservatives would notify us at the last minute when of course we could not make it. As a result of the minister's visit, I think he has an obligation to come back and provide a full report, given the circumstances. However, everything is done behind closed doors, as I said, in such a clandestine way that Canadians do not know.

I think for the good of the country, the Conservatives must open up the process. They must invite other party members to participate, as tradition calls for, not just single-handedly going there and us not knowing who they talked to, if they talked to anybody.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Vancouver Island North.

It is a real honour to rise today to represent the people of Halton in this great place. I want to begin by thanking them for the profound trust and confidence that they have placed in me as a member of Parliament. It is a very humbling experience to know that so many friends and neighbours are counting on me to represent them here in Ottawa. They deserve strong representation in this House and I pledge to them that I will work tirelessly every day to deliver it.

I specifically want to thank the number of volunteers that I had during the election campaign who brought a lot of vigour and a lot of excitement to a hard-fought battle. Anyone who has stood in this place before knows that they would not be here but for the support of loved ones and family.

I am blessed to have grown up in Cape Breton Island, but I have chosen to make my home in Halton and that is where I raised my children. I would like to thank my family in Cape Breton and my former neighbours, teachers, employers and everyone who has extended their support and their congratulations, specifically, the Frasers, the Maccormacks, the Starzomskis, the McNeils and the Schmids.

In Halton, I have to thank my family. I thank my husband, Dave, for all his support. Without him I know I would not be here today serving the people of Halton and our great country. I thank my sons, John Colin and Billy, for being patient, for being good boys, and for watching this today.

It is really hard being away from family and loved ones, but our families and our communities are the reason why we choose to serve our country in this way. We want to ensure that our children have the same great opportunities that we had and that Canada tomorrow is stronger and more prosperous than it is today. Like all members of this House, I recognize the privilege and the responsibility we assume as members of Parliament, and that includes the responsibility to lead.

As it has been demonstrated again in the Speech from the Throne, this government understands responsibility. Thanks to the leadership and prudent management of this government, Canada can face today's global economic uncertainties from a position of strength.

Natural resources have always been an important part of Canada's economic equation and going forward they will be key drivers of growth. These vital industries employ some 900,000 Canadians, generate close to 13% of our gross domestic product and contributed $100 billion to Canada's trade surplus last year, yet in the face of this current economic downturn, simply having a wealth of natural resources is not enough.

We need to transform our resources into a more value-added product to keep high quality jobs here in Canada. We need to spark innovation and increase productivity. We need to do these in order to strengthen Canada's competitiveness.

Competitiveness goes hand in hand with securing a diverse and growing supply of energy and a balanced approach to tackling climate change. That is why positioning Canada as a clean energy superpower is important. We will therefore work with Canadians to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from industry in a balanced, sensible and achievable manner. We will work with Canadians to implement a North American cap and trade system with our partners. We will work with Canadians to encourage targeted investments in the most promising clean technologies, such as wind, solar, geothermal, small hydro, and carbon capture and storage.

We will work with Canadians to increase energy efficiency. We will work with Canadians to expand the production and use of renewable and alternative energy. We will create a clean electricity task force to help ensure that 90% of our electricity comes from non-emitting sources by 2020. Nuclear energy will play an important role in how we reconcile a growing demand for energy with the need to tackle climate change. Continued leadership on our nuclear priorities will further enhance Canada's energy security and help position Canada's nuclear industry for success at home and abroad.

At home, our government will ensure that our regulatory framework is ready to respond should the provinces choose to advance new nuclear projects.

Effective and efficient regulations for large resource projects are critical for Canada's competitiveness and environmental leadership. Through initiatives such as the Major Projects Management Office, or MPMO, we are improving Canada's regulatory system.

Ensuring a more effective approach for northern research projects, including pipelines, is a critical next step. This is all about promoting responsible development of the Arctic and asserting Canada's sovereignty. Our commitment to support Arctic research reinforces these objectives.

