House of Commons Hansard #104 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Speaker, under all of the circumstances, I think colleagues in the House might want to see the clock as 6:38 p.m.
Statutes Repeal ActPrivate Members' Business
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Independent
Louise Thibault Independent Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, in this adjournment debate, I am pleased to come back to a question I asked on May 12, concerning the oil imbalance. We are currently seeing a double explosion in the oil sector: first the explosion in gas prices for consumers and then the explosion in profits for the oil companies.
If this government does nothing to restore balance in this situation in the regions, who are the first to take the brunt of this, it will have to deal with an explosion of anger from the public.
A few days ago, I moved a motion in this House stipulating that, in the opinion of the House, the government should create an oil revenue redistribution fund, based on the principle of fairness to all citizens, that would levy a tax on the earnings of oil companies and other companies that emit greenhouse gases in such a way as to respect provincial jurisdictions and not unduly threaten the economies of the energy producing provinces.
I suggested that this fund target the following four objectives: democratize investments in energy efficiency; provide financial assistance for low-income individuals to counter the rising cost of oil products; promote collective forms of transportation in the workplace; modernize and encourage the use of marine and rail transport.
Our less fortunate citizens cannot adopt energy efficient practices without assistance, because they often require large initial investments that are more than these people can afford. What good is a $1,000 rebate on a $40,000 hybrid car if a person earns $20,000? The person will not be able to buy the car. It is as simple as that, and people understand this.
We also know that this government is not able to provide public transportation everywhere in the country. This gap is becoming wider because the people who do not have access to public transportation are at a disadvantage due to the price of gas.
Environmentalists, politicians and the media are praising public transportation, as am I. But if there is no public transportation in a given community or region, people cannot use it. Nor can they benefit from the savings often afforded to users of public transportation.
Regions far from urban centres are typically at a disadvantage because of rising transportation costs associated with the rising cost of fuel. Not only does it cost more to transport products, but once again, successive federal governments have abandoned the infrastructure, and our business people have no choice but to ship their goods by truck because rail and marine transportation are not currently available. As a result, merchandise transportation costs are going up.
Rapid price increases are especially hard on two groups of people: seniors and people with modest or low incomes whose budgets are already tight and who are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. The government should compensate for this through special indexation because these people should not have to pay the price for our collective inability to limit our prodigious energy consumption, which is causing the price of fuel to skyrocket.
Why is the government not doing anything to help seniors and the disadvantaged cope with higher fuel costs?
Why does the government think it is enough to provide laughable rebates that do not enable people with low incomes to invest in more energy efficient vehicles and renovations?
Why is the government underfunding energy efficiency agencies while sinking billions into petroleum development?
Why is the government not doing anything to develop modes of transportation—
Colin Carrie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques is concerned about the general state of the economy and seems to think that the government is supporting companies in western Canada, especially those involved in oil and gas development, to the detriment of industries located elsewhere in Canada.
First, I assure the hon. member that our economy is showing signs of continued strength. According to CIBC World Markets research, the Canadian economy generated close to 360,000 jobs last year, mostly in high paying sectors, and our unemployment rate is near the lowest in 33 years.
We recognize, however, that not all sectors and regions are benefiting from current market conditions. To address this situation, the Prime Minister announced the community development trust on January 10. This $1 billion trust is designed to help communities that depend on a single employer or a sector under pressure to adjust to current challenging circumstances. This will support the diversification of local economies, address issues like job training and skills development and assist workers in unique circumstances facing adjustment challenges.
The hon. member is also claiming that the government is favouring the oil sands sector in western Canada. This is patently false. As the Prime Minister told the House on May 14, budget 2007 saw the elimination of subsidies for the oil sands that the previous government had implemented. More specifically, that budget announced a phase out of existing accelerated capital cost allowance for assets in the oil sands sector, starting in 2010. This move improves fairness and neutrality between the oil sands and other sectors.
Perhaps the hon. member could take a look at “Turning the Corner”, the government's ambitious plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in all major industrial sectors. If the hon. member did, she would know that the oil sands developments that come on stream in 2012 or later will be required to meet stringent targets based on the use of carbon capture and storage.
Not only that, but the government is listening and responding to the needs of different Canadian sectors. For example, we have allocated more than $10 million over two years to promote Canada's forestry in international markets as a model of environmental innovation and sustainability. We also contributed $127.5 million to encourage the long term competitiveness of the forest industry.
To promote Canadian capabilities in the aerospace sector, the government has worked extensively with global players in the industry to attract foreign investment to Canada and leverage private sector investment in research and development. The government's actions are expected to increase opportunities for trade and technology collaboration, which will create significant economic benefits to Canadians.
The pharmaceutical sector, specifically in Quebec, has benefited from strategic government investments to maintain a competitive business climate. This has been accomplished through Genome Quebec, the NRC's Biotechnology Research Institute in Montreal, BDC's venture capital investments and new centres of excellence for commercialization and research.
The government is also ensuring that Canada's intellectual property regime for pharmaceuticals and bio-pharmaceuticals is balanced, more predictable and internationally competitive.
In addition, we are providing manufacturers and processors with $9 billion in tax relief over seven years and we have extended the accelerated capital cost allowance by three years. We are addressing their infrastructure concerns by providing $2.3 billion for trade related infrastructure, of which $400 million is allocated to support the development of the Windsor-Detroit gateway.
We have also allocated $34 million per year for collaborative research that contributes to knowledge and innovation needs of the automotive, manufacturing, forestry and fishing industries.
This, combined with our other measures outlined in previous budgets, should contribute to advance our economy, support our industries and benefit our communities and their workers.
Independent
Louise Thibault Independent Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, out of respect for parliamentary language, I will use an expression we all know well: intellectual rigour and honesty.
An adjournment debate is not the time for the government to cut and paste from speeches it has already given, rambling speeches prepared by assistants and regurgitated by parliamentary secretaries in the House. The question was about the oil imbalance. Apparently, the parliamentary secretary has told us everything the government plans to do, which is basically toot its own horn.
This is very simple. Does the parliamentary secretary agree that there is an imbalance, that it affects people who are disadvantaged and regions like mine and many others that are having trouble coping? Can he speak to us in his own, simple words, with his trademark eloquence? Can he put down his speech and tell us what the government plans to do for those people?
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Mr. Speaker, if the member was paying attention, she would know we are doing a lot for all Canadians.
We are setting the right framework so our industries can thrive and succeed. We are not favouring any specific sector because we believe that by promoting a successful business climate, the benefit to our economy will be greater.
We have announced the billion dollar community development trust to support communities struggling with economic difficulties. We have delivered for the whole economy, including sectors such as manufacturing, forestry, pharmaceutical and aerospace. Our overall tax measures will give Canada the lowest overall tax rate on new investment in the G-7 by 2010. By 2012, we will have the lowest statutory income tax rate in the G-7.
The government has been supporting Canadians, and we will continue to do so. Our initiatives are yielding positive outcomes. Last year we generated 360,000 new jobs in high paying sectors and our unemployment rate is at the—
The Acting Speaker Andrew Scheer
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 6:30 p.m.)