House of Commons Hansard #8 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was taxes.

Topics

Opposition Motion--The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Mr. Speaker, in the last budget the government made cuts to women's programs, 12 out of 15 Status of Women's offices were closed, $500 million was cut from the court challenges program, and cuts to literacy programs.

It almost seems as though these very small amounts of money are cut from socially useful, important equality seeking groups, and yet we are talking about transferring billions and billions of dollars to corporations, most of whom are already extremely profitable and well off.

My question is, does she think this is fair and just, given the serious need of these groups for funding?

Opposition Motion--The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is very clear that when it comes to this government and previous governments, women did not count. Not only was funding cut to women's organizations in the Conservative budget but over the years women's organizations have suffered incremental and very devastating cuts under the Liberals.

These cuts were so devastating that now we see important organizations, such as the National Association of Women and the Law and CRIAW being driven out of their role as advocates, as researchers to support the women's groups that make a difference in women's lives.

Opposition Motion--The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, one thing the member did not spend a lot of time on, and it is the one area of our throne speech that clearly benefits the poor in Canada, is the reduction of the GST by another 1%. As she knows, the GST is the one tax in Canada that when it is reduced, it benefits all Canadians, not just those that pay income tax.

If the member had listened to the comments coming from the Liberal benches, they of course attacked our government for reducing the GST. They believe it is the wrong way to go. They believe in corporate tax cuts. They believe in focusing on the rich in Canada and giving them tax breaks, but not extending tax breaks to the poor, the working poor, students and seniors. They basically want to cozy up to their rich friends, their corporate buddies. That is something our government will not do.

My question is, what is her opinion of the Liberal approach to reducing taxes, as opposed to a 1% reduction in the GST?

Opposition Motion--The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely astonished. I am breathless. A reduction in the GST by 1% is $5 billion, in terms of what the government can collect. Do members know that $5 billion would end poverty in this country?

The member is talking about nickels and dimes. He is talking about two cents on a cup of coffee. I defy him to find the Canadian who takes that two cents and plans his or her pension future. It is absolutely ludicrous. Those who benefit most are those who need it the least. The conduct of the Conservatives, and the Liberals before them, is unacceptable.

Opposition Motion--The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the member for Brampton—Springdale.

It is very productive for us in this House to debate the motion being put forward by the member for Markham—Unionville.

I certainly enjoyed the discussions from the New Democratic Party as its members continue to present themselves as the opposition to the opposition and from the Conservative Party as the Conservative Party enters the winter of discontent by Canadians of its particular policies.

As we embark on a discussion about where the country needs to go, I will preface my own comments by stating that never was there a greater time or need for the Government of Canada to step in and to support and strengthen the economy of all Canadians.

Just recently in the city of Corner Brook, Newfoundland and Labrador, a very large employer was forced to shut down a paper-making machine with a reduction of over 100 employees within the mill gate and several hundred others outside the mill gate. Its chief concern was of course not only the Canadian dollar and the high price of oil but, as well, its ability to either generate and produce cheap, clean electricity. Currently, it is forced to buy up to 30% of its power off the grid, most of that being generated at the Holyrood diesel generation plant.

I know that this company would certainly appreciate and could use beneficially any assistance to enable it to produce cheap, clean wind power, and I will be exploring that with this House on another day the need for government intervention because, of course, we are capable of that intervention.

Over the last 24-month period, due to the sound, strong economic performance of Canada, the foundations of which were laid by the Liberal government, we were able to generate $26 billion in surplus revenue.

Now if the Liberal Party of Canada and its platform and its governance model were still in place, $13 billion would have gone toward social and economic programming, with $13 billion being applied to the debt, instead of the straight rigid A meets B formula of all 100% being established toward the national debt, which has been put forward by the government.

If we look at this very tangibly, there are industrial sectors in this country that are truly in need of public infrastructure investments which all companies and all sectors of the economy could avail themselves.

Look at what happened just recently in Washington. We had the Governor of the Bank of Canada going down to the U.S. to basically plead the case that the structure of the Canadian economy was in such a state that the high value of the Canadian dollar was not warranted by the money traders. He actually made the case that the Canadian economy was not as vibrant as what was being suggested by money traders and in so making that argument, the Canadian dollar immediately went down by 1.5¢.

If the Governor of the Bank of Canada is down in Washington saying that the very nature of the structure of the Canadian economy does not have sound fundamentals then, clearly, what we need to do is to deal with that issue.

There was an opportunity here and an option that could have been supported by the government to invest in key government sectors, such as the forest products industry, and the manufacturing sector generally. It failed to do this.

