Kevin Sorenson

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the constituents of Crowfoot and to speak against the opposition motion that has been brought forward to the House today. This motion is sponsored by the Liberal finance critic who consistently fails to recognize the strength of the Canadian economy.

Our economy is rock solid. In fact, Canada is the only G-7 country with budget surpluses and a falling debt burden. Employment is up, unemployment is at a record low. Taxes are lower for families, individual Canadians, as well as for businesses. In short, the future looks bright.

No doubt some of the hon. members across the floor may be asking themselves how this Conservative government has accomplished so much in such a short time. I will tell the House how we have done it. We have done it because, through the Prime Minister and the finance minister, the government has brought forward a plan and it has stuck to the plan. I am talking, of course, about Advantage Canada, this government's long term economic plan for Canada's future, a plan that is built on the foundation of solid fiscal management with the aim of achieving key advantages for Canadians.

What do these advantages entail? They include a tax advantage toward which we have already realized significant results; over $41 billion worth of tax cuts over three years for individual Canadians and businesses.

Over the summer, throughout my constituency of Crowfoot many people would stop by my vehicle when I was on the main streets of different communities to share their views and opinions about the performance and the direction that this Conservative government was going. They encouraged me to take the message back to Ottawa and to our Prime Minister that they wanted us to continue to reduce taxes because, in their opinion and in my opinion, we still pay too much in taxes.

I assured my constituents that we would continue to reduce taxes for all Canadians. We are about to establish the lowest tax rate on new business investments of the entire G-7 nations.

Advantage Canada also has a fiscal advantage. It makes debt reduction a priority. I had the opportunity of speaking on that earlier today. This is a priority for a lot of members of Parliament on this side of the House who came here believing that the close to $600 billion debt was far too high. We will continue to reduce Canada's debt load because it is a debt that will be a burden to our children and grandchildren. In fact, our plan is to eliminate Canada's total government net debt in less than a generation, and we are well on our way to accomplishing that.

As the Minister of Finance pointed out, we have reduced the federal debt load by more than $27 billion over the last two years. That amounts to $1,100 for every man, woman and child that the national debt was reduced over the term that this government has been in power.

Let us not forget our tax back guarantee, a guarantee that provides a direct benefit to Canadians by dedicating all interest savings from the federal debt to further reduce personal income taxes. To date, we have provided Canadians with over $1.5 billion in personal income tax relief as a result of paying down the debt and as a result of the tax back guarantee.

The third component of Advantage Canada and one that has not had a lot of recognition here today is the commitment to create an entrepreneurial advantage. To that end, the government is reducing red tape for businesses to help create an environment for Canadian businesses to prosper. There is still work to do but our commitment is firm.

For example, the government is committed to its goal to reduce the paper burden on business by 20% by November 2008.

Our government has also set its sights on building a knowledge based advantage. This includes implementing a labour market training system that ensures Canadians get the training and the skills they need to get a good job, a job with a future.

In short, we want to help the country create an education system that brings forward the most skilled and most flexible workforce. If we are to be productive and competitive in a world with a global economy, we need to recognize that our labourers need to be top skilled labourers, and they are that.

Finally, the Advantage Canada plan will create an infrastructure advantage. We have spoken about infrastructure a fair bit today, a modern, world-class infrastructure Canadians can be proud of. In order to complete on a global scale, we need to build the modern bridges, the roads and the gateways necessary to get our goods to the market.

Contrary to what some in the other parties realize, our markets are not just domestic markets. Our markets are around the world, whether it be agriculture or whatever, and we must be certain that the products get to market.

Where do we go from here?The Speech from the Throne laid out a very clear direction in which we would go, a plan that we have committed to. We have said that we are committed to working with other Canadians to build a nation that is a model for the rest of the world. To meet this commitment, the Government of Canada's vision for Canada has five core priorities: first, strengthening Canada's sovereignty and place in the world; second, strengthening the federation and our democratic institutions right here at home; third, providing effective economic leadership for a prosperous future; fourth, and one on which I receive calls in my riding every day, tackling crime and strengthening the security of Canadians; and, fifth, ensuring that our environment is looked after, improving the environment for the health of all Canadians.

The throne speech that was delivered only a little over a week ago highlights our commitments to support a wide range of economic activity across the country.

Today, when I read the motion put forward by the opposition across the way, there was not one mention of agriculture. We hear very little from the opposition, from the Liberal Party or from the NDP, about agriculture.

