Keith Martin

[Pacific Gateway Act, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to address the concerns that the Bloc Québécois member mentioned a little while ago. He mentioned concerns about opening up our doors without respect or consideration for Canadians, their employment and social programs. That is what this is about.

This bill is about concern for Canadians. It is about concern for our jobs. It is about concern for having a tax base that will provide for social programs, health care, and an array of social programs in the member's province of Quebec, as well as every other province in Canada.

We have implemented this bill because it is about productivity, competitiveness, job creation. Canadians will have more money in their pockets, more jobs and better paying jobs than other parts of the world. It boils down to an array of solutions, including the gateway strategy, education, the removal of barriers to trade internally and externally. It is about research, productivity, strong macro and microeconomic policies. That is what this is about.

In contrast, the former leader of the member's party, Mr. Bouchard, just wrote a scathing article recently and gave a scathing speech in the province of Quebec saying to his separatist brethren that if they wanted to be a part of the international community, if they wanted to remove the torpor that has occurred in certain parts of their province as a direct result of the separatist policies of the Bloc Québécois and Parti Québécois, then they had better do a number of things, including the removal of barriers to trade and revamping archaic education policies.

These things all reside within the realm of the provincial leaders, the provincial government, the separatist government and past governments. That is where these responsibilities lie. Mr. Bouchard made it very clear that the separatist actions and policies are only a hindrance to the people of Quebec and their ability to compete, to get health care, to have more money in their pockets, and to provide for their families as individuals.

I want to ask my hon. colleague a question. What does he think about Mr. Bouchard's comments about what he and his separatist colleagues need to do to offer creative solutions to the people of his province that will enable them to have better higher paying jobs and stronger social programs?

[Pacific Gateway Act, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this bill has a number of very specific interventions and investments in terms of where the moneys are going in order to improve trade and capitalize on the movement of goods and services. We have heard about that across party lines.

I would like my hon. friend to comment on the current investments we have made. There are half a dozen specific infrastructure investments that will come from this bill which will improve the ability of western Canada, and British Columbia specifically, to maximize the opportunities to capitalize on Asian markets. Asian markets are expanding quite dramatically.

Some members, particularly from the Bloc Québécois, have alluded to wishes that the federal government would engage in protectionist practices to safeguard Canadian companies. They suggest that erecting protectionist barriers to trade would somehow be beneficial to Canadian companies

The Bloc Québécois members should listen to their former leader, Lucien Bouchard, who wrote a scathing piece as to the failure of certain political leaders in the Bloc Québécois and Parti Québécois to address the very important challenges that Quebec has in terms of labour movement, productivity, education and barriers to trade.

How does my hon. friend think that the investments that have been made through the bill are going to assist the movement of goods and services and trade for western Canada with respect to Asian markets?

[Pacific Gateway Act, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member understands the intent of the bill, which is to capitalize on international trade markets that have not been capitalized on as of yet.

As a government, one of our responsibilities is to maximize the economic opportunities for our citizens. Right now 85% of our trade is with the United States. It has been by and large a mutually beneficial environment in which to work, notwithstanding things such as softwood lumber. It is important for us as a government to capitalize on other international markets in order to maximize economic opportunities here at home.

As a small country of 30 million plus individuals, we have to trade in order to maintain our standard of living. We have no other luxury but to move forward, to evolve and to maximize the opportunities we have abroad.

Does the member not see that the Pacific gateway strategy will benefit his constituency and many of those of his colleagues? It will maximize our trade opportunities with Asian markets. We do not have the luxury to not capitalize on those markets. The bill and the infrastructure development and investment on behalf of Canadians would maximize those opportunities. If we do not do that, we will be left behind the eight ball and our exporters and private sector will be unable to capitalize on those markets.

Does he not see that the bill is an essential initiative on the part of our government? It would ensure that our exporters and private sector would be on a level playing field, at the very least, or preferably on the upper edge to capitalize on those markets and create jobs at home. It also would provide us with a tax base to provide moneys for such things as health care, which he no doubt cares deeply about as we all do.

[Pacific Gateway Act, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite fitting that the Minister of State for Multiculturalism just gave his speech, because he alluded to the connections that Canada has with other parts of the world through the expatriate communities within Canada.