As a result, we are seeing layoffs right across this entire country in our manufacturing sector. That is a shame, especially at a time when, as they age, infrastructure in our cities needs to be replaced and expanded to meet changing population demographics. Yet, we are seeing no specific response to that.

In fact, the response that we are receiving from the government is that the government should disenfranchise itself from the provinces. That, quite frankly, is irresponsible, especially when it comes to the cities and their needs and communities right across this entire country.

I know that Canadians were certainly very optimistic as to where exactly this country was going, but I sense day after day, as each and every day passes, that there is a growing uncertainty about where exactly this country is going. Canadians see a federal government disenfranchising itself from their communities, from their own lives and from their provinces.

Newfoundland and Labrador is a perfect example. A promise was made that 100% of non-renewable natural resources would be excluded from the equalization formula, with no reference to any caps being imposed on the calculation of that formula by another province in its own fiscal performance. What did we see? We saw $11 billion drained from the public purse of the people and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador as a result of that broken promise.

That is a lot of nurses, physiotherapists, nurse practitioners, doctors and other health care professionals who could have been supported and engaged in public service had that promise been kept. That is an awful lot of bridges, roads, water and sewer systems, and other green infrastructure that is now gone because that promise was broken.

We have some very serious concerns about this. We have a tremendous economic opportunity in front of us if we invest wisely. The decisions of the Government of Canada not to do so are causing pause and concern for every Canadian. I too share in that failing optimism for the future of our communities, simply because we are in a moment of time in our history when never have we been blessed with so much but have done so little with it.

It is time now for the NDP not to simply become the opposition to the opposition. It is time for the Government of Canada to govern responsibly and to engage all people.

I will tell members what is most vexing to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. When the promise was made on the equalization formula and then broken, the excuse that was given was that the government could not fulfill the promise because it did not have the consent of the provinces.

It was a promise that was made by the government when it was in opposition. It was put in writing on January 4, 2006, to the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, but it was also put in writing to each and every premier of this federation on January 15 in an open letter to the Council of the Federation, and yet the promise was broken and $11 billion was retracted from one particular province, Newfoundland and Labrador. Several other billion dollars were retracted from Nova Scotia. Saskatchewan now has a lawsuit in front of the federal government trying to get it to honour its promise.

When we look at those kinds of provocative statements coming forward, that antagonistic position, it is no wonder there is often a time when people simply sit back and reflect on whether we are going in the right direction as a country. The answer they come to is no. They want a country in which the federation supports each other and builds on its own strength but, most important, they want a government that is prepared to listen and talk to each member of the federation.

We have not had a first ministers meeting to talk about critical infrastructure needs, health care needs and post-secondary education needs since the government took office. There has never been a first ministers conference and yet the government, when it stands in this House to deliver a budget, actually has the audacity to claim that the days of federal-provincial bickering are now over.

When we have one province suing the federal government over a broken promise, three provinces engaged in a fair share campaign against the federal government and a fellow Conservative premier who is actually engaging in an ABC campaign, anything but Conservative, we are led to believe that the strength of the federation has supposedly never been better. Quite frankly, it is wrong and it is wrong by the test of any reasonable person. When we look at what is really happening with our federal-provincial relations, it is just not happening.

We have never been blessed with so much and had a government do so little with it. We have had $26 billion in annual surpluses that could have been invested, at the advice of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, to revitalize our critical industry sectors and promote jobs, but the Government of Canada did not do it. It chose simply to go in a linear action without responding to those fundamentals and, quite frankly, I think the winter of discontent is on its way.

Opposition Motion--The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am kind of puzzled by the member's statements here today. It would seem that he is talking about the throne speech perhaps, something that he never actually rendered a decision on, because he is certainly not talking about the motion at hand.

I would like to make a couple of comments on a few of the things he said. We know that this government has moved in a number of positive directions with significant investments in infrastructure and health care and tremendous investments for seniors and students. We have done so much over just 20 short months.

However, to get back to the motion, we have also reduced taxes. We have reduced taxes in every way that the federal government collects taxes: lower taxes for students, lower taxes for seniors, lower taxes for working families and lower taxes for corporations and businesses. There have been $41 billion in tax reductions and we are just getting started.

I am glad the member for Markham—Unionville is now starting to pontificate about tax reductions. It is about time because this party has been saying for a long time that Canadians pay too much tax.

I would love to hear what he thinks about the motion before Parliament today and whether he agrees with the Conservative government that Canadians pay too much tax.

