House of Commons Hansard #7 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was riding.
Brenda Chamberlain Liberal Guelph—Wellington, ON
Mr. Speaker, the government has continually been focused on a direction to help farmers. All things are not perfect. I will not stand here and say to my colleague that they are.
In January I met with about 50 commodity groups. All things are not bleak in all areas. We have some areas of farming that are experiencing very tough times right now. The government is committed to the family farm and a safe, affordable food supply.
Gary Lunn Canadian Alliance Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to respond to the throne speech. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Calgary East.
I thank all the residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands for doing me the great honour of re-electing me to the House of Commons to represent them. I also thank my wife and my family, who have stood beside me for the last three and a half years and who are so important to me in doing this job.
I am the international trade critic for the Canadian Alliance, while my colleague from Lethbridge deals with the agricultural issues in international trade. It is difficult to get into all of the issues, but there are some that are very important and I will focus on those.
I was encouraged to hear in the throne speech that the government will work toward creating a free trade area of the Americas. Canada can be number one of the Americas if we put our minds to it, if we work together, and if we put policies forward to ensure that we have free trade.
Parliament has been sitting for only a little over a week since the last election, but I have to admit that I find some of the comments coming from the government and its cabinet ministers quite alarming. I will focus on those.
Two issues are very important to Canada on the international trade front. One is the softwood lumber agreement with our friends to the south, the Americans, which expires next month and which is very important. At present, Canada has $1.2 billion in trade every day with the Americans. Over $10 billion a year is traded in softwood lumber. The industry is very important to Canada's economy. There are thousands of jobs at stake.
Yesterday as we were trying to put forward our concern about being in sync and having a unified position, in response to a question the Deputy Prime Minister maintained that “there is no threat or action on countervail against Canada on this matter”. That is the whole issue.
This issue has been before the U.S. senate, while in January Ottawa launched a challenge to a U.S. law which states that countervail duties are non-refundable even if the Americans lose a WTO challenge on countervail action. That law is seen as an incentive for the U.S. government to impose countervail duties even when an action is not likely to be upheld by the WTO. Our own people in the international trade department, our own trade officials, conceded that they expect the United States to immediately begin action to impose duties on Canadian lumber once the deal expires on April 1. This issue puts thousands of jobs at stake right across Canada. I ask the government to look at this.
To his credit, the international trade minister seems to be saying the right things. He is saying that he wants to let the agreement expire, which is the position of the Canadian Alliance. The member for Vancouver Island North has done a lot of work on this file and he has advocated this for the last year. Do we need to let this expire? Do we want to get to free market trading with the United States on softwood lumber? Canada has to aggressively go after this.
We want to let this agreement expire, but the Minister of Industry has come out with a position in which he says “I think the renewal of the existing agreement is something that will be part of the mix when we sit down at the table”. Canadians do not want that. Industry does not want that. The international trade minister does not want that.
Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister waded into this debate by saying there was no threat of countervail duties. That is exactly the threat we could face from the U.S. Canada has to take a very strong position.
Hopefully members of cabinet will sit down and decide that there is only one position, not three, and that they can speak with a unified voice on this matter. I do find it alarming that the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday there is no threat. In fact, right out of the U.S. senate, this is exactly what they are threatening to do. At the confirmation hearings of Robert Zoellick, the U.S. trade representative, the Americans said that this is the most important issue between our two countries and that they want him to make it his first priority after his confirmation. Again I ask the government to look at this.
There is another issue we need to bring up as we go to a free trade agreement with the Americas, if that is our goal. We are now engaged in a dispute with Brazil over Embraer. Canada has gone to the World Trade Organization. Last year it won that case. In December the World Trade Organization gave Canada the option of imposing sanctions against Brazil as the only way to fight this measure, but to date Canada has done absolutely nothing.
Again I am concerned, in that we want to enter into free trade agreements with the Americas, which I absolutely 100% endorse, but even in the dispute we have now with Brazil, Canada is not acting with the tools available under the rules of the World Trade Organization. We have been one of the principle proponents of these tools and have advocated for them, yet we have not been using them. I find that alarming.
As we go toward free trade agreements, Canada enjoys a very strong trading relationship with the United States, $1.2 billion in trade every day. The U.S. is our most important trading partner. Over 80% of Canada's trade is with the United States. There is no question, I would argue, that we have been considered one of the favourites of the United States and vice versa. We have done a lot of trade with them. That is about to change. There is the new administration in Mexico under Vicente Fox and the new administration under President Bush, and President Bush has made it very clear that he is looking to expand trade throughout the Americas.
International trade amounts to 40% of the wealth created in Canada. It is so critical to our economy and, if we are not completely on the ball, we could be left behind in this evolving free trade area. Brazil will play a role. We know Mexico will be at the table in a major way and will become a very powerful trading partner in the Americas. It is important for Canada to get a very strong trade policy and aggressively pursue it, not just with the United States but with Mexico and the states throughout Central and South America.
With regard to the actions we have seen from the government in the last week, I am not sure if the government members are really sitting down and getting their position right or if they are all jockeying to see who can get out of cabinet first to get in front of the cameras. It is alarming when one says one thing and one says another. The headlines in every major paper across the country last week said that the Minister of Industry and the Minister for International Trade are fighting over who gets control of this file. Quite frankly, Canadians really do not care who is in charge of the file; they just want to make sure that someone is and that Canada has a unified voice.
My colleagues and I, throughout this parliament, will look at all government policies and put forward constructive options that we believe will advance Canada's position in the international trade market. I believe Canada can be number one if we have the courage to stand up to all these other nations, to make sure that Canada is on the forefront of these free trade agreements and to actively pursue them.
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and was interested in the hon. member's comment about the importance of trade and relations between our country and the United States. I agree that they are very important. Clearly the United States is our most important trading partner as well as our close friend and neighbour.
On the issue of softwood lumber, what can the hon. member tell me about his party's position on the situation in Atlantic Canada, where the majority of forest products come from private woodlots?