The throne speech recognizes the importance of the agricultural sector in Canada. We have listened to the ideas and concerns of farmers. We have listened to the stakeholders and we have listened to the consumers.

At their meeting in June, the ministers of agriculture endorsed growing forward, a policy statement incorporating a bold, market driven vision for Canada's agriculture, agri-food and agri-based products industry. It will guide the development of federal-provincial-territorial programming in the industry. This program is a collaborative, forward focused vision for a profitable and competitive agriculture sector.

Much can be accomplished in agriculture and Canada's agriculture industry will benefit from this government's promotion of, for example, the biofuel initiative that we have put forward.

We have seen and we see now commodity prices at close to, not an all-time high but a remarkable level of dollars for the product that we are producing. Canola is at over $9 a bushel. Wheat is starting to creep its way up. Barley is at $2.50 a bushel, which does give concern to the feed industry, but there is an optimism out there that I have not seen for years, an optimism that producers can continue to have because we have a government that is listening to the concerns of the agricultural community. We realize that we must have strong, solid trade around the world which is why we have ongoing trade negotiations.

This not just talk. This is a government that takes action and we have taken decisive action to build on the foundations of our successes.

As I said, our economy is strong, the fiscal fundamentals are in place and we have an ambitious plan, Advantage Canada, that will take us where we want to go. We have chartered a prosperous course for Canada's future and we will stick to it.

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in commenting on the last question that was asked of the Bloc member from his own colleague, it is very obvious that this report was only issued last February or March, and that the government responded very favourably to the 22 recommendations that were listed in the report. The minister has come back very favourably on 21 of the recommendations. The throne speech did address many of those recommendations in a very positive way.

Canadians across the country, especially those living in Quebec, agree that Canada needs to have a priority in infrastructure and modernized infrastructure. Does the Bloc member not understand the importance of the $37 billion investment in the throne speech, which he voted against, much of which would go to his own province of Quebec?

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I sat and listened to the member's speech. I had the opportunity of chairing a committee once in a while when the member was present. I appreciated his questions then, as I did his speech today. His speech and his questions all talked about history, the way it used to be under the Liberal government and the things that the Liberals would have done if they would have had another mandate, the things they could have done if they would not have been thrown out of government, and the things that they should have done.

Today it was very similar in that he talked a great deal about his perception of what their last 13 years was all about. Unfortunately, not all those were the exact facts. That is why Canadians said “no more” to the Liberal vision of what this country was.

This fall our finance minister will bring forward an economic update, a report to Parliament about where Canada is.

The member spoke about the markets. The markets are strong. The economy is strong. The member said that the markets are going to react negatively to this kind of government and the direction it is going, but the markets are strong. I would like the member to explain what he meant when he mentioned market weakness.

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport spoke on infrastructure needs and concerns and what the government is doing and I thank him for that informative speech.

As members of Parliament, every once in a while we come to the place where we sit down and take an inventory of what we have been able to accomplish, not only as individuals but as a party. Having been in government now for the last 21 months, most members of Parliament over here are very pleased with the direction this government has taken. They are saying that finally we see ourselves making a difference with the tackling violent crime bill and many other bills that are coming forward.

However, one of the other points, as it was even when I started out as a member of Parliament seven years ago, is the concern about the national debt. I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could explain this. Our government had a $14 billion surplus and, unlike other governments, did not spend at the end of the fiscal year to get rid of the money. It was not out buying extra airplanes. It was dropping the surplus into the national debt.

Could the parliamentary secretary explain some of the advantages of doing that and explain the interest saved on the national debt? I know that for many a reduction in the national debt is one of the reasons we are here.

[Petitions, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by almost 50 constituents of mine from towns in Alberta, including Carbon, Drumheller, Nacmine, Morrin, Rosebud, Rosedale Station, Stettler and Rocky Mountain House. The petitioners call on Parliament to pass a motion that would enable communities to provide a safe haven whereby mothers can legally, safely and humanely abandon their babies without fear of reprisals. I would like to thank Heather Jones in particular for pursuing this matter. She has done a lot of good work in taking action on this issue.

These safe havens would protect babies who, for whatever reason, cannot stay with their mothers. These mothers are often afraid and may not make the best choices, but they feel they have no other options. I am very proud to stand up for these compassionate petitioners who pray that even if we are talking about only a few children we would put these measures in place.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice for his speech and his hard work on this file.