Opposition Motion--The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

Mr. Speaker, since the member is not fully aware of exactly what the motion is before the House, I will read part of it. It states:

...the government must also drive greater Canadian productivity by making investments in things such as:

physical infrastructure, new technologies, research and development....

This has basically been the thrust of my talk this afternoon.

That said, I will agree with him that the government has not lowered taxes because it has been a thinly disguised veil that it has put over the Income Tax Act. Every Canadian who filled out a tax form in 2005 knows that his or her marginal tax rate on the lowest bracket was indeed 15%. Every Canadian who filled out a tax form in 2006 knows that his or her marginal tax rate for the lowest income tax bracket was 15.25%, an increase. In fact, the Government of Canada, the Conservative government, increased the taxes of every Canadian.

In 2005, the marginal tax bracket rate was 15%, put in place by the Liberal government, and then, in 2006, it went to 15.25%, an increase, effective July 1, 2006, of half a percentage point. Half a percentage point is how much the taxes went up and that is exactly what will be filled out on this year's tax form.

That may be thinly disguised because the Conservative government continues to repeat a mantra that it lowered taxes, but every Canadian tax filer knows that it actually increased them.

Opposition Motion--The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's comments but there is one thing that needs to be firmed up in what he is saying.

I remember distinctly that when the Minister of Finance stood in the House to present his most recent budget, he said words to the effect that the days of federal-provincial bickering were over. He took great pride, it seemed, at the time he said that.

On the very same day that he said that, I seem to recall that at least two or three provinces did not quite agree with the Minister of Finance's comment. Since then, my colleague has mentioned that other developments have occurred.

I wonder if he would want to put that in the context of the wish, which is what it is because it does not seem to have materialized, that the days of federal-provincial bickering are over.

Opposition Motion--The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

Mr. Speaker, I will, indeed, put that into context. I appreciate my colleague's intervention because it is troubling to every Canadian.

When one particular province is having a legitimate dispute with the federal government and, when the facts are analyzed and the people of Canada decide that a promise was indeed broken, that causes trouble within the federation. The day the federal budget came down, the finance minister, representing the Government of Canada, the Conservative government, basically stood in the House and said, “As far as we are concerned, we do not listen to any dissent. We, as a government, are only going to be prepared to listen to those who agree with us. If you have a problem with the federal government, do not tell us because we are not listening”.

That is what he said when he stood in the House, that the days of bickering between federal and provincial governments are now over. We know that to be true when one province in this country, a member of the federation, actually has a lawsuit standing with the federal government over a broken promise. Three provinces are engaged in fair share campaigns--

Opposition Motion--The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Unfortunately, the hon. member's time has expired. We will move on to the hon. member for Brampton—Springdale.

Opposition Motion--The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to a very important motion on behalf of my constituents of Brampton—Springdale and many other Canadians.

The motion talks about investing in Canada's future, investing in new Canadians and in their skills and qualifications, investing in research and development , investing in our young people and, most important perhaps, investing in our children, the future of our country and the future of our society.

It is unfortunate that we have seen, both from the Speech from the Throne and the previous government's track record, that despite our economic prosperity and our success within the international arena, we have failed to invest in our future.

When we look at our economic performance as a country, we realize that we have one of the best track records in the G-7. We are one of the ninth largest economies on the planet. Our provinces continue to produce a fiscal surplus and unemployment is at a 30-year low. We have that track record due to the tremendous fiscal management of Liberal governments. We have that track record because the former Liberal government had a vision for all Canadians, regardless of where they came from in the world and regardless of their socio-economic status.

Despite all the glowing successes I have spoken about in terms of our economic productivity and our economic track record, perhaps what is most discouraging is the fact that the gap between the rich and the poor has continued to grow. Despite our economic success and our economic growth, at a point in time when the gap should be getting smaller, the gap is actually increasing. It has grown faster in the last decade than at any point in time in the last 30 years.

In 2004, the richest 10% of Canadian families who raised children under the age of 18 actually earned 82 times more than the poorest 10% of our population. When we look at the facts, we see that the majority of Canadians, over 80%, are actually getting a smaller share of the economy that they help generate.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has done a tremendous amount of work looking at alternatives for actually close the gap between the rich and the poor. That is why it is so important for this particular motion. The fact is that the average pay of the top 100 CEOs in Canada actually increased from $3.5 million to $9 million between 1998 and 2005, a 262% increase.

