Debates of Dec. 13th, 2006

(Return tabled)

Question No. 114

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

With respect to the Adult Learning, Literacy and Essential Skills Program: (a) what funding is still being allocated to this program; (b) what are the criteria for obtaining funding through this program; and (c) how much is being paid out through this program, by province, to the recipient organizations?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from December 12 consideration of the motion.

Prebudget Consultations

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to the prebudget consultation report of the Standing Committee on Finance.

I want to begin by thanking the literally thousands of Canadians who presented or attended prebudget consultations held both here in Ottawa and right across the country.

Writing a budget is obviously about making choices. Every day, average Canadians make choices about what they can and cannot afford. The Government of Canada is no different. The demand for funding is virtually infinite, but the resources of government are not.

I believe that Canadians pay too much in taxes. I believe that these high taxes are seriously impacting on Canada's overall competitiveness in a very negative way. In this regard, several of the presentations made to the committee stood out for me. I would like to take some time to share those presentations with the House.

With respect to productivity, Roger Martin, dean of the Rotman School of Management, spoke to the failings of the previous government in addressing competitiveness through its budgetary planning. He pointed out, in fact, that in 1998 Canada stood sixth in the international ranking of competitiveness. In 2001, we stood at 11. Today, we have fallen to 16. Over the years, we have drifted down in the rankings as countries such as Norway and Japan have stepped up their competitiveness.

These words came back to me when the finance minister appeared before the committee and presented the fiscal update entitled “Advantage Canada”. I was encouraged to hear of the five Canadian advantages that the plan specifically outlined. I will share them with the House.

To begin with, the finance minister spoke of a tax advantage. This is important. Canada's tax advantage will reduce taxes for all Canadians and establish the lowest tax rate on new business investment in the G-7. We have to attract investment. We have all heard of manufacturing jobs that are potentially leaving Canada and going elsewhere. This government wants to stem that flow. We want to encourage new investment and build industry and business.

The second point that he spoke of was the fiscal advantage. Canada's fiscal advantage will eliminate Canada's total government net debt in less than a generation, creating a strong foundation on which to build sustainable prosperity.

I note that today the International Monetary Fund has specifically commended the finance minister for his commitment and the commitment of this government. I would like to read for members a bit of what the IMF said in its statement:

The International Monetary Fund endorsed Canada's strategy to use surplus revenue to become the first Group of Seven nation whose outstanding debt doesn't exceed its assets.

This speaks to the government's determination and the incredible accomplishment that it has promised. We have not just talked about it; we promised it to Canadians by 2021. The statement goes on:

The Canadian fiscal strategy “appropriately highlights the joint role of public pension plans and provincial-territorial governments in achieving a sustainable fiscal position”....

Canada would join countries including Australia, Norway and Finland that have eliminated their net debt, based on figures from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

I believe I just mentioned some of those nations when I was speaking about nations that have improved their productivity. That speaks to the importance of eliminating the net debt.

The third point was about the entrepreneurial advantage:

Canada's Entrepreneurial Advantage will reduce unnecessary regulation and red tape and lower taxes to unlock business investment.

We heard about this time and time again. Groups like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business came forward and said that government simply must get out of the way. We can do better, they said, and we can employ more and pay more and grow if government would take away the reins that are holding us back and reduce the red tape.

This type of announcement was welcomed by businesses. I know that it was welcomed by my own chamber of commerce in Peterborough, and I understand that the chambers of commerce in St. Catharines, Burlington and right across this country have said that this is exactly what we need.

The fourth point spoke to a knowledge advantage. When we are talking about a knowledge advantage, we are talking about creating the best educated and most skilled workforce in the world, a flexible workforce that can move and that can address the needs of a growing, expanding economy.

Canada is an emerging world economic superpower. We are an energy superpower. We need the workforce that will address that. That is what the knowledge advantage speaks to. I was delighted with this. There are items that as a group in the committee we do not always agree on, but if there was one thing that we did agree on, it was that we need to invest in education.

I see that my colleague, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, is here, and I know that this is one thing that we agree on: a dedicated transfer for post-secondary education. We feel it is incredibly important to take this out of the social transfer, to tag that money and to give it to the provinces so they understand that this money is for post-secondary education.

We want to improve access. We want to improve affordability. We want to improve the overall quality of education. Not only is it important that people can get in to be schooled, but they also have to get a quality education.

