Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 008 (Official Version)

The House resumed from April 11 consideration of the motion, as amended, for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

When the matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Northumberland--Quinte West had five minutes remaining in the time allotted for questions and comments. Are there questions and comments? If not, we will resume debate with the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre.

(1105)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Etobicoke North.

I would like to congratulate you on your re-election, Mr. Speaker, and also take this opportunity to thank the people of Etobicoke Centre for the honour of being elected twice in the last year and a half to represent them in the House of Commons. Both times I have been elected by overwhelming electoral margins, which means that my obligations to the people of Etobicoke Centre are that much greater and that I will work on their behalf that much harder. What I bring to the House of Commons from Etobicoke Centre are my constituents' values of hard work, integrity and generosity of spirit.

This past weekend was Easter weekend for my family, as it was for most Ukrainian Canadians as well as those of the Orthodox faith. For this reason, I would like to begin my response to the Speech from the Throne with a quotation from the Bible and one of topics of discussion during this past Easter weekend: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God”.

This past weekend, four Canadian lives were extinguished half a world away. These Canadians volunteered and left the safety and warmth of their families' hearths to travel to the dangerous and desolate mountains of Afghanistan. They went there to bring peace to a part of the world where evil continues to breed in caves, where the men of hate, the Taliban, gather in order to sow the seeds of death, and where, in vast cultivated fields of poppies, the destruction of millions of lives grows.

There is no doubt that these four Canadian soldiers whose lives were extinguished believed that they were fighting a just war, that they were in fact peacemakers. For this ultimate of sacrifices, Corporals Matthew Dinning and Randy Payne, Lieutenant William Turner, and Bombardier Myles Mansell will be remembered as “the sons of God”.

The throne speech touched only briefly on Canada's international role, stating that “Canada's voice in the world must be supported by action”, that we will support our “core values of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights”, and finally, that our policies will be “infused with growing confidence that...[we] can make a difference”.

Unfortunately, the throne speech did not address either a vision or the “how” of our engagement with the world when it comes to supporting these, our core values. True leadership entails a vision and action within the framework of this vision. I will take this opportunity to speak to a vision and a framework on how we as a country can and should engage the world outside of our trade relationships.

Canada's international role has evolved over the last 139 years. For a good portion of our history, we were viewed as a junior partner in the international interventions of imperial powers with which we have been allied. Whether it was the United Kingdom or the United States, or the Boer or Korean wars, Canada could be counted on to send its men and women to wage war alongside our allies. We were also members of grand coalitions during the two world wars.

Finally, half a century ago, a Canadian diplomat, Lester B. Pearson, envisioned a new and groundbreaking role for Canada's soldiers. He envisioned that young Canadian men and women would travel to conflict zones throughout the world not to wage war, but to serve as peacekeepers. This novel approach was a major paradigm shift in how Canada saw itself engaging the world. It earned Lester B. Pearson the Nobel peace prize and established for Canada a tradition of peacekeeping.

Today, using soldiers for peace has evolved and expanded to include peacemaking, as we call our Afghani mission, peacekeeping, as we have done for decades in places such as Cyprus, and peace-building, as we are doing in Haiti.

However, today it is not just Canadian soldiers who are emissaries of peace. Today there are more Canadian civilians volunteering abroad, as humanitarians and civil society builders with non-governmental organizations, than there are Canadian soldiers.

Peacemaking, peacekeeping, peace-building, civil society architects and good governance: it is difficulty to understand exactly what these terms entail. When does a soldier become a peacemaker? Does he or she take on a constabulary role in Haiti or civil society building in Afghanistan? How do we guarantee that we do not again make the mistake of using as peacekeepers soldiers trained in the specialities of war, such as the airborne regiment in Somalia?

(1110)

For Canadians to build on our half-century tradition of peacekeeping and to once again show international leadership, let us establish a clear framework for how we engage in countries where major conflicts or fundamental transitions are taking place.

Let us imagine our Ministry of Defence becoming a ministry of just wars with unambiguous obligations and regulations outlining under which circumstances we would engage in war. In the situation of territorial defence, the case is clear. In the case of war to counter threats to our peace, the threats must be clearly verified and acknowledged by international agencies. In the case of R2P, the responsibility to protect outside of situations of genocide, which require immediate action, it should also include a clear responsibility to rebuild.

Finally, let Canada become the first country in the world to establish a ministry of peace, a ministry which would include peacekeepers, humanitarians, democratic and civil society builders, a ministry with an organizational structure similar to our armed forces that would sign up volunteers for multi-year contracts with a choice of fields of specialization: peacekeeping, humanitarian aid and democratic civil society building.

In any given year there are at least a dozen countries in the world where major conflicts or fundamental transitions take place. Quite often in Canada we have large diaspora communities from several of these countries. Not only do our multicultural communities have linguistic and intimate cultural knowledge but they also have emotional ties to their ancestral homelands. This uniquely Canadian reservoir of human potential can be tapped into to help in the processes of conflict resolution and civil society building.

If properly executed, Canada can establish for itself, through our ministry of peace, an international role as an honest broker which will resolve conflicts and rebuild society without the countries affected fearing a loss of sovereignty or control of national resources.

Having played a positive role during historic transitions, Canada will have established goodwill and trust among the peoples of these countries and their political leadership. Let us give peace a chance.

Today, unfortunately, is an unofficial day of mourning. It comes just days after Easter when we meditated on the selfless sacrifice of oneself in the battle against evil; the concept that through death comes rebirth. Four young Canadians have offered up the ultimate sacrifice, their very lives, to bring hope into the lives of strangers and those not yet born in a country far from home.

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God”. Let us envision and build a Canada that will be blessed, for it will be known as a nation of peacemakers, a nation of God.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about peace, Canada's role in peace and the role that former Prime Minister Pearson had in establishing that peacekeeping role for Canada. I, however, remain concerned about Canada's commitment to peacekeeping. Certainly the situation in Afghanistan is of great concern to me and to many people in my constituency. We are concerned when we see that Canada's role in peacekeeping with the United Nations has dropped to 50 among the world's nations with the end of the mission on the Golan Heights. Before that we were 33, which really is not all that impressive a number either when it comes down to it.

I am also concerned about the militarization of our aid, especially when I hear from a Canadian soldier from my riding serving in Afghanistan who says that often the aid projects that the Canadian Forces build in Afghanistan are quickly destroyed once the forces leave the area where the project was built. When insurgents or the Taliban come back into that community they immediately target the aid that was delivered by military people.

Does the member think that our mission in Afghanistan lives up to those Pearsonian standards that he so eloquently described? Does he share my concern about the militarization of our aid in Afghanistan?

(1115)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj:

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the member's question in two parts.

First, on the issue of commitment, unfortunately our commitment has slid. At the same time, there is a great deal of confusion. Some people talk about our Afghani mission as being a peacekeeping mission but quite clearly it is not.

Can it be justified? Is it a military mission, a just war? I believe that argument can be made but we need to establish clear parameters. What is peace-building? What is peacekeeping? In regard to peacekeeping, the rules were quite clear. Peace negotiations are taking place between the warring sides. A truce has been established. There is a physical buffer between the two warring sides and that buffer is filled by peacekeepers.

Regarding peace-building in Haiti, it seems that our soldiers have taken on the role of a constabulary. Then there is the danger of using soldiers, who were trained as warriors, as peacekeepers. We saw what happened in Somalia.

As the concept evolves and expands into different areas, peace-building and peacemaking, the peacekeeping role should be split off into a separate ministry, a ministry of peace. People trained as peacekeepers use very different equipment than soldiers use in war. I believe that by establishing this sort of ministry we will once again establish a leading role of being a vehicle for peace internationally.

The second question was regarding militarization of aid. We often find a lack of coordination between NGOs, and the tremendous work that they do, with peacekeepers, peacemakers or peace-builders, and not just in Afghanistan. Having had the opportunity to visit Darfur I believe it is incredibly important to have this ministry of peace that would coordinate with our ministry of defence. However we should establish what that ministry would do. Would it be a ministry of defence or just a war ministry? We need to have coordination between that particular role and the role of rebuilding and building democratic civil societies.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mark Warawa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the wonderful people of my constituency of Langley, British Columbia. It is an honour to be re-elected and to be given this opportunity to represent them once again in Parliament. Langley is one of the most beautiful communities in Canada. It is the birthplace of British Columbia. The Hudson's Bay fort is still there. It is a great place to visit and even a better place to live.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate you on your responsibilities and appointment.

The Conservative government is already proving itself. Canadians believe that we can and we will introduce positive changes for the betterment of Canada. Canadians also want a government of action. They are tired of stalemates and they are tired of an old government just talking and doing nothing.

The government has five priorities which are based on the values of integrity, family, respect for hard work, achievement and commitment to a strong and free Canada. It is based on values that all Canadians share.

The first priority is to clean up government by passing the federal accountability act. The federal accountability act would toughen the Lobbyists Registration Act. It would ban secret donations to political candidates. It would make qualified government appointments. It would clean up government polling and advertising. It would clean up the procurement of government contracts. It would provide real protection for whistleblowers. It would ensure truth in budgeting with a parliamentary budget office. It would strengthen the power of the Auditor General. It would strengthen the role of the Ethics Commissioner. It would strengthen access to information legislation. It would strengthen auditing and accountability within departments. That is legislation that Canada needs.

It is a priority to provide real tax relief to all Canadians by cutting the GST. We will cut the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. The GST is the only tax that all Canadians pay. Our plan delivers a tax cut to everyone, including the 32% of Canadians who do not pay any federal income tax.

It is a priority to help parents with the cost of raising their children. Our government will introduce a new $1,200 per year choice in child care allowance for children under six and a $250 million community child care investment program for capital assistance for the creation of 125,000 new child care spaces. The choice in child care allowance will apply to an estimated 2 million children of preschool age. Our plan provides money directly to parents. They can choose the child care option that best suits their family needs. That is a good plan.

It is a priority to work with the provinces to establish patient wait time guarantees. Canadians should receive essential medical treatment within clinically accepted wait times. We will work to ensure that Canadians can get urgent medical care when they need it. That is what they paid their taxes for and that is what they will receive. The guarantee will ensure that if people cannot get the medical care that they need where they live in the public system within the established benchmark times, they will be able to get that care either outside of the province or in a private clinic with the cost being covered by public insurance. That is what Canadians want.

Finally, it is a priority of the Conservative government to crack down on crime. As a former member of the House of Commons justice committee, I spent the last two years exploring at length various justice reforms that are desperately needed in Canada. Our Conservative government will make our streets and communities safer by cracking down on crime. Canadians have the right to feel safe in their communities. Our government will stand up for safe streets by tackling gun, gang and drug violence and by keeping criminals off the streets. The government believes that serious crime should have serious time.

We will provide more front line police officers. We will invest in effective gun control, not phony measures. We will get tough with sex offenders. We will strengthen the Youth Criminal Justice Act. We will establish a national victims' ombudsman office. We will enact a national drug strategy. We will secure our borders and we will ensure effective deportation laws.

(1120)

My riding of Langley has the dubious distinction of having the highest rate of mail theft in Canada. Mail fraud and identity theft are huge problems in Canada and in my riding. It is one of the many issues that have inundated police forces that simply do not have the numbers to follow up on all the reported cases.

A Conservative government will reinvest savings from the cancellation of the ineffective long gun registry into hiring more front line enforcement personnel, including filling 1,000 RCMP positions. We will negotiate with the provinces to create a new cost shared program jointly with provincial and municipal governments to put at least 2,500 more police on the beat in our cities and communities.

Interstate 5 in Washington state is the west coast pipeline not only for trade, but also for illegal drugs. A huge flow of B.C. bud goes down and cocaine comes back up to B.C., along with laundered money, other drugs and guns.

People smuggling is not just an overseas problem. In my riding people smuggling is second only to drug smuggling. We all remember the Langley drug tunnel from last summer. Illegal immigrants are paying smugglers to bring them across the border. The bushes at the border are riddled with well-worn paths used by smugglers. Security cameras in place on the border are not solving the problem because there is still insufficient manpower in place to actually apprehend the illegal immigrants.

Our Conservative government will create a national security review committee to ensure effective oversight and a greater degree of accountability and transparency regarding Canada's national security efforts. We will ensure that agencies like CSIS, the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency have adequate resources and equipment. We will deploy face recognition and other biometric technology at border crossings and ports of entry. We will ensure that the men and women who keep our borders secure are also secure themselves.

Last spring explosive testimony came to the justice committee when it was studying Bill C-2 on child pornography. University of Toronto psychiatrist Dr. Ron Langevin provided shocking results from an intensive study on deviant sex offenders and recidivism rates in Canada.

According to the study, 88% of deviant sex offenders in a 25 year follow-up have reoffended. Dr. Langevin also revealed that 44% of deviant sex offenders who were caught, charged and convicted of crimes were never incarcerated. He told us that sex offenders who serve their sentence at home present a high risk to reoffend. A Conservative government will eliminate conditional sentences for violent and sex offenders. That is good.

In Langley a convicted sex offender, a pedophile who assaulted two young girls who were his neighbours, was given a conditional sentence of house arrest. His sentence included the opportunity to continue watching his victims from his home.

I am proud that this Conservative government will prohibit conditional sentences for sex offences committed against children. We will require the registration of all convicted sex offenders and dangerous offenders. The registry will include mandatory DNA sampling of all those convicted of, or currently in custody for, such offences. We will adopt a zero tolerance policy for child pornography, including raising the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 years of age. This government is on the right track. We are listening to Canadians.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development recently announced funding of $2.5 million to address an environmental issue in my constituency.

This government listens. It is a government that wants to make Canada safer, better, productive and cleaner.

(1125)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, in the election campaign, taxation was an important issue and it is also in the throne speech. There is a discussion now about a reduction in the GST at the expense of rolling back a tax cut that was delivered in the last Parliament. Both have about a $5 billion price tag. What if the GST cut is not passed on by the providers of goods and services? For instance, a $20 theatre ticket will probably still cost $20 and the gas tax will probably still be kept by the producers. Since there is not a guaranteed flowthrough from the providers of the goods and services to Canadians, it would appear to be an increase in the tax burden of Canadians if the Conservative Party proceeds in the way it promised during the election campaign.

Why did the member's party mislead the Canadian public by saying that there was going to be a tax decrease when in fact the tax burden on Canadians will actually go up?

(1130)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mark Warawa:

Mr. Speaker, the member has been consistent regarding taxation. For 13 years the Liberal government overtaxed Canadians.

The promise that this government made is that we will lower taxes. We asked Canadians what the most efficient way would be to lower the taxes. We asked what tax reduction would affect every Canadian. It became very clear that this government does want to lower taxes. During the 13 years of Liberal rule the taxes went up and up. Canadians are overtaxed. That is one of the reasons that Canadians wanted a change in government. We listened. Canadians said to reduce the GST. I have heard so often that Canadians would like to see the GST gone. That was a promise made and a promise broken by the previous government.

We are going to lower the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. The GST is a tax that everybody pays. Thirty-two per cent of Canadians do not pay any income tax, but everybody pays the GST. If we want to be fair, if we want to have the best tax reduction for every Canadian, then we should reduce the GST. That is what we are going to do. That is what Canadians want.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Shawn Murphy (Charlottetown, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, my question is regarding the debate on child care which is going on right across the country.

I am really disappointed with the Conservative platform. For the life of me I cannot understand what a payment of $1,200 has to do with child care.

In Canada we have the national child tax benefit. For the past 10 years it has paid money to lower income families. It has been very welcome. If the $1,200 was an increase in that, I certainly would welcome it myself. My only problem with it would be it would be money better spent by the government if it were means tested.

How could a payment of $1,200 possibly be classified as child care?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mark Warawa:

Mr. Speaker, my wife and I were blessed with five children. We now have two and one-half grandchildren; one is in the cooker. We love children. My children are grown now and range from 21 to 31 years of age. They are trying to raise families of their own and buy a house. Things are incredibly expensive. It is not like it was when I bought my first house for $23,000 in 1973. Things are so expensive.

We have held round tables across the country to ask how we can help families. Parents have said that they want a choice in child care. Not everybody agrees with that, but the vast majority want a choice in child care. It may be providing child care through an organized child care service, it may be mom or dad wants to stay at home, or it may be a relative or a loved one of a friend, but parents need a choice in child care. It will not pay the total costs of child care, but it will substantially help parents who want a choice. This is what Canadians have asked for and this is what we have given them.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this debate on the Speech from the Throne.

