House of Commons Hansard #84 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was provinces.
Opposition Motion—Federal Spending PowerBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
October 21st, 2010 / 1:20 p.m.
Bloc
France Bonsant Bloc Compton—Stanstead, QC
Madam Speaker, I watched my colleague on television in my office. I have introduced a bill that would help crime victims' families, but the government, with its ideology, would rather punish criminals than help victims' families.
With this proposal to transfer tax points to Quebec, can my colleague tell us whether the government would be helping victims to the same extent as Quebec, without Quebec always having to beg for money and depend on the federal government?
Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Madam Speaker, with its management of young offenders and its innovative social services and health care system, Quebec is showing that it can do an exemplary job of taking care of its own affairs.
All the parties in the House and all the other provinces often look to Quebec when introducing intervention models, whether for youth or in the areas of heath care and child care.
If Quebec were a sovereign nation, it would take back all the economic and social levers a nation should have. I am certain that it would do an outstanding job and that it could serve as a model for all the other provinces.
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Madam Speaker, I am honoured to be taking part in the debate on the motion moved by the member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher. I am also honoured to support this motion. And because I believe it is important, I will mainly focus on demonstrating why the amendment proposed by the NDP is completely contrary to our motion, to Quebec's traditional position and to the promise made by the Prime Minister during the 2006 election campaign. The member for Beauce seems to have understood this promise.
I would like to reread the motion and explain it paragraph by paragraph.
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should, as long called for by the Bloc Québécois and now called for by the Member for Beauce, end the so-called federal spending power in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, eliminate the federal programs that violate the division of powers, and transfer tax points to the provinces...
This part is verbatim; it is exactly what the member for Beauce said. We give it our full endorsement. The fact is there is no constitutional basis for the pseudo-spending power that the federal has given itself. It is simply because of the fiscal imbalance that the federal government has been able to interfere—and it has been interfering for decades, since the end of the second world war, to be exact—in areas of jurisdiction that do not belong to it but that belong to Quebec and the provinces. This situation needs to be corrected.
Next, the motion details the way in which the Government of Quebec, the Quebec nation, the Bloc Québécois and the National Assembly are asking that the situation be corrected. The motion reads:
a) eliminating all federal spending in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, unless express authorization is given by Quebec or the province;
Here we have reversed the traditional modus operandi of Canadian federalism, which is a dead end in that regard. Instead of the provinces being the ones to ask the government not to interfere in their areas of jurisdiction, the federal government must ask permission if it wants to intrude into jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. If authorization is not given by Quebec or the province, it simply will not happen. It seems to me that unfortunately, the NDP leader did not fully understand this point. Regarding the Bloc Québécois motion, he said—and I am paraphrasing from the letter he sent to the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the leader of the Bloc Québécois—that he did not understand why our motion, which applies the same formula to Quebec and the other provinces, disregards the fact that this House unanimously recognized the distinctive nature of the Quebec nation and is trying to impose Quebec's wishes on the rest of Canada.
That is completely false.
Quite clearly, we are reversing the traditional relationship between the federal government and Quebec and the provinces by putting the onus on the federal government. However, any provinces that want the federal government to continue interfering in their areas of jurisdiction are free to allow it to do so. Once again, if Quebec or another province says that it is out of the question, for example, that the federal government interfere in its jurisdiction over community based child care programs and family policy, since these are social matters, which the Canadian Constitution has delegated to the provinces, the answer would be no.
The next part says:
b) providing a systematic right to opt out with full financial compensation and without condition of all existing and future programs, whether co-funded or not, that intrude into jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.
Once again, no one is forcing the other provinces. We understand very well that since provinces are nothing more than administrative divisions within the same nation, the Canadian nation, this nation would choose the federal government as its central government. We have no problem with that. We recognize that. However, the central government of the Quebec nation is the Government of Quebec, and its legislative arm is the Quebec National Assembly. So if Quebec wants to opt out of a program that falls under its jurisdiction, it must not only have the right to opt out, but must also be adequately compensated, with no conditions. That is the infamous opting out clause.
