Debates of Feb. 7th, 2007

Post-Secondary Education

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, upon coming to office, the government moved immediately to help students.

We introduced a textbook tax credit. We gave a $1,000 apprenticeship grant to people who were going into the trades. We also moved to remove the federal tax on bursaries and scholarships.

The one thing we will not do is say how much we care on one hand and then cut transfers to the provinces by $25 billion like the Liberal Party did when it was in power.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this government has done nothing in the past year to improve on-the-job training. Aboriginals, immigrants and the disabled are particularly affected by this government's negligence.

How much longer do we have to wait for a real national policy on investment for on-the-job training?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member has been. This government moved immediately to provide an apprenticeship grant to people going into the trades. We moved to provide a tax credit to employers who hire apprentices.

The member speaks about immigrants. This government introduced $307 million in programming for settlement services to help immigrants adjust to this country, helping them to read and write and learn the language, something that government voted against.

The Environment

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like the Conservative government, the Alberta government and the automotive sector have stated publicly that they do not want to attain the Kyoto protocol targets and that they would prefer that intensity targets, rather than absolute greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, be put in place.

Is this not proof that when it comes to the environment, the Prime Minister is siding with the oil companies in Alberta and the automotive industry in Ontario, at the expense of Quebec, which is doing its part to achieve the Kyoto targets?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. The leader of the Bloc is still talking about oil industry subsidies. The fact is that this government put an end to income trusts for the oil industry, a special status for some companies. And now the Bloc Québécois is trying to reconsider its position in committee.

Our government's position is clear; the Bloc's position and contradictions are clear.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely false. We are trying to save the small investors he made promises to, promises he is now reneging on. That is what we are trying to do. This is what he should do: change his mind about the millions of dollars he is saving the oil industry, with measures such as Bill C-48, which he supported and is now maintaining.

Will the Prime Minister act so that a carbon exchange can be put in place to reward industries that have made an effort and that have attained or are attaining greenhouse gas emission reduction targets? Those that have made no effort, such as the oil companies, must pay. This is called the polluter-pay principle.

Will he stop supporting his friends, the oil companies?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this government is clear: our system will be based on the principle that the polluter will pay.

So why is the leader of the Bloc attacking both an industry in Alberta and an industry in Ontario? This is not really an environmental question.

The Bloc Québécois' only goal is to separate Quebec from Canada. We support a strong Quebec nation within a strong, united Canada.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech yesterday, the Prime Minister said that he is for the environment, yet he always presents economic development and environmental action as competitors.

Do the Prime Minister's remarks not give away his close ties to major oil and automobile companies that do not believe in the Kyoto protocol?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I have told my Bloc Québécois colleague that that is absolutely ridiculous. It was just one and a half months ago that the members of the Bloc Québécois voted with the government for a motion in favour of a united Canada.

The Bloc Québécois is now attacking the Quebec economy and the Alberta economy. Our government is trying to make regulations so that all regions of Canada will reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The environment is a higher priority for this government than for the previous government.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says he is concerned about jobs. Yet, he does not react to the overheating western economy, which has contributed to the rise of the dollar and thousands of lost jobs in Quebec's manufacturing sector.

Does the Prime Minister realize that if he truly understood the economics of the environment, he would adopt a balanced approach by setting absolute targets for greenhouse gas reductions and he would put some distance between himself and these oil company friends?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I have not met many Alberta oil companies. However, I would say that there is support for policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We have clearly stated that our government will be the first to introduce air quality regulations based on greenhouse gases because it is important to all Canadians. In Montreal, air quality is another priority. This government will work very hard to improve Montreal's air quality.

Post-Secondary Education

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the students outside are suffering because of excessive debts. In Quebec, the Liberals are talking about ending the tuition freeze. This would be a step in the wrong direction; that much is clear.

The NDP introduced a bill that would guarantee stable and responsible federal transfers. The students also proposed their own solution, similar to a bursary system based on their needs.

Will the Prime Minister hear the call of our youth? Will he work to ensure that tuition costs go down, yes or no?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the NDP must know, tuition fees are determined by provincial policy. We hand over nearly $5.4 billion annually for post-secondary education, including our increased tax credits for textbooks and scholarships. There is also new funding for student loans. We continue to give more money to the provinces for post-secondary education.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, policies like the textbook tax credit are regressive and are not going to solve the students' problems. They now are sitting with an average debt of $24,000 on their shoulders. How did it come about?

In the mid-1990s when the Liberals cut the transfer payments, and we all know about that, they transferred the debt to the shoulders of our students, yet the government has absolutely no plan. It talks about the fiscal imbalance. What about the personal fiscal imbalance that our students are facing now? Why will the Prime Minister not come forward with a plan to restore the funding levels to pre-Liberal levels? That is what we need.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Again, Mr. Speaker, this government will spend nearly $5.4 billion this year on post-secondary education, including additional transfers in the form of tax credits for scholarships and for textbooks, including more money for student loans, and including more post-secondary education infrastructure and investments in apprenticeship training.

What Canadian students need is some help. What they do not need are unrealistic promises like the federal government freezing provincial tuition fees, which they know full well the federal government cannot do.

Child Care

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian families are in for a real shock when they fill out their tax returns and realize the $100 a month baby bonus is actually taxable. A two income family in Ontario, each person earning $40,000, will have to pay back the government $31 a month per child.

That is a third of the money Canadian parents have already spent. My question is for the Prime Minister. How much money is the Prime Minister planning to make on their backs by taxing kids? Canadian parents want to know.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee one thing, which is that Canadian families today are a lot better off because this Prime Minister and this finance minister moved to introduce the universal child care benefit that goes to 1.4 million families on behalf of 1.9 million children.

Do we know what the real shame is? What is the real shame is that the leader of the Liberal Party has stated unequivocally that he would take that money away from Canadian families. That is a disgrace.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what is a real shame is that the government has not created a single child care space for the children of Canada. Let me tell members how much profit on the backs of Canadian families the Prime Minister is going to make: $224 million from his so-called choice for parents and a $400 million profit from cancelling the youth child supplement.

That is $624 million, and Canadian parents do not have a single child care space, not one. When is the Prime Minister going to get the job done and start creating child care spaces?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals ever came back to power, God forbid, they would take away $10 billion from Canadian families by removing the--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order. The Minister of Human Resources has the floor. I know his statements are very popular, but we have to be able to hear what the minister is saying. He has the floor. Order, please.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal record on this is very clear. In their time in power, the Liberals refused to consider the idea that parents knew what was good for their children. That is why they opposed the universal child care benefit. That is why the leader of the Liberal Party has said that he would take that away from families. If he succeeds, that will be $10 billion taken away from Canadian families over the next five years.

Government Policies

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, budget 2006 said the government was planning $3.6 billion in meanspirited cuts, but to date it has outlined specifics on only $1 billion in cuts to programs like literacy, women's equality and youth employment.

Given that this second wave of the cuts is supposed to begin in roughly 50 days, when will the government identify the next round of victims?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

As usual, Mr. Speaker, the premise is entirely wrong. The spending reductions that were made were announced previously. It is just as wrong, really, as the posturing on the other side of the House with respect to the income trusts issue. We know where the Bloc Québécois stands and we know where the NDP stands in support of that issue.

What we have from the Leader of the Opposition is this. He says that he spoke with “my best brains in our team”, the member for Wascana, the member for Markham—Unionville, and the member for Kings—Hants, and “they have ideas, but they urge me for now to not announce anything”.

I am asking the member opposite from Markham, as the president of the Liberal best brains club, to convene a meeting--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!