Kevin Sorenson

[Health, June 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, again this year I had the privilege of attending the Camrose Schizophrenia Society Walk and Run. This annual event is an important exercise for our community. It is heartwarming to see so many people showing their support. I found encouragement to bring their message to this House today.

I urge all MPs to promote awareness and understanding of mental illness. We can search the Health Canada website for the term “schizophrenia”. We can get the information to share and assist Canadians who are confronting ailments that challenge us as individuals, families and communities, and even nationally. We can see the book written by Canadian families who contributed the benefit of their own experience and counsel.

Anthony Holler, president of the Camrose Schizophrenic Society, emphasizes that people afflicted often become marginalized by society. It is important for us to tell our constituents that it is not a preventable disease, that it is not about just passing through a difficult phase or time, that there is no cause for shame, and that it can be easier to deal with when we have the available information. Let us get the message out.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the House what most people are saying about the industry minister. He is the minister who steps up to the plate and gets the job done. The minister comes to Parliament as a new member of Parliament and learns his file extremely quickly. The minister sits down with the softwood lumber issue and, with other ministers, works toward the solution of the problem that has taken the prior government years. The minister travels across the country with the same kind of message that Canadians are ready to hear. The minister is an incredible minister with a very bright future.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the ability to refine more, to bring on more refineries is a very important part of the pricing of fuel. When refineries go down because of hurricanes or other natural disasters, we automatically see a rise in the price of fuel. I think it is frustrating to all Canadians.

One of the things that dismays me is the amount of facilities that can refine oil here in Canada. We have seen very little growth in refining capacity over the last number of years. For one reason or another, in the last 13 years we have not seen a lot more refinery capacity. This is why it is so important to put in place a corporate tax structure that would encourage this kind of activity in Canada. I want the fuel, energy, gas and oil that comes out of Alberta or Saskatchewan or all of Canada refined here. I do not want it shipped somewhere else to be refined. That is why we want to make sure that the tax structure is such that there will be incentives to refine here.

I keep on saying that this motion talks about adding a surtax. We are lowering taxes. The record of this government is not one of sitting back looking for new taxes to add. There are some parties and some governments in the past that never saw a tax they did not like. They never saw a tax they did not hike. We are looking to lower taxes. We are looking at bringing more competition to the sector. The more that happens, the more young people in my constituency will be working. Right now there is a labour shortage in Alberta and in Canada because we have a booming economy.

A tax like what is being proposed would stifle that. I would really question why anyone would bring forward an idea that would say that things are going too well and it is time we slowed them down. I thank the member for signifying that he will not be supporting this motion.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister, the member for Beauce, for an excellent speech. I also want to thank Quebeckers for sending individuals like the minister we just heard, a new member of Parliament and a cabinet minister, to this House. His constituents should be very proud of him. People across the country are recognizing the minister. He has a very bright future as he continues to represent his constituents, his province and his country.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the motion which calls for action to be taken in response to the negative effects of gas price increases. This is an issue Canadians are dealing with. Canada is a very large country geographically and we do a great deal of travelling. Many people depend on their vehicles. We need fuel for our businesses. We need it for our families. Sudden increases in the cost of fuel and energy make our lives more difficult.

Many of the constituents in Crowfoot make their living in the agricultural sector. I am also involved in that sector. Our input costs are high. The input cost of fuel is high. The cost of fertilizer is high. For example the cost of fertilizer which was $10 to $15 an acre 10 years ago is now $30 to $35 an acre and a lot of it goes back to the cost of energy.

There are many different factors that affect gas prices. Our government is concerned about higher gas prices. We know that hard-working Canadian taxpayers who are trying to raise their families are being challenged by these prices. The retail price of gasoline reflects the record cost of crude oil on the global markets. There is strong demand growth not only here in Canada and the United States but in developing Asian countries. That combined with tight supply conditions has led to significantly higher prices of energy commodities and also industrial metals over recent years.

On the one hand higher commodity prices boost incomes and ultimately lead to higher investment, higher levels of employment and higher levels of output in the commodity sector. The commodity sector is a very significant and important contributor to Canada's strong economy.

