House of Commons Hansard #13 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

TransportationPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of residents in York South—Weston, I would like to present a petition with over 600 signatures. It relates to the proposed air-rail link which is the subject of an environmental assessment that is presently under way.

Originally, the terms of reference for an environmental assessment, which had tremendous public input, would look at alternatives. However, recently, the province accelerated its EA and is now only looking at the corridor within the rail right-of-way.

The petitioners urge that our leaders act now to ensure that the air-rail link is a public transit air-rail link, with fares being in the public transit category, that it be below grade throughout the Weston area, that it include stops to serve communities, including Weston, and that it be electrified.

I am pleased to present this petition. I would like to underscore the point made in the petition, that originally alternatives were going to be assessed. The present environmental assessment is scoped in such a way as it is only looking at the air-rail link within the CN Weston subdivision.

TorturePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Independent

Bill Casey Independent Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS

Mr. Speaker, I really am honoured to rise today and present this petition.

Two nurses in my riding who are very well known and well respected have worked for years and years to point out that there is an anomaly in the Criminal Code of Canada in that there is no criminal offence for torture. If torture is performed in another country by a state, then it is a crime, but there is no crime for torture if it is done by a non-state actor within our country.

It is ironic that Canada is a signatory to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, but we do not have a crime that is described as torture.

I want to thank the two nurses involved, Jean Sarson and Linda MacDonald, who have worked tirelessly for years and have gathered up almost 700 signatures from Yukon to Newfoundland to endorse and support their petition. I am very pleased and honoured to present it today.

Income Tax ActPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 800 fisher people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

In 1998 the federal government asked fishermen to voluntarily retire from the fishery in exchange for a retirement benefit. However, because of wrong information provided by Revenue Canada, 100% of the benefit was taxed as capital gains, instead of 25%. A hundred and fifty fishermen who had not followed the advice of Revenue Canada at the time saved thousands of dollars, and now the remaining fishermen are asking for just and fair treatment. They are asking the government to reimburse them for the extra thousands of dollars that they did pay and in fact, to which they are entitled.

The petitioners are calling on the government to reimburse this money under the fairness provisions of the Income Tax Act.

Volunteer FirefightersPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present a petition on behalf of the over 100,000 volunteer firefighters across this country. I have in my own riding 50 different volunteer fire departments, including Little Dover, Mulgrave, Glace Bay--I will not name them all, but I would like to mention some--Manitou, Whycogomah, Blues Mills, Bateston, Cheticamp, Judique, Port Hastings, East Bay, Howick Centre, and St. Peter's. That is about a quarter of them. All those different departments share one thing: they are there to serve and protect the people of their communities. They do this without any compensation. They do this a great deal of the time at their own expense.

There are over 1,200 signatures on this petition. These people believe that these volunteers deserve some type of recognition and compensation from the government and hopefully that will move forward. There are private members' bills in this regard. Hopefully, as the list of private members' business moves along, a bill acknowledging the work these volunteer firefighters do will be presented. The intent of this petition is to support that principle.

With all due respect to volunteer firefighters right across this country, I am very proud to present this petition.

Sri LankaPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, this petition, as I said earlier, is not in order and I wondered if you would seek unanimous consent to present this petition, notwithstanding the fact that it is not in order.

Sri LankaPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Does the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood have the unanimous consent of the House to table this petition?

Sri LankaPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

February 11th, 2009 / 3:30 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

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

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

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

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Is that agreed?

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed from February 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and related fiscal measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Budget Implementation Act, 2009Government Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Before yesterday's adjournment motion, the hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber had the floor. He has six minutes remaining to finish his comments. The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber.

Budget Implementation Act, 2009Government Orders

3:30 p.m.

Bloc

Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Mr. Speaker, during my speech yesterday, I emphasized the fact that we have gone from an opposition coalition to a Liberal-Conservative coalition. I gave a few examples of the unfortunate results this has had for all citizens of Canada.

I would like to continue today by talking more specifically about the negative impact of this coalition on Quebec.

I hope to demonstrate that, whether it is the Conservatives or the Liberals in power, or whether it is a coalition of the two parties, like the one before us today, Canada always practices politics based on partisan interests. However, all too often, the interests of Canada unfortunately go against those of Quebec.

In the end, we, as Quebeckers, cannot hope for anything from this federation. The only solution of course is for Quebec to become a sovereign country so that it too, like all countries, can practice politics based on its own interests. Furthermore, being a sovereign country will help Quebec by giving it all the necessary tools to get through this crisis and meet its own needs, rather than the needs of oil companies in the west, for instance.

