Debates of March 22nd, 2010

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, this government is about reducing taxes not just for the average Canadian, but also for our companies and corporations to allow them to compete. I would hope the member would at least congratulate this government on doing some of the things in the banking industry to make it the healthiest banking industry in the world. All we have to do is point to south of the border where the United States government had to bail out bank after bank after bank because of non-profitability.

I would like to point out that the banking system here is second to none in the world. It does not mean it is perfect, nothing ever is, but at the same time a lot of the banks around the world could learn a lot from our system and what our government has done to make it a good system.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today in the House of Commons in response to the Speech from the Throne.

I would first like to thank my family for their constant support of my work as a member of Parliament for the past four years. I would also like to sincerely thank the people in my riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell for trusting and supporting me. It is an honour to represent them here in the House of Commons, especially as I begin my fifth year as a member of Parliament.

Our Conservative team has been in power for four years now and although we are a minority government, we have accomplished many things. I would like to underscore three things that are particularly important for the people of my riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, namely agriculture, official languages and family.

I begin with agriculture, an issue that is of significant importance to the people in my rural riding. As I have mentioned previously, agriculture is the economic backbone of my riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. Dairy farming is the most prevalent, as we produce milk for Ontario, but our farming sector also includes chickens, eggs, pork, beef, goats, lamb, a wide variety of crops, and the list continues.

Our government has helped the agricultural sector weather the turbulent economic conditions of the past year by launching various initiatives that assisted the sector in adapting to external pressures and improving its competitiveness. In our recent budget we announced an additional $75 million for slaughterhouses and to encourage innovation and minimize the impact of specified risk material, or SRM, on our beef sector.

The Dairy Farmers of Canada has applauded this announcement which demonstrates our Conservative government's support for beef and dairy producers. Jacques Laforge, president of Dairy Farmers of Canada has stated:

The Government of Canada has really stepped up to the plate. This announcement confirms they heard dairy and beef producers’ requests for assistance to alleviate the cost disadvantage we face in processing our cattle.... In the end, all Canadians will benefit from this government action through even better quality and safety standards in the food chain.

This measure has been warmly welcomed by dairy farmers and beef farmers in my riding.

It is important to mention that as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, I sit on the agriculture committee. During our committee meetings the member for Malpeque, the member for British Columbia Southern Interior and the member for Richmond—Arthabaska talked at length about how important it was for the government to take action on the issue of specified risk materials, SRMs. As Conservatives we strongly agreed that the issue of SRMs was critical for our cattle industry. We assured the opposition members that this matter had the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and that he was working on a solution.

The Minister of Agriculture acted on our concern and he ensured that budget 2010 included $25 million to address the issue of SRMs for slaughterhouse facilities dealing with cattle over the age of 30 months. As well, $40 million will be provided over three years to support the development and commercialization of innovative technologies related to the removal and use of SRMs to reduce handling costs and create potential revenue sources from these materials.

The Canadian Cattlemen's Association has congratulated our government for announcing this much needed funding. However, what is truly regrettable is that the Liberal member for Malpeque, the NDP member for British Columbia Southern Interior and the Bloc member for Richmond—Arthabaska voted against these measures to help our beef industry. They had the opportunity to vote for key funding measures in support of our farmers, but instead, they voted against. In doing so, they voted against our beef and dairy farmers.

It is our Conservative government that is truly on the side of farmers and that acts and votes in their best interests. We say that we put farmers first, but more important, we take action and we vote for them.

I would now like to talk about the support the government and I provide for official languages.

As the member of Parliament for a largely francophone constituency, I am proud to say that the government believes in investing directly in our linguistic minority communities. We enrich and strengthen our cultural vitality. We recognize that the country's official languages are economic, social and cultural assets for all Canadians.

Last year, we celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Official Languages Act and I can attest to its importance on a very personal level. My riding is the perfect example of what anglophones and francophones can accomplish together in both official languages.

The government is showing leadership in promoting both official languages across Canada, as illustrated by our commitments in the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality 2008-2013. This $1.1 billion investment in the official languages represents a 45% increase over the official languages budget of the previous Liberal government. This contribution and this commitment by the government are invaluable to the people of my riding.

I want to remind the House of the following passage from the Speech from the Throne:

We are a bilingual country. Canada’s two official languages are an integral part of our history and position us uniquely in the world. Building on the recognition that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada, and the Roadmap for Canada’s Linguistic Duality, our Government will take steps to strengthen further Canada’s francophone identity.

This statement and the commitments we made in the budget were well received by language community leaders, including the president of the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario, or the AFO. Mariette Carrier-Fraser stated, “The AFO is satisfied with the recent throne speech and federal budget. We are pleased that the federal government has decided to maintain its commitments and investments in support of linguistic duality.”