This summer as I travelled throughout the constituency, the constituents of Crowfoot were encouraging us to come back to Parliament and to make Parliament work. They wanted the government to continue to move forward on the priorities that they had set forward. Many were very disappointed in the logjam that had occurred because the Liberal leader had allowed the Senate to prevent the legislation from passing and receiving royal assent.

My constituents understand that we campaigned on five major priorities and we have delivered on them. Our government is accountable when spending taxpayers' dollars. We are delivering real benefits to families and we are going to continue to do that.

Where I come from in the constituency of Crowfoot, there are two things in particular that were addressed in the throne speech, things on which the opposition parties had been responsible for preventing any further action being taken.

The first one is the wasteful long gun registry. It is still wreaking havoc with lives in Crowfoot and across the country.

The second one that the member may want to comment on is that even though barley producers spoke with a strong voice in the recent plebiscite and chose freedom, the opposition in this House will not listen to them. We talk about democratization around the world. I would say that we need to start right here in this House.

Could the parliamentary secretary comment on the long gun--

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the great speech we heard this morning. With his 30 years of experience as a police officer and then a police chief, we certainly appreciate his perspective on this matter.

As I travelled around my constituency this summer, there were many times when the people in the riding of Crowfoot would ask if our government was still going to proceed with its priorities, because they understood that the Liberals and other opposition parties were doing everything they could to stifle and slow down the agenda for the mandate the government had as far as fighting crime and the other priorities that it laid down were concerned.

A number of speeches we have heard this morning mentioned exactly the process in which the Liberals took on the government, especially on crime fighting. It was a process of passing bills in the House, sending them to committee and absolutely gutting the legislation at committee. Then, if it got through committee, they allowed it to go to the Senate, which just sat on it, stalling the legislation and never letting it come back and receive royal assent. I am wondering if the hon. member could speak about one of those areas, which is the area of tackling violent crime. We have seen that process happen.

Another thing the Liberals did in order to show they were tough on violent crime was to strengthen the maximum sentences received by those convicted, but they would never address the minimum mandatory prison term. I wonder if he, as a police officer, would talk about that. On violent gun crimes specifically, the government intends to make sure there are mandatory minimum sentences.

[Senate of Canada, October 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday my constituent Bert Brown was sworn in as Canada's newest senator. Our Prime Minister appointed Mr. Brown after the province of Alberta twice elected him Alberta's senator-in-waiting.

No Canadian has done as much to advance the cause of Senate reform as Bert Brown. He has been a tireless advocate for the democratization of the upper house for over two decades. He is a perfect role model for elected senators, and yesterday's swearing-in ceremony demonstrates that our government is serious about moving forward on Senate reform. Over 300,000 Albertans voted for him in the province's 2004 Senate election. More Albertans voted for Bert Brown than all Liberal candidates put together in the last general election in my province.

In 1989 Alberta first elected Senate nominee Stan Waters, who later was appointed to the Senate. The federal Liberals have appointed none of those elected since.

Liberals should be ashamed of their refusal to accept Senate reform. It is time for the Liberals to follow the example of the Conservative Party and support an elected Senate.

[Criminal Code, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the NDP for her support on Bill C-21., and we appreciate that.

She made reference to the tragedy of December 6, and we all recognize that as a tragedy. There is nothing we can say here tonight that would in any way bring out the degree of sympathy we feel, and that we feel all the time, when such tragedies take place.

However, I will mention this. Retired Montreal detective sergeant Roger Granger was there. He was one of the individuals who investigated the Lepine shooting in 1989. He was a police officer. I have never met the individual, but I am certain he has probably been to many tragedies and seen many things. One thing he said in regard to that was that federal gun registry created by the Liberals under former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien was totally ineffective.

When I go around my constituency and when I stop in and speak to the detachments, to the RCMP and municipal police, they make it very clear that they do not support the gun registry.

[Criminal Code, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion I do not believe the registry has in one way helped solve crime. I do not think it has lowered the suicide rate. I think those who have chosen to end their lives will find a method to do it.

We have a long gun registry that costs $2 billion. I heard Liberals tonight say that if it only saves one life, that if it only saves a couple of lives. If we could take the billions of dollars for a failed gun registry and put it into places where we could see front line officers out on the street, if we could take that billions of dollars and make certain that there is more effective education to help fight crime, I think we would see crime lowered even more.

However, to take this idea that property of an individual is wrong, and not the person behind that property, the Liberals are going down the wrong road. They have already argued and talked about different violent, terrible events that have happened.

All I can say is we have had the long gun registry in place and it has not solved those crimes.