In fact, the Atlantic region has been exempted by the U.S. The U.S. senators, congressmen and trade representative all recognize that in Atlantic Canada there is no question of any subsidy, even from their perspective. They do not have the view that the lumber coming from Atlantic Canada is subsidized lumber. They do not feel that there should be any quotas, export taxes or anything else on that lumber.
There are thousands of jobs in Atlantic Canada dependent on the lumber industry. I wonder what his party would propose to ensure that the interests of Atlantic Canada are protected.
Gary Lunn Canadian Alliance Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I first want to emphasize that we do not come here to represent the views of Atlantic Canada or British Columbia or Ontario. We come here to represent and look after the interests of all Canadians, from coast to coast to coast. The Canadian Alliance, and again I give credit to the member for Vancouver Island North, has advocated the position the government has now taken, that is, the Alliance wants to see a free market without any countervailing duties or quotas, a free market in lumber for everyone in Canada, for British Columbians, for Nova Scotians, for everyone from the Atlantic regions, for everyone across Canada. We believe that is very important.
I would agree that there are no subsidies for the lumber industry in Atlantic Canada, just like there are none in British Columbia. Of course some of our opponents in the U.S., our competition, would argue that there are, but this issue has been to the World Trade Organization and Canada won. The WTO ruled that the British Columbia forest industry is not subsidized. There are different practices.
I will argue as aggressively for the people of Atlantic Canada as I will for the people of British Columbia, and for everyone else in between, that Canada pursue this very aggressively. We should let the softwood lumber agreement expire, which I believe is the position of at least the international trade minister, and we should ensure that the lumber industry right across Canada has unfettered access to all U.S. markets.
Rick Casson Canadian Alliance Lethbridge, AB
Mr. Speaker, I ask the member to elaborate a bit more on the agricultural situation. As we know, the grain and oilseed sector in this country is hurting very badly because of low commodity prices. Some believe that those low commodity prices are due to European and U.S. subsidies for farmers. Certainly in Europe something like 56% or 58% of their agricultural dollar is created through subsidies. In the United States, it is about 38%, while in Canada it is somewhere around 9 or 10 cents.
I feel the government has not been aggressive enough as a country at the trade table. I ask the member to elaborate on some of the things that we as a country can do to help lever some of these subsidies down in order to create a better atmosphere for our agricultural community.
Gary Lunn Canadian Alliance Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from Lethbridge for his question, and as he will be responsible for the agricultural sector of international trade, I look forward to working together with him to provide solutions for the government over the next three or four years.
It is clear that the United States subsidizes its farmers four times more than Canada does. Canada has to start taking a very strong, aggressive position in the negotiations with the Americans. Collectively we have to go after the Europeans on their subsidies. If we are going to have a free market, we believe that Canada and Canadian farmers can compete if they are competing on a level playing field. However, now they are up against a huge wall. The subsidies in Europe and the United States are so excessive compared to those of Canada that competing is almost impossible. The government has offered some relief, but the money has been left on the cabinet table and has never reached the kitchen table.
In summary, it is time for the Canadian government to aggressively pursue the Americans to abandon these policies and get on board and collectively go after the Europeans.
Deepak Obhrai Canadian Alliance Calgary East, AB
Mr. Speaker, before I start, I would like to join my colleagues in congratulating you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. I look forward to working with you.
It is an honour for me to rise this afternoon in reply to the Speech from the Throne. Earlier last year, following World Trade Organization negotiations in Seattle which I attended as a member of the Canadian delegation, I hosted a public meeting in my riding to discuss among other things world trade and globalization.
Like many Canadians, constituents of mine who attended this meeting did not know a great deal about the WTO or NAFTA. What they did know was that Canada has prospered from its involvement in international trade. Globalization and Canada's involvement in the global economy were not viewed as inherently threatening but simply a natural progression brought about by freer markets and advancements in communications.
Certainly there were questions about what globalization meant for Canada's sovereignty or our ability to make policy decisions in the public interest.
A common theme of this meeting was that globalization should bring prosperity to all countries and people of the world. We know globalization has led many developing countries to increased prosperity and wealth. However, for many others globalization poses a challenge. The question for Canadians is how best all countries can grasp opportunities offered by globalization.
I strongly believe that freer trade and expanding local economies are the best engines for development and prosperity. The best hope for developing countries has always been to find ways of tapping into the vast resources of private capital. We must stop thinking of government as the permanent engine driving overseas assistance and instead view the government as a facilitating partner. Canadians should be encouraged to contribute directly to NGOs involved in foreign assistance. Governments can then match contributions given by the private sector.
An excellent working example of this system in practice is the Canadian Food Grains Bank. The Canadian Food Grains Bank accepts donations of grains to send overseas for people in need. The Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, matches the donations received by the CFGB on a four to one basis. The government money is used to either purchase additional grains in Canada or to purchase grains closer to the area in need. Through the Canadian Food Grains Bank and its partners, 98% of the food donated to the organization makes it to the people who desperately need it. That is a true Canadian success story.
Naturally, Canada must also continue to provide assistance for emergency relief efforts. The minister responsible for CIDA was quick to respond to devastating earthquakes in El Salvador and India with $1 million and $5 million respectively. I applaud the government for its prompt response to this crisis.
Although the November 27 federal election was dominated by domestic issues like taxes and health care, Canadians have come to expect that their country provides assistance to countries and people less fortunate. Having said that, Canadians expect a certain level of performance, results and accountability for tax dollars budgeted for foreign aid.
The auditor general in his 1993, 1996, 1998 and 2000 reports was critical of CIDA's mismanagement and institutional culture characterized by confusion and lack of focus. It seems that over the years change has not come easily to CIDA The Canadian Alliance believes that CIDA is simply not capable as presently structured of fulfilling its mandate effectively or efficiently.
I mentioned earlier in my speech it is freer trade and expanding local economies that are the best engines for development and prosperity. Globalization continues to be the engine bringing countries together. Globalization has helped to promote sustainable development and prosperity around the world. Globalization represents opportunities and challenges for all countries in the world, including Canada.