I would like to end with a few words on our government's commitment to families. To help families with the stresses of parenthood, our government introduced significant tax cuts to reduce the financial pressures they face. In addition, we initiated the universal child care benefit, which provides $100 per month for each child under the age of six.

The Liberals scoff at this, but over the first six years of a child's life, the total amount received by a family would be $7,200. If the family has three young children, the amount could total $21,600, potentially tax free if one of the parents does not work. This is tremendous support.

I remember when I had four children six years of age and under. All I ever received from the Liberal government at the time was higher taxes.

What we have delivered is the kind of support and flexibility that Canadian families have been asking for. It is the kind of support and flexibility the Liberals of today would take away if they ever became government again.

The Liberals had a number of opportunities to help families; instead, they continued to make promises they did not keep. Now, the Liberal leader is touring the country asking Canadians what issues are important to their families, but he is thinking in terms of taxes and expenses.

Canadian families do not have a great deal of trust in the opposition leader. For 13 long years, the Liberals promised a national child care system and never delivered on that promise.

The Conservatives are very different from the Liberals. In our first term in office, we introduced the universal child care benefit.

In the next few days, I will be urging our opposition colleagues to support our initiatives, to set aside their differences, and to work with the government in order to contribute to Canada's rapid economic recovery.

Canadians have been very clear: they do not want an election. They want us to govern and they want us to continue to lead the way in building a stronger and more prosperous Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the member's speech where he talked about child care. I spoke to an individual in my riding who has a child who is one year old. She told me in an email she does not need the $100. That is not the issue. It is the daycare space that she needs, and the space is not being created by the government. She fully believes that the universal child care benefit the member speaks of is not going to fix that situation.

My question is on another matter and requires a very simple yes or no, oui ou non, answer. In his description of how the Conservatives have declared that Quebec is a nation within a nation, under those criteria, does he feel or does he not feel that the Franco-Ontarians of this country also represent a nation within a nation? Yes or no? Otherwise he does not. Is it yes or no?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, to address the first comment about child care, just the other day one of the member's Liberal colleagues made a comment that women of Canada want to hear about early learning and child care in order to go back to school and then to get a real job and to be able to go to work. This kind of phraseology from a Liberal member is insulting to women who choose to stay at home to raise their children because, in effect, the member is saying that staying at home to raise children is not a real job. That is the Liberal mindset when it comes to daycare across this country. The Liberals would rather have the state raise children than have parents raise their children. They said so openly before the last election.

Let me conclude by saying that when I speak to young mothers across my riding, they greatly appreciate the financial help that we are offering parents.

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

Madam Speaker, last year, five Canadian banks made $15.9 billion, at a time when the government is reducing corporate taxes for these banks even more. In fact, the CEOs of these banks saw pay increases of 10% last year. Mr. Waugh, the CEO of the Bank of Nova Scotia, received a salary of $9.7 million. Bank of Montreal president, Mr. Downe, received $7.45 million. Two other bank presidents made $10.4 million. The CIBC president made $6.2 million.

This is obscene when people are on unemployment insurance and it is running out. Europe and Japan do not pay their CEOs anywhere near this amount and they have no shortage of bankers in those countries. I would like to know from the member what sort of magic these CEOs are performing to justify these salary packages. What is wrong with this picture?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make it clear for my colleague across the floor that I do not in any way defend the salaries, pay increases or bonuses that are associated with the financial sector of our economy. I have no influence over that and our government has no influence over that.

However, I will say that Canada, like the rest of the world, has gone through very difficult economic times and because of the economic policies that our government has put in place and the financial prudence shown by the banking system within Canada, we are the envy of the world. The other G8 countries lag Canada in their recovery during these difficult economic times. We should be thanking our Conservative government and the banking sector for the tremendous work they have done to protect our economy.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Louis-Hébert.

It is with great interest that I rise in response to the Speech from the Throne. We will surely repeat ourselves because, since the throne speech and budget were presented, we have been asking countless questions in the House in order to inform the public about the government's lack of sensitivity to Quebec in these documents. That is why we voted against the budget. The throne speech was woefully inadequate. We must also know about this government's intentions. Why did the government make a new throne speech? Why did they prorogue Parliament? This is the third time in three years that we have had a throne speech, and this prorogation was clearly unjustified. The public was very shocked when Parliament was prorogued for flimsy reasons. This government promised transparency and promised that it would not govern like other governments, but, in fact, it did the complete opposite of what it promised when it was in opposition and trying to get elected.

The government prorogued Parliament because it wanted to avoid questions on Afghan detainees and wanted to buy time. That is all it wanted to do. It decided to shut down Parliament to avoid being held accountable. It did not want the committee to examine this issue. The government found new tricks to prevent the committee from doing its job properly. All we know is that it mandated Justice Iacobucci to read the documents. It was suggested that the committee meet in camera. When a committee meets in camera and there are military secrets, these secrets remain confidential. The members may not reveal or disclose anything discussed in committee. The government has stonewalled us and still lacks transparency. It wants to control the information in the media.