The other thing we need to address is skilled trades. When we speak of post-secondary education, we mean education in all its forms, not just what we get at college and university but the type of education that one would get after high school, because we need to encourage more skilled trades in this country. We have a terrible deficit and the knowledge advantage is incredibly important in moving Canada forward.

Last is the infrastructure advantage. Canada's infrastructure advantage will create modern, world class infrastructure to ensure the seamless flow of people, goods and services across our roads and bridges, through our ports and gateways and via our public transit.

Once again, we know that Canada has changed a great deal over the last number of years. When we speak about public transit and the need for public transit, we are talking about being good to the environment. We are talking about being responsible in regard to the amount of traffic. We are talking about improving the flow of goods.

The Pacific gateway, for example, an enormous undertaking of this government, will really open up that Asia Pacific market and allow for economic growth for Canada. It is part of the infrastructure improvements that we are undertaking.

Advantage Canada is focused on four core principles. I would like to review those with the House as well.

One principle is focusing government. Government should be focused on what it does best. That is exactly what this government intends to do. We are going to be responsible in how we spend, effective in our operations and our results, and accountable to taxpayers.

Often we hear from the opposition that we are being very narrow. There is a big difference between being narrow, quite frankly, and being focused. One should not confuse the two. Focus will help us accomplish our objectives. It has nothing to do with being narrow. I think Canadians understand and appreciate that.

The second point is on creating new opportunities and choices for people. Under that heading, it speaks to government's creation of incentives for people to excel right here at home in Canada. We will reduce taxes and invest in education, training and transition to work on opportunities so that Canadians can achieve their potential.

We often hear of a welfare wall in Canada. We want to help people get over that welfare wall. We want to reduce the gap that has expanded between rich and poor and we want to provide more opportunity. We want everybody to be able to dream and to envision themselves getting further ahead. That is so incredibly important to this government.

We want to invest for sustainable growth. Under this heading, we are talking about government investing in and seeking partnerships, both with the provinces and the private sector, in so-called P3 strategic investments. These types of P3 investments can help us to be very efficient. We are not just going to go with only P3 investments for growth, but we are going to look at them, and where it makes sense, that is the way we will go.

In Peterborough a number of issues I believe are absolutely critical for my riding, and they would be P3 investments. I speak of passenger rail service for Peterborough and improving the rail line that connects Peterborough to the GTA. I speak of Highway 407, a highway currently also called the ETR or express toll route. When that highway goes through to Highway 115, it will dramatically improve Peterborough's opportunity, indeed, our entire region's opportunity for economic expansion. These are both P3 operations.

The other thing I was quite excited about was the announcement with respect to the Windsor border that was in “Advantage Canada”. As we know, the Detroit-Windsor crossing is the busiest crossing between Canada and the United States. Nothing has been done on that file for a long time, even though there has been demand for some 40 years to improve that border crossing. “Advantage Canada” made a commitment to improve that crossing by 2012 and that will be a tremendous benefit not only to the Windsor area but to all of southwestern and central Ontario and to Canada's overall gross domestic product as well.

We also talked about freeing business to grow and succeed. This is what I alluded to when I talked about removing the reins from business. We need to create an atmosphere. Government does not necessarily have to create the economy. What we have to do is create an atmosphere where that economy can flourish. That is what we mean when we talk about freeing business to grow and succeed.

I think we can all agree that “Advantage Canada” is a focused plan that will specifically help our nation re-establish itself as a world leader in competitiveness. This will help us attract foreign investment, new industry and provide good paying meaningful employment for Canadians and improve the overall quality of life for Canadians.

I will to refer a couple of specific examples in the report that was put together by the finance committee. It is important to recognize that the Government of Canada has made significant strides already toward improving Canada's overall productivity in our first budget, budget 2006. We announced a number of tax cuts, removed $655,000 low income Canadians from the federal tax roll entirely with the announcements and reduced the GST by one percentage point.

I will to share with the House what Peter Woolford of the Retail Council of Canada had to say about reducing the GST. He specifically stated:

—that one policy move by the government did more than twice as much for Canadians' real disposable incomes than they'd been able to do for themselves over the last 15 years, and more than was done for themselves in a strong economy in 2005. This was a very powerful tool for increasing the incomes of Canadians.

It sounds like the government is on the right track.

