Steven Blaney

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech—he had a lot to say about the fiscal imbalance. I would like to hear his position on what I am about to say.

We know that there is a fiscal imbalance between the various levels of government. That said, I do not think we should see this as just a provincial-federal feud. There are also municipalities with major infrastructure needs, especially small municipalities, which have significant needs in terms of investments in infrastructure for drinking water and waste water treatment. We are now aware that these municipalities have been left to their own devices. They have a small tax base. They do not necessarily have many citizens.

I would like to know how the member sees the restoration of fiscal balance among all levels of government. I am referring not only to federal and provincial governments, but also to municipal governments and, ultimately, taxpayers.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

As I was saying in my speech, 655,000 Canadians will not pay income tax any more thanks to the Conservative budget. That is a fact. That is what the budget proposes. It is not a promise; it is a commitment. With the support of my hon. colleague it is now on its way to becoming a reality.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

We should ask ourselves whether or not the Liberal plan, over the past 13 years, has had any effect on climate change.

After 13 years, Canada is at the back of the pack in terms of its environmental performance. It is disagreeable to state this in the House. The truth is that our strategy to fight climate change has not been effective. Furthermore, the proposed plan is a band-aid solution.

The real solution lies in an effective plan to fight climate change. This is what our government is committed to doing. I often tell my constituents that given how we are keeping our promises made during the election campaign, and the speed with which we included them in the budget, I am confident that we will be able to remedy the situation and put Canada on the road to truly reducing greenhouse gases.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

Over half the budget is aimed at women since they represent 50% of the Canadian population. There are also components for women who make different choices. I am referring to various tax measures including the $1,200 universal child care benefit. This measure allows women and parents to make different choices, to take on responsibility for them and to have some assistance from the government. It is a concrete measure.

Other measures support families, such as the $500 children’s fitness tax credit . Our society is in shape and that is part of the government's objectives.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Niagara West—Glanbrook.

I rise today in support of the budget. This Conservative budget aims initially at moving us out of an era of spending and into an era of fiscal responsibility.

With costly programs, the previous government was spending taxpayers' money, but without really enriching or benefiting them. For years, Canadians have been overtaxed. The people in my riding, in Lévis, in Bellechasse and in Etchemins have been obliged to contribute to the welfare of the Liberal Party through the sponsorship scandal.

That has got to stop. We need to correct the situation and we need a government that will re-establish confidence. One of the three reasons I support the budget this morning is that it aims to re-establish the bond of trust between taxpayers and the government.

The sponsorship scandal remains fresh in our memories, encouraging us to take action and change things. The government proposes to lighten taxes in this budget. This shows that before, during and after the election we say and do the same thing, and that pleases me. We were not accustomed to such a practice with the previous government. It accustomed us to promises, which came without fulfillment or commitment. We are here to make commitments and to honour them.

Let us have a look at the promises in the election campaign. The reduction in the GST is included in the budget, as are the tax cuts we had not promised. We are giving more than our election promises indicated. We are giving parents a universal allowance. It is Canadians who know best how to manage their money. So we put it in the pockets of taxpayers so they can look after our greatest national treasure—our children.

We also are equipping ourselves to establish legislation on responsibility, accountability, ways that taxpayers can find out how Ottawa manages their money.

More concretely, some 655,000 low-income Canadians will no longer pay federal taxes with this Conservative budget. Families earning between $15,000 and $30,000 will save $300. Of course, those with slightly higher incomes will save a little more and so forth. This budget offers concrete tax cuts to all taxpayers and to all Canadians.

My primary reason for supporting this budget is that it respects our commitments and rebuilds trust, but I also support it because it addresses the federal government's priorities in matters under its jurisdiction. I am talking about national defence. The whittling down of the federal government's commitment to defence has forced us to turn to our allies to transport our troops and move our equipment. This is unacceptable for a large country like ours. It is important to reinvest in defence in order to ensure our sovereignty and the safety of Canadians and to pursue the humanitarian and military missions for which we are known. We must also improve security at our borders. It is the responsibility of the federal government to do so. These are the areas we must invest in first.

The Canadian Coast Guard has not purchased any large ships since 1987. It therefore performs its activities and carries out its mandate with an aging civilian fleet. As you can see, it is time to re-inject funding into our priorities.

Priorities such as immigration, justice and law enforcement, international aid and aboriginal peoples, who need assistance and who have inadequate water treatment systems. I know what I am talking about since I spent the last four years of career working on this.

They also need tools for improved accountability. That is what we promise to do in this budget. With this federal budget we will invest in federal priorities and allow our partners to have authority over their own jurisdictions, especially in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

You know the old adage: stick to what you know. That describes the proposed Conservative budget: a budget that focuses on the services the federal government is mandated to provide for Canadians. Among the government's responsibilities are infrastructure and the environment. We will therefore move ahead.

To those who object to this budget, I would say that it is a budget that addresses environmental issues and does not simply make promises. I would like to quickly list some of the measures in the budget.