The motion goes on to say:
c) transferring, at the request of Quebec or a province, fiscal room in the form of tax points and/or GST to replace the amounts that the province would otherwise have received under the Canada Health Transfer, federal programs in its areas of jurisdiction and the transfer for social programs and postsecondary education indexed to 1994-1995 levels.
Once again, no one is forcing the provinces to do anything, and what the NDP leader said is completely untrue. If the other provinces do not want to convert the cash transfers they currently receive from the federal government into fiscal room, that is up to them.
We belive that this would benefit us, because we would not have a sword of Damocles hanging over our heads when a federal government has difficulties. Right now, it has problems with the deficit, which is at record highs. Cuts are sure to come. The Minister of Finance is hiding. It is clear that he must find a new strategy, such as eliminating corporate tax cuts, which was announced, but we have yet to see it happen. If the solution does not come from revenues, it will have to come from spending. It will be the same story as under the Liberals, when they plundered the employment insurance fund and cut transfers to the provinces or to individuals.
We prefer to have tax room that we can manage ourselves. We would no longer have to fear the kinds of unilateral decisions we have experienced in the past. I remember 1994-95 very well. We would prefer this financial autonomy. Let us recall that this was part of the plan to eliminate the fiscal imbalance that the Séguin Commission, the Government of Quebec, the National Assembly of Quebec, the Bloc Québécois and everyone in Quebec have been demanding for such a long time.
Let us recall that the plan has three components. First, transfers must be brought back to pre-1994-95 levels indexed to inflation. Members will recall how Paul Martin, the Minister of Finance in Chrétien's Liberal government, decided to solve his deficit problems by offloading them onto the provinces. Transfers must be restored to the levels they were at before the cuts.
Second, the tax room represented by those amounts, indexed at 1994-95 levels, must be transferred in tax points and GST points.
Third, in order to be sure that the fiscal imbalance does not reappear in a few years or decades, we need more than guidelines. We must eliminate the so-called federal spending power in areas under the jurisdiction of the provinces and of Quebec.
Our proposal is extremely reasonable. We are not forcing other provinces to withdraw from federal programs in areas under their jurisdiction. We are not forcing them to clear the tax room that is the equivalent of government cash transfers, if they want to remain dependent on the federal government. I understand that, because, for those provinces, the central State is Ottawa. But for Quebec, Quebec City is the State responsible for conducting the affairs of our nation. We have introduced a bill dealing with the elimination of the so-called federal spending power. That spending power has no constitutional basis, as the hon. member for Beauce rightly reminded us.
Federal intrusion into all areas of provincial jurisdiction in Canada came to $62 billion in 2008-09. That is a lot of money. That is a lot of intrusion into the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces and of Quebec. As I have just mentioned, there is consensus on that in Quebec.
I would have liked to have quoted Benoît Pelletier, a federalist. He wrote exactly what I have just said in Le Devoir on January 19, 2008. I provide the date so that hon. members can refer to it should they wish.
As for the proposal that the leader of the New Democratic Party made to us, he wanted to replace our motion in its entirety with:
...to honour the commitment to limit the federal spending power—although we wish to “eliminate” rather than “limit”—in Quebec's exclusive areas of jurisdiction, given the unanimous recognition by this House of the Quebec nation and the longstanding consensus in Quebec in this regard, the government should, in order to implement a co-operative and asymmetrical federalism:
If there is no constitutional basis for the federal spending power at present, then the situation is inconsistent with the Constitution. Therefore, there is no need to implement a co-operative or asymmetrical federalism; we need only respect the Constitution of 1867.
I will continue to read the motion proposed by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
(a) provide a systematic right to opt out, with full financial compensation and without condition, of all existing and future programs, whether co-funded or not, that intrude into the exclusive jurisdictions of Quebec;
We agree and this is part (b) of our motion.