(1135)

[English]

Before I begin my remarks, I would like first to thank the voters in Etobicoke North for expressing their confidence in me again in the election on January 23. It is a great honour and trust that they have bestowed upon me, for the fifth time I might add. I will respect that trust and work at my utmost to represent them well here in the House of Commons.

Let me take this opportunity as well to thank the many volunteers who worked with me on the election campaign. Their efforts are very greatly appreciated.

I would like also to express my grief and sorrow in relation to two recent and separate incidents, first to the friends and family of Bhupinder Singh Khroad and Ravinder Jit Kaur Khroad who were tragically involved in a fatal motor vehicle accident recently. I extend my thoughts and prayers to all of them as they mourn their loss.

To the friends and relatives of the four Canadian soldiers killed on Saturday in Afghanistan: Corporal Matthew Dinning, Lieutenant William Turner, Bombardier Myles Mansell and Corporal Randy Payne. We all share their grief and can assure them that these brave men did not die in vain. They gave unselfishly to their country for the cause of freedom and the struggle against terrorism.

Let me turn now to the Speech from the Throne. It is 12 pages in length and is not exactly a difficult read. It lays out five priorities of the Conservative government. I understand well the idea of focusing on a few issues, but this, it seems to me, to be taking it to new limits.

[Translation]

At any rate, the five priorities that the Conservative party touted during its election campaign—along with many other promises that did not appear in the Speech from the Throne—do not offer the Canadian public a very sound official policy.

[English]

Let me cite just three examples. One is to reduce the GST. It is well known that it is three times more beneficial to the economy to have income tax cuts of equivalent amounts. That was the Liberal plan and was tabled in the House. Now the Conservative government will reduce those income tax reductions to implement the cut in the GST. We know this is not good for Canadians. It may be politically popular, but it is not the best solution for Canadians.

The Conservative Party approach to child care is misguided, in my judgment. Its plan to provide the parents of each young child with $1,200 annually, while politically attractive to some, does not constitute a child care program. It is more like the old baby bonus scheme which was disbanded long ago. The Liberal government replaced it in the 1990s with the national child benefit. The national child benefit program is delivering about $10 billion annually to medium and modest income families. The $1,200 could be added to this and the child care agreements negotiated with the provinces and territories by the Liberal government should be respected. This would offer real child care support for working parents.

While I support tougher action against crime and criminals, and in fact the Liberal government tabled a series of responses to the plague of gun violence before the last Parliament was dissolved for the election, scrapping the gun registry would be a serious mistake. The gun registry, although certainly not a panacea to deal with gun violence, is supported by Canada's police chiefs and also by the Canadian Professional Police Association. These are the rank and file police officers. Law enforcement officers across the country are making 6,000 inquiries per day to the gun registry. Surely this is telling us that the police find the gun registry to be a useful tool.

The annual cost to operate the gun registry is now at a level of $20 million per year or less. While I acknowledge the high cost to develop this system, which has been exaggerated in the House and elsewhere, the system is now developed, in place and is costing less than $20 million a year.

Likewise, tougher sanctions against criminals in and of themselves will not be enough. We need to build on our investments in the community based national crime prevention program and programs like breaking the cycle, which operates in my riding of Etobicoke North. This program helps young people extricate themselves from gangs, and it is working.

Ministers in Prime Minister Harper's cabinet have been told to stay on message and stick to the five priorities laid out in the Speech from the Throne.

[Translation]

As the Liberal party critic for natural resources, I have to wonder how Mr. Harper's policy on staying on message will play out. Furthermore, the terms “natural resources” and “agriculture” appear only once in the Speech from the Throne, which includes no clear ideas on either of these subjects.

This is pretty unbelievable, given that natural resources and related industries represent 13% of Canada's GNP and provide jobs for nearly a million Canadians. Contrary to popular belief, these jobs are located in both rural and urban areas.

We can only hope that the budget about to be tabled will take into account the major impact of the natural resources sector on the entire Canadian population.

(1140)

[English]

Coming back to the focussed messaging that Conservative ministers apparently are working under, what will this mean for the Minister of Natural Resources when he meets with Canada's mining industry? Will he describe the party's plan for child care or will he be permitted to dialogue on the severe labour shortages looming in Canada's mining industry and the need for incentives to encourage more exploration and development in Canada's mining industry?

When the Minister of Natural Resources meets with representatives from Canada's forest industry, will he describe to them the get tough on crime initiatives proposed by the Conservative government, or will he be permitted to dialogue with them about what his government will do to resolve the long-standing softwood lumber dispute with the United States and what action the Conservative government will take to ease the burden on the softwood lumber industry, its workers and the communities affected? Our Liberal government had announced a relief package of some $1.5 billion, as interim assistance, until the dispute was finally settled in Canada's favour. Now we have some ministers on the government side saying that we are not going to win this dispute. Shame on them.

When the Minister of Natural Resources meets with the energy dialogue group, will he describe to them the proposed reduction in the GST, or will the Prime Minister allow the minister to explore with them the need for an energy strategy or national energy framework for Canada? Will he be able to discuss how the government will address such critical issues as energy conservation and energy efficiency? Will the minister be provided enough slack to discuss the Mackenzie Valley and Alaska pipeline projects, or will he digress into one of the other five priorities of the government, being very careful of course not to stray off message?

When the Minister of National Resources meets with environmental groups, will he discuss the government's new accountability package? Will he be able to respond to their questions when they ask what Canada's plans are to deal with greenhouse gas emissions and how those objectives will mesh with the development of the oil sands in Alberta? Will this type of discussion be permitted, or will special clearance be required from the Prime Minister if he wants to proceed in that way?

For the sake of our country and for all Canadians I hope the Minister of Natural Resources will be allowed to stray into these very important areas which, although not a priority obviously for the Conservative government, need the attention of all of us.

I look forward to the upcoming budget and other initiatives of the government. What was contained in the throne speech was pretty thin gruel and not enough to go on.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

I would like to note that the hon. member is an experienced member of the House. I did not want to interrupt him in the volley of his oratory, but he did name a right hon. member in this House. I would like that member and all members not to test the Chair by doing this again . You might also want to advise your wordsmiths and legislative assistants about this ruling. Thank you very much.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am sure we will all want to take that admonition to heart.

With all due respect to my hon. colleague opposite, for whom I have a great deal of respect, I am a little disappointed at some of the rhetoric he has thrown into his response to the Speech from the Throne with regard to two particular issues: first, he called the Conservative child care approach misguided; and second, his comments on the gun registry.

First, with regard to the child care plan, I am surprised that the member continues to tout what Canadians themselves, parents of young children, have said when asked what type of child care they prefer for their children. He continues to endorse and promote what Canadians rate as the fifth choice. Canadian parents prefer to manage their children as much as possible by themselves, or with a close family relative, or a neighbourhood day care, or a workplace-oriented day care. I am surprised the member would continue to ignore what statistics show us, which is Canadians prefer to have control of their child care.

Second, with regard the gun registry, the member referred to the great number of hits that the police have on the gun registry and how useful it is to them. Frankly, that information is so misused. We know that to get hits, every time officers stop cars for speeding, or for going through a stop sign or a red light, or for any check at all, they punch in the licence place number and it automatically accesses the gun registry, which officers at the side of the road completely ignore. However, they get great numbers according to the hits on the registry. It is totally useless and misguided. How could they possibly have spent $159 million on computers for a registry that has produced so little value to actual policing or reducing crime or violent gun crime in the country?

We have elderly citizens who are concerned. I had a man In my community approach me just this week on this subject. He has guns he inherited from a family member. He does not hunt himself, but they are family heirlooms. He is being told that if he does not register so far ahead of his birthday, not only will he lose his registry, he will have to go through the whole application again, and it will cost him another $60 to register, if he can get the registry in on time.

Why would the member continue to endorse a program that everyone recognizes as a complete and utter failure?

(1145)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Roy Cullen:

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the member for Nanaimo--Alberni did not take the opportunity to speak up and join me in a chorus to argue that the government needs to respond to the forestry workers in Canada with some help. I am sure there are many sawmills in the member's riding that are in terrible shape and many forestry workers who are badly affected. In fact, I recall his colleague, the member from Vancouver Island, who is no longer in the House, argued very strenuously for a relief package. I know the member for Nanaimo--Alberni did as well, but I am saddened by his silence on this issue in the House.

However, let me come back to the points that he has raised. First, I am glad he acknowledged that the gun registry cost $159 million to develop and build. That is the figure the member quoted in the House. I know members on the other side have talked about a much bigger number to develop the gun registry. In fairness to the member, we know that is not right. It is higher than that, but it certainly is not as high as many of the members here purport.

The point is that in finance and economics, there is a concept called sunk cost. If we build a house and it costs too much to build, but now it is energy efficient and it is what we can afford, do we burn the house down because it cost us too much? Of course not. We look at what that house does for us today. What I am saying is that house, that gun registry, is costing less than $20 million a year. It is supported by every police association in Canada and they are making use of it day in and day out.

Regarding child care, if that is the way the member for Nanaimo--Alberni feels, that this is a test of the Canadian public to their child care proposal, I wonder if his government plans to put that particular proposal to the floor of the House. I not sure, based on what I heard from the leader of the Bloc Québécois, that they support the $1,200 a year baby bonus scheme. I am pretty sure that members on this side do not support it. I am quite sure the NDP does not support it. If he is saying that Canadians support it, does his government plan to table that in the House the way it stands now? I think they would be sadly disappointed with the result.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Ahuntsic.

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, earlier I was listening to the hon. government member speak to us about crime. I heard about increasing the number of police officers, biometric cards and DNA. What the member was talking about was a police state. My question is for the hon. member who is not a member of the government—

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

I am afraid the hon. member may not have understood that the question period for the previous member has now ended. We have resumed debate and I have recognized you as the next speaker. I invite you to resume the debate.

(1150)

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Maria Mourani:

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I did not realize that the period for questions for the hon. member was over. You have caught me by surprise but I will come at it from another direction.

I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

As all Quebeckers must realize, this is my first speech here in the House. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank the people of Ahuntsic for placing their trust in me. I would also like to thank my family for their love and support, especially my parents, my brothers and sisters, my husband Ibrahim and my son Christopher.

I would also like to thank all of the Bloc Québécois supporters in the riding of Ahuntsic. I am here today thanks to their hard work. I also send my regards to my team, currently holding the fort in our constituency office. I would also like to acknowledge my former colleagues at CSST, who made it possible for me to be with you here today. Finally, I would like to extend my warmest regards to the Lebanese and Arab communities in Quebec and Canada, and to the people of Lebanon, which I am proud to say is my country of birth, and to those from my home town of Akkar.

I chose Quebec because it offers a good environment in which to achieve the hope of peace and solidarity. I can now say that it also feels good to be chosen by the people there. I will therefore try to prove myself worthy of my fellow citizens' kindness and of the political ideals that I share with my party.

As the ancient Romans said, “scripta manent”, which means, “what is written endures”. Wise people have long known that what is written endures; it follows us and we are judged by what we write.

During the last election campaign, the Prime Minister send a letter to the Feminist Alliance for International Action. The letter stated, and I will quote in English:

[English]

Yes, I'm ready to support women's human rights and I agree that Canada has more to do to meet its international obligations to women's equality.

If elected, I will take concrete and immediate measures, as recommended by the United Nations, to ensure that Canada fully upholds its commitments to women in Canada.

[Translation]

He made a commitment to take concrete and immediate measures, as recommended by the UN, to support women's rights.

As we all know, the Prime Minister was elected. The women of Quebec and Canada are now waiting for him to take the concrete and immediate measures he referred to, as the UN recommended. The Speech from the Throne is silent on these measures, which the Prime Minister promised in writing. By signing the letter, what did the Prime Minister pledge to do?

In 1979, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which is also known as the treaty for women's rights.

In 1981, Canada ratified this convention. Twenty-five years later, women still suffer discrimination.

In 2003, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women released its report on Canada. It reads in part as follows:

While appreciating the federal Government's various anti-poverty measures, the Committee is concerned about the high percentage of women living in poverty, in particular elderly women living alone, female lone parents, aboriginal women...immigrant women and women with disabilities, for whom poverty persists or even deepens, aggravated by the budgetary adjustments made since 1995 and the resulting cuts in social services.

I will give a few examples of what the Prime Minister was committing to when he signed the letter. On the issue of violence against women, in paragraph 370, the UN committee asks Canada to “step up its efforts to combat violence against women and girls and increase its funding for women’s crisis centres and shelters.”

What, specifically, will the Prime Minister do about that? I wonder. As regards domestic help, the committee calls for, among other things, a quicker process to enable these household employees to obtain permanent residence. Another fine challenge for the Prime Minister.

In addition, as Ms. Asselin, the president of the Fédération des femmes du Québec, pointed out in an open letter that appeared in La Presse on December 23, the enshrinement of pay equity in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms some 30 years ago has not ensured that women working in businesses under federal jurisdiction enjoy pay equity.

For a number of years now, there has been consensus in Quebec on pay equity. Some 120,000 persons, primarily women, do not have pay equity, simply because they work for firms under federal jurisdiction. Therefore, in Quebec, 120,000 persons are paying the price because Quebec is not independent and master of its directions and its life choices. This lack of pay equity on the federal level leads me to make a comment for my fellow Quebeckers on the relevance of sovereignty. The reason for sovereignty is all the more understandable, despite all that is involved, as is the reason we want to be independent. So, what will the Prime Minister do to honour his signature?

In the debate on Canada's presence in Afghanistan, on April 10, a number of ministers of this government justified it by an altruistic desire to protect the rights of women and children. The Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages said, and I quote:

In addition thanks to Canada's help, more than 4 million children, one-third of them girls, are registered in primary school. Canada is helping to bring concrete, lasting change to the living conditions of women and children in Afghanistan.

The Minister of National Defence said:

(1155)

For Afghan women to have access to such services was simply unimaginable under the harsh Taliban regime. ...more than 4 million children, one-third of them girls, are registered in primary school.

In my opinion this government seems very sensitive to the cause of Afghan women and children and that makes me very happy.

I presume the same will be true for the women of Quebec and Canada. I also presume that the Prime Minister is a man of his word and that he will keep the promise he made in writing to the women of Quebec and Canada on December 18, 2005.

I will therefore support the Speech from the Throne, since I am an optimist and I have confidence in the word of the Prime Minister, who will, I am sure, go beyond the Speech from the Throne.

Furthermore, I am quite pleased that this government has shown its openness to addressing the fiscal imbalance, which is something we did not see with the previous government. Indeed, the previous government did not even recognize that there was a fiscal imbalance.

This apparent willingness to find fiscal arrangements gives hope. I do not intend to kill that hope.

The current government's desire to address crime is another important aspect of this speech. Nonetheless, we must not forget that criminal behaviour does require repression alone, but also rehabilitation and prevention.

I will close by saying that I will give the Prime Minister a chance to keep his word. In time, the men and women of Quebec and Canada will take notice of what he does and does not do. For now, we will give him the benefit of the doubt, but we are keeping our eyes wide open.

(1200)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Steven Blaney (Lévis—Bellechasse, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on her first speech in this House. She has expressed herself very well and with great clarity. Her presence in this House does honour to the values she speaks for, the role of women in society. I salute her.

I also hope that she will be able to reconcile work and family in her life, this being a reality that we all have to deal with.

In her speech, the member talked about aspirations of peace and solidarity. Those are also Quebec and Canadian values, which our soldiers are currently defending in Afghanistan, where we deplore the loss of human lives, such as we saw this past weekend. It is indeed in our interest to promote the spread of Canadian values in the world.

Our Minister of Defence went to Afghanistan where he toured the Canadian military bases. I was with him in Valcartier. He again told the soldiers how proud he was to see Canadians engaging courageously not only in humanitarian missions, but also in dangerous and complex missions, to defend those values.

In her speech, the member also talked about values and combating the poverty that often affects many women. She also said that she wanted the federal government to exhibit leadership, particularly on the question of pay equity.

I would therefore like to know what concrete measure she is proposing, to contribute specifically to advancing the cause she defends, the legislative emancipation of women by the Government of Canada.

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Maria Mourani:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his words of encouragement. Indeed, the challenge facing every woman is to reconcile work and family. But I am fortunate to have women like Louise Harel and Pauline Marois, who have been examples of how to reconcile work and family, as my models.

