37th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 107
CONTENTS
Thursday, November 1, 2001
|
 |
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Supplementary Estimates (A), 2001-2002 |
|
|
Government Response to Petitions |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2001 |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Justice and Human Rights |
|
|
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.) |
|
|
Canadian Heritage |
|
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) |
|
|
Canada Health Act |
|
|
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Supplementary Estimates |
|
|
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Agriculture and Agri-Food |
|
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Kidney Disease |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Request for Emergency Debate |
|
|
Softwood Lumber Industry |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Speaker's Ruling |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Prebudget Consultation |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John McCallum (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan--Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
|
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
|
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
|
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ) |
|
|
Mrs. Pauline Picard |
|
|
Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Pauline Picard |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
|
|
Mr. John McCallum (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
|
|
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC/DR) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Scott Brison |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Scott Brison |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Scott Brison |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. John McCallum (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
|
Ms. Sophia Leung (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Sophia Leung |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
|
Ms. Sophia Leung |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Sophia Leung |
|
|
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, BQ) |
|
|
Mrs. Sue Barnes |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mrs. Sue Barnes |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Landmines |
|
|
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Toronto Sun |
|
|
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Lib.) |
|
|
4-H Clubs |
|
|
Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.) |
|
|
Transportation |
|
|
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Victims of Violence |
|
|
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) |
|
|
Dmytro Pryhoda |
|
|
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Chinese Cultural Centre |
|
|
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.) |
|
|
Travel Agencies |
|
|
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ) |
|
|
Performing Arts |
|
|
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.) |
|
|
Down's Syndrome |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Remembrance Day |
|
|
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.) |
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Solange Chaput-Rolland |
|
|
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ) |
|
|
Canadian Association of Broadcasters |
|
|
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.) |
|
|
Lumber Industry |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, PC/DR) |
|
|
Rail Industry |
|
|
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.) |
|
|
Ground Zero |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
National Security |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Anti-Terrorism Legislation |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice, Lib.) |
|
|
National Security |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Employment Insurance |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Finance |
|
|
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
The Economy |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.) |
|
|
Canada Post |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
National Security |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, PC/DR) |
|
|
Ms. Sophia Leung (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
The Economy |
|
|
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Anti-Terrorism Legislation |
|
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
The Economy |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.) |
|
|
Indian Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan (Québec East, Lib. Ind.) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Religious Organizations |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
St. Hubert Technobase |
|
|
Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, Ind. BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Presence in Gallery |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Brien |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
THE ROYAL ASSENT
|
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Privilege |
|
|
Access to Information |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, PC/DR) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Prebudget Consultations |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John McCallum (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) |
|
|
Ways and Means |
|
|
Notice of motion |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.) |
|
|
Prebudget Consultations |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC/DR) |
|
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
THE ROYAL ASSENT
|
|
|
[------] |
|
|
[------] |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Prebudget Consultations |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères--Les-Patriotes, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
|
Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga--Maisonneuve, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
|
|
Climate Change |
|
|
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Message from the Senate |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Climate Change |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Thursday, November 1, 2001
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
Supplementary Estimates (A), 2001-2002
Her Excellency the Governor General transmits to the House of Commons the Supplementary Estimates (A) of sums required for the public service of Canada in the fiscal year ending on March 31, 2002, and, in accordance with section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, recommends these estimates to the House of Commons.
* * *
(1000)
[English]
Government Response to Petitions
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
* * *
(1005)
Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2001
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (for the Minister of Justice)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-40, an act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada and to repeal certain provisions that have expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Committees of the House
Justice and Human Rights
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, September 26, in relation to Bill C-15B, an act to amend the criminal code and the Firearms Act.
The committee requests a one week extension to December 6 to report the bill back to the House of Commons.
* * *
[Translation]
Canadian Heritage
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
[English]
Pursuant to an order of reference dated Thursday, May 10, the committee has considered Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada, and agreed on Tuesday, October 30 to report it with amendments.