(b) eliminate all federal spending in an exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec after entering into a specific agreement by mutual consent with the Government of Quebec;
What that means is that we will allow the federal government to interfere and if we do not have an agreement with the federal government, this interference will continue for all time. That is not what we are asking for.
(c) transfer, at the request of the Government of Quebec, equivalent fiscal room.
But equivalent to what? We do not know.
Our proposal is much clearer. As my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé said, this is quite simply a flimsy excuse to vote against our motion. Quebeckers will not accept that.
France Bonsant Bloc Compton—Stanstead, QC
Madam Speaker, we currently have several infrastructure projects that will not meet the March 31, 2011, deadline. We have put questions to the minister about that on a number of occasions.
With this motion about transferring tax points to Quebec, does the member not think that, with all that money, which represents approximately $62 billion per year, this kind of problem would not arise and we would not be at the mercy of the federal government when it comes to getting our share for our infrastructure?
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. One thing is clear, and that is that for each federal transfer, whether in Quebec's exclusive field of jurisdiction or a field of shared jurisdiction with Ottawa, negotiations drag on and are painstaking. This results in situations like the one we are currently experiencing with regard to infrastructure, where we are basically in a straitjacket.
Why is it so difficult for work to be completed by March 31, 201? We know that one third of all projects are in jeopardy. That represents $200 million. The reason is simple: it has taken the federal government months to face the fact that Quebec has to be the one in charge of its infrastructure.
I think that, if we kept all our tax revenues and had full legislative authority, basically if Quebec were sovereign, there would not be this enormous waste of time. It took Quebec 30 years to regain its powers with regard to manpower. Those powers belonged to Quebec. Education is a Quebec jurisdiction. Yet it took the federal government 30 years to accept to give that back to Quebec. That is what federalism is all about. Waste of time, waste of money and squandering.
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Madam Speaker, I will put a very simple question to my hon. colleague. If he believes that Quebec should be autonomous, independent and what not, what is he waiting for to go to Quebec City and work on achieving independence for Quebec?
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Madam Speaker, my answer to the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup is that it is because we are democrats.
Before the Bloc Québécois came to in Ottawa, there was a problem with democracy. There were sovereignists and nationalists, people who did not trust the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party. They had no choice; they either voted for one of those parties or they abstained. The Bloc Québécois has broken through this inconsistency and now allows people who do not trust those parties to vote for the one and only party that protects Quebeckers' interests and values. So, we can state that an undemocratic situation has been rectified and democracy in Quebec and in Canada has been improved. The proof that it has been improved is that, since the Bloc Québécois has come into existence, Quebeckers have sent a majority of Bloc members to the House seven times. That is why I am here—to strengthen democracy in Quebec and in Canada. I hope this is clear for the hon. member.
Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for his excellent speech.
Could he tell me why, although all Quebec governments have agreed for decades that the federal spending power should be limited, we will still see members—elected to this House by Quebeckers—vote against the Bloc Québécois motion?
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Madam Speaker, once again I would like to thank the hon. member from the constituency of Berthier—Maskinongé that neighbours mine. I feel that he did a great job following up on the comments I made earlier.
We cannot trust Canadian parties, federalist parties, that consider interests and values other than those of the Quebec nation. It might be in the interest of the Canadian nation to have a very powerful, large central government, but it is not in the interest of the Quebec nation to have such strong powers in Ottawa, to have interference from the federal government, to have a so-called federal spending power, and to also have this fiscal imbalance that results in insufficient resources for the National Assembly, the Quebec government, to carry out its duties.
We are here to represent those interests. Once again, all the parties in the National Assembly, whether federalist or sovereignist, are in favour of addressing the fiscal imbalance and eliminating the federal spending power. Unfortunately, Quebec MPs in federalist and Canadian parties have their hands tied by the Canadian nation and the majority they represent within their parties.
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the opposition motion brought forward by the Bloc Québécois. The motion in essence seeks to restrict federal spending authority in areas of provincial jurisdiction and allow provinces to opt out of federally funded programs with full compensation and without conditions. This is not a new topic. It has been discussed in the House, at committees of the House and in reports from committees for many years.