In Quebec, we have a pay equity act; in Canada, we have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter, in fact, gives women equity in terms of rights, but there is no Canadian pay equity law. For example, women who work in businesses governed by federal law do not have pay equity, while in Quebec we have made progress in this and we continue to fight for this right of women. Nonetheless, there is considerable room for improvement in everything. On the federal level, however, there is a kind of legal vacuum that means that women working in the broadcasting industry still do not have this equity.

Speeches saying that we are fighting for equity for women and that we have put rights into charters are all very well, but we are not seeing this in the facts, in those women’s everyday lives. In fact, I will tell you what those women say: they are not seeing it.

(1205)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the member expressed some concern about poverty among seniors, particularly women. The member knows that the government has proposed to roll back a tax cut that was given to all Canadians in the last Parliament. Average Canadians would have benefited by about $400 a year. To make up for that, an average Canadian family will now have to spend about $40,000 simply to save $400. It appears that Canadians are actually going to have a tax increase, not a tax decrease. I wonder if the member would care to comment on whether or not she is supportive of taking more money out of the hands of Canadian seniors.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Maria Mourani:

I did not understand the question.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

I will allow a very short comment, because there is very little time left for this period of the day.

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Maria Mourani:

Mr. Speaker, how can we fight poverty? For example, Quebec has a law to help fight poverty. Quebec has put several measures in place to fight poverty among women, the elderly and so on. It is important that we understand our responsibility toward the people who elected us to represent them in this House.

Beyond fancy speeches and concrete measures, fiscal or otherwise, can we try to look at each group's specific needs and ask ourselves how we can help? Everyone knows that fiscal measures benefit only some of the people. Can we offer financial or fiscal help to these groups of women? This would be very good, because these women are always just barely surviving.

I would like the government to allocate some money to these women, to these groups, in its next budget.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marc Lemay (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, allow me first to congratulate my colleague from Ahuntsic. She just expected to ask a question but actually delivered her maiden speech in the House. Speaking personally and on behalf of my colleagues, I congratulate her because it was a fine speech. It did a good job of setting out the debate on the help and respect that women deserve in our society.

Allow me as well to thank my constituents in the riding of Abitibi—Témiscamingue. Again they expressed their confidence in me to represent them in the House and ensure that the ways in which Abitibi—Témiscamingue is different are recognized all across Canada and Quebec and that these differences are vigorously defended in the House, as they should be.

Getting down to the Speech from the Throne, allow me to point out that it was very predictable. We are glad, though, that it did not go on for more than 15 or 20 minutes because it was a redundant repetition of what we heard during the election campaign. This entirely predictable speech was based on the five great actions that the current government wishes to take.

We were glad to see two of the Bloc’s proposals mentioned in the throne speech: international treaties will be ratified by the House and the government will apologize to Chinese immigrants for the head tax they had to pay. This is very important. During the last session, after sitting on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, I sat as well on the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. We carried resolutions asking that apologies be made to the Chinese community, and they will be. The money reimbursed to them will not make them forget the mistakes of which they were the victims, but at least it will make them feel welcome in Canada.

Let us look now at the five priorities on which the government based its Speech from the Throne. It will probably base all its policies on them in this Parliament, and especially its budget speech, to be delivered in the next few days.

Insofar as accountability is concerned, the Bloc was already talking in 2001 about the crisis surrounding the sponsorship scandal, which cost the previous government a great many seats in Quebec. The last word still remains to be written, though, because the courts have yet to pass sentence on people who abused the system.

We obviously need an accountability act. However, this bill casts a very wide net, too wide perhaps. We will see. Our suggestion is that the government should work together with the opposition parties on consideration in committee of the bill and its implementation. The bill was just introduced in the last few days and will have to be studied in committee. It has more than 200 sections, and we will see how the committee manages. It is a huge bill, but it is hard to be against virtue itself.

Finally, there is day care. The Bloc’s first reaction is to tell the current government that it is good, it is a fine idea. It must be said, though, that we have had this in Quebec for quite a few years now.

(1210)

Thanks to the Parti Québécois, Quebec endowed itself with the best day care system in Canada. In the words of the former Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Chrétien, it is probably one of the best in the world. So it must not be cut back.

We sincerely believe that, in the next budget speech and in the Speech from the Throne, the government must ensure that Quebec is compensated and deserves to be compensated. We calculate that the daycare centres of Quebec will lose $807 million if the government introduces the $1,200. Our leader has emphasized this, and I will repeat what he said. We have no objection to the $1,200, far from it. However, three things are important.

First, the government did not mention that this $1,200 would be taxable, and that will create all sorts of problems. Second, in Quebec in particular, this amount of $1,200 will be deductible from income security benefits, that is, welfare. That $1,200 will not be very good for people in need. Third, we suggest that the government revisit its idea of $1,200 and maybe offer it as a tax deduction or tax credit. We shall see how it is treated in the budget. What is certain is that the Bloc Québécois will fight to see that Quebec’s jurisdictions are respected, particularly in this matter. It will be very important for Quebec to receive its fair share.

Very quickly, I would also like to talk about wait times. The government has to be careful, because health is a field of provincial jurisdiction. It will have to respect provincial jurisdictions before implementing any program whatsoever, especially in the area of health and wait times.

Let us also talk about security and justice. I want to speak about this because, in the previous Parliament, I was a member of the Standing Committee on Justice. The party now in power, which was in opposition at that time, presented various ideas—which I will not venture to list—for draconian increases to sentences and for minimum prison sentences. To such ideas, we say no. No, because that would be using the Criminal Code to do the work of judges. Yes, there are ways of issuing directives, of inviting the courts to give serious consideration to possibly increasing sentences. Take for example the Coffin decision which was just rendered by the Quebec Court of Appeal. Mr. Coffin pleaded guilty to defrauding the government in the sponsorship scandal. The trial court had sentenced him to about two years less a day plus community service. The Court of Appeal has just revised this decision, in the wake of popular pressure and the notice of appeal filed by the Crown, and has imposed a prison term.

With all due respect, I would like to advise the party in power to be very careful before tabling bills of this nature. The right wing in Canada is not enjoying very good press at the moment. Criminals are not going to be deterred by minimum prison sentences. I know whereof I speak, for prior to June 28, 2004, I was a criminal litigator for 25 years. For the last 15 of those years, I worked in criminal law only. As I told the members of the standing committee, imposing long prison terms is not the solution; rehabilitation, on the other hand, is very important. It is true, however, that we should perhaps take another look at suspended sentences.

(1215)

We could examine excessively hasty probation and releases.

In closing—

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but we are now in the period set aside for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Louis-Hébert.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Luc Harvey (Louis-Hébert, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the other side of the House said that we have axed day care services. He also spoke about a fair share for Quebeckers. He talked about a whole slew of fine things.

I noted the statistics. Perhaps my colleague is not aware of all he could draw on to state whether day care services will really be axed or whether Quebec will receive its fair share.

It is a fact that the federal government must pay the Government of Quebec some $240 million annually. Divided by $1,200, this amount represents the payment of an allowance to some 200,000 children. On April 1, the number of children in day care centres, CPEs or other Quebec government institutions passed the 200,000 mark. Finally, as we say at home, it amounts to trading four quarters for a dollar. We are a long way from axing these services and depriving Quebeckers of their fair share.

In addition, there are not 200,000 children under the age of five in Quebec, but rather 378,000, which represents some $440 million for Quebec. That means nearly $200 million more in the pockets of Quebeckers. On top of that, the allowance now covers children aged 6 and under, which adds some 72,000 children. And so the figure becomes over $500 million, which is practically double the amount provided for in the previous plan.

I would like to know where the problem is.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marc Lemay:

Mr. Speaker, the problem is quite clear. When you send $1,200 to an individual so their child can go to a day care, there has to be a day care for the child to go to. Therein lies the problem.

Child care allowances of $1,200 are going to be handed out. That is fine. However, there may be other means of distributing this money. We are not against the idea. At first glance, it seems interesting. However, these funds should be given out as a tax credit. That is the difference.

For example, I know a stay-at-home mother who is raising two young children. Her husband is an orthopaedic surgeon. She earns $5,000 and her husband earns $300,000. She will be entitled to an allowance of $1,200 per child for a total of $2,400. With all due respect, that is the problem in my opinion.

The government must be careful. We do not think it is a bad idea, but a balance needs to be struck. We already have a day care system in place. Some serious thinking needs to be done.

One solution would be to correct the fiscal imbalance. I hope that my colleague opposite will push for a solution to this fiscal imbalance as promised.

(1220)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the member referred to wait time guarantees in the health system. Benchmarks are fine to establish, I think, but a guarantee does require sudden encroachment into provincial jurisdiction. I wonder if the member would care to comment on whether or not he sees providing wait time guarantees as viable under the current arrangements.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marc Lemay:

Mr. Speaker, my initial response is that the issue should be examined very carefully.

It seems obvious to me that there is an attempt to become involved in an area that is clearly under provincial jurisdiction, and that is health. In our opinion, the money should be given to the provinces, along with the mandate to reduce wait times. In this way, we could solve part of the problem.

The provinces—in particular Quebec—must determine for themselves how they will reduce wait times. In Ontario, wait times may not be the same as in Quebec or British Columbia. It all depends on the type of surgery. This should all be discussed in a debate.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Simcoe North.

I would like to dedicate this, my maiden speech, to my father, Mark Lake, who passed away three years ago this week. Given my lack of political involvement during his lifetime, he would not have dreamt for a second that I would today have this great honour and yet I can scarcely imagine being here had it not been for his wisdom and influence in my life.

It is my tremendous pleasure to stand here on behalf the people of Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont. As this is my first time speaking in the House, I would like to take a few moments to express some appreciation. First, I want to thank God for the experiences in my life, even the hard ones, that have prepared me for this moment and those that will follow.

I thank my family, my wife Debi and my kids Jaden and Jenae, for embarking with me on this family adventure. I want to thank my mom, Bonnie, for showing me by her daily example what it means to put others before oneself, and my grandma, Eleanor Lake, for giving me my dad and for teaching him to be the amazing father that he was.

I thank all of my constituents, of course, regardless for whom they voted, for making our little piece of Canada such a wonderful place to live. My constituency is a perfect snapshot of capturing what makes Canada the greatest country in the world: a mix of urban and rural; French and English; blue collar and white collar; and truly multicultural, with 30% of the population being from a visible minority.

This constituency is also representative of the Canada-wide recognition that we need to change the way we govern this country if it is to remain great. On January 23 the people of Edmonton--Mill Woods--Beaumont, who had elected a Liberal in each of the last four elections, voted Conservative by a 17,000 vote margin.

At this time I would like to recognize the man who served Edmonton--Mill Woods--Beaumont prior to the last election, a dedicated and well-respected parliamentarian for 26 years, the Hon. David Kilgour. The reason the Liberals were able to hold on to the seat for so long is that David knew the importance of putting his constituents first and he had a heart for service. For that, he will always be held in high regard by the people back home.

I will move on to talk about the Speech from the Throne in a moment but first I want to acknowledge a group of Canadians who are close to my heart. They, like myself, are parents of young children with autism. My son Jaden is 10 years old now and was diagnosed with autism when he was two. I would like those parents to know that I have been where they are. I have experienced the same emotions that they are experiencing right now: the intense love that a parent has for his or her child; the fear that accompanies the discovery that there is something different about the way the child is developing; the hope of finding out that there is a treatment that is helping other children with similar challenges; and the utter frustration and disappointment as time ticks away while the child waits for that treatment.

I am also fortunate enough to have lived in a province that has made treating autism a priority. I absolutely believe that my son is a different person because of the behavioural therapy that he has received over the past eight years.

While it seems clear that the responsibility for providing the treatment programs children with autism so desperately need lies with the provinces and territories, I want those parents to know that I will do everything that I can to promote action to the full extent that the federal government can play a role within its area of authority.

Now I would like to talk about the five main priorities of this new government, starting with the revolutionary new federal accountability act and accountability in general.

A lot of people have asked me what it was that drove me to leave my business career with the Edmonton Oilers Hockey Club to get involved in a life of politics. Over the past several years I have been growing increasingly disillusioned and frustrated with the disastrous combination of high taxation and the lack of both stewardship and vision on the part of the previous Liberal government.

A quote by Alexander Hamilton sums up my feelings and I think those of many Canadians who have started to wake up just in time to what has been happening over the past 13 years. He said, “Those who stand for nothing fall for anything”.

With this Speech from the Throne we finally have a government that is prepared to stand up for something, a government that recognizes what so many Canadians already know: that as great a country as Canada is we could be so much better.

Accountability is not something to be feared unless one is hiding something. In fact, most business managers would tell us that a well-planned and straightforward budget and a good set of rules to monitor and govern it are actually very freeing.

When I was the director of ticket sales with the Oilers, I had to submit and then operate within an expense budget for my department. On a fairly regular basis I would sit down with our vice-president of finance to ensure we were running smoothly according to the rules we had set out. I enjoyed this process because I knew that I was being a good steward of the company's money and it was important to me that the shareholders were comfortable with that knowledge as well.

Here our shareholders are all Canadians and they deserve to have that same level of accountability, that same comfort level, and that is what the federal accountability act is all about.

The second of the five priorities mentioned in the Speech from the Throne is the commitment to reduce the GST immediately from 7% to 6% and then eventually to 5%. As has been mentioned several times in this House but seems to be conveniently ignored by those across the floor is the fact that this is a tax cut that will benefit every taxpayer in the country, including those at the lowest income levels who do not make enough money to pay income taxes in the first place.

(1225)

This is a tax cut that people will see every day and it cannot be taken away by stealth while they are out working hard to make ends meet. Most important, it is a clear, unambiguous step in the right direction for all Canadians.

The third of the five priorities in the Speech from the Throne is a promise to make the safety of our streets and our citizens a priority. As I have talked to people in my constituency, both during the election campaign and since, the topic of crime is consistently mentioned with almost unanimous support for the positions my party has laid out in this area. Citizens, as well as police and prosecutors, are sick and tired of the rights of criminals trumping the rights of law-abiding citizens. It is time to treat serious crime seriously. It sounds so ridiculously simple and yet we are constantly hearing about violent criminals receiving short or conditional sentences, often only to reoffend when they should still be in prison. That is clearly unacceptable.

I will skip the fourth of the five priorities, child care, but I will come back to it in a moment.

The fifth priority is the government's commitment to work with the provinces to establish a patient wait times guarantee. Along with accountability and crime, health care was one of the top three issues in my riding that people wanted to talk about on their doorsteps. There are many concerns but the general theme I heard was that the health care system was not working the way it should for the amount of money going into it. The complaints were almost never about the level of investment in the system. Rather, the conversation almost always centred around the return Canadians are getting in terms of service.

Canadians want and deserve a universal, publicly funded health care system that they can trust to be there for them when they need it. With our aging population, the demands on this system are only going to increase. It is good to see that we finally have a federal government that is making the health care of Canadians a priority.

I have purposely left until the end of my time the choice in child care plan because I want to give it the attention it deserves. Let me begin by saying that I do not begrudge parents choosing to send their children to day care. It is a choice that my wife and I have not made for our family but I have many friends and family members who are terrific parents and use day care.

I also want to point out that our choice in child care plan, unlike the Liberal plan, has a component whereby we will work with the provinces and territories, employers, community and non-profit organizations to create more child care spaces that meet the needs of ordinary Canadians.

During the election campaign I heard the former prime minister talk often about the Liberal day care plan as the first new social program in a generation. Backed by an army of government funded special interest groups, Liberals espoused the virtues of their sacred and “progressive day care plan”, which blatantly left hundreds of thousands of Canadian families unfairly paying through their taxes to fund other families' child care choices.

To quote the view of C.S. Lewis on progress in general, which is a long quote but it captures the essence of this debate perfectly in my mind, he said:

We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place you want to be and if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.

To illustrate the difference between the two plans, I want to use the example of a family in my riding for whom I have tremendous respect, the Matychuk family. Jeff and Nancy Matychuk have five children ranging in age from 5 to 14. They are a one income family with one vehicle, a 12 year old minivan that does the job, usually. They live in Edmonton in a modest home with no garage. Jeff takes the bus to work, a one hour ride each way downtown, so that Nancy can have the van to move the kids around. Jeff's income last year was about $39,000. The Matychuks do not use day care, institutional or otherwise, and their kids are as well-rounded, mature and social as any we could ever meet. This is a truly incredible family that has chosen to forego many of the luxuries we take for granted because they feel it is the best decision for their family and they do it gladly.