Sound regulation is also essential in our mining sector as it faces greater competition and lower commodity prices. Finding new resources and developing and implementing the technologies that will allow them to be extracted in ways that are both cost effective and environmentally effective will require significant effort.

Our government is committed to working with the mining sector to further enhance Canada's already strong investment climate. We are delivering on our commitment to provide $100 million over five years to the geomapping for energy and minerals program to seek out new resources. We are committed to extending the super flow-through share incentive for mining exploration.

Our government is equally committed to a healthy forest sector, which is so important to so many communities and Canadians across this country. From natural disasters such as the mountain pine beetle infestation in the west and a sharp downturn in the U.S. market, to a volatile currency and shifting market preferences, our forest industry is facing serious challenges. We will work with the industry as it goes through this period of restructuring.

We will continue to support its efforts to create new products, convert mills to biomass and expand our markets overseas. Our $1 billion community development trust is helping resource communities diversity their economic bases.

Canada's natural resources belong to all Canadians. The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that Canadians gain the maximum benefits from these resources. This requires that attention be given to immediate pressures arising from the current economic downturn as well as longer term challenges posed by a highly competitive global marketplace.

That is precisely what the government is doing. We will continue to work with Canadians to ensure that our resource sectors are positioned to emerge from today's global downturn stronger, cleaner and more prosperous.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on her elevation to cabinet as well as her election in the last campaign.

No doubt this is a very difficult file and a very daunting challenge for her.

It is clear that many Canadians in the past couple of months have been extremely concerned about the cost of energy prices, most important, the sudden dramatic rise in the cost of gasoline and now home heating fuel, which impacts electricity.

As we head into a time of deflation, people are losing their jobs and they are also seeing higher costs for energy, particularly truckers in western Canada with respect to diesel fuel. They also have home heating concerns as well.

What contingencies, what plans and discussions does the government have to address this? I heard nothing in the minister's speech that addressed one of the most fundamental issues confronting Canadians today, higher energy costs at a time when they are losing their jobs. What does the minister have to say about that? What plan does the government have, if any?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we commenced on the election campaign at the beginning of September and when we went door-to-door, one thing Canadians told us, and very vocally, was the fact that they were concerned about oil and gas prices. The concern at the time, of course, was that the prices were so high and people wondered how they could afford to put gas in their cars.

As we went along in the election, it became clear that with the expected downturn, the economic global uncertainty and with gas prices going down, the volatility of the issue was of concern to Canadians.

Our government strongly believes we need to secure our energy future in order to ensure we have long-term economic growth. We take our responsibility as an emerging super-power in energy very seriously.

In the Speech from the Throne we laid out our intention to ensure that 90% of Canada's electricity would be produced by non-emitting sources such as hydro, nuclear, clean coal or wind power by 2020. We know we need to meet the challenges associated with climate change.

In the Speech from the Throne we also laid out our commitment to ensure that Canada's regulatory framework would be ready to respond should the provinces choose to advance new nuclear projects.

We are looking at the electricity situation. More specifically, we are also taking a look at ensuring our vast natural energy resources keep providing an important source of wealth and jobs for Canadians.

As well, it is important to note that protecting Canadian consumers is a top priority of the government.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the minister on her appointment. She says she is very concerned about the forestry industry, and understandably so, and that it should focus more on secondary and tertiary processing.

I have some questions for her regarding the fact that thousands of jobs have been lost—which is nothing new; this has been going on for years.

Why does the government not give businesses any real support? Why does the government not grant loans and loan guarantees, so that businesses can focus more on secondary and tertiary processing? Why does the government not give refundable tax credits to companies that invest in research and development? We know that it takes a long time to recover research and development costs. These are promising solutions. Does the minister intend to show that she has vision and invest in these two projects?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we truly understand that workers and their families in the forestry community are facing challenging times. We know that when a mill closes, it affects every corner of the community.