We are a federated nation. We are a very fortunate nation. As a federated nation, I often think that the nature of our Confederation is both a blessing and a burden of being Canadian. It is never easy. I think of Winston Churchill's famous comment about democracy when he said that it was the worse system in the world except for all the rest. When we add Confederation to a democracy, it is the best system in the world, but in part it is messy. It is not always easy. We have become a nation that is the envy of the world in many areas.
Pre-Confederation, Canada was born of compromise. Canada was a group of bodies that came together. In 1867 Quebec, Ontario, the great and wonderful and at the time rich province of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick came together. It was a unique coming together and it has borne a lot of envy from people around the world.
I grew up in the United Kingdom. My father decided to come to Canada, and he chose it for a very specific reason. He believed in what Canada stood for. When he arrived here in the late 1960s, as a medical doctor, he became part of the new national experiment of medicare under Lester Pearson and the Liberal government.
There is a balance albeit a delicate balance. Canada has shown over and over again that it is more than the sum of its parts on things like health care, our national system of pensions, even things like employment insurance. There is a long and strong history of Canada making improvements through the federated model of coming to the table and making things work.
A big change to medicare came in 2004 when Prime Minister Paul Martin signed a deal with the provinces to put $46 billion into health care over 10 years, which was a huge investment. It took a lot of negotiation and consultation. Canada's priorities were determined. It was determined that we should improve upon five key areas. Money went into health care and all the provinces understood that. Hard questions will have to be asked as that comes up for renegotiation in 2014.
The member for Beauce suggested that $40 plus billion should be taken out of the federal transfers and that there should be no federal involvement in those transfers or in the work that those transfers do. It is consistent with what we have come to believe from the Prime Minister. A number of years ago he called for what is now referred to as the Alberta firewall. There is a history and a bit of an alliance between the governing Conservatives and the Bloc on this as to the role of Canada in part of those negotiations.
There are hard questions to be asked in health care. I will be the first to suggest that some of those questions will be a bit messy. We have to consider the changing demographics. We have to understand that Canadians are getting older. We have to understand that health care is gobbling up more and more of the public dollar. We have to figure out the role of the federal government.
The federal government has a big role to play. The federal government has not only the opportunity, but the responsibility to be involved in those discussions and to ensure that the priorities of the health care system reflect national issues and are adaptable to provincial interests. There is a model for that.
Back in 2004, when I was first elected to the House, the government, under the then minister of social development, developed a national child care plan with all of the provinces. That is an example of how government can work in our country.
I want to read from a press release from October 28, 2005, “Governments of Canada and Quebec Sign First Funding Agreement on Early Learning and Child Care”. The first paragraph reads:
Prime Minister Paul Martin and Quebec Premier Jean Charest, along with federal Social Development Minister... [the member for York Centre], Quebec's Minister of Families, Seniors and the Status of Women Carole Théberge, President of the Privy Council and Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Lucienne Robillard, and Quebec's Minister of Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs Benoît Pelletier, announced today an historic agreement concerning the transfer of $1.125 billion over five years under the federal government's Early Learning and Child Care Initiative. This is the first funding agreement the Government of Canada has signed under the Early Learning and Child Care Initiative.
It is an indication of how federalism can work and how the federal government can work with the provinces to make improvements in society.
My former colleague, the hon. Lucienne Robillard, said:
This agreement demonstrates the flexibility that characterizes a federation such as ours and allows us to conclude agreements that can adapt to the different situations, realities and needs of a province's population.
I want to quote from the minister from Quebec, Minister Pelletier:
This agreement, besides being of an asymmetrical nature, respects the exclusive skills of Quebec and the positions expressed in this matter. We have always believed that it was possible to agree on a formula that would recognize the work already carried out by Quebec and that would therefore allow us to benefit from [this] funding....
