38th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 080
CONTENTS
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
|
 |
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Green Municipal Funds |
|
|
Hon. R. John Efford (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Response to Petitions |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Criminal Code |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Canadian Forces Superannuation Act |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC) |
|
|
Missile Defence Shield |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, BQ) |
|
|
Canada's Ambassador to UNESCO |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, BQ) |
|
|
Assisted Suicide |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, BQ) |
|
|
Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC) |
|
|
Child Care |
|
|
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Centre, CPC) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Labelling of Alcoholic Beverages |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP) |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Budget Implementation Act, 2005 |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay |
|
|
Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson |
|
|
Mr. Guy Côté (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Guy Côté |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Guy Côté |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
|
Hon. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
|
Hon. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Randy White (Abbotsford, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bryon Wilfert |
|
|
Hon. Bryon Wilfert |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Bryon Wilfert |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Volunteerism |
|
|
Hon. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph, Lib.) |
|
|
Veterans Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC) |
|
|
Pope John Paul II |
|
|
Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) |
|
|
Coast Guard |
|
|
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.) |
|
|
Men's World Curling Championship |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC) |
|
|
Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Russ Powers (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, Lib.) |
|
|
Place aux jeunes |
|
|
Ms. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ) |
|
|
Terry Fox |
|
|
Hon. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.) |
|
|
Capital Hill Experience |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) |
|
|
Etobicoke Business Excellence Awards |
|
|
Hon. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.) |
|
|
Landmines |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Terry Fox |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC) |
|
|
Rail Transportation |
|
|
Mr. Raynald Blais (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, BQ) |
|
|
Elmvale Maple Syrup Festival |
|
|
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC) |
|
|
Royal Canadian Mounted Police |
|
|
Mrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.) |
|
|
Aboriginal Affairs |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Federal-Provincial Relations |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Air-India |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Sponsorship Program |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Human Resources and Skills Development |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Sponsorship Program |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Border Security |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Sponsorship Program |
|
|
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Infrastructure |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Jacques Saada (Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John Godfrey (Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities), Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Natural Resources |
|
|
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Canadian Forces |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Sponsorship Program |
|
|
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
The Budget |
|
|
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Presence in Gallery |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Privilege |
|
|
Appointment to National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy |
|
|
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Comments by the Prime Minister's Director of Communications |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages, Minister responsible for Democratic Reform and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Oral Question Period |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Newton—North Delta, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Civil Marriage Act |
|
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Oral Question Period |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Budget Implementation Act, 2005 |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John Godfrey (Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities), Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Bev Oda (Durham, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC) |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Budget Implementation Act, 2005 |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Prentice |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Budget Implementation Act, 2005 |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Randy White (Abbotsford, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Civil Marriage Act |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Division 56) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Parliament of Canada Act |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 57) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Bill read the third time and passed)
|
|
|
Supply |
|
|
Opposition Motion--Air-India |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 58) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Routine Proceedings
|
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
(Division 59) |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
(Division 60) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
|
|
Employment Insurance Act |
|
|
Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.) |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Employment Insurance Act |
|
|
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Manicouagan, BQ) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
RCMP and Law Enforcement in Canada |
|
|
(House in committee of the whole on Government Business No. 10, Mr. Strahl in the chair)
|
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan |
|
|
Mr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
|
Mr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
|
Hon. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Paul DeVillers |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Paul DeVillers |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Paul DeVillers |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Karygiannis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (Rural Development), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter |
|
|
Mr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. John Maloney (Welland, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen |
|
|
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
|
Mr. Bob Mills |
|
|
Mr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Jean |
|
|
Mr. John Maloney (Welland, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Maloney |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. John Maloney |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. John Maloney |
|
|
Hon. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Denis Paradis |
|
|
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Denis Paradis |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Denis Paradis |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC) |
|
|
The Assistant Deputy Chair |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1000)
[English]
Green Municipal Funds
Hon. R. John Efford (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the Green Municipal Funds annual report of 2003-04.
* * *
(1005)
[Translation]
Government Response to Petitions
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 49 petitions.
* * *
[English]
Criminal Code
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-361, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate).
He said: Mr. Speaker, more than 1 million Canadians each year regularly use payday lenders and another 1.4 million use high interest rate lenders at a great cost to their families and to their standard of living. Once hidden charges are accounted for, the effective rates on those payday loans exceed 50% despite much lower interest rates in the mainstream financial sector.
Banks have abandoned the small loans business on the grounds that it is not profitable enough, so many of these individuals who take these loans have no alternative.
I am very pleased to table today this private member's bill with the objective to protect consumers and their families from abusive and usurious lending practices by amending section 347 of the Criminal Code to reduce the definition of criminal interest rates in half from 60% to 35% above the official Bank of Canada rate.
The bill would also broaden the definition of interest to include the calculation of hidden charges paid by a person to obtain insurance coverage.
The bill addresses an important issue that affects families in many parts of Canada and I hope that it will receive broad support from the House.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Canadian Forces Superannuation Act
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC):
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-362, an act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (marriage after the age of sixty years).
He said: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of veterans, like Gordon Read of Kelowna and their families, I am pleased to table a bill to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act.
The bill would remove section 31(1) which prevents spouses who marry veterans after the age of 60 from receiving the veterans pension upon their death. It is wrong to penalize veterans and their families simply because they choose to marry later in life. This policy is outdated and there is no rationalization for the disqualification.
2005 is the year of the veteran. Veterans have given our country so much. I hope my colleagues will support the bill, support veterans and their families and show veterans just how grateful we are.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
(1010)
Petitions
Marriage
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the petition I present today is one of many that I have received on the subject of marriage.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House the fact that marriage is the best foundation for families and the raising of children, that the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman is being challenged and therefore ask Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
I note, in conclusion, that this petition is entirely consistent with Conservative Party policy.
* * *
[Translation]
Missile Defence Shield
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.
The first is a petition calling on the federal government not to join U.S. President George Bush's missile defence shield. This is evidently a very popular position in Quebec.
* * *
Canada's Ambassador to UNESCO
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the second petition I want to present was circulated by the Canadian Coalition for Democracies and calls for the recall and dismissal of Yvon Charbonneau as Canadian Ambassador to UNESCO because of his various positions on international policy, in the Middle East in particular.
* * *
Assisted Suicide
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the last petition I am presenting was launched by Benoît Dutrizac, a broadcaster from radio station 98.5 FM in Montreal, who filed an excellent report on Télé-Québec on assisted suicide and the right to die with dignity. The petition calls on this Parliament and this government to initiate a discussion on assisted suicide and the right to die with dignity so that those wanting this right can exercise it.
* * *
[English]
Immigration
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to present a petition signed by 28 people from the greater Toronto area and sent to me by constituents in my riding of Etobicoke Centre.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament increase the quotas for parental sponsorship admissions and reduce the processing times of sponsorship applications with respect to immigration.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of my constituents who pray that Parliament pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
It is a pleasure for me to assist these petitioners and support them in their petition.
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today and present two petitions on behalf of my constituents from the Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre riding and members from Regina Beach, Buena Vista, Moose Jaw and Regina proper.
Both these petitions deal with the definition of marriage and, more specifically, the desire of the petitioners to let the decision on civil marriage be determined by members of Parliament and not unelected judges and that the members of Parliament choose to retain the current definition of marriage, that being the traditional definition of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
* * *
Child Care
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to rise and present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Calgary Centre who believe that it is parents and not the government who is in the best position to determine which type of child care best suits their children and leaves more money in the pockets of parents to spend as they see fit rather than a government run day care system.
* * *
(1015)
Marriage
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present three petitions to the House today.
The first petition is on the definition of marriage. It has been signed by a number of Canadians, including from my riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners would simply like to draw to the House that marriage is defined as the lifelong union of one man and one woman and is the best foundation for families and raising children. They also point out that it is the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament to define marriage.
They therefore call upon Parliament to define marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
* * *
National Defence
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on the subject matter of veterans.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that veterans and electoral residents from the province of New Brunswick want the House to be aware that the Canadian Forces has plans to remove the Maltese Cross from the hat badge of Canada's military chaplains because it now has one Muslim chaplain.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to cause the armed forces to retain the badge of honour for its military chaplains and devise another method to recognize non-Christian chaplains when so employed.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the final petition is on the issue of the notwithstanding clause under the charter.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that the majority of Canadians believe that fundamental matters of social policy should be decided by elected members of Parliament and not by the unelected judiciary.
They therefore call upon Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including the invocation of section 33 of the charter, commonly known as the notwithstanding clause, to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage which is the legal union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
* * *
Labelling of Alcoholic Beverages
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of numerous constituents and other Canadians who are concerned with an issue dealt with of late in the House. It pertains to fetal alcohol syndrome. The petitioners believe it is important to put labels on all alcohol beverage containers indicating that drinking during pregnancy can cause birth defects. They are concerned that the government has failed to respond to the wishes of the Canadian population and parliamentarians and ask for immediate and urgent action.
* * *
[Translation]
Questions on the Order Paper
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Budget Implementation Act, 2005
Hon. Jim Peterson (for the Minister of Finance) moved that Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to introduce the 2005 budget implementation act at second reading. This is all about the government delivering on its commitments. That has been the theme of this year's budget and indeed it is the theme of the bill before us today.
Canadians expect the government to take major steps to deliver on our commitments and that is exactly what we have done. I hope over the next few minutes to demonstrate that this is exactly what we have done.
In the 2005 budget we have set out an ambitious agenda to promote national well-being, centring on five mutually reinforcing commitments: first, maintaining sound fiscal management; second, encouraging a productive and growing economy; third, securing our social foundations; fourth, promoting sustainable environment and communities; and fifth, strengthening Canada's role in the world. As I said, I hope that these five mutually reinforcing commitments will become obvious over the course of the next few minutes.
Proposals contained in the bill take major steps to deliver on these commitments, with action carefully paced over the next five years. I hope in the next few moments to illustrate how the measures contained in the bill reflect each one of these commitments. Before I do that, I think it is important to make a few comments about our economic situation, because this underlies each and every budget.
Canada is in an enviable position. Since balancing the federal budget in 1997, Canada has led the G-7 industrial nations with the best job creation record and the fastest growth in living standards.
Right now I can hear someone calling in their support, Mr. Speaker, so certainly there does seem to be someone who is agreeing with me on that very significant point.
Looking ahead, and based upon the average forecast by economists from the private sector, the real growth in 2005 is expected to be 2.9% of GDP, rising to 3.1% in the 2006. I would note in parenthesis, however, that since the budget has been proclaimed, private sector economists have actually rounded down the GDP growth for 2005 from 2.9% to 2.6%, so it gives us some sense that private sector economists are possibly not as robust as they were when the budget was being made. That of course is a concern to each and every one of us who considers a sound fiscal framework to be the cornerstone of our prosperity.
These forecasts are always subject to risk, including the evolving impact of the rapid rise in the value of our dollar. Canada is probably one of the most global trading nations, if not the most global, and because of that our risks are frequently risks that are outside of our control.
For instance, the principal risk is with the twin U.S. budget and account deficits. These could cause higher interest rates, slower U.S. growth and further depreciation of the American dollar, all leading to slower Canadian growth and some economic adjustment which could in many instances be quite painful for each one of us.
As I said, we do not have control over how the U.S. issues its budget or controls its current account deficit. These are principal risks to the forecasting which are completely outside of our control, similarly with the economy of China and with rising oil prices and things of that nature which are by and large outside the control of our economy.
(1020)
It is the possibility of future risk that motivates the government's first commitment, and that is to sound financial management, with balanced budgets or better based on prudent fiscal planning. Even after dramatic investments in funding for provinces and territories and further new measures, budget 2005 projects a surplus for the current fiscal year ending March 31, a surplus for the eighth year in a row. That is the longest string of surpluses since 1867 and the founding of the nation.
The budget projects balanced budgets or better over the next five year period. The five year fiscal projection reflects the fact that the vast majority of the commitments it makes extend beyond the traditional two year planning horizon. This has further positioned Canada as a world leader and the only G-7 country to post total government surpluses in each of the past three years and the only nation that can expect to be in surplus in 2005 and in 2006.
Our strong performance has fueled a $60 billion plus reduction in Canada's public debt and a saving of more than $3 billion annually each and every year in debt servicing costs. This has led to Canada having a triple-A credit rating, producing lower interest rates for provinces, cities, businesses and families.
Again as a parenthesis, in my own community of Scarborough—Guildwood what we have noticed is a vacating of a lot of lower-end apartments while people get out and buy homes, because the interest rates are now such that the home which was heretofore unaffordable has become affordable. People are leaving the apartments and moving into their homes because their mortgage payments are the same as or less than their rental payments.
The combination of lower debt and lower interest rates has meant that the share of government revenue going to debt servicing or interest rates has been cut from almost 38¢ of each revenue $1; that is, 38¢ or well over one-third of every $1 was going to service debt. Now we are down to around 19¢. We have shaved it entirely in half. For the provinces, on average that has meant a significant reduction in their debt interest costs as well. Some provinces are down around an average of 12¢ of every revenue $1, and again, these are savings that are passed on to any entity that borrows money.
To sustain these benefits and to position Canada to meet future pressures such as our aging population, the government aims to bring down the debt to 25% of GDP within 10 years.
Balancing budgets and bringing down debt do not happen by accident. They require prudent fiscal planning. For this reason, budget 2005 again sets aside $3 billion in an annual contingency reserve. If not needed to keep our books in balance, these funds will go directly to reduce the debt.
We have also continued to build economic prudence into the budget plan, starting at $1 billion. If not needed, it will be used to invest in other priorities of Canadians.
Fiscal discipline also demands a rigorous approach to delivering value for the taxpayer dollar. That is why the government established the expenditure review committee of cabinet to scrutinize each and every line of government spending.
The committee has identified $11 billion in cumulative savings over the next five years. Almost 90% of that $11 billion comes from greater efficiencies in procurement, property management, service delivery and program administration. These savings have been incorporated in budget 2005 and are being reinvested in core federal programs and services.
The government's second commitment to Canadians is to encourage a productive and growing economy. Canada's current economic progress shows that we are on the right path, but increased prosperity and growth need constant improvements in productivity and our ability to compete in a fast-changing global environment.
(1025)
Again in parenthesis, we have noticed in the last year some fall off in productivity, which is worrisome. I think it is largely reflected by the rapid appreciation in the Canadian dollar and that has made it very difficult for some businesses to adjust quickly. We can live with a higher Canadian dollar, but it is the haste at which that change occurs which makes it very difficult for businesses to adjust and build into their situation and productivity improvements that keep them competitive.
We face the challenge of a soon to retire baby boom generation followed by a much smaller generation of workers. This means we will no longer be able to automatically rely on labour force growth to boost the economy. It means that the workforce has to be as inclusive as possible, and we need the workforce to be as skilled and productive as possible to beat international competition.
Budget 2005 takes action to meet those challenges. This action starts with the understanding that quality child care and early learning is much more than just merely good social policy. It is also an investment in better productivity and economic success in the years ahead. I will reference this back to when I said that we needed an inclusive workforce. Clearly, men and women, as they raise children and work, need to have the most flexible arrangements possible for raising families.
Bill C-43 would provide for the creation of $700 million trusts for provinces to invest in early learning and child care programs. This amount is the 2004-05, 2005-06 portion of the $5 billion commitment by the federal government for five years to develop a shared early learning and child care initiative in collaboration with the provinces and territories.
We are also taking action to reduce taxes. A competitive tax system makes individuals more prosperous and firms more productive. That is why the federal government has cut taxes each and every year since the budget was first balanced in 1997, including the record five year $100 billion tax cut introduced in the year 2000.
The budget builds on these reductions by committing to increase the basic personal amount of income that all Canadians can earn to $10,000 by the year 2009. This will benefit all taxpayers, but in particular, it will remove 860,000 low income earners from the tax rolls, almost a quarter million of whom will be seniors.
Next, to help Canadians save for retirement, Budget 2005 boosts the overall contribution to the RRSPs and registered pension plans to $22,000 by the year 2010. This especially will benefit those who are entrepreneurs, the self-employed and small businesses, people who have no large pension entity to support them. As well, to expand the investment opportunities for Canadians, the government will remove the 30% foreign property limits, such as shares on RRSPs and pension plans.
Bill C-43 also takes action to maintain a competitive corporate tax environment to stimulate growth and jobs. It proposes to eliminate corporate surtax in 2008. This will benefit businesses, both small and medium sized. By 2010, the government proposes to reduce a 21% general corporate income tax rate to 19%. Even in the face of corporate tax reductions in the U.S., these measures will still maintain a tax rate advantage for Canadian businesses.
Further, a productive and environmentally sustainable economy is only part of the Canadian well-being. Budget 2005 also delivers on the government's fourth commitment to make further investments to secure social foundations. These investments build upon a $41 billion agreement for health care in Canada, which the Prime Minister entered into with the premiers last fall, and the new $33 billion framework for provincial equalization and territorial financing.
(1030)
For example, the Prime Minister and the territorial first ministers have agreed to work together to develop a comprehensive strategy for the north. The north is entering into a time of unprecedented promise and opportunity, particularly with respect to the economic opportunities relating to oil, gas and diamond development.
Bill C-43 proposes to create a $120 million trust to help the territories meet the goals of the northern strategy, a joint initiative between the Government of Canada and territorial governments aimed at improving the quality of life for northerners.
Budget 2005 also recognizes our debts to seniors. Indeed, the budget makes significant investments across a wide range of policies that matter to seniors. An investment in health care, which was made in the fall, is of most benefit to those who are aging. People use up most of their health care allotment in the latter part of their lives. The health care investment is for us all, but is of particular significance to those who are seniors.
In Bill C-43 the increase in the guaranteed income supplement is a payment of $2.7 billion over five years, with improvements in place in less than two years. This will benefit 1.6 million seniors, the majority of whom are women. The maximum GIS will go up by more than $400 per year for a single senior and almost $700 for a couple.
The third commitment on the government's agenda is in recognition of the fact that a smart economic policy and environmental policy can go hand in hand, improving the quality of life, the health of communities and opportunities for growth. Budget 2005 introduces a $5 billion package of measures over five years to support sustainable environment. These include the new clean fund and a partnership fund to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Bill C-43 proposes to establish a new agency under Environment Canada to manage the $1 billion climate fund which will provide incentives for reduction and removal of greenhouse gases. Moreover, the bill proposes to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to facilitate the future addition of greenhouse gases to the list of substances under the act. This will allow the Minister of the Environment to regulate emissions and implement the proposed large final emitter regime and emissions trading system.
Bill C-43 also would provide $300 million to the green municipal funds to support local environment projects. Of this amount, $150 million would be used to help communities clean up and redevelop brownfields.
A key element of the environment for Canadians is our cities and communities. Budget 2005 builds on the new deal for communities launched last year by providing municipalities with a growing share of the federal excise tax on gasoline. Bill C-43 proposes to provide initial funding of $600 million for this initiative, the equivalent of 1.5¢ per litre. This will grow to $2 billion a year for additional revenues over five years, delivering again on this government's commitment.
Canada's meeting its domestic needs should not obscure the fact that events like tsunami disaster emphasized that we in live in a global village. For example, when the tsunami struck southeast Asia last December, Canadians were deeply affected by this tragedy. Again in parenthesis, the Sri Lankan community, of which I have the honour to represent in my riding, is deeply affected by this tragedy. Canada responded very generously with an assistance package totalling $425 million.
In true Canadian fashion Canadians responded generously with their personal donations of approximately $200 million to charitable organizations and the government matched that.
(1035)
Finally, the measures contained in Bill C-43 represent a comprehensive, integrated plan to enhance the well-being of Canadians. Over this period and over this budget, we have delivered on our commitments.
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member like to comment on the deductibility for investments?
The Canadian Real Estate Association has met with many members of Parliament and is particularly interested in whether we plan on doing anything with capital gains by not including it in the definition of the expected profitability for investors.
Hon. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, representatives of the real estate industry were on the Hill yesterday. Regrettably I did not have an opportunity to meet with them and hear their representations, although a meeting had been set up.
Their concern is with respect to deductibility of the costs of property where there is a question of gain. This arises out of a Supreme Court decision when the government took the position that where there was no real prospect of making money on a property and having a capital gain then the deductions would not be deductible.
An example may be a hobby farm where the expenses are being run through it, therefore reducing other income where there is no real prospect that it will make money. Maybe that is a poor example, but it is the only example I can think of off hand. That is the dilemma raised by the representatives of the real estate industry arising out of the case before the Supreme Court.
I look forward to the opportunity to talk further with them to see whether there is something that can be done on that issue. On the face of it, the government's position is that of the decision made by the Supreme Court of Canada.
(1040)
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I found it very interesting to listen to the parliamentary secretary boast about the number of surpluses the government has run over the last number of years. Not once did he mention some of the critical situations facing students, the homeless and low income Canadians. He failed to address the absence in the budget of some initiatives in those areas.
The member talked about the government rolling in surpluses, but he said nothing about students drowning in debt. He failed to mention that there was nothing in the budget nor in the budget implementation act to deal with education, the one program that would give families hope that their children would be able to break through their economic circumstances and build a better future. The one program that would offer some hope of equalizing conditions in the country has been neglected and ignored by the government.
Since we are talking about elections a lot these days, in the last election less than a year ago the Prime Minister stood in Newfoundland and Labrador and said to the world that he was interested in putting $8 billion into education. The world applauded because he was touching on one of the most critical issues facing Canadians today. What has happened in the space of one year? There has been no mention of education since that election campaign. This was another broken promise. The need for access to quality post-secondary education, one of the most critical issues facing this nation, was given no attention.
Why was there nothing in the budget and in the budget implementation act about education when the Prime Minister made such a grandiose promise and offered such hope less than a year ago? Why did the government spurn the remarks and contributions made by students' associations, professors' associations and education associations during the prebudget consultations about the failure of programs like the learning bond, the registered education savings plan and the millennium scholarship fund to address the issue of universal education? Now we learn that cabinet has documents showing these programs have limited success and only provide limited access.
I would like to hear the full goods from the member. I would like to hear the true story about education and what the government plans to do and how fast it intends to act.
Hon. John McKay: Interestingly, Mr. Speaker, I just came from a meeting with the president of the University of Toronto. We had a really interesting and fascinating discussion about the variety of issues that the Government of Canada has taken with respect to research primarily, of which the University of Toronto is a very significant beneficiary. It certainly appreciated not only the contributions to the various foundations which it can access for funding but also the funding of research chairs and a whole variety of issues in the area of post-secondary education.
