Debates of Sept. 19th, 2006

Development Assistance Accountability Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I would remind the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood to refer to members by their title or riding.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, the leader of the Bloc Québécois and the leader of the NDP, and I apologize for using their names, wrote to the former Prime Minister and I quote:

We are writing to urge you to introduce legislation which establishes poverty reduction as the aim for Canada's Official Development Assistance (ODA). A legislated mandate for Canada's ODA would ensure that aid is provided in a manner both consistent with Canada's human rights--

Which is a concern raised by my friend opposite:

--and respectful of the perspectives of those living in poverty.

The bill tries to take into consideration those who are living in poverty.

That concept was supported by the foreign affairs committee in June 2005 and in the House on June 28, 2005, with all party support. By unanimous consent, it was resolved that the 12th Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development be concurred in, which said:

To introduce legislation prior to the next federal budget which establishes poverty reduction as the priority for Canada’s Official Development Assistance--

As I have said, that is good in spirit, but spirit does not pay the bills. We now have an opportunity to actually put this legislation in place and we have some disappointing resistance on the part of the members of the Conservative Party. I would ask those members to reconsider their position.

In fact, this is an opportunity for the minister to be able to say, “I can only use my budget for poverty alleviation. That is the only thing. I cannot use it for security. I cannot use it for other noble goals. I can only use it for poverty alleviation”. That in itself will be a huge step of leadership on the part of our nation and, indeed, I would say on the part of this government, to focus its aid on poverty alleviation and only on poverty alleviation.

I thank members on all sides for speaking to the bill. I would urge members from the government party to reconsider their position, to review their previous commitments made to the previous government, and to act on them by supporting this bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 6:34 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired. Accordingly the question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the division stands deferred until Wednesday, September 20, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, I asked the government to restore the billions of dollars that the Liberals cut from post-secondary education during the 90s. I still have not received a satisfactory answer.

Students and families continue to deal with absurd tuition fees, even for average-income Canadians. Graduates have a hard time starting their careers while burdened with crushing student loan debt.

We know that current financial aid and tax credit programs for students are nothing more than a motley assortment of measures that do nothing to improve access to or enrolment in post-secondary studies. Too many Canadians are left behind.

Professors are faced with huge class sizes and a shortage of resources and materials. In colleges and universities, administrators are having difficulty balancing tight budgets as they face a pressing need for new professors, infrastructure renewal and so on.

The provinces and territories are still under tremendous pressure. Some have frozen tuition fees, often at the expense of class sizes and quality. Other have allowed tuition fees to skyrocket.

This government must stop confusing tax credits with a well-thought-out social policy.

It is time the government put some real effort into achieving a universally accessible, high quality public system of post-secondary education and skills training in Canada. The federal government has a key policy role to play to increase access to post-secondary education for all Canadians and that starts with a substantial, long term reinvestment in core funding through a dedicated transfer to provinces and territories. Even the premiers can agree on that, if nothing else.

Social justice aside, surely a Conservative government can see the economic case here if Canadians are to compete globally. In the global economy they need access to quality education. We also know that post-secondary education enrolment has remained static since 1995. Is it any wonder, when tuition costs have reached unreasonably high levels in those provinces?

I met a young married couple this summer, each with $35,000 of student debt at 30 years old. They asked me how they could even begin to think of starting a family. I had no answer. Would a reasonable person think this is a manageable debt level at that age?

I do not want to hear that the 2006 budget of the Conservatives helped all students. It helped those students who already had a scholarship and tossed a free textbook at the rest. We can help all students by funding truly accessible, quality post-secondary education with lower tuition, more teachers and better resources across the board.

Yes or no, will the government help to make this happen now?

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

Mr. Speaker, in today's knowledge based economy, a more educated and skilled labour force is key to Canada's competitiveness in the world. Government investments in education and training are critical to productivity and economic growth.

As announced in budget 2006, our government has taken action in support of a more skilled and educated workforce by including measures for students, apprentices and tradespeople.

Measures for students include: a new $500 tax credit to help about 1.9 million post-secondary students with their textbook costs; making all scholarship, fellowship and bursary income received by post-secondary students exempt from income tax; and expanding the eligibility for student loans to more students from middle income families.

Measures for apprentices include: a new tax credit of up to $2,000 per year for employers who hire and train apprentices to help them cope with the difficulties they face in finding skilled tradespeople; and apprentices themselves will be eligible for $1,000 grants as of January 1, 2007 as part of the new apprenticeship incentive program.

Measures for tradespeople include: a new tools tax deduction of up to 500 for tradespeople for the cost of tools in excess of $1,000 that they must acquire as a condition of their employment; and, in addition, we are increasing the limit to $500 on the cost of tools eligible for the 100% capital cost allowance.