In a lot of ways, the province of Quebec has many things to teach the other provinces in Canada. Child care is an example, the $7-a-day child care program, which advocates in all the other provinces look to as a very strong model and one that works in developing young children. It has always been a bit of a bizarre notion to me that we think children start to learn at the age of six when they go to school. Children start to learn at the age of zero or perhaps even before that, before they are even born. We need to do more, and this model in Quebec is one we can follow.
Another area where Quebec is a leader is post-secondary education. The province has chosen to invest in post-secondary education. If we look at the cost of going to school in Quebec, whether it is undergraduate or graduate school, we see the tuitions are low. There is a cost to that. We all recognize that, but that is an investment that has been made by the province of Quebec.
We have other provinces that have also taken that lead on post-secondary education. The province of Newfoundland and Labrador now has tuitions for first-year arts and science that are in the range of $2,500, versus my province of Nova Scotia where it is more like $6,500. That is another area where Quebec has shown leadership.
Workforce training, maternity and paternity benefits, compassionate and sickness benefits for self-employed and new mothers are areas that are very important, and Quebec has been able to show its individuality. It has been able to invest in programs that it considers important, good investments. It certainly presents some budgetary challenges, but that is what being in government is about. That is the same rationale that this government has for making choices, except that it makes diametrically opposite choices, I would argue.
Quebec has had the opportunity, and Quebec has been respected and should be respected at the table whenever discussions of a federal nature are brought forward.
I want to reference one thing that has come up today, and that is the cuts that were made in federal transfers to the provinces in the 1990s. There is no question that there were cuts made to the provinces in the 1990s by the Liberal government, Jean Chrétien and the finance minister, Paul Martin. The party opposite now says those cuts were too deep. It was not saying that at the time.
People acknowledged that we faced an unbearable debt burden in the early 1990s when the Liberal government took power. Changes had to be made and I recall, with almost some degree of humour, that the former minister of human resources and skills development, Monte Solberg, used to stand in this House and say, “This is the government that cut transfers”, until I pointed out to him some of his words from back in the 1990s, when the government was trying to deal with the deficit, when the government was trying to deal with the enormous burden of having a $40-some billion deficit every year and a huge staggering debt.
This is the advice that Monte Solberg offered at the time:
We have a deficit of $40 billion. We have a debt approaching $535 billion. Soon international lenders are going to get fed up. They are going to say that they have had enough and want to find a place where their investment will be safe. ... I urge the government to come to grips with the seriousness of the situation, to take another look at its social program reform and to move ahead with serious cuts in the very near future for the sake of all Canadians.
That was the advice back then of members, some of whom are still in the government now, but specifically of one member who became the minister of human resources and skills development.
He said in October 1994, “...we gave the finance minister a list of $20 billion in proposed cuts for the government to use in its efforts to get the deficit and debt under control”.
I offer that to the parliamentary secretary. He should have a look at it.
Later he said, “...we are going to have to cut a lot deeper into our social programs. It means we cannot hold out any hope for tax relief for Canadians for a long time”.
Of course, we balanced the books and invested in social programs.
The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie
Questions and comments.
It is 20 minutes. I apologize; I had a different indication. I am sorry for making the hon. member somewhat nervous.
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Madam Speaker, it is not a problem. You never make me nervous. I am entirely comfortable with you in the chair.
My colleague from Cape Breton—Canso said you cut me short, as the provinces were cut by the current federal government. I think that is a good point. Wise wisdom, as they say, from Cape Breton.
Madam Speaker, that was a bit of history, but I want to talk about another area and I hope my colleagues will indulge me.
This motion today speaks to all the provinces and not just the province of Quebec. In Atlantic Canada, where I come from, we love to complain about lots of different things, but we know that the federal government has a very positive role to play in the development of Atlantic Canada.
One of the very positive things that has happened in Atlantic Canada over the years is the development of ACOA. As people know, in Quebec there is the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. However, Atlantic Canada's I think was the first regional development agency, ACOA, in 1987. It was brought in by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and followed up by Liberal governments after that.