One wonders what the average wage is in Canada. Wages actually increased between 1998 and 2005 from $32,000 to $38,000. While the CEOs had a 262% increase, the average worker only had an 18% increase. The gap is growing and it is growing quickly.

That is why it is so important that the motion is about investing, about closing the gap and about ensuring that the over half a million seniors and the over one million children living in poverty do so no more. However, for that to happen, we need to have a government with a vision, a government that is committed to closing that gap and a government that is committed to investing.

It was quite interesting when the government spoke about reducing the GST. If the Conservatives had done the math, they would have realized that the proposed cut of 1% on the GST would have resulted in every child in Canada between the ages of three and six having access to a child care space.

Prime Minister Harper has spoken about--

Opposition Motion--The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I would just remind the hon. member to refer to members by their title or their riding.

Opposition Motion--The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON

The Prime Minister has spoken about his plans to legislate limits to the federal spending power, but all of us have to wonder about this continued hostility toward social programs, hostility that he championed when he was head of the National Citizens Coalition, a hostility that he demonstrated when he cancelled the child care and early learning agreements that had been negotiated with the provinces. These agreements would have provided children and families with an opportunity to invest in early learning.

This hostility and the federal spending power mechanism that he speaks about will jeopardize medicare. It will continue to jeopardize national programs, like child care, which are of prime importance to Canadian families.

Code Blue for Child Care, which has done a tremendous job advocating and speaking up on behalf of Canadian families and Canada's children, wrote a letter recently. It stated:

The Tories are misusing Quebecers’ desire to control their own social institutions to cover their actions...[even though] Parliament has all the practical tools it requires to both protect and expand social programs while respecting Quebec’s distinct status.

It goes on to talk about the fact that the government has also given out $1,200 to Canadian families for child care. However, that $1,200, broken down to $100 a month, is taxable.

Therefore, parents have been left with almost $60 a month. They have been left to fend for themselves. This is why the gap in our country continues to grow.

We talk about the fact that the government committed to producing child care spaces, 125,000 of them, but yet again it is another broken promise. When we look at this today, October 2007, not a single child care space has been produced.

Under the previous Liberal government, early learning and child care agreements were reached with all 10 provinces and would have ensured quality, universal, accessible and affordable child care for all Canadian families. Instead, parents and families are being left to fend for themselves. Mothers or fathers, who may want to participate in the workforce, have been denied that opportunity because they are unable to find access to a child care space.

I take a look at my own riding of Brampton—Springdale. I meet with constituents on a regular basis. They have been unable to find access to quality child care. Unfortunately, despite our many surpluses, we are failing to invest in children and in early learning and child care.

We have to ask ourselves this. If those agreements had not been cut by the government, every riding would have had access to over 266 additional early learning and child care spaces.

All of us have read the research. Study after study has concluded that a good start in life gives children a leg up, regardless of their family socio-economic status. Positive early experiences will help children build self-esteem, confidence, physical and emotional well-being and have the ability to cooperate and socialize.

Today in Toronto, in an era of surpluses, both at the provincial and the federal level, the city of Toronto is talking about cutting back or closing skating rink, swimming pools and community centres for children. Why is this happening in an era prosperity, growth, success and surplus at the federal level? All the money the government is trying to save right now is going to be spent on guns, gangs and violence. We need to invest in our children and we need to do it now. That is why the motion speaks to investing in education.

We all realize that quality early learning and child care is an important part of every child and their upbringing. More than 73% of mothers with children under age six are in the workforce.

On behalf of so many Canadian families and children, I ask that we invest in them and that we do it today. We must not think about doing it tomorrow, or a month after, or a year after. Despite the fact that the government has inherited a surplus, it continues to cut back billions of dollars in programs and services that matter to Canadians, that matter to our children.

Opposition Motion--The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke quite a bit about child care, so I will point my question in that direction.

As she well knows, child care is a provincial jurisdiction. That is why in the last budget we provided her home province and my home province an additional $90 million for child care, a significant increase for the provincial budget for child care. That is not all we have done. We have given every parent for children under age six the universal child care benefit of $100 per month for each child. I have stacks of letters from parents in my riding who appreciate that.

However, that is not all we did either. We have also brought in a $2,000 tax credit for every child under the age of 18. That is huge because for every parent, particularly for a single working mother with income under $40,000, it will reduce taxes by 25%. That is huge.

We have supported families.

Unlike the member, my spouse is an early childhood educator. She works in day care. She can see the improvement. Yes, the program proposed by her government delivered some money to Peterborough, but it did not deliver any money to the adjacent riding of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock. Then again, that riding was held by a Conservative. My riding used to be held by a Liberal. To me, that is a pretty discriminatory program. Our program discriminates against no one and provides support to all parents.