In order to help provinces and territories provide high quality post-secondary education, the government is also providing a one time payment of $1 billion through the post-education infrastructure fund to support critical and urgent investments in innovation, accessibility and infrastructure. Moreover, this government is making progress on its commitment to restoring fiscal balance which has a post-secondary education component.

Notably, over the past several months the Government of Canada has been consulting with provinces and territories, stakeholders and citizens. The Government of Canada is committed to hear from as many individual Canadians and stakeholder organizations as possible that share an interest or role in post-secondary education and training.

We sought input from a range of Canadians, including businesses, employers, educators, training organizations, students, parents, academics and experts. Also, over 100 national stakeholders were contacted to share their views. They were encouraged to forward the invitation to their regional and provincial member organizations as well.

The government is continuing its consultations with provinces and territories which, along with Canadians' views, will help inform the proposal for post-secondary education and training that will be brought forward as part of the Government of Canada's overall proposals to restore fiscal balance in Canada.

Clearly, Canada's economic prosperity and social well-being is dependent on our ability to nurture a highly educated and skilled workforce. Governments must work together to ensure that our country's post-secondary education and training system remains of high quality and responsive to national and provincial economic and social needs.

Finally, post-secondary students need to be supported for their hard work in pursuit of academic excellence and this government is committed to this goal.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask two follow up questions.

First, Statistics Canada has recently released a report showing that undergraduates in Nova Scotia, for example, pay almost double the tuition that undergraduates in Manitoba pay and that is over triple what undergraduates pay in Quebec. It is something like $6,700 in Nova Scotia compared to approximately $1,700 in Quebec. Does the parliamentary secretary believe that is making post-secondary education accessible to all Canadian students?

I would ask the parliamentary secretary to tell us what the government is prepared to do to improve that situation for all students.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, one of the key components of our long term plans to improving post-secondary education for all Canadian students is fixing what has been called the fiscal imbalance and what we are now calling the fiscal balance.

We need to address the situation where we allow the provinces to participate more fully in the revenues that we receive. Quite frankly, there is quite a large disparity between the revenues received by governments on a provincial basis and revenues received by the Government of Canada.

The ongoing discussion we have been having with the provinces and territories is to find a solution to fixing the fiscal imbalance situation and where provinces can more fully participate in the revenue sharing. Once that happens, and I am quite convinced it will, provinces will hopefully have the financial ability to address the post-secondary education delivery system more effectively.

We think that after years of neglect by a federal government that did not even acknowledge there was a fiscal problem in the cost sharing between governments, federal and provincial, this government is committed to solving that problem. We hope to make our first foray into that with the approvals, frankly, of all of the provinces and territories this fall.

I can assure the hon. member that hopefully by no later than the next fiscal year and the budget of 2007 many of her concerns will be answered.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on June 2, 2006, I asked a question regarding the marine industry and the recovery of the Lévis shipyard. I would have liked to rise in the House today during the adjournment proceedings and tell the government that the company had got the business restarted and was asking for a helping hand. Unfortunately, this is not the case. There no longer is a business to speak of, unless a miracle comes along to restart it.

There are many lessons to be learned from this situation. If the Lévis shipyard cannot be turned around—which seems to be the case, since the piecemeal selling off of the shipyard has been announced—the Conservative government must at least acknowledge that if we had a real marine development policy in Canada, businesses would have been interested in investing in that shipyard, which, in terms of infrastructure, was quite an interesting opportunity. However, when I remember the response given by the Minister of Industry, the hon. member for Beauce, Lévis' neighbouring riding, and when I read the comments made by the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse when the Teco Management company was supposed to get the business back on its feet, I can almost understand why we now find ourselves in this situation.

For example, the minister replied, and I quote:

—that the Lévis shipyard is up and running thanks to the private sector and free enterprise.

However, today we see that it is not up and running because the necessary conditions are not in place for free enterprise to develop. This has not been done by the former governments nor by the current Conservative government, which has been around since January 2006.

On the same matter, the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse, who seemed a bit alarmed by the question I asked in the House, said the next day in response:

—I will ensure that the shipyard and its partners have the same financial mechanisms as other Canadian shipyards.

The reality is that we do not have a maritime policy in Canada. We are in a situation where shipyards are having a hard time surviving and those that do are making suggestions and proposals, like Groupe maritime Verreault. However, their suggestions do not get the attention we would expect from the government.

I take the opportunity of this adjournment debate to ask the government to review the whole transfer costs policy. You know how it is, when work must be done on a vessel, the transfer costs that must be paid to bring it to the shipyard must be taken into account. The federal government decided to include these costs in its calls for tenders. Consequently, shipyards like the Verreault shipyard on the St. Lawrence River are at a disadvantage compared to those in the Maritimes, like Irving shipyards. That has major negative consequences.