My first example is equalization, the transfer payments the federal government makes to the provinces and Quebec. In fact, these payments are not gifts, because the money comes from the taxes we pay. The equalization formula is constantly being modified. During the last parliament, the Conservative government, wanting to appear open to Quebec, said it would try to correct the fiscal imbalance. Equalization payments to Quebec were increased, but only thanks to pressure from the Bloc Québécois and the government's minority position.

At the time, I was a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, and I repeatedly said in this House that the government had not corrected the fiscal imbalance because there had been no transfer of tax fields and that whenever it pleased, the government could backtrack, change the formula again, penalize Quebec and go back to the ways things were before.

Unfortunately, my words were prophetic, because that is exactly what happened. At times of economic crisis, when we are faced with serious problems, the federalist parties revert to type and promote the interests of Canada as a whole. I would even say this is not completely abnormal. What is abnormal is that Quebec is not doing the same thing and becoming a country so that it can promote its own interests, especially during an economic crisis.

Even though the equalization formula is a bit abstract and extremely technical for many of our constituents, it is even more revealing when we look at how it is calculated.

In the past, income from non-renewable resources like oil was excluded from the equalization calculation. Clearly, for the purposes of this calculation, provinces that generate such revenue appear poorer than they really are, and provinces that do not generate such revenue and whose economy is based essentially on renewable energy, such as Quebec, seem richer than they really are. These provinces are therefore penalized.

What is more, from the environmental point of view, we wonder why this government, with the backing of the Liberals, wants to encourage industries that use non-renewable energies, when they should be doing the opposite and giving equalization premiums to provinces using renewable energies.

In the last budget, the imbalance was made even greater by the decision that Hydro One revenues in Ontario will no longer be included in the equalization calculations, although it was arbitrarily decided that those from Hydro Quebec will continue once again to be included. This will mean a loss of $250 million annually for Quebec.

We could go on to the example of the Quebec securities commission. Once again, the federal government, with the backing of the Liberals, wants to centralize finance in Ontario. We could also give the example of this government's environmental policies, which are clearly not in Quebec's interests. In fact, dependency on oil and gas impoverishes Quebec, while an independent Quebec could fully free itself of that dependency and be the richer for it.

Once again, we have a made-for-Ontario budget backed by the Liberals, who have a real partisan interest in Ontario. The big lesson the people of Quebec need to take from this is that, even when governments switch places, nothing can be expected from the federalist parties. Nothing from the Canadian federation either, not because it is bad, but simply because all members in this House, with the exception of the Bloc Québécois members, are looking after the interests of the Canadian nation, which are not unfortunately the same as the interests of the Quebec nation.

For the Quebec nation, the only solution is to do the same thing: acquire its own sovereignty, fly on its own, make its own decisions according to its own values, but also and particularly according to its own interests. The route to that goal is to acquire national independence, while continuing to cooperate with Canada as a good neighbour. Sovereignty will not be against Canada, and not because we do not like Canadians, but merely because we believe that the best ones to define what is good for Quebeckers are Quebeckers themselves. We will make decisions, sometimes good ones, sometimes bad ones, but at the end of the day they will be our decisions.

Budget Implementation Act, 2009Government Orders

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on the clarity of his speech.

Since we were recently described as sectarian, I would like to ask him if he feels that having the desire to stand up to have one's own country is not precisely what Canada did. Does he not believe that we could remain very good friends and that wanting a country for oneself does not mean one is sectarian? I would like to hear his thoughts on this.

We now realize, as the member clearly said, that the Liberals truly got down on their knees when they ended the coalition. In that sense, one could say that the Liberals were worse than the Conservatives. I would really like my hon. colleague to comment on that.

Budget Implementation Act, 2009Government Orders

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is true. My colleague's last comment made me think about the time I was on television with the member for Bourassa. He asked why I was always criticizing the Liberals. It is because while we had no expectations of getting anything from the Conservative government, the Liberals at least had the opportunity to get a little something in the process. What did they get besides a new cloakroom in the lobby and an end to the lawsuit against them? They got reports to monitor the government. I always thought it was the work of Parliament to monitor the government. In the end, the Liberal amendment is asking the government to monitor itself and to do the work we should be doing. The Liberals got absolutely nothing in this regard. It is quite sad.