I do not frankly accept the premise of the hon. member's question with respect to our involvement in post-secondary education. It is profound. It has been significant and it has put the Canadian universities back in the research game. In fact, it has also reversed the brain drain. We now have a brain gain.
The question is twofold. The second question is with respect to student access. The member is right in the superficial analysis of the bill. The budget did not address access issues by students, but I direct her attention to the 2004 budget where we dealt with a number of issues: RESPs, learning bonds, millennium scholarships, and things of that nature that is being objected by the hon. member.
In the spirit of candour, I would say that in some respects those have had an uneven success rate. I know, for instance, my family uses RESPs. That is one of the major ways in which my children will access post-secondary education. I would expect that going forward those issues will be continually evaluated and addressed.
The final point is with respect to homelessness. The draw down on the funds that has been put aside over the last few years has not been as vigorous as we had hoped. I would also point out to the hon. member--
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I wonder why.
Hon. John McKay: Well, in part because of provinces that cannot seem to get their acts together. I have had people in my office complaining that the money is sitting there and it is not being drawn down. When the money is drawn down, we will again review the situation. I would point out that affordable housing has become a lot more affordable under this government.
(1045)
Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to return to some of the comments that the parliamentary secretary made when answering questions from the member for Blackstrap.
He was talking about eligible expenses and gave the example of hobby farming. I know the parliamentary secretary is aware of the difficulties facing the farm community. We have a situation where we are going to see a sustained loss in that industry. A lot of the farms are not going to be able to show they have the potential to profit under the current definitions.
We also know that these current definitions affect other industries like real estate investment and would take some time to start showing any profit and any opportunity to have a return on those investments. How is the parliamentary secretary going to ensure that the stringent rules and guidelines we have today are not going to affect our productivity in the future.
A recent article in the Ottawa Citizen said that one of the greatest hamstrings we have in this country are the rules and regulations that prohibit investment. This is one of the things that is going to make people think twice about investing and starting these small sideline businesses while they work, and what hopefully will become a successful business down the road.
Hon. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member actually asks a good question. I know it is kind of a novelty here. The question revolves around REOP, reasonable expectation of profit. There are a lot of businesses that start up and, frankly, some are more successful than others. In fact, probably the vast majority are less successful than more successful. I do not remember what the statistics are on it, but my recollection is something in the order of 1 or 2 out of 10 are actually successful.
The government takes the view that there has to be a reasonable expectation of profit before one can deduct that against other income. If people set up businesses that have no expectation of profit, but they want to deduct their expenses against other income, whether it is pension income, other earned income or capital gains, then they will have troubles. I think that is the actual position to take.
As to encouraging small business to actually take off and go that way, there are a number of programs in place. The trouble with being in government is that one has to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. One still has to have a reasonable expectation of profit and meet that definition. If one does not, I do not think anyone should expect to have deductions.
(1050)
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate today on Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget which was tabled just a short six weeks ago on February 23.
Unfortunately, this budget implementation bill is reflective of the Liberal government's arrogance that has plagued this Parliament for over a decade, back in 1993 when it was first elected. However, in this minority Parliament, it is time for the Prime Minister to stop behaving as if he had a majority and start governing, and take into account the best interests of Canadians. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be happening.
We in the Conservative Party have made it very clear that we believe the legislation contained in Bill C-43 should be divided into three stand-alone parts: first, legislation enacting Kyoto provisions; second, measures that fulfill commitments made to the provinces including the implementation of the Atlantic accord; and third, clauses traditionally found in budget implementation legislation.
Let me deal with the Kyoto measures first. We have a last minute decision by the government to include changes to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and enabling legislation for a Canada emissions regulations agency. All it is, in this minority climate, is a crude bait and switch tactic that is not fooling anybody. I notice that the environmental community is not very happy about the government's tactic either, although the environment minister may have thought that he was going to have support there.
The Liberals knew the majority in the House however would not approve the Kyoto measures if they presented them in stand-alone legislation. That is why they attached it in a last minute amendment to Bill C-43. This move, at the very least, has delayed legitimate budget measures from implementation and may have even, depending on what happens in the next couple of months, put their very implementation at risk.
The government's cynical effort to divide and conquer has had the opposite effect. It does not matter what side people are on regarding the Kyoto debate. No one is prepared to swallow hasty, superficial and highly questionable Kyoto measures that are being presented in bad faith.
I would like to take a moment to talk about Kyoto and the whole business that was first developed in Rio back in the late 1980s. This is the government that sleepwalked its way to a very bad Kyoto agreement to begin with. Although it had left it for almost 10 years, it had to develop a position to take to Kyoto, Japan for the international conference that was taking place.
The Liberals hastily put a government position together. They went out and consulted with the provinces in about a week. They came back with a position the provinces could finally agree to, went to Kyoto, and doubled the amount of concessions that Canada was prepared to make, double what the provinces had just agreed to a week earlier. That is the kind of rocky start that they got off to, and quite frankly people are shaking their heads at the way that the government has handled this whole file.
From our point of view, these are not the same set of budget measures which the Conservative Party was presented with in the budget, and so we refused to defeat the government on the budget. Now we find this late amendment that has been brought in as a way to change things. It is a very strange approach.
Let me deal with the Atlantic accord. It is another problem we have with this budget implementation bill. I would say equally contemptuous is the Liberal tactic of holding the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia hostage by linking the Atlantic accord provisions, which most members of the House support, with the obviously problematic Kyoto measures.
Members will remember the Atlantic accord. This was the promise that the Prime Minister made when he was slipping very badly in the last election, less than a year ago in June. He went to Newfoundland and Labrador to shore up his support and agreed that we had to make changes to the measures, especially on the offshore resource revenue. Then when the Premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia asked him to hold up his part of the bargain just a few months later, he was not prepared to do that. We all saw the negotiations that went on, including Danny Williams and his disgust at the way the Prime Minister had backed away from that agreement. Finally, under great pressure, the Prime Minister gave in.
We think the provisions of the Atlantic accord in Bill C-43 could be passed in one day in the House if the Liberals would table stand-alone legislation, but so far they have not agreed to do that very simple matter.
(1055)
However, on April 6, just a short time ago, the leader of the Conservative Party rose in the House to seek unanimous consent for the following motion: “That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders or usual practices of the House, a minister of the Crown be permitted to table a bill without notice that implements the Atlantic accord; when such a bill is called for debate it be deemed read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, deemed read a third time and passed”.
Therefore, it is clear that the intent was to move this through very quickly. The accord was finally reached between the Premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia and the Liberal government after a great deal of pressure. However, the Liberals have linked it to the Kyoto amendment and this is problematic.
The member for Toronto—Danforth, the leader of the NDP, seconded this motion. We may disagree on many issues, but the Conservatives and the NDP share a sense of fair play and apparently the Liberals do not as they would not give their consent. Nevertheless, we remain united on this point. The Atlantic accord should be passed with no further delay, finally giving the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia what they were duly promised in the last election campaign, which is a fair deal they so justly deserve.
The bottom line is that the Conservative Party does not believe in playing games with the well-being of Canadians and Canadians of that particular region on this issue. It is high time that the Liberals stop trying to score points and follow the lead of the Conservative Party by acting in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. We request that this be split away from this bill and if the government refuses to do so, we will try to accomplish that in committee when it comes to us.
Traditional budget measures are normally contained in these budget implementation bills. In the last election the Liberals campaigned against many of the Conservative initiatives which they seem to very strangely now accept, such as tax reductions. Our last platform, which the Liberals criticized as being fiscally irresponsible just about 10 or 11 months ago, committed to $58 billion in new spending and tax reductions over five years.
In budget 2005, the Liberals made $55 billion in new commitments for the same time period. Eerily and remarkably, almost exactly the same numbers. We could not afford them in June during the election campaign. They were highly irresponsible. Then the budget came down February 23, and strangely, the are exactly the same numbers. So it was just a crass political ploy at election time to discredit the Conservative Party. Now we see that it was affordable all along.
Unfortunately, many of the tax cuts embraced by the Liberals in the budget do not go far enough or occur fast enough to have a substantial impact on the well-being of Canadians. In fact, some people are calling the last budget “budget 2008” because many of the measures do not take effect until late in the five year period.
The personal tax relief measures in the bill are insufficient and back-end loaded. They amount to a reduction of no more than $16 next year. It is called the pizza of tax relief. One family could maybe buy a pizza with the tax relief it is going to get next year. So the Liberals back-end loaded many of these provisions and they are only going to be $192 when fully implemented in 2009. Not nearly enough, but it is the right direction.
The productivity enhancing measures in budget 2005 however are insufficient. They serve only to illustrate that the government is not taking the warning signs that Canada's high priority programs could be in jeopardy if comprehensive steps are not taken to grow the economy before the demographic crunch happens. I have been on the finance committee for some time. We have heard this story about the looming demographic change. We have an aging population in Canada. We will have less people paying the bills down the road. We believe that we have to take measures now to get Canada's economy going. We know that we are trailing our major trading partner, the United States, very badly in terms of productivity.
People may ask what that is, it really means we have a lower standard of living. It is not good enough. We have fallen behind very badly in the last 25 years. It means in real terms that people can understand that the average family of four in Canada has a take home pay of about $24,000 less than the average family in the United States.
(1100)
What could people do with that? They could put some $2,000 a month on their mortgage payments. That is really what it amounts to in real terms. They could pay down their mortgage considerably faster if we had the same kind of standard of living as they have in the United States.
Why would we think that we should not aspire to have as high a standard of living? We have had it in the past. It is only in the last 25 years that we have drifted very badly. Our productivity has fallen so we are only about 75% as productive as the United States.
I would suggest that it is not the fault of Canadians. It is the fault of policy makers who put us into a whole bunch of areas of government spending in which we do not need to be involved any more.
Let us take some steps now to correct that before the big demographic crunch happens. Canada's productivity slack not only curtails the Canadian standard of living now but it puts the future affordability of our social programs into serious jeopardy. The time to fix a leaky roof is when the sun is shining, not to wait for a downpour to flood the house.
Some of the measures in the bill do not reflect how they were presented in the budget document. While the budget noted that each of the territories would equally share $120 million in trust, part 6 of Bill C-43 leaves the allocation up to the terms of the trust indenture. Maybe that is fine but maybe it is not. It does not spell it out.
Budget 2005 said that $150 million for the green municipal fund would be applied to clean up brownfields. We heard about the need for that many times but no stipulations to that effect were made in part 8 of Bill C-43, which I think is also an oversight or an error.
With regard to the much talked about gas tax transfer to the municipalities that the parliamentary secretary talked about a little earlier, part 11 of Bill C-43 only authorizes payments to the provinces regarding the gas tax until 2005-06 even though the budget stated that the amount of the share of the gas tax would rise to $2 billion annually by 2009-10.
I think some provisions still need to be cleared up.
Provisions to help low income seniors do not come out as beneficial as the Minister of Finance's budget speech would lead us to believe. For example, part 23 of Bill C-43 says that unless the provincial governments raise the comfort allowance amount, the total amount increased to the GIS, the guaranteed income supplement, would not be paid to seniors living in subsidized nursing homes but rather to the nursing home operator or the province.
There may also be provincial programs, such as GAINS in Ontario, which would claw back half of the GIS increase so that it may not be quite as rosy as the finance minister has suggested.
The area on which I am the most critical is the area of surplus projections. We just had the budget six weeks ago. The finance minister told us that the budget surplus for the year that just ended March 31, and he was only a few weeks away from it at the time, would be $3 billion. That has been changed many times this last year but we have heard him say there would be $3 billion.
Unfortunately, I suggest it is somewhat like the fiasco of last year when the finance minister stated that the budget surplus would be $1.9 billion and it magically turned out, after the election I might point out, to be $9.1 billion. A lot of people thought that maybe the finance minister was dyslexic or something when he got the numbers opposite but it turned out to be a huge advantage for the Liberal Party during the campaign. The Liberals said that they could not afford all the promises that were made by the Conservative Party but, alas, they could have afforded it all along because instead of a $1.9 billion surplus it turned out to be a $9.1 billion.
I am suggesting that the finance minister pull up his forecasting socks and stop hiding taxpayer dollars by lowballing surpluses.
Some people might want to know what is wrong with lowballing. What is wrong is that in the last seven years we have had seven consecutive budgets where the finance ministers have lowballed the surpluses and we actually had $80 billion more than the government said we had over the last seven years.
Why is that important? It is important because Canadians are shut out of the debate of how that money should be spent and what their priorities are, or, conversely, maybe too much tax money has been collected from Canadians. Eighty billion dollars would have been a pretty nice hit in terms of having tax relief.
(1105)
Old habits die hard and the Liberals are at it once again using false numbers and saying that there would be a $3 billion surplus for 2004-05, the year just ending. We find those numbers strange because the fiscal forecasting group that the finance committee hired came up with a surplus of $6.1 billion. In terms of 2005-06, the Minister of Finance was saying that his estimate of the surplus would be $4 billion while the fiscal forecasters are saying $8 billion and that it could be considerably higher.
We know it is not an exact science, a point the parliamentary secretary has made many times, but it seems to me that if the government is going to be out it would be high as often as it would be low. However that does not seem to be happening. It seems to be quite a different process it has and it seems very deliberate.
I want to talk about the minister's fiscal update last November and how inaccurate that also was, which ties into this. What I am saying is that Canadians already have a problem. I remember when the Prime Minister was the finance minister he was in Toronto lecturing the business community about corporate malfeasance, how important it was that Canadians could rely on the numbers of the corporations and that they should be accurate in their projections so that when people wanted to buy stocks and bonds they could feel confident that these companies were providing accurate information.
Would that not also apply here? In fact, should this not be the place that sets the high standard on how projections are done? To that end, the finance committee, on behalf of especially the opposition parties that made amendments to the government's throne speech, asked that we have more accurate fiscal forecasting and asked that we look at an independent budget office.
We are in the process of doing that at committee. We have independent economists looking at the last two quarters of 2004-05. They have been able to give us timely updates, which is very important to parliamentarians in order to tell Canadians that we are reflecting their priorities and giving them the most current information.
The Auditor General has criticized the government in the past. The Conservative Party is working on the finance committee to bring truth and transparency to fiscal forecasting by establishing the independent parliamentary budget forecasting office. We believe it is in the public interest to have a healthy debate on what to do with the surplus, if there is one, and not play a game of hide and seek as to how big the surplus really is.
The Conservative Party will continue to hold the Liberals to account for spending that is unfocused and wasteful. Over a decade of Liberal waste, mismanagement and scandal has shown that billions of dollars sent to Ottawa could have been more effectively managed by Canadians themselves if left in their pockets. Canadians were overly taxed by $80 billion.
The Conservative Party has also said that it will strive to make this minority Parliament work so long as it is in the best interest of Canadians. Currently, the bill is not reflective of that principle. That said, we will try to turn the bill into pieces of legislation that are in the best interest of Canadians.
We can only hope the Liberals will keep those interests in mind and allow themselves to be guided by those same principles.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for some time the House has had an interesting debate going on about surpluses. I can remember one of the reporters saying that it was a real good problem to have.
One of the things the member may want to comment on is the issue of the debt. We have paid down some $60 billion worth of debt. The debt I believe is still as high as it was when the Conservatives left office. It is a little out but very close.
The amount of surpluses that have been accumulated since the Liberal government came into office in 1993 basically have kept us at the same level of national debt that we were in when we came. Therefore to suggest that it is an inappropriate or usurious amount would be perhaps premature to make that conclusion.
I would ask the member to make some comment on the level of the surplus and on the importance of paying down debt and saving some $3 billion a year permanently that can be reinvested on behalf of Canadians. The member has been on the finance committee and he knows that the contingency and prudence factors, assuming that all things come in as budgeted, should generate surpluses. Could he comment on whether or not that is a responsible policy?
(1110)
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, the question from the member for Mississauga South is important and it is one that Canadians want us to debate in the House. In fact, I think they would make it a priority that we pay down debt. However I do not think they want a sort of accidental paydown; something that is left over when we cannot find enough programs on which to spend the money, which is essentially the way it has happened under the government.
I want to remind the member that when the Liberal government came to office in 1993, the debt was at some $495 billion, a debt that was accumulated by two governments, including the Liberals' own. When the Liberals took office in 1993, I think they ran the debt up another $88 billion before they started to make any changes to bring it down. The debt still stands today at over $500 billion, which is not an acceptable level.
Canadians want us to pay down debt but they want it on a planned basis. In terms of the prudence and contingency reserves that are put in place in the budget, yes, we agree with those, but we think that should be enough to handle that category. The budget surpluses have been coming in two to three times higher than the combination of the contingency and prudence reserves set into the budget. That is showing that something is out of control here. If people in the private sector had that kind of forecasting and ran their businesses that way, I think the forecasters would be fired.
Quite frankly, this is irresponsible forecasting. That is one reason that the House, in the throne speech amendment, decided to look at an independent budget office. They have those in other countries, such as the United States and Great Britain. The idea is to act as a check and balance against the administration's numbers. That has worked very effectively in the United States.
When the member talks about the surpluses going to debt, yes, that is fine in the end, but it should be something that is discussed as a priority and where that ranks in priority. Maybe tax relief is also a priority they want to achieve.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one of the most interesting developments around this whole budget implementation act has been the support of the Conservatives for this Liberal budget, a budget that has been questioned by all sectors of our society for its failure to put forward an appropriate balance between paying down the debt and reinvesting in programs that will build this country. It is a budget that is seen as fundamentally flawed because of the amount of money that will be stashed away in trusts and hidden funds for which there will be no accountability to Parliament.
We have a sponsorship scandal in the making with the likes of the budget: millions of dollars stashed away in trust funds and no way for the public or for Parliament to maintain some sort of oversight.
How can the Conservatives justify supporting a budget that contains the seeds for a scandal as big, if not bigger, than the sponsorship scandal with us today?
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North has a lot of bravado today about the budget vote that took place some time ago but my understanding was that if the Conservative Party had voted against the budget instead of abstaining, the NDP members would have been running for the hills so they would not have had to bring down the government.
There will be a time when the government will be brought down but we believe that Canadians are the ones who have to make that decision.
We were not happy with the budget either. It went some ways to satisfying Canadians about things like tax relief. That said, I have already pointed out in my speech today that they were not fast enough and they were not deep enough.
We are not in favour of Bill C-43, which would implement the budget itself, and I have just pointed out our reasons. We want three provisions separated out of the bill and then we will deal with those items separately.
(1115)
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate a comment from the member about airport rents.
In Saskatoon, Saskatchewan the airport authority will be facing rent of up to $700,000 beginning in January. This is a huge amount of money for the small city of Saskatoon. The airport was taken over by the Saskatoon Airport Authority because Transport Canada was losing money running the airport.
Would the member comment on the contradiction?
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, that is an important question and not just for large airports. Toronto and other major airports are facing difficulties on the issue of the rents, but small airports are really in trouble on this issue. I was surprised that the government did not take measures in the budget to correct this situation. We know that some airlines are now saying that they will have to review their policy on flying into Pearson in Toronto because the airport rent is too high.
When the Government of Canada decided to ask the airport authorities, in effect the communities involved, to take over the airports, it did so under a certain set of criteria. No one expected the government to get into the sleazy landlord type of situation where it kept raising rents when it could not be justified. I think there has been a massive overcharge in rents. It is similar to a slum landlord.
It seems to me that this is going to kill a lot of small airports in the process. The airport in Grande Prairie is facing difficulties on the rent issue. Also, the airport authority has gone back to the city of Grande Prairie saying that there has to be firefighting ability there. It was one of the things that the government said 10 years ago that the airport would not have to have. There were major cost savings by having the firefighting ability just a quarter of a mile away where the city ends. Now the rules have changed. That is really hurting a lot of airports and airport authorities.
I agree with the member for Blackstrap that the government has to revisit this issue. I know that when the Conservatives become the government, which may be in the very near future, we will review that whole area.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy Côté (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on February 23, the Liberal government tabled a budget that was and still is unacceptable to Quebeckers because it fails to consider their priorities.
Naturally, we cannot oppose a budget and support the bill to implement it. So, it is clear that the Bloc Québécois has the duty, on behalf of Quebeckers, to oppose Bill C-43 to implement the February 23 budget.
However, the government could have and indeed should have used the opportunity presented by Bill C-43 to make major improvements consistent with Quebec's interests to the budget. However, the Liberal government, in addition to rejecting improvements to EI and the fiscal imbalance, even went so far as to add items that are totally unacceptable to Quebec, such as the special agreements on equalization with Newfoundland and Labrador and with Nova Scotia, and the polluter-paid principle under the Kyoto protocol.
Furthermore, the minority government should have made compromises. Instead, it has chosen arrogance and actions befitting a majority government. It has behaved like a government itching for a snap election. If this bill results in the dissolution of the House, the Prime Minister will have to tell Quebeckers why, and the government members will take the fall in a new election. For all these reasons, we cannot support this motion.
I said earlier that the Bloc Québécois, on behalf of Quebeckers, was opposed to the budget. We will oppose this bill too. Why? We have held a broad-based consultation in Quebec on the real needs and priorities of Quebeckers. We have reached a number of conclusions, namely that, in Quebec, the fiscal imbalance is a major issue that must be resolved.
What do Quebeckers want? In the long term, they are calling for the transfer of tax fields. In the short term, they are calling for increased transfer payments for education and social assistance. They want increased equalization payments along with changes consistent with the demands of the Quebec government, such as the use of the ten province standard instead of the five province standard.
What do we have in this budget as far as the fiscal imbalance is concerned? We have a Minister of Finance who announces no additional measures to loosen the financial stanglehold on Quebec, a problem the Liberal Party refuses to acknowledge. We have agreements on health and equalization payments that are clearly inadequate and in no way resolve the fiscal imbalance. God knows,with its enormous, virtually scandalously huge surplus, the federal government has the financial means, at this time, to resolve this issue.
All workers in Quebec, and naturally—I am tempted to say “unfortunately”—the unemployed, have one priority. That priority is employment insurance. The Bloc Québécois called for an independent EI fund and commission; improved coverage including reducing the eligibility criteria to 365 hours; more weeks of benefits; a new program to assist older workers.
Once again, there is precious little in the budget on this and almost nothing relating to employment insurance, despite the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which called for a far more sweeping reform, and despite reports which had, I might point out, unanimous support in committee. Unanimity means that Liberal MPs voted in favour of those reports. Nevertheless, there are no improvements that could, for instance, apply immediately to seasonal workers.