It made a big difference in Atlantic Canada, this understanding that there is a unique nature regionally. It may be specific to a region, but it is important to the overall building of a country like Canada, and ACOA was a very important step.
I recall back in the early 2000s, right on the cusp of this century, ACOA developed a program called the Atlantic innovation fund, which came about after the report “Catching Tomorrow's Wave”. People like Senator Willie Moore from the other place and the current member for Charlottetown, who is going to be retiring soon to the misfortune of this House, were involved in coming forward with this plan.
This plan recognized that in Atlantic Canada there were specific projects that needed government help. We do not have a lot of venture capital. We do not have a lot of commercialization. The Atlantic innovation fund came forward and has been very successful in helping to build companies. It is not propping up companies that cannot make it on their own, but it allows them to take something to the next level.
In fact, a number of those companies are in my own riding. One specifically is an organization called the Acadian Seaplants Limited, which harvests sea plants. Years ago people thought that Mr. Louis Deveau, who has been one of the great entrepreneurs in Nova Scotia in the last half century, was crazy. He talked about bringing in seaweed and value-adding it here in Nova Scotia and sending it to places. He has developed a market and I think now has more than 500 employees in three or four different parts of Atlantic Canada.
Organizations like Acadian Seaplants Limited probably could not exist, certainly could not employ the number of people they have, without the support of the federal government.
Ocean Nutrition, which some people will know about, developed a process for micro-encapsulating omega-3 fatty acids for use in foods to provide healthier foods. It also employs Canadians and develops and spurs innovation in our universities, labs and private enterprises. Those are the kinds of organizations that have benefited from the federal government.
So the federal government has a role to play, and we want to respect the jurisdiction of the federal government and the provinces on issues, for example, of poverty, housing, child care and post secondary education. We think there is a role, following the jurisdictional dictates of Canada, for the federal government to play in those things.
On poverty, for example, the Senate released a report just before Christmas called “In From the Margins”, which is a call upon the federal government to be involved in the fight against poverty. Members of the Bloc are in support; for example the member for Chambly—Borduas has been a very strong supporter of that work. There are some issues around jurisdiction there, but we will work those out. This report will be tabled in the House of Commons sometime in the next couple of months. Since it is in draft form at this point in time, I will not read from it.
This government does have a way of using jurisdiction when it is to its advantage. The example I would use is the United Nations periodic review of 2009, which called upon the federal government to institute a national anti-poverty plan. The federal government chose to say it was not its jurisdiction. Yet if we look at some of the key pieces of social infrastructure, whether it is employment insurance, pensions and things like that, the federal government clearly does have a role to play.
There are six provinces and one territory, one of the provinces being Quebec, that have a national anti-poverty plan that they can be very proud of.
Child care we have talked about, but there is a need for a national housing strategy.
The member for Vancouver East has brought forward Bill C-304. We debated it again last night. I know the Bloc supports that. We are trying to find a way that we can ensure we can all support that bill and be respective of the jurisdictions involved.
Another project that I know my colleague from Chambly—Borduas is very keen on is the Canada summer jobs program, paid for by the federal government, an initiative of the late 1990s of the Liberal government that puts to work 37,000 or 38,000 students every year. At a point in time when there are more than 100,000 fewer student jobs than in 2008, we could double that program, possibly even triple it. That would be a possible way to go, to make a difference.
Employment insurance is a federal area, absolutely. We just had the grudging and, I would say, only partial extension of the pilot projects, like the best 14 weeks, like working while on claim, brought in by Lucienne Robillard back in 2004-2005. The government finally and grudgingly extended them, but has basically signalled the end of these, but if we look at the areas that are benefiting, we see this goes to help areas of high unemployment. It directs payments to people in areas of high unemployment. There are 21 areas, including Central Quebec, Chicoutimi, Jonquière, Gaspésie, Isle de la Madeleine, Lower St. Lawrence and North Shore, Northwestern Quebec and Trois-Rivières, so 6 of the 21 programs benefit specifically the province of Quebec.