I know that the Minister of State for Multiculturalism has done an extraordinary amount of work in engaging the communities here in Canada. That is why this bill is so important for him, his portfolio and the work he does with other ministers.

My question for him is a fairly simple one. What vision does the minister for multiculturalism have in regard to the importance of this bill vis-à-vis the connection we have with Canadians from many different ethnic backgrounds, particularly those who come from the Far East? What is his vision for utilizing those people who are Canadian citizens and have connections in the Far East? How does he see that role being played with respect to this bill in capitalizing on those markets?

[Pacific Gateway Act, October 31st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe what the member just did. His riding, of all ridings, will benefit above all else with respect to the bill. His riding, which has had historically high unemployment levels, will benefit dramatically.

My question is very simple. Does the hon. member not recognize that this is the government that put together the cities agenda? Does he not recognize that British Columbia was the first province to sign on to that? The moneys are to be spent on critical infrastructure, sewers, transportation arteries and an environment aspect to boot?

Will the hon. member say to the people of his riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley that he opposes the bill or will he say that he embraces it wholeheartedly and compliments the Government of Canada for introducing the bill for the benefit of his people, the province of British Columbia and Canadians from coast to coast?

[Pacific Gateway Act, October 31st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I want to give the hon. member across the way some good news because I know how important shipbuilding is for her province, as it is for mine of British Columbia.

The Minister of Industry is working with his counterparts and the private sector and all interested groups in Canada to put together a new shipbuilding strategy. This strategy will enable us to compete more aggressively in the future for niche markets and will provide opportunities for Canadian shipbuilders and shipping repair groups to compete internationally and provide for our domestic needs. This is important for her province of Quebec, for the Maritimes and my province of British Columbia.

Many of us have worked for some time to bring together the private sector and the various ministers to do this. This government and the ministers involved are seized with this very exciting opportunity.

Members of the private sector in her province of Quebec are working with our government to provide this opportunity and this shipbuilding strategy, which will enable Canadians to work here in highly paid jobs in niche markets, in shipbuilding and in ship repair. As we know, we have numerous domestic needs, from the Coast Guard to the Department of National Defence, with respect to the shipbuilding industry.

I also want to draw to her attention the fact that the Minister of Transport is from Quebec and has been working very hard on transportation issues in Quebec. He has done a lot of work in that area. I am somewhat flummoxed, to put it mildly, that the member would not acknowledge the fact that the Minister of Transport, as the minister from Quebec, has done a lot of work in this area.

I also want to assure her that the people who are to be on those boards will be chosen on merit and obviously will be accountable to the people of this country and the government. At the end of the day, their actions and how successful they have been will be judged publicly.

We are fairly confident, based on the support we have seen across party lines, that this is a very positive thing for Canada and a positive initiative for Canadians. It will make a huge difference in our ability as a trading nation, an exporting nation, to continue to be competitive, create highly paid jobs in our country and improve the health and welfare of all Canadians.

[Pacific Gateway Act, October 31st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's comments. We certainly appreciate the support that the Bloc Québécois is giving to the bill. At the end of the day, after all the concerns that the member articulated, she knows full well that the bill helps all Canadians from coast to coast, including her constituents in the province of Quebec.

Let us imagine for a moment that the federal government chose not to take advantage of burgeoning markets in the far east. Let us imagine for a moment that we decided to sit still. In trade, if we do not evolve, if we are sitting still, we are moving backwards. That is not an option for the government. It is not an option for Canadians. It is not an option for the Canadian economy.

This Pacific gateway plan deals with the concerns that the member has articulated. She talked about intermodal transportation and coordination of transportation. It also deals with security of transportation arteries, which we know is very important these days with respect to the threat of terrorist attacks. That is what the plan is all about.

I would like to ask the member a simple question. She said that this is a plan that improves British Columbia and the west. It absolutely is, in part because our geography on the west coast of Canada provides a two day advantage in terms of sailing times from the far east to Canada, so there is a reason for that.

Does the hon. member also not acknowledge the fact that while this gateway strategy is centred on improving and maximizing our ability as a nation to take advantage of markets on the west coast, exporters and importers in the province of Quebec equally will benefit from this opportunity? Does she not also recognize that the secretariat we have put together is absolutely essential to ensuring that Canadian taxpayers' money, which has gone into this investment, is utilized in the most responsible way possible to maximize the benefit for Canadians from coast to coast?