First, the government is making a commitment to reduce the deficit. This will also have an impact on intergenerational balance and sustainable development. The government will spend $3 billion a year to pay down Canada's debt, which is a burden on future generations. As well, the government is making a commitment to establish a climate change plan, with investments of more than $2 billion over five years. And that does not include the transit pass credit and measures to encourage Canadians to invest in environmentally sensitive areas. In addition, this budget gives Canadians responsibility for dealing with climate change by encouraging them to adopt behaviours that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. All these are environmental measures.

With regard to infrastructure, as you know, it contributes to the economic vitality of communities by providing them with safe, reliable water systems. It also allows efficient transportation of goods to market, which helps improve our productivity.

My colleagues opposite like to talk about Kyoto as if it were the last stage of the fight against climate change. It is just the beginning. We still have a lot of things to do, and the Conservative government has made a commitment to do them.

This government has a clear plan for Canadians, a clear plan for Quebeckers, a clear plan for my constituents.

The third reason I approve this budget is the new open and working federalism that is within.

This is something that Quebeckers have not seen for some time, a federal government that intends to work within and respect provincial areas of jurisdiction. It is nice to hear provincial premiers say that they appreciated receiving a phone call from Ottawa and that they were able to add their two cents' worth to the agreement concerning the softwood lumber dispute. Yes, everyone is a winner--every province and Canada as a whole.

I was in the red room last Friday to witness the successful and effective fulfillment of another election promise, namely, the UNESCO agreement that will allow Quebec's voice to be heard at that assembly. This is another example of the open federalism extolled by the budget.

Spouting rhetoric is all well and good, but money to back it up is also needed. The other aspect of this budget consists of restoring fiscal balance. This is why we have the support of our duly elected colleagues from Quebec. We are confident that the other members of this House will also support us. The 2002 report by the Séguin commission and many other studies here recognize that a fiscal imbalance exists and that balance must be restored between services provided by the levels of government and the sums of money that they receive.

It is simple: promises made, promises kept. Through the accountability act, we hope to restore confidence. We also hope to restore a sense of accountability to the citizens of Canada, as well as to the various levels of government. We promise to fight against climate change, we are moving towards open federalism and we hope to do something about the country's fiscal imbalance. For these three reasons, I support the budget and encourage all members of this House to do the same.

[Respecting International Bridges and Tunnels Act, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.

Canadian infrastructure faces many needs. I know this is true in the municipalities within my colleague's riding. This is certainly true in the municipalities of Bellechasse, Etchemins and Lévis. This is a collective challenge we must overcome together.

As for the famous fiscal imbalance, it involves more than just the provincial and federal governments. It also affects municipalities and ordinary citizens.

[Respecting International Bridges and Tunnels Act, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for updating me on parliamentary procedure. I was simply illustrating the nature of the comments I heard today from the four parties.

I am confident that the bill presented will receive parliamentary approval after work is completed on the amendments.

That said, my hon. colleague's question concerns the issue of regulations. I would say to him, as I indicated in my speech, that it is true that there has been a federal disengagement, particularly with respect to responsibilities for port facilities in small municipalities in Quebec. The Liberal Party was responsible for this and, unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois could not do anything about it.

I would point out to him that this bill aims to legislate in the area of international bridges. This bill does not target the funding of infrastructures. The distinction must be made.

[Respecting International Bridges and Tunnels Act, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-3, an act respecting international bridges, today. This bill is part of our government's comprehensive plan to provide a clear transportation policy for the whole country in a sustainable development context.

Today, it has become clear that the whole House supports this very concise bill. We can therefore proceed quickly.

I would like to tell my colleagues a little more about this bill and the context within which it was drafted.

As you have already heard several times today, Canada and the United States are linked by 24 road bridges and tunnels, as well as five rail tunnels. Most of the trade goods exchanged between our two countries travel across these bridges and through these tunnels, as well as via the rail and marine transportation networks. They play an essential role in our transportation system.

This is the first time the Government of Canada has established a legislative framework—not a funding framework, but a legislative one—to fill a gap. This is why the House supports the bill.

Furthermore, the bill fits into the government's plan for border security, infrastructure improvements and, as a result, job creation through international trade.

The proposed bill would serve to confirm the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction with respect to international bridges and tunnels; require governmental approval for the construction or alteration of new and existing bridges and tunnels; require governmental approval for all changes in ownership, operation and control of those facilities; and authorize the government to make regulations regarding bridge maintenance and repair, safety and security, and operation and use.

Because people move across those bridges, we are entitled to expect that the government will ensure that those structures are well maintained and safe.

I support the bill presented by my hon. colleague, the member for Pontiac and Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. It is a reflection of our government’s desire to restore the backbone of our country, transport—highway transport, rail transport, air transport and marine transport—to its proper place.

As members of Parliament, we are elected to legislate. I am sure that with the consent of my colleagues in the House, we will be able to move this bill forward.

Under the previous government, there had been hard times in recent years in terms of the development of transport in Canada. We witnessed the closing of a number of marine facilities in municipalities along the St. Lawrence River. We also witnessed the abandonment of marine transport, one of the four pillars of the transportation system. I know something about this, because I live in Lévis, where the largest Canadian shipyard is located, with nearly 180 years of history. Today, the workers in that shipyard are fighting hard to keep this jewel in the crown of our industry going strong.