I said earlier that this country was born out of compromise, not out of war, that the Fathers of Confederation chose ballots over bullets, and in doing so, laid the groundwork for a Canada that for many people is the envy of the world. Ours is not a perfect country; it is a work in progress, but our history is full of examples where Canadians came together and fashioned bonds of equality and common purpose. It is that desire to seek and work toward common purpose that I think enhances our sense of citizenship. I want a country that sees itself more than just as a collection of taxpayers.
Today we are hearing about tax points and transfers and debt and deficits. Those are not really the things that bind us together as a country. In some ways it prevents us from looking beyond ourselves. It creates division and prevents us from seeking the common purpose that allows us to tackle enormous challenges, like the demographic challenge facing Canada today.
Because of that I cannot vote for this motion today. I believe the provinces need to be respected. I believe their jurisdiction needs to be acknowledged. They need to be at the table, but the federal government needs to be at the table as well, a robust partner in building Canada and allowing us to work together to achieve the great potential of this country.
Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON
Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate our colleague on a very excellent overview with respect to the strategic positioning of the budget and economic policies with respect to regional development, and then taking regional development and enhancing it to become the sum of the parts of this country.
I think that is an excellent theme, and I guess my question is related to that. He talked about ACOA and what it has done with respect to regional development in the Atlantic. He has talked about the Atlantic innovation fund. The government has said that because of the decline of the manufacturing sector and those events that are taking place with respect to the automotive industry in southern Ontario, it has created the regional equivalent to ACOA.
However, the budget does not strategically outline what investments will be made through that vehicle into the region. For example, there is very little with respect to the manufacturing industry and green industry, very little with respect to community commuter and rapid transit investments; but there is with respect to border transportation.
Could the member please just give us an overview of what he would do with respect to the regional development fund and strategically how he would better place that with respect to this budget and the budget approach?
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Madam Speaker, my colleague is a diligent fighter for his area, and he is right. Quite often we get promises or raised expectations about what the government proposes to do, but the details are not there.
I think we make a stronger Canada by having stronger regions, investing in western Canada, investing in the automotive industries and aerospace in Montreal, investing in ACOA in Atlantic Canada, because we are more than the sum of our parts. Canada together, all of us invested, in some cases looking at the specific needs of a region, in some cases looking at national programs, is what makes Canada special.
It is both the diversity and the similarity of this nation working strongly together that makes Canada as strong as it is, and I think it is the best nation on earth. I am proud to be here. I just wish we had a better government.
The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie
Questions and comments. Perhaps a very quick question before the top of the hour.
The hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso.
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Madam Speaker, I do not have a whole lot of time, but I would like to thank my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for the bit of a history lesson he provided us with during the early part of his speech. He reminded the government that when cuts were being made in the mid-1990 it was the opposition then and it said those cuts did not go deep enough. Sometimes a little history lesson serves this chamber very well.
The member was saying he railed against the pension plan, as a matter of fact. He was elected twice railing against the pension plan and is now receiving benefits from that plan.
So I appreciate the comment made by the member.
The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie
I will ask the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour to make a brief response.
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his factual and non-partisan question.
Let me just remind the House what Monte Solberg said in 1994:
We should abandon the infrastructure works program...and begin the overdue process of cutting government spending.
He then said we should:
come to grips with the seriousness of the situation...and to move ahead with serious cuts in the very near future
Then, two years ago, he said the cuts were too deep.
It is amazing how time and what side of the House one is on changes one's perspective on things.
The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie
The hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour will have about six minutes of questions and comments after question period.
Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Madam Speaker, before Parliament adjourned for the summer, my private member's bill, Bill C-268, was adopted by the Senate and given royal assent. This bill created a brand new offence of trafficking a minor and carried stiff penalties.