Further, one of the hon. opposition members spoke yesterday about how he did not understand why there was a GST cut. I suppose he would have to be clear with the House as to whether he would recommend a GST increase. That would be very bad for the economy, household incomes and the ability of people to purchase goods. I am speaking of working families. We on this side of the House talk a lot about helping working families and low income Canadians. We feel this was a tremendous tool that helped us do that.

There were a number of items in the prebudget consultation with which we had a problem, specifically items that spoke about rolling back some of the advances that the Government of Canada made in budget 2006. We need to ask these questions. Would the opposition would cancel the fitness tax credit or the transit pass tax credit? Would it roll back the $1,000 Canada employment credit? These questions have not been answered.

Some of the recommendations in the report call for billions of dollars in additional spending and there is no plan for how we would afford that. That brings me to responsible spending.

We know that in the last five years total spending grew by an average of 8.2% annually under the previous government. In fact, in 2004-05, the growth in spending was actually 14.4%, which is about seven times inflation, as we all know. It is certainly not something that can be maintained over the long term. This is why we speak about focusing government, focusing the spending of government and being very responsible with taxpayer dollars. This will help us reduce the overall tax burden for all Canadians.

I will share with the House what Yves Morency, the vice-president of Caisse Desjardins, said to the finance committee on October 25. He said:

The message we want to send is that you should continue in this direction. That will improve productivity, which will enhance the wealth of businesses, individuals and the government, because tax revenues will increase.

He said that cutting taxes would increase overall government revenues, and that is important. We need to understand the tax reductions and tax revenues for the government are not necessarily linked. Economics teaches us that.

He further went on to say:

—we encourage you to continue along this path. You mustn't stop; you must go even further in order to achieve the competitiveness levels of our main neighbours...

Of course he is speaking of the United States. He is speaking of the Asia-Pacific Rim. These are nations that we now actively compete with on a day to day basis.

In reducing the tax burden, we see in “Advantage Canada” a very good linkage that will link paying down Canada's debt, or our mortgage, with reductions in income taxes. Canadians have said that they like the idea of paying off the debt, but what it is in it for them? How does that benefit them?

Canada's new government specifically came out and itemized for people how it would benefit them. The $700 million that we have saved in interest this year, by paying off $13.2 billion of debt, will go to Canadians in income tax savings and we will continue to do that each and every year. By 2010, it will amount to $1.4 billion, almost $6 billion in income tax savings by 2010. That is an achievement. Canadians are going to see why paying down debt is going to help them.

David Dodge spoke to the finance committee on the importance of paying off debt. He said that it was extraordinarily important that, in periods when revenues are a little stronger than anticipated, we use the opportunity to pay down debt. He said that was how it was supposed to work. He did not say to come up with a frivolous spending program. He did not say to grow government spending by 14.4% in a single year. He said to pay the debt down. That will help us be competitive. That will help us reduce people's taxes.

When we talk about fiscal balance, our government recognizes that there was a fiscal imbalance, and we are moving toward fiscal balance. That will be in budget 2007. If we address the fiscal imbalance, we recognize that we will have a more competitive economic union, and that is important.

We talk about creating equal opportunities for Canadians. I want to speak to a very specific group of Canadians that is struggling, and that is the farmers. Farmers in Canada have suffered from 10 years of poor agricultural leadership and planning. They are in a difficult position. Canada's new government is working on that. Budget 2007 specifically sets out additional funding, more commitment by the Government of Canada and long term assistance for farmers. We will get that funding to the farm gate because that is where it needs to go.

In conclusion, Canada's new government is on the right track in positioning Canada for a tremendously bright future.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, people back home do not realize that when members serve on committees, they get to know each other and respect their contributions. I enjoy working with my colleague on the finance committee. He works very hard and he has done a good job.

We both come at things perhaps from a different point of view. I know my colleague has been a successful businessman since he was quite young. It seems to me that perhaps his view is shaped that everybody has the same opportunity as he had to be successful. Not all Canadians have that opportunity.

In my view, one of the flaws of the government is that it does not work hard enough at providing equality of access.

I want to ask my colleague about post-secondary education. Over the last number of years, the former Liberal government invested some $13 billion in research and innovation since it balanced the books. Budget 2006 put a paltry $200 million over two years into research, which includes foundations like CIHR, CFI as well as the granting agencies NSERC and SSHRC. This has them very concerned.