For the purpose of this illustration I want to pretend that Jeff and Nancy were just starting their family and that Amy, the 14 year old, was born this year. Under the Conservative choice in child care plan, over the next 15 years, until the youngest child turns six, the Matychuks would receive 36,000 after tax dollars to help with the costs of raising their family. Under the Liberal plan they would receive absolutely nothing. In fact, under the Liberal plan they would actually pay through their taxes to send their neighbours' kids to day care. That is simply unfair no matter how we look at it.

Thankfully, on January 23 Canadians voted for a well thought out and straightforward plan that will give real support and real choice to all Canadian families when it comes to child care.

I wish to take a moment to congratulate all members of the House on the honour that their constituents have bestowed on them. I look forward to working together with everyone here to ensure that Canada remains the greatest country in the world in which to live.

(1230)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my fellow member for his first speech in the House. He did a wonderful job of highlighting some of the important things that were put forward in the Speech from the Throne.

Would the member give the House a little clarification on the child care program? He gave examples of people in his own constituency who will now benefit from a change in the child care program. He talked about progress and about how the child care program that we are initiating on this side of the House will be progress. Will every parent receive the same benefit? Will it truly be an equal program whereas perhaps the programs in the past have not been equal and open to all citizens of Canada?

I come from a farming community where people are unable to access day care centres and centres where the funding has gone in the past. How will this program benefit people who live in rural Canada?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mike Lake:

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative child care plan will benefit all families equally across the country. Obviously the money follows the child so for every child under six years old the family will receive $1,200 taxed in the hands of the lowest income earner in the family.

The second part of the program that often gets ignored is the plan to invest in actual child care spaces in the rural communities, as well as those day care spaces funded by community groups, not for profit groups and corporations.

(1235)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on his first speech in the House.

I was interested to hear him talk about his family's experience with autism and the fact that his son is someone who is living with autism. He mentioned that there were families on the Hill today to draw to the attention of Canadians the difficulties that families with autistic children face. I know they are pleased that he can bring that experience to the House.

We have heard about the need for a national autism strategy, research chairs in Canadian universities to research various treatments for autism and the importance of including autism treatment in our medicare program. The member said that he thought anything that could possibly be done at the federal level should be done.

Could the member comment on those three points which are often raised by families who have autistic children?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mike Lake:

Mr. Speaker, I am always glad to talk about autism and working to find solutions.

As for a national autism strategy, I absolutely think the country could use a national autism strategy. It is important that we do something to not only help the kids who have autism now but also to find a solution.

As for research, I am absolutely in favour of looking into ways the federal government can help aid in the research of autism. As a three month new member of Parliament I have to learn a little more about the ways in which this can be done but I look forward to learning everything that I can.

In terms of the Canada Health Act, my impression is that the Canada Health Act does not name any specific disorders or diseases. When it comes to the funding of treatment programs, like autism or any other health related disorders or diseases, they are provincial responsibilities. The role the federal government plays is what we are doing in terms of correcting things like the fiscal imbalance that has been allowed to grow over the last few years and to clarify the roles of the provinces versus the roles of the federal government.

However I look forward to working with the hon. member and his party who have really taken an interest in autism to find solutions for the problems that these families are facing.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first address to the House I must say that it is a distinct honour and privilege to stand and represent the citizens of my riding in this place. I thank them for placing their confidence in me.

[Translation]

My thanks therefore go out to the citizens of Simcoe North.

(1240)

[English]

I would also like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to my family, especially my wife Heather and our children, but also the family members who are continuing to manage the family business, giving me leave and the opportunity to serve our community in this most distinguished way.

My family emigrated to Simcoe North from England in 1874 and successive generations have fashioned their livelihoods from our small village on Sparrow Lake ever since. Simcoe North is a fairly prosperous and growing region, about an hour and a half drive north from Toronto, on the cusp of cottage country encompassing, as the name suggests, the northern half of the historic county of Simcoe. We have a mix of rural and agricultural businesses with a strong representation in the tourism and manufacturing industries to supply much of our primary employment.

We are home to the general headquarters of the Ontario Provincial Police and one of Ontario's most recent and modern correctional facilities. As members might imagine, law enforcement, crime and sentencing issues are very top of mind among a key group of residents in my riding.

Simcoe North is home to two first nations communities, Mnjikaning and Beausoleil, and a large Métis community. We are also proud to have one of the few French speaking communities in southern Ontario in the town of Penetanguishene in the southern Georgian Bay area.

As the greater Toronto area has grown, so too has Simcoe North. A growing number of people commute from our communities to work in or near Toronto and many more have moved to our area in recent times to enjoy their retirement years in the more peaceful and picturesque surroundings offered by Simcoe North. While my riding may enjoy relative prosperity, there is a growing sense that governments at all levels must act more honestly and decisively to bring real results, lower taxes, and spending only in the areas that matter most to Canadians.

It is with this backdrop that I support the agenda for this Parliament that we heard ever so eloquently from Her Excellency the Governor General on April 4. With this past election people were ready for change. They had their limit of theatrical politics, politics where words, announcements, re-announcements, scandal and photo ops overtook the real business of our nation and plunged the cynicism toward elected officials to a new high. On January 23 they voted for change and change is what they will receive.

I am pleased that the first act of the government was to introduce the federal accountability act tabled on April 11 to begin the process of making the government more effective, transparent and accountable to the people. I believe this bill will be the first important step in regaining the trust of Canadians in their federal government.

To reduce taxes we will cut the GST to 6% and then to 5%, giving the widest form of tax relief possible. This will provide tax relief even to the nearly 30% of Canadians who do not pay income taxes. I have heard from many in my riding in that category who reminded me clearly that income tax cuts would not help them to pay for their ever increasing energy costs, rent and living expenses.

As I referenced earlier, the government's commitment to crack down on crime, restrict the use of conditional sentencing, and direct more resources to law enforcement, border security and against the proliferation of illegal firearms will be welcome in Simcoe North.

I represent a riding where many of our well paying jobs are on shift work and a good many more are held by people who live in rural areas where day care does not exist. They, like most families, seek out child care solutions that suit their circumstances, whether it is a relative, a neighbour or, where permissible, a neighbourhood day care centre.

The $1,200 per child under six that we pledged to them as a child care benefit will help. We know it will not completely pay, and they know it will not completely pay, for their child care, but it is far better to have that direct benefit in their hands than being lost in more government administration and programming that they may not even be able to seek out. They know this will help. They know they will have a choice.

As for the families that do have access to traditional day care services, I commend the efforts of professionals in the child care services area for developing programs like Ontario's best start program.

I encourage them to utilize the government's commitment to help maintain that program through to March 2007, and if best start proves to be successful, as it appears it will, then the Ontario government has every right to continue it on its own. It is its jurisdiction and I hope it does.

Our commitment to create 25,000 new child care spaces each year over the next five years will clearly tie in well with the good work of Ontario child and family services programs.

Finally, I have spoken to people in my riding who have given up on the health care system, people who have chosen not to endure the pain in their knees or hips, for example. They have reached into their own pockets to pay for medical services in places such as Buffalo, New York, a two and a half hour drive from Simcoe North. For those who have that financial capability, it is an alternative and that is a sad indictment of our health care system.

Excessive wait times are at the root of the public's loss of faith in our once proud system. I am delighted to see the government's undertaking to address wait times with a guarantee. The guarantee is tangible. It goes beyond the usual flowery words on a page. It compels actions and sets consequences if or when services fall short of medically appropriate wait times.

This is the kind of action that will help Canadians to regain their faith in our system and be proud of it again. At this time, when public health care services are struggling to meet demand, it makes perfect sense that we consider a greater role for private health care providers inside the bounds of our universally publicly administered and publicly paid system. That will mean better service for patients and better value for their investment.

It is encouraging to see the provinces working in this vein already: in Quebec, Alberta and recently, even in my home province of Ontario. It goes to show that when we work together, we can bring timely access to quality care. That is what Canadians want from their health care system and it is the kind of cooperation they expect from both levels of government.

In closing, I am optimistic about what lies ahead for our country. In this focused and succinct plan for the 39th Parliament I see a way to move forward, to step forward in meaningful, measurable steps. These steps reflect the kind of change that Canadians seek, that they believe are priorities for themselves and their country: a well deserved break on taxes, safe communities, accountable good government, choice in child care, and probably for the first time, a guarantee of service in health care.

The priorities set out in the Speech from the Throne become even more poignant when balanced against their commitment to address fiscal imbalance, to engage our provincial and territorial partners in a more open brand of federalism, and to restore Canada's reputation as a dependable leader on the international stage.

I look forward in this Parliament to implement these priorities. I ask hon. members opposite to see the value and the benefit to all Canadians from this program, to get behind it and support it, and for the first time in too many years, bring concrete results for all Canadians to share.

(1245)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about health care. Benchmarks have been established for critical areas already, but a wait time guarantee is a different issue totally. It means, all of a sudden, that the federal government is going to get involved in the delivery of health care which is a provincial jurisdiction.

It means that there is going to be either a massive transfer of additional moneys to the provinces to provide for guarantees, but the methodology of providing a guarantee would also involve transfers outside of a particular hospital to some other hospital in that province, or to another province, or even to the United States.

This is absolutely amazing because if we were to really think this through, we would understand that there are going to be problems no matter how it is done. What happens when a hospital decides to withdraw funding from certain critical areas so that it could top up, knowing that the federal government is just going to step in and pay for a guarantee of a benchmark that the hospital did not try to meet?

A massive change would have to occur and it would have to be in collaboration with the provinces. A decision will have to be taken whether or not this is just throwing money and saying that we have given the guarantee and if it happens, it happens. There must be consequences for not delivering and not meeting health care criteria and targets of best practices.

Maybe the member would like to get away from the rhetoric and the clichés and begin speaking a little bit about the challenges that would take place in terms of even delivering some sort of a guarantee.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bruce Stanton:

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. It will take an intense amount of cooperation and work with provincial and territorial governments to put this type of wait time guarantee in place. That is well recognized.

The member should be reminded that of the $41 billion over 10 years commitment by a government of which he was part of in the past Parliament, $5.5 billion was set aside specifically for addressing the wait time issue. However, this is the kind of guarantee, kind of service and protocol that Canadians expect from their health care systems. It is just not good enough to put a bunch of words on a page and not be prepared to stand behind them.

I agree that it is going to take some cooperation. I believe that Canadians expect to see that kind of cooperation. Will it be always easy? Certainly not, but we need to begin that process now and work with our provincial and territorial partners as soon as possible to deliver this kind of meaningful change for the Canadian health care system.

(1250)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kenora.

As I begin my remarks, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the voters of Vancouver Centre for re-electing me for the fifth time as their member of Parliament. I promise that I will continue to represent their views to Ottawa and strive to be worthy of their trust. I also want to thank my sons for their absolute patience and support, and I want to thank all of the great Vancouver Centre volunteers.

My initial reaction to the Speech from the Throne was one of disappointment. After several weeks of reflection, I stand here today and admit that my first impression was absolutely correct.

The five priorities laid out in the government's speech are disappointingly long on rhetoric and short on substance. What is most disturbing for those of us who live in British Columbia is what was not said. There is nothing about Canada's critical workforce deficit, nothing about productivity, and nothing about research and development. And amazingly, from the first elected western Prime Minister in two decades, there is not a word about the west, not a word.

The Prime Minister defends his Speech from the Throne by saying that it focuses on the five priorities that his government promised during the election: cutting the GST; a new federal accountability act; reforms to the criminal justice system; a Conservative child care plan; and a plan to continue the previous government's initiative to reduce wait times at hospitals.

This is not enough. When these things are complete in about the next three weeks, what else is there? Where is the vision?

Traditionally, Speeches from the Throne are about vision and a long term plan that a government hopes to implement to move the nation forward positively and address the concerns and challenges facing the country.

Maybe this tiny vision means that the Prime Minister does not expect to be here for a long time. However, let us deal with what we have: the five priorities.

Priority number one is the government's short-sighted and risky GST cut. The Prime Minister appears determined to forge ahead with his GST cut despite every serious economist in the country agreeing that it is poor public policy and a misuse of about $4.5 billion in federal fiscal flexibility every year. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives estimates that families earning over $150,000 a year will receive an average of over $2,000 in savings, while families earning less than $40,000, which is almost half of all Canadians, will receive a mere $163 after taxes.

Once again, we see that a leopard never changes its spots. A Conservative government, no matter what its new name is, favours the wealthy over low income Canadians.

Priority number two is a new federal accountability act. This is motherhood. Who could object? But on close examination, it is evident that this bill is nothing but a hollow shell.

Let us not forget that it was the last Liberal government that put in place the infrastructure for accountability by severely limiting individual and corporate political contributions and third party election spending. We brought in whistleblower legislation and new accountability guidelines for crown corporations.

This bill, however, would do nothing to prevent the revolving door between political staffers and lobbyists, something the Conservatives talked about non-stop when they were in opposition.

There is no mention of putting an end to lobbyists working for the government, where conflict of interest is an even greater concern. When we see, however, that the Conservative defence minister was a former lobbyist for the defence industry, it is not surprising that this has been left out of the bill.

Some of my constituents have pointed out that we should have expected these hidden surprises. From the moment the Prime Minister was sworn in, he developed sudden amnesia with regard to his campaign promises of openness, transparency and accountability.

First, he appointed an unelected Conservative backroom boy to cabinet and in one of the most sensitive portfolios as well. The minister, now a senator, can never stand in the House and be accountable for any of his decisions. Second, before the metaphorical ink was dry on the ballots in Vancouver Kingsway, the current Minister of International Trade leapt with dizzying haste from the party under which he was elected to the party that received only 18% of voter support.

Canadians have become cynical and embittered about politicians. The only feeling of empowerment they have in this democratic nation is that vote during an election when they can show their approval or their disapproval, so this lack of respect for the voter is beyond arrogance.

(1255)

Priority number three is to get tough on crime. In spite of the fact that crime rates went down 12% under the last Liberal government, the Conservatives have taken a new, punitive approach of hanging them high and hanging them long, locking them up and throwing away the key, an approach that runs contrary to all research. In fact, this approach would lead to a dramatic increase in the number of prisoners, which experts believe could mean building up to 23 new prisons. Let us think of the billions of dollars that will cost. In addition, the Prime Minister will abolish the gun registry, against the wishes of law enforcement professionals.

So who does the Prime Minister listen to? Not the experts, certainly not the research, and obviously not the police.

Priority number four is child care: $4 a day, after taxes, to care for our children. In my riding, that cannot not even buy a latte.

Where is the choice? This has nothing to do with early learning. What an insult to Canadian families and what a disservice to their children.

Priority number five is hospital wait times. It is said that imitation is the highest form of flattery, and I thank the government for adopting the last Liberal government's plan to send patients to other facilities for care if wait times are too long. I think this is a controversial issue at best. My colleague recently brought it up. However, what is interesting is that, with typical Conservative spin, this is now going to be one of the most costly ways of delivering health care. Our plan was to send patients to different parts of Canada. The Conservative plan is to send patients to the U.S., where the same service costs almost 10 times more. Did anyone do a cost benefit analysis on this? No wonder Conservative governments rack up deficits.

I cannot end this speech without pointing out so many issues of concern to Canadians, issues that were not in the Speech from the Throne, a speech deafening in its silence on these issues.

There is silence on B.C.'s Pacific gateway strategy.

There is silence on affordable housing. Will the government continue negotiations with provinces on the $1.5 billion national housing program that our previous government started?

There is silence on seniors. Will the government implement our plan for reverse mortgages, the $50 million new horizons for seniors program, the caregiver tax credit increase to $15,000, and the expanded EI compassionate care program?

There is silence on productivity, on workplace issues and on post-secondary education and training.

There is silence on immigration and on internationally trained workers.

I could go on about the lack of substance in this Speech from the Throne, but as I said at the beginning, what an opportunity wasted. It is such a disappointment.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Roger Valley (Kenora, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate you on your appointment.

I thank the member for Vancouver Centre for sharing her time with me today.

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the Speech from the Throne, but I would first like to thank the residents of the riding of Kenora, who have returned me for the second time. It was a challenging election in which I managed to learn many things from the residents. I would like to thank them.

I would also like to thank my wife Carole, my daughters Sheena and Megan, and my son Cody for putting up with my new career. It can be challenging in a riding the size of mine.

The riding of Kenora is unique in many ways, both in its geography and its demographics, but essentially the people of Kenora share the concerns of the majority of Canadians.