It also tried to evade the issue. It thought that the public would forget. It was holiday time, and the government thought that the public would forget that it was the laughingstock of Copenhagen on climate change issues. Canada could have been a leader and could have encouraged other governments, but the government chose to protect the oil companies. As we know, these companies are raking in billions of dollars in profits.

A little later, after the House was prorogued, when the government saw the public's dissatisfaction, it said it was going to recalibrate its message and give it a new focus. I would like to be very clear about this: we are not the only ones who noticed that the message in the throne speech was no different. It still contains the same Conservative Party ideology. More importantly, from a legislative standpoint, they are resurrecting the same Reform agenda, the same repressive point of view and the same attitude towards Quebec.

The Conservative member who spoke before me said that the government has recognized the Québécois nation. It is one thing to recognize the Quebec nation, but it is another thing to respect the will of Quebec. The Quebec National Assembly is passing unanimous motions. We have asked questions, just as I asked one today, calling on the government to understand the issues facing Quebec. It also needs to understand that Quebec would like to see certain regulations brought forward to ensure that its wishes are respected. There is absolutely no indication of that in the throne speech. There is nothing. Yet the government pats itself on the back for the smallest investments.

The government has moved a little in some areas, but there have been some serious shortfalls in the Quebec region. I know the hon. member for Louis-Hébert cares very much about the Quebec bridge. I will give him the floor later on, and he will talk about how the government has shown some interest in other bridges, but not the Quebec bridge.

I was saying the speech contained no new focus from a legislative standpoint, and I would like to list the issues that are coming up again. They want to strengthen the sex offender registry. They want to make repeat offenders serve their full sentences. They want to eliminate conditional sentences for violent offenders.

They want to fight drug rings and white-collar crime, modernize the investigative powers of police, change criminal procedure to speed up trials, modernize legal tools to fight organized crime and terrorism. This is the same agenda. Neither prorogation nor the throne speech was necessary; there was no justification for shutting down Parliament. Both gestures were meaningless.

They also promised a seniors' day. I am pleased that there will be a seniors' day. I have nothing against it. However, they are offering a seniors' day but are incapable of delivering what should go along with it—an increase in the guaranteed income supplement. A seniors' day is not quite what seniors wanted.

They want to improve the lives of seniors. It is a well-known fact that many elderly women have difficulty making ends meet and are living below the poverty line. There are many ideas in this throne speech, but there is hardly anything new. There are just recycled bits and pieces.

A number of journalists picked up on this and wrote about the shortcomings of the throne speech. Ms. Cornellier had this to say the day after the throne speech was delivered: “What was all the fuss about?” Vincent Marissal declared: “A lot of ink for nothing.”

We are not the only ones levelling these criticisms. Analysts and economists noted that there was very little in the throne speech for some of those who are overlooked.

There is the issue of forestry in Quebec. Businesses are shutting down and the government wants to help stimulate employment. However, it gave $10 billion to the auto sector. Why not give a decent amount, if not the same amount, to the forestry industry?

The forestry industry has been asking for assistance and loan guarantees for a long time. Once again, they made excuses. It seems that this is the Conservative government's style. It used the wheels of justice as a pretext by stating that it is engaged in talks on NAFTA. It is obvious that the Conservatives are incapable of innovation. They recycled their ideas, and a number of issues were not addressed.

I stated that there was no investment in the forestry industry to deal with the issues. Just talk to those who have lost their jobs.

They criticized the fact that there was no reform of employment insurance and they said that those who lost their jobs needed help.

At the same time, the government made one small change to the employment insurance program. It helps workers in the auto industry as well as those who have had long-term jobs and therefore have not applied for employment insurance benefits.

In the forestry industry, there have been slowdowns in employment, and people have often had to apply for employment insurance. They are now told they are not eligible and they are being completely ignored. The burden is then on the shoulders of the provinces, including Quebec, in the form of welfare payments. We have been looking at the issue of harmonizing the GST, but the government is telling us that it is not a question of harmonization. However, on page 68 of the 2006 budget, the federal government recognized that retail sales taxes had indeed been harmonized with the GST.

They are now saying that it is not really harmonization, yet they have doled out $2.2 billion to Ontario and British Columbia. This is what the government of Quebec is calling for. Imagine what could be done with $2.2 billion.

The same thing has happened with equalization. The formula was changed and Quebec has lost out. We are being told that it is a form of social assistance from the federal government but we can see where the investments are being made. For example, more money is given to Ontario than to Quebec for research and development. Those are good jobs and promising jobs for the future.

As well, nuclear power is being developed in blatant disregard for environmental issues. In addition, with this money, hydroelectricity could be sold to the Americans. But Quebec has developed its hydroelectricity on its own, without any federal help. We can see which way this Conservative government leans: all for the rich, the oil companies and the banks and nothing for the middle class.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member quite rightly reminded the House of the record of the government in terms of criminal legislation and the history it had about recycling bills, never following through and delaying. We have not even seen in this session bills come up.