In the Speech from the Throne we have committed to helping this industry by investing in innovation and creating market opportunities.

We understand the anxiety that communities are facing. However, our government has been ahead of the curve and we have a comprehensive plan to ensure the long-term success of the industry.

We are investing in innovation to make the mills more competitive. We are supporting the market development to create the opportunities for people to sell into other markets. We are reducing corporate taxes to keep the jobs in Canada.

We are also supporting the environmental leadership shown by Canadian companies in this industry and we are ensuring adequate credit remains available for Canadian business.

Finally, we have launched a rail review to ensure our products can get to the market.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am back. I was here for the 35th, 36th, 37th and 38th Parliaments and now I am back for the 40th. I missed the last Parliament. It feels very good to be back. I had a long apprenticeship on the opposition benches and now I am back with the government.

I want to thank the people of Vancouver Island North, my campaign team, my family and everyone back home who had so much to do with keeping the Conservative Party label and my campaign in full mode for a long period of time. It might have seemed short to people sitting here, but when one is anxious to get back and join the House of Commons, 30 months or so is a long period of time.

I recognize many members of the House, but there are many that I do not recognize. There have been two elections in the meantime and maybe one-third of the membership here is different. I look forward to meeting some of them. I notice that three members in the House of Commons share my last name. I was alone for four Parliaments. I have introduced myself and it is very interesting to find out that we are from three different parties and three different parts of the country. It just goes to show the Scottish diaspora carries on unabated across Canada and we continue to make a valuable contribution.

The riding of Vancouver Island North is the north half of Vancouver Island and the adjacent coastline. It is one of the biggest ridings in Canada. It has many challenges geographically and physically from a transportation standpoint. The riding consists of mountains, lakes, ocean and year-round golf. It is a very special place.

Parts of the riding are very resource dependent. It is the wood basket for the coast. It has a very active fishing industry. Port Hardy is the largest groundfish port in the province. On the west coast, there is a very large fishing fleet out of that community, Campbell River and Comox. It has an active mining sector and tourism sector.

Comox air force base is a very significant DND asset in the country. Of course there are a lot of retirees. The Comox Valley, as an entity, where about 60% of the population of the riding resides, has the third oldest age demographic in Canada because it is such an attractive place for seniors. It is well connected to the Canadian air traffic transportation network, with Comox airport, Campbell River and Port Hardy all tied in with the grid for Canada.

Also, 23 first nations are in the riding. It is very significant in my portfolio. Those first nations are a very important dynamic within the riding. The accomplishments of the government in the 39th Parliament did not go unnoticed. I received endorsements in my riding from first nations. I enjoyed working with them, and continue to do so.

They are very impressed with the accomplishments. Specifically, the ones most often mentioned are the residential schools settlement and the apology, the action we have taken on specific land claims and, specific to British Columbia, the acceptance of the common table negotiations involved with the B.C. treaty process.

Those will act as a segue to talk about the Speech from the Throne. The Speech from the Throne had two significant and overarching statements regarding aboriginal affairs and northern development. I was pleased to listen to the comments of the Minister of Natural Resources prior to my speaking where she talked about the Arctic, northern development, clean energy, sovereignty and other resource issues and northern issues that are important.

The throne speech talked about first nations education and our northern strategy. The government is working to ensure aboriginal peoples have access to the same educational opportunities as other Canadians. We are working to improve education in partnership with the provinces and the first nations communities. We are committed to improving educational outcomes for aboriginal people. It is a shared responsibility in which governments, communities, educators, families and students all have a role to play.

We believe that first nations students deserve an education system that will encourage them to stay in school, graduate and give them the skills they need to enter the labour market successfully and share fully in Canada's economic opportunity.

That is why we invested in a new reforming first nations education initiative that sets the long-term foundation for improvements in first nations education. We are investing $268 million over five years and ongoing funding of $75 million in subsequent years. This is for the first nations student success program and for the education partnership program. This funding is over and above existing investments in education of $1.7 billion in 2008-09.