We cannot turn the tap off on research and expect to keep the researchers, who have come here over the last number of years, in Canada. The recommendation in the finance report specifically mentioned $350 million for CIHR. Could I hear my colleague's views on whether he supports this specific recommendation?

With respect to post-secondary education access, thousands of Canadians simply cannot afford to go to colleges or universities and tax breaks do not make any difference to them. Eighty dollars for books is entirely immaterial to those people. Last year we put billions of dollars into direct support for the lowest income Canadians, for persons with disabilities and for aboriginal Canadians. Does my colleague believe the Government of Canada has a direct role to play, through things like the millennium scholarship, in assisting the lowest income Canadians go to university?

I also wish him a Merry Christmas.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his hard work on committee as well.

No doubt access is a big problem for some low income Canadians. In budget 2006 we made student loans much more available to students as a whole. The post-secondary institutions in my riding and the one in the member's riding overall benefited tremendously from the $1 billion that we put into infrastructure for post-secondary institutions in Canada. I know there is an infrastructure deficit and we have to continue along this course. As a result of that money, the universities did not have to charge students for tuition because the government gave them the money to help them maintain their schools. The $1 billion will help tremendously.

I do support investment in research. I think my colleague will see that budget 2007 will specifically target money for research.

As the member knows, I have a lot of understanding with respect to the challenges that students face. I had a fairly significant student debt myself from university. My mother was the financial aid officer at Trent University in Peterborough for more than a decade. I am well aware of the challenges students face. I also think students have a responsibility, to some extent, to pay for their education. We just need to find the right balance. We have to ensure that every student who wants to go to university or college or seek post-secondary education has the ability to do so, regardless of income.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Peterborough for his work in committee.

I would like to ask him a question about the fiscal imbalance, because that was the big promise made to voters in Quebec during the last election. Unfortunately, the indicators we are receiving are very disappointing. Throughout the entire lengthy report prepared in committee, only one recommendation has to do with the fiscal imbalance and it is, well, very vague. I will read it for everyone to hear.

That the federal government meet with the provincial/territorial governments with a view to assessing their relative fiscal capacity and the extent to which they are able to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities.

This is not at all the same promise made to Quebeckers during the last election. That promise was to correct the fiscal imbalance, not merely to assess or react. As we all know, $3.9 billion is needed to correct the fiscal imbalance. Quebec minister Mr. Audet emphasized this figure at the National Assembly. In fact, that is not how he worded it. He said that he wants the equalization payments to be based on the 10-province standard and that natural resources must be included in the calculation, for a total of $2.8 billion.

He also called for the reinstatement of education funding, which totals $1.1 billion. It seems to me that this adds up to a grand total of $3.9 billion for the fiscal imbalance, and the other parties present in committee—Conservative, Liberal and NDP—could have made a commitment. No one saw the need to make a stronger recommendation concerning the fiscal imbalance.

Will my hon. colleague admit that this is grossly insufficient and much less than what was promised to Quebeckers?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that this is an issue the member is quite passionate about. He should be quite heartened to know that our government is taking action on moving toward fiscal balance.

In fact, we spoke about it. We did not just speak about it in the last election campaign. That was not just a promise that we made then. We reiterated that promise in budget 2006. We have again spoken about it in “Advantage Canada” and the importance of moving toward fiscal balance for our overall competitiveness and benefiting all Canadians.

I know that the finance minister is meeting next week with provincial representatives. They are going to be talking about equalization. They are going to be talking about fiscal balance.

There is no easy solution to these problems because all of the provinces have a different view. Ultimately, it is going to be up to the finance minister and the government to do what is right for all Canadians. They have made a commitment that no province will be worse off after we work through and come up with a new funding formula for equalization. I think all Canadians and all provinces should be very heartened by that.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, about half of Canadians are saying today that they are just a paycheque or two away from living in poverty. This is at a time when large corporations, especially the big banks and the oil and gas industry, are recording record profits.

I have a question for the hon. member. If his focus is on tax cuts, how will that address the pressing need of Canadians for services and jobs that they need in order to pull themselves out of poverty? Because across-the-board tax cuts, no strings attached, for corporations does not create one job and provides no security that there will be greater investment in Canada. I would like to know how he intends to address the growing gap in Canada between the rich and the poor that certainly tax cuts do not address.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is important that we recognize that corporations must make a profit in Canada. If overall they do not make a profit in Canada, they will not be in Canada and we will not have employment in Canada. We have to have a very balanced approach when we talk about corporate income.