As far as seasonal workers are concerned, there is of course one markedly inadequate measure involving some pilot projects. That may amount to $300 million spread across Canada. In addition, the 2005 budget prevents any actual improvements to the EI program because the main objective in changing the fund is to eliminate the annual surplus.
(1120)
Earlier, I mentioned Kyoto, and I am sure my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie will speak much longer on it than I will.
I will however mention quickly that Quebec has called for substantial expansion of the wind energy support program,; tax deductions for public transit passes, the abolition of tax incentives for non renewable and nuclear energies and even the creation of tax credits for the purchase of hybrid vehicles. And what do we find? We find a budget that confirms the choice already expressed by the federal government of a voluntary approach to the Kyoto protocol, which will not lead to the achievement of the objectives for the reduction of greenhouse gases and will place the financial burden on the taxpayers rather than the major polluters.
There are absolutely no tax measures in the transport sector. This oversight will not help Quebec to improve its greenhouse gas reduction record. These measures are not appropriate to Quebec.
In recent years, Quebec has had a serious crisis in agriculture. The expectation was that the federal government would help farm producers struggling with the mad cow crisis, for example, in terms of the compensation needed to reach the floor price. There is the situation with cull cows in Quebec. Here again, the government's record is pretty poor in the context of the budget and Bill C-43. It is simple. There is nothing for agriculture. There is only the small sum of $17 million for slaughter, which in fact is not new money. This government has completely ignored the situation of farmers across Canada and Quebec.
The government keeps telling us about all its funding for the military. As in health care, I think that prevention will always produce better results. We expected this government to take concrete action to achieve the UN goal of increasing international aid to 0.7% of GDP by 2015. What are we seeing? We are seeing an extremely timid commitment from the government, which will in no way allow us to reach that goal. As things stand, we will not achieve 0.7% of GDP in 2015 but rather in 30 years. We are far from the mark.
An extremely important issue for Quebec is respect for its areas of jurisdiction. With regard to the child care initiative, Quebec is asking for the right to withdraw from the federal program, unconditionally and with full compensation. With regard to parental leave, the transfer payments must be made as soon as possible to the Quebec government so that it can finish implementing the initiative it had presented. The negotiations with the municipalities must be terminated. The gas tax revenues should not go directly to the municipalities but rather directly to Quebec, so that the latter can determine the terms and conditions and its allocation among the municipalities.
These are Quebec's traditional demands, and it is difficult sometimes to understand why the Liberal government will not listen to reason since it has been told the same thing for years. So what do we see in the budget? We see a final agreement on parental leave between the Government of Quebec and the federal government. It should not be forgotten, though, that this is Quebeckers' money that the federal government is using to invest in one of Quebec's jurisdictions. So this agreement is only fitting. It does not prove that asymmetrical federalism works. Instead, it is the result of a struggle that the Bloc Québécois has waged in this House since 1997. It took eight years to finally reach an agreement on parental leave, despite all the historic announcements about this program every month, to the effect that this matter was about to be settled.
As far as child care is concerned, the Prime Minister agreed to give Quebec its share of the federal funding with no conditions attached. However, we should recall that the federal budget speaks about Canada-wide standards and reporting. The transfer of part of the gasoline tax to municipalities may well be carried out under conditions that are unacceptable for Quebec. There is talk of strategic objectives, Canadian results and bilateral agreements specifying how the municipalities will share the funds.
(1125)
Well, these three areas are very clearly within the jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec. Once again, Quebec's demands regarding Bill C-43 and the budget have been disregarded.
Social housing is another area where the government's management has been so sad that it makes you want to cry. The federal government was asked to ultimately devote the equivalent of 1% of its program spending to contribute to the development of new social and community housing. So what do we see? Nothing. There is nothing at all for social housing. If there is one sector that has just been forgotten in this budget, that is it.
As I say, it is enough to make you cry. Families are having difficulty finding adequate housing. Some families in Quebec spend about 60% of their income just on housing. Meanwhile, this government has the nerve to bring down a budget with nothing for social housing.
For the Bloc Québécois, it is also important that this budget not neglect our francophone friends in the rest of Canada. We felt that the federal government ought to follow up on the budget requests from francophone associations in the Canadian provinces and raise to $42 million the budget allocated to them under the Canada-communities agreements. That budget, incidentally, is currently $24.4 million. Once again, there are no provisions for the Canadian francophonie, which is most unfortunate.
Yet the government had the means to do far more. The federal Liberals had enough financial leeway to do far more. According to the Bloc Québécois forecast, that leeway will attain the $50 billion mark, more or less, within three years, not the meagre $15 billion figure the Minister of Finance has given for that same period.
The federal government therefore had all the leeway necessary, but not the political will. It is as simple as that. Once again, the Minister of Finance turned Prime Minister is up to the same old tricks, giving priority to paying off the debt—they are talking about $15 billion over five years—at the expense of the people of Quebec.
That is the general situation. Now I will touch upon some of the more specific aspects of this bill which are of particular significance to me.
I will start with part V, which concerns the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. This allows the transfer of up to $700 million to a trust to help Quebec and the provinces develop their child care system in keeping with the following principles: quality, universal inclusiveness,accessibility and development.
The Bloc Québécois calls for an unconditional right to opt out, with full financial compensation, from implementation of the federal child care program. Adoption of part V of Bill C-43 just as it stands would mean that the money in trust available to Quebec and the provinces would suddenly be tied to the application of four national standards in an area over which Quebec and the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction. While all Liberal ministers involved promised that all this would respect everyone's areas of jurisdiction, in reality this budget includes an obligation to meet national standards.
Such legislation means Quebec would have to meet national standards set by the federal government in an area outside federal jurisdiction. This also means Quebec would have to be accountable to the federal government for the proper application of these national standards.
Quebec is being heavily penalized by this bill. Quebec parents are still waiting for additional funding, while the Government of Quebec is ready to receive this funding and use it for improving its own system.
(1130)
I remind this House that the Bloc Québécois is in Ottawa to protect the interests of Quebeckers. The federal government's interference in Quebec's jurisdictions and its foot-dragging in signing a bilateral agreement with Quebec so as not to penalize it for having one of the best child care systems in the world, are not the best ways to achieve this.
I am talking about early childhood, but this government's handling of the Old Age Security Act is hardly any better. I am referring to Part 23 of Bill C-43. The government is quick to remind everyone that it injected money into old age security, but the governing party forgets—I am being polite—to dig a little deeper to look at what this money represents.
First, the increase in funding will not begin before January 2006. The situation for seniors will not improve immediately. This will not begin until January 2006, or almost a year after the budget was tabled.
Second, there is also an increase of $18 monthly for single pensioners. As if eighteen dollars a month really improves the life of seniors. I should rush out and dance in the street to show my delight. Eighteen dollars a month is a scandal. The federal government had the means to do a lot more for seniors.
In addition, this bill makes no reference to the money seniors have been deprived of over the past 11 years, because of the government's failure to provide the information they needed to receive the guaranteed income supplement. I believe seniors in Canada lost out on $3 billion and those in Quebec on $800 million for lack of information. This is really scandalous, in my opinion. The bill makes no provision for this aspect of an extremely serious situation.
I have spoken of young people and seniors. Let us talk about workers now, people in the labour force, who, often for distressing reasons or sometimes for economic reasons, need financial support from the government, in the form of employment insurance, for example.
Previous Liberal governments have turned the employment insurance fund into an employment tax, which has enabled them to pay down the debt and eliminate the deficit. This bill contains no provision on access to the plan. Imagine an insurance company where only 40% of those paying premiums manage to get benefits when they need them. This is what is happening with employment insurance. The few amendments in the bill have nothing to do with access to the plan. They have nothing to do either with extending EI benefits. Only slightly, through pilot projects, do they have anything to do with extending benefits for seasonal workers. This bill, overall, responds to none of Quebeckers' needs.
In conclusion, I point out that this budget, tabled on February 23, is totally unacceptable. It completely ignores the priorities of Quebeckers. The federal Liberals have behaved exactly like a government looking for a quick election. We voted against the budget. We have a duty on behalf of Quebeckers to vote against Bill C-43.
(1135)
[English]
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is essentially nothing that the Government of Canada can do to make the Bloc Québécois happy, so I do not know why we would spend a lot of time trying to do that.
One of the notable omissions from the hon. member's speech had to do with the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador accords. As we know, this was a very significant sum of money, $2 billion, to Newfoundland and Labrador, and another $830 million to Nova Scotia, moneys that were agreed to by the Prime Minister after a great deal of negotiation and which have led to some other difficulties.
Part of the rationale for the government doing this was the very difficult fiscal situation in which Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia find themselves, with debt to GDP up around 62% in the case of Newfoundland and Labrador and around 38% in the case of Nova Scotia, I think, as well as declining populations and economies that are simply not performing.
One of the reasons that Newfoundland and Labrador finds itself in such great difficulty is that the Churchill Falls accord is so disadvantageous that the province is in effect selling its hydroelectricity to Quebec at a scandalously low rate, which effectively creates a great deal of difficulty for Newfoundland and Labrador in raising revenues.
I would ask the hon. member two questions. First, would he would support a renegotiation of that agreement between Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec so that the rates generated can actually reflect market rates? Second, would he support the passage of this accord which in effect in part makes up for the difficulties that disadvantageous agreement has created for Newfoundland and Labrador?
(1140)
[Translation]
Mr. Guy Côté: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his question. I have two or three quick answers for the parliamentary secretary.
In regard to the impossibility of ever making the members of the Bloc Québécois happy, I would simply point, as I said in my speech, to the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities calling for in-depth reform of the employment insurance system. The report was unanimous. If the government had had the courage to implement these measures, the Bloc Québécois would have been happy and would have voted in favour of such a bill. That is the first thing.
Second, regarding the agreement between Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador, we in the Bloc Québécois, in contrast to the Liberal Party, do not interfere in provincial affairs. We are on the federal level. This was a contract between two parties. If the parties want to renegotiate it, they should do so. However that may be, these are matters for Quebec and the provinces and we will not interfere in that.
Let us turn to the special agreements with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. As the parliamentary secretary knows very well, a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Finance, namely the Subcommittee on Fiscal Imbalance, is currently on a cross-Canada tour that will end soon. Allow me to draw a somewhat hasty conclusion in light of the various witnesses who have appeared: the equalization system has been completely perverted by this government , among other ways through special agreements. Equalization is supposed to be a matter of equity to ensure that the provinces can provide comparable services. So as they get richer, their equalization goes down. That is only natural.
These equity principles are called into question, though, by the agreements with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. These are agreements that completely upset the equalization system, which was already in difficulty as a result of the policies of this government.
Furthermore, we are now witnessing attempts to reach more special agreements, in particular with Saskatchewan and Ontario. Rather than trying to solve the problem piecemeal by signing agreements that only accentuate the inequities, why does the federal government not undertake an in-depth reform of the equalization system and solve the problem of the fiscal imbalance? That is the question.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for his very interesting speech. I want to ask him a question, along the same lines as the parliamentary secretary, regarding the fiscal imbalance and equalization.
Yesterday, the hon. member and I were in Quebec to hear witnesses talk about equalization. It was incredible. All the witnesses from all parties, whether the Liberal Party, the Parti Québécois or Action Démocratique, indicated that the equalization program was a disaster, that we were looking at a crisis in Canada and that we were in the process of losing a very important program for our country.
I have the following question for my colleague. What solutions did the witnesses offer yesterday in order to guarantee a future for the equalization program?
Mr. Guy Côté: Mr. Speaker, indeed, the Subcommittee on Fiscal Imbalance met in Quebec City yesterday.
The situation is Quebec is extremely clear, and numerous witnesses presented the same political analysis. What we have seen, particularly since 1995-96, is the government's withdrawal in terms of transfer payments to the provinces. This has had a ripple effect.
The federal government has cut transfer payments to the provinces. The provinces have a social mission to provide services in areas, such as health and education, that often consume between 60% and 70% of provincial budgets. As a result, they have had no choice but to make cuts in other areas.
A few years later, the federal government has a surplus. What does it do? It makes conditional reinvestments in areas that have been somewhat neglected, after cuts imposed by that same government, and it passes itself off as the saviour. Naturally, it often concerns pan-Canadian programs that do not meet the specific needs of any one province or Quebec.
For Quebec, the situation is relatively simple. The solution to the fiscal imbalance requires, first, a comprehensive reform of equalization. It means moving from the five province standard to the ten province standard. All revenues in all provinces must be included. It means better assessing the fiscal capacity with respect to taxes. That is the first thing; we must restore the role of equalization, which is to ensure tax fairness across Canada.
Second, the transfer payments are often conditional and subject to the government's will. One word comes to mind and, if we heard it once yesterday, we heard it 50 times. It is this government's “unilateralism”. “Unilateral decisions” are constantly being made.
Quebec is proposing, in exchange for transfer payments in health and education, that it recover the taxation field occupied by the GST. At present, these amounts are approximately equal. Thus, we would no longer be subject to the unilateral actions of this government, and the provinces and Quebec, where my interest lies, would be in a better position to make better choices in these areas of jurisdiction.
(1145)
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting debate on the budget. It is interesting how things can change in just a couple of weeks. Normally, the budget implementation bill is a rather perfunctory process. It is a rubber stamp after the budget debate has occurred, the vote has taken place, and it is simply a matter of housekeeping. It is interesting how much can change in just a short period of time.
It was just two weeks ago that the Liberal government decided to put the finishing touches on Bill C-43 and added interestingly a new aspect that had not been part of the budget debate at all. That was of course the amendment to the Canadian environment protection legislation. It was all done, as we understand now, to force some interesting divisions around the issue of Kyoto and the environment, and presumably to create a fight that might lead to an election. It was leaving the options open to consolidate its forces around Kyoto, and to divide and conquer in this place and possibly go to the polls on that issue.
That was on the assumption that we would not have heard too much from the Gomery commission at that point. It was pretty tame two weeks ago with not a lot of interesting stuff coming out. The Liberals were trying to act before that would happen to pre-empt the inevitable and get on the hustings before the truth came out.
Here we are with a whole new set of developments. The lay of the land has changed completely. A bill that is normally quite anti-climatic has become a focal point for just what is wrong with this government, what is wrong with its budgetary approach, and how it is linked to the scandal of the sponsorship program as it unfolds around us.
I want to speak today on the budget implementation bill, but I do so with the realization that this has become far more than the customary debate about budget items alone. It is interesting what has just happened. Liberal infamy has drawn the world's eyes upon us today like never before. In the world of 21st century technology, the stench of corruption spreads almost instantaneously to all corners of the globe. It has riveted attention particularly on the way Liberals handle all money transactions and economic matters, such as the budget.
The Liberal government's fiscal judgment is under the microscope and the world is watching. What does it see? I see the parliamentary secretary is anxious to know how the world perceives the Liberal government. Canada is seen as one of the wealthiest countries in the world and one of the most envied societies floundering on a rock of its own creation.
Canada is not an economic superpower like our neighbour to the south, but we are still looked to for leadership. We are still looked to for moral leadership, as a promoter of peace, development, greater social equality, and a builder in the best sense. The scandal swirling around the Liberal government has undermined that reputation. The Liberals' backroom agenda has become front page news, and that news is worrisome both to Canadians and to those beyond our borders.
(1150)
People want to know if they can trust the Liberal Government of Canada. They are looking to this bill, the budget implementation act, for some answers. They are looking for answers on whether Liberals can be trusted to keep their promises to Canadians, answers about whether Liberals can be trusted to put Canadians' priorities before their corporate buddies, and answers on whether the Liberals can be trusted to keep their international promises and honour our Kyoto commitments.
Hon. John McKay: Done.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The parliamentary secretary says “done”. Well I guess he is living in a little bowl with his rose-coloured glasses on because in fact the rest of the people in this country do not have such optimism. They do not see such faith maintained by the Liberals in terms of the promises made.
They want answers on the government's commitment to women's equality. I hope the parliamentary secretary does not say “done” because we are a long way from achieving our objectives around a fully equal society. They want answers about the government's commitment to international development, and the list goes on and on. Suffice it to say there are many unanswered questions on the part of Canadians.
The Liberal Party may be doing fine financially and certainly Liberal friends are millions of dollars richer, but the vast majority of Canadians are not so lucky. They are stressed out. They are struggling to hold their ground. They are fighting to keep pace. Many are working at more than one job, either in the paid workforce or unpaid family-related jobs, trying to pick up the slack from public services that have not survived previous Liberal budget cutbacks and downloads. These are the Canadians who have heard the Liberal speeches. They have endured the Liberal smugness and they now expect the Liberal government, through this budget, to deliver.
How does this budget bill measure up and what does it say in real terms about how the Liberals measure up in meeting the basic needs of Canadians: housing, education, child care, infrastructure, reducing poverty, and of course our share of the planet and environment.
To start, let us just take $4.6 billion right off the top, money that the Liberals have given away, no strings attached, the way only Liberals can, to their corporate pals in new tax cuts despite, interestingly, having promised not to bring in any new cuts until social program needs had been met. Then, let us carve off another $4 billion with no discussion and no debate in Parliament for accelerated debt reduction.
Let us look at what is left. Who better to ask about the impact of Liberal budget priorities than the people who work day in and day out on these issues, the people who are knowledgeable about what was needed and can best judge just what was given. Here is what a few of them had to say.
On the Liberal broken promise on post-secondary education, which as I have said many times is the foundation of our future workforce and continuing prosperity, university graduates are dragging an average debt load of nearly $25,000 with them when they leave school. Tuition fees have more than doubled under Liberal rule, an area completely ignored by the Liberals in this budget.
(1155)
What are folks saying?
The Canadian Association of University Teachers said, “There is nothing in the budget that provides any relief to students and their families struggling with record high tuition fees” and record high debt. Of the Prime Minister's election vow to restore core funding, the Canadian Federation of Students said simply, “He broke that promise”.
On the Liberal broken promise on affordable housing, another vital area for Canadians, all ignored in this budget, the child poverty advocates of Campaign 2000 said:
|
We are extremely disappointed that the Liberal Government did not follow through on their election promise to invest $1.5 billion in housing. |
The National Aboriginal Housing Association said:
|
Once again, the federal government has ignored the housing crisis facing non-reserve Aboriginal communities. |
The Canadian Real Estate Association, with us in the halls of the House of Commons today, expressed disappointment and said:
|
The government should have taken this budget opportunity to specify its commitment to a new affordable housing strategy. |
On the Liberal broken promise to take into account the budget impact on women, last promised by the Liberals in February, the Coalition for Women's Equality said:
|
This budget has once again let women down. |
La Fédération des femmes du Québec said:
|
For the 2.4 million women currently living in poverty have very little to celebrate today. The government has not followed through on its housing promises nor has it made substantive changes in the EI program. These programs matter a lot for women. |
The YWCA said:
|
Promise after promise, budget after budget, the federal government is ignoring women's needs and rightful place in Canadian society. |
On the Liberal broken promise to make aboriginal issues a priority despite the long overdue round table process, the Assembly of First Nations said:
|
This budget will condemn our people to last place for a lot longer. |
The National Association of Friendship Centres said:
|
The lack of attention to urban aboriginal issues, despite the Prime Minister's commitment...is disheartening. |
Even in the areas where the government is slowly inching forward on its long time commitments, the municipal gas tax funding, the 12 year overdue promise on a national child care program, the response has been cautious as the projects are so far from complete.
As the Canadian Labour Congress said:
|
What we have are short-term half-measures that still don't deliver the goods for the majority of Canadians...nothing on a range of issues important to working people. |
Let us not forget the environment, where again the Liberals just could not control their natural impulse to arrogance and deception by trying to sneak in changes to disguise the real inadequacy of the environmental proposals in the budget bill. I do not think the Liberals take the environment seriously. Twelve years after taking over an urgent environment file and promising to attack pollution, they still have not got their act together to take on the Kyoto challenge.
Climate change is a worldwide issue already bringing catastrophic results in ecologically vulnerable regions. People's lives, indeed the life of the planet as we know it, are at stake and the government, these Liberals, continue to dither around with half measures that question their commitment.
Many nations are wrestling with the same Kyoto adjustment pains that we are. They are watching closely to see how Canada resolves the contentious environmental issues and moves forward. It would appear that they have been waiting in vain. Instead of commitments and strategies, the Liberals offer only game playing, machismo, and measures not supported by the environmental community.
The budget has paraded a string of Liberal broken promises before the world that seriously challenges the government's credibility.
The Liberal broken promise that has the world community most concerned is Canada's lagging commitment to the millennium development goals, the 35-year-old broken promise to contribute .7% of our GDP toward developmental assistance. Two years ago under the Liberals, Canada's contribution had sunk to only .24% of GDP. This is incredible. It is an embarrassment.
(1200)
I have just returned from the 112th Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The topic of the day was international commitments to the millennium goals. Once again, Canada was hard-pressed to explain how, given our wealth and our economic stability, the government was contributing so little and had not even set a target date for meeting its promised funding obligations.
Some countries are already delivering their .7%. Others, including France, Britain, Spain, Finland, Belgium and Ireland, are on track to raising funding to this level by 2015. That is a reasonable target. That is a target we in the New Democratic Party have been calling on the government to adopt.
However, the Liberals seem as enthusiastic to address the world poverty issues as they are to lower poverty right here at home in Canada. They have failed to set targets to lower poverty here just as they have failed to meet their targets internationally.
Interestingly, the results speak for themselves. The gap between the rich and the poor keeps growing. Even with repeated promises to relieve child poverty, 15% of Canadian children still live below the poverty line. Broken promises led UNICEF to openly criticize Canada's record last month.
Whether we are in Winnipeg or Halifax, Kampala or Geneva, the conclusion from the budget is clearly that we cannot trust the Liberals.
Just as the Liberals will not own up to their responsibility for the sponsorship scandal, neither will they admit to their failures and broken promises. Instead, they preach to the world about what others should do. The Prime Minister, while still in waiting, having devastated public services to Canadians, issued a report to the United Nations extolling developing nations to base their economic future on the private sector instead of the government intervention route that helped forge the Canadian economy over the years.
Perhaps the most insipid and, as it turns out, ironic example of Liberal arrogance was Jean Chrétien's farewell tour. His farewell tour stopped in Abuja, Nigeria in December 2003, where he had the nerve to lecture those attending from southern nations about the need to clean up corruption as the most important step to attracting investment and strengthening their economies. He chided their record and cited Canada as exemplary in this respect.