I have a couple of examples. Last year we signed a memorandum of understanding with the New Brunswick first nations and the Province of New Brunswick to improve educational outcomes of first nations students in band and provincially-operated schools in that province. Last November, the First Nations jurisdiction over education in British Columbia act came into effect in B.C. which has led to negotiations with 13 first nations.

We continue to make major investments to support a wide range of school infrastructure projects, ranging from study and design, renovation, minor repairs and construction, to operation and maintenance. Since April 2006, we have completed 9 new schools and renovations to 18 schools. We have 67 ongoing school projects, 13 are at the design stage, 9 in new construction and 45 in renovations.

We have seen unprecedented efforts from our government toward the north. We have been continuously committed to help the region realize its true potential as a healthy and prosperous region within a strong and sovereign country. The northern strategy is a comprehensive and integrated vision for a new north built on four important priorities: strengthening sovereignty, protecting our environmental heritage, promoting economic and social development, and improving and devolving governance so that northerners have greater control over their destinies.

From the Speech from the Throne to budget 2008, our government announced concrete measures to implement that vision, including: geological mapping to enhanced economic development; the expansion of the Nahanni National Park; construction of a deep water port in Nanisivik and a commercial harbour in Pangnirtung; the expansion of the Canadian Rangers; investments in polar year projects, in housing and in improving living conditions; and the creation of a Canadian Forces Arctic training centre in Nunavut, in Resolute Bay.

Perhaps the signature of the government's legacy in the north is the investments in a new polar class icebreaker to replace the Canadian Coast Guard ship, Louis St. Laurent, and plans to build a world-class, high Arctic research station at the cutting edge of Arctic science.

We are committed to the north and northerners and we will continue to work with the three territories to ensure northerners are full partners and active decision makers in the future of the new north.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will begin by congratulating you on your new position and my hon. colleague for his new role as parliamentary secretary.

Given the fact that it is the first day that we are back in the House since the terrorist attack that took place yesterday in Mumbai, India, I would like to express our profound horror, shock and dismay and to tell the people of India and the victims that our solidarity and our prayers are with them.

Would my hon. colleague share his comments on this issue and would he be willing to speak to his House leader to see if there is a possibility of having a moment of silence today?

We have found out that Canadians may also have been taken and are unaccounted for. This is a terrible tragedy around the world and we must show our solidarity.

I would invite my hon. colleague to make comments and to speak to the House leader about a moment of silence today.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments. The Prime Minister did condemn the attacks today. I do join in the sense of outrage over what has occurred.

We do know that some Canadians are involved but that, in itself, is not the entire question. We have a humanitarian issue here and one that displays the worst aspects of terrorism and getting away from the rule of law, away from all of the values that Canadians value so much.

Yes, it is most appropriate that we take a non-partisan approach in the House. I certainly will be talking with my colleagues and with the party officials. I believe this is on everybody's radar and everybody's agenda today.

I congratulate the member for making this top of mind for everybody. It joins us all together in a common feeling. I know that many people are in very high emotional distress. They have had major losses at this time and our collective hearts go out to them.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, congratulations to the hon. member on his re-election.

I have heard a lot of talk about the expansion in the north and military spending along those lines, but the government cannot find the money to build one school for the children of Attawapiskat. I am wondering if the hon. member could explain that, please.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the school in Attawapiskat has been in the news quite a bit because the member of Parliament from that riding has made this a very significant issue.

Officials from Health Canada were at the school in June of this year and they gave the school a clean bill of health. We are removing the environmental hazard, which is actually not where the current elementary school is located. That is happening this year. That is an approximately $1 million expenditure being carried out by the first nation. That is its responsibility.

Efforts are ongoing to ensure that school, along with all other institutions and schools in the Ontario region, are on some kind of schedule for capital spending. The reality is that at the current time that school is considered safe and there are--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to wish you all the best in your new position.