I ask her that. This is not exclusive to any other investments that we as a government have made for eastern Canada and central Canada, including her province of Quebec. Does she not recognize that her exporters also will benefit from the Pacific gateway strategy?

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, October 26th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, my friend's comments are a bit divorced from reality. One of the things that was proposed to the government in terms of reducing the cost to individuals was to reduce the taxes at the pump. As I said before, we had a choice of whether to do that. We chose not to do it because it would have given a direct financial tax benefit to the gas companies and that was not fair.

What have we done? We have centred the benefits to the individual, to the Canadian public and to the user, which is what our objective was, to help the public by putting money in their pockets.

On the productivity issue, the member may not be aware that our government has reduced taxes to individuals by $100 billion. Is that the end? No, it is not the end because we are going to continue to approach the issue of productivity to ensure Canada, Canadians and Canadian companies can compete internationally.

The second point I want to make is on the issue of corporate tax cuts. Does the member balk at corporate tax cuts? Yes he does because the NDP is against it. Are we against corporate tax cuts? No, we want to ensure Canadian companies are on a competitive tax basis with other companies. If we did anything less, if we penalized Canadian companies by elevating the taxes to corporations, as the NDP would, what would we be doing? We would be hammering the Canadian economy, reducing employment, increasing unemployment and reducing money in the pockets of Canadians, and that is not acceptable.

We reduced corporate taxes so far from 28% to 21%. The individual tax cuts and the corporate tax cuts to keep our businesses competitive are just the start. Are we doing more? Yes, we are.

Does the member not approve of Canada, Canadians and the government making sure Canadian companies are on a level playing field and on a competitive tax basis based on a competitive tax base with their competitors internationally?

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, October 26th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to respond to my colleague's speech.

The situation, for those who are watching, is one that we were seized with as a government. It was one that came to our attention as elected officials because all of us were aware that the increase in gas prices was increasingly frustrating and demanding on people, particularly those on fixed incomes.

My colleague brought to the attention of the House the environmental aspects of this issue. I know there are people in the House today who are far more knowledgeable on this than I. However, I want to pose a question to the member because it is a challenge we have.

As time passes and as populations increase, we have a number of opportunities and options in terms of fuel resources and protecting the environment. We know we have the obvious which is oil and gas. There is coal of various qualities. There are also tidal opportunities and wind opportunities.

As a government, we are trying very hard through investments in the public transportation system, which is part of the bill, to assist Canadians in refitting their homes to ensure that they are insulated in a better way. If I may add, it is interesting that in trying to meet our Kyoto requirements, if we are able to insulate the homes in which we live and use existing technologies, we will not only meet our Kyoto requirements but go beyond them. This particular initiative on the part of the finance minister and the Government of Canada will do just that.

My question for the hon. member is this. While we are seized with looking at alternative fuel energy sources, is he aware of the energy costs that are involved in wind power in particular? Is he aware of the efficiencies of wind power and the costs that go into putting wind power up and making it functional?

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, October 26th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the parliamentary secretary's comments on an issue that is extremely important to all Canadians.

I want to address two aspects of this issue. How do we manage to reduce the demands on fossil fuels, which is important in Kyoto, to our environment and to people's pocketbooks?

My friend from the other side asked why we did not reduce the gas taxes. On the surface it seems like a logical thing to do but when we bored down into it and looked at the experience in the United States, we found out what happens when taxes are reduced at the pump. The private sector comes along, the oil and gas companies, and absorbs a lot of the tax reduction, which we would implement in an effort to help Canadians at the pump, and only a small amount of that actually benefits Canadians and their pocketbooks.

It almost seemed counterintuitive but when we looked into it, that is exactly what happened. That is not what we want to do. We do not want to give oil and gas companies money. We want to ensure Canadians have the benefit and relief in their pockets from the oil and gas prices that have gone up.

Does my friend, the parliamentary secretary, think the initiatives the government has produced in terms insulating homes is a responsible way of reducing demands on fossil fuels, which is a good thing for the environment and a good thing for the Canadian economy.