However, she did raise the issue again of gang violence. I know it has been a long-standing problem that Quebec wants to have addressed.

It would be helpful if the member would comment further on the need for the government to put forward effectively legislation to deal with matters like gang violence as well as to get on with a legislative program, which it has heretofore ceased to bring before the House.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will gladly answer my colleague's question.

Quebec has a different approach. The government believes that an approach that focuses on repression is the best way to help young people in their rehabilitation. This is a serious matter. If young people are not supported in their rehabilitation, will we just keep them in prison for their entire lives? When they return to society, the approach used must help young people in their rehabilitation and help them understand their wrongdoings.

Not everyone can agree on this. The Conservatives say they recognize the Quebec nation, but they must also recognize what Quebec and its stakeholders want when it comes to justice.

Street gangs are a serious problem that requires a multifaceted approach. We need to identify the most pressing needs.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to comment on some of the comments made by the parliamentary secretary. He stated that the government had no influence over executive pay and bonuses. This was after I reminded him that while the banks made $15.6 billion in profits last year, they paid their executives anywhere from $9.7 million to $10.4 million.

I reminded him that in Europe and Japan the executives were not paid anywhere this amount of money, yet there was no shortage of executives in those jurisdictions. He said that the government had no influence. The government will sit back and let things happen.

In the United States, Mr. Bernanke just this past weekend talked about how the government was looking at making certain that there was no such thing any more as too big to fail, that if corporations and banking institutions got too big, that the government would step in and wind them down if they went beyond a certain threshold.

Clearly there is something wrong with this picture. The government is taking the attitude of staying away, letting the banks run their own business and letting them keep earning their salaries. In the meantime, it keeps reducing the corporate taxes.

How is that fair to people who work in our country?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would have liked to have heard the parliamentary secretary answer my colleague's question.

I can understand why the public is often fed up with the work of parliamentarians. Once again, the government decided to help the oil companies and banks, despite the profits they rake in. This is shocking for people who have just lost their jobs. Furthermore, the government has not done anything to re-calibrate its agenda, as it has suggested.

It is shameful to see that the government did nothing to refocus its throne speech. As for the budget, it was based on the throne speech.

Even in the midst of an economic crisis, the banks are still the big winners. The government's behaviour is very shocking.

[Pascal-Pierre Paillé, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the Speech from the Throne.

In life, I consider myself to be a rather positive person. My friends and children will tell you that I am generally a positive person. However, I have read the Speech from the Throne three times and, unfortunately, I have not found much that is positive in it. Some may be disappointed to see me spend the next 10 minutes, which is not enough time, being a little more negative than I usually am.

If I were to describe the Speech from the Throne in just one word—and some might consider this word to be a bit strong—I would say it is bad. It may be unparliamentary to say so—I am not sure—but that is the word I came up with to describe the Speech from the Throne that was delivered on March 3.

My expectations of the government are generally quite simple. I expect the government to do certain things and to respond to what people have decided. Although this is a minority government, the fact remains that we have certain expectations.

I do not have great expectations of the government and the Conservative Party, but I would have at least expected the Speech from the Throne to be more worthwhile following a prorogation. The prorogation lasted a while and I already had low expectations, but I expected a bit better. Unfortunately, there was not much that was new in the plans and proposals that were presented. The Speech from the Throne is, in a way, a summary of what is announced in the budget. What is more, the budget has already passed and we already know the results. The Bloc Québécois voted against the budget. In the next few minutes, I will have an opportunity to talk about the positions of the other parties.

I will start by talking about language. Page 17 of the Speech from the Throne talks about official languages. Last fall, the Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C-307, which aimed to make Bill 101 apply to all federal institutions throughout Quebec. The Conservative and Liberal parties voted against this Bloc Québécois bill. Page 17 shows that there is a lack of consistency in the Speech from the Throne.

I am trying to be completely open in what I say. This is sometimes difficult to do because of the context, but I will do my best to keep things simple and speak in layperson's terms on certain subjects, such as language, which is still being ignored. We were told that Canada has two official languages and that these would be the most bilingual Olympic Games in the world. But that was anything but the truth, to avoid the word I cannot use. This government is demonstrating a blatant lack of vision. And the Speech from the Throne is the proof.

We should also talk about the firearms registry. It came up a bit earlier, during question period. Page 16 of the Speech from the Throne states:

Honouring those who built this country includes recognizing the contribution of those who make their living on the land and the realities of rural life in Canada. Our Government will continue to support legislation to repeal the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry that targets law-abiding farmers and hunters, not criminals.