What does the member have to say about that?

Opposition Motion--The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON

Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleague for having a wife who is an educator for early childhood and learning. Those educators are providing a solid foundation for so many of our children.

The member talks about discrimination. Who is being discriminated against under the Conservative government at the moment? The children of Canada. They have been denied an opportunity because they do not have access to quality, universal, acceptable and affordable child care. Had the early learning agreements, as signed by the federal government and the provinces, not been cut up, every riding would have had almost 266 spaces.

The Conservatives talk about giving $1,200 to parents. That $1,200 is taxable. The $100 per month is turned into almost $60 a month. Where in Canada can we find child care for almost $2 a day? That is a piecemeal approach. We need to have national leadership. We need to have vision on this issue so we have a national child care strategy in Canada.

Opposition Motion--The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Oshawa Ontario

Conservative

Colin Carrie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my good friend the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca.

I am pleased to speak to today's motion because it allows me a chance to talk about what Canada's Conservative government is doing to support a more competitive and productive economy through investments in new technologies, research and development.

Countries that invest aggressively in innovation have the strongest and the most productive economies in the world. Countries that invest aggressively in innovation find solutions to environment, health and other pressing challenges. Simply put, countries that invest aggressively in innovation have high standards of living and a high quality of life.

Canada needs to take the steps now to ensure that we maintain a strong economy through scientific discovery and technological advances so we can seize the extraordinary potential of our great country to be a positive force in the world. This is why on May 17 the Prime Minister released our historic science and technology strategy.

Our approach to science and technology is underlined by four important principles.

First, our policies and programs will inspire and assist Canadians to perform at world-class levels of scientific and technological excellence. World-class research excellence is Canada's standard.

Second, we will strategically target funding in areas of national strength and opportunity. Let me be clear. That does not mean abandoning our commitment to basic research across a broad spectrum of disciplines. We understand the importance of supporting the very best ideas wherever they arise. At the same time we must be practical. Canada is a comparatively small country and we must target more of our basic and applied research in areas where we are well positioned to make a difference in the world.

Third, the Government of Canada will foster partnerships. Partnerships involving business, academic and public sectors at home and abroad are essential to lever Canada's efforts into world-class successes and accelerate the pace of discovery and innovation. Through partnerships, the unique capabilities, interests and resources of various stakeholders can be brought together to deliver better outcomes.

After 13 years of Liberal corruption and waste, this Conservative government has turned over a new leaf of accountability. Therefore, accountability is the fourth principle of the S and T strategy. We have been clear. Those who are supported by public funds will be held accountable for demonstrating to taxpayers that results are being achieved.

Guided by these principles, our science and technology strategy seeks to create three distinct Canadian advantages: first, an entrepreneurial advantage that encourages firms to be innovators; second, a knowledge advantage that keeps Canadians at the forefront of research and discovery; and third, is a people advantage that helps Canadians acquire the skills they need to participate in the knowledge based economy.

Despite the Liberal's rhetoric, the Conservative government has invested more than $9 billion annually to support science and technology. On top of that, there are tax incentives available to Canadian businesses that invest in research and development valued at $3 billion a year. It was the leaderless Liberals who voted against more than $11 billion a year in R and D investment.

The government's S and T strategy articulates a comprehensive vision of how the government can use the work of its departments, its expenditures and its policies to create a more productive and competitive economy. It sets out a multi-year agenda, and we are moving quickly to implement this agenda.

Budget 2007 announced $1.9 billion in new S and T initiatives. These initiatives will empower scientists to investigate and entrepreneurs to innovate. To repeat, it was the leaderless Liberals who voted against this measure.

To create an entrepreneurial advantage, we need effective federal policies and laws that encourage companies to compete on the basis of innovation and invest in R and D and innovation. The most important role of the Government of Canada is to ensure a competitive marketplace and create an investment climate that encourages the private sector to compete against the world on the basis of its innovative products, services and technologies.

Our S and T strategy does this with ongoing reductions in corporate taxes, by establishing the lowest rate of tax on new business investment through smart regulation and by increasing the supply of foreign venture capital to support Canada's most innovative firms, measures the leaderless Liberals voted against.

My colleagues, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue, are leading the review of the $3 billion a year SR and ED tax expenditure in support of business R and D to identify opportunities to increase its impact.