They are concerned about their jobs. In our riding, forestry is the industry in crisis.

They are concerned with access to quality services, such as options for child care and services for seniors.

They are concerned with the protection of our health care system while ensuring that the system is improved.

They are also concerned about the future of our environment.

We have faced many challenges over the last couple of years. We have had significant job losses in Kenora, Dryden and other areas. In Kenora, Abitibi Consolidated announced the closure of its mill just before Christmas. We lost over 400 jobs. In the community of Dryden, almost 500 jobs have been lost in the last few years; when we consider that the plant had 1,100 workers just a few short years ago, we can see the devastating impact. Kenora had over 900 workers, but in just a few short years the mill has been closed entirely. We have a lot of difficulties.

As well, Sioux Lookout, Ignace and Ear Falls have all lost opportunities whereby small contractors are no longer able to maintain their businesses. These are communities where forestry is the sole industry. The situation is more important than partisan posturing. All sides of the House must provide leadership as we try to address this issue.

For the last two years I have been travelling throughout the riding listening to people's concerns. While priorities differ slightly, there is a common theme. People want their government to act responsibly as they want to secure a better future for themselves and their children. This is their priority. Unfortunately, the Conservatives' Speech from the Throne falls far short.

I am honoured to represent more than 38 first nations communities. Those 38 first nations were looking for a throne speech commitment for the Kelowna accord.

I was looking to the speech for the families of Sandy Lake, where the housing shortage is extreme. It is not uncommon to find more than 10 people living in a two-bedroom home. We hear of many instances where more than 20 people are sharing a larger home, an overcrowded home that is in desperate need of renovation. The Kelowna accord would have started to address some of the severe housing shortages that exist in all these communities I represent.

I was looking to the speech for the Chief of Neskantaga First Nation, Peter Moonias, hoping that the serious water concerns in his community would be addressed. I represent a riding where many first nations are under boil water advisories. This is a serious concern that will not be addressed by changing one or two regulations. Money must be invested in training. In my riding, the Keewaytinook Okamakanak Centre of Excellence is a leader in the training of water treatment plant operators. Centres like these must be supported by our government to ensure that all Canadians have access to safe drinking water.

I was looking to the speech for the children of the Fort Severn First Nation on the Hudson Bay coast, where the children have been unable to use their school due to mould problems. The children do not have a safe environment in which to learn.

I represent a riding where the complexities of education in a remote area with language barriers have not been properly addressed. Our kids are not staying in school. This must change. The Kelowna accord would have addressed the unique needs of first nations children to give them the tools they need to contribute to our society, and we need their contributions.

I was looking to the speech for the survivors of residential schools. We have taken steps to address the wrong done to our first people. We must be vigilant in ensuring that the agreement is kept. It was a tragic time in our history and it took us far too long to acknowledge it. We must live up to the agreement with all survivors, starting now. In many of the communities I visit, survivors are lined up at the airports to ask me questions. As a sign of respect they have been there to meet me, and out of respect they are asking questions that they want answered.

I was looking to the speech for the young people of my riding, many of whom have been victims of suicide. First nations communities must be given support to address this growing crisis. We must give our young people hope. We must act now. Let us learn from our mistakes in the past and prevent the tragedy from growing in scale. I urge the government to acknowledge it and to work on prevention.

I have worked with the leaders of the aboriginal communities, who have educated me on the needs of their people. Grand Chief Arnold Gardner, for Treaty 3, and Grand Chief Stan Beardy, for Treaty 9, have worked tirelessly to advocate on behalf of their communities. I urge the government to listen to their advice.

(1300)

I have also worked with members of the unions representing workers who have faced unemployment due to the forestry crisis. I have worked with the municipal leaders such as Mayor David Canfield of Kenora, Mayor Anne Krassilowsky of Dryden and Mayor Jim Desmarais of Ear Falls and many other communities. They are all struggling to diversify their economies. I worked with my colleagues, as chair of the Liberal forest caucus, to propose measures to address the situation, and I was able to participate in announcing the $1.5 billion package for forestry aid. This started to address many of hurdles that are hurting the industry.

I was looking to this speech for the people directly and indirectly affected by the crisis. The government must act to help these families and communities that have been devastated with total job loss, again in small town northern Ontario. Although I am hopeful that the softwood lumber dispute will be resolved, it is contributing to the overall situation. There are many more issues that must be addressed. High energy prices have been crippling the mills in our area. Support for the new and existing energy sources is essential and should have been addressed in the Speech from the Throne.

We also support the industry with research initiatives in order to diversify the output of our mills. The investment in value-added project would be an example. The importance of the forestry industry is a national concern and must be treated as such if we want to be a leader in the global market. Policies must be developed to ensure the sustainability of the industry. Forestry was not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, and I urge the new government to make it a priority.

Compounding this issue is a concern by our communities that our tourism industry will not be sustained due to the new passport requirements introduced by the United States. My constituents are concerned about the decline of the tourism industry once restrictions are put in place. I would remind the House that these are communities that have lost their sole employer and have been devastated. Some estimates say that up to 40% of the tourist traffic in our area could be limited or restricted due to this new regulation. We must have a strategic and coordinated effort as to how we will deal with this change and we must be very aggressive in educating our tourist operators on the requirement to reduce the negative impact of this policy.

I was born in northwestern Ontario. As all Canadians, we are a proud people and our way of life is important to us. In this way it was important for us when the governments of the past recognized the contribution of our area to the rest of the country and were willing to support our communities by way of FedNor. The current government's lack of commitment to this important department concerns me.

Regional development is not about subsidizing people, but recognizing the importance our regions and their impact on the overall economy and culture of our country. Without mention of regional development in the Speech from the Throne, I challenge the government to instill confidence in northern Ontario by maintaining the current funding levels for these programs in these communities.

Many of my constituents have written to me about another of their priorities, which I will quickly mention. As part of the make poverty history campaign, many of my constituents have identified Canada's implicit responsibility to assist the poor at home and abroad. They urge the government to increase its share of foreign aid to the 0.7% commitment. I thank the constituents of those communities for that advice.

This last week has been very interesting. I travelled over 2,000 kilometres on a very short visit to the northern part of my riding, and not even at the extreme edges. I travelled to the northern parts of my riding, sitting with constituents from some of the most isolated communities in Canada. I travelled to Bearskin Lake where Chief Rodney McKay informed me of the community's concerns about the lack of housing. I travelled to Keewaywin where Chief Joe Meekis expressed frustration with the process required to apply for badly needed funding. I was hosted by Chief Archie Meekis at Deer Lake. He expressed concern about the falling apart police station in which they had to hold people. I travelled to Slate Falls where an elderly lady held my hand and anguished over the residential school issue. I visited Wunnumin Lake where Chief Archie Wabasse said that they were interested in exploring a restorative justice program.

Although their concerns may differ, they share a common concern. They are not asking for handouts. They are asking for resources to do the jobs themselves. I thank them for sharing their concerns with me.

(1305)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, my question concerns foreign aid. The member talked about poverty in the world. I think Canadians are a compassionate group of individuals.

I had the opportunity of representing my constituents in Africa last September. Eight or ten different countries came together to try to discern how to apply the funding Canadians gave to Africa for relief for poverty and HIV-AIDS. We visited some HIV-AIDS hospitals and talked with some of the NGOs.

There is no Canadian alive who would not dig deep into their pocket to support those individuals. The problem is how do we ensure that the money for relief measures, including poverty, gets to where it is needed.

This leads to my question regarding the former government's policy and direction concerning money going to foreign relief. How do we ensure that those dollars get to where they are needed? The former government's policy was that all the money would be applied through the governments. Many of those governments are quite corrupt.

Let us not put it that way. Let us put it another way and talk about our first nations people. Nine billion to twelve billion dollars go to first nations people, yet we have third world conditions. We see a bureaucracy that becomes weighted. Somehow we have to get over that.

Would my colleague tell us how his party would apply those dollars directly to where they are needed, and not necessarily going through governments but through NGOs?

(1310)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Roger Valley:

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the experience about Africa that my colleague across the way has. I would not let a fear of mismanagement not help the rest of the world.

We can do a lot with raising the amount of money that we pledge to these organizations. I share his concern that at times the money does not reach the right area. There has to be dialogue and discussion and a process that can make it work. I do not have his experience on Africa. I look forward to discussing that with him at another time.

The member mentioned first nations and the issue of the money that is spent and whether there is value for that money. As I travel in my riding, I see that a lot of infrastructure has been put in place without the supports behind it. Is money being wasted by putting in the infrastructure without training dollars being made available? Is there money being spent on infrastructure that is not appropriate for the far north and the living conditions there? In many circumstances I am afraid this is the case.

We have to the best we can with the resources available. We also have to keep the dialogue going so we can do it right in the future.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask my hon. colleague a question on shipbuilding, but as he is in a riding that is landlocked, it would be frivolous to ask it. I have a question for him about people going into poverty.

In our country thousands of families are going into poverty because their children have autism. The provinces simply do not have the resources to provide the therapy that is required to assist children with autism.

I know he, as we all have, has received comments through the Internet or whatever from people who have children with autism. Does he believe that autism should be covered under the Canada Health Act and that the federal government should work with the provinces and territories to develop a national strategy so we, once and for all, can assist these families of children with autism?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Roger Valley:

Mr. Speaker, I was gearing myself up for a question on shipbuilding because that was the first question I answered in the last Parliament.

I have not heard the question of autism being a high priority or one of the five priorities for the new government of the day. Support is needed for these families. The member mentioned a national plan and I think that would serve Canada well. It is also true that we should step into the places where there are gaps in our society and in our health care system.

The member has identified one of these gaps. It should be a priority of all parliamentarians in the House to ensure that we look for those gaps and fill them. We must encourage the new government to proceed in that direction.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my deepest condolences to the families and friends of the four brave Canadian soldiers who were killed this weekend when their armoured G-Wagon was struck by a roadside bomb. The thoughts and prayers of all Canadians are with their families and their comrades who must carry on the important work they are performing in Afghanistan.

[Translation]

I am pleased to show my support today for the Speech from the Throne, which proposes a balanced action plan.

[English]

The Speech from the Throne establishes a solid foundation upon which to build a better Canada and it is based on five priorities:

[Translation]

Restoring integrity to government; cutting taxes; fighting crime; offering child care choices; and providing the necessary health care services.

[English]

The vision of Canada articulated in the Speech from the Throne is one that will give Canadians greater confidence in government accountability and getting things done. As well, the throne speech commits the government to revitalizing the military with a wide range of capabilities essential in these unpredictable times. A restored military, one that is able to ensure sovereignty across our nation and one that is able to protect Canadians, is a military that Canadians can trust to show up with the necessary skills and equipment in difficulties.

I for one am proud to be part of a government that so strongly supports our armed forces, a government that acknowledges the enormous contribution that the men and women of Canada's military have made to this nation in times past and today. I am proud of a government that takes defence and security issues seriously, a government that is willing to take a leading role in contributing to international security and stability.

For a long time, Canadians have rested secure in our geographic remoteness from global conflict. Our southern border is protected by cooperation with the United States. The east and west approaches to Canada are guarded by the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and our north is viewed as a vast frozen barrier. However, as we enter the 21st century, Canada's geographical remoteness is under challenge. The melting polar ice cap, the potential for environmental degradation and commercial opportunity in the Arctic are changing how we and others view Canada's north, an area larger than Europe.

Now is the time for Canada to assert its northern sovereignty. To that end, the government's Canada first policy will demonstrate to Canadians with concrete plans and substantial investments in those military capabilities that enhance surveillance, reconnaissance and presence in Canada's Arctic Archipelago.

Likewise, terrorist attacks in continental North America and larger, more frequent natural disasters have alerted us to the necessity of enhancing security and emergency response in Canada. Canada first envisions the establishment of military capabilities in all regions that can quickly respond to domestic needs as well as capabilities that will allow us to focus the forces' wide resources in the event of a national disaster.

Our Canada first policy for defence will strengthen the Canadian Forces' capacity to defend our country and its citizens, assert our sovereignty and assume a leadership role in international operations. It will also allow Canada to better fulfill the responsibility that we share with the United States in protecting the North American continent. It will make Canada more effective in security cooperation. Our policy will also see our military assigned the essential task of helping bring security and stability around the world, just as our men and women in uniform are doing today in Afghanistan.

In order to pursue our policy, it is essential that we transform and modernize our military. We also need to acquire capabilities that will allow Canada to be a leader on the international stage that can make meaningful contributions to global security and humanitarian demands.

In cooperation with allies and like-minded nations, this great country will defend and advance Canada's interests in the world.

(1315)

[Translation]

In order to properly carry out our policy, we need to expand, modernize and transform the Canadian Forces as quickly as possible so that Canada will be in a position to rise to future challenges.

Furthermore, the government will reform the defence procurement process in order to provide our armed forces with the equipment they need, when they need it, and in a way that is transparent and fair.

The government also intends to strengthen the Canadian Forces within Canada and boost their role on the international stage by giving them new capabilities or improving their existing capabilities.

We would like to see a naval presence on three oceans, a strong land force and revitalized air force, all functioning within an integrated and efficient team of armed forces in Canada, North America, or anywhere in the world.

[English]

It is a vision to increase the pride and confidence that Canadians have in their military.

[Translation]

Canadians will know that our soldiers will continue to answer the call whenever they are needed, as they have done for decades.

It is a vision that will allow Canada to be a leader in world affairs, as is the case in Afghanistan.

(1320)

[English]

Canada is in Afghanistan because it is in our national interest. Having been there myself together with the Prime Minister, l am more convinced than ever that this mission is right for Canada. Afghanistan was once a safe haven and breeding ground for international terrorism. Now it is a country striving to establish peace, order and good government. It is a country that needs help.

During our recent visit to Afghanistan, the Prime Minister and I saw important signs of progress. Our soldiers are improving the security situation on the ground so that infrastructure can be rebuilt. Political and social institutions are taking root and the economy is picking up, but the task ahead remains significant. It is a complex and dangerous mission where unfortunately Canadians have lost their lives. But let me be clear. Canada will not be intimidated or deterred by terrorists. As the Prime Minister said to our troops in Kandahar, we do not make a commitment and then run away at the first sign of trouble. We are staying the course.

The vision of Canada articulated in the Speech from the Throne is one that will give Canadians greater confidence in what this great country can do for them and in what this great country can do for the world. This Conservative government will put Canada first by strengthening our national sovereignty and security. We will enhance our presence on land and sea and in the air. We will enhance the security of Canada and its citizens both at home and abroad by acquiring the means to act wherever and whenever required. We will become more reliable and effective international security and humanitarian partners with the means to respond to natural and man-made disasters.

Great endeavours come at a great cost. With the support of Canadians, the will of the government, this great nation's resources, the outstanding service members and the support of their families, we will achieve our vision. Canadians need this and Canada can do it.

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Perhaps the Minister of National Defence could tell the House that he will be splitting his time with the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gordon O'Connor:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, Canadians appreciate the fact that we had a debate on the Afghani situation. It is always good to hear some updates.

The minister used the words “staying the course”. I wonder if the minister is prepared to stay the course even when situations and facts change, or there is advice given to the government that demonstrates there may be some problems. I would refer specifically to the issue in the newspapers today with regard to the propriety of reducing the GST as opposed to income tax cuts as they relate to productivity and economic growth.

The question is simple. Will the government stay the course even if the government is wrong?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gordon O'Connor:

Mr. Speaker, the government makes its decisions based on the best facts available and based on logical decisions. Right now, from our point of view, in Afghanistan we are making progress. The allies are making progress. We will stay the course in Afghanistan.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister two questions.

He mentioned the importance of asserting Canadian sovereignty and the importance of maintaining Canadian sovereignty. Where does the threat to Canadian sovereignty come from, especially in the north?

In the take note debate I also raised concerns about Canadian Forces in Afghanistan turning over prisoners to Afghan authorities under the terms of the agreement that was reached with the Afghan government. We know that the Afghan human rights commission and the U.S. state department both have said that torture is a routine part of detention in Afghanistan. I am personally concerned that when we turn prisoners over to a government that routinely practises torture, we may be setting up our armed forces members for crimes against humanity charges.

Could the minister comment on those two issues?

(1325)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gordon O'Connor:

Mr. Speaker, I will deal with the second issue first.

We have an arrangement with the Afghan government that in the event we capture prisoners, we hand these prisoners over to the Afghan government. We also have within this arrangement the agreement that the Red Cross will inspect the Afghan detention areas and will inspect the treatment of prisoners. The Afghan government has signed on to being committed to meeting all the various rules of war.