I wonder what planet the Conservatives are living on. The firearms registry is already in place. Money has already been invested in it. Quebec's National Assembly is unanimous about maintaining the firearms registry. The Conservative Party says that it is the party of law and order. Yet, with the introduction of a private member's bill, the government is trying to repeal the gun registry. It says so in black and white on page 16. In my opinion, the Conservative Party is once again showing that it is either living on a different planet from Quebeckers or that it is not listening.

The people of Quebec, both Quebec City and the province, the Quebec National Assembly and police forces have all said that the firearms registry is an essential tool for police officers to help maintain safety. I should note that Quebec is very successful in this respect, both in Canada and throughout the world.

There is a link between young offenders and what is found on pages 10, 12 and 13. Some people may not have the document, but I can help them out. When I read all the proposals there, it makes me want to crawl up the walls and the curtains of this place. Since I am in the fifth row, that is pretty easy; they are right next to me. What I am reading here is absolutely unbelievable.

The government wants to implement harsher measures to combat violence among young people. A number of people from my beautiful riding of Louis-Hébert—and I take this opportunity to say hello to my constituents—know that before I became a member of Parliament, I was a teacher and worked in the education field, primarily with children with behavioural problems. In my experience, I can say that Quebec is held up as a model around the world. Some countries use the Quebec model to establish their procedures, laws and systems. This model may not be perfect, because there is always room for improvement, but Quebec has an excellent system for young offenders and for young people with problems.

But the Canadian government is telling us that it will establish harsher laws, that it will imprison young people at the age of 14 or 16, and that it will criminalize them for a longer period. Based on some things I read in the budget, the government even wants to implement identifying measures for some offenders. That is completely unacceptable.

If we believe in our young people—and I believe in the young people in Quebec—we do not give them stricter laws; we give them the tools and measures that will help them. I do not have exact statistics, but I know that roughly three young people out of four who have behavioural problems, or problems with violence and crime, come from disadvantaged backgrounds, with low-income parents and poor social situations. We should be talking more about prevention and education, even though I admit these are Quebec's jurisdictions. My constituents tell me every day, when I talk to them, that this is not what they want to hear from their government. They do not feel like hearing about stricter laws or measures for young people. Just look at the statistics in the United States or even Ontario. They done some testing and abolished their program. It is completely useless and does not achieve the desired results.

In Quebec, we have measures that are not perfect, but they are effective. We have one of the best reintegration rates among young people in North America, even the world, and I am extremely proud of that. Rest assured that I will spend my whole life, or at least my entire life as a parliamentarian, fighting to ensure that the people of Quebec, the young people of Quebec, will not have the misfortune of living under the laws and oppression of the government that sits opposite me.

A number of things in the Speech from the Throne make me angry. Some of those watching us on television will see that I am not in a good mood today. I must admit that a number of things in this speech frustrate me. I always try to be honest and true to my values. I believe in certain things. When we run for political office, we believe in our values. I am trying to respect the mandate the voters gave me in order to contribute to a better society. I sincerely believe that this Speech from the Throne does not contribute to a better society, or at least not the one the people of Quebec are hoping for. If Canada wants this kind of Speech from the Throne, that is its choice, but the people of Quebec have clearly indicated in a number of ways, particularly through the National Assembly of Quebec, that this is not what they want.

Again, the Bloc Québécois is against the Speech from the Throne and, as the House can tell from my comments, I am against it as well.

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

Madam Speaker, in the last part of his speech, the member said he will not support this particular throne speech. From his description of himself crawling the walls and the curtains of this place, I gathered that he would not, so I thank him for the closure.

On the other hand, I would like him to comment, because he talks about the Quebec jurisdiction. I was reading that in some cases Quebec was a vanguard, or at the beginning, of some of the national programs we have today. I think of the QPP and the Canada pension plan as an example.

In this particular situation, the current government states unequivocally that providing a cheque of $100 a month, for a family, is its way of providing support for a national daycare program.

I would like him to comment on the Quebec model and how that could be a vanguard of a true national daycare program that provides assistance for early childhood development and also comment on the program itself, for all parents, whether they stay at home or not.

[Pascal-Pierre Paillé, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I will not spend a great deal of time talking about early childhood services, with which I am very familiar as I was once a teacher in a daycare centre.

The Bloc Québécois defends the fact that Quebec daycare services fall under the jurisdiction of our province. If other provinces wish to follow suit and assume this responsibility, that is their choice.

Although I do not wish to be unkind to my Liberal colleague, I would like to remind the House that the Liberals strongly criticized the throne speech and the budget from the beginning but did not show up in sufficient numbers to oppose it. They ended up endorsing what the Conservatives proposed in the budget and the throne speech.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member's speech, and I know he is probably interested in the whole issue of the Canadian securities regulator, which is on page 8 of the English version of the speech.

Certainly Alberta and Quebec and other provinces over the years have been historically opposed to a national securities regulator for a number of reasons. One is that it has been a provincial jurisdiction, and clearly if the provinces are going to give up some jurisdiction, they are going to be getting something in return, so probably some sort of a deal is being made.