Furthermore, this Conservative government appointed Red Wilson to lead a blue chip review of Canada's competition and investment policies to ensure that they are working effectively, allowing us to encourage even greater foreign investment and create more and better jobs for Canadians.

We are helping companies partner with universities and colleges to access the research networks, facilities and young research talent they need to succeed. Our new centres of excellence in commercialization and research program will help build critical mass in priority areas.

Our new business led networks of centres of excellence program will connect inspiring entrepreneurs and researchers. I know this will bring out the very best that Canadians have to offer the world.

As I mentioned, our S and T strategy also seeks to sustain a knowledge advantage. Our budget 2007 commitments will sustain Canada's leadership position in the G-7 and public sector R and D performance.

On top of the $2.7 billion the Government of Canada already funds in university R and D, we are investing an additional $85 million a year in three federal granting councils to achieve world-class excellence in four priority research areas: natural resources and energy; environmental sciences and technologies; health and life sciences; and information and communications technologies.

We are also ensuring that Canadian researchers continue to have the best research equipment and facilities available through a $510 million additional investment in the Canada Foundation for Innovation.

We are investing an additional $100 million in Genome Canada and $500 million in Sustainable Development Technology Canada to keep Canadians at the forefront in these important areas.

The third advantage this S and T strategy encourages is a people advantage. Access to talented, skilled and creative people lies at the heart of our vision of building a sustainable national competitive advantage based on science and technology. We will make sure that Canada has the highly skilled people it needs to thrive in a modern global economy.

We are creating new scholarships and industrial internships to support promising young Canadians who are studying hard to develop the skills that our businesses need. Once fully operational, we will be supporting 1,000 new scholarships and 1,000 new interns each and every year. At the same time, we will continue to reduce personal income taxes and make the tax system fairer, so that Canada can attract and retain the highly skilled workers we need to foster innovation and growth.

Science and technology is at the heart of this Conservative government's economic plan. The Conservative government's S and T strategy is a multi-year innovation plan. I can assure all members that our work will improve our nation. We will continue to build a competitive advantage for Canada based on science and technology. We will continue to be guided by the principles of excellence, priorities, partnerships and accountability.

This Conservative government is getting the job done to ensure that Canada can seize its potential in the world and be an innovation leader.

On behalf of the people of Oshawa, I am so pleased to be part of this S and T strategy. We are taking advantage of it now in our manufacturing sector and in our universities. I encourage all members to support us.

Opposition Motion--The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member. Given the fact that he is from Oshawa, I am sure he must be very concerned with what is going on in the auto industry and the challenges that the industry is facing.

When the Liberals were in government we put a fair amount of money into helping the auto sector reposition itself and tried to reach out and solve some of the ongoing issues that it has. I clearly do not see that kind of support coming from the government.

Where does the hon. member see that going and why is the government not putting money into the auto sector?

Opposition Motion--The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the hon. member's statement of what Canada's Conservative government is doing for the auto sector.

I would like to remind her that it was this Conservative government that conducted a manufacturing study across the entire country. We came up with 22 recommendations. Of those 22 recommendations, the Minister of Finance addressed 21 of them in our last budget.

One of them in particular was so important, the two year writeoff of the capital cost allowance, that Canadian manufacturers and exporters actually said that the budget last year was the best manufacturing budget ever for Canada, ever.

Here is the troubling part of this. This was a unanimous report. In other words, it was supported not just by the Conservative members, not just by the NDP, not just by the Bloc, but it was also supported by the Liberal Party of Canada. I want the member to stand up and state why she voted against that budget. Why did she vote against her own critic's recommendations for the manufacturing sector?

As she says, I live in Oshawa. What this government has done is it has addressed the outstanding complaints of the auto industry after the 13 years of waste and mismanagement by the Liberal government. The Liberals did absolutely nothing.

What did we do? In the last budget we talked about $400 million for the Windsor-Detroit border crossing. We talked about our new apprenticeship program for human resources. We talked about science and technology. The Liberals voted against the budget and that is a shame.

Opposition Motion--The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear the member talk about the importance of science and technology in this country.

My question is around the internal operations of some of the departments in the government.

In Nanaimo—Cowichan, the Cowichan River has actually seen a return of only 600 Chinook salmon this year. That is a historic low. Of course, it is not a sustainable fishery. One of the problems with that is the lack of investment around the science in fisheries.

I wonder if the member would comment on whether the government's position would actually extend to reinvesting in science within some of the government departments, such as fisheries.