For the manufacturing companies of Bellechasse and Chaudière-Appalaches, which are Quebec's “tigers”, as for others in other regions of Quebec, transportation costs are all-important if they are to preserve their competitive edge, whether in the agri-food sector, the plastics industry or the furniture industry. In Sainte-Claire, we have the largest manufacturer of intercity buses in North America. Links with the American economy are crucial, as we know.

Given the soaring price of gasoline and the climate change that is upsetting our ecosystems, we have to develop a bold and innovative transport policy. That is what our government intends to do, and marine transport—and the bill we are considering today—is one element of that policy.

Today, we use various modes of transportation when we travel. At one time, the waterways were the only routes that existed. They contributed to the building of our country. Canada would not be what it is today if this transport network had not existed. What economic development would there have been in the St. Lawrence Valley and the Great Lakes region without the St. Lawrence Seaway? How many tons of essential materials, goods and supplies have been transported on the St. Lawrence? These waterways have helped to build Canada and they will continue to do that. This is an important mode of transport and it is part of a strategy of sustainable development.

There are several advantages to doing a better job of using our navigable waterways. We reduce the congestion on our roads and at our border crossings—on the roads and bridges that we are talking about today—and in our airports. We improve the efficiency of our supply systems. We facilitate trade and effectively reduce air pollution, including greenhouse gases.

Congestion is very expensive, amounting to about $3 billion a year in lost time and wasted fuel that goes into the atmosphere, in addition to the negative effect on our productivity. We know that trade will only increase in the future and the congestion on our roads will grow worse as the number of cars and trucks increases.

International trade is expected to reach 2 billion tonnes a year over the next 20 years, or twice as much as current levels.

To avoid overloading our infrastructure, we are going to have to innovate and find different methods of transporting goods. This will affect not only the environment but also our health and the expenses that governments incur to build and maintain the necessary infrastructure. We should therefore examine all the available options that could make our transportation systems as efficient, effective and sustainable as possible.

So it is logical to send more of our goods by ship. This reduces congestion while actively helping to fight climate change, in addition to being very beneficial economically. All that shippers want is for their goods to reach market in a cost-effective way.

We are not inventing anything here. In Europe, 63% of the total volume of goods is carried by short-distance ships. This amounts to a total of 1.6 billion tonnes. European countries promote marine transportation as a complement to road, air and rail. They have studied this option and decided in favour of it. If it works elsewhere, it could work here. The job has already begun.

In 2003, Canada, the United States and Mexico signed a memorandum of cooperation to share information on waterways. On April 19, at a conference in Vancouver, our minister took part in signing the protocol for promoting the use of our waterways, thus reducing pressure on our bridges and tunnels. That is why we must conduct research on shipping and collect more data in order to apply it effectively.

In Quebec, in Rimouski, UQAR is setting up a research chair on shipping, which will be a major advance for research in this field in Quebec. It will help support this industry on specific scientific and technological research. It will also open the door to discoveries that will further our knowledge of the shipping sector and help us develop it to its full potential.

We need to have efficient means of transportation to improve our competitiveness—especially with a strong dollar—and to help us stay on course with our ambitions for our shipping companies and the St. Lawrence River.

We need an integrated approach to transportation to enhance our economic productivity. Our Prime Minister recently met with the President of the United States and the President of Mexico in Cancun. The three leaders reaffirmed their commitment to enhancing security, prosperity and the quality of life for North Americans. It is in this context that this current initiative is being taken.

Bill C-3 on international bridges will allow us to legislate on this matter and provide leadership. As we have seen, this House will probably be called to support other bills for improving our transportation policies in a context of sustainable development. Shipping is part of that.

Located at the confluence of the river, near the large seaway, the major transportation routes and rail lines, the riding I have the privilege of representing could seize this opportunity to improve its productivity and contribute to the prosperity of the country.

[Respecting International Bridges and Tunnels Act, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments on Bill C-3 on international bridges and tunnels.

However, I would nonetheless like to call him to order. In his speech, my hon. colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster erred on another subject, that being the settlement of the softwood lumber dispute. As you know, this is an issue which has received the support of the Government of British Columbia—where my colleague is from—and of the Government of Quebec—where I am from—as well as the support of the sawmills of Chaudière-Appalaches. For them, this settlement resolves a problem which was latent for many years and which had been left by the Liberal government.

Now we can make plans for the future, because we know we will be able to work. People in the industry will be able to invest, to recover and invest the money that had been held back. They will have a framework for operations and will be able to export their wood. I wanted to correct the facts with my colleague.

[Arctic Islands, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the resourcefulness of the builders of Lévis, Bellechasse and Les Etchemins in the long Quebec maritime tradition.

Almost 100 years ago on July 1, 1809, Captain Joseph-Elzéar Bernier staked a claim in the name of Canada to most of the Arctic Islands, an area of more than 500,000 square miles.

Climate change has increased the strategic significance of this exploit, considering navigation through the North and the development of the wealth it contains.

On this May 1, 2006, International Worker's Day, labourers are working with perseverance and dedication to pursue this great naval tradition in Lévis and Quebec City. I want to pay tribute to them today.