The hypocrisy. Words escape me. I just cannot understand the Liberal government, those who came before and those who are now in the seat of power. Denial and then more denial.
A number of us were on the public accounts committee last year before the last election. We were examining in great detail the sponsorship scandal. We suspected the treachery now being recounted daily at the Gomery commission. What happened when we tried to ask those questions and raise those concerns? We were dismissed by Liberals as not knowing anything. We were dismissed arrogantly by the Liberals at the time.
We wanted to hear from key witnesses before the last election. Who stopped us? Who denied us the opportunity? The Liberal majority on the public accounts committee.
Well, the jig is up. There will be no more Liberals stuffing their friends' pockets while Canadians are wanting. Canadians will no longer abide it. The NDP certainly will not vote for it.
The budget is another chapter in the Liberals' long budget legacy of opportunities squandered to improve the lives of Canadians, and huge corporate tax cuts given, serving Liberal friends first.
The world sees the gap growing between the rich and the poor. Child poverty is beginning to increase again. The number of food banks is rising. And the Liberals do not understand it. Neither do Canadians. Under Liberal majority and minority governments, the wealthy continue to recycle wealth among themselves. There is nothing in the budget to keep investment in Canada instead of offshore tax havens.
(1205)
There is ongoing chopping of programs to Canadians but nothing to recover millions in lost corporate taxes and loans. There is however an increase in the amount people making more than $100,000 can put into RRSPs where it is not taxed.
Maybe the Liberals when cornered can just steam off to their home ports in Barbados or other tax havens, but the rest of us are stuck here to face the world with their mess and their reputation. Today as we examine the Liberal budget bill, the story that is exposed to the world is one of a Liberal government that, in the midst of great riches, has greatly impoverished Canadians.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the member.
The member raised a very important issue tangentially to the budget implementation bill, that being the issue of poverty and what we have been doing. I would like to simply remind the member of a couple of points.
It is easy to say that the gap between the rich and the poor is widening, but what really matters is the condition of the least of our society. The member would know that human resources and other departments have been doing work on what is called the market basket measure. They determine what amounts are necessary for food, shelter and clothing, but also for those expenditures that are necessary so that someone can integrate and live in a community without being noticed. It is an interesting angle to look at.
The member probably would agree that if we are talking about poverty and about the poor, we are also talking about the homeless. Let me remind her of who the homeless in Toronto are. Based on the Anne Golden report, 35% suffered from mental illness; 28% were youth who were alienated from their families; 17% were aboriginals off reserve; 10% were transient women and abused women; and the balance was for a variety of other reasons.
It really is not an economic problem with the homeless. It is primarily a social problem which requires social solutions. We have to put a little more balance between talking about what we can do economically to drive a social condition. There has to be some balance in that regard.
In terms of child poverty which is family poverty, 15% of all families are lone parent families and they account for 55% of all children living in poverty. What would the member suggest with regard to addressing the most serious cause of poverty in Canada which is the breakdown of the Canadian family?
(1210)
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, first, the member has it all wrong. If he cannot understand the simple fact that the economics of one's situation determine the way in which one deals with family issues and problems that come along, then there is no hope for us in ever convincing the government to come to its senses and start to bring in balanced budgets that reflect the needs of Canadians.
If we want to talk about transient single parent women, aboriginals coming off reserves, people with mental health issues, families with children living in poverty, kids going to school hungry, the member should first look at what kind of economic circumstances are at play such as where are they living, how much money do they have, how are they surviving.
The facts are that under the government the number of people who have been driven into poverty, who are living on the edge, who are eking out an existence, who are struggling with health issues, who are stressed trying to juggle work and family responsibilities has increased dramatically because the government has pulled the rug out from under them.
The cuts that happened in 1995, in the infamous budget, have trickled down and affected every aspect of our lives. They cannot be dealt with by a Liberal approach of band-aid solutions and boutique projects. We cannot keep cutting the heck out of programs, off-loading the responsibility on to provinces, on to municipalities and then on to families, and then bring in some new little side projects that require the provinces and municipalities and/or families to cost share. That is ludicrous thinking and it is wrong-headed public policy.
I want to remind the member just how bad the situation has become under the government. I refer to a report that just came out a few weeks ago, on March 14, by Statistics Canada. It has shown the amount of money that has been moved offshore under the government. Between 1990 and 2003, almost completely under Liberal rule, the amount of Canadian money stashed overseas skyrocketed eightfold from $11 billion to $88 billion. That amounts to one-fifth of all Canadian direct foreign investment; twice as much as in 1990.
Let me also refer the member to another statistic which became apparent once an analysis of the present budget was done by economists and academics. The finding of these individuals has been most revealing in terms of the government's tendencies and directions over the last decade. Liberals have consistently put corporate interests ahead of the public interest. Billions of dollars in losses through corporate tax cuts, tax havens and uncollected corporate bills are waved through on the fast track while child poverty, job training, student debt and the environment are left waiting on the side. It has taken them over a decade to even begin delivering on their child care promise.
According to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, over the next five years revenue coming from corporate income taxes will drop as percentage of total revenue from 15% to 11% while the personal income tax portion will rise from 45% to 65%. Relative to GDP, corporate income tax drops from 2.3%, personal income tax goes up and the pressure builds on families, on working people, on low and middle income Canadians while the wealthy and the corporate interests in our society continue to accumulate and continue to benefit from tax breaks.
There is little from the government to deal with the day to day pressures facing Canadians, little to help them climb out of poverty and little to help single parent women struggling to make a difference, to make a living for their kids. There is little hope for aboriginal people, either living on reserve in third world conditions or off reserve, where not a penny in terms of housing and other needs has been allocated in the budget today.
(1215)
How can anyone stand here and accept the notion that these are problems caused by families, that there is a breakdown of the family and that is at the root of these issues. How narrow-minded, how frivolous, how supercilious can we get?
If the member cannot understand that economic circumstances determine one's outlook and one's ability to shape the circumstances around us to enable us to break through the difficulties which many families feel and give hope, then I do not know what we can do or say to get through to the government.
Has the Liberals' time in office led to such arrogance and to being so out of touch with Canadians that they cannot even make the link between economic and social equality? Can they assume that social equality is like a train that runs on a track on its own without any connection to the economic circumstances, to the very essence of eking out a living and surviving in society today?
How can the member and the Liberals be so out of touch with the reality of Canadians that they can take a time when we have this huge surplus and blow it? At a moment in the life of our nation when we have this opportunity to make a difference in the lives of Canadians, how can they ignore it? How can they spend it so frivolously on corporate tax breaks and on debt reduction to the point where there is no balance left?
When will the government understand that in order to build a society, we have to invest in Canadians and in Canadian institutions that will help create families, communities and a country and, indeed, a civil society.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in the debate on the budget implementation bill.
I have spoken a number of times on budget-related matters. After some 11 years of being involved in the process on the finance committee and looking at estimates in government operations committee, et cetera, I have come to realize how complicated governing and the budgeting process are. It is an enormous challenge with tremendous competing interests.
I recall one of the very first finance committee meetings I attended. The then finance minister, currently the Prime Minister, made a statement which I thought was very telling about what I would learn as a member of Parliament. In his address to the finance committee on the state of the financial affairs of the country, he made the overarching statement that good social policy made good fiscal policy and good fiscal policy made good social policy. There is clearly an integration. When we are addressing the social needs of Canadians, it is important to note that we are creating an environment in which economic growth and prosperity can occur and that economic growth and prosperity leads to dividends for Canadians.
We had a terrific discussion in 1996 about how we would dispose of the surplus when we finally slew the deficit and had a surplus. Should it be put toward paying down the debt? Should it be used for tax cuts? Should it be used for program spending or enhancing existing spending?
Having a surplus is a good problem to have. It is better than the alternative. When the government came into office in 1993, there was a $42 billion deficit in Canada. As a country, we were spending $42 billion more than what was coming in as revenues. That was an enormous amount of money relative to all things.
No government would be able to simply cut $42 billion in one year in spending. It would take a concerted effort and rationalization of expenses across a broad range. In fact, everyone in Canada was asked to do their share.
I can recall how people were very concerned about the size of the cuts. I remember the finance minister saying to me at that time that we had to make those cuts to save 80% of what we had. If we did not make those cuts, we would lose it all. Tough decisions have to be made in government. It comes down to that.
One thing I learned about the budget process was that the budget could not be looked at in isolation. It is important to look at a series of budgets. We had to find out where we were and how to move things forward. With the diversity of priorities that Canada has, both social and fiscal, it is difficult to address each and every one of them in every budget and move them forward in a substantive way so they would have the necessary impact to take advantage of the opportunities or the circumstances in terms of global impact.
We have to be strategic when doing budgets. Budget 2005 and the implementation act that we are now debating is another step in the process of securing the fiscal health as well as the social health of Canada.
I want to make a few comments about the budget in particular. Key commitments were made in the following areas. The first was maintaining sound financial management, which we have done since 1997. We have had balanced budgets ever since. People have been complaining that the surpluses, not only balances, are a problem. I will address the importance of debt repayment a little later.
(1220)
The next area is securing our social foundations. Health care comes to mind. In achieving a productive and growing economy, that mix, what are we doing to make sure that we have an environment that continues to promote a productive and growing economy? It is good fiscally. It is good socially.
The fourth area is moving toward a green economy and sustainable communities. Canadians should link up to the initiatives with regard to our Kyoto commitment to reduce greenhouse gases. They should also look to our commitment to communities in a number of ways to ensure that our communities can provide sustainable activities with regard to infrastructure and other areas of assistance to them so that they can also do their share in promoting a good fiscal environment in which the economy can grow and prosper.
Finally, there is the commitment with regard to our global responsibilities. Canada is respected around the world. The reason for that respect is that it is something Canadians have earned.
They have earned that respect because of the tolerance, generosity and peacefulness of Canada and because of the good governance that it has experienced and the wise counsel that Canadians have been able to give in the global community over so many generations. That is a very important asset for Canada, because we are a global player. We are a global trading partner with many countries. That earned respect has come by making wise decisions, both fiscally and socially, and has continued to grow the reputation of Canada all around the world.
With regard to the economic outlook, we are looking now at growth of 2.9% in 2005 and about 3.1% in 2006. These rates are at the upper end of the G-7 projected growth rates, so again the outlook is very good.
However, our economy does face some challenges because of the high American dollar. I know that a number of members have expressed concern about our competitiveness with the differential against the U.S. dollar, not the high American dollar but in fact the high Canadian dollar relative to the U.S. dollar. It has moderated somewhat, but it still remains a significant influence in terms of the economic trade between our two countries. Seventy per cent of our exports go to the United States.
We do not live in a vacuum. We are not an island. We also have some concerns about the growing deficit in the U.S. It is extremely large. It affects our largest trading partner in ways that will also provide potential difficulties for our Canadian economic activities.
Since balancing the budget in 1997, we have had seven consecutive surplus budgets. I must admit that I am surprised at the amount of discussion that has been going on about how terrible this is. Most of the discussion has been around looking at the forecasting or estimates of what the budget surplus is going to be.
When we talk about the magnitude of things that the government has to deal with and the factors which influence the economic activity in Canada and are beyond our control, I am not sure what level of accuracy anyone could produce in a budget for a forthcoming year, and indeed for the next two to five years in many of the budgets based on economic scenarios given the input of some of the largest economic forecasters in the country.
I am not sure whether it is a useful discussion to say that somehow we are not being forthright in terms of the surplus. One thing I know is that once there was a balanced budget, Canadians said categorically, “We do not want Canada to be operating in a deficit scenario ever again”. Deficits are a non-starter.
Thus, immediately, to respond to Canadians' wish to keep balanced budgets, the budgeting process started to incorporate what are called contingency and prudence factors, which were to be included where there were unseen factors which would negatively affect the economic performance of Canada. There were contingency funds put in for those serious unforeseen items which would have a major impact.
(1225)
There were also what are called prudence provisions, so that if the economic forecasters were saying that the growth rate was going to be 2.5%, the budget would assume that it was going to be about .25% less. There also were prudent assumptions with regard to short term and long term interest rates.
If everything in the budget came in exactly as planned, there would be a surplus. Since 1997 the government has in fact planned a surplus in its budgets, not just a balance but a surplus.
Earlier I had a conversation with a member of the Conservative Party. I had been talking about debt reduction. As background, let me give members an idea of where we have been in the last decade. When this government took office back in 1993, the national debt, the cumulative deficits of previous years, was $562 billion a year. It was gobbling up an enormous percentage of every disposable dollar that we were taking in. Debt servicing was extremely high. Today the national debt is $498 billion. This means that cumulatively since 1993 $64 billion of debt has been paid down.
We are not much farther ahead right now than we were when we started in government in terms of the scenario on the debt. The surpluses simply have been used; it is automatic. Once the year is over and once the accounts are audited, there is a determination of the final surplus and that final surplus is totally applied against the debt. It is not a choice. That is the way it happens.
I raise this because the member of the Conservative Party said to me that maybe sometimes tax cuts are a greater priority than debt reduction. I had to think about that for a little while. If debt reduction is a consequence of a surplus, but the member wants to argue that tax cuts may be a greater priority than debt repayment, he , therefore must be saying that tax cuts are okay even if we are creating a deficit. We cannot have it both ways. If we are not going to have debt repayment as a priority, we must therefore contemplate that there should be deficits.
There is another aspect the member did not understand. It really concerns me that after all these years the member still does not understand that there is a fundamental difference between tax cuts and spending. Spending can be a one time item as opposed to a new program, whereas a tax cut is a recurring annual charge or a reduction in the revenue of the country.
It is not enough to say that since there was a $4 billion surplus we should have a tax cut. The surplus was a one year occurrence. A tax cut would be each and every year. If we were to give a tax cut that effectively eliminated that $4 billion surplus, we might have a balanced budget in that particular year, but every year thereafter we would have a $4 billion deficit simply because tax cuts are ongoing.
I am a little concerned and a little nervous about the lack of understanding of some of the members, who somehow seem to suggest that a surplus is something that one must spend right away. There has not been an extraordinary paydown on the national debt, but from what we have had we have brought it down. Now we are below the levels we were at a decade ago. It is saving Canada approximately $3 billion a year in interest costs. It has reduced our costs from some 43% of every Canadian tax dollar to about 22¢ on the dollar. That is very significant. Most important, that $3 billion saving is an annual saving. It is available year after year to be able to sustain items, whether it be tax cuts, new programs or enhancement of existing programs.
That is the true fiscal dividend to Canadians in terms of getting one's fiscal house in order. It is getting the debt servicing paid down and it is the savings on interest that are available to Canadians, either to return to Canadians in terms of tax cuts or indeed to enhance programs and important priorities of Canadians, such as health care.
(1230)
Having said that, let me move on to another aspect. Certainly health care is one in securing our social foundations. In our recent commitment in the health accord, there is $75 billion in support of a 10 year plan to strengthen health care and the new framework for equalization and territorial formula financing.
This has been extremely important, particularly for Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia in these new arrangements. From time to time there are important needs of regions of our country that we have to address. I am glad that the Prime Minister and the premiers were able to address them, but we have a matter consequential to that, which is e a province like Ontario looking at its own situation in isolation and saying, “How about us too?”
That is a problem. I am going to try to address very briefly at the end of my speech some of the elements of the so-called gap between how much money a province contributes to the federal coffers and how much money goes back into that province. It is a very interesting argument.
In terms of health care, the budget provides $805 million over five years in direct federal health investments, including: $300 million over five years for healthy living and prevention of chronic diseases; $200 million in support of health human resources and improved wait times; and $170 million over five years to implement measures to enhance the safety and effectiveness of drugs and other therapeutic products, which is very important to Canadians.
As members will know, there is also the $5 billion for the early learning and child care initiative. I believe that is a start, but I also personally believe that in a subsequent budget we have to look at the needs of those families who choose to provide care in the home to their own children. It is an important job. It is unpaid work, but it is important work. It deserves to be recognized. I hope we will see some movement on that in a coming budget.
There is the increase in the guaranteed income supplement. There is also new funding of $735 million for aboriginal communities and $398 for immigration settlement services and client services.
These are very important elements of the budget. I know that we have had an excellent debate on it. I know that members would like to see some of our other priorities take a higher line in this budget, but I have to repeat that each and every budget cannot address each and every item, each and every year. It just cannot happen and have budgets still have a meaningful impact, respond to the opportunities or defend ourselves against the threats of the current day. Budgets have to be responsible for the realities of the day.
I would like to look at moving toward a green economy and sustainable communities. Having been the vice-chair of the environment committee, I spent a fair bit of time with my colleagues across the way working on a number of initiatives. I am pleased to see that moneys have been set aside in the budget to look at renewables such as wind power. There is money for that in there. I also am very encouraged that we are moving forward on our Kyoto commitment with $1 billion to make sure that Canada does its share in that regard.
It was a very difficult one, but a very significant arrangement deal has just been made with the auto sector, as members know, whereby it has voluntarily come up with a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5.3 megatonnes by 2010, I believe. This is a very significant accord that has been reached with one of the sectors that is one of the largest areas in which we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is no question that we have more work to do on that file. Some of the large emitters, particularly those involved in hydro generation or other heavy manufacturing, are areas that have work to be done. We are going to need some progress, but I know that the House is committed to doing that.
With regard to cities and dealing with sustainable communities, I am pleased that we have been able to respond in terms of the $5 billion in federal gas tax revenues, the $600 million they will receive in 2005-06, the $300 million for green municipal funds and the infrastructure money as well. These are not federal jurisdictions per se, these moneys going to municipalities, but it shows some leadership on behalf of the government when it says that strong communities right down to the municipal level are to the benefit of all Canadians.
I am pleased to have participated in this debate. I welcome the members' questions.
(1235)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my colleague's speech with interest, and one particular point caught my attention. He was selling the notion that it was an extraordinary accomplishment to have been able to pay off such a large portion of the debt .
What he did not say, however, was that during that same period, that is between 1993 and the present, they must have amassed a surplus of some $48 billion in the employment insurance fund. This was money they took from the pockets of workers and employers, and even from the unemployed, who have had to endure two very severe reforms aimed at cutting back the number of weeks of benefits, as well as the amount received, in addition to increasing the number of weeks required to qualify for benefits, to such an extent that many people have ended up no longer eligible. For example, young workers had to accumulate 910 hours in order to quality for EI.
As a result of all these changes, over 10 years a surplus of $48 billion was built up. If we look closely at the way the debt was reduced, a significant portion came from this source. The money deducted in EI contributions from workers' earnings is not a kind of payroll tax, but is intended to provide employment insurance.
How would the hon. member describe what the federal government is doing, which is to take the money paid into the employment insurance fund and use it for its standard expenditures, including servicing the debt? Is this theft? Is it embezzlement? What label can we put on it? I do not know, but I would like to hear what the member has to say about it.
I, for my part, see people in my riding, in Quebec and across Canada making a real effort to fight the deficit. They have had no return on their investment. For 12 years, they contributed to a plan thinking that, in the end, they might help reduce the debt, balance Canada's budget, knowing that the money belonged to the most disadvantaged. People contribute to EI up to a salary level of $39,000. Those who earned more or were not covered by it did not contribute. They did not pay their share.
What does the government say to men and women who have made the effort and who, today, see no improvement in their situation? It might be expected that the budget and subsequently the bill to implement the budget would contain something in this regard. The government has continued to leave them out.
Is this not one of the reasons the Liberal Party of Canada no longer elects MPs in a number of regions in Quebec and Canada? It promises, election after election, that it will change the EI system, but the day after, it leaves things as they are. Should there not have been clear measures in the budget to improve the employment insurance plan so as to meet the needs of the people, given the surplus that exists? Would it not have been reasonable to pay these people back?
(1240)
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that has come up many times in the House. Maybe it is important that we look at where we came from.
During the Mulroney years back in the eighties, cash for the unemployment insurance fund, which is what it was called at the time, was put into a separate pot. The premiums went in there and the benefits were paid out to people under the unemployment insurance program.
At the time the government was running large deficits. The Auditor General made its problem even worse by saying that the government was operating at about a $15 billion deficit in the unemployment insurance fund at the time. It was off balance sheet financing, if the member knows what that is. The Auditor General said that the government had to cover the losses in the unemployment fund and that henceforth it had to put all of the unemployment insurance premiums into the general funds of the government and pay the benefits out of the general funds and then there would be no more off balance sheets.
Then we came up with a thing called a notional account. The member is quite right. If we kept a record on the side since that time on a net basis, there is about $48 billion of surplus. We have taken in over all years $48 billion more than we have paid out in benefits for programs, et cetera.
What has happened in the last 10 years? We have not had a recession. The economy of Canada has been so strong that we have built up a surplus. The Auditor General will tell us that if we hit a deep recession, in one year we could wipe out $15 billion. Under the laws governing the treatment of the employment insurance fund, it says that we should keep about two years worth of reserve in the event that there is a severe downturn, a severe depression, but there is still more than two years and probably about three years' worth at the worst.
The legislation also says that if there is a surplus beyond that, we must reduce premiums to lower the future year's surplus so that it will ease down, or introduce new programs. Both of those have actually happened. Every year since we took office the EI premiums have been going down.
Indeed, the member is well aware that extending parental year to a full year under the EI is another part of the element of the program which has also responded in terms of the legislation guiding the EI surplus.
Everything that should happen has been happening. Unfortunately, and maybe it is a good problem, there is still a surplus, probably about a year's worth of benefits that may have to be paid out in extraordinary circumstances.
The member has also made the argument about all the people who pay into the fund and who do not qualify for benefits. I did my daughter's tax return. She attends university but works during the summer. She had EI deducted just like everybody else but she did not make enough money to pay it and she got it back as a refund.
The member has not taken into account that people who do not make enough money, even though they have made some, once they get down below a certain level there is no EI premiums payable and they get them refunded on their tax return.
I think the member's numbers are somewhat inflated on this. However I will concede to him that we have a situation that has been caused by good things and the good things are that Canada has had a strong, resilient economy so that we have not had to pay out EI benefits at the historic levels that we did. We have not had a recession in some 10 years. This result cannot be a surprise to anybody but the member should be encouraged that at least premiums continue to be reduced and that programs continue to be enhanced.
(1245)
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment and ask a question of my colleague across the floor.
In his presentation he spoke about surpluses and seemed to suggest that perhaps opposition parties were paying a little too much attention to surpluses and how difficult it was to accurately forecast surpluses when there was a range of economic forecasts on the issues.