On the other hand, petroleum and its derivative products are also primary inputs in Canada's sizeable manufacturing, chemical and pharmaceutical industries, for example. As a primary input, fuel costs force an increase in the cost of production and reduce margins and exacerbate competitive pressures.

These are challenges that all governments in every part of the world must come to grips with. In Canada we are a net exporter of these valuable commodities. The point is that in considering all of the foregoing factors, the effects of oil markets are wide ranging and have a profound impact on many fronts.

We have some of the lowest levels of taxes on gasoline prices compared with our major industrialized competitors.

What has our new government done to help Canadians with the recent jump in gas prices? All Canadians recognize that we are reducing taxes. Competitive business taxes are a cornerstone of a strong economy which is necessary to generate the revenues the government needs to fund the social programs that Canadians need and want.

As a government, we know that an efficient and competitive business tax system is critical to encourage investment that improves productivity, that generates economic activity and that creates well paying jobs for young Canadians, for Canadian families, for all Canadians. Countries around the world recognize the importance of competitive business taxes and have been reducing their taxes, as our country has tried to do as well.

Our recent budget creates an environment for jobs and growth by doing a number of things. It reduces the general corporate income tax rate. Our budget creates an environment for jobs and growth by eliminating the federal capital tax. Our recent budget creates an environment for growth and jobs by eliminating the corporate surtax. Our budget even commits to establishing a meaningful advantage over the United States in the overall business tax burden on investment, which brings me back to the motion we are discussing today.

The motion suggests that as part of a plan to counteract the effects of increases in gas prices, the government should implement a surtax on the profits of major oil companies. I cannot support that. I do not think Canadians want that, and here is why.

Canada's oil companies are significant contributors to the strength of the Canadian economy. They provide jobs to tens of thousands of Canadians. As a proud Albertan, I can say that this is evident not only in Fort McMurray and Calgary but in places like Stettler, Hanna, Oyen, Camrose and Three Hills, all throughout the riding of Crowfoot.

Those companies contribute significantly to provincial and, to a lesser degree, federal revenues. These revenues support the health and social services that Canadians expect from their governments. Unlike the provinces, the federal government receives virtually no resource royalties for oil and gas. For production in the provinces these revenues are off limits to the federal government under the Canadian Constitution.

Corporate income tax revenues from the oil and gas sector are higher, reflecting rising profits. They pay higher taxes when profitability goes up. That is how our income tax system works. That is how our income tax system is intended to operate.

A recent study by ARC Financial Corporation estimates that the oil and gas industry will pay some $5.1 billion in federal corporate income tax for 2005. What is important to note is that the study estimates that provinces will be the major benefactor. They are expected to receive some $21.5 billion in income taxes, royalties and exploration fees.

It seems odd to me that the Bloc's motion would work toward reducing the tax revenues for the provinces and for Quebec. Yet, according to the study of tax revenues, that would be one of the major results of this Bloc motion. Good luck selling that one at home. Good luck selling that in Quebec, in Alberta, anywhere.

Our government has a different approach. Unlike our predecessors, our approach is to promote growth. Our approach is to create jobs. Our approach is to reduce taxes, not introduce new ones. We need a system that encourages investment, not one that discourages it. Our government is encouraging investment and growth in all sectors, traditional sectors like oil and gas, as well as emerging sectors like renewable and alternative energies. Therefore, our tax system encourages investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy projects.

We even have an excise tax exemption for ethanol and methanol in blended automotive fuel and for biodiesel. In fact, to further promote alternative fuels, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources have recently launched a new process for a national biofuels strategy. They have initiated discussions with their provincial and territorial colleagues to establish a minimum of 5% biofuels content by 2010. This will reduce emissions from an environmental perspective and ensure that the agricultural producers participate in this growing economy.

I thank the Bloc for bringing forward this motion, because it shows that the Bloc is missing the mark on how fuel prices are adjusted or how Canadians are affected by--

[Committees of the House, May 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development on the situation involving His Excellency Abdou Diouf, Secretary General of the International Organization of La Francophonie.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the minister for his record on this file, for going to Afghanistan, for standing with our men and women there as well as with the Afghanistan people.