I am going to split my time with the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.

This is my first speech since the throne speech and I would like, of course, to thank the people of my riding for electing me. I also want to point out that when the voters were making their decision, they had to assess the future performance of the parties and candidates they were choosing. The Quebeckers in my riding made no mistake, as in most of Quebec, where 49 members of the Bloc Québécois were elected.

The Conservatives have produced a Speech from the Throne that is completely out of touch with what is going on in Quebec. It seems to be directed at the rest of Canada with no consideration for the needs and issues clearly expressed by Quebeckers during the election campaign.

It is all the more amazing, therefore, to see that this throne speech has the support of the Liberal Party of Canada. It is the same old bunch of federalists. They insist on their highly centralizing positions that are entirely contrary to what Quebec wants and could benefit from.

For example, the Conservative government is persisting with its cuts to culture and to the economic development agencies, even though the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister for La Francophonie said during the election campaign that there would be other programs to replace the ones that were eliminated. Now the axe has fallen and there are no other programs. The new Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages has confirmed that there will not be any programs to offset the cuts. The Conservatives say that reducing Quebec’s cultural presence on world markets suits them just fine and they can live with that. In their view, culture is a commodity like any other. There is a clear disconnect on this between the views of Quebeckers and the views of Canadians, and that is one of the reasons why we will oppose the throne speech.

Finally, the Conservatives are still insisting on imposing regressive legislation against young offenders and on dismantling the firearms registry. Over the years, we have developed a rehabilitation system for young offenders in Quebec that works very well. Our rehabilitation rates are higher than in the rest of Canada. This throne speech just shows the right-wing Conservative steamroller still barrelling along in the same direction and in the same spirit we saw at their convention in Winnipeg. It is an approach based more on punishing than rehabilitating. That too is contrary to the wishes of Quebeckers.

The Conservatives are insisting on creating a federal securities commission. Here too, they are acting contrary to the entire consensus in Quebec, including both the political parties and the economic experts. If I were a Conservative member from Quebec, I would not be very proud of having an approach like this, which is neither wanted nor accepted in Quebec, as we have seen over the last few years. The position of Quebeckers is very clear. Here too, there is a disconnect between what the Conservatives want and what Quebeckers want.

Next, the speech does not even contain the word Kyoto. Today, a certain approach should be in place, at a time when we are faced with a financial crisis, an economic crisis: there must be sustainable development solutions. In this connection, the Conservatives continue to draw a clear line between economic development on the one hand and environmental issues on the other. Yet we know that they cannot be separated. Quebeckers figured that out a long time ago. The people of Quebec view sustainable development as the way of the future. They would have expected to see some indication in the throne speech that the Conservatives got the message, especially since they are now really isolated. Even the Americans, with the election of a new president, will move far away from the approach they had in the Bush years. The Australians have changed governments, and with it their attitude to this subject. Soon Canada will be the only one left with this restrictive and regressive approach of not requiring development to be sustainable, and of continuing to view economic development and environmental issues as opposites rather than parts of the same movement, as they must be.

The speech also announces another reduction to the political weight of Quebec; constituencies will be added and the result will be that the number of Quebec members compared to the whole of Canada will be reduced.

This intention is repeated, yet it has no support whatsoever in Quebec. We can see that there are a great many points on which there are very marked distinctions between the approach of the Conservative Party. with the backing of the Liberal Party of Canada, and the approach of the people of Quebec, which is transmitted to this House by the Bloc Québécois members. Quebeckers have made their wishes very clear. In six elections in a row, they have shown that they would prefer to have a party like the Bloc Québécois represent them, even if they knew from the start that it would be in opposition. They are therefore certain that the positions defended before, during, and after the election will remain unchanged and that the Bloc Québécois members will be focused on the development and defence of the interests of Quebec and the promotion of sovereignty.