Canada entered the new century with some significant economic strengths. However, it also has some troubling weakness. The country's strength includes a labour force that is among the most highly educated in the world and a well developed infrastructure that includes advanced information and communications technology, both necessary requirements in a knowledge based economy. However, we have some glaring weaknesses including the relatively low rates of research and development, a capital investment rate that is far below the level of the United States, a high personal and corporate taxation and our relative slowness, again compared to the United States, in adapting advanced technologies and in seizing the new economic opportunities.
The federal government announced a program in the throne speech to double the investment in research and development by 2010. This is a step in the right direction. However, the government missed a critical opportunity in the throne speech to introduce real tax relief and encourage our best and brightest to remain in Canada. Again the government has ignored the reality of the brain drain. It is a fact that every year more and more of our best and brightest are attracted to the high earnings, lower taxes and better job opportunities offered in the United States.
As we look to the future, the United States is poised to introduce substantial tax reductions and to pay down the debt within the next 10 years. Our finance minister has introduced tax cuts which are marginal at best and has an unambitious target of paying down Canada's debt. Canada cannot hope to remain competitive with the United States if our fiscal structure is so terribly out of line with the others. The government needs to make fiscal competitiveness with the United States a current priority. This means real tax relief and a dedicated paydown schedule. None of these important steps were mentioned in the Liberal throne speech.
Critics of globalization fear that economic integration is leading to a loss of Canadian sovereignty. As policymakers we must adhere to our obligations under NAFTA and WTO which attempt to prevent policy actions that might create an unlevel playing field. Similarly, Canada's policymakers must give careful attention to how their actions will impact the country's ability to attract investment and highly skilled workers. There are concerns about foreign ownership.
Our undervalued Canadian dollar has given Canadian exporters an advantage in exporting their products and services to the United States. However, it has made Canadian companies a bargain for American investors. Former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed has expressed concern about Canada's sovereignty since the signing of NAFTA.
In conclusion, I would say that globalization is extremely important. With the summit of free trade of the Americas coming pretty soon, even the president of the United States is very keen to promote free trade, the issues and challenges of globalization must advance.
The Leader of the Official Opposition has asked me to chair an advisory committee to address globalization and Canada's competitiveness. I will talk with NGOs and Canada's business leaders to develop a sound plan for Canada to deal with some of the questions surrounding globalization. I look forward to hearing from anyone who has something to add.
Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON
Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Tobique—Mactaquac.
It is a privilege and pleasure this morning to speak for the first time in the 37th Parliament of Canada, my first time since being returned for the third time. I want to pay tribute to some of those people who have made it possible for me to come back. First, I want to personally thank my wife and my family for their continued support and indulgence of my time to others. Being a member of parliament, as all of us in the House know, requires giving up a lot of our personal time. I enjoy it and my family has agreed to allow me to do that.
I also want to express my appreciation to the people of Huron—Bruce for their support over the past number of elections. Traditionally, my riding was a Conservative riding. The people who normally supported that party chose to support me because of my representation. I count it a humbling experience to come back, and from time to time I ask them to recommit to that support they first gave to me in 1993.
This morning I want to commit my time to speaking on the issue of agriculture. My riding of Huron—Bruce is primarily an agricultural riding. It is an area which is now traditionally called the western coast of Ontario. It is an area where we primarily make our living from the land. However, we also have a number of other industries.
Probably the most notable industry in our riding is Sifto Salt. It represents the largest salt mine in the world. When people travel the highways of Ontario or in other parts of Canada and the United States, they will likely be saved the embarrassment of finding themselves in a ditch because the salt on those roads probably came from Goderich, Ontario. It is one of the things that we would like to forget for a while since we have had a long period of winter, but spring is not that far around the corner. That brings me to the concerns that I have regarding agriculture today.
It is imperative to remember that we all look upon our farmers as the suppliers of our food source. We rely on them to provide us with our daily food. In the short time that has been allocated to me this morning, I want to give the members some illustrations of where agriculture is today.
Agriculture is at a crossroads in Canada. It is not because we have been unable to produce the food. We have been able to safely produce food in adequate numbers and quantities for Canadians. However, we have been unable to receive adequate returns in the marketplace to make it profitable for farmers to remain on their lands.
I come from a family of seven generations of agrologists, people who have made their living from the land. The generation of people which follow me are not farmers today and will not be farmers. They are making their life vocation in other sectors. That is disconcerting in itself.
Perhaps I can help members better understand where agriculture is today. In my riding of Huron—Bruce, we produce more agricultural products in terms of dollar value than any other riding in Canada east of Winnipeg. We have the largest grain inland elevators in Canada in a little village called Hensall. Every time I turn around or every time I go down a road I pass some of those farmers who have given us the food that we put on our tables. I have a strong tradition in agriculture.
I remember citing in the House of Commons in the 36th parliament the importance of agriculture. Then I saw storm clouds on the horizon. Today the storm clouds have developed into a major storm. These people are seeking refuge and help. They are calling upon government to intervene in the short term.
In the Speech from the Throne the Governor General said “The government will help Canada's agricultural sector move beyond crisis management”. Indeed, the government recognizes that there is crisis in agriculture.
We need to move now. We are 90 days away from seeding in Ontario. While I support agriculture in all corners of the country, my focus is largely on Ontario because that is where my expertise is. When I speak of what is good for Ontario, it also has to be good for other parts of the country. Every province needs to share in the wealth that we generate. That is what Canada is all about.
A farmer came to my office last Friday morning with a balance sheet of his returns from last year. He had his own bookkeeper do the accounting and then sent it to the auditor for a final accounting so it would be accurate.
This farmer is well known in my community. He remains nameless in the House. However he has allowed me to bring his numbers to the House to give some credence to the arguments we are putting forward.
On a 600 acre operation, which is not a large one, he paid himself $110 per acre for the land he owns. He included repairs and had very little depreciation because most of his equipment had been depreciated to a point where there was nothing left. At the end of the day he was $90 per acre short on income and expenses.
This guy would be considered a model farmer in his community. He had a $55,000 loss on 600 acres. Last year he purchased nitrogen fertilizer at $150 per tonne. He has two prices: one a month ago at $350 per tonne for this coming spring and another which is effective now. Unless he purchases it now, it will go to $450 per tonne. This is a 140% increase from two years ago.