My argument has been all along that the structures are really not important. It is who is running the structures that is the key here. So if we make the argument that somehow the local provincial regulators have not been effective and have not been doing a good job for the last few years, and we simply take the same people and put them into a national structure and do not appoint aggressive people who want to do a job, we are not going to be any further ahead by going with a national structure. For example, Conrad Black was put in jail by the Americans, not by the Canadians, and all his white-collar crimes were committed in Canada.

If we are going to have a national securities regulator, then we should have one with teeth, with aggressive people who are not hired from the very companies they are supposed to be regulating.

I would like to get the member's comments on that particular point. I know it is going to be an opt-in situation—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would like to give the hon. member time to respond.

The hon. member for Louis-Hébert.

[Pascal-Pierre Paillé, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. We dealt with this during question period.

The government is telling us that all is going fairly well and that the laws and systems are already in place. Nevertheless, Quebec's National Assembly has clearly indicated that it opposes the creation of a single Canadian securities regulator. Quebec has its own securities commission and it calls the shots in this area. The Bloc Québécois will continue to say that Quebec is free to make its own decisions with regard to the securities commission.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to participate in today's debate on the Speech from the Throne.

Our government's throne speech lays out a plan to ensure Canada is poised to emerge from the global recession powered by one of the strongest economies in the industrialized world.

Even as we begin to witness improvements in growth and employment, we know we must finish the work begun last year. Jobs and growth will remain the top priority of this government. That is why we will focus on completing Canada's economic action plan, returning to fiscal balance, continuing to create and protect jobs and building the jobs and industries of the future.

The Speech from the Throne also sets out the government's broader agenda, one that reflects Canadians' values and focuses on those things that matter most to Canadians. That means making Canada the best place for families by strengthening the universal child care benefit, protecting consumers and ensuring that the law protects everyone, while those who commit crimes are held accountable.

It also means standing up for those who helped build Canada, by strengthening Canada's retirement income system, supporting legislation to establish senior's day and continuing to stand up for Canada's military and its veterans.

It means strengthening a united Canada in a changing world by pursuing democratic reforms, improving the immigration and refugee systems and protecting and preserving our natural environment.

Our Speech from the Throne is a blueprint for where our government is headed. It is our plan for the months ahead to see Canada through these hard times and into a more prosperous future.

Let us consider for a few moments some parts of this plan laid out in the Speech from the Throne.

To realize the hopes Canadians hold for themselves and their families, the economy must remain the government's single most urgent priority.

To restore fiscal balance in the aftermath of the global economic recession, our government will lead by example.

We will freeze the salaries of the Prime Minister, ministers, members of Parliament and senators, freeze office budgets and departmental operating budgets and reduce the number of appointments to federal agencies, boards, commissions and crown corporations.

In a time of global economic instability, free trade is more important than ever, and the Government of Canada is pursuing an ambitious trade agenda, including trade negotiations with the European Union, India and South Korea. Doing so will ensure the broadest possible market for Canada's goods and services, and it is the best way to guarantee Canadian jobs and prosperity.

To protect jobs, we will partner with the forest industry to enter new markets and deploy new technologies, and we will reform Canada's outdated system of fisheries management.

Our government will introduce legislation to increase the penalties for sexual offences against children, strengthen the sex offender registry and protect children from Internet luring and cyber abuse.

We will make the youth criminal justice system more responsive and propose laws ensuring that, for multiple murderers, life means life and requiring that violent offenders serve their time in jail, not in the luxury of their home.

We will address the under-representation of B.C., Alberta and Ontario in the House of Commons to ensure representation by population.

We will establish Canada's national museum of immigration; strengthen recognition of foreign credentials; crack down on unscrupulous immigration consultants; and introduce comprehensive reforms to the refugee system to speed up the process for legitimate refugees while closing it down as an avenue for those who use it as a back door into Canada.

It is now becoming apparent that the global economy has begun to stabilize after undergoing a deep recession, which stemmed from the worst global financial crisis since the 1930s.

Since then, global financial markets have improved and confidence is returning, leading to a tentative resumption of global economic growth. Canada was able to weather the global economic crisis better than all other major industrialized countries, thanks to actions taken by our government.

Members do not just have to take my word for that. Look at the markets and where investors are turning. They are putting their money into Canada because of our low government debt, the good housing market, early signs of economic recovery and a solid banking system.

Doug Porter of BMO Capital Markets said that investors are not coming here to earn a quick buck. He said they are not coming here to earn higher interest rates; they are coming here because they view Canada as a safe harbour versus the rest of the world.

A vice-president of J.P. Morgan said, “Most of us in the global financial community are very sanguine about Canada's prospects, bullish on the economy. I would say most definitely the country is viewed, and I think it is not an understatement to say, as a star”.

The economic recovery in Canada strengthened over the second half of 2009, with real GDP increasing 0.9% in the third quarter and 5% in the fourth quarter.