Opposition Motion--The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment specifically on the Cowichan investments but what I can say is that this government is committed to research in the fisheries. In Oshawa at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, there is a wonderful researcher who right now is studying the fisheries. This government's investment is a record investment for science and technology in Canada.

We are going to continue to put the Canadian environment first and foremost so that Canadian researchers can work with our natural resources to make sure that Canada can sustain its environment for future generations to come. I thank the member very much for her support in these matters.

Opposition Motion--The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Fort McMurray—Athabasca Alberta

Conservative

Brian Jean ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand in the House today to talk about the importance of public infrastructure to help drive the Canadian economy. It is a very important issue.

Last week in the Speech from the Throne, our government reaffirmed its deep commitment to infrastructure. We all know that infrastructure investment is vital to Canada's future prosperity. Infrastructure is in fact the motor of productivity. It promotes trade, stimulates economic growth, ensures strong communities, and something important to me and most Canadians, a healthy environment. Infrastructure helps directly our environment.

That is why the Conservative government is moving forward to implement its building Canada plan. It is a plan that involves a historic effort that is without precedent in this great country on the part of the federal government. This plan will invest $33 billion to renew Canada's public infrastructure over the next seven years. This plan will deliver results that matter to Canadians. Some of those results include faster commutes, cleaner water, cleaner air, and safer roads and bridges. They are very important issues to Canadians.

This government understands how important it is to provide the provinces, territories and municipalities with the ability to plan for the future. Imagine in our own households not knowing what was coming in next month, next week or next year. That is why over 50% of the funding provided under building Canada, a total of more than $17 billion, is base funding for municipalities. This includes the extension of the gas tax fund until 2014 for which payments to municipalities will total $2 billion a year starting in 2010.

The plan also includes funding of $25 million a year for each and every province and territory. This will provide a significant and reliable amount of funding to help the provinces and territories address infrastructure priorities and to know well in advance what money they have in order to pay for the groceries. This will include national priorities of this government, like clean water, the national highway system that stretches from coast to coast, transit and green energy. Over the course of seven years this amounts to more than $2.2 billion nationally. It is great news for Canadians.

We listen to Canadians. That is why our government has made the protection and promotion of a clean environment a key national objective. Investment in infrastructure can indeed be a powerful tool in attaining environmental objectives.

The plan will continue to contribute to the growth of public transit which is so important in our larger cities and which is one of the plan's top five priorities. In this we will continue on the path shown through our additional investments in transit in the greater Toronto area, in Vancouver and in Calgary.

Through the gas tax fund alone we will provide $11.8 billion over the next seven years to Canadian cities and communities. It is great news for our cities. This funding can also apply to environmentally sustainable infrastructure which includes transit.

In the Speech from the Throne we made a clear commitment through our building Canada plan to clean up contaminated sites and promote brownfield redevelopment. This will help improve Canada's infrastructure and will help Canadians health be better. I was shocked to learn when I came to the House that we have somewhere in the range of 20,000 contaminated sites in this country. It is an embarrassing record and something which the government is taking positive steps to remedy.

A major component of the building Canada plan is of course the $8.8 billion building Canada fund. The fund actually focuses on strategic infrastructure projects that will deliver economic, environmental and social benefits for all Canadians at the national and local levels. It is great news for all Canadians.

A good example is that on October 15 we announced a commitment of up to $50 million to the clean water Huron Elgin London project. This initiative will improve clean drinking water access to half a million residents in some 20 southwestern Ontario municipalities. It is great news for the people of Ontario.

As well, we all know the importance of access to technology, particularly the broadband, to communities. This Conservative government has taken positive steps in that direction. We are clearly committed to helping communities have access to this important tool. Just a couple of weeks ago, together with the government of Nova Scotia, the federal government made a clear commitment to help provide 100% broadband coverage in Nova Scotia by 2009. It is great news for Nova Scotians. This complements other broadband investments we are making in the north.

Our plan provides for implementation of a public-private partnerships fund with a budget of $1.25 billion. Through this fund, we are taking a leadership role in developing P3 opportunities throughout the country. This will extend and increase the amount of money available for infrastructure projects, which is really going to help Canadians enjoy a better quality of life.

Last, our plan includes the gateways and border crossings fund with a budget of $2.1 billion, in addition to new and continued funding allocated in budget 2007 for the Asia Pacific gateway and corridor initiative. It now totals over $1 billion, which is great news for western Canadians, especially those in British Columbia.

In the past few months our government has signed two memoranda of understanding with six provincial governments. It is an example of a federal government that can get along with its provincial counterparts and actually get positive results for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. These agreements commit us to a study of strategic ports and commercial corridors in central and Atlantic Canada.