As for the accusations of sectarianism, let us be serious. If sovereignty is a good thing for Canada, if it is good for France, Germany, Gabon and any other country in the world, why is sovereignty not good for Quebec? This comment seems a bit ludicrous to me. The comment was made, in France, on the same day that a Quebec premier was being honoured. It is even more ironic that France had already honoured two Quebec premiers in the past, and with higher honours at that. If we are to believe what the French president said, it would mean that they honoured sectarians. I obviously do not believe that. I think that his comments were unfortunate and uncalled for. I do not believe that they reflect the image the French have about sovereignists.

Budget Implementation Act, 2009Government Orders

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, first of all, allow me to congratulate my colleague for Jeanne-Le Ber, a dynamic and very eloquent member. I would like to come back to a point that he discussed just now, equalization. He said that it is a truly complex matter and I agree. However, it is quite simply a formula which, at the end of the day, distributes wealth based on the capacity of each province, including Quebec, to generate revenue, namely taxes.

This type of formula is mechanical and normally removes any subjectivity. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives have manipulated or fiddled with this formula. I would like my colleague to talk about this, for the benefit of all the Conservatives and Liberals, so that they truly realize what this government has done by fiddling with the equalization formula.

Budget Implementation Act, 2009Government Orders

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right. A number of arbitrary items have been introduced with respect to this formula for redistributing wealth. I cited a few in my presentation. All these arbitrary components, without exception, are detrimental to Quebec. An arbitrary item has never been introduced that would benefit Quebec. It is systematically to the province's disadvantage. Even though Quebec, in absolute terms, receives the largest share of equalization payments of recipient provinces, it remains the province that receives the smallest per capita contribution.

Budget Implementation Act, 2009Government Orders

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the opportunity this afternoon to share a few thoughts with the House and with the people of Canada who are watching on why it is that I, as a member of the New Democratic Party caucus in Ottawa, cannot support the budget that is being supported by the Conservatives and Liberals.

I will do that by sharing just a small piece of my own story because sometimes it is in telling that story that we are able to more completely or fulsomely understand why a person might take a position which, at first glance, might not seem in the interests of one's home community.

In spite of the fact that the government has packed the budget with investments in communities like my own that will be helpful in the short term, and of course all of us will be thankful for that, it does not move us away from an approach to our economy that got us into the mess that we experienced in the last part of last year in the first place.

It was an approach that saw a government continually and ever more generously give tax breaks to large corporations, which in turn diminished the ability of government to play a constructive and positive role in the protection of communities and the development of opportunities. It diminished the ability of government, without running tremendously large deficits, to help our communities and the economy, and to protect the jobs of working men and women across this country.

I believe that we have a wonderful opportunity in this country at this point in time, if we would only read the signs to understand what is fundamentally happening, to make a significant and fundamental shift that would serve us all better in the long run.

Back in 1959 my father and mother sold everything they had in Ireland and bet that money on a dream. That dream was Canada. They brought their seven children, I was the eldest of seven children, to Canada to give them a future. It was not very complicated. They were not really looking for much. As I sat with my father in his last few years, he explained to me that really, what he was looking for was a good job that would help him put food on the table, provide a home for himself, his wife and his children, and would put some money aside so that we, his children, might go to school one day and have a life for ourselves. That was all. It really was not complicated.

We ended up in the small town of Wawa in northern Ontario, where he got a job mining iron ore. He was paid a decent wage for doing that work, enough so that we were a very happy family. We discovered a community that was very supportive. It was a mix of races, cultures, religions and languages. Because we were fairly isolated, people would get together on occasion for weddings, funerals, and to celebrate with each other in a way that we had not experienced in such a fulsome fashion where we had come from.

We learned as we went along that the iron ore that we were mining in that little town, and 1,200 people worked in those mines, was sent to the big city a couple of hours down the road or by train to Sault Ste. Marie where yet another 12,000 people took the sinter that we produced and turned it into steel. That steel was sent to communities across Canada, to Saint John, New Brunswick, to British Columbia and to Windsor where it was used to make cars, build ships and make buses. It was sent to Quebec for the industries that province had going at that particular time.

Those industries were providing jobs for people, jobs that paid decent wages and allowed families, like my own, to put bread on the table, have a decent home and expect that at some point in the future they would be able to send their children to school so they might have a future for themselves.