For diesel fuel and other fuel sources, because he has a drying operation as well, we are talking about enormous increases in the 90 to 100% range. However his prices were basically put into effect in the 1930s. There is not an industry in Canada that can sustain such losses over that many years. I think food is much more important than we sometimes give it credit for. The issue of food goes much beyond the farm gate. It is an issue of sovereignty.
Do we want continued sovereignty over our food supply? Do we want our rural communities, which share the wealth when farmers prosper, to continue to exist? Do we want churches and schools to disappear from the rural landscape in Ontario and throughout the rest of Canada?
We have choices to make. This is a serious issue. I do not often come to the House with an issue that is so profoundly difficult to talk about. Because I know it so well, it is important that today and in the short term we find a vehicle to deliver cash to farmers which they can take to the bank. If we do not, we will not have farmers in the future.
We did what was right for Bombardier. Farmers will not argue that we did what was right. It is important that we now do the right thing for agriculture. Some 640,000 people in Ontario are directly or indirectly related to this industry and 24,000 people are involved in the aerospace industry.
Let us do the right thing. Let us deliver the money to our farmers before seeding time so that we can enjoy the food we put on our plates every day.
Werner Schmidt Canadian Alliance Kelowna, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am impressed with the hon. member opposite. He ought to be commended for the beautiful, wonderful and insightful remarks he just made. I congratulate him on his re-election to the House of Commons.
The member brings forward a balanced position and puts it together nicely. In light of his impassioned speech and his obvious understanding of the problem, why has his government not given to farmers the money it promised them, let alone a new program to help them with other problems?
The government has not even done what it said it would do. Why can the hon. member opposite, a member of the government, not get the Prime Minister to do what he said he would do?
Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am indebted to the hon. member, who is a good friend of mine, for asking that question. It is not that we have not delivered to farmers. It is a case of mixed messages being sent to our farmers. Right now farmers are more interested in money than in another message.
When we began this process some two and a half years ago, we were looking at a request of $600 million. We came in at $900 million and raised that to $1.1 billion. We have committed to three years at $1.1 billion and are now asking for another $900 million of federal money.
The member is speaking about the 20% that has not been delivered on the AIDA program, and he is absolutely correct. If we have not delivered that money we ought to be delivering it. It is not because I have not put forward the argument to deliver that money. I will continue to do that, but there are mitigating circumstances which have for one reason or another not allowed it to happen.
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Guelph—Wellington who seemed to think there was no farm crisis. Then I heard my good friend, also with a farm background, mention that there was a farm crisis. It is refreshing to have someone on the backbenches with an incredible amount of backbone to tell it exactly like it is. I do not think a member on this side of the House could have said it as eloquently and as passionately as he did.
The hon. member understands that farmers in Ontario and western Canada are going through exactly what fishermen in the coastal communities of Atlantic Canada went through and exactly what the fishing communities of western Canada went through. Conservative and Liberal policies have put the main producers of the food on our tables in a state of continual crisis.
I consider the hon. member to be a great friend and a great member of the fishing community. Will he take his comments directly to the agriculture minister and the industry minister, because they are the ones who need to hear them?
Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have come to enjoy working with the hon. member from Nova Scotia on the fishery committee. Not only will I take the message to the ministers to whom he referred, but I have already done so.
Tomorrow I will deliver to anyone in the House who wishes one a copy of the farmer's financial statement I spoke of earlier. All the member needs to do is ask and he will have delivered to him a copy of that statement. The message must get out and we must do it as quickly as we can. We have no time to lose. I would be more than delighted to provide you with that document.
Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
As a reminder as we begin the 37th parliament, please do not forget your Speaker. Rather than addressing one another directly, it is more useful to speak through the Chair.
Andy Savoy Liberal Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Mr. Speaker, it is with an overwhelming sense of pride and respect that I rise today in the House to respond to the throne speech.
I begin by thanking the constituents of Tobique—Mactaquac for giving me the awesome responsibility and privilege of representing their views and concerns in parliament. During the election campaign I promised my constituents I would listen to their concerns and speak to those issues on their behalf when in Ottawa. I intend to fulfil that promise to the best of my ability.
This obligation derives not only from the sense of responsibility that comes with being a member of parliament but in some measure from the fact that the Speaker of the House has a sister residing in my riding, who I am sure will receive regular reports on my performance in Ottawa.
I congratulate the Speaker of the House on his most recent election victory. To be selected by your peers and assume the highest authority in the House of Commons is the greatest mark of respect your fellow members can show you.
Third, I congratulate all members of parliament on their recent election victories. To be elected by the people of Canada to represent their views and concerns is both a formidable task and a tremendous opportunity. This symbiotic relationship carries a huge responsibility, one that I am prepared to accept while in public office.
Lastly and most importantly, I thank my friends and family for their unwavering support and inspiration. I especially want to extend personal thanks to my wife and my mother. I thank my mother for teaching me to aim high and my wife for keeping me on track and helping me achieve my goals.
I also want to thank Gilles Bernier, the former member for Tobique—Mactaquac, for his good work these past years, on behalf of the people of our riding.
Situated in western New Brunswick, my riding is known for the picturesque beauty of the Nashwaak, Tobique and Saint John River valleys, a beauty my ancestors no doubt dwelt upon when they first settled in the Saint John River Valley over 200 hundred years ago.
The region of the upper Tobique River in the north end of the riding has excellent fishing and hunting. Both my grandfather and great-grandfather worked there as guides and lumberjacks. As guides they respected nature. While probably not schooled in the concepts of wildlife conservation, they understood its implications. They knew that if everyone fished or hunted to excess there would be no fish and game for their children or their children's children.
I am proud to say, as my forefathers did, that the government understands the concept of resource management. It has explicitly committed itself to the protection of species at risk, to marine conservation and to the conservation of our natural spaces.
My forefathers fished and hunted alongside the aboriginal people of the area, and each depended on the other in times of need. The Tobique first nations are a proud people. I am optimistic about the future of the government's relations with all first nations people.