As we stated in our Speech from the Throne, the government will soon be announcing further details on how our building Canada plan's $33 billion will be invested. In the meantime, money is already flowing to communities through the gas tax fund and the 100% GST rebate.

Municipalities across the country are already using this fund to help meet their infrastructure needs. Whether it is the expansion of the TransLink fleet in Vancouver, British Columbia, or water projects across the river from here in Gatineau, Quebec, the Conservative government is delivering positive results for all Canadians.

What we are doing with our building Canada plan goes well beyond the Government of Canada's financial contribution to infrastructure. What we are doing is helping build the Canada of the 21st century, a Canada that will be stronger, safer and better. This is great news for all Canadians and a reflection of what Canadians tell us they want.

Along with other levels of government and the private sector, our building Canada plan will inject more than $50 billion--that is right, $50 billion--to ramp up all the infrastructure in this country. As all members in the House are aware, we have an infrastructure deficit of over $100 billion, as identified by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. The Conservative government has listened to Canadians and is moving forward to fix that deficit.

The previous Liberal government left us with history's most challenging infrastructure gap. We are taking action as a government that listens to Canadians to speed up world class infrastructure for Canada and for all Canadians. We are delivering, for the first time in Canadian history, the long term, predictable funding that has been asked for by the municipalities. That is what provinces, cities and communities are looking forward to, want and are going to get, because this government delivers results.

Opposition Motion--The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Maurizio Bevilacqua Liberal Vaughan, ON

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member gathers, of course, the opposition day motion deals with the issue of competitiveness and productivity. I think his speech attempted to make a strong case for the Conservative agenda as it relates to infrastructure, but I do have a question in reference to the reaction that the Conservative agenda has had from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which claims there is a $100 billion unfunded infrastructure deficit in Canada.

Does the hon. member truly believe that the response by the government is sufficient to such an infrastructure crisis faced by our country?

Opposition Motion--The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

First, Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that this question would come forward, because it obviously identifies that there has been an infrastructure deficit that was brought forward and not addressed or properly dealt with by the previous Liberal government.

Certainly we have come up with some innovative approaches to increase the amount of infrastructure investment in this country, because that is what we need to do without taking a dramatic measure on taxes. We are not Liberals. We are not the NDP. We are not going to do that.

We are looking for innovative solutions to increase the quality of life and to increase the infrastructure, including bridges, roads and water treatment. We are going to get results for Canadians, and we are getting results for Canadians, positive results.

We have to increase productivity. We are going to do that through better roads and better bridges and through investing in Canadians' quality of life. We get positive results for Canadians.

Opposition Motion--The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport spoke on infrastructure needs and concerns and what the government is doing and I thank him for that informative speech.

As members of Parliament, every once in a while we come to the place where we sit down and take an inventory of what we have been able to accomplish, not only as individuals but as a party. Having been in government now for the last 21 months, most members of Parliament over here are very pleased with the direction this government has taken. They are saying that finally we see ourselves making a difference with the tackling violent crime bill and many other bills that are coming forward.

However, one of the other points, as it was even when I started out as a member of Parliament seven years ago, is the concern about the national debt. I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could explain this. Our government had a $14 billion surplus and, unlike other governments, did not spend at the end of the fiscal year to get rid of the money. It was not out buying extra airplanes. It was dropping the surplus into the national debt.

Could the parliamentary secretary explain some of the advantages of doing that and explain the interest saved on the national debt? I know that for many a reduction in the national debt is one of the reasons we are here.

Opposition Motion--The EconomyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question because, as all Canadians know, there is a Canadian dream to own one's house. Everybody wants to own their own home. Most people have to get a mortgage on that house. Until the house is paid off, people cannot really enjoy the fruits of their labour.

In this case, the Liberal government before us bought a lot of houses and they were not efficient houses. As a result, we paid somewhere in the neighbourhood, I would suggest, of $500 million on the savings alone that our government has brought in, with the $24 billion or so that we have taken off the debt. That is a tremendous amount of interest. Now that we do not have to pay it, we get to put it toward other things, things that increase the quality of life of Canadians, such as infrastructure and tax savings, which we hear from Canadians that they really want.

We are moving forward so that our children, our grandchildren and future generations of Canadians can enjoy the fruits of our labour. We are taking on the brunt of the Liberal negligence and inept management of the economy to make sure that after we are gone we will have left Canada a better place for our children and great-grandchildren. They will be able to enjoy the fruits of our labour with no mortgage payment.