However I hearken back to the last election in 2004 when the Conservative Party came up with its platform. On the financial aspect of it, we had suggested that there would be a series of personal income tax cuts primarily to middle and lower income tax earners over a five year period. Plus we had a program spending platform totalling about $58 billion. We had calculated that to be realistic based on our projections in the previous year's budget, the 2004-05 budget. Using the government's own figures we conservatively projected a surplus of around $7 billion to $8 billion. As we all know, it turned to be about $9 billion.
My point is that at the time the Liberal Party accused the Conservatives in our platform of being fiscally irresponsible and yet in the 2005 budget, lo and behold, the Liberals have come up with a spending program totalling about $55 billion, plus tax cuts graduated over five years. In other words, this is very similar to what we had proposed a short year ago. At that time, we were branded by the Liberals as being fiscally irresponsible and now they are calling themselves fiscally prudent.
I would just like to know why the double standard.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, it is not my style to engage in partisan rhetoric. I heard the member and I understand. I think each party has a fiscal and economic plan that it would like to put forward and say that it can do it.
However the member must concede that even though it is a balanced budget, if the contingency and the prudence factors are not necessary, if everything came in as planned, there would have been a $5 billion surplus in the year. It came out at $9 billion. We also know that the fourth quarter economic performance was way beyond anybody's realistic assumptions and contributed probably another $2.5 million to $3 billion, bringing that up to about $8 billion. He is saying that it turned out to be $9 billion. I do not think that the gap is that wide.
The important thing is that every commitment that was made to Canadians with regard to keeping the important programs and priorities for Canadians were met and the consequence was a healthier economy than anybody could have unless there was a larger surplus. I think that is a reflection of the hard work of all Canadians and Canadians will benefit from today forward from the success that they have achieved. I do not see that there is a problem.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to limit my remarks to mainly one section of the budget bill. I will refer to at least one other section to which I will refer briefly as part 19.
We are talking about, in case people are wondering, 24 different and separate pieces of legislation, all of which have been lumped together in what we refer to as the budget implementation act, 2005.
Part 19 is very relevant, particularly today. Everyone in Canada is aware of the department of public works and some of the contracts the department would have let in the past. However, part 19 of this bill gives the department of public works even more leeway, complete control of all procurements, the issuing of contracts, more or less carte blanche. It is an invitation to more of the same. We are very concerned to have that section there.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's.
Having said that about part 19, I want to return to part 12. This is the section that deals with the revenues that should be flowing right now as we speak to the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.
I will give a little bit of history. During this time last year actually, we were gearing up for a campaign. Leading up to the election, two parties in this House, the Conservatives and the New Democratic Party, committed to the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia that if elected, they would give these provinces 100% of their share of the royalties flowing from the offshore developments.
The Liberal Party made no such commitment. In fact, it was during the campaign, after written commitments had been made by the other parties, that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador first, because of the intense pressures put on the Prime Minister by his own members down there and members of the Liberal Party and various associations, put the squeeze on. On one of his visits, perhaps they told him he would not be allowed out of the province, after an all night session under tremendous pressure, he called the premier of our province at seven o'clock in the morning to say, “I will accept your proposal”.
The Prime Minister did not put it in writing and, unfortunately, he was not asked for it. When a Prime Minister makes an open commitment that is carried by the press, one would think that we can keep a Prime Minister to his word.
The universe unfolded, the Liberals won the election, and then the question came from Nova Scotia, which by the way had also received that promise the day before the election in a last minute attempt to secure some seats. The provinces waited and waited. Our party kept asking the question, “When will the Liberals deliver their promise?”
We had a number of things happen. I know on this side of the House we raised the issue 35 times in question period alone, mostly as lead questions. This never happened before in history that a province had so much attention paid to it because of the importance of the issue to the province involved. We also had statements. We had a major debate in this House on that very issue. All of this was putting pressure on the government which was not moving at all on the issue.
(1250)
Premier Williams, at an equalization meeting in Winnipeg, walked out to protest the lack of attention by the government on the issue.
I am glad to see we are joined by the Parliament Secretary to the Minister of Finance because he has been supportive of us on this issue. I am glad he is here to listen to my speech and verify what I am going to say.
We eventually went through the fall and there was still no movement. Just before Christmas, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador ordered that Canadian flags be removed from all provincial buildings. That drew a tremendous amount of attention across the country, but not all positive. However, people began to ask what was going on? When they realized what was going on and the shafting the provinces had been getting, then they also started to put pressure on the Prime Minister.
Finally, on Valentine's Day, a day for love, we received the agreement. The agreement was signed giving Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia control of their own share of the revenues from the offshore developments.
We would think, if we watched what went on that day, that this was it. It was all over because people were kissing the hem of the Prime Minister's garment and even on Valentine's Day almost kissing each other. If the players had not been the specific players they were, they might have kissed each other. It was a rough thing to think about kissing the Minister of Natural Resources, I am sure.
In any event, the agreement was signed and both provinces said they had it. As time went by more questions were asked about the legislation. We were told that it was complicated and we agreed with that. Then suddenly we found out that the provinces had reached an agreement with the federal government on the legislation. They were okay. There was nothing wrong with the specific piece of legislation. Bring it in, get it passed.
We knew that the government would support it. Even though people like the parliamentary secretary did not want to, it is government legislation so he would have to support it. We also know that the Bloc members would probably not support it, even though they should because it is giving provinces some control over their own resources which they always ask for. We knew our party, the NDP, and most of the people in the governing party would support it and the legislation would be passed quickly and money would flow to the provinces.
As this time goes by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is losing around $3 million a week. If we factor in all the spin-offs that this could create, it is getting closer to $1 million a day. That is a tremendous amount of money.
What did the government do? Did it bring in clean-cut legislation that could be passed quickly? No. It lumped that legislation in with 23 other pieces of legislation. Some of them are very complicated and controversial. Some are attractive pieces of legislation that can go through very quickly.
I go back to part 19 giving public works, of all departments, free rein in procurement, the issuing of contracts, and doing favours for its friends or whatever it wants to do. We also have legislation talking about child care funding and moneys for cities. There are no plans. Of course there are the infamous Kyoto clauses. I understand these will come out.
If they can be taken out of the bill, maybe in committee, the government will see that it is much more beneficial to it or particularly to the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia if it would also take out the part dealing with revenues and there could be a vote.
I know my 10 minutes are up, but I am sure my colleague will continue in the same vein.
(1255)
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have one question for my colleague that deals with equalization but from a different perspective only inasmuch as Saskatchewan also had been looking for the same or similar deal as the Atlantic accord. We in Saskatchewan recognized the untold benefits we could receive were we able to retain 100% of our non-renewable natural resource revenue. By today's oil and gas prices alone I think it could easily total $1.5 billion a year, which could certainly make a huge difference and a huge positive financial impact on the province of Saskatchewan, something we have not seen in Saskatchewan's history.
I would like my hon. colleague to comment on that and whether he thinks, on the issue of fairness and equity across the board, that all provinces should be in the position to receive the same deal as Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia with respect to retention of 100% of the non-renewable natural resources.
(1300)
Mr. Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members from Saskatchewan, the western provinces and most of the country for solidly supporting my province when it had to fight so hard to get the control of and benefits from these resources.
In relation to his general question, I am sure he is not asking if Saskatchewan should benefit from its offshore resources. He is asking about the fundamental issue addressed by our party generally when we committed to give Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia 100% of their share of revenues from offshore development. The fundamental commitment was to take non-renewable resources out of the equalization formula, which would ensure that Saskatchewan and other provinces that had non-renewable resources would benefit from the development of these resources.
I agree totally with what the member has been fighting for. I say to him that our support for his province will be just as strong as the Saskatchewan support for us throughout this process. Hopefully, in the very near future there will be a government in power that will be able to deliver on that commitment. It is not a wild promise. It is not throwing away money. What it is doing is leaving money from non-renewable resources. There is a finite time. Sooner or later they are gone.
Alberta benefited from the original development. For 8 or 10 years Alberta received all the revenues from the development of its resources. That is why we should get it also because it gives poorer provinces the chance to get the infrastructure and start moving so that we in turn can be a contributing partner in Confederation.
We do not want to be taking from the rest of the country, such as Alberta and Ontario. We can be givers. We have the resources. All we need is to get our share of the development, so we can also be a contributing partner.
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the essential part of the hon. member's statement has to do with the issue of taking non-renewable resources out of the equalization equation in order for it to get 100% of that benefit. That is the position that the government has acceded to, but it raises in turn a whole bunch of other very complicated questions.
The first question, where a province does not have non-renewable resources, is why should a manufacturing sector, for instance, in Ontario be penalized effectively for including in its fiscal capacity things such as manufacturing and a variety of other ways in which people generate fiscal capacity? It begs the essential question of what the basic intellectual argument is to remove renewables or non-renewables or property tax revenues or any one of the 33 elements in the fiscal measuring capacity out of the formula so that one particular jurisdiction is preferred over another jurisdiction. Either it is all in or it is all out.
I would ask the hon. member his basis for why people in Ontario should be penalized for having manufacturing included in the measurement of fiscal capacity?
Mr. Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, the member has an argument, but he has to remember that what we are talking about here is Confederation. We are talking about developing strong provinces by using their resources, whatever those resources might be, so that they can be contributing partners.
How can Ontario justify the fact that all the fall-out from the establishment of the federal government here in this province, the amount of money that flows into Ontario, is because the federal government is based here? All the federal departments are based here, and all the people who work here pay taxes. This benefit is not spread to the other provinces. We all have our strengths. If those strengths are developed, the funding from those developments, regardless of whether they are used properly, could make the provinces strong. Strong provinces make a strong country, and therein lies our argument.
(1305)
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an honour to speak to the budget implementation bill.
My colleague from St. John's South--Mount Pearl has already given a very good background history and chronology of the Atlantic accord. I am certainly going to speak to the Atlantic accord, but I also want to speak to some of the comments that have been made in the House. I hope to set the record straight on a number of issues.
I could not help but listen with amazement to the Liberal member for Mississauga South. He quite often has his own version of reality in this House, but to go back to 1993 and somehow blame the state of the country's affairs on a previous government which was in power 12 years ago is a stretch of the imagination even for the member for Mississauga South. He talked about a $42 billion deficit that the government inherited in 1993. I am not trying to deny that; that is a fact.
What the Liberals never seem to bring up is that the Conservative government of the day governed for 10 years and it had inherited $38 billion of that deficit from the Trudeau era government. The Conservatives operated for 10 years at 19% interest rates and only increased the deficit by $4 billion. They did not cut services to the provinces. They did not cut the transfer dollars. They did not cut health care.
The Conservatives signed, which is still the largest and most important environmental accord ever signed in North America, that being the acid rain treaty signed with the United States. They brought in free trade. They brought in the GST. They governed and they did that in difficult times.
The Conservatives laid the framework for the Liberal government to come into power and reap the benefits without a plan, without any course of action, without any road map for the country. The Liberals simply govern, reap the benefits of somebody else's planting, harvest the benefits of somebody else's crop and drive this country into the worst of times during the best of times. It is absolutely incredible that any member of the government would try to blame the situation it is in on a Conservative government that was in power 12 years ago.
When we listen to this fabrication of events that somehow, as my colleague from Newfoundland has said, we cannot cut the Atlantic accord out of this budget, that is absolutely ridiculous. We passed the health accord in this House in 11 days. We did not talk about it for four, five or six months. We were able to separate that out of the budget. We were able to put that through the House as stand-alone legislation. We passed it in 11 days.
My hon. colleague from St. John's South--Mount Pearl mentioned that this issue was brought to the House 35 times, including by our leader. Thirty-five times we questioned the government on the Atlantic accord before the Liberals finally succumbed and said that they were going to have to do something. On the eve of the last election and not before, when they saw that they were losing seats in Atlantic Canada, then they became supporters of the Atlantic accord.
The Liberals have an absolutely abysmal record and to somehow rewrite history and reconfigure the facts of what actually happened is not acceptable in any way, shape or form. We brought the issue up in question period 35 times, but what my colleague missed was that there were another 13 times we spoke about the issue in statements pursuant to Standing Order 31 prior to question period. The members from Atlantic Canada raised the issue 45 times, not counting the times our leader raised it.
(1310)
We are at an interesting time in Canadian politics. There is a lot of discussion going on about the budget. There is a lot of discussion of how we cannot separate out the Atlantic accord, that it has to stay in. The Liberals managed to separate out Kyoto because it was wrong-headed and had no business being included in the budgetary items.
There are 24 items in the budget, one of them being the Atlantic accord. The challenge to the government is to separate out the Atlantic accord, pass it forthwith, send it to the Senate and make sure that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the province of Nova Scotia get their funds from the Atlantic accord that they very rightly deserve.
The other thing we never hear the government bring up is the fact that last year's budget is still in the Senate. It is not as if it has been passed and has been implemented. Budget implementation takes time, but those guys are dragging their feet. It is still in the Senate.
Let us consider a couple of points on the budget implementation process. Last year's budget is still in the Senate. The previous budget implementation bill, Bill C-30, was introduced on March 31, 2004 and passed in the House of Commons on May 5, 2004. It took 35 days. These bills do not have to take time. The government is dragging its feet because it is caught up in the middle of the biggest scandal ever to hit Canadian politics since the railroad scandal during John A. Macdonald's time in 1872.
This is not about the Atlantic accord. This is about a Liberal government grasping with its fingernails trying to hold on to power. It is all about power. It is not about doing what is right for Canadians and doing what is right for Atlantic Canada.
Let us go back a little further in history. The last budget took 67 days to pass the House. The one previous to that one took 35 days. The one previous to that one took four months because the government was expecting to go into an election and it wanted to tell Canadians what a great job it was going to do for them. If the health accord went through the House in 11 days, in contrast the Atlantic accord could go through the House in 11 days. The average time that it took the last four budget implementation bills is 51 days.
Are we supposed to wait 51 days before Newfoundland and Labrador gets its just and fair share of its offshore resources, before the province of Nova Scotia gets its just and fair share of its offshore resources, or are we going to separate this out from the budget? We have challenged the government to do that. Our leader has challenged the government on many occasions to separate it out, send it to a committee of the whole, and pass it in the House in one day. The opposition parties are in agreement.
The government needs to show some leadership, but we have not seen leadership. The country is absolutely dying for leadership.
We have a budget here that is supposed to address the difficulties that Canadians are facing, difficulties that seniors are facing, difficulties that low income Canadians are facing, difficulties with delivery of health care services, difficulties of equalizing the transfer payment system. Unfortunately, the government would rather try to cling to power than deal with the issues of Atlantic Canada, of Newfoundland and Labrador and of Nova Scotia.
We have a unique history in this place. What we say in the House is on the record. I challenge Canadians and I challenge those watching this debate today to look at the Liberals' record. Listen to what they have been saying. I challenge them to take a look at the Atlantic accord and ask themselves why it cannot be a stand-alone piece of legislation. There is no reason it cannot be.
(1315)
Canadians should take a look at the record, the deliberate shading of the facts, the obfuscation of the facts, that the Liberals have embarked upon. They should ask themselves why they would not simply set out the Atlantic accord in a separate, stand-alone piece of legislation and pass it forthwith. I think they will all come up with the same answer.
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech from the member opposite, particularly when he referred to the ad scam scandal as being the biggest one since the railway scandal. I imagine he was talking about the previous century.
However, as I am sure he is aware, the biggest scandal that we have had until ad scam, which I agree is a deplorable abuse of taxpayer money, was in the 1980s with the Mulroney government. I would ask the hon. member to re-read On the Take by Stevie Cameron about the continual misuse of public funds in the way to further private fundraising for party coffers. In the same way the Liberals did with ad scam, we saw that with the PC Canada fund, which became very notorious in the 1980s. In a sense, what we have seen is both parties, same old same old, acting the same way, the Liberals taking their example from the Mulroney Conservatives. We see today the result.
The other comment I would like to make is in regard the record deficits that we saw in the 1980s. We have seen, under the Prime Minister, the fiscal projections being the worst among countries studied. In other words, the government misses the mark by the greatest amount of western countries studied. In the 1980s, under the Mulroney Conservatives again, we saw record deficits that were unprecedented, before or since.
Given the track record of his own party, the Mulroney Conservatives and their deplorable scandals, which were just as bad as the Liberal scandals, and the deplorable lack of financial management, the same as the Liberals missing the mark on fiscal projections, how can he say that his party is any better?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, that was quite a tirade for a new member of Parliament who has not yet got his feet wet in this place.
I would have very quickly said that the biggest scandal prior to this scandal was the NDP provincial government in British Columbia, on several occasions. Then I would have gone to the absolutely total incompetence of the NDP government in Ontario, which was booted out. If the member wants to compare apples to apples instead of apples to oranges, I am happy to do that on any given day.
I think what the hon. member really wanted to talk about was the government's budgetary projections, which I agree have been abysmal. This year the Liberals projected they would have a budgetary surplus of $1.8 billion. Last week we learned from our parliamentary advisers on the budget that it would be $6.8 billion or $6.1 billion, a total of $5 billion more in the coffers than we thought there would be at the beginning of the budgetary process.
Hon. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we heard from the member across the way the word “scandal”. Talking about the budget, is it a scandal that we have had eight balanced budgets or better? Is it a scandal that we are the only G-7 state paying off the national debt? Is it a scandal that the government reached a significant health care agreement of $41.5 billion, with every premier signing on for 10 years, the accountability factors? Is it a scandal that we reached an agreement with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador on the Atlantic accord? Is it a scandal that we have invested in cities, unprecedented in the history of the country?
We are talking about budget. We are talking about something that many Canadians country want to see. They want to see the budget go through because it is important to families and to communities across Canada.
I am disappointed in the hon. member because I have a high degree of respect for him. I would like him to respond to that. I would like him to tell me why his party is toying with the idea of an election when these commitments are needed by Canadians?
(1320)
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall in any part of my speech where I said anything about an election. Again, that is a fabrication of the hon. member. What I did say very consistently was that his government could have and should have done more when it was governing in the best of times. At low interest rates, it reaped the benefits from the GST and from a North American free trade agreement, with the greatest amount of north-south trade we had ever seen on this continent.
In the best of times the Liberals managed to do what? Find $162 million to send to their Liberal friends? I do not think that is a record of which any government needs to be proud.
With regard to the budget implementation bill, I challenge the government to separate the Atlantic accord from it, pass it forthwith and move on with the business of governing the country, if it can.
Hon. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, this budget builds on the successive budgets of the government in terms of a balanced approach. We have balanced the books again. We have reduced the national debt. Canada is the only G-7 country that has paid off its national debt. We have gone from 71.5% to below 40% and are on target for 25%.
That is a pretty enviable position given the record of other countries and given the $42.5 billion deficit the government inherited in 1993. Given the fact that the New York Times in 1994-95 suggested that Canada was an economic basket case, we have done not too bad given the fact that we have had eight balanced budgets.
Some members of the House have suggested incorrectly that we have not made our targets. The previous Conservative government did not make its targets either. Unfortunately, that is how we wound up with a $42.5 billion deficit, which we inherited in 1993.
This government ensured that the deficit was eliminated. It started to invest in key social programs. It has ensured that the debt of future generations has been reduced and reduced significantly, by $60 billion in the last five years. That is very important to the average Canadian.
Some members of the opposition would like to pick and choose. I was parliamentary secretary to the finance minister for two years so I have some idea of how this works. We cannot carve out what we like. We like the Atlantic accord so we are prepared to deal with that. The government House leader suggested that if the opposition really wanted the Atlantic accord, then it should pass the budget bill and pass everything at once. After all, this is a budget for Canadians, for families and for cities. It is also a green budget, which is what I really want to talk about.
I also want to point out the fact that the members of the Conservative Party, the Alliance, paid no attention to cities for 10 years. When the Federation of Canadian Municipalities proposed a national infrastructure program in 1983, the Conservatives, when they came into office in 1984, did nothing, and they did nothing for 10 years. I happen to know that, having spent 12 years in municipal politics and as a former president of the FCM. I would not hang my hat on anything those people say because clearly they did nothing for 10 years. What did we do? We came into power, and we have had successive infrastructure programs and they have worked very well for cities.
I listened to the hon. member across the way. Some of those members would rather hoot and holler than listen. They have no respect unfortunately, but that is the way it is. They would rather try to shout down people than listen. If they have questions, they can ask the questions.
Mr. Randy White: Sounds like an election speech.
Hon. Bryon Wilfert: A member across the way said it sounds like an election speech. We are not interested in an election. We are interested in the facts. It would be nice if that party for a change lived up to its own commitments. If members want to hear the facts, then let the process work.
The budget was called the greenest budget in Canadian history. Why was it called that?
I hear the NDP chirping in the corner. Those members are supposedly the champions of a green budget. They supposedly wanted climate change dealt with. Action is better than words. That party voted against the budget. I have no sympathy for those members. They have no credibility at all because they clearly do not support a green budget.
From the beginning, we said that we wanted a sustainable and competitive economy and a green budget. I am very proud to say that the Minister of the Environment indicated from the very beginning that economic competitiveness and the environment were not mutually exclusive.
We delivered a green budget. We delivered a budget with new direction, transforming the economy in terms of a model of sustainability. Tomorrow we will unveil an enhanced climate change plan for the nation. I would suggest that all members in the House take a careful look at what is in that plan before they react.
(1325)
I want members to know that we now have the fiscal instruments to do what I think all Canadians want and that is to address the serious issue of climate change in this country and indeed in the world. I am very proud that this government signed and ratified the Kyoto protocol. We will be hosting the United Nations framework conference on climate change, COP 11, at the end of the year. This will be an opportunity not only to look at Kyoto, but beyond Kyoto. It is an opportunity to look at the issues of the environment and sustainability worldwide beyond 2008-2012.
I have said that this budget strikes a balance for short term investments. For example, the environment is everyone's concern. Obviously anything that helps in terms of dealing with health related issues, whether it is asthma or anything to do with protecting species at risk, it is very important. We want to see transformative change in public behaviour and obviously in business practice. I must say that we have done a tremendous amount of consultation as we move forward to tomorrow's announcement.
The government cannot do these kinds of investments unless it has a solid economic framework. Clearly, successive governments, both under this Prime Minister and the previous prime minister, delivered that. That is why we were able to pay down the debt and invest in health care, in post-secondary education and in the environment.
Federal investments in the environment will stimulate partnerships. We are interested in partnerships. We are interested in ensuring the advancement of green technologies, not only wind power, solar power and hydrogen power and others, but also the export of these technologies. Canadians are a leader in areas such as air quality and water quality. This gives us an opportunity to work abroad, particularly in places like Asia which I am particularly familiar with. I can say that there are tremendous opportunities in places, even such as Japan, in dealing with contaminated sites as an example.