President Karzai has asked Canada to extend its mission in Afghanistan. He did not give an invitation to every other country. He asked Canada. If we were to step back, who would step up? Would Netherlands step up and replace the leadership role that Canada has? Would Great Britain respond and fulfill the role that Canada has had? Would we wait for New Zealand to come forward? Which country would step forward? Canada is being applauded around the world.

[Canadian Athletes, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I had the privilege of attending a fundraiser in the community of Delacourt in my riding for Joshua Riker-Fox, a pentathlete striving to eventually compete in the Olympics.

The pentathlon is an Olympic event that consists of running, swimming, shooting, fencing and equestrian jumping. The Delacourt Community Hall was full of local supporters cheering on Joshua, pledging moral and financial support to him to accomplish his goal of reaching the Olympics.

Joshua Riker-Fox would be a tremendous representative for Canada. He understands that there is a lot of hard work ahead of him.

As much as we all love it, sport in Canada is more than hockey and more than the NHL playoffs. Canadian athletes in many sports train year round to maybe some day represent their country.

Our athletes inspire us. I am proud to represent communities that rally behind their local athletes.

I urge all members of Parliament to support our young athletes as they compete with the world. I know I will be supporting Josh.

[Agriculture, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party of Canada stands up for Canadian agricultural producers. Our budget invests $1.5 billion directly to our farmers in the current fiscal year, tripling our original commitment of $500 million.

Only the Liberals could be angry about help for Canadian farmers.

The hon. member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, a former Liberal cabinet minister, made national news criticizing a federal budget that helps farmers. He complained, “If you are a western Canadian farmer, you just hit pay dirt”.

This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the challenges Canadian farmers in all regions are facing.

For 13 years the Liberals dithered when it came to support for our farmers. Now we have some Liberals saying that we have helped too much. Their support for agriculture continues to be confused and contradictory.

We recognize the difficulties Canadian farmers face and we are taking action. We are standing up for our farmers. We are standing up for our industry.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, when we the comments of the experts who looked at the old Liberal plan, most of them agreed a number of groups were missed in that plan. This is the plan that was never delivered. This is the plan that was announced just before an election. The Liberals tried to make it look as if they were going to finally delivery a universal child care program, after 13 years.

The former government could not give a universal child care program to rural Canada. It did not have the infrastructure. It did not have the people who would be able to put in place a plan that would affect small communities. I have towns, villages and hamlets in my constituency in which a couple of hundred people live. Every expert recognized that most of rural Canada would not benefit from the Liberal-NDP plan.

Most experts also recognized that the Liberal plan was a nine to five program. It would not have benefited the shift worker. It would not have benefited the single mother who was working odd shifts and needed a day care, or a grandmother, or an aunt, or someone to look after that child in the evenings while she was at work.

I referenced the Vanier Institute report. It made it very clear that in one-third of the families, a parent looked after the children, one-third of families used an outside relative or someone in a home and one-third used day care. I did not say those day care centres would close down. I simply said that some of those day cares may not qualify under that former government's program.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House to discuss the motion before us today. I also want to thank my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for sharing her time with me and I thank her for the comments that she gave in her speech. She gave an excellent speech and she understands the issue very well.

I campaigned on the promise of providing Canadians with choice in child care. Today we are delivering on that promise. Before and during the most recent election campaign, the Liberals and the New Democratic Party maintained that the only answer to expanding child care in Canada was their one-size-fits-all plan, to build a massive child care bureaucracy which would benefit only a very small percentage of Canadians.

Only the Conservatives believe in true freedom and true choice in child care. The best role for government is to allow parents to choose what is best for their children and to provide parents with the resources to balance work and family life as they see fit, whether that means formal child care, day care, informal care through neighbours or relatives, or a parent staying at home.

Since the election the government has kept its promise to Canadian voters. The budget on Tuesday introduced our government's universal choice in child care plan. Our budget fulfilled the commitments and the promises that we made. That is a major difference between this side of the House and the Liberal side. We do not have dozens of promises that will not be delivered on.

In the last election we highlighted five priorities, five key commitments of this government. We are acting on each of them, as our budget so clearly indicated.