In aboriginal communities we are promoting programs to reduce the incidence of fetal alcohol syndrome in newborns and preventable diseases like tuberculosis and diabetes. The aboriginal head start program will be significantly expanded to better prepare aboriginal children for the rigours of the educational system and to help those with special needs.
The people of Tobique first nations will see the benefits of an increased focus on entrepreneurial and business expertise that will ultimately promote economic development and industrial growth in their community.
Just as some of my forefathers chose to be hunters and lumberjacks, others chose to be farmers. The upper Saint John River Valley is home to some of the highest quality seed and table potatoes in the world. The area is responsible for 95% of New Brunswick's potato production and most of it is grown on traditional family farms. A superior product does not compensate for low market prices or offset unfair subsidization by other national governments, which has been an ongoing problem for Canadian producers.
I am encouraged to see a renewed federal commitment to move away from farm crisis management toward long term agricultural sustainability, value added agricultural growth, improved land usage and increased investment in research.
Carleton county in the centre of my riding has the third fastest growing economy in Canada, fuelled by food processing, lumber operations and metal working. As a professional engineer with extensive experience in local economic development, I know firsthand the commercial importance of research and development. Companies must either innovate or over time they stagnate.
The government has made innovation a top priority. For engineers, scientists and business people across Canada this is music to their ears. The government will double spending on R and D by 2010. It will accelerate the commercialization process for new products. It will support collaborative research with international partners. It will strengthen the research capacity of Canadian universities and government laboratories.
I applaud the government's goal and encourage it as an attainable one. The goal is to become one of the top five countries in the world for research and development by 2010.
Today, I have spoken of my own experiences and those of my forefathers, but I would now like to talk about our collective future, that of Canada's youth, of our children, of my children.
My wife and I have a 19 month old daughter and are expecting a second child in June. I am proud to say that our country is built on liberal values, which accord the family its due increasingly.
I know that my children will benefit from the major spending that goes into social programs. For example, by allocating an additional $2.2 billion to the early childhood development program, the federal government has reiterated its support for targeted social spending.
It is doubling the length of parental leave and maternity benefits while continuing to increase child tax benefits.
Today's children will grow up in a climate in which learning and education, the foundations of a better future, have become a national priority for all Canadians.
In the context of the millennium scholarship fund, scholarships will be accorded over the next ten years to over 100,000 disadvantaged students. In addition, the educational tax credit has been increased and tax cuts worth nearly $1 billion are planned one million students over the next four years.
Finally, the registered individual learning accounts will help Canadians of all ages find the money they need for their ongoing training.
Promoting opportunities and social benefits for families is as extremely important as protecting our families and children. The tragedy at Walkerton last summer saw the deaths of innocent Canadians, both adult and children. In response to the incident I organized a drinking water conference in Fredericton, New Brunswick, which saw over 300 people from across Canada attend workshops and learn how to assess, remedy and ultimately protect themselves and others from contaminated water sources.
The government has shown a commitment to safe drinking water for all people in Canada by focusing on stronger national guidelines for water quality, by strengthening the role of the national water research institute, by funding improvements to municipal water and waste water systems, and by investing in research and development on better land use practices.
Our government has shown vision. Our government has shown innovation. Our government has shown compassion for families, children and aboriginal peoples. Our government has shown leadership. I look forward to governing this great nation with my colleagues from all political parties. The elected in each riding reflect the truly great citizens of a great country.
I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, and all members in advance for what will prove to be an exciting, productive and rewarding 37th parliament.
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the new member for Tobique—Mactaquac and I wish him good luck on the upcoming birth of his next child.
Having listened to the member, one would think there are no problems in the country. One would not think that record numbers of students are leaving their post-secondary graduate studies with record levels of debt. One would not think that a tremendous amount of fishermen are still making under $10,000 a year. One would not think that 22,000 families left the family farm last year.
The throne speech concentrated heavily on the so-called new economy and completely neglected what was called the old economy of fishing, mining, forestry and agriculture. Would the member comment on what he plans to do for Canada's largest employers in the so-called old economy?
Andy Savoy Liberal Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore for my first question, the encouragement and the welcome to the House of Commons.
The future lies in the concept of value added in each of these resource areas. We must look at agriculture and the fisheries not only as a traditional resource but as a base product. We must look at value adding to the resource by processing fisheries products further down the line. Similarly in agriculture.
In my riding I have one of the experts in value adding in McCain Foods, the largest frozen fry producer in the world. People have taken value added to the extreme. McCain Foods produces not only french fries. It produces juices, pizzas and a variety of value added products. I believe the future lies in value added.
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Speaker, I join in congratulating the hon. member and welcoming him to the House. We benefit in this place by having people from all walks of life and different backgrounds. In the case of the hon. member, we have the advantage of having a professional engineer who has significant experience in the field of environmentally sustainable development.
I am sure the member is aware of the government's plans in relation to the treatment of waste water and water. How does he feel about the government's infrastructure plans in this area?
Andy Savoy Liberal Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Mr. Speaker, with regard to water and waste water infrastructure, the government has taken an initiative by investing over $2 billion. Specifically in my riding with 14 small municipalities many have had boil orders in the past.
The infrastructure program extends not only to the water system itself but extends to the waste water system. Water contamination is frequently the result of improper waste water management. The government has made enormous progress as far as investing $2.2 billion in water and waste water management.
The government has also looked at strengthening the National Water Research Institute. It has looked at developing stronger national guidelines for water quality. It is doing research and development in better land use practices, which means the protection of our surface water and our ground water sources. Some of it is common sense. In layperson terms, one does not put a chemical plant within 100 feet of a municipal well head or municipal lagoon. That is an example of better land use practice. More research and development are being done into land use practices.
I look forward to working with the New Brunswick Environment Industry Association to organize our second annual drinking water conference entitled “Your Drinking Water: Ensuring Its Safety”. This conference will further educate people from across Canada on the perils and the contaminants potentially in our water source and how to assess and remedy them.
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like you to note that I will be splitting my time with the new Bloc Quebecois member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.
Although I have already asked some questions and made some comments, this is the first opportunity I have had since being elected to actually rise and respond to the throne speech.