Should the Conservative government not take into account regional and local development when it sets its standards concerning transfer costs? It is a legitimate question and I would like the parliamentary secretary to answer it to see if, for the sake of fairness between regions, he should leave those costs aside.

Moreover, those transfers raise other issues, concerning non-competitive supply for example. In that regard the Conservative government should consider what was done with regards to the Davie shipyard. It must realize that if nothing is done, if there is no real development policy for the shipbuilding industry the other shipyards in Canada will also suffer, and I mean those that are still able to operate. That would be really a shame, considering the current tremendous market opportunities on the international scene.

Today, mere months after the minister said that the private sector had given new life to the Lévis shipyard, that it was for the best and the way things should be, does the parliamentary secretary believe that the government should learn from it and propose a real shipbuilding development policy, at least to save the shipyards that are left?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member that we are looking at the shipbuilding industry.

I thank the hon. member for the opportunity to talk about Canada's shipbuilding industry. The Canadian shipbuilding industry has a long and proud history. Today we have firms recognized as world leaders in the manufacture and repair of ships, the building of offshore oil and gas structures and supplying shipyard related services.

Key stakeholders for our shipbuilding and marine industrial sector include offshore oil and gas exploration, marine transportation, and defence and security.

As the member opposite should know, the Government of Canada supports the shipbuilding industry in a variety of ways. With budget 2006 Canada's new government is working to ensure an economy durable enough to withstand the up and down cycles of world markets by creating a business climate that will attract investment to Canada for the benefit of all Canadians. Budget 2006 demonstrates our commitment to keeping this strong economy moving forward and signals how we want to proceed as a government.

One way is through the economic boost that will come from 29 tax cuts for Canadian businesses and individuals, reductions worth $20 billion over the next two years. Small business owners will have more money to invest in their businesses because we raised the income ceiling for the small business income tax rate and then cut that tax rate from 12% to 11% by 2009.

In budget 2006 we are reducing the general corporate tax rate from 21% to 19% by 2010. We eliminated both the federal capital tax and the corporate surtax. The unemployment rate in Canada remains near its lowest level in more than 30 years, while the employment rate is near its highest on record. This is because, despite challenges in some parts of the manufacturing sector, Canadian companies continue to grow and create more jobs.

Our government is reviewing various industrial sectors with a view to increasing our economic competitiveness. For Canada to compete globally, we have to establish an environment for investment where those who wish to innovate and bring new products to market have the opportunity to do so.

It should be noted that the Canadian shipbuilding industry sees government support in two more direct ways: a 25% duty on vessels imported from countries with which we do not have a free trade agreement; and in June the government announced a $2.9 billion joint support ship project for Canada's navy.

This project will deliver three multi-role vessels for Canada's navy and includes a base cost of $2.1 billion, plus an estimated $800 million in contracted in-service support over 20 years. The Canadian shipbuilding industry is well positioned to play a significant role as the joint support ship project proceeds.

The Government of Canada recognizes the global commercial and trade environment is changing and we are evaluating our policies to meet that new reality.

In the weeks and months ahead, the government will review what is the most effective role for it to undertake with respect to the Canadian shipbuilding industry. We are committed to the competitiveness of Canadian industry and to fostering a climate where all businesses, including shipbuilding, can thrive.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for demonstrating that the efforts of the Conservative government and the measures it talks about have not in any way helped to save the Lévis shipyard, despite the fact that the Minister of Industry is from the riding of Beauce, the riding next to Lévis—Bellechasse, which also has a Conservative MP.

In the future, would it be possible to get from this government, in the review it claims to be undertaking, a real policy on ship building, so that the remaining shipyards, such as the Groupe Maritime Verreault shipyard in Méchins, the Océan shipyard and others can continue to develop and have a chance at getting their share of the market?

The current inaction of the Conservative government has contributed to today's result, namely the closure of Canada's largest shipyard. We were told the private sector would take care of it and that it was not up to the government. Today we are facing the consequences. There is nothing to be proud of on this day and the parliamentary secretary did not even bother to mention the name of the Lévis shipyard in his answer.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want the hon. member to know that it is disappointing the proposed purchase of the Davie shipyard seems to have been unsuccessful. This was a negotiation between companies in the private sector.

There has been a lot of effort both from the Quebec government and the federal government to save Davie Industries. Everyone tried very hard, but even with all the government support, it did not save Davie.

Industry Canada has provided substantial support to Davie over the years. Most recently, in June 2006 Public Works and Government Services Canada advanced the remaining 2006-07 funds under the 1997 agreement for the dry docks in order to allow a final delay to assemble a financing plan for the sale of the shipyard.

In 2004, Industry Canada contributed $7.4 million through the structured financing facility to facilitate a ship conversion project that was undertaken at Davie. Also in 2004, Public Works and Government Services Canada advanced $2 million to Davie under--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:56 p.m.)