There are broad signs of recovery in the Canadian housing market with resale housing activity and prices returning back to pre-recession levels. Canada's housing market remains healthy and stable supported by sound economic factors, such as low interest rates, rising incomes and a growing population.

These strengths, together with low interest rates and the substantial support provided by Canada's economic action plan, have supported a recovery of domestic demand. Since the start of 2009, domestic demand in Canada has grown faster than in any other G7 country.

Growth in real consumer spending on goods and services averaged more than 3.5% over the second half of 2009. Residential investment supported by the home renovation tax credit increased 9.5% in the third quarter and 29.7% in the fourth quarter.

These developments have been accompanied by a swift recovery of consumer and business confidence. Reflecting the improved economic performance of the Canadian economy over the second half of 2009, labour market conditions have improved markedly. In particular, more than 135,000 jobs have been created in Canada since July 2009.

Since coming to power in 2006, our government has taken the necessary steps to ensure our economy remains strong. We have lowered taxes, controlled spending, reduced debt, strengthened laws and invested in essential infrastructure. Our prudent management of federal finances allowed us to take extraordinary measures last year when faced with the global economic recession.

Canada's economic action plan has helped our country weather these troubled times, and it will ensure that we emerge a stronger and more confident nation.

The blueprint laid out in the Speech from the Throne will ensure we continue along that track to a brighter, more prosperous future.

My constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells know that Canada is on the right track.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the presentation by the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells on the throne speech.

I notice that 800,000 people are on employment insurance in this country, and many of them will be running out of employment insurance over the next few months. The unemployment rate, at 8.2%, will be increasing to 8.5% this year. The government is absolutely silent when it comes to the atrocious bank profits of last year and the atrocious salaries of some of the CEOs.

The government's answer is to sit back and do nothing, other than to freeze the pay of the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers. That is cold comfort to all the people I mentioned before who are living on reduced salaries or employment insurance.

When the CEO of the Bank of Nova Scotia made $9.7 million in 2009, does the member and the government not think it is time to put some limitations not only on bank profits but on the salaries of these CEOs?

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, our government thinks that jobs are very important, which is why we are investing record amounts into it.

This is a top priority for our government and it is doing an excellent job. Thanks to our action plan, Canada is on the right track. We were the last country to go into the most severe economic recession since the 1930s. We came out first and are emerging stronger. Our government is doing a great job.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about one aspect that received about two lines in the Speech from the Throne, the situation about the fisheries.

British Columbia was very active in the last debate that we had on Bill C-45, the new fisheries act. The current Fisheries Act has been in place now for over 130 years and, like everybody else in this House, I agree that renewal should be coming.

However, renewal needs to take place in a very responsible manner. In the last bill there was a great deal of opposition from her province regarding a new fisheries act. I was wondering if she could provide some information to the House as to when, where and exactly how this new fisheries act will come forward here in the House, as was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, fisheries is very important to my province of B.C. Our government has invested record amounts into the fisheries. I am very proud of our record.

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

Madam Speaker, the member did not answer my question. Clearly, she and the government support these obscene bank profits and the salaries that come with them for the executives.

One of the banks just recently brought its compensation package to its annual meeting just as information for the shareholders. It is not giving the shareholders veto power or even approval power but at least it is showing it to them, which is a little more than the government is doing.

The government is sitting back, letting nature take its course and letting these so-called private business people make ridiculously high profits and high salaries at a time when people are suffering in this country.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, our Conservative government believes that the private sector, not the public sector, should be the prime resource for jobs and economic growth. Everyday Canadians depend on healthy businesses for their jobs and increasing taxes on businesses.

In the early stages of the recovery, would they kill jobs and kill new investment in Canada?

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to participate in the debate today on the Speech from the Throne.

I would remind the House that our government has repeatedly stated that jobs and economic growth is its top priority. This is a theme that was central throughout the throne speech.

Since July 2009, Canada has created 160,000 new jobs, tangible evidence, I would submit, that Canada's economic action plan is working. Statistics Canada reported that Canada's unemployment rate fell from 8.3% to 8.2% in February and that 21,000 new jobs had been created last month. That is the fifth month of job gains in the past seven months, but our determination remains unchanged. Our government will not be satisfied until every Canadian who has lost his or her job is working again.

In that regard, we are completing year two of our economic action plan with an additional $19 billion of stimulus spending to create and protect jobs. We will invest in new targeted initiatives and make Canada a destination of choice for new business investment. We continue to lower taxes to maintain Canada's competitive advantage and significantly we will establish the red tape reduction panel to reduce paperwork for business.

Many of my constituents in the riding of Edmonton—St. Albert are small business owners. It was with great enthusiasm that I told them that an advisory committee on small business and entrepreneurship made up of business persons would be created to provide advice on improving business access to federal programs and for information.