I would like to begin by thanking a few people. I am sure that the House will understand. My first thanks go to my wife Nathalie and my children Roxane and Vincent who, although still young—eight and eleven years old—have a very good, not to say an excellent, understanding of the demands made on a member for parliament. I also wish to thank my family, the organizers and voters of the riding of Berthier—Montcalm, who have put their trust in me since 1993.
This is the third election for a party, the Bloc Quebecois, which was not supposed to be around for more than three elections in a row. In the riding of Berthier—Montcalm, my percentage of the vote went up starting in 1993. I therefore think that there is room for the Bloc Quebecois and that it is using its position properly to defend Quebec's interests.
This brings me directly to the throne speech. What are we to conclude from this particular throne speech? The tradition after a general election was to have a speech that would give parliamentarians some direction, that spoke about the government's vision. Things had to change. There were new bills on the table.
Unfortunately, I must agree with many other experts and journalists. In a nutshell, all the time put into the throne speech was pointless and very expensive. As we have seen, it was even a very imperialist exercise, with the Governor General, the Queen's representative. There is nothing, or nothing new anyway, in the throne speech. It shows a complete lack of imagination on the part of this government, which is simply maintaining the course it embarked on after the 1997 election.
It seems to me that this was an opportunity to follow up on certain comments and wishes expressed by the public for changes.
But no. We can see for instance that, by wholly reproducing what was already in its red book—not to fault that, but it was unnecessary to have a general election and a throne speech—the government decided to continue its usual incursion into areas of provincial jurisdiction.
The reaction may be that the Bloc Quebecois is always saying that, but it is the very source of this country's problem.
I would remind hon. members that Quebec did not sign the constitution. No Quebec premier signed it, whether Parti Quebecois or Liberal. None has signed the constitution. Yet here again we find a government preparing to invest—because it has the cash—in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Just think of parental leave and education. Is there any area, under the Canadian constitution, which falls more clearly under provincial jurisdiction than education?
In the throne speech we can see that the federal government's investment is under the pretext that there is a problem. Yes, there is a problem, and not just in Quebec. The problem has been caused by the federal government with its cuts to transfer payments.
This is why we are asking the federal government, which is accumulating billions of dollars, to transfer the money it took to the provinces, which are closer to the people and provide services directly to constituents so they may invest wherever there is a need, including among others in education. It is, however, not up to the federal government to invest directly in education.
This is the basis of a number of misunderstandings. Let the government honour the Canadian constitution, which it boasts is good. Let it honour it. In doing so, they will end up with a lot fewer overlaps.
The same is true in education and health care, where the government will create a supervisory superstructure. As if the provinces could not manage their hospitals and the health care system.
The problem, I repeat, was created by the federal government when it cut the transfer payments and money, which was in fact intended for these public services.
There is the matter of potable water. It is true that this has been a problem in certain municipalities in Canada and Quebec. However, water quality and availability are provincial matters as well. Will the federal government start investing in that area as well? That does not line up very well.
I understand that the government opposite is very arrogant. I understand that it is quietly pursuing the same approach since 1997. Perhaps it should realize it is off track. The Bloc Quebecois will be there to remind it. We will be there to get the most for Quebec, to remind the federal government that it is off the beam in the case of many bills and we will try to influence it, as we have done in the past. Through it all, we will continue to do our job and we will respect provincial jurisdiction.
To be honest, there was at least one positive thing in the throne speech, and I can hardly wait to have it in my hands. This is the anti-gang legislation.
The House will recall that when the Bloc Quebecois spoke about the problem of biker gangs in Quebec and in Canada, the government members opposite practically laughed in our faces. They said there was no problem, that the Criminal Code was fine the way it was and that additional legislation was not necessary. All the Liberals in the House heard the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice tell us this.
However, in the wake of the election campaign, people realized that Canada did not in fact have the tools to effectively combat organize crime.
We read in the throne speech that the federal government is preparing to introduce anti-gang amendments.
It has understood, and this is why the Bloc Quebecois is important. Without us, the government would have done nothing because it did not understand the problem. We got the message across. We are going to continue to speak out because there are other messages that must get across to the government, including the one having to do with the Young Offenders Act.
I would have thought that after an election campaign the government members opposite, especially those from Quebec, would have understood that Quebecers do not want the Minister of Justice and the federal government meddling with the Young Offenders Act. This legislation has demonstrated its worth in Quebec, where the crime and recidivism rates are the lowest in Canada.
We are succeeding where other provinces are not. Why? Because we apply the Young Offenders Act while some provinces do not. They do not have the necessary infrastructures to deal with young people who have a problem with crime.
What will the minister do? Will she listen to Quebec? Will she follow Quebec's example, since our approach is successful? Have the Quebec Liberal members of parliament managed to convince the minister? They have not.
Following the throne speech, the minister introduced a bill repealing the Young Offenders Act. She used the lowest common denominator, that is those provinces that had the lowest success rate with young offenders.
Now, the government is saying “Quebec will have to apply the same provisions as western Canada”. This says a lot about the value of the motion passed by the government to recognize Quebec as a distinct society.
As for the Liberal members from Quebec, I would be ashamed to belong to this government given the way it is dealing with the Young Offenders Act. They have failed in their responsibility to get the message across to the Minister of Justice.
As for us, we will continue, along with the national assembly, the coalition and the Quebec consensus, to oppose the government regarding such an important bill for the future of our young people and having to do with the Young Offenders Act.
I see that my time is up, so I am leaving the floor to my colleague.
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that I was very honoured to be elected on November 27 by the people of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel to represent them in the House.
I would like to thank my constituents, my wife Francine, my daughter Joëlle, my son Mario junior, all my political organizers as well as my predecessor in the House, Maurice Dumas, who has retired after seven productive years here.
I entered into the election campaign when Mr Dumas' departure was announced, on the day the election was called. For me it was of course quite a jump. At this time last year, I was president of the Union des municipalités du Québec. It was a big challenge for me, particularly when I heard that I was running in a constituency targeted by the Liberal machine in Quebec.
I am even more thankful to the people of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel when I remember that, during the campaign, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Minister of Public Works and even the Minister of Finance came to help my opponent in his attempt to defeat me. The people of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel were not fooled.
