In reply to the Speech from the Throne - April 7, 2006

Mr. Merv Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC): Mr. Speaker, ,,,,,,In the communities of Brandon—Souris, 85% of our revenue is generated through agriculture and agri-food related businesses. I and my communities recognize how very important a successful, thriving agricultural industry is and I look forward to working with the minister on a continued basis offering advice as asked and sometimes when not asked just to make sure that our positions and my communities are represented when governments make decisions.

    On January 23 Canadians turned a new leaf. They made a new decision that they would like to take the country in a different direction and I feel very fortunate that I am a part of that. It was a turn of a new leaf for change, a change from the way government has acted and performed in the last several years and the attitude and the disdain with which they treated the Canadian population, particularly in the last few years.

    Canadians have asked us to provide change. They have asked us to clean up government. For many years I would have said that as honourable people we would not need this type of an act but unfortunately it has come to that point in our history and I am very proud to be a part of the accountability act that we are going to present to Canadians, to change the way we do business in Ottawa but also reinforce and regain the confidence of Canadians who for some time have been quite skeptical and cynical of Parliament and the members who represent them.

    I am also very pleased that we are going to move on our promises made in the election campaign. One of the very first things obviously will be the accountability act but the reduction of the GST from 7% to 6% will be announced in the upcoming budget and eventually it will go to 5%.

    As I travelled throughout my constituency, and I know many of my colleagues have made the same comment, a lot of the criticisms came from the fact that it is not going to benefit certain groups or individuals of our community. I say to them, that is simply not true. The reduction of GST by 1% and eventually 2% will impact every individual in my community and every Canadian in the country. Whether one is paying for a gas bill, hydro bill, telephone bill, transportation costs, legal services and even when one's child goes out to make a purchase they will have less to pay. A lot of people use the phrase that we are going to put more money in the hands of Canadians. In my position the way I look at it is that we are going to leave the money in their pockets and let them choose how they choose to spend it and do with it as they will.

    I can assure the House when Canadians look at the end of the year and look at the end of the month when they tally up their expenses it will become significant over a period of time. Whether they are a homeowner, buying a new vehicle or even a buying a newspaper over time they are going to see the benefits of that reduction and they are going to see a bigger benefit when it is reduced to the 5% level. Every Canadian will benefit from this reduction.

    We talked about ensuring safe communities. How can anyone argue about ensuring the safety of our communities? A lot of the debate in the campaign in my communities was that we have to provide rehabilitation services, we have to provide a form of transition for criminals to work their way back into our communities and become a productive part of our communities. At the end of the day, my communities want to feel safe. They want to know that the perpetrators of these crimes are going to serve the time that they have been sentenced to. They are not going to get out on an easy street pass to come back into our communities and commit the same types of crimes that they have been charged and prosecuted for.

    It makes absolutely no sense to say that we are working on behalf of the criminal to get them back into the community. We forget the other half of the equation that so many Canadians are worried about which is what are we doing to protect the law-abiding citizens of our community.

    I think it is very important that we stress that these sentences must be served to their completion. There cannot be an easy way out. If that means serving the full time, that is what I want to see. I want to guarantee the safety of my law-abiding constituents. I will deal with the criminal element at the end of their term and hopefully bring them back into our communities in a safe environment. However, first and foremost I want to protect the people who live in my communities in a safe environment.

    We have had much discussion about child care. Where I live the communities I represent, and I suspect many of the communities that all members represent, are rural communities. We have no access to institutionalized day care. We have no access or the wherewithal to provide these types of services. Many of the working families in the communities I represent work shift work, work part time. Husbands are going one way. Their wives are going the other way. It is just not possible to provide a cookie cutter system to provide services to those people. What they have said to me time and time again is they continue to be asked to contribute their tax dollars to provide these services and at the end of the day they do not get any return on their investment.

    By offering the dollar benefit to children under six for families it provides them with a real choice. It provides them with an opportunity to choose where they receive their child care services from.

    If we look at the studies that many people often refer to, if we ask mom and dad who they want their child to be with the first choice is with the mother or the father. The second is with the grandparents, the parents of either the mother or the father. Institutionalized day care follows fifth on that list.

    Therefore I think we have actually addressed many f the concerns that people expressed in the campaign and before that. We cannot have a national system that provides services for 20% of the population. That is not a national system.I suggest that the previous administration's proposal to do that would be just as catastrophic as the health care system that we have currently where access to care and timely service has been completely forgotten in trying to be all things to all people.

    In the campaign we were told many times by the past government, the Liberals in opposition now, that the Conservative Party has come up with simple solutions to solve complex problems. For 13 years the Liberal government ignored the simple solutions and that is why the problems have become so complex. If we want to decrease wait times, put in a wait time guarantee. If we want to increase economic activity, decrease consumption taxes. If we want safe streets, provide resources for the police officers and make sure criminals serve their full time.

    It may be simple but it is common sense and I agree with it.

    Mr. Merv Tweed: Mr. Speaker, I think it will benefit families. I see families in my communities who have no choice but to pay their tax dollars and get no benefit from the child care system that the previous government was proposing.

    What we have to consider is that we are not only suggesting and offering the $1,200 for every child under six to families, but we are saying that we will create more child care spaces. The past government, for 13 years, talked about child care and child care development but delivered nothing. It signed agreements with provinces and it always had a 12 month opt-out clause. All we have done is implement the policy it set in place.