The important thing to stress is that by reducing taxes we do not just increase household income. We increase the incentive to work. Quite frankly, I know a lot of people that are not wealthy. I am in fact related to a lot of people that are not that wealthy and they tell me that they are a couple of paycheques away from bankruptcy at any given time.

What they tell me is that the way the system works right now works against them. If they take on extra hours, they pay it all out in taxes. It does not come back to them. The government is saying that if people are going to work hard, then they should be rewarded for working hard.

At the same time, we have to look out for those that are less fortunate in our community. We are addressing that by completely removing 655,000 Canadians from the tax rolls, by pension splitting for seniors, increasing the age credit for seniors, and doubling the pension allowance for seniors.

These types of measures are specifically increasing the amount of money that all Canadians can keep in their pockets. Ultimately, that is how we are going to help low income Canadians.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since this is probably the last time I will address this House before the holiday season, I would like to take this opportunity to wish all my hon. colleagues and everyone in my riding happy holidays. I hope they will have a safe and happy festive season.

I would also like to thank all the staff of the Standing Committee on Finance, who did an outstanding job so that we could release this report, about which the Bloc Québécois has serious reservations. But that is the fault of the elected representatives, not the staff who assisted us throughout our work, both in Ottawa and during our trips to western and eastern Canada. I want to make special mention of their contribution.

In this report, the Bloc Québécois nevertheless made some interesting gains. Personally, I am pleased with one measure in particular, a recommendation concerning train noise, because this is a huge concern in my riding.

People who live near railways are increasingly bothered by noise. This is especially true in Pointe-Saint-Charles, where there are people who did not build their homes near railways, but were already living in the area when the railways were built. For years, even decades, the residents and the railways coexisted relatively happily. But in recent years, with changes in the way the railway industry operates, the situation has become increasingly difficult for these people. I therefore tried to see how these people's lives could be improved, with the help of my colleague who sits on the Standing Committee on Transport. He worked to win adoption of amendments to the bill that is currently being studied, and some important gains have been made. On behalf of the people of Jeanne-Le Ber, I would like to thank him for the good work he did.

For my part, I suggested to the Standing Committee on Finance that the government provide a tax incentive to railway companies that purchase quieter machinery and equipment and thus reduce the annoyance factor. This incentive could consist of accelerated depreciation in order to truly encourage the companies to replace their equipment and cause less harm in our communities. The committee supported this measure and I am pleased to see it among the recommendations.

Among the other recommendations included in the report, I am pleased to note the proposal to review the drastic cuts—we must call a spade a spade—announced by the Conservatives a little earlier in this session. These cuts often affect the less fortunate in our society, individuals who are the most disadvantaged, for example, people with literacy problems, women living in difficult situations and students. They are all victims of these cuts.

Some of the recommendations in this report ask us to take a step back and use some common sense. I am rather pleased that, this time, the NDP also agreed. I thought it was unfortunate that in this chamber, earlier in the session, they said they were in favour of cuts and against the motion denouncing the cuts. I think that things have returned somewhat to normal.

I found some good things in the report. However, we should look at what is missing. What is really missing is the follow-up to the motion recognizing the Quebec nation, adopted by a crushing majority in this chamber. None of the other three parties that supported this motion deemed it necessary to go beyond the mere symbolic gesture and the simple motion and to begin creating a tangible expression of that reality, recognizing that Quebeckers form a nation.

In its actual wording, this report does not recognize that Quebeckers are a nation because it still talks about national programs, national issues and never considers that if there are two or more nations in this country, then terms other than “national” need to be used to denote several nations.

One could argue that these are just words, nothing more than a speech, but it is more than that. In practice, this report is peppered with instances of interference in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. Despite the motion that was passed in this House, we are still getting the same attitude from the federal government, which wants to set more federal standards and have more programs, criteria and controls when it does not have the constitutional authority to do so. It is unfortunate to see that, for now, this motion seems to be nothing but lip service.

Finally, this report does not recognize the Quebec nation because it does not want to recognize that a nation has to be able to make its own budgetary choices to allow it to develop as it sees fit. Clearly, the only real way for Quebeckers to be able to make their own budgetary choices, now that they are recognized as a nation, will be to take the logical next step of making Quebec a country. Then we could make our own budgetary choices.