The government also promised to interfere more in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, like health and education. There is nothing in the Speech from the Throne about the fiscal imbalance or education transfers. It has been 14 years now since the Liberal government made cuts to this sector, and the Conservative government is turning a blind eye. It is going down the same path and is not fixing the situation. This has a huge impact, because knowledge is very important to face the current economic crisis and the challenge of a world economy, and Quebec needs the post-secondary education transfers it should be receiving. But this was not in the speech.

The government also clearly announced that it wants to support the development of nuclear energy and continue unrestricted military spending. This goes completely against what Quebeckers want. Quebeckers are against the development of nuclear energy because other clean energies or alternative energies can be developed, and they do not want us to go in that direction.

As for military spending, yesterday we saw the report assessing the mission in Afghanistan. It is going nowhere. We are up against some difficult situations, and there is not much progress being made. But it is clear that we could have used this money and invested it much more constructively. I think the way the mission has been run clearly shows that the Conservative government, which decided to purchase equipment without having foreign affairs or defence policies, must now face the facts. It purchased military equipment without first thinking about what was needed. The government needs to go back to the drawing board, and there was no indication of that either in the throne speech. Furthermore, the government is repeating the same promise about federal spending power, with a formula that was rejected by Quebec.

This Speech from the Throne does not take into account the Quebec nation, or the interests and values of Quebeckers. There is no sign of the spirit of openness we were hoping for. I think Quebeckers sent a very clear message during the last election—as we saw, over 70% of the population voted for a party other than the government—and most of the members here proposed an approach very different from the one taken by the Conservative government. Quebec saw a decline in Conservative votes and a decrease in the number of members, but in they end, the Conservatives did not seem to get the message. Naturally, Quebec will eventually draw its own conclusions. Whether we have a federal government that is Conservative or Liberal, Quebec never wins. It is never given enough of a say, because the federal government's priorities are never the same as Quebec's priorities. Once again, this is true of this throne speech, and I hope Quebeckers will begin electing many sovereignists, both in Quebec and in Ottawa. The best way to defend the interests of Quebec at this time, and this is clearly what Quebeckers chose, is to elect a large majority of Bloc Québécois members. I hope Quebeckers will choose a sovereignist government in Quebec. That way they will have the best team to defend the interests of Quebec, until sovereignty is achieved.

I understand why Quebeckers elected members of the Bloc. They predicted that the Conservative government would show no openness towards the priorities of Quebec.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment. You are the member for Victoria and you are also bilingual. It is a pleasure for a Quebecker like me to see a bilingual woman heading the business of the House. We are very proud of your appointment, Madam Speaker.

It has been two years since the Quebec nation was recognized in this House and, with the outcome of this election, it must be said that our government's policy of open federalism is getting results. During his speech, my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet commented on this. On the one hand, we can see that more Quebeckers are responding positively to the federalist policy being put forward and, on the other hand, that fewer Quebeckers are responding positively to the Bloc's restrictive ideology and lack of pragmatism.

I have a question for my colleague. I would like to ask him why he is not supporting the Speech from the Throne when it contains three concrete examples of open federalism.

First, we want to limit federal spending power, which is one of Quebec's traditional requests, notably in areas of exclusive jurisdiction. We want to protect copyright, which is extremely important for culture, and we want to remove tariff barriers so that our businesses can engage in trade. We have outlined concrete measures for the environment and we want to invest in infrastructure.

How can my colleague vote against a Speech from the Throne that is advantageous for Quebec, risk plunging the country into another election and ignore Quebec's best interests?

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

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

Madam Speaker, thank you for saying the name of my riding correctly. My colleague was talking about Montmagny—L'Islet, but Kamouraska and Rivière-du-Loup also contributed to my victory during the most recent election campaign.

My colleague began by talking about recognition of the Quebec nation, which I feel was a major issue during the latest election. Quebeckers realized that, although the Conservative Party recognized the Quebec nation, that recognition lacked substance, would only ever be symbolic, and would never produce concrete results.