We are on the cusp of a new era in dealing with the environment and ensuring that it produces new jobs and new opportunities for Canadian entrepreneurs in this country.
A healthy ecosystem provides tangible economic benefits to Canadians. This budget includes immediate investments for the protection of Canada's oceans, other important ecosystems, such as the Great Lakes, and a network of our national parks. Again, reinvesting in our national parks is also part of this budget. This is another important milestone to ensure that we not only have the best parks in the world but also to make sure that we have the most up to date facilities for people. We need to invest in our laboratories in Environment Canada. We must be able to provide the kind of tools needed to ensure that they are the best in the world.
In this budget we have market based mechanisms. We have research programs and infrastructure investments. I talked earlier about the cities. The fact is that we are providing $5 billion and at least half of that is looking at the area of a green economy, dealing with public transit as an example, along with improved water and sewage systems. These are things that municipal governments y have been asking for in terms of the gas tax. I have already said that under the previous government the national infrastructure program lay dormant.
Although there are some in this House who claim that they are big fans of supporting cities, the mayors and councils know who their friends are. They know who was there at the beginning to support them. They know who has consistently been there. We eliminated the GST costs for goods and services for municipal governments which will save them $7 billion over a 10 year period.
Eighty percent of Canadians live in cities and therefore the agenda for cities has been very important. It has been one of the most important on the Prime Minister's agenda. I can say, as a former FCM president, how proud I am to serve in a government where not only cities are being dealt with but all communities. This budget deals with the issue of communities from coast to coast to coast.
(1330)
We are dealing with issues that will improve the health of Canadians with the quality of our ecosystem, which is unprecedented. We will be hosting the world at the end of the year on COP 11 because we will be able to not only demonstrate the ingenuity and commitment of Canadians but we will also able to clearly demonstrate that we are moving ahead as a country and as a government.
Environment Canada, in conjunction with Natural Resources Canada, Transport Canada, Industry Canada and others, is working effectively to ensure that all aspects of the government are green. The issue of moving forward is demonstrated with the hybrid vehicles and our very strong agreement with the auto sector. We have had 14 voluntary agreements with the auto sector, which will result in a reduction of 5.3 megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.
Some aspects of the budget are rather significant, such as the climate fund which was originally referred to as the clean air fund. It will create permanent, market based institutions as one of the primary tools for Canada's approach to climate change. We will be tapping the potential of the market which I think will be very exciting.
By tapping into this market we will stimulate innovation and allow Canadians across the country to take action. We will continue to encourage energy efficiency, deliver cost effective reductions and sequestration and drive the adoption of best available technologies which is one of the most important things.
We are committed to doing this. The funds purpose, which I think is rather unique, is to secure domestic emission reductions and qualifying international credits that will assist Canada in complying with its Kyoto commitments. We are not buying any Russian hot air. We are only buying credits that can be Kyoto confirmed.
Over the coming months the Government of Canada will consult with Canadians on how best the fund may achieve this particular mandate. We know that Canadians trust this government in terms of dealing with the environment agenda. Some of the members on that side do not even believe the ice age occurred. I would suggest that when it comes to the environment this government is dealing with it effectively.
The funds' primary mandate is to promote domestic greenhouse gas emission reductions, which is extremely important, and that will be elaborated on with the unveiling tomorrow. It will position Canada to compete in the 21st century. Some of the members on the other side do not even know that we have passed the 20th century. Some of their thinking on the environment is really quite appalling.
I want to point out that this clean development mechanism will be important in greening the economy. We believe that a competitive economy can be a green economy and can provide the necessary jobs, which is what the budget is all about and why the budget implementation bill is so important.
If people are really committed, actions speak louder than words. If they really support some of these key initiatives they will vote for this and make sure it goes through.
The climate change fund agency will also be an agent of the government, which means that it will carry out activities on behalf of the Government of Canada. It also will be accountable to Parliament. I point out that people have asked for a clear plan. We now have the economic instruments to do so. It is the greenest budget in Canadian history and it has provided us with tremendous opportunities.
I am pleased by this budget and the fact that the climate fund will be established through legislation. Aspects of this fund are going to be important to benefit investment, international emission reductions and give an opportunity for Canadians to see real and demonstrative change in the country.
Another aspect of the budget that I would encourage my hon. colleagues in the House to take note of is the greenhouse gas technology investment fund. It is an innovative funding arrangement that will recognize qualifying investment to research and development, as well as meeting mandatory greenhouse gas emission requirements which is very important.
(1335)
The budget deals with the real issues of Canadians and one of the issues that continues to be at the top of people's consciousness is the environment.
The government will be very clear tomorrow in its plan in terms of its emission reductions, what it is doing and how it will be working with different sectors, both in the large final emitters sectors and others in the country. I think it is important that they will be able to contribute to the greenhouse gas technology investment fund in exchange for special emission credits. They will be investing and, in turn, that will provide jobs for people.
Having a green economy and no jobs would benefit no one. Having no green economy will not help future generations. We have made a balance and have demonstrated that. What we are doing, in terms of bringing everyone into the tent on this particular issue, has been well received by the minister over the last nine months.
The revenue that will be generated from these investments by large final emitters will be used to make strategic investments into new innovative technologies. Innovative technologies is important as opposed to simply relying on old ways.
One of the things that some members of the opposition have suggested, particularly in the official opposition, is that somehow this is a carbon tax. There is no carbon, climate or green tax. There is no tax at all. In fact, if we were to have a tax we would have to bring in new legislation. As the parliamentary secretary I want to point out to all hon. members in the House that they can put that rumour aside.
NRCan and Natural Resources will be the ones best placed to manage the greenhouse gas technology investment fund as part of ongoing operations. They have been dealing with the whole energy technology development file. This will give opportunities, in dealing with expertise gained over the years, to ensure these investments of the fund are allocated to projects that will yield the optimal emission reductions for large final emitters on a sector by sector basis.
This is a tremendous opportunity not only for the environment but in terms of the investments for Canadians, whether they be young people or seniors. The environment is the area which I think is particularly important in terms of moving the budget implementation bill forward.
The budget is not a smorgasbord where we come along and take something because we like it but not take something else because we do not like it. We are not here to carve up a roast. We are here to pass a budget so that Canadians will be able to prosper and we will be able to move forward in a number of these areas. We want our cities to be assured of the funding that so many mayors and councillors across Canada have supported, that environmental groups are assured of funding in terms of the environment and that assistance is provided to Canadians generally.
It is good to see that we have the bill before the House but we have a long road to go in terms of ensuring that it gets passed. I would caution my colleagues on the other side that having this budget implementation bill go through will in fact deliver not only on what we ran on in the last federal election but what Canadians have clearly said, other priorities in terms of the economy.
We have had eight balanced budgets or better, which is unheard of in Canadian history. I think that alone demonstrates the economic leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.
(1340)
Mr. Randy White (Abbotsford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, was that not a nice speech about how great this budget is? For the people out there who cannot see what is going on in here, let me point out that the Liberals are giving themselves some applause.
Let us talk a bit about how this affected the people in Abbotsford, British Columbia. We have a pretty serious drug problem in Abbotsford as well as in lower mainland British Columbia and throughout this country. The government spent $8.1 million giving heroin to addicts; now there is a great program. I wonder if the budget reflects that. There is no money at all in the budget for rehabilitation. There is no money for the rehabilitation of individuals who are addicted to drugs. There is no money for advertising. Yet, rather than get addicts off drugs, the government spent millions on an injection site to make sure that those who are addicted can go to a place to inject their drugs.
In Abbotsford, British Columbia we are still fighting for fairness in the avian flu situation. The government in its wisdom decided that it had a schedule to reimburse farmers. For instance, on the schedule pigeons were worth $30, but anybody who knows much about specialized pigeons knows that some of them are worth $2,000 each. In its wisdom, the government did not do anything about that in the budget.
Tomorrow's announcement is an interesting thing. We have a lot of pretty bad air quality emissions in the Fraser Valley. There is nothing in the budget about that.
Here is the real question. The member opposite talked about revenue that has been generated. It would be interesting to know how much more money we would have available for the projects that I have just mentioned if it had not been ripped out of the pockets of the taxpayers and given to the Liberal Party. People in my area think that is pretty disgusting.
There is another bit of revenue the member opposite did not mention. Bill C-17 here in the House of Commons is for the decriminalization of marijuana, which the government is going to be made effective for anybody over the age of 11. What the government is saying is that anybody over the age of 11 will be given a fine for carrying as much as 60 joints. That is for grades six, seven, eight and nine in our country, for over two million students. What the government really does not understand about that little generator of revenue, according to the Department of Justice, is that we cannot fine anybody between the ages of 11 to 16, so the police will not be issuing fines on the spot to anyone who is 12, 13, 14 or 15, and reasonably so. This convoluted idea of a government trying to raise money because children in grades six or seven carry joints is a bit stupid, to say the least.
Budgets are more than just standing up and making some sort of philosophical statement on Kyoto or some other thing. They are about how Canada is working. I can tell the government and the hon. member across the way right now that the budget covered nothing about drugs that was motivating, to say the least. It covered nothing about the ethics and morality of stealing money from taxpayers. It covered nothing about some of the issues that are important to my area in terms of the avian flu and our emissions problem.
Maybe the member could stand up and tell us about what other little things I missed out on that did not affect my area at all.
(1345)
Hon. Bryon Wilfert: Again, Mr. Speaker, these people seem to be more concerned about elections than the actual delivery of programs to Canadians.
The hon. member has the audacity to stand in the House and suggest that the Liberal Party ripped off people. Maybe he has already read Mr. Gomery's report, which is not due until the end of the year. We know that allegations are allegations. I am sure the member, who has been around the House long enough, knows better. He should stand outside and make those kinds of statements.
The hon. member should know that Transparency International, one of the most respected--
Mr. Randy White: Let's go.
Hon. Bryon Wilfert: If you go outside I will be more than happy to deal with it, more than happy.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I should not speak to the member.
Hon. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Transparency International, one of the most respected organizations that deals with the issue of looking at corruption around the world, looks at 144 countries every year. Canada consistently is in the top 10, one to ten being very minimal in terms of the difference, very minuscule in the difference.
The fact is that when we talk about corruption, and I do not know whether members on the other side can spell the word, I find it offensive that people would use the word “corruption”. First of all, they should read the facts before they make those kinds of outlandish statements in this place. They have a duty to Canadians to do that. They also have a responsibility.
The government cancelled the sponsorship program as its first act. The government in fact named the Gomery commission, because these people said, “We have to get to the bottom of it”. We have no problem getting to the bottom of it. We have a process in place. These people seem to forget that. They seem to forget rather conveniently in terms of due process that we will have to get all the facts on the table. In fact, we have already seen contradictory testimony this week. We have an inquiry in place.
The member asks what the budget does. Obviously I guess the member has no ecosystems in his riding. I guess the member has no issues dealing with climate change in his riding. I guess the member has no municipal governments in his riding. I guess the member has no issues dealing with health care. Clearly one budget does not do everything, but it clearly has done a lot and it continues to deliver, and I think that is what Canadians want to see. I think they are a little tired of hearing some of these terms bandied about.
Clearly what we are seeing from Canadians is that they want to see the process work. They also want to see that this budget goes through so they can have delivered what in fact this government has stood for and continues to stand for, which is honesty and integrity. I challenge anybody on the other side to say otherwise and no doubt they will.
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that he thought this budget was balanced, so I have a series of questions for him.
How can he say the budget is balanced when we have increasing homelessness across this country?
How can he say this budget is balanced when poverty is growing, particularly child poverty, which we were supposed to eliminate by 2000? There are now 1.1 million children across this country living in poverty and those numbers are growing.
How can he call this budget balanced when it does nothing to address the crisis in post-secondary education that is afflicting students and youth across this country? The average debt load now is over $20,000 because tuition fees have doubled over these past few years during the Liberal reign.
How can he say that this budget is balanced when people with disabilities are living harder and harder lives because there is no support from the government? In fact, the government has cut one of the major employment programs that addressed the issue of integrating people with disabilities back into employment.
How can he say the budget is balanced when we have a crisis in rural Canada? The government has done nothing to address the border issues that are hurting our rural communities across the country.
How can he say the budget is balanced when seniors are living tougher lives and their quality of life is eroding? This budget offered nothing but a buck a day to help seniors when they have seen their real incomes eroding because pensions are actually eroding due to real cuts.
How can he say this budget is balanced when average Canadians are earning 60¢ an hour less in real terms than they were a decade ago when this government came to power? We are seeing fewer and fewer jobs with pension benefits, fewer and fewer jobs that actually carry benefits, more and more temporary jobs and more and more part time jobs, and the average Canadian family has seen a real erosion in their quality of life.
Given all these facts, how can the member opposite possibly say this budget is balanced?
(1350)
Hon. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, I know the member is new. I have great respect for the member. I know he probably just forgot that the government led a national campaign in terms of the issue of homelessness and invested over $640 million in conjunction with the provinces and municipal governments and NGOs.
Maybe the member forgot that 800,000 people, of which about 400,000 are seniors, came off the tax rolls because of this budget.
Maybe the member forgot that in fact the issue of rising tuitions is a provincial issue, not a federal one, but this government has done more to deal with the issue of student debt load.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I know that I will have only eight minutes for this speech before question period. I would like, therefore, to use this opportunity to begin my criticism of the budget brought down recently by the Minister of Finance.
First, we must condemn the fact that the Minister of Finance said that, for the first time, a Canadian finance minister would meet the critics of the official opposition and the other opposition parties to discuss the budget. I spent more than an hour with the minister explaining our party's priorities for serving the citizens. Now, we have a budget that fails to respond in any way to the priorities expressed to the Minister of Finance. I was extremely frustrated, as were all my colleagues, with this phony consultation by a minister who says he is open to new ideas for serving the community better, but failed to include in this budget any of the priorities that were expressed.
One of my party's priorities took precedence over all the others. This was the fiscal imbalance. I know that the Prime Minister has never acknowledged either the concept or the problem of the fiscal imbalance. He spoke about fiscal pressures. I do not know why this Prime Minister has an aversion to such a fine concept. However, I know very well, as chair of the House's Subcommittee on Fiscal Imbalance and having gone on a tour that took us from Halifax to Victoria by way of Toronto, Quebec City and other stops, and is still continuing, that people everywhere agree on the problem of the fiscal imbalance. People also agree on all its effects on the provincial governments and their responsibilities for health, education and assisting the most disadvantaged families.
There is agreement as well on the fact that Ottawa has too much money in relation to its responsibilities. The provinces, on the other hand, do not have enough to be the direct, front-line responders to the citizens. I thought that we would see a start in this budget on correcting the fiscal imbalance and that it would be recognized. It should be said in passing that this imbalance was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne thanks to the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party. We expected, therefore, that there would be an initial response in the budget. However, there was not even a hint of a response to this problem.
The Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance are saying that because of the health agreement and equalization there is no room to manoeuvre for the coming years. That is not true. There is more money than they know what to do with. Even with the commitments made in the September 2004 health agreement, even with the $10 billion in equalization indexed at 3.5% a year, even with the agreement reached with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to exclude oil revenues from the equalization calculation, over the next six years there will still be a surplus of some $100 billion in the federal government's coffers. That is a lot of money.
This is not the first time we have been in a situation like this. In 1956, the Tremblay Commission recommended looking at the Constitution, the provincial jurisdictions, and the federal government's jurisdictions and ensuring that the fiscal capacity of both levels of government was consistent with this level of responsibility. It favoured transferring these fiscal responsibilities from one level to the other, in other words, from the federal government to the provinces. The Constitution is in fact very clear on this: education, health, and helping out families in need are not the responsibilities of the federal government, but of Quebec and the provinces.
Since these are basic services we must provide in order to meet the public's demands, is it possible that we are back where we were in 1956, at the time of the Tremblay report, when we needed to look at the balance and review the allocation of taxing power between the two levels of government?
(1355)
The report of the Tremblay commission led to the initial first ministers' conference in Quebec City. At that time, the first ministers were Mr. Pearson for the federal government and Mr. Lesage for Quebec.
The taxation powers of both levels of government were redefined at that conference. Why? Because, at that time, the federal government wanted to implement a pan-Canadian education system, with a loans and bursaries program, a pension fund, etc. The Quebec government refused to conform and asked for the right to withdraw with full compensation.
In 1964, it became possible to withdraw with full compensation. This compensation was then offered in the form of tax points to all the provinces, but only Quebec accepted. The tax points from 1964 and others from later years, particularly 1977 and 1978, are now worth $18 billion and the revenues go directly to the Quebec government.
Why deny the evidence? Why not admit that the current situation is identical to those in the 1950s and 1960s, and that the balance needs to be restored? There is no hint of a solution, or even any recognition of the fiscal imbalance in the budget, even though it is in the throne speech. There is nothing about it.
Year after year, the provinces record major shortfalls. For just this year in Quebec alone, we are talking about $2.5 billion that should have gone to the Quebec government but which has gone to Ottawa, due to the fiscal imbalance. If Quebec had that $2.5 billion, clearly, the underfunding of education over the past 15 years and the shortfall in the health care system would be history.
But first, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance would have to understand, which apparently is not the case at present. Our first major disappointment with the budget is this whole issue of the fiscal imbalance, which this government continues to deny. Perhaps we need to shove this question down its throat more forcefully in the next election campaign. I will come back to this after oral question period. As the saying goes, “The best is yet to come”.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
(1400)
[English]
Volunteerism
Hon. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, next week is National Volunteer Week when we recognize so many who donate their time to fellow Canadians.
I thank the thousands of volunteers in Guelph who do so much to better our community. Their generosity was overwhelming in response to the tsunami in South and Southeast Asia.
The Rotary Club and Valentini Hair Design hosted a cut-a-thon. Harcourt Memorial United Church staged a benefit show where many, including Robert Munsch, performed. The Guelph Storm Hockey Club and the Guelph Fire Department collected donations. Youth undertook action in their schools to help raise money. The local Red Cross alone received over $770,000 from thousands of individuals and businesses.
These fundraising efforts could not have occurred without so many generous volunteers. I congratulate them and thank them for all of their hard work.
* * *
Veterans Affairs
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC): Mr. Speaker, many Canadian veterans were subjected to chemical warfare testing while serving their country. Because of this the government brought forward the chemical warfare agent testing recognition program with the aim of compensating these veterans. Unfortunately, this program has become underfunded and overburdened. The government must correct this injustice to ensure our veterans are treated with the respect and dignity they deserve.
Some residents of my constituency of South Shore—St. Margaret's who are eligible for this program have made enquiries on the status of their applications. They have been told that the line is so long they cannot even know when their application will even be looked at.
This is a shameful way to treat our veterans. This is a serious situation which needs to be addressed immediately as time is running out.
The government has proclaimed this to be the Year of the Veteran. It is paramount that we recognize their great sacrifice and ensure the best possible care for our veterans.
* * *
Pope John Paul II
Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the remarkable life of His Holiness Pope John Paul II.
As we mourn his death, we also celebrate his life, his incredible courage and the comfort that his faith brought to people all around the world. His Holiness was a remarkable leader, an inspiration of extraordinary faith, strength and courage to us all. He was especially graced with a very special power to bring people around the world together.
Canada was honoured when he visited our country three times. I had an audience with him some years ago in Italy and was left in awe of his radiance and the aura that surrounded him.
We were blessed to welcome the Pope to Toronto for World Youth Day in July 2002 when I had the great privilege of celebrating mass with His Holiness.
I want to express my deepest condolences to members of our religious communities, his brothers and sisters, and to all Canadians as we honour the exceptional life of Pope John Paul II.
* * *
[Translation]
Agriculture
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, having taken part in the parliamentary conference on the WTO, organized jointly by the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the European Parliament, I am convinced that Canada needs to double its educational efforts in order to show the rest of the world that the agricultural supply management system is one of the ways to put a human face on globalization.
Agriculture was, of course, at the heart of those debates, but the focus was far more on market access than on the producers' quality of life. The position I defended was that we ought to focus on greater market fairness for all and, at the same time, respect the status of those involved in agriculture, that is the producers and farm workers.
The WTO is slated to table the outcome of the process in Hong-Kong this December, and this ought to result in some considerable progress in the negotiations.
I invite all members of this House to take ownership of this debate, since it is the responsibility of us all as elected representatives to ensure that the new rules for the global market are democratic ones.
* * *
[English]
Coast Guard
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recently in my riding of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, announced that the Canadian Coast Guard would become a special operating agency, the largest SOA in Canada, which recognizes its unique and important role to Canadians.
This special designation allows the Coast Guard to focus its resources on providing excellent marine services while enhancing its responsibilities in the areas of national security, environmental response and the facilitation of maritime commerce. The Canadian Coast Guard will continue to play an integral role in scientific research, conservation and protection of our fisheries.
The Coast Guard is an important agency. It is important to the people of Dartmouth. While more operating dollars are critically needed, this new status along with over $400 million invested in this year's budget for new vessels will ensure that this proud organization will continue to be a world leader in providing marine services to Canadians.
* * *
(1405)
Men's World Curling Championship
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is great joy in Edmonton—Sherwood Park these days. We are all excited about Randy Ferbey's fabulous victory in the Ford Men's World Curling Championship in Victoria this past weekend.
Randy and his teammates, David Nedohin, Scott Pfeifer and Marcel Rocque, kept Canadians on the edge of their seats during most of the games in this tournament. We all heaved a collective sigh of relief when they won their last game, beating Scotland 11 to 4.
These curlers from my riding are absolutely fabulous. They have won 30 of their last 35 games, coming out victorious in the provincials and the Canadian Brier. Now they are the world champions for the third time.
We congratulate them and wish them success as they move toward representing Canada in the 2006 Winter Olympics. They truly are world champions.
* * *
Immigration
Mr. Russ Powers (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to reflect on last month's observation of Anti-Discrimination Day and to honour the men and women of the Settlement and Immigration Services Organization of Hamilton, our outstanding community based centre dedicated to the well-being of new Canadians who choose to settle in the greater Hamilton area.
Hamiltonians are very proud of the diversity of immigrant services offered by this organization. Highlighting its work are the programs directed at the promotion of social justice, equality and equity. It is family sensitive and well networked. All federal and provincial stakeholders mandated to spearhead the integration of almost 4,000 new immigrants who arrive in Hamilton annually participate.