In my presentation today, I would like to give a few examples of what making our own budgetary choices as a nation would entail.

First, the Bloc Québécois has long been fighting for the implementation of the Kyoto protocol. As far as the environment is concerned, everyone—serious people, I mean—agrees it is urgent to take action to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. It is no longer an issue of wondering whether we will be able to achieve our targets; we have to succeed. We have a moral obligation to the youth of today and the generations to come to prevent this tragedy. Not to succeed would be an awful failure.

The performance of the previous Liberal government in this area was pitiful. In the 13 years they were in power, greenhouse gas emissions went through the roof. No control was done. Except for a few programs, they essentially did not have any real determination.

This is not an excuse for the new government to do nothing. It is unacceptable to say that we will not meet our targets because we are not able to. This is nothing but an admission of incompetence. In other words, the only difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives is that the Conservatives know that they are incompetent when it comes to the environment. But in the end, nothing is happening in either case.

We are talking about the environment, but there is more than that. For Quebec in particular, the whole issue of the Kyoto protocol is vitally important to the economy. Emission credit mechanisms exist and would benefit Quebec. For example, if it were a country—or at least, if Canada wanted to implement the Kyoto protocol properly and comply with the territorial approach—Quebec could meet and even exceed its targets and then issue emission credits. Quebec could sell these credits to other countries, other governments, and add to its coffers while improving our environment. This would be fantastic.

For months, there has been talk of a carbon exchange in Montreal. The government has been asked about this. We are losing an economic institution that could do wonderful things for development in Quebec: the carbon exchange in Montreal. But the government is doing nothing about it.

Yet when it is time to dole out gifts to oil companies for the Alberta tar sands, there is no problem, the government goes right ahead.

In the end, companies in Quebec are losing out on thousands of promising business opportunities in the environmental field that could grow and stimulate our economy if we complied with the Kyoto protocol.

Finally, a sovereign Quebec could very easily enjoy benefits based on the environmental sector similar to those currently enjoyed by Alberta based on the oil sands. However, the decisions made in this House by the federalist parties go against the best interests of Quebec.

We saw this clearly with the $320 million requested by Quebec for its plan. The government never wanted to give Quebec this money for its plan. Even worse, we saw the government refuse Quebec the right to speak for 45 seconds at the Kyoto protocol discussions in Kenya. And 45 seconds is not a long time. Personally, I hold the provincial Liberal government in Quebec somewhat responsible for getting on its knees, if not on prostrating itself entirely, to beg for just 45 seconds for Quebec to voice its opinion on the world stage. Even 45 seconds is too long for the government. It is too long for the federalist parties who do not want to recognize that Quebeckers really do form a nation and that they should actually be treated differently.

If Quebec had been a sovereign country, it would not have had to fight for 45 seconds. It would have the entire week to advance its files, to demonstrate its achievements and display its successes in this area.

That is the advantage of sovereignty: making one's own budgetary choices. I have never blamed Canadians for making their own budgetary choices. The problem is that we are not talking about the same nation. I think the best solution, when we face conflicting budgetary choices, would be for each nation to make its own decisions. We can work together on files on which we agree, but each nation could develop its respective strengths without harming the other.

Child care is another example of budgetary choices that elude Quebec. Quebeckers decided to create a program for themselves. They worked hard and had to pay, through taxes, for public child care. The program has been commended by many organizations for its high quality. An agreement had been reached with the previous government to give Quebec $800 million to fund its system. That agreement was cancelled by the Conservatives.

That is what happens every time the government changes. Depending on the mood of the times, money is given to or taken away from Quebec and the provinces. The cancellation of the agreement demonstrates two things. First, contrary to what the member for Peterborough was saying earlier, the fiscal imbalance is not about to be fixed. The imbalance has grown by another $800 million with this measure. Second, in order for the resolution of the fiscal imbalance to be acceptable in the medium term to the Bloc Québécois, we cannot just have money this year without knowing what will happen the next year. We will not fall into the trap of having to fight this battle for all time. The fiscal imbalance must be corrected by means of a tax transfer. That goes without saying and is proven by the fact that without a tax transfer the Government of Quebec will not be able make long-term plans because the federal government could change the rules whenever it wants to.