We are content at the moment. The Red Cross has not come back to us to report any difficulty with any potential prisoners. We trust the Afghan government and we trust the Red Cross.

As to the first issue about sovereignty, there are territorial disputes right now with about four countries with respect to sovereignty in the north. Also, the ice is thinning in the north and the Northwest Passage is going to open up to more travel by vessels through the Northwest Passage. We have to impose our sovereignty because there are countries in this world that say that the Northwest Passage is international waters. We have to worry about the consequence of vessels going through carrying toxic waste, oil, or whatever. We have to worry about the environmental degradation there.

We have a number of potential challenges in the north. Also, in law, we are only sovereign when we enforce our sovereignty. Up to now we have not been enforcing our sovereignty in the north and we intend to do so.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, today is an unofficial day of mourning. Four young Canadians offered up the ultimate sacrifice, their very lives, to bring hope to the people of Afghanistan. One of those soldiers was from Toronto. As a sign of respect to the soldiers and their families, the Mayor of Toronto has lowered flags to half-mast. Yet in Ottawa on our Peace Tower our flag remains at full-mast.

Quite correctly, every November 11 we lower flags to half-mast to respect all fallen soldiers through the ages, but what callous intransigence has led to the decision not to respect those who have given their lives so recently?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gordon O'Connor:

Mr. Speaker, it is our policy to lower the flags at the National Defence Headquarters, at the base of origin where the casualty occurred, at the home base, and at units of that environment. If it is a soldier, then all army units will lower their flags. That is our honour to the fallen soldier, sailor or airman, depending on the case.

With respect to the national level flags, it has been the tradition for 80 years to treat every casualty of war or operation, no matter when it happened or where it happened, equally. We will do that by lowering the flags on November 11, Remembrance Day.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for splitting his time. I commend the Minister of National Defence not only for his remarks but for the work that he is doing. I would add to his opening remarks and on behalf of the constituents of Central Nova extend our condolences and best wishes to the families and colleagues of our fallen soldiers.

The throne speech itself sent a clear message to Canadians, a message not only of change but that this government will stand behind its commitments and will be consistent with what we said and what we are going to do. We will fulfill the commitments in enhancing the opportunities in building communities and families and to also build security, basic premises upon which Canadians agree. This government will ensure that it is not only accountable and responsible for the needs and hopes of Canadians but that it also works closely with them in achieving more.

I am very proud and honoured to be joining today's debate on the Speech from the Throne as the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and the member representing the constituency of Central Nova.

In the short time that I have been in cabinet, many people, particularly those in my own constituency of Central Nova, have commented to me about the diverse responsibilities that have been given to me by the Prime Minister in these two portfolios. At first blush it may seem that the duties of foreign affairs and ACOA may seem like a strange match. The reality, however, is that the world today is no longer some faraway place that appears on the nightly news. It is very much at our doorstep and in real time, affecting the daily lives of Canadians no matter where they live.

Canadians have always had a strong sense of interest and belonging to the global community. We are a very diverse nation comprised of individuals from around the globe. There is very much a tie-in, I would say a complementary nature, to these two departments.

[Translation]

To strengthen Canada's role in the world and to prepare a more promising future for Atlantic Canadians, we must make a solid commitment to Canadians, focus on the future and be determined to get down to business. That is precisely what the government is offering in these two important portfolios.

One of the goals the Prime Minister set for our government is to restore our reputation as a leader and reliable partner within the international community when it comes to defending freedom and democracy in the world.

Promoting Canada's interests in this complex and at times dangerous world requires assurance and the independent capacity to defend our sovereignty and the safety of our citizens.

As Minister of Foreign Affairs, I will see to it that Canada's international policies support these priorities and commitments.

(1330)

[English]

Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, I will be working cooperatively with our friends and allies within the international community to advance common values and goals and advance our interests in areas such as human rights, the rule of law, security and democracy, principles and values that we as a country endorse and that elevate people. A very clear example of that is happening in Afghanistan. Many on all sides of the House have commented on the fact that young women are able to attend school and housing projects are underway. Clean water is being provided. Efforts are being made to bring about a stable form of governance.

The goal of this government is to build stronger multilateral and bilateral relationships, starting with Canada's relationship with the United States, our best friend and largest trading partner. Our relationship with the United States is crucial to our economy, our security and our influence in the world. Canadians expect their government to not just manage this relationship but to move it forward in ways that balance our sovereignty with our aspirations. We also need to be on a secure footing. We need to be seen as mature, reasonable and responsible and we need to work cooperatively where we can and to stand up for Canada's interests where we must.

We are also committed to supporting Canada's core values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law and human rights around the world. In order to do this the government must support a more robust diplomatic role for Canada, a stronger military and the effective use of aid dollars. We must work to ensure enhanced cooperation for Canadians and Canada's principles of prosperity in a globalized economy. Important energy and natural resources, highly skilled workforces, creativity and hard work make our country poised for greater gains. Looking for opportunities for Canada abroad, as well as trying to bring investment to this country, is something I will be doing in collaboration with the Minister of International Trade.

I am very proud to say that there are examples within my own constituency of Canadians taking leadership roles in helping to make the world a better place. The Coady International Institute in the riding of Central Nova, founded and named for the esteemed educator Moses Coady, is located on the campus of St. Francis Xavier. For almost 50 years it has worked with community leaders from developing nations around the world. Many come to St. FX to learn about the world famous Antigonish movement and its approaches and methods which can be applied to their own local towns and villages. The Coady institute has a huge impact on international economic development through programs that promote education, innovation, group action and sustained economic activities. I might add that St. FX has deservedly earned the reputation of the number one undergraduate university in the country. It is another example of communities in my riding of Central Nova playing a role in developing leaders for tomorrow.

Another such example is the 14 airfield engineering squadron in Pictou, of which I know the Minister of National Defence is familiar. As one of the squadron's three flight locations in Atlantic Canada, Pictou and surrounding areas have benefited and have been served well over the past decade from a community partnership with the Department of National Defence. Through community-based programs, the military personnel at 14 engineering squadron often provide assistance with the labour component for non-profit community projects. I commend Ralph Heighton and the organization for the work they do to promote our local community. Working with these local organizations gives military personnel valuable experience in community building that will serve them throughout their military careers, both here in Canada and around the world.

Like my father before me in a previous Conservative government, as Minister Responsible for Atlantic Canada Opportunities I am again afforded an opportunity to provide help and assistance throughout the region in areas of economic development. Atlantic Canada has gone through dramatic changes in the past number of years and so has ACOA. Our region is building on great achievements. Our educated and motivated workforce is attracting national and international investment.

ACOA is committed to responsible and accountable support through communities and through the region. Partnership programs, in particular, are an example of how the government can work cooperatively with all other levels of government in areas like rural infrastructure and working with other education facilities.

The promise of fair oil and gas royalties has finally been realized and our region is looking forward to the opportunities in the international area of commerce.

(1335)

[Translation]

The realities of international trade provide immediate opportunities for Canada. Growth in China and the Indian sub-continent is causing significant changes in trade patterns and supply chains.

The Atlantic and the Pacific gateways are crucial elements in the national strategy to enhance Canada's competitiveness in the global economy and to gain the maximum benefit from the new trade opportunities.

The Atlantic gateway will allow us to profit from these new avenues, to save money and to promote a stronger economy in the Atlantic region.

[English]

Atlantic Canada provides one of the gateways to the largest markets in the United States with a deep water, year round, ice-free port capable of servicing the new post-Panamax ships on the North American eastern seaboard. This Atlantic gateway will create a value added transportation hub and a network consisting of major ports, rail, airports and the region's major highways. It will capitalize on the potential for increased international trade in the region.

Through ACOA, the Government of Canada is working with provincial governments and other partners to develop an effective Atlantic gateway strategy to take full advantage and immediately realize the opportunities of global commerce. We can see that the Department of Foreign Affairs and ACOA are not strange partners at all in moving forward in very productive ways. They complement each other and reinforce the goals.

I am confident that, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, the new Conservative government, with its clear focus and accountability to citizens, will ensure that Canada's priorities that were enunciated in the throne speech both at home and abroad will be fulfilled.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Shawn Murphy (Charlottetown, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member about the North American border initiative which is the U.S. proposed law that would force Canadians to have passports to travel to the United States or, alternatively, force Americans to have passports if they are travelling to Canada. As the member knows, it will have devastating repercussions to Canada's tourism industry, especially in his home province of Nova Scotia and mine of Prince Edward Island.

A number of congressmen want the legislation repealed or delayed, or to try different technologies or methodologies and they want to work with Canadians. The Prime Minister went to the U.S. and basically said that there was absolutely nothing we would do about this issue, which was disappointing to all Canadians.

The member across did take a more responsible approach on his last visit with Secretary of State Rice in saying that he was prepared to work on the issue and would attempt to do what he could for all Canadians. Could he clarify for the House and all Canadians the government's position on this?

(1340)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay:

Mr. Speaker, the member for Charlottetown is right when he states that this is an issue that will have repercussions throughout the country, particularly in border communities. As he outlined in his question, this will affect the American people as well and their ability and capacity to travel. In fact, I dare say that given the number of Americans who currently hold passports, this has become a real issue for them. It has also been outlined in Congress.

He also mentioned the fact, and rightly so, that it is in legislation and therein lies the problem. However, having said that, my colleague, the public security minister, has been speaking with the Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff. I had conversations as recently as 10 days ago with Secretary of State Rice. I believe the timelines that have been set up and the technology that currently exist signal that this discussion will continue for some time. In the meantime, we certainly encourage as many Canadians as possible to apply for and receive their passports.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a question while he is in the House. The Conservative Party and the Prime Minister promised Quebec a voice at UNESCO. Just last week, the Prime Minister repeated this promise before the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal. We now know that only sovereign states can be represented at UNESCO. Unfortunately, Quebec is not yet a sovereign state.

I would like to know how the minister intends to resolve this matter, especially since in recent days the Bloc Quebecois has made suggestions based on the Belgian model, among others. In addition, when will we have a clear answer with regard to the promise reiterated last week by the Prime Minister?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay:

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that this government will find a means of working with the Government of Quebec. Minister Gagnon-Tremblay and I are following up on this matter and our discussions centre on the details of the role of Quebec at UNESCO. We hope to reach an agreement quickly. I repeat, Mrs. Gagnon-Tremblay— Minister of International Relations—and I are working together to reach an agreement. I hope it will be soon.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will know that his government's Speech from the Throne outlined tax cuts but outlined very little on tax fairness. I would like to point out to him that through tax motivated expatriation, which is the polite word for sleazy, tax cheating loopholes, the federal government treasury loses approximately $10 billion per year. I am speaking specifically of offshore tax havens.

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I would like his view or, even better, his commitment that his government will take seriously plugging these tax loopholes of offshore tax havens where people, like former prominent ministers of finance, have all their shelter companies so they do not pay taxes in this country.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay:

Mr. Speaker, I know that is a long held view of the hon. member, and his colourful language and description of previous finance ministers does ring true in this place. Efforts were made to preserve tax shelters by individuals who were in a perfect position to do so but were in perhaps the most blatant conflict of interest ever seen on the floor of the House of Commons.

It is always the role of government to protect its citizens and its economy. I am sure he has suggestions as to how we might plug some of these loopholes and that he would want to work directly with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue with those suggestions. I hope he will continue to make those useful suggestions at the committees on which he is a member.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Richard Nadeau (Gatineau, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

This being the first debate in which I have spoken in this House, I would like, first, to thank the people of Gatineau for their support. I will be worthy of their confidence because they voted to have a member who is accessible and who will listen to their concerns and take action to help them in order to improve their quality of life.

I would also like to take advantage of this opportunity to say that I will be a true defender of Quebec’s interests. Until our national independence is achieved, I will attend valiantly to this task along with my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois.

Insofar as the Speech from the Throne is concerned, I want to point out some oversights regarding matters of great concern to many of our citizens so that the newly elected government is well apprised of them and able to act accordingly.

One problem is of particular concern to me, namely that the government should do what it can to combat the unfairness that exists between the two shores of the Ottawa river, between the Outaouais region and Ottawa. In the past, the Liberal governments took my region, the Outaouais, and my riding, Gatineau, for granted. As a result, they neglected the Quebec side of the Ottawa river. They considered the Quebec side just an extension of the city of Ottawa. This mindset must end. The Outaouais and the riding of Gatineau are part of Quebec and share its aspirations and distinct vision. The Outaouais should get its fair share in all respects. I am talking here about including the Outaouais, which is just as important a region as Ottawa.

Twenty-two years after the federal cabinet set itself the goal of raising the proportion of federal public servants who worked on the Quebec side of the Ottawa river from 22.6% to 25%, the proportion has actually fallen. If Crown corporations and agencies are included, only 20% of public servants work in the Outaouais, in comparison with 80% in Ottawa. This shortfall added up to more than 5,500 public servants in 2004, or a loss in annual income for the Quebec side of the river of nearly $300 million. Now that this situation has again been pointed out, it should be remedied.

Still with regard to the inequities between the two banks of the Ottawa River, in the federal capital area, the Government of Canada spends over a billion dollars on research and development. Of this amount, 93.6% goes to Ottawa, while a slim 6.4% comes to the Outaouais region. This is explained in large part by the number of federal research centres in each area. Out of a total of 31 federal research centres, 30 are in Ottawa and only one is located on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River: 30 to 1. It is more than time the federal government made sure that one-quarter of the research centres were located on the Outaouais side, and three-quarters on the Ontario side.

There is one file that has been open for over 20 years and that could be closed with the good will of the current government. This is the construction of an anti-noise barrier in the Promenades area of my riding. The previous Liberal government reneged on its promise to participate, with the Government of Quebec and the City of Gatineau, in its construction last November. I sincerely hope that the current Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities will formally join the project so that it can be completed once and for all. After waiting for 20 years, the citizens concerned are entitled to expect the federal government to keep its word.

With regard to the distribution of museums between Gatineau and Ottawa, the Outaouais is now entitled to get the next museum. The Science and Technology Museum has been waiting 40 years for a permanent location.

(1345)

Since the inauguration of the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Gatineau, the City of Ottawa has obtained the National Gallery of Canada and the Canadian War Museum. Now it is the turn of Gatineau to get the new museum within its borders.

I also hope that the federal government will take a significant part in the Rapibus public transit project in Gatineau. I hope that it will do likewise for the building of a four-lane Highway 50, when the Government of Quebec asks it to do so.

As for realities that go beyond Outaouais-Ottawa relations, we should think about employment insurance. The EI fund became a real cash cow for the previous government, even though it had not paid a penny into it since 1992. That has to stop now.

A study conducted by the Canadian Labour Congress shows us that the restrictions on the employment insurance program accounted for an annual loss, between 1993 and 2003, of $3 billion in Quebec. For my riding, Gatineau, this means a loss of $52.1 million for each of those ten years.

What will the Conservative government do about that? The Coalition des sans-chemise and all the people who contribute to the employment insurance plan are waiting to see whether the openness of the Conservatives will close up tightly when the time comes to discuss this issue.

Seniors in Gatineau have been forgotten. As if the precarious economic situation of seniors were not difficult enough, the previous Liberal government was determined to refuse to make full retroactive payment to seniors identified as being entitled to the Guaranteed Income Supplement. As a result of the efforts of the Bloc Québécois, the party was able to identify some 42,000 seniors who were entitled to this, out of the 68,000 Quebeckers eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement. From 1993 to 2001, no less than $800 million, for all of Quebec, should have been paid out by the previous government to the most vulnerable seniors. In the riding of Gatineau, 800 to 900 people were cheated, with the losses averaging nearly $4 million. The government must locate those people and pay them what they are entitled to.

The Speech from the Throne did not mention social housing. From 1993 to 2001, the federal government completely withdrew from funding new social housing units. That withdrawal is one of the causes of the current shortage of rental housing and the growing problem of homelessness. This is a serious crisis.

Because nearly 6,050 renters in the city of Gatineau spend at least 50% of their meagre incomes on housing, and nearly 12,470 households pay at least 30% of their income to rent the roof over their heads, the federal government has to loosen its purse strings for social housing.

There is also SCPI, the Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative. That program has generated investments of over $4.5 million in the riding of Gatineau since it was created in 2001. In addition to meeting the essential needs of socially excluded individuals and families, it has promoted the hiring of dozens of experienced workers.