The professionals at SISO break down barriers that immigrants and refugees inevitably face as they seek to become Canadians. As a member, I along with others salute those committed to this wonderful program in Hamilton and to those beyond, from coast to coast to coast in our great Canadian home.
* * *
[Translation]
Place aux jeunes
Ms. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on March 20, I had the pleasure of attending the final day of the activities of the 2005 edition of Place aux jeunes in the Haut-Saint-François region.
The purpose of this familiarization program is to stem the exodus of our young people. It encourages social commitment, facilitates job entry and stimulates the creation of businesses in the outlying regions, while raising the awareness of young people and local stakeholders of the impacts of relocation.
These familiarization visits, organized by the Carrefour jeunesse du Haut-Saint-François and spread over three weekends, give more than a dozen young people a chance to explore the region. In past years, they have resulted in several dozen young people deciding to relocate to the Haut-Saint-François regional municipality.
We congratulate Christian Gauthier, the director of the East Angus Carrefour jeunesse-emploi, and Nadia Latulippe, Eastern Townships migration officer, for their commitment to this cause and for helping entice young people back to our fine region.
* * *
[English]
Terry Fox
Hon. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on April 12, 1980, 25 years ago today, Terry Fox began his Marathon of Hope to raise funds for cancer research.
As a young athlete who had lost his leg to cancer, Terry crossed 3,339 miles over 143 days on his incredible journey. Many said that the idea was ridiculous, but Terry proved them wrong.
When he arrived in Toronto, Terry Fox was greeted as a national champion by some 10,000 people gathered in Nathan Phillips Square.
On the morning of September 1 the Marathon of Hope came to a tragic end when Terry collapsed outside of Thunder Bay. Cancer had spread to Terry's lungs. Nine months later, one of Canada's greatest heroes passed away.
Terry's philosophy was simple: research money equals hope. I encourage all Canadians to reflect on the remarkable life of this young man and give generously until a cure is found.
* * *
Capital Hill Experience
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of introducing several guests from my riding of Dufferin—Caledon who are in the House today. For the past three days, students Pavan Sapra, Michael Lucci, Marissa Hunter, Angela Davenport, Bartosz Junik, Rebecca Snelgrove and Nathan Wynes, as well as chaperones Nicole Robins and Real Gagnon, have been touring our nation's capital and learning about our Canadian government and Parliament on the Capital Hill Experience.
Not only have these students had an opportunity to tour Parliament Hill, but they have visited the Supreme Court of Canada, the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the CBC studios, the New RO, and attended a lecture at the British High Commission.
This experience has been made possible through funding by the rotary clubs of Shelburne, Orangeville, Caledon West and Bolton. These rotary clubs have worked with my office to select students and provide a capital hill experience these students are sure to remember.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in welcoming these students to Ottawa.
* * *
(1410)
Etobicoke Business Excellence Awards
Hon. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of Etobicoke—Lakeshore, I would like to congratulate those who were honoured last night at the eighth annual Etobicoke Business Excellence Awards gala.
The black tie event was co-hosted by the Etobicoke Chamber of Commerce and the Etobicoke Guardian to recognize businesses and business persons for their exemplary accomplishments in the Etobicoke community.
I wish to congratulate Gino Piscelli, Don Gain, Greg Flagler, Ron Crosby, Naresh Bangia, John Lyon, Ignacio Musalem, Gerry Vandergrift and Paul Floyd. Through their hard work, diligence and integrity, they have achieved excellence.
They and their employees and employers may all take great pride in their accomplishments. Congratulations to all of the Etobicoke Business Excellence Awards recipients.
* * *
Landmines
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to congratulate the Royal Canadian Legion Mount Pleasant Branch 177 in my riding of Vancouver East. The branch marked its 60th anniversary in a remarkable way by an important landmine clearance project.
Its contribution will support demining operations for a 12 week period in Afghanistan, one of the most heavily mined countries in the world. As part of the Adopt-A-Minefield global campaign, this project will fund the work of a 30 person team from the Afghan Technical Consultants.
The Mount Pleasant Legion has a long history of contributing to the community. This latest initiative is another fine example of its service and commitment to human security and peace. The global landmine crisis has killed or maimed tens of thousands of people worldwide. The eradication of anti-personnel mines is a vital task facing the international community and action needs to be taken.
I applaud the Mount Pleasant Legion's initiative. This is an excellent project taken up by this branch and it most definitely lives up to its motto, “We joined to serve; we're serving still”.
* * *
Terry Fox
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago today, Port Coquitlam's Terry Fox began his inspirational journey to fight cancer. On April 12, 1980 Terry dipped his artificial leg in the Atlantic Ocean and began his Marathon of Hope.
He ran 26 miles a day, seven days a week, through the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and Ontario. It was a journey Canadians will never forget.
On September 1, 1980, after 143 days and 5,373 kilometres, Terry was forced to stop running outside of Thunder Bay because cancer appeared in his lungs. An entire nation was stunned and saddened. Terry passed away on June 28, 1981. He was only 22.
Cancer research and treatment has come a long way since 1981, in part because of the courage of Terry Fox. Some $360 million has been raised worldwide in Terry's name to fight cancer, and he inspired millions.
When he died, Terry Fox said, “Even if I don't finish, we need others to continue. It's got to keep going without me”. That is our challenge. Let us never give up doing all we can to fight cancer. It is the only way to truly honour Terry's legend, courage and memory.
* * *
[Translation]
Rail Transportation
Mr. Raynald Blais (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, BQ): Mr. Speaker, two organizations, Dignité rurale and Vision Percé-Gaspé, recently presented me with a petition signed by more than 2,200 people concerned about the future of rail transportation in the Gaspé Peninsula.
For 15 years we have been living with a threat over our heads about the future of Via Rail's Chaleur route. The once daily service has been cut to three trips a week.
In 2004, the federal government asked Via Rail to reduce its operating costs and it has been confirmed that various scenarios were considered, including eliminating its service to the southern Gaspé Peninsula.
In the Gaspé Peninsula there is a close connection between passenger trains and freight trains, which rely on well-maintained tracks. Without adequate funding to maintain the Gaspé network, both services are threatened.
It is time to put an end to this suspense and for the federal Minister of Transport to tell us clearly and precisely his plans for the future of rail in the Gaspé Peninsula.
* * *
[English]
Elmvale Maple Syrup Festival
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Saturday, April 23 marks the 39th annual Elmvale Maple Syrup Festival in my riding of Simcoe—Grey.
Each year the Town of Elmvale explodes in a celebration of nature's rites of spring. Close to 30,000 visitors line the streets to enjoy sugar bush tours, fresh maple syrup, shopping, the all day pancake breakfast and the midway, of course.
I would like to thank the organizers, Tony Hope, Dave Stewart, Ted Hore, Peter Cowcola and Heather Sewell for their hard work and dedication in making the festival such a success.
Through the efforts of hundreds of volunteers, $20,000 is raised each year for local organizations: the library, minor baseball, Girl Guides, Community Living, the Dare program, the Legion, the fall fair youth program and the Elmvale co-op nursery.
On Saturday I will have the opportunity to challenge Mayor John Brown in a log sawing contest. I invite all members to join me in what promises to be a fun filled weekend for the entire family.
* * *
(1415)
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Mrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada has one of the most respected national police forces in the world. The RCMP is renowned across the globe as a historical symbol of law and order in this country.
Yesterday the deputy leader of the official opposition called into question the integrity of the RCMP, claiming it is not competent. Being the son of a former solicitor general, the comments were even more surprising.
Clearly the Conservatives are willing to attack anyone or anything in the name of political expediency. They have already dragged the charter through the mud, condemned the role of the Supreme Court, and do not support the Canada Health Act, official bilingualism and the federal government's proper place in the Canadian federation.
How many other symbols that are integral to the hearts and minds of Canadians will the Conservatives tear apart in the name of political opportunism?
* * *
Aboriginal Affairs
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the sponsorship scandal the Liberals claimed the problem was just a couple of isolated bureaucrats. The political stench coming out of the Gomery inquiry has shown just how misleading this claim was. Still, they want us to believe the same thing about one of their other scandals, Health Canada's dealings with the Virginia Fontaine Addictions Foundation: tens of millions of public dollars misdirected at the highest levels of the department.
Just as they tried with the sponsorships, the Liberals have stonewalled and played down this scandal. They say, “One bureaucrat convicted with a minimal sentence. End of story”. That is not good enough. That is not accountability. Lots of questions remain. Who else knew? Why did they not act? How does this fit with the pattern of Liberal corruption and scandals?
Canadians deserve to know. The NDP has repeatedly called for a public inquiry. If the Liberals have nothing to hide, why will they not help us get to the truth and call an inquiry?
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Federal-Provincial Relations
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Dalton McGuinty is quoted today as saying the Prime Minister will not meet with him. Mr. McGuinty is a Liberal, and I know the Prime Minister now wants to be careful with which Liberals he associates, but I am sure the Premier of Ontario is not looking for sponsorship money.
Will the Prime Minister meet with Premier McGuinty at the first opportunity?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously I will meet with Mr. McGuinty. I am prepared to meet with any premier. In fact, it is either this afternoon or tomorrow that I will be meeting with Premier Lord. I have met with Premier Williams. I have met with Premier Calvert. It is part of my job. I would be more than happy to discuss the affairs of state with a provincial premier.
Hon. Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, I am sure when that meeting eventually happens, the Premier of Ontario, like the Liberal Premier of Quebec, will want to discuss the fiscal imbalance which the Prime Minister should start to take seriously.
* * *
Air-India
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this past weekend Senator Terry Mercer, a Liberal senator, suggested that racism is the real reason for the government's refusal to call an inquiry into the Air-India tragedy. He said:
|
If there were 350 white people on that plane, would we be waiting for an inquiry? |
Will the Prime Minister change his position and vote with the Conservative Party on a motion today that calls for an Air-India inquiry?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, any notions of racism are odious and any accusations of such are simply not acceptable.
I would simply point out to the hon. member that today the Deputy Prime Minister is in the process of meeting with the families. She has said that she will take action. She is seeking the best way to do so. She is seeking the questions that the families want to have answered. Unequivocally, the government will take action in an appropriate way.
* * *
Sponsorship Program
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, judging from the families' comments after that meeting, they were not terribly impressed.
Yesterday the Prime Minister wrongly suggested that the Liberals were not responsible for shutting down the public accounts committee looking into Liberal corruption prior to the election. For the record, I checked. The then Liberal majority voted to produce a premature report before hearing all the witnesses on May 11. On May 13 it voted against hearing further committee witnesses.
I have a simple question. Did the Liberal members act on their own, or did they act on the Prime Minister's instructions?
(1420)
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is acting in total disregard of the facts.
Let me point out that on April 6, 2004 Liberal members of the public accounts committee proposed a schedule of witnesses of which Jean Brault and Groupaction were the first on the list of the advertising agencies to be heard. On May 11 the Liberal members had a motion to have an interim report. The opposition voted against it. Then the opposition began a lengthy filibuster and the chairman of the committee went to Mexico.
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, once again the Prime Minister omits the fact that the Liberal Party voted against hearing further witnesses.
Yesterday the government misled the House on another matter. It claimed full audits were done on the Liberal Party's books to find dirty sponsorship money. That is not true. PricewaterhouseCoopers even stated emphatically that what it did did not constitute an audit.
Will the Prime Minister admit that an audit was never done, only reviews?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Deloitte were engaged proactively by the party to get to the bottom of the issue. The reports were provided to Justice Gomery. We are cooperating fully with Justice Gomery.
It is also notable that the reports did say that all contributions were handled and receipted properly. If there were profiteers who were operating below the radar screen of the party, we want to ensure that those individuals are punished.
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister declined to answer this question and he should, because after all, he has told the country he is “the moral authority”.
So let me ask the moral authority this. PricewaterhouseCoopers says that what it is doing here does not constitute an audit. Deloitte says its services were engaged to perform a forensic accounting review, no audits. Will the Prime Minister admit that, contrary to what the government has told Canadians, they never performed an audit?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a forensic accounting review is a very thorough review of all accounting. That is exactly what Deloitte did and that is exactly what PricewaterhouseCoopers did. I would urge the hon. member to stick to politics and not try business if he does not understand anything more about accounting than that.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after he was pushed enough by the opposition parties, the media and public opinion, the Prime Minister finally took some action in connection with the sponsorship scandal. Yesterday, in the House, the Prime Minister indicated that it was he, in response to the sponsorship scandal, who recalled Canada's ambassador to Denmark and dismissed three heads of crown corporations.
Since the Prime Minister is establishing a link between Alfonso Gagliano, Jean Pelletier, André Ouellet, Marc LeFrançois and the sponsorship scandal, can he tell us whether these individuals were members of the parallel group?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc is quite right in saying that I acted from the outset. The very day the report of the Auditor General was tabled in the House, I created the commission of inquiry and I appointed Justice Gomery as commissioner. We, the government, have supported the Gomery commission so that it will come up with answers. We want answers and we will act in consequence.
(1425)
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will ask the question, since he is boasting of dismissing Alfonso Gagliano and three heads of crown corporations. He certainly did not cause heads to roll just because of allegations. He had facts that justified the dismissal of Gagliano, Pelletier, Ouellet and LeFrançois for their involvement in the sponsorship scandal. This is what he has just said.
Were these people part of the parallel group? On what grounds did he dismiss them?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in each case, we gave the reasons for our action. For example, in the case of Mr. Pelletier, it was because of the statement made by Ms. Bédard. In the case of Mr. Gagliano, it was because the Minister of Foreign Affairs said it was hurting Quebec's image.
In each instance, we provided explanations. I guess the leader of the Bloc was not here. Whatever the case, it was done here in the House.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in his haste to distance himself from the sponsorship scandal, the Prime Minister fired some of those associated with it, such as André Ouellet, Alfonso Gagliano and Jean Pelletier.
What we would like to know from the Prime Minister is the reason for his decision to dismiss these people. Was it based on allegations, or was he certain that they were part of the little parallel group directing the operations of the sponsorship scandal?
[English]
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is positive to finally see the opposition giving credit to the Prime Minister for some of the actions he took in response to the sponsorship program. In fact, he ended the sponsorship program. He fired some of these individuals.
Furthermore, he established Justice Gomery and supports Justice Gomery, which is a far cry from what the opposition members do. They would rather get to the polls. Canadians want to get to the truth and that is why they depend on Justice Gomery: to do exactly that.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister explain that he decided to get rid of Pelletier, Gagliano and Ouellet before the end of the Gomery inquiry yet refuses to do something else—put the dirty money in trust—with the excuse that the inquiry is not over?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the party has made it clear. If it has received any inappropriate funds, it will reimburse the taxpayers.
[English]
It is very clear that the opposition members do not want to hear the truth, because otherwise they would listen to Justice Gomery. They would listen to the government and wait for his report. That report will give Canadians the truth and Canadians can make a reasoned decision based on that truth.
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The fact is that this Liberal corruption is putting a corrupt face on federalism in Quebec and it is smearing Quebec's name all across Canada, yet we know that in Nova Scotia Liberal friendly ad firms were getting sponsorship contracts for projects like the Pan-Am Games.
Given what we know from testimony about how sponsorship fees end up getting funnelled back into the Liberal Party, will the Prime Minister refer that testimony and the Pan-Am contract to the RCMP?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again I would urge the leader of the NDP to listen to his own caucus member, the member for Sackville--Eastern Shore, who said on CBC radio:
|
To be completely honest with you, what's going on in the House of Commons is nothing short of really quite sad. Everyone is just talking about the Gomery issue and nothing else. We are not talking about seniors or veterans or children or families or the environment or anything else. We're just...trying to score cheap political points on the Gomery trial and I think Canadians in general have had enough of this and we should focus on the issues that matter to Canadians and let Gomery do his work. |
The member is right and his leader should listen.
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we would not have to be dealing with any of this if it had not been for the corrupt behaviour of the Liberals in the first place.
Speaking about quotations, what about the letter the Prime Minister sent out to Liberals across the country last night? He said that corruption “is not the way we do politics in the Liberal Party”.
This is amazing. We are told we are supposed to wait for the results of the Gomery inquiry, yet the Prime Minister has already decided that the Liberal Party is exonerated and completely innocent. If he can say the Liberal Party is innocent, why can he not just say he is sorry to the Canadian people?
(1430)
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have said from the very beginning that I regret this event very, very much and I find it profoundly troubling.
That is why, right from the very beginning, we put in place the Gomery commission. We did it because we want to find out the facts. We want to find out the facts so that we can punish those people who engaged in inappropriate activities. There may be members of the Liberal Party, but that is not the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party is made up of thousands of hard-working and dedicated Canadians from coast to coast to coast who want only one thing, and that is the betterment of their country.
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government now seems to be at least admitting it did not do audits, but the question is, did it do thorough reviews? Not only were these not full audits, the Liberal Party refused to provide the accountants with all the necessary documentation. According to Deloitte & Touche, it was forced to rely on the Liberal Party for the accuracy of the information it received.
I ask the Prime Minister again: will he admit that no audit was done, that it was simply a review and that the source of the information for the review was the Liberal Party of Canada?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote directly from the Deloitte report, “We made sure to obtain detailed supporting documents for every amount deposited in the Liberal Party accounts during the period covered by this mandate”.
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister and minister to read the rest of those statements, because what it says, according to the accountants, is that the Liberals set the rules for what transactions they actually looked at. That did not include any money to riding associations, which is where all the sponsorship money was funnelled.
Will they admit that the information for this review came from the Liberal Party and did not include dirty money to riding associations?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): First of all, Mr. Speaker, a forensic accounting review is a very thorough one. The Liberal Party in fact established proactively these reviews, working with Deloitte, working with PwC, and in fact shared all this information with the Gomery commission in December. We continue and the party auditors continue to work with Justice Gomery's auditors as we review this information.
It is very clear that the Liberal Party is being completely cooperative with Justice Gomery and that the Conservative leader wants to kneecap Justice Gomery before he provides Canadians with his report.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberals suddenly promised to give Judge Gomery party records. Before then, they were claiming that two outside audits proved no wrongdoing. It turns out they knew full well those were not really audits at all. PricewaterhouseCoopers specifically stated their work was not an audit and complained about lack of documentation provided by the Liberals.
The Prime Minister again tried to sneak one by Canadians. Why is he caught time and again trying to mislead Canadians?
The Speaker: I have grave concerns about the question that is asked because it appears to be dealing with Liberal Party audits. I am not seeing the tie any longer in that question to any ministerial responsibility, and accordingly, in my view the question is out of order. The evidence before the inquiry that a party is giving is one thing. What the government is giving is another. The hon. member for Calgary--Nose Hill has I think crossed the line in this case.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, both audit firms complained about lack of proper documentation. Deloitte emphasized that only four bank accounts were reviewed. Nothing that went to Liberal ridings or candidates was reviewed, yet the Prime Minister, a former finance minister, had the nerve to pretend this was a real audit.
Now we learn of money laundering, extortion, kickbacks, bribes, envelopes of money. No wonder the Prime Minister was frantically waving around his whitewash audit. Why has his word--
(1435)
The Speaker: I could not hear the end of the question, but everything before it appeared to be following the same pattern so I will have to conclude that the question is out of order in the circumstances.
The hon. member for Roberval--Lac-Saint-Jean.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have asked the Prime Minister numerous times already whether he did all the necessary checks to ensure that none of his ministers, past or present, was connected in any way to the sponsorship scandal.
Today, I am asking the Prime Minister, who claims to have the moral authority to lead this government, whether he asked his ministers about this and whether he received all the necessary assurances that none of his ministers had any involvement with any agency in the sponsorship scandal?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that when a minister or a parliamentary secretary is appointed, there is a security check, a background check. All the ministers have gone through this check.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we know that all the ministers are investigated by the RCMP, but we have already seen cases where the results left something to be desired.
What I am asking the Prime Minister is not whether the RCMP conducted an investigation. Did the person who claims to have the moral authority to lead the government question his ministers himself, clearly and specifically, and did he receive assurances from them that they had nothing to do with the sponsorship scandal and the firms involved? That is my question.
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat, checks were conducted, not only by the RCMP but also by the transition team, whose duty it was to do so, in accordance with the standards.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during Alain Renaud's testimony, Justice Gomery reminded him that by acting as a lobbyist without being registered, he broke the law. In addition to being convicted of this, he could be fined $25,000.
When he appointed the Minister of Transport, did the Prime Minister ask his lieutenant if he had acted as a lobbyist for, among others, Onex, Imperial Tobacco, Loblaws, the Reichmann brothers of Olympia and York in connection with developing the Bickerdike pier, and for the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the minister was appointed, a check was done of his assets and his background, as is the case for all ministers. I can assure the hon. member that the Minister of Transport, and the other ministers, passed the test with flying colours.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Can the Prime Minister confirm, from his seat, that the Minister of Transport never approached his ministers or opposition members to arrange meetings for his clients, which clearly constitutes lobbying?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that the Minister of Transport has always acted appropriately and with the utmost integrity.
[English]
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claimed in sworn testimony that he had no relationship with sponsorship kingpin Claude Boulay, that he barely knew him, that he had no contact beyond a casual hello. Yet we learned yesterday that the Prime Minister discussed contracts with Boulay over lunch at a Liberal convention.
Will the Prime Minister now admit that he met with Claude Boulay to discuss contracts?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is commenting on yesterday's testimony. If he wanted to be truly transparent about this, he would also say that yesterday's testimony actually contradicted some of Mr. Brault's testimony of last week.
The folly of commenting on daily testimony is that one runs the risk of making grievous errors on an ongoing basis, and that is what they are doing. That is irresponsible when we are dealing with an issue of this importance. That is why we should be trusting Justice Gomery to go through all the testimony and in a reasonable way develop his report and provide it to Canadians. That is what Canadians deserve.
(1440)
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is the Prime Minister who has said that he has the moral responsibility to clean up this mess, yet he has that minister answering questions. This scandal is worse than Watergate and the Prime Minister has an obligation to answer these questions.
[Translation]
Perhaps I will get an answer if I ask in French.
Will the Prime Minister admit that he dined with Claude Boulay and that they discussed contracts? Will he admit that?
[English]
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is putting country above party. The Prime Minister is putting principle above strategy. That is exactly the opposite of what the Conservatives, the Bloc and the NDP are doing with this issue.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Justice was indignant at the opposition for suggesting what every Canadian believes, that the Liberal Party has some explaining to do.