Today I am pleased to announce to this House that this new offence has been applied for the first time in Canada. This past week, a man from Milton, Ontario was charged with trafficking a minor. After kidnapping and gang-raping a young 17-year-old girl, the trafficker viciously forced her into prostitution.
I want to commend the police officers who worked hard to bring this case forward. I also want to thank members on all sides of this House who supported Bill C-268. The bipartisan efforts that led to the success of this legislation must not fade. Human trafficking is a heinous crime and it will take a unified effort here in Parliament to eliminate the modern-day slavery that now exists across our nation.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Madam Speaker, the motto of Rotary International is “Service Above Self”.
Rotary International's wide-ranging activities include community service projects that address many of today's most critical issues, such as children at risk, poverty, hunger, the environment, illiteracy and violence. Notably, Rotary International also promotes ethical behaviour.
One of the most widely quoted statements in business and professional ethics is the Rotary four-way test. The four-way test asks the following four questions. One, is it the truth? Two, is it fair to all concerned? Three, will it build goodwill and better friendships? Four, will it be beneficial to all concerned?
I propose that Parliament adopt the Rotary four-way test as a tribute to the men and women of Rotary International for their outstanding service and their ethical guidance in Canada and around the world.
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Madam Speaker, October is Women's History Month and also Breast Cancer Awareness Month. There have been some hard-fought battles by many women in both of these areas.
There are a number of important events in women's history, including the creation of the Fédération nationale Saint-Jean-Baptiste in 1907, which was created out of the desire of francophone women to separate themselves from the existing anglophone feminist movement. This allowed feminist Quebeckers to speak for themselves, since they belonged to their own nation.
Women must fight against a number of issues together, but they must also fight as individuals, as is the case with breast cancer. Research is essential if we want this disease to be history eventually.
Today, too many workers, refugees and aboriginal women still struggle with problems of discrimination and violence. We hope that one day, these devastating scourges, like breast cancer, will be things of the past.
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Mr. Speaker, less than a week ago the people of the Northwest Territories learned that their negotiators, after decades of trying, had reached an agreement in principle for the transfer of control and administration of crown lands and waters inside the Northwest Territories.
This event is significant as it is the furthest the people of the NWT have gotten to throwing off the colonial shackles that impede them from building a better north for themselves.
There is still much work to be done as this AIP is far from perfect. Mainly it is an agreement between only two parties. In order for devolution to work, an agreement must be reached that includes all of the aboriginal governments in the Northwest Territories, as well as the territorial government in Ottawa.
Perhaps if we could find a way to work together on this AIP, it will be the start of a new form of governance in Canada. This would make the NWT a truly unique part of Canada where public governments and aboriginal governments, through shared responsibility, work together for the benefit of all.
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to tell Canadians about the passing of an inspiring young man by the name of Tim Harriman.
Tim died late last month at the age of 22, after yet another battle with cancer. Although his life was cut far too short, Tim accomplished a great deal and touched the lives of so many people with his courage and his generosity.
In 2007, this young man biked across Canada in what he called the Spokeman Tour to raise funds in support of children with cancer.
Tim battled cancer himself at four different times in his life. He knew first-hand the difficulties and pain involved in fighting this disease, yet he pushed himself to physical extremes in his quest to help others.
Twelve hundred people from all across Canada travelled to Airdrie to pay their respects at Tim's funeral. I know I speak for the people of Airdrie when I offer my condolences to Tim's wife, Christa, and his entire family, and when I say that the memory of Tim Harriman will inspire our community for many years to come.
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate an amazing 13-year-old Nova Scotian. Logan MacGillivray is the youngest person to ever receive the Canadian Red Cross Young Humanitarian Award.
Logan's many achievements include raising funds and organizing the shipment of two 12-metre containers to Sierra Leone, containers filled with school, recreation and building supplies to rebuild schools in northern Sierra Leone. He continues to raise funds to complete a children's centre that will serve 40 villages.
Logan's work and humanitarianism stand as an example that no one person is too small to make a difference, and he deserves to be recognized by the House.