We also discovered, in that little town of Wawa in the 1960s and 1970s, that government actually cared about us as well. We watched as the Canadian government, in partnership with the Ontario government, began to put in place programs like health care. If my mother, father or siblings got sick, we had access to a doctor or we could go to a hospital without it being a tremendous financial burden on us. We thought it was wonderful. What a country. What a place to live. What a wonderful way of life that my father and mother had adopted for themselves and us.

We brought in a program called unemployment insurance so that if people lost their job or got hurt on the job, workmen's compensation ensured that they would not be devastated. They would have some money to carry them through a difficult period until they found another job or were able to get back to the same job after they had fixed whatever it was they had hurt on the job. The federal government brought in the Canada assistance plan, a program that was delivered by the province, to ensure that those in our community who were most at risk and vulnerable were also looked after.

What a concept. What a wonderful country, where nobody would be left behind. Those programs, even though never as generous as some of us would have liked them to have been, were certainly more generous than they are today. For the most part, a number of the important programs that were put in place back in those days no longer exist. They were taken out of commission in order to pay down the deficit and the debt and to do a number of other things that I will speak to in a minute.

I was able to go to university with the benefit of a loan and grant program. I was the oldest of seven kids. It was difficult for my parents to put together the kind of money that would have seen them able to pay for my education and then the six coming after me. With the use of student loans and the grants that were available at that time, I was able to go to university and get a degree. Universities and colleges in Ontario in those days were growing. After I got out of university, my first job was with Sault College. It was part of a new introduction for training and retraining in the province at that time, and those colleges were growing in almost every community across the province.

My job with the college was to go out and promote the value of further education and lifelong learning. In every community, from Elliot Lake to Chapleau to Wawa, I promoted further education, training, retraining and lifelong learning.

As we moved into the 1980s and 1990s, we began to see government pull back from that kind of involvement with communities, families, people and workers. We began to see a reduction in the presence of government in our communities. It began with the giving away of taxes by way of tax breaks, particularly to big corporations, which reduced the capacity of government to be as generous as they were with these programs that provided support for families and communities. We moved into a regime that saw us reduce the capacity of government by giving away the revenue that government collected.

My father had very simple dreams and modest expectations of getting up every morning, going to work and getting paid. If the family should get sick or if I wanted to go to university, he expected to get some help from government. However, we began to see that government help became less and less the reality for families.

We saw the giving away of government revenue through tax breaks. We saw--

Budget Implementation Act, 2009Government Orders

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The member's time has expired so we will move on to questions and comments. The hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

Budget Implementation Act, 2009Government Orders

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments and I understand his concern for people who are facing tough economic times and challenges.

I would like to point out that many of the initiatives in our budget address the issues he was talking about: $1.5 billion over two years for training programs; $55 million over two years for youth employment; $60 million over three years for the targeted initiative for older workers; and $40 million that will go to the $2,000 apprenticeship completion grant. These are really important initiatives for Canadians in these tough times.

I would like to ask the member how he and his party could actually vote against something that will help Canadians through these times.

Budget Implementation Act, 2009Government Orders

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to quickly finish what I was saying in answer to my colleague's question.

In the 1990s and in the last few years, we have moved into a regime where we have reduced taxes and the ability of government to play a major role in people's lives. When the concept of free trade was brought in, many communities, particularly in my neck of the woods, lost plants that had provided work for people not only in those communities but for people in larger centres and the other places where the product was sent.

Now we have a government that does not have the capacity to respond to the real challenges that are facing us, particularly those in the last six to nine months, and will not be able to face the challenges as we look ahead at what economists are predicting will happen.

We are not saying that we disagree with the investments that the government is making but those are things in which it should have been investing all along. Our problem is that when this period of deficit financing is over, the government's capacity to continue to keep that going and to provide the kind of supports that I spoke of earlier, the supports that were there for my family, will no longer be there for communities, for families and for working men and women across the country. That is why we are not able to support the budget.

Budget Implementation Act, 2009Government Orders

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie for raising issues that are important to a lot of people. I will ask him one specific question about post-secondary education.

When we gleaned through the budget we tried to find where it mentioned help for students. Students are leaving universities and colleges with mounting debt loads, which does not help their communities, the economy and certainly not themselves or their families. The budget has money for some bricks and mortar but there is nothing for students to alleviate the cost of going to school. This has been made clear by national student organizations at every prebudget consultation. The government has said that it was listening.

I would ask my hon. colleague. if the government had been listening to students across Canada and their representatives, how could it possibly have been so tone deaf to the one essential thing that was asked, which was lowering student debt loads.