Canadian parents waited 13 long years for a child care program that was continually promised but never provided. It was constantly announced, election after election, but never delivered. Canadian parents on January 23 said enough is enough. Our minister responsible for Canada's choice in child care plan was quoted in the Toronto Star yesterday, pointing out that our government was actually doing something when it came to child care.

This is why I have yet to refer to the wording of the motion we are debating here today. The motion is full of references to false promises and tired rhetoric that Canadians rejected on January 23 this year. Canadians want something real and they can clearly see in Tuesday's budget what they are really going to get from our new Conservative government.

On July 1, every parent will begin receiving a cheque for $100 a month for each child under the age of six. This is something they can take to the bank for a change. Our government is providing these families an extra $1,200 a year for each child under six, to be taxable in the hands of the spouse with the lowest income. This will be in addition to the current Canada child tax benefits, the national child benefit supplement and the child care expense deduction.

This added support will help parents choose. This added support will help parents decide which child care option best suits their family's needs. This federal government will not decide for the parents. This federal government will not be in the business of raising the children for the parent. It will allow the parent to do their responsibilities and to decide.

We will help employers and non-profit groups create flexible child care spaces in the workplace or through cooperative or community associations. We have allocated $250 million a year in incentives to employers, communities and community associations that create spaces.

Perhaps one of the most important aspects of our plan, at least from my perspective, is that our plan serves the rural communities in our country as well the urban. This is not just a big city plan. This is not another plan or another piece of legislation that pits rural against urban. Our plan will serve moms, dads and children even in the most remote regions of our country.

I have spoken on the child care issue before. In the last Parliament I spoke out against the attempt by the previous government to create a two tier child care system that would have discriminated against families who chose to stay at home or find care outside of the publicly funded system. I quoted from a report entitled “Canadian Attitudes on the Family”, which I really believe is worth repeating again today.

It states:

--many Canadian parents feel trapped by economic pressures and are not able to make the sort of choices they would like for their families. Sometimes, of course, this is unavoidable. Economic reality has a way of interfering with our dreams...

In February last year a Vanier Institute of the Family study on family aspirations found that the vast majority of mothers and fathers with preschool children would prefer to stay at home and raise them, but if they could not, their strong preference would be to have a partner or another family member look after their children rather than placing them in a formal day care centre.

The Vanier study complemented a Statistics Canada analysis, also released in February 2005, which found that in 2001, 53% of Canadian children between the ages of six months and five years old were in some form of child care. That is up from 42% in 1995. About one in three children are being looked after by their relatives, one in three by non-relatives in someone else's home and the remaining one in three are being looked after in day care centres. This is not to say that parents should choose one form of child care or another. The point is the choice should be theirs.

The Liberal government's proposal, before the election this year, would have supported only one-third of Canada's children, the ones who were willing to enrol in a day care centre. Not even all of them would have left their day care centre, which their children were in now, to go to the new one being created by the previous government.

The author of the motion, which we are debating, seemed to forget that, under the plan her government almost foisted on Canadian parents and children, two-thirds of Canadian children were totally ignored.

The Conservative Party of Canada's plan is universal and it is equitable. Our plan is not just some phoney abstract idea. It is real. It is in the budget. It is happening on July 1 this year, not 12 or 13 years down the road. We are giving dollars directly to parents this year, in only two months. We are treating all parents, all families and all children equally. We are allowing Canadian families to make the choices that best serve their needs and the needs of their children.

Canadian families need help raising young children and the government recognizes that. The realities of work and life conflicts are having a huge impact on our country and on our society. Long work hours and workloads are affecting our lives more and more and it is becoming harder than ever to strike a balance.

A Conference Board of Canada study found that the percentage of Canadians who reported moderate and high levels of stress as a result of work-family imbalance increased from 26.7% in 1989 to 46.2% in 1999. This work-family imbalance is costing employers billions of dollars in sick leave and lost working time, which translates into decreased productivity for companies.

In 2003 a Health Canada study, entitled “Work–Life Conflict in Canada in the New Millennium”, found that the high job stresses doubled and job satisfaction and employee loyalty dropped.

We all know that there is also much stress in the workplace, yet all the previous government could offer was a hastily drawn up plan that only addressed a small percentage of Canadian families.