I sincerely hope that the new government will renew and expand the SCPI program so that organizations involved in the fight against homelessness are able to continue their good work.

The Bloc Québécois will stand up against inequality between the two sides of the Ottawa River. It will also continue to stand up for the rights of Quebeckers in this House.

The Conservative government has promised a lot for Quebec. The Outaouais is a region of Quebec in its own right. The ball is in the Conservative government’s court. I am always ready to work with the government for the proper development of the riding of Gatineau to the level to which it is entitled.

(1350)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech and also on his election. It warmed our hearts when he was elected, both in the Bloc Québécois and in Quebec as a whole. This now demonstrates that the idea of Quebec sovereignty is indeed felt throughout all regions of Quebec.

My colleague has addressed the question of employment insurance. I would like to ask him why, in his opinion, the Bloc Québécois has placed such emphasis on the importance of a program to assist older workers. As we know, the subamendment to the Speech from the Throne proposed by the Bloc Québécois refers to this. The subamendment was unanimously passed by this House. I would like the member to remind us of the importance of this program to the Bloc Québécois and to the region of Gatineau.

(1355)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Richard Nadeau:

Mr. Speaker, the program for older worker adjustment is a cornerstone in the life of a person of a certain age who has just lost his or her job. Finding new employment in such circumstances demands a lot of effort and courage.

The program for older worker adjustment responds to situations such as those we are seeing in my riding and the adjacent one, on the other side of the Ottawa River, where the Domtar mill has just closed its doors. The people who worked there for 20 or 25 years are entitled to respect. They are entitled to expect to be provided with the resources they need to find another place in life.

After a worker has held a job for 20 or 30 years, he is told that he is finished and given no help at all. So he has to turn to employment insurance and even social assistance. At a certain time of his life, he must even go so far as to part with property he has accumulated, whether it be a house or other property. Often these are things he has worked all his life to acquire.

The federal government must reactivate the program for older worker adjustment so that these workers can recover their human dignity. They have worked for the enrichment of Canada and Quebec and of plants and industries. We have no right to toss them aside.

That is why it is very important to bring this program back and to respect workers of all ages, especially those in difficult situations.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Raynald Blais (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague speak about seniors. Does he intend to continue the work begun by the outgoing hon. member for Champlain, Mr. Marcel Gagnon? We must take the time to underscore the work that he has done here. I am sure he is listening to me right now.

So I ask my colleague whether he intends to continue the tireless work that Marcel has had the opportunity to do in recent years for seniors.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Richard Nadeau:

Mr. Speaker, the guaranteed income supplement is no mere device, and it is not just temporary assistance. The federal government, the Government of Canada, in the last Parliament, had the opportunity to see to it that all seniors entitled to the guaranteed income supplement might receive it with full retroactivity. This money they are rightfully owed could sometimes total $6,000 per year. This would have alleviated the hard times and improved the quality of life of seniors. Unfortunately, the government did not have the courage to do this, in the last Parliament.

We in the Bloc Québécois have met with seniors. We have done field surveys to find out how we might help them. We have checked, and some persons were entitled to this supplement.

During my election campaign, in fact, I mentioned that I would lend a helping hand to seniors—

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Excuse me for interrupting the hon. member, but we must now move to Statements by Members. The hon. member for Calgary West has the floor.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[Statements by Members]

* * *

[English]

Conservative Party of Canada

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to humbly thank the voters of Calgary West for allowing me to represent them in this 39th Parliament. This was made possible through the efforts of the many dedicated volunteers and supporters who worked tirelessly knowing that change was in the air. Change is now here.

The Conservative government will crack down on crime, putting the rights of victims and their families before the criminals who have harmed them, and restore safe and secure communities across the country. This includes raising the age of consent for sexual relations between children and adults from 14 to 16 years. Police will now be able to crack down on those who prey upon our children. Canadian families need protection from such predators.

Once again, I would like to thank Calgary West for electing me and allowing me to be part of this new Conservative government.

* * *

(1400)

Anthony Locilento

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Anthony Locilento.

On March 5, 2006, Anthony Locilento, son of Angelo and Grace Locilento, was killed in a tragic snowmobiling accident in York Region.

Anthony was a wonderful son to Angelo and Grace, a great brother, and a caring father of a beautiful little girl, Angelina Grace Locilento. He was very close to his family. He worked alongside his parents every day at their family business. Anthony will be greatly missed by all of us who knew him.

On behalf of all members of the House of Commons, I want to express my deepest condolences to the Locilento family as we honour the exceptional life of a young man named Anthony Locilento.

* * *

[Translation]

Paul Ouellet

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marc Lemay (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, an artist from my region, Paul Ouellet, recently took first prize in the CBC/Radio-Canada literary awards in the French creative non-fiction category.

This award established by CBC/Radio-Canada is one of the most important prizes for unpublished works gives writers of all ages an opportunity to promote their work.

The narrative, Moi enfant, by Paul Ouellet was considered on the basis of its high quality writing, originality of style and sensitivity of the story. We are captivated and enchanted by the language Paul Ouellet has used in relating his childhood.

Mr. Ouellet is from La Motte, in Abitibi-Témiscamingue. He is a well known painter in the region and has distinguished himself once again, this time by his writing.

I offer this talented artist my warmest congratulations on his work and more especially on so deservedly winning this prize.

* * *

[English]

Riding of New Westminster--Coquitlam

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, my community of New Westminster, Coquitlam and Port Moody has a proud history going back to 1858 and the gold rush. New Westminster was B.C.'s first capital city named by Queen Victoria, and the oldest Canadian city west of the lakehead.

Coquitlam, which means “little red fish”, opened up in the mid-1800s with the construction of North Road to provide access from New Westminster to the port of Port Moody.

In 1909, the young community got a boost when over 100 francophone Canadians arrived to work at Fraser Mills and Maillardville was founded. It became the largest French speaking community west of Manitoba.

Port Moody's history has been dominated by two events, the gold rush on the Fraser and the 1886 arrival of the first transcontinental train.

The community of New Westminster, Coquitlam and Port Moody is today an exciting diverse mix of new Canadians and multi-generational citizens. I am very honoured to again represent this historic and growing area of British Columbia.

* * *

Volunteerism

[Table of Contents]

Mr. John Williams (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, in my first words in this House since the election, I would like to thank my constituents of Edmonton—St. Albert for the trust and confidence which they have placed in me, by electing me as their member of Parliament on January 23.

Our country is a great country. It is great because of the people who serve this country. I think of our military personnel, many of whom reside in my constituency, which is adjacent to the Edmonton Garrison. They are defending our freedom in dangerous places, and we are proud of their dedication, commitment and sacrifice.

Our great country is also being built by volunteers. I express gratitude to them during this National Volunteer Week. Millions of unsung heroes give of themselves to help others in need, here at home and around the world. Our volunteers are an inspiration to us all.

We are proud of our military, proud of our volunteers, and proud of this great country. Under this new Conservative government, we can only go from strength to strength.

* * *

(1405)

Aboriginal Affairs

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Roger Valley (Kenora, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, last week I travelled to several remote first nations in my riding and met with their chiefs and councils. It was a relatively short trip of only 2,000 km from the centre of my riding. In every community, I was approached by elders and survivors who expressed concern that the government will not commit to the compensation set out in the agreement on the residential schools survivors.

They have waited too long for the Government of Canada to acknowledge its responsibility for this tragedy and now they are waiting while the Conservative government figures out an excuse for why it is stalling.

Survivors want a clear commitment on this agreement and a timeline for when they can expect their compensation. They want action and they want it now.

* * *

Victims of Crime

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, from April 23 to April 29 Canada marks the first National Victims of Crime Awareness Week. When a crime occurs, it rarely affects just one person. Friends, families and entire communities feel the impact.

In 2004, fully 28% of Canadians identified themselves as victims of crime. Under the previous government, the rights of criminals were too often placed ahead of compassion for the victims of crime. This government will ensure that the voices of victims are heard loudly and clearly in the justice system.

During this week, I encourage members of Parliament to raise awareness of victims' issues in their ridings and promote the services available to Canadians who have suffered because of crime.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank those who work with victims for their determination and compassion. I ask all members of Parliament to join me in recognizing the first National Victims of Crime Awareness Week, acknowledging both victims and those who serve them.

* * *

[Translation]

International Book and Copyright Day

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Maka Kotto (Saint-Lambert, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, culture is what enables us as human beings to build a framework for ourselves, to construct who we are. It helps us to think on our own and to understand the world in order to make a positive contribution to changing it.

On the day after International Book and Copyright Day, the Bloc Québécois invites one and all to discover the architects of our cultural heritage, the talented authors the diversity of Quebec has engendered.

On the eve of the presentation of its first budget, we ask the Conservative government to raise the budget of the Canada Council to $300 million, to abolish the GST on books, to exempt creators from taxation on the public lending right and copyright, as is already the case in Quebec.

The collective health of our culture, of the solidity and viability of the structure of our identity and of the future of our creative persons depend on it.

* * *

[English]

Armenia

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, on this day we commemorate a dark chapter in history. The genocide of 1915 took the lives of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians.

Canada's legislature, from a Senate resolution passed on June 13, 2002 to the adoption of a motion in this House on April 21, 2004, has finalized a complete acknowledgement recognizing the Armenian genocide.

Canada greatly values the contributions that Armenians make to our national life. On this solemn day of remembrance, together, our nations look with hope and determination toward a future of peace and prosperity for all and freedom from ignorance.

I commend the Prime Minister for his courage and leadership in doing the right thing yet again and I join the Armenian communities in and around Cambridge, across this great nation and all corners of the globe, in the observance of this, the 91st anniversary of the Armenian genocide.

* * *

Canadian Forces

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bryon Wilfert (Richmond Hill, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to the four brave Canadian soldiers who lost their lives in the name of freedom in Afghanistan.

One of those young men was Corporal Matthew Dinning, who was born in Richmond Hill. He served with distinction in the 2nd Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group Headquarters at CFB Petawawa.

Matthew was a bright, energetic young man who had wanted to become a police officer like his father. He knew the risks of his mission, but was prepared to serve his country in this difficult conflict.

His grandparents, Jim and Rhelda Stockall, are friends of mine and I want them to know, as well as his mother Laurie, his father Lincoln and his brother, that this nation is with them during their difficult time.

Matthew's sacrifice has not been in vain and the lives of his comrades, Bombardier Myles Mansell, Lieutenant William Turner and Corporal Randy Payne have not been sacrificed in vain.

We salute these brave soldiers, along with their families. They are in our hearts and our prayers. We will remember them.

* * *

(1410)

Pre-Budget Web Consultations

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have just participated in the first ever pre-budget web consultations. This is an excellent innovation led by Canada's new Minister of Finance.

Our government would like to thank the more than 5,600 individuals and organizations who contributed their advice and input as we make difficult budget choices. We heard from Canadians about their priorities for our country's social, economic and physical environment. We received suggestions about how to spend the dollars Canadians send to Ottawa more efficiently and effectively. Many participants affirmed the strong desire for lower taxes.

The Minister of Finance will be factoring these web consultation proposals into his budget decisions. Our government will continue to work with Canadians as we follow through on our promises.

* * *

Iraq

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, Canadians remain strongly opposed to the war in Iraq. Thousands are demonstrating their opposition to this illegal war by supporting American war resisters seeking refuge here. These brave young people have left U.S. military service for reasons of conscience.

Many know the war directly after serving in Iraq. They are disturbed by what they witnessed there and believe they were misled by President Bush. None take their actions to resist the war lightly.

Last Friday I was honoured to meet two of them, Kyle Snyder and Abner Williamson, and their supporters. Canada needs people of conscience like Kyle and Abner. Canada has been well served by those who fled persecution for their beliefs. We have benefited greatly from the contributions of earlier American war resisters who came during the Vietnam war. They received our welcome as must those who today resist the war in Iraq.

I call on the government to immediately cease all removal actions against the war resisters and implement a special in Canada program that will allow them permanent resident status.

* * *

[Translation]

Armenia

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, on April 7, the House addressed the subject of the Rwandan genocide of 1994.

[English]

Today, we commemorate the 91st anniversary of the Armenian genocide which the House condemned as a crime against humanity in April 2004. On April 25, tomorrow, we will remember the 6 million Jews deliberately murdered by Nazis during the second world war.

[Translation]

Without hesitation, we have labeled these massacres as genocides because, for racial, ethnic, religious or political reasons, certain countries have sought to annihilate these populations in violation of their right to life.

Canadians have lost family members in these genocides.

[English]

It is our responsibility to commemorate the memory of these victims as we reflect on the senselessness of these sadistic atrocities. Canada must serve as an example to the world that all peoples, regardless of their colour, ethnicity or religion can live with dignity and respect.

Finally, I would like to welcome to Ottawa Canadians of Armenian origin from my riding of Laval—Les Îles.

* * *

[Translation]

Armenia

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ):

Mr. Speaker,

[Member spoke in Armenian as follows:]

Parts rashnon serpazan hayr sirelli hay kebektsiner.

[Translation]

Today, April 24, we commemorate the 1915 Armenian genocide that claimed 1.5 million victims. The first genocide of the 20th century wiped out more than half of the Armenian population.

Two years ago, the House passed the Bloc Québécois' Motion No. 380 recognizing the genocide.

The Conservative government must do its utmost to ensure that recognizing these barbaric acts means more than just passing a motion. We should adopt an act of formal acknowledgement out of respect for families who lost relatives under horrible conditions and to show that we will never again accept genocide.

There are 18,860 Quebeckers of Armenian origin, 5,880 of whom live in Laval. I am speaking on their behalf today to express the hope that nobody will ever have to experience such a tragedy again.

[Member spoke in Armenian as follows:]

Guetse high jogovourthe.

* * *

[English]

Canadian Forces

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, on April 7, 2006, Mr. Lincoln Dinning wrote to the Prime Minister asking that the Prime Minister lower the flags on Parliament Hill when a Canadian soldier is killed in the line of duty.

Mr. Dinning has asked his member of Parliament, the member for Huron—Bruce to action on his behalf. Since that time Mr. Dinning's son has been killed in the line of duty in Afghanistan.

I, on behalf of all members of the House, offer my sincere condolences to the Dinning family and the families of all Canadians who have given their lives for this country.

In the coming days the official opposition will be bringing forward a motion in the House that will fulfill the wishes of Mr. Dinning.

* * *

(1415)

Goods and Services Tax

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party of Canada stands up for Canadians paying high prices at the gas pumps. Unlike the Liberals who did nothing to address high gas prices, we will cut the GST.

Last year the former Liberal transport minister told the Montreal Gazette that the government cannot give rebates to Canadian drivers. The Conservative government is reducing the GST for Canadian drivers.

The former finance minister told the Toronto Star that he does not see any way for Ottawa to ease gasoline prices for consumers. The Conservatives are reducing the GST for consumers.

The former environment minister told the Calgary Herald that high gas prices are actually good for Canada in the medium and long term. They are not good for Canadian farmers with the highest input costs ever. They are not good for Canadian drivers. They are not good for Canadian families.

This Conservative government will reduce the GST to 6% immediately and to 5% in the long term for all Canadians.

ORAL QUESTIONS

[Oral Questions]

* * *

[English]

Canada-U.S. Border

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bill Graham (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Public Safety assured the nation that American passport law will not apply to Canadians. He said that Americans and Canadians will keep their traditional free access across our open border, but American officials immediately contradicted his position.

Today we have the sorry spectacle of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Public Safety all contradicting themselves on this issue of national importance. Canadians cannot tolerate this form of ad hoc confusion.

When can Canadians expect a clear answer from the government on this important issue?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we have always been clear. The law in question is a law of Congress. It is not a law of this government nor of this Parliament. Unlike the previous government, we have taken action right away to ensure that we are ready to respond if and when this law does come into effect.

The Minister of Public Safety met with his counterpart in the United States. They looked at a number of options. We continue to examine options. We continue to try to encourage the American government to understand the risk this law may pose both to trade and to tourism, but in the meantime, we will be ready should the law come into effect.

* * *

Government Appointments

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bill Graham (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, it is one more in the continuing pattern of flip-flops that we see from the government. There have been flip-flops on cutting taxes, on access to information, on appointing unelected senators, on floor crossing, and the list goes on and on.

Now the Prime Minister has appointed his Conservative fundraiser as chair of the public appointments commission.