My riding spans more than 6,000 square kilometres between the greater Montreal and the metropolitan Outaouais. The federal system had a harsh impact on this area over the last 30 years.
The riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel is located between two major populated areas, but there still is no highway linking these two important areas within the same province. It is the only place in Canada where such a situation exists.
Moreover, the riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel includes an international airport, Mirabel airport, where no development plan has yet been prepared.
We are also hit hard by an annual unemployment rate that hovers around 10% annually, at 8% in the summer and about 14% in the winter. Members will understand that this riding's economy relies on forestry, agriculture, tourism and, of course, these past years on industry.
Of course, members will also understand that in tourism, agriculture and forestry employment is seasonal, not workers. Consequently, this 10% rate of unemployment is compounded by a 10% rate of people who are able to work yet are receiving income security benefits from the Quebec government.
Thus, as we speak, 20% of the workers in the riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel are not working. This is a situation that has no justification whatsoever, and we have been waiting and still are waiting for changes to the Employment Insurance Act.
Obviously, the strategies outlined by the federal government in the last Speech from the Throne had nothing to impress the citizens of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.
The only thing proposed regarding employment insurance is that workers be given back 8% of annual surpluses taken from the federal government's budgets. The government wants to dip into the pockets of the workers in Quebec and Canada to the tune of $32 billion.
During the last election, at the peak of the campaign, the Prime Minister of Canada openly recognized that he had made a mistake with the Employment Insurance Act. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois wrote a letter to the leaders of all the political parties in the House asking that the House be recalled on compassionate grounds before the holiday season to give some hope to the workers of Canada and Quebec who had been penalized by the Employment Insurance Act.
The leader of the Liberal Party was the only one to refuse to have the House recalled on humanitarian grounds before the holiday season, which is absolutely inconceivable and unworthy of a political party.
In the last Speech from the Throne, intrusion into areas such as health and education is still to be found everywhere. The Liberal Party has no intention of putting an end to the war against the provinces, which has been going on for too long. This government has decided once more to intrude into provincial jurisdiction, namely health, education and the legislation on young offenders. My colleague mentioned this earlier; the federal government is still waging war against the provinces. This is obviously a bad thing for economic activity in the country.
Naturally, the whole story of the November 2000 election campaign has been the most shameful in modern Canada, to paraphrase the Prime Minister's words. It was the most shameful, because it was the election of one man, as in Un Homme et son péché . It was a case of power-hungry people who tried to catch the other political parties off guard. This is the only reason we had an election in November 2000. There was no other justification for it.
The last election, which had the lowest participation rate in the history of modern Canada, was the most shameful election of modern times in our country.
On behalf of the citizens of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, I predict that if the next five years, which have been launched by this Speech from the Throne, are similar to the last 30 years, Quebec will no longer be represented in this House when the next election rolls around.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.
Let me remind the House that the member for that riding has developed a great deal of expertise in municipal politics and has decided to use his experience for the benefit of Quebec and of the Bloc Quebecois. I am very pleased that electors in that riding have put their trust in him.
What struck me in his remarks was the similarities between his riding and mine. One example is the importance of forestry, an industry that has a direct impact on seasonal workers. He gave a very concrete example. In his riding the unemployment rate varies between 8% in summer and 14% in winter.
Could the hon. member tell the House whether it would be interesting if we could make sure that, when the lumber agreement expires on March 31, 2001, we could go back to free trade in the lumber industry, like producers in Quebec and Canada would like?
For forestry workers, the best way to get a fair return on their contribution to the elimination of the deficit is not only tax cuts, but also an employment insurance system that would provide them with sufficient income when they are out of work.
When the earnings of workers are not very high, it is frequently the supplement coming from the employment insurance plan that helps make ends meet and financially sustains their family.
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
As he knows, the forest industry has demanded that free trade apply unconditionally to everything it has developed during the last few years. It is important to understand the problems facing the forestry workers and the owners of the logging companies throughout Quebec. Forestry is a huge asset for Quebec, and going back to the free trade agreement would obviously help this industry to prosper.
In answer to my colleague's second question, major improvements are expected to be made to the employment insurance system, because it is the jobs in the forest industry, not the workers, that are seasonal.
We can expect the grace periods to be abolished, the workers to be able to hang on to the $32 billion in the EI fund and the national program to be based on the needs of the workers in every industry, including the forest industry.
André Harvey Liberal Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Hillsborough.
First of all I want to thank my fellow citizens in the riding of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord who were inspired enough to elect me for another mandate, so that I could strive to serve them efficiently. They can be assured that I will do everything I possibly can to show them that they did the right thing in supporting me.
As you can see on my jacket, my first priority is still the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area. Before making my comments on the Speech from the Throne, I want to say that I listened to what some of my colleagues in the Bloc and in other parties had to say. They are always talking about the Canada-Quebec dynamics, Canada versus the provinces.
Recently I was reading the book written by Mr. John Ralston Saul where he was wondering if the problem of Canada is not related to the fact that the wealth is not shared equally within the provinces.
In our regional university, an economist, not from London but from the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, who proved, supported by figures, that our region was highly disadvantaged by Quebec government that was extremely centralizing.
I thought that I should make an analysis to see where the problem lies as far as the sharing of wealth is concerned. I have the figures here. The federal government is sharing the wealth with every province, a given amount per capita. The unemployment rate and the wealth index are also thrown into the equation.
There are two major programs. There is equalization, a lump sum payment that provinces can do what they want with, and there is the Canada health and social transfer, for health and social programs.
The problem in Quebec is that our regions are in a very precarious situation. We are looking at ways to keep our young people in our regions and we are seeking the best method to stop the migration of our young people. Yesterday, I asked the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière if he could tell me about the measures needed to stop the migration of these young people and to offer them interesting jobs.
Unfortunately, I sometimes am under the impression, that the members of the Bloc want all Canadians to be on EI. I do not think this is the thing to do. The bill was introduced. It will then be referred to a parliamentary committee. Some interesting amendments will be made. Significant changes have already been made. I am confident that in the end the EI bill will please everyone.