Now Canadians have learned as a result of sworn evidence that a former member of the minister's own staff, his special counsel, has been identified as pocketing thousands of dollars in taxpayer money for favours for the Liberal Party.
When were these facts about his special counsel brought to the minister's attention?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I read about those allegations at the same time the member opposite read about them in the newspapers.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the highest law officer in the country, the minister has an obligation to advise the Canadian people fully about this matter. Canadians have heard that his special counsel was picking up envelopes of sponsorship money.
When he heard about this, what steps did he take when this matter came to his attention?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am stunned that a former crown attorney does not understand what the rule of law is all about, does not understand what the integrity of the administration is all about, does not understand what a judicial process is all about and comes here, goes ahead and pronounces conclusions without any evidence and without any attribution to any judicial authority. It is a scandal.
* * *
Immigration
Mr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, amid allegations of $50,000 cheques for bonds being taken through the offices of a Conservative member of Parliament, many members of the House are deeply concerned.
What is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration doing to look into this matter and how is he going to ensure the integrity of our immigration services are not put up for sale?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not talking about allegations, but about admissions by the member for Newton—North Delta. It is a very serious misrepresentation of the immigration system, where a member of Parliament asks a constituent to sign a bond of $50,000 to $100,000 made out to his name or to his party in return for writing me a letter.
I have asked the conflicts commissioner to take a look at this. I further will ask him to see who gets that money when the conditions go into default and whether the leader of the--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
* * *
Human Resources and Skills Development
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, disturbing questions have arisen as to whether HRSD training dollars are being siphoned out of volunteer organizations and into the hands of Liberal friendly organizations. Each of these contracts are worth a half a million dollars. Further, we have had a steady stream of witnesses coming forward with tales of harassment and intimidation by HRSD bureaucrats if they speak out.
Will the minister explain why front-line volunteer organizations across Canada have learned that it is not the merit of the work they do, it is “who you know in the PMO”?
(1445)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the allegation the hon. member is making in this House is a very serious one. What is going on at the present time needs to be closely scrutinized.
The request for proposals procedure is there to award contracts in a very transparent way to organizations, the majority of which are community organizations delivering services to our fellow citizens. A kind of invitation to tender is issued and the organization with the best proposal is selected.
This is the context we work in with the volunteer sector in order to improve the system as a whole.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Transparency, Mr. Speaker? Tell this to the volunteer groups that are being shut out. We have documented a culture of fear, fear of losing contracts, fear of losing out to Liberal friendly organizations. These organizations are working with the poor, the immigrants and the homeless. My God, it is like a cross between Gomery and a Charles Dickens tale.
Will the minister explain why the Liberal government has taken to shaking down widows and orphans in order to do damage control for HRSD policy?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the request for proposal process is a very transparent process to ensure that we receive value for money each time we sign a contract with any organization, including a community organization in the volunteer sector.
We have heard about some difficulties they are having with the new process. We are working very closely with the volunteer sector to improve the system. I think no one is against the principle to be very transparent and to have good contracts with those organizations.
I can assure the members of the House that we will work very closely with the volunteer sector to have a better organization.
* * *
Sponsorship Program
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Claude Boulay is one of the ad scam kingpins, the head of Groupe Everest. The Prime Minister claimed last year in the House and this year at the Gomery commission that he barely knew the man, sort of a passing acquaintance, might say hello every now and then.
Now we have learned that the Prime Minister actually lunched with Mr. Boulay while discussing contracts for Attractions Canada, a major recipient of dirty Liberal ad scam money.
The public works minister does not know. He cannot answer this question. Only the Prime Minister can.
Is this true? Did he indeed lunch with Claude Boulay to discuss contracts, yes or no?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the entire history of my relationship, which was very short, he is a political acquaintance, is well set out in the testimony that I provided to the Gomery commission. It is there for anybody who wants to read it. It was examined and cross-examined by counsel. I would simply ask the hon. member to read it.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, watch the prevaricating, listen to the wiggling, not an unequivocal answer. Here is an unequivocal question. Did the Prime Minister have a lunch meeting with Claude Boulay of Groupe Everest to discuss contracts? I do not want prevarication. He says that he has moral authority. Then exercise some moral responsibility to tell the truth. Did he have that meeting, yes or no?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is nonsense, as is the allegation. All the hon. member has to do is go and see the Gomery testimony. It is very clear, and one thing comes out. Witnesses before the commission have testified unequivocally that I have never interfered in any contract, and I never did.
The Speaker: There seems to be a slight breakdown in order in the chamber at the moment. I would remind hon. members that these conversations can be carried out elsewhere. We are in a question period and I believe the hon. member for Central Nova is now going to ask a question.
* * *
(1450)
Border Security
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the record will show the Prime Minister did not answer the question or who picked up the tab.
U.S. Congressman Mark Souder, a senior member of the homeland security committee, says that Canada risks becoming a junior rather than a joint partner in North American border security. One of his chief concerns is the same as voiced by Canadian border authorities: inadequate and incomplete watch lists and no computers available to provide accurate and updated information.
At least 62 border crossings do not have 24/7 real time live access to CBSA computers. Instead officials have to sift through reams of paper to determine if the person crossing the border is a terrorist. When are these glaring gaps at the border--
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are not going to get involved in the context of the comments from customs officers in the middle of labour negotiations. However, all the customs offices at our borders have all the information at their disposal. In fact, the department and the Canada Border Services Agency is investing $433 million over the next five years to enhance our capacity. A good part of that will be devoted to information technology and to improve the links between our border operations and the head office database.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it was a U.S. congressman who said this.
In addition to having little information about terrorists or dangerous offenders, our unarmed border officials have to contend with inadequate backup from police. Over 50 border crossings, many with a single agent, are at least 25 kilometres from a police station. Internal RCMP documents show that on some weekends at Quebec crossings there is little or no police coverage. What is the government's response? Close more detachments and leave the border agents to fend for themselves.
Again, when will the government beef up border security and expand RCMP support for these entry points?
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last year alone more than 71 million people crossed at Canada's borders at the land points of entry. The government has invested in the Canada Border Services Agency $433 million over the next five years. We are building capacity. Since 9/11, the government has invested more than $9 billion to enhance the public security environment in Canada. We will continue to do that. Our smart borders is a number one priority for the government and we are working very closely with the U.S. to implement that.
* * *
[Translation]
Sponsorship Program
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in connection with one of our questions on his riding assistant's presence on the finance committee of the Liberal Party with Jacques Corriveau and Alain Renaud, the Prime Minister tried to minimize his assistant's role, describing it as simply selling tickets.
I ask the Prime Minister once again to explain how he can tell us today that he knew nothing of what was going on, when his own assistant was sitting in the middle of the finance committee where it was all happening?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, everything I knew, my assistant knew. She was selling tickets. The job had to be done. It was a fundraising dinner. I imagine that even the Bloc sells tickets to cocktail parties or dinners to raise money. That is what she was doing.
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister trying to have us believe that the only role of the Liberal Party of Canada's finance committee, on which sat the top leaders of the Liberal Party of Canada, is simply to sell tickets to fundraising dinners? This is what the Prime Minister—
The Speaker: As the hon. member knows, that question is unacceptable. It has nothing to do with the administration of the Government of Canada.
The hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc.
* * *
[English]
Infrastructure
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we learned this weekend of a cozy relationship between the Mont Tremblant ski facility owned by Intrawest and the health of Liberal Party coffers. It seems that when donations to the Liberal Party by Intrawest began to rise, the amount of taxpayer money funnelled into the ski resort also increased.
One begins to wonder whether this kickback culture is not just exclusive to the Liberal advertising program.
Can the Minister of Industry explain the relationship between the increase in Liberal Party donations by Intrawest and the increased taxpayer money going to Mont Tremblant?
[Translation]
Hon. Jacques Saada (Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a large part of the federal public money given Mont Tremblant must be reimbursed. The remainder comes from the infrastructure program, under which the Government of Canada simply acts on the priorities of the Government of Quebec.
(1455)
[English]
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, here are the facts. The Liberal government has given $100 million in grants and interest-free loans over the last decade to Mont Tremblant, a ski resort owned by Intrawest Corporation. At the same time, and there is an interesting relationship along the way, Intrawest has donated more than $100,000 to the Liberal Party. That is a relationship that the government has to explain.
Is this simply not another kickback program instituted by the government?
Hon. John Godfrey (Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have just been working very hard to make the northern part of Quebec an economically prosperous area. Because of our investments, it is the city of Mont Tremblant, the region of Mont Tremblant, that is going to benefit from the public infrastructure, such as roadways, waterworks and sewer systems. That is what we are investing in, the region of Mont Tremblant.
* * *
Health
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is the 25th anniversary of Terry Fox's Marathon of Hope. Given that cancer is still the cause of too many deaths in this country, and as a Canadian who ran with Terry Fox at that time, I want to ask the Minister of Health on this historic day what he is willing to give as hope to Canadians who are still suffering from this terrible disease.
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have made cancer control a priority.
In terms of the five areas where we need to reduce wait times, cancer is one of the priorities for wait time reduction. Also, we provided in the last budget $300 million for an integrated strategy on healthy living and chronic disease control to face this important challenge. This year we have given $10 million to the Terry Fox Foundation in recognition of its work and in order for it to pursue research on this very important issue.
* * *
Natural Resources
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in the media today there are headlines stating that the fate of the government and its programs may well depend on the outcome of the Gomery inquiry. There is one initiative, however, that need not wait for Judge Gomery's report. That is the Atlantic accord legislation.
Will the government reconsider its position today and remove the accord legislation from the omnibus budget bill and immediately put it before the House as a stand-alone bill?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has said that the budget measures generally are a step in the right direction. He has said that there is nothing in the budget that should defeat the government. He has also indicated his support for the Atlantic accords.
It seems that all those things have come together in one very happy package, and the answer is to pass the budget.
* * *
Canadian Forces
Mr. David Chatters (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence promised the members of the Canadian Forces that they would be getting a 6% pay raise on March 1. They did not get the pay raise on March 1. They did not get the pay raise on April 1. They still have not got the pay raise, despite an $11 billion surplus.
When is the government going to live up to its promises, obligations and commitments and provide the raises to our members of the Canadian armed forces?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member is basing his information on, but I have to tell him that I was recently in Esquimalt speaking to members of our Canadian navy and they are thrilled with the pay raise. I have spoken with members of the army and they are very pleased with the pay raise, as are members of the air force.
The hon. member may not like it, but the fact of the matter is that members of our armed forces are very grateful for it and it is improving their quality of life. I am thrilled with the fact that we can show how the government appreciates the tremendous service of our armed forces.
* * *
[Translation]
Sponsorship Program
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the PMO sets up the sponsorship program; the finance minister allocates money to it; the Treasury Board President closes her eyes; the PMO selects the projects; the friends of the Liberal Party pocket the money; the organizers take their cut; and the Liberal Party gets rich.
Does that not sum up the whole Liberal Party of Canada food chain?
(1500)
[English]
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member is quoting from testimony as if it is fact. She is quoting allegations as if they are facts. She should realize that her provincial cousin, Mr. Landry, has in fact said that Mr. Brault, one of the witnesses, has no credibility and is in fact wrong in some of his testimony before the Gomery inquiry.
I would urge her in this case to listen to her provincial cousin, Mr. Landry, who tells her and her party that she ought not judge this testimony as truth. In fact, what she ought to do is wait for Justice Gomery to submit his report. That way she can have the truth, and all Canadians can.
* * *
The Budget
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, debate started today in the House on implementing the measures announced in the budget last month, a budget for which the Leader of the Opposition could not wait to state his support in the foyer of the House of Commons, a budget about which the Leader of the Opposition stated “there is nothing in this budget that would justify an election”, a budget that the same leader is now flip-flopping on as he contemplates triggering a quarter billion dollar election.
Could the Minister of Finance please remind the members of the opposition why a few short weeks ago they thought this budget was “a step in the right direction”?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, maybe it was the $5 billion for cities and communities, or the $5 billion for children and early learning, or the $2.7 billion for senior citizens, or the $3 billion for Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, or the $5 billion for the environment, or the greenest budget in Canadian history, or the $3.4 billion in foreign aid, or the $13 billion for the Canadian armed forces, or the $12 billion in tax relief. Maybe it is just that we have the best fiscal performance since 1867 and the best fiscal performance in all the G-7 countries.
* * *
Presence in Gallery
The Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Tan Sri Dato'Seri Dr. Abdul Hamid Pawanteh, President of the Senate of Malaysia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Speaker: Order. The Chair has notice of a number of questions of privilege and points of order. We will start with those now. We will begin with the hon. member for Red Deer.
* * *
Privilege
Appointment to National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
[Privilege]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege will charge the Prime Minister with contempt for his total disregard for the motion adopted on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 regarding the appointment of Glen Murray to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.
Page 67 of Marleau and Montpetit states that the House can claim the right to punish for certain affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament.
At what point does Parliament take a stand against a Prime Minister who continually thumbs his nose at Parliament?
In this Parliament the Prime Minister reneged on his very first obligation to the House with respect to the amendment to the throne speech to allow members an opportunity to consider all public information pertaining to the missile defence agreement and to vote prior to a government decision.
My House leader raised a complaint in the House with respect to the defeat of Bills C-31 and C-32. In the case of Bills C-31 and C-32, the trade minister shrugged off the defeat of two bills that would create a new international trade department separate from the Department of Foreign Affairs, saying that the two branches of government will continue to operate independently without Parliament's blessing.
Now we are faced with a situation where a committee has rejected an appointment made by the government. That vote was nine to two. It reported that rejection to the House. The House has concurred in that rejection on a vote of 143 to 108. The Prime Minister has continued to ignore it. We brought this about because the person was not qualified for the position of the appointment.
The excessive power that lies in the Prime Minister's office prompted the Prime Minister in his address to the law students at Osgoode Hall in the fall of 2002 when he was trolling for support for his leadership bid, to state that the essence of power in Ottawa was who you know in the PMO. We thought he was complaining about it. We thought he was promising to clean that up, but if one wants a government appointment in his government, it is not Parliament that matters, it is who you know in the PMO.
In the future why would any member question an appointment and bring it before committee? The Prime Minister does not listen. Why would we debate it in the House with our three hours? The Prime Minister does not listen.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that my privilege has been taken away because of what the Prime Minister has done. I would ask you to look at that.
(1505)
The Speaker: I will take the question of privilege the hon. member for Red Deer has raised under advisement and get back to the House in due course.
The second notice is from the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
* * *
Comments by the Prime Minister's Director of Communications
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege resulting from the comments made by the Prime Minister's director of communications, Scott Reid, on national television, CBC Newsworld, on Thursday, March 17, 2005, slandering my reputation as a member of Parliament which, in effect, slanders the reputation of all members of the House.
The remarks were only recently brought to my attention and this represents the first opportunity to bring this question of privilege before the House.
It has become an unfortunate, unsavoury practice in Canadian politics to malign the reputations of individuals who have been elected to serve the people of Canada. There is an expectation that members of the Prime Minister's staff, as they represent the Prime Minister, would demonstrate restraint and some degree of professionalism in the exercise of their duties. Many Canadians judge the words they are speaking as though they were coming from the Prime Minister's mouth himself.
It is ironic that when a senior member of the Prime Minister's staff maligns the reputation of a member of Parliament, they, in effect, malign the reputation of their boss, the Prime Minister, as surely as they are attacking all of our reputations and the reputation of the House.
In the case of Mr. Reid, as the Prime Minister's director of communications, his comments were tasteless and over the top. I am tabling a copy of those comments, Mr. Speaker, for your review and determination on this question of privilege.
On March 22, 1983, on page 24027 of Hansard, the Speaker ruled:
|
A reflection upon the reputation of an Hon. Member is a matter of great concern to all Members of the House. It places the entire institution under a cloud, as it suggests that among the Members of the House there are some who are unworthy to sit here. |
Rightfulness, fair play and the people I represent in the riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, along with a great many fair-minded Canadians who are quite frankly shocked at the comments of the Prime Minister's representative, demand that I challenge the comments made by that individual. Justice cannot be served if this slanderous comment against me is left unchallenged and unresolved.
On page 214 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada there is a reference to reflections on members. It states:
|
The House of Commons is prepared to find contempt in respect of utterances within the category of libel and slander and also in respect of utterances which do not meet that standard. |
As put by Bourinot, “any scandalous and libellous reflections on the proceedings of the House are a breach of the privileges of Parliament and libels upon members individually”.
I would also refer you, Mr. Speaker, to a Speaker's ruling from October 29, 1980 at page 4213 of Hansard. The Speaker said:
|
--in the context of contempt, it seems to me that to amount to contempt, representations or statements about our proceedings or of the participation of members should not only be erroneous or incorrect, but, rather, should be purposely untrue and improper and import a rung of deceit. |
The comments made by the Prime Minister's employee were not only incorrect but I charge Scott Reid with deliberately and maliciously making a statement that was politically motivated and was a deliberate attempt to tarnish my reputation.
With the daily unfolding spectacle of the sponsorship scandal, many accusations will be made and many reputations attacked, including, in all likelihood, the reputations of members of the House.
A strong message regarding what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to members of the House, particularly comments coming from someone in the position of personal spokesperson of the Prime Minister, will send the right message in the days and weeks ahead as the House seeks the truth regarding the missing millions in the sponsorship inquiry.
An MP's staff should not be allowed to get away with what the MP himself would be held account to. If you find this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
(1510)
[Translation]
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages, Minister responsible for Democratic Reform and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after hearing the comments of the hon. member opposite, I think you will agree that the question of privilege does not apply in this case. First, these comments were made by someone who is not an MP and, second, these comments were not made in this House.
Allow me to make the following comment: in both cases, it would be quite easy to determine rather quickly that this matter is certainly not a question of privilege.
[English]
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege to add to what the deputy government House leader said.
If every time a member of the House was unhappy about comments made by a spokesperson for another party or another member outside the House, Mr. Speaker, you would be hearing a lot of questions of privilege.
Mr. Speaker, I hope you would suggest to the member that her recourse, if she feels that she has recourse, lies outside the House. She has a number of civil remedies available to her if she feels so aggrieved. This certainly is not a question of privilege.
The Speaker: I have listened to the hon. member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke on this point. She did not read out the offending comments but she did say that she would make them available to the Chair and I will look at those comments.
However I must say that I have concerns about which privilege it is she is alleging has been breached in this case. It is entirely possible that she may have a grievance but that is something that is not normally dealt with by the House.
Statements made outside this place, and the rulings she quoted were all ones with which I quite agree, but I am sure they dealt with words that were used in the House by one member in relation to another member, which would be the subject of a question of privilege if the privileges of the member were breached by the comments that were made. That sometimes happens in the House. Members do get up and say that unparliamentary terms were used about them and get the Chair to order the withdrawal of the word if in fact it was unparliamentary, or to get an apology from the member who said the words. Speakers can do that.
However, Speakers do not have authority over those who are not members of the House and who make statements, even if they are employees of members of the House in making them. If those persons came before a committee and made statements there, perhaps the member would find that her privileges as a member were in some way breached. However statements made outside the House by others, whoever they may be, I do not believe are the subject of claims for privilege in the House.
While I am prepared to look at the sheet that she said she would table and if necessary come back to the House, my guess is on everything I have heard today that there is no question of privilege here.
I have a point of order from the hon. member for Newton--North Delta.
* * *
(1515)
Points of Order
Oral Question Period
[Points of Order]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Newton—North Delta, CPC): Mr. Speaker, during question period today a Liberal member and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration made statements tarnishing my character, integrity and honesty.
The minister accused me of having my constituents post bonds payable to me. That is absolutely false. Neither I nor my staff have ever done so. This issue was raised in the media and has been corrected in the media. The minister should do the honourable thing and stand up and apologize to me and my constituents.
I reserve the right to raise a question of privilege down the road after I review the blues from question period.
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I guess members of the opposition are learning the damage that is caused by allegation, innuendo and slander. However I am not into that game.
All I did was simply read the transcripts from a committee hearing wherein the member for Newton--North Delta actually admitted to all of those things that he now alleges have been fabricated by those on this side of the House. Not only is that type of feeble defence absolutely abhorrent, it is doubly so because the activity to which the member admitted compromises the integrity not only of the immigration system but in fact of the concept of government and service by members of Parliament to their constituents.
If there is anything for which to apologize, I think that the Leader of the Opposition, who is so smug in his concern that others abide by his standard, might stand up in the House and dissociate himself from that practice or admit that he has actually been directing it.
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I certainly will take a look at the blues on that kind of allegation. I think the member knows full well that was a news story that was not correct. He would have us believe that the member of Parliament for Newton--North Delta got up in committee and admitted to some kind of inappropriate or criminal behaviour. Seriously, nobody believes that.
There was a story in the newspaper that was erroneous. I believe the newspaper has even corrected the record on that. We will certainly look at what the hon. member said.
However I must say, with this minister, that I read with some interest his comments about the Sikh community in Toronto. I now see him slandering a Sikh member of Parliament. I think this kind of behaviour toward Sikh Canadians on behalf of the minister of immigration is unacceptable.
The Speaker: It seems to me that we are getting into a debate. If the hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has something new to submit to the Chair on this I will hear it, but I do not want to have a continuation of the kind of debate we are getting into here.
Hon. Joseph Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to at least address a point of order that must be raised. I never suggested that there was criminality. I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition accuses his own members of same. I would remind him as well that all the constituents who approached his member of Parliament are from that same Sikh community that they have so desperately maligned. Perhaps it is time that he came out of the closet and stopped being the spineless chameleon that he is known to be.
(1520)
The Speaker: We will hear one more submission on this from the hon. member for Newton--North Delta but I do not think we need to hear more than that.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, the minister has restated false information and has misled the House with respect to the citizenship and immigration committee meeting.
I clearly stated in the committee that I had not taken money from anyone. Why--
Hon. Joseph Volpe: There is a transcript. Read the transcript.
Mr. Scott Reid: You're a bigot, Joe.
Hon. Joseph Volpe: Who gets the money?
The Speaker: Order, please. I would urge hon. members to come to order in this case. I have heard enough argument on this matter. My suspicion is that this is a dispute as to facts. However, in the circumstances I am going to review the transcript of the committee that was mentioned. I will also review the remarks made today by hon. members and get back to the House in due course.
I have another point of order from the hon. member for Saskatoon--Wanuskewin.
* * *
Civil Marriage Act
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask your judgment, your ruling and your response to what I believe is a problem with Bill C-38 in clause 3. With the consent of our justice critic, I will read part of that clause. It states:
|
It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in |