Naturally, when Quebeckers have their own country, this will no longer be a problem. There will no longer be an imbalance. We will have full control over our revenue and we will do what we want with it.

There are other examples of programs that in the end survived, but only after huge battles. I am thinking of the parental leave program. At the time, the federal government refused to give money to Quebec to establish its own, more generous, parental leave program in line with what Quebeckers wanted.

In Quebec, everyone was in agreement. The parental leave proposal met with unanimous approval. Some 10 years of negotiations were needed for us to receive a portion of our taxes in order to make our own budgetary choices, which, for all intents and purposes, are social choices.

When a nation agrees almost unanimously on something and has to wait an entire decade to get its own money, money from its taxes, it is doomed to progress slowly, to say the least, and even stagnate, if not go backward. Is this truly what Quebeckers want? Of course not. Quebeckers are increasingly saying that we must not ask for permission for years on end to make our social choices. Sovereignty will allow us to make our own choices.

Another example is the aerospace policy. The aerospace industry is highly developed in Quebec. We have been asking the government for years for an aerospace policy. There is still absolutely nothing being done about it. And yet, in other sectors, such as the automobile industry, which is very developed in Ontario, a whole host of measures are in place. That is important for the Canadian nation. However, for the Quebec nation, where we need interventions in aerospace, there is nothing.

Earlier I talked about the oil industry, where a policy is firmly in place. The industry gets tax breaks and full accelerated depreciation annually, as though investment in the tar sands is a one year event and could not, for all intents and purposes, be repeated 12 months later. Clearly, this does not hold water.

We also saw the example of Quebec City's Boîte à science science centre. The Bloc Québécois pushed very hard to move this project forward. We proposed it in committee, but it was rejected out of hand. This illustrates the inability of the Conservative members from Quebec to advance Quebec issues. It was the same story with the Liberals when they were in power. This is due to the simple fact that the elected members of the Quebec nation do not have a majority in this House. It is simply a question of mathematics. It is not out of spite or anything else, but our priorities are not respected.

When Quebec is a sovereign nation, it will be able to fund not only this science centre project in Quebec City, but the entire research and development sector. At present, federal research centres are concentrated in Ontario, in Ottawa. Quebec gets next to nothing. This is unfortunate, because investments in research and development are highly structural. Once we are a sovereign country, we will be able to develop and create numerous research centres in Quebec City, our national capital, to further our economy.

I would like to conclude by coming back to the issue of the fiscal imbalance. As I said earlier today in this House, $3.9 billion must be paid to Quebec in the short term to address this imbalance. The government also must find a way of making tax transfers in the medium term, in order to truly correct the fiscal imbalance. In our opinion, this is the first step toward sovereignty. We will have to show Quebeckers everything we can accomplish when we take control of our taxes and make our own budget choices. Picture the day when, as a nation, we have control over 100% of our revenue and all our budget choices. Then, that nation will be better able to flourish and develop and will be more prosperous, in friendship and in cooperation with Canada.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently while the hon. member was discussing budgetary issues and issues surrounding what he perceives to be an imbalance in the way Canada treats the provinces and in particular the province of Quebec. I would like to bring to the member's attention that the last budget reduced taxes for all Canadians. It is one of the greatest tax reducing budgets that ever occurred in this country, at least out of the past five or six budgets that were introduced by the previous government.

Further, he mentioned there were still no breaks. I bring to the hon. member's attention that just in the last few days, probably the last few hours, the Minister of Industry announced more than $350 million going to Pratt & Whitney, which is primarily concentrated in the member's province, with regard to modernization and replacing gas turbine engines. We know we need to become more efficient and be on the leading edge of that industry. When he speaks to his constituency, I think he owes it to them to provide the facts and not distort them.

In addition, not that very long ago, at the beginning of this month, the government introduced tariffs for Canadian apparel manufacturers. Canada's new government understands the importance of the apparel industry and knows much of it is concentrated in the hon. member's province. It is sensitive to that and that is why it introduced an additional $4.5 million in tariff relief to help the Canadian apparel manufacturers be more competitive internationally. It consulted with the industry and that is the difference between the current government and the previous one. I wonder if the hon. member was cognizant of those recent developments in our relationship with his province and his constituency.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, basically, the purpose of my speech was to show that the Quebec nation must be able to make its own budget choices, which it cannot do within the existing federal structure. This is not a competition about who got what handout to please one region of the country or another.