I wondered how I could continue to help my region. I thought we should analyze the areas where the government wanted to invest. Health care is a major issue, especially in the regions where the average age is increasing because of the incredible migration of young people. Consequently, we must invest in this area.
Everyone is aware of what happened in our regional hospitals. The doctors and the nurses were pushed into early retirement with huge cash outs. Friends and colleagues of mine told me this “How can someone stay on with an offer like that?”
Finally, we are in an extremely difficult situation. With regard to the health care budget, it is all fine and well to transfer $21,5 billion to the provinces. However, this is a provincial jurisdiction and a Quebec jurisdiction, and I for one want to make sure that our regions are in a position to provide health care.
In my area, and this is a proven fact for the past 10 to 15 years, we need about $75 million more each year. The Canada social transfer and equalization payments will go from $11.5 billion or $12 billion in 1994-95 to more than $14 billion in 2004. There is certainly a management problem. The provincial government does not pay attention to the regions. The current Quebec government is a centralizing government which arbitrarily is using equalization payments to build a $900 million hospital in Montreal while letting the hospital in Chicoutimi die.
As an hon. member from the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, I think that when the amount of transfer funds are negotiated, it is important to ask our government to make sure that regions are well represented and have what they need to fulfil their role, particularly in health care.
I also noticed that the throne speech insisted on the importance of skills. The federal government talked about literacy and the need to reach agreement with the provinces. One third of the Canadian population has a literacy problem. That has a tremendous cost for business.
The government insists a lot on research and development. During the last parliament, I was in the opposition and I worked on a very major project for my region, a major aluminum plant. We actually produce 50% of all the aluminum in this country.
Nothing has been done yet in terms of processing. We lost 8,000 jobs in the aluminum industry. With the help of my colleagues with whom I now sit, particularly the Minister of National Revenue, we will be building next spring a national research centre for the processing of aluminum that will allow us to create good jobs for our young people. The issue of aluminum is of critical importance to me.
There is also the forest issue. Natural resource areas such as ours are there strictly to be developed. No one is helping us with our development. The first aluminum processing plant, partly financed by the Quebec government via the SGF was built in the Montreal area. We lost 8,000 jobs in our community, even if we were named the aluminum valley last year. It must not become a valley of tears.
There is another issue mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. It is the issue of infrastructures. A region cannot develop itself without a highway infrastructure (The Europeans, the Americans understood that). This is a major element.
For several years, the federal government has formed partnerships with the private sector. I hope the Quebec government will take advantage of these programs in order to help our region to be connected to the North American continent and to the beautiful greater Quebec City area by a highway between Quebec City and Chicoutimi. This does not involve billions of dollars, but it is important. Land communications are the precursors to development, they do not follow it.
We have all the industrial development support programs, through Economic Development Canada, as well as research programs which I hope will be increasingly set up in the regions. The guidelines the government wants to set for itself are promising for the future.
There is the whole aspect of poverty. I would need more time to speak about it, but I will come back to it. I think that one day the federal and provincial governments will have to look carefully at a method to combat poverty effectively.
The government has created good programs, such as the child tax benefit, worth over $9 billion. There is the early childhood support program worth over $2 billion. There is the whole business of more progressive taxation over the next five years. One hundred billion dollars less in income tax to pay will benefit everyone.
Poverty is a difficult issue to define. The European economic community and a number of other countries are currently looking into the following possibility. Rather than increasing the number of programs, consolidating federal and provincial assistance programs, or within a federation such as that of Europe, to fight poverty effectively with a single program, there could be guaranteed minimum income. It would be easier to manage and easier for recipients to identify.
I am certain that, in addition to the program's being more effective, everyone would be content to know that, as Canadians over 18 years of age, they have something to get them started in life. I hope that one day a future agenda will include the important item of giving thorough consideration to the battle against poverty.
In 1967 the American government pointed out that this was probably an approach worth considering. Unfortunately, there was no follow-up. The Macdonald commission examined this aspect. It considered it a positive avenue. One day we will come back to this. Poverty is an important issue.
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am stunned by the speech of the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.
Since the hon. member changed sides in the House of Commons, his views have also changed drastically. Part of his speech dealt with health and was to the effect that the reason there are problems in Quebec is because the Quebec government is too centralizing. This takes the cake.
Moreover, Toronto MPs applauded him. He delivered a speech that got applause from Ontario MPs. Mr. Speaker, I hope your constituents are listening, because I am going to remind the hon. member of some of the statements he made here barely a year ago.
“What was scrapped in Canada was not the GST, but the health care system, particularly in Quebec...Yes, people are tired of the constitutional debate, but they certainly need a break from the provocation carried on for the past 30 years by the leaders of the Liberal Party of Canada”.
That comment was made on November 29, 1999. On March 20, 2000, the hon. member said:
“How does one go about getting rid of a Prime Minister who, not just in the case of Human Resources Development Canada, but in the case of the budget, is determined to interfere in all sectors of provincial jurisdiction?”
Here is one last quote:
“The federal government grabs all the money and then haggles with the provinces on education, health services and the infrastructure programs”.
There has to be some logic in comments. One cannot speak from both sides of his mouth in the House, make completely contradictory statements and, above all, blame a government for something that does not come under its jurisdiction. It is the federal government that is to blame, not the provincial government.
André Harvey Liberal Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have made speeches and the Bloc members should quote them all. I will continue to stand up for my region. Since I made my speeches, tax cuts in the order of $100 billion have been announced.
About the Quebec government, a study by Dr. Moussaly revealed that Quebec is siphoning $300 million in my region. All the multinationals, all the tax measures which favour the Quebec government, all that never comes back to our region but goes to the greater Montreal region.
If the hon. member wants to talk about the last election, I can tell him that I defended my fellow citizens of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord against the whole PQ government. Still, we succeeded in defeating them because it is important to have people in this House to fight for research, for the park highway, so that the regions are taken into account by the Canadian government as much as possible, whenever possible.
On October 20 of last year, we received $52 million to create a research centre for aluminium manufacturing. This is a good thing and we did not wait for the Quebec government because it would have taken another five years to reach an agreement.