We heard the Prime Minister in his recent speeches talk about appointing only the most qualified people. Is it not a stretch for the Prime Minister to say that the only qualified person for that job was his close friend and fundraiser?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Gwyn Morgan is one of the most highly respected CEOs in the country. In fact, he was voted not only CEO of the year but most respected CEO in the country.

What he has volunteered to do for $1 a year is to clean up the appointments process in this country. Canadians thank him. I understand why the Liberal Party does not want the process cleaned up.

* * *

[Translation]

Gasoline Prices

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bill Graham (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, it is always the same old story and always the same answers. The former government is criticized rather than looking toward the future. Answers are needed for the future.

Last week, the Prime Minister was reminded of his commitment regarding gas prices. Contrary to his firm position in the past, now that he is in power, he is telling us to get used to the price.

The Prime Minister is proving to be a turncoat. He is changing his colours once again. Will he finally do what is right? Will he keep his word and reduce fuel taxes for Canadians?

(1420)

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, facts are facts. During the election campaign, the Conservative Party proposed a 1% reduction in the GST, not only for fuel, but for all goods and services. For consumers, this means a reduction of $5 billion. I hope that the Liberal Party will support this reduction.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Scarborough East, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should recognize today's question concerning gasoline. He asked it last September. The then opposition leader told the House that Canadian businesses and consumers were enduring record high gas prices and government inaction. Today consumers face unprecedented gas prices and the right hon. member's flip-flop is now clearly on the other foot.

Does the Prime Minister actually believe that Canadians should just get used to it, or will he in fact stand by his previous statement and follow his own advice and cut taxes on gasoline now?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, this government will honour the commitment it made to Canadians in the election campaign to cut taxes not just on gasoline but on every single consumer product and service by cutting the GST 1%. It is a $5 billion cut. I hope this now means that the hon. member and his party intend to support that reduction.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Scarborough East, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, there is not a member in the House who knows this issue better than many on this side. I can tell the hon. member that what he is proposing is less than 1%, it is only one cent on tax.

The Prime Minister promised to eliminate the GST portion on gas if prices went above 85¢ per litre to prevent the government from reaping windfall profits on top of high gas prices. He did not just say that; the Canadian Taxpayers Federation knew about that as well.

Does the Prime Minister still support this pledge, or should Canadians get used to just another pair in his growing wardrobe of flip-flops?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we made commitments to the Canadian public in the election. That commitment we will honour.

I notice the hon. member started out wanting to cut taxes on consumer goods, then he was silent when I challenged him to support the cut in the GST. If members of the Liberal Party are serious, they will support the GST cut. If not, they do not have anything to talk about.

* * *

[Translation]

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, on April 5, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said in this House that an aid package would be announced by his government within a matter of days. That was 20 days ago and farmers are still waiting and a number of them do not even have enough money for seed. The government has a great deal of authority, but it cannot change the seasons. The farmers need help now.

Why will the Prime Minister not intervene right away and give farmers the urgent help they are calling for?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc knows that this government is quite concerned about the situation in agriculture. That is why the first thing this government did was to allocate $750 million to help farmers. We also made promises during the election campaign. A budget will be brought down very shortly. I ask that the leader of the Bloc Québécois wait until then.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is right to be concerned because as things stand, one farm a week disappears in Quebec.

The Prime Minister said we need to wait for the budget. Can he tell us, here in this House, that farmers will see in the next budget measures that will help them directly and immediately?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign we promised an additional $500 million for agriculture. We intend to keep that promise. I am asking the leader of the Bloc Québécois to wait for the budget. I hope we can count on the support of the Bloc Québécois for this budget and for our farmers.

(1425)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, in addition to this farming income crisis is the significant increase in milk protein imports, which are significantly reducing the number of outlets for milk from our farmers and requiring them to reduce their production quotas themselves.

Why does the government not use its authority to put an immediate stop to this increase in imported milk by-products in Quebec and Canada?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board (Canadian Wheat Board), CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the government has been dealing with this issue. The agriculture minister has offered to sit down with both the producers and the processors to come to a resolution of the issue. He looks forward to working with the industry to do that.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, we had the same problem with cheese sticks. The Bloc Québécois had to fight for two years with the previous government before it took any action. Under article XXVIII of the GATT or by way of regulation, the government has the power to put an immediate stop to any increased imports of dairy by-products.

Can the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food not announce immediately that his government is going to put a stop to this import of dairy proteins, which is urgently needed by dairy producers?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board (Canadian Wheat Board), CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the minister has offered to do something. He has offered to sit down with the processors and the producers in order to come to a resolution of this problem. He intends to do that.

* * *

Child Care

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, this weekend I met with the Conservative premier of P.E.I., Mr. Binns. He and other premiers recognize that the federal government needs to provide financial assistance to families in raising their kids and needs to provide real child care spaces so that parents can find a place for their kids' care.

The government's plan will do neither. The family allowance is going to be largely clawed back in taxes and there are going to be no real child care spaces created at all.

Will the Prime Minister commit today to provide both the financial aid, all of it that was promised, and the child care spaces that people need?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP knows full well that in the most recent election campaign we made very specific commitments to provide financial aid to families. We intend to do that over the course of the next year. We intend to replace the existing child care programs with programs that will create real spaces. I would point out that the premier of P.E.I. is on record as noting that we will provide nearly twice as much money as the previous government did in pursuit of these objectives.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I would only suggest that the staff of the Prime Minister provide him with the latest coverage of Mr. Binns' comments pursuant to the meeting we had just a couple of days ago. They are rather different.

In the election, the Prime Minister stated that “Canadians...have not given any one party a majority...They have asked us to cooperate, to work together...build consensus”. Last week, the Prime Minister was going around the country acting like a schoolyard bully. He was threatening the opposition parties.

If we are going to make Parliament work we need dialogue, not dares, so I ask the Prime Minister, is he prepared to sit down and have a meeting to discuss how we make sure child care spaces are truly created in this country?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP will know that I have sat down with him and heard some of his ideas on how we can best proceed in this matter. We are listening. At the same time, we do have commitments to fulfill and the reality is that the child care allowance is a budget measure. Therefore, it is a confidence measure. We hope that all parties will see the wisdom of supporting money that goes directly to parents.

* * *

Government Appointments

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, we are starting to see past the Prime Minister's selective accountability act with yet another flip-flop.

On Friday, the Prime Minister announced the appointment of Conservative bagman Gwyn Morgan to oversee, of all things, patronage appointments. Yes, the new guardian of patronage appointments by the Conservative government is in fact a loyal, long-time fundraiser for the party.

Will the Prime Minister actually demonstrate some accountability, reverse this appointment and name someone impartial to the position?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, Mr. Morgan is one of the most respected business people in this country, who has agreed, basically on a volunteer basis, to clean up the patronage mess left by the previous government. It is no surprise that any CEO in this country or, frankly, any citizen in this country who wants government to be cleaned up is not a member of the Liberal Party.

(1430)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about the qualifications of an oil executive. We are talking about somebody who can be impartial as a guardian of public trust.

We have seen Senator LeBreton crowned the queen of Conservative patronage. Now it seems Gwyn Morgan wants to be the crown prince. His best qualification for the job is a $100,000 donation in December 2003 when the Conservative-Alliance swallowed the Progressive Conservatives, and he keeps on giving. This is not the person Canadians want overseeing Conservative patronage.

When will the Prime Minister start to do as he says, overturn this appointment and end another example of hypocrisy?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I will give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt that he does not understand the nature of the position. Mr. Morgan will not make appointments. Mr. Morgan's job is to ensure that there are search processes in place, that the positions are widely advertised, that those who fill them have appropriate qualifications and that the positions are necessary in the first place.

I can understand why the Liberal Party does not want these kinds of reforms enacted, but Canadians do.

* * *

[Translation]

The Conservative Government

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, as time goes on, it seems clear that this government's motto is “Do as we say, not as we do”. The Prime Minister talks about accountability, yet the Minister of Public Works and Government Services is conspicuously absent from this House. The Prime Minister says he is averse to lobbyists, but his Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities took on a new role as a lobbyist for a telecommunications firm just days after resigning as minister of communications of Quebec.

When will the government put an end to its repeated flip-flops?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the cabinet ministers obey all the rules, both past and present. This sets us apart from the previous government.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, talk about a flip-flop. The members of the government can play holier than thou as much as they want, but Canadians will not be fooled. If, as it claims, the government is not making patronage appointments, then how does it explain the appointment of former Conservative member Jim Gouk to the board of NAV CANADA? Was the Prime Minister trying to help Mr. Gouk win the bet he made that he could take a weapon on board a commercial flight at any airport in the country?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the former member of this House demonstrated with his knowledge and experience that he was highly qualified for the position. He expressed an interest, and NAV CANADA decided to choose him.

* * *

Ministerial Accountability

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, under the accountability legislation, a reporting public office holder will be formally prohibited from holding another position. We have learned that the Minister of Transportation's own Director of Communications signed two press releases: the first dated April 10, for the Department of Transportation, and the second, on April 11, while acting for Apple.

Can the Minister of Transportation explain why his own Director of Communications, a former Conservative candidate in Saint-Hyacinthe, is acting with such blatant disregard for the legislation?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the person in question is the Director of Communications for my office. She does the work for which she is paid and she does an excellent job.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, on April 10 she signed a press release for the Department of Transportation and the next day she signed one for Apple.

Since his government made the conflict of interest issue its priority throughout the election campaign, how can the Minister of Transportation have been so imprudent as to allow his Director of Communications to act with such blatant disregard for the legislation two and one half months after the elections? We are far from achieving real change. This is looking like the former government.

(1435)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, basically I will repeat what I said moments ago. Of course, all provisions governing ethical behaviour of members on this side of the House and the applicable regulations will apply in her case. I will determine whether or not the allegations brought forward by the member are reasonable and founded.

* * *

Gasoline Prices

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the latest flare-up in the price of gasoline at the pump is the result of higher prices for crude oil and a huge increase at the same time in refinery profits that are holding the rest of the economy hostage.

Of the increased costs of gasoline we have been facing since March 13, over 7¢ a litre is due to the international price of crude oil, while 9¢ a litre represents the additional and unjustified profits of the oil companies at the refinery. How can this government allow that? Will the Minister of Industry do something?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gary Lunn (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that the Competition Bureau has investigated this matter at least five separate times. Each and every single time it has found that there were no improprieties. Nothing was done wrong.

The government is going to provide relief. It is going to deliver on its campaign commitment and reduce the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, in a few days, we will find out the size of the increase in oil company profits.

Why would this government not abolish the $250 million tax gift made by the previous government to the oil companies two years ago and why would it not establish a $500 million surtax on oil company profits? That would make our fellow citizens, the victims of the oil companies, feel better.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gary Lunn (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that the price of crude oil is driven by global market forces largely beyond our control. There is a number of factors.

We are doing everything we can as a government to bring stability in this area. We will begin by reducing our own taxes in Canada by cutting the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%, providing the broadest tax relief for Canadians that will benefit every single Canadian in this country.

* * *

Federal Accountability Act

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, what a difference a week makes. In unveiling his so-called accountability act, the Prime Minister proposed to ban all corporate donations to political parties, yet this Saturday the Prime Minister will speak at a $5,000 per table corporate fundraising event for the New Brunswick Conservative Party. Is this how the Prime Minister plans to reduce corporate influence on government or is this just another Conservative flip-flop?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that the fundraiser in question is not for the Conservative Party of Canada. It is a fundraiser for the provincial Progressive Conservative Party and of course is conducted under the laws of the province of New Brunswick.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, Canadians see that the Prime Minister will go a considerable distance in contradicting himself to help his political friends.

[Translation]

The contradictions continue. In the so called bill on accountability, the Prime Minister claims to want to eliminate corporate donations to political parties.

However, on Saturday, the Prime Minister will be in Moncton for a fundraising event for the New Brunswick Progressive Conservative Party. The cost is $5,000 a table.

Is this not another Conservative Party flip flop?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Baird (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said, not a single dollar from this event would go to support this political party.

What I do want to do is challenge the member opposite. Will he support the federal accountability act? Will he support this government's sweeping changes to clean up the corrupt mess left by the previous government?

* * *

(1440)

National Defence

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, on April 11, the Chief of Defence Staff said that tactical airlift replacement was urgently needed. From 2001 to 2004, the Minister of Defence was a lobbyist for Airbus, a company competing for DND airlift contracts.

So it can be confirmed that he is currently not in a conflict of interest, could the minister advise the House of whether or not he met with General Hillier or any other member of the military leadership on behalf of Airbus while he was working as a lobbyist?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the quick answer is no. However, beyond your question, your implication was that somehow we--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gordon O'Connor:

Mr. Speaker, I apologize.

The answer to the hon. member's question is no, but I go further to say that we will consider all the requirements of the military equipment, personnel, training et cetera, based on the advice of the military. If there are equipment requirements, they will be processed according to the system within public works and defence.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the implication is that the hon. minister did not meet with General Hillier. I will take it on the face of what he said.

The appointment of a former lobbyist as defence minister is a flip-flop on the part of the Prime Minister and raises the question of conflict of interest. The committees of the House will be formed in the next few days. Would the minister commit himself to be the first witness before the committee to explain to the members why he still thinks that his former lobbying affiliations do not present any conflict of interest?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the House will know that this question has been raised before. The minister has complied not only with the conflict guidelines that existed when the government took office, but with the more stringent conflict of interest guidelines that exist now.

If the hon. member has a concrete allegation to make, he should make it outside the House. Otherwise, he should admit that he has no allegation of any kind with any substance.

* * *

Government Appointments

[Table of Contents]

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party named Glen Murray to its party's renewal commission, but Glen Murray is currently serving as the chair of the national round table on the environment and economy. Government appointees are not allowed to engage in partisan activities. After initially defending their decision, the Liberals eventually pulled Mr. Murray off the commission.

Could the government House leader assure the House that all government appointees will follow the rules?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rob Nicholson (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, what is so disappointing about this is that this is the second time the Liberals attempted to appoint a Government of Canada appointee to a partisan position. I can assure the House that under this government, all government appointees will be expected to follow the rules and remain non-partisan.

* * *

Agriculture

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, Canada's food supply is in serious jeopardy. Canadian farm income is showing the three worst years in history. Farms and our farm families are being forced out of production.

Will the hon. Minister of Agriculture act today to provide immediate aid to farmers so they can put seeds in the ground this spring? The survival of our rural way of life is at stake, as is our nation's food security.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board (Canadian Wheat Board), CPC):

Mr. Speaker, this government is reacting to meet the needs of Canadian farmers. We have already moved. We made a campaign promise to get out $755 million to our farm community. That money is going out. We have a further commitment in our budgetary process to put $2.5 billion over the next five years into the farm community.

Farmers have suffered under 13 years of failed Liberal farm programs and we intend to correct that.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, $500 million a year is not enough. Now is the time to act. It is shameful that the country's food supply is being seriously compromised. It is being compromised because our farmers cannot make ends meet. Canada's farmers and all Canadians deserve better.

Is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food prepared to act now to resolve the farm income crisis?

(1445)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board (Canadian Wheat Board), CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, we have acted in the interests of the Canadian farm community. We have delivered three-quarters of a billion dollars. Of that, $470 million has already gone out. We continue to move on the agricultural community. We are committing another $500 million through the budgetary process this year. We will work to protect our farmers and work with them to make them successful in this country.

* * *

Goods and Services Tax

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, not so long ago the finance minister said that GST cuts were absolutely terrible, that they were knee-jerk reactions that do nothing for the economy, whereas that income tax cuts were absolutely wonderful, the cornerstone of the Mike Harris common sense revolution. Now, in the mother of all flip-flops, he is saying the absolute opposite: raise income tax to pay for a cut in the GST.

How can the minister have any credibility at all?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to temporary reductions in consumption taxes. I was then and I am now. What we are talking about in our platform and what we will do is bring in a permanent reduction of 1% in the GST, a reduction that I know the member opposite is opposed to. He wants us all to join his save the GST club but I am not joining.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, that little word “temporary” will not do it.

The matter is very simple. If this budget does not flip into something that cuts income tax and improves Canada's competitiveness, then the budget will be a flop. Could the minister tell us when the budget will be?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I would like to inform the House that the budget will be presented in the House on Tuesday, May 2, 2006.

* * *

[English]

Agriculture

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, farmers continue to demonstrate for monetary action from the government to address the farm income crisis. Provincial ministers are calling for assistance and they are calling for it now.

Today, 21 farm leaders in an open letter and press conference addressed to