Small and medium-sized businesses are the lifeblood of our economy and sustain us in whatever economic situation we may currently be facing. I submit that the small and medium-sized enterprise innovation and commercialization program will allow small and medium-sized business to develop and promote innovative prototype products and technologies to federal departments and agencies.

However, Canadians want to know that their government will do everything possible to ensure the future economic stability and growth of this country. An integral part of our government's strategy is the reduction of the deficit and a return to balanced budgets. In that regard, we will follow a three-point plan: we will wind down temporary stimulus measures, restrain growth in spending and conduct an in-depth review of the government's administrative functions and overhead costs.

The economic recession has affected every corner of the globe. No country remains untouched but Canada has risen to lead the way with the soundest financial system in the world. The Speech from the Throne emphasizes our response as measured and responsible and makes it clear that Canada is well on its way to economic recovery and stability.

The focus of the throne speech may be the economy and job creation. However, our government remains just as committed to its safe streets and safe communities agenda. The government has addressed the issues of crime by bringing forward legislation mandating prison sentences and ensuring that criminals serve the sentences they have been given.

We will continue to focus on protecting the most vulnerable among us, our children, by increasing the penalties for sexual offences against children and strengthening the sex offender registry. We intend to introduce legislation to crack down on white collar crime and ensure that tougher sentences are issued. As recent high profile cases remind us, white collar crime is all too prevalent and affects many hard-working Canadians personally as they see a lifetime of savings disappear instantly.

The Speech from the Throne points out that our justice system must be made to be more effective. As a result, we will introduce legislation that would cut the number of protracted trials and offer tangible support to victims of crime and their families. The Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime welcomed the government's additional funding of $6.6 million over two years as the way to build on its earlier investment in the federal victims' strategy and the creation of the federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.

The throne speech outlines the need to move forward on essential legislation, including the repeal of the long gun registry and the re-introduction in their original form of the then Bill C-6, the consumer safety law, and the then Bill C-15, the anti-drug crime law, some pivotal pieces of our government's crime agenda.

The former Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, is designed to tackle drug crimes and would mandate two year prison sentences for dealing drugs, such as cocaine, heroin or methamphetamines, to youth. It would also increase penalties for trafficking in GHB and flunitrazepam, most commonly known as the date rape drugs. Mandatory minimum sentences would also be imposed for the production and sale of illicit drugs.

Significantly, it also would allow the drug treatment courts, such as the one in Edmonton, to suspend a sentence where the addicted accused person takes an appropriate treatment program. Drug treatment courts encourage the accused person to deal with the addiction that motivates his or her criminal behaviour and break the cycle of crime to further his or her drug addiction.

New offences would be created for gang-related drug offences, as well as drug offences that are specifically targeted toward children, such as selling drugs near our schools. The hon. Minister of Justice has said “these measures are a proportionate and measured response designed to disrupt criminal enterprise; drug producers and dealers who threaten the safety of our communities must face tougher penalties”.

In my view, these changes are long overdue. They would send a strong signal to criminals that it is unacceptable for them to put dangerous drugs onto our street. We must protect our children from drugs and other illicit behaviour and ensure that drug dealers end up where they belong: behind bars.

I look forward to the reintroduction of that bill.

The former Bill C-46, investigative powers for the 21st century act, would ensure law enforcement and national security agencies have the tools they need to fight crime and terrorism in today's high-tech environment. Legislation must be updated to reflect an ever-evolving technological world and to provide investigators with modern communication technologies to perform complex investigations.

When this bill is reintroduced, the amendments would address the constant struggle to keep up with the high-tech world. It would create a new offence, carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years, to prohibit anyone from using a computer system, such as the Internet, to agree or make arrangements with any other person for the purposes of sexually exploiting a child. This new offence would also be used in the context of undercover investigations. Police would also be able to obtain data from the telephone and the Internet by creating a new concept called “transmission data”.

Those and several other additional changes to help police obtain transmission data would allow law enforcement agencies to track domestic cybercrime and enhance international co-operation. Cybercrime has no borders and the transnational nature of organized criminal activity means that international co-operation is not a luxury but a necessity.

This proposed legislation, when reintroduced, aims to provide the police and other stakeholders with the tools they need to investigate computer and computer-related crimes while ensuring that the rights of Canadians are protected.

The Speech from the Throne highlights the decisive actions our government has taken to crack down on crime and ensure the safety and security of our communities, and we will move ahead with this critical crime legislation. We take the issue of law and order seriously to make this a stronger and safer Canada, both now and for the future.

The struggle to keep up with emerging criminal technologies and crime is a constant struggle, full of setbacks, both for law enforcement and for legislators, with sometimes minor and occasionally major advances. However, it is a pivotal struggle for lawmakers because the laws that we debate and pass in this House must be premised on preserving the safety and liberty of law-abiding citizens.

As indicated, it is a constant and pivotal struggle but, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, one of the authors of the U.S. constitution and defender of liberty, ”Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”.