When it comes to the Quebec nation's distinct language and characteristics, concrete actions could be taken to give Quebec more powers. In terms of spending power, the proposed formula—the one promised in the previous throne speech—is not what Quebeckers want. Quebeckers agree that this is not the kind of formula they want.

With respect to tariff barriers, without Quebec, there would never have been a free trade agreement with the United States. The sovereignists were the ones who pushed that agenda forward. We have always been in favour of doing things that way. We want open markets. We want to have our own country and make 100% of our own laws with the taxes we pay. That has always been our election platform, and our platform has earned us six majority mandates in Canada's Parliament.

In my opinion, Quebeckers now have proof that, in light of the Conservatives' throne speech, the only ones looking out for their interests are the members of the Bloc Québécois.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I thank you and I extend my congratulations.

You are doing a great job.

During my comments on the throne speech, I went to great lengths to outline how the people really in need were not helped at all. Canada is in a crisis. When I went door to door during the recent election campaign people were very worried. I challenged all Canadians, all 33 million of them, whether there was a single one of them that was given any comfort by the throne speech in their time of crisis. I received zero replies, not a single Canadian out of 33 million.

Throne speeches can be somewhat vague. What enhances this worry for me is that in the economic statement that is to come later today there still will be no major prescriptions outlined. The minister said that he will only be making a statement and he will wait until next year to do something.

Does the member also sense that those people who are seeing their pensions and RRSPs disappear, those people who are worried that their parents will be able to survive on a fixed income, those people who are losing their jobs, those people who are losing their homes are terrified--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I am sorry. The hon. member's flattering comments went to my head. I forgot to say that it was just a very short question. The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

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

Madam Speaker, I realize that a very brief answer is in order. I will just say that this week the Bloc Québécois presented some very concrete proposals to stimulate the economy and we hope that the Conservative government will act on them. Unfortunately, thus far it has indicated that it wants to put things off until the next budget, which would be very harmful. In my opinion, it would be better to deal with economic development than strike a blow to democracy, given what we have heard about the funding of political parties.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Before doing so, I would like to take this first opportunity to send a warm thank you to the voters of Châteauguay—Saint-Constant for their continued trust. They gave me a very strong mandate with a margin of 15,000 votes. I thank them.

Their trust is an honour. I will proudly represent every single citizen in my riding during this 40th Parliament. I will defend their interests and the consensus of the Quebec nation. Thank you again to all. Congratulations, Madam Speaker, on your appointment.

For several weeks we have been tracking the serious global financial crisis which, sooner or later, will affect the businesses and citizens in our regions. Having seen what is being done elsewhere in the world to counter this global recession, people expect the federal government to play a decisive role in supporting them and getting the economy back on track as soon as possible.

In my opinion, when we talk about this central role, we need to keep in mind that a government is not a business. A government exists to serve and protect the people. It is there to prevent people from suffering needlessly from this widespread financial crisis.

As I listened to the broad statements in the throne speech on November 19, I was expecting that the government would take action on the economy to help people get through these difficult times. I believed it would act in the best interests of the people. But, sadly, people are going to have to be patient and bite the bullet.

My leader, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, took the words right out of my mouth when he described the throne speech as insensitive. The speech is particularly insensitive because it all but ignores the poorest members of our society. And I am not even talking about how the consensuses of the Quebec nation are simply ignored. This speech is insensitive, all the more so because of the many important issues it fails to address, including seniors. Not only do our seniors continue to be deprived of government pension money that is owed them, but they are left out of the throne speech.

People who spent their whole lives saving for their retirement are worried today when they see their savings threatened by the global financial crisis. What is the government proposing to do to carry out its fundamental duty to protect our seniors? Nothing. Not one word.