My colleague talked about equality among the provinces. That is not the issue. It is to be expected that members of a nation support one another. It does not make sense that the Quebec nation—which relies on its own Parliament, its own National Assembly in Quebec City—cannot make all of its own budget decisions or, at any rate, cannot make more decisions than it does now.

On the contrary, for many years, we have seen the opposite from all parties, Liberal, NDP and Conservative: an inexorable movement to centralize Canada. We have reached a point where we are asking ourselves what we need to do, as a nation, to move forward.

We must do more than vote in the House to recognize that Quebeckers form a nation. We must give them the means to make their own budget decisions. It does not look like that can happen in Canada.

I am not criticizing Canadians for making their own budget choices and their own decisions. A very interesting example came up: the government is giving parents a childcare allowance even though the Government of Quebec's priority request was to maintain the $800 compensation for the daycare program. That is a very good example of how the government does exactly the opposite of what we want. We do not want the federal government, whether it is Conservative or Liberal, to tell us about how good it is and all of the great stuff it is giving us. We want to make our own choices and we want them to be respected. It is as simple as that.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to wish the people of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel happy holidays. I know that if my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé had the chance, he would extend the same wish to his constituents. As the Bloc Québécois transport critic, I would also like to recommend that the people of Quebec and Canada drink responsibly and call Operation Red Nose where the service is available.

My question for my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber, who did excellent work, concerns railways. I received many requests from him, because I had the opportunity to introduce and shepherd the amendments made by the Bloc Québécois to Bill C-11 on noise pollution.

I am very proud of the requests I received from the member for Jeanne-Le Ber. I can tell him that we will now talk about the least possible noise from vibrations. He had asked me to suggest “vibrations and fumes”, but the Conservatives did not want to accept anything but “vibrations”.

The Canadian Transportation Agency will now be able to address complaints of noise and vibrations. One of the member's urgent requests concerned the inconvenience to homeowners living near railroad tracks. This will be covered in the legislation, and if homeowners living near railroad tracks are inconvenienced, the Canadian Transportation Agency will be able to look into these cases and make comments.

My question about this ways and means motion concerns railways, which need some relief. I know that they called for accelerated depreciation. I will therefore ask my colleague to explain how accelerated depreciation will benefit railways.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for all his work on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. This is a concrete example of what the Bloc Québécois can do for the citizens of Quebec. This gave more teeth to the Canada Transportation Act, to ensure that it would have real power to force railway companies to make the mandatory changes, if they do not do so voluntarily.

There is, of course, a regulatory aspect, but the Bloc Québécois did not stop there. We saw that the railway companies wanted to do their part to change their equipment, but, obviously, this often requires considerable investments. We wanted to recognize this reality. We therefore proposed accelerated capital depreciation allowances for rail equipment that helps decrease the noise and disturbances associated with railway operations. This proposal was accepted by the committee and is now part of the recommendations.

What is an accelerated capital depreciation allowance? This means that railway companies, if the measure is accepted by the minister—as we hope it will be—could deduct from their taxes, more quickly than they could have otherwise, any spending they do in this area. It is a way of encouraging them. This would allow them to make the changes faster, for example, and would shorten the timeframe required to make such changes.

It is an example of the committee's work on regulatory constraints by giving more teeth to the Canada Transportation Act, while encouraging and supporting, through taxation, companies that want to improve their performance in terms of noise.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

We have enough time for one more question and a very brief answer.

The hon. member for Peterborough.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member about a very specific recommendation. I did not hear him refer to it in his speech, but I believe it is something that he is also very passionate about. It is recommendation No. 35 which speaks to the elimination of tax havens in an effort to ensure that all corporations, businesses and individuals pay their fair share of taxes. Perhaps he might comment on why it was important that we put that in and why it was important for the finance minister to act on that recommendation.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the best part of my colleague's comment was the last thing he said. He asked why it is important that the finance minister act on that recommendation. Indeed, the minister must act on it. Honestly, the Conservatives have been here for almost a year. For 13 years, the Liberals did nothing on this. We even saw the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, when he was finance minister, amend the Canadian tax conventions and laws to benefit shipping companies. This has to stop. Taxpayers, who for the most part are very honest, are doing everything they can. Everyone must contribute and do their share.