The government may turn its back on seniors, but the Bloc Québécois and I will not, because we understand the urgent needs that seniors and their associations shared with us when we toured Quebec during the summer and fall of 2007. We got a very clear message: seniors have become impoverished in the past decade. Even though pensions and the guaranteed income supplement have generally increased in step with the consumer price index, it does not reflect the real circumstances in which pensioners and GIS recipients live.

In fact, the cost of living for seniors tends to be affected more by the cost of drugs, health care services and housing. In order to establish an acceptable quality of life for our seniors and to restore their dignity, the Bloc Québécois developed four important approaches that were included in Bill C-490: increase by $110 per month the amount of the guaranteed income supplement; continue paying the benefits, for a period of six months, to a surviving spouse; automatically enrol people over 65 who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement; and ensure full retroactive payment of the guaranteed income supplement for all those who were shortchanged.

Not only will we continue to defend with equal fervour our seniors' legitimate demands to improve their quality of life, but we are also thinking of those who have been cheated by their pension funds. Clearly, we should raise the age limit from 71 to 73 for converting RRSPs and registered pension plans into taxable annuities and RRIFs.

I said earlier that I was disappointed by the direction taken in the throne speech and total silence regarding protection of the most vulnerable. My colleagues and my constituents are well aware of the great interest I take in all matters of justice, and especially social justice. One thing is clear and I think it was quite deliberate: the major omissions are all social issues.

I note that apart from seniors, the glaring omissions in this throne speech concern women, people with inadequate housing, older workers, the unemployed, the cultural industry, francophones outside Quebec, students and others in the education system who are waiting for $800 million to be reinvested to remedy the fiscal imbalance, and non-profit economic development organizations.

This is certainly not mere coincidence. I am sad to say that I see once again the same groups of people that were ignored by the Conservative government in the last Parliament. It is quite simply disheartening.

I would also add that it is not just the most disadvantaged people who are bearing the cost of the Conservative government's insensitivity. There are consensuses in the Quebec nation that have again been ignored in this throne speech. They alone could provide the subject for a lengthy speech, but I will simply name those I find most urgent.

First, there are the cuts to culture and to economic development organizations. In Quebec, the consensus is that culture is one of the fundamental pillars of our identity and must be protected.

Second, there are the repressive laws to be applied to young offenders. In Quebec, the consensus is that we focus on rehabilitation and that our system is working well, since we have one of the lowest crime rates in North America. Punishment instead of prevention, to reduce crime, is absolutely not acceptable.

Third, there is the creation of a federal securities commission. In Quebec, the consensus is that we already have our own and it is fine that way.

Fourth, there is the fact that the Kyoto protocol is not mentioned. In Quebec, the consensus is that we have chosen the Kyoto protocol route, and not some sort of compromise or inaction.

Finally, there is the rejection of our own affirmation by reducing Quebec's political weight in Parliament and creating new intrusions into areas under Quebec's jurisdiction. In Quebec, the consensus is that we are in the best position to define our needs, and that affirming our identity in our institutions is necessary if we want our culture to be able to survive.

There are many other instances of insensitivity that my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois have discussed at length in their speeches, to demonstrate the point to which the consensuses in Quebec are still being jeopardized by this government.

I will close by saying that I, with all the Bloc members, will not be supporting this throne speech, for all of the reasons I have stated.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I was delighted that the member referred to the lack of mention of culture in the throne speech. The devastating cuts to cultural programs cost the Conservatives a majority government and yet there is no mention of arts and culture in the throne speech. They just did not listen to the public. They did not reinstate those programs. I would like to ask the member if she has any confidence in the fact that they did not listen.

It is embarrassing. The new Minister of Canadian Heritage has been terribly briefed. He suggested that the Conservatives were increasing support for cultural programs. He insinuated that they had not cut some major programs in the area of arts and culture. That sham was exposed by The Globe and Mail quite some time ago. The minister should be honest, instead of saying that they did not make that negative point on culture. He is suggesting that the thousands of Quebeckers who marched in the streets and the half a million people who visited that website are wrong and that he is right.