* * *
(1010)
[Translation]
Canada Health Act
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-407, an act to amend the Canada Health Act (linguistic duality).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill we give first reading to this morning will add a sixth principle to the Canada Health Act so that the provinces, which administer health services, will respect linguistic duality.
Official language minorities in Canada have limited guarantees in the area of health services. The provinces must therefore show a willingness to offer health services to their minority, which is a poor guarantee, as the case of the Montfort hospital in Ontario recently revealed.
Anglophones in Quebec and francophones in the other provinces and territories are entitled to receive health care in their mother tongue, English or French, when they are at their most vulnerable, especially since the Canadian Constitution recognizes both languages as the country's official languages.
I hope we will soon have the opportunity to debate this bill in the House of Commons and then in committee.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
[English]
Points of Order
Supplementary Estimates
[Points of Order]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to the supplementary estimates, which were tabled in the House of Commons just a few minutes ago, and vote 10 of Environment Canada and vote 10 of Natural Resources Canada.
I am rising at this time because of a reference of Marleau and Montpetit, at page 734, which states:
|
|
--members raise questions about the procedural acceptability of Estimates as early as possible so that the Chair has time to give “intelligent” consideration to these questions. |
There is no doubt that the issue I am about to raise is quite serious and deserves the appropriate consideration.
Speaker Jerome also said in a ruling on December 7, 1977, at page 184 of Debates:
|
|
--supply ought to be confined strictly to the process for which it was intended, that is to say, for the purpose of putting forward by the government the estimate of money it needs, and then in turn voting by the House of that money to the government...legislation and legislated changes in substances are not intended to be part of supply, but rather ought to be part of the legislative process in a regular way... |
Mr. Speaker, I also refer you to the remarks of Madam Speaker Sauvé on June 12, 1981 at page 10546 of Hansard when she said that it did not matter whether the amount spent was a large sum or simply one dollar.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I maintain an interest in the estimates and the financial procedures of the House and I continue to be concerned that parliament has lost control of the public purse. Parliament must remain supreme, and when the government undertakes actions that I will now explain, it causes me a great deal of concern.
I also want to refer you to a motion tabled in the other place on June 14, 2001 at page 1192 of the Debates of the Senate of which I am sure you are no doubt aware. It states:
| The actions of the Government of Canada in creating a private sector corporation as a stand-in for the Foundation now proposed in Bill C-4, and the depositing of $100 million of taxpayer's money with that corporation, without the prior approval of Parliament, is an affront to the members of both Houses of Parliament. |
| The Committee requests that the Speaker of the Senate notify the Speaker of the House of Commons of the dismay and concern of the Senate with this circumvention of parliamentary process |
The Auditor General of Canada has expressed serious concerns with the events surrounding a $100 million grant to the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology of which $50 million has actually been paid out. These concerns were contained in her observations on page 1.34 to 1.38 of the Public Accounts of Canada for 2000-01, which were tabled in the House on September 27.
In March 2001 a not for profit corporation named the Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology in Canada was established by four Canadian citizens under part 2 of the Canada Corporations Act. Later the same month a funding agreement was signed between the Government of Canada and this corporation.
On March 22, the treasury board approved a temporary transfer of $25 million to vote 10 of Environment Canada and $25 million to vote 10 of Natural Resources Canada. The funds were to come from the government contingency vote, which is vote 5 under the treasury board's vote 5.
On April 5 the treasury board advised Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada that they each had the authority to transfer $25 million to vote 10 from the treasury board's vote 5. On April 9, $25 million was paid to the corporation and charged to Natural Resources Canada vote 10. On April 11, $25 million was paid to the corporation and charged Environment Canada vote 10.
While the Appropriation Act No. 2, Bill C-29, received royal assent on June 14 providing Environment Canada for 2001-02 spending authority for vote 10 in the amount of $2.85 million for the grants listed in the estimates and Bill C-29 provided Natural Resources Canada with 2001-02 spending authority in the amount of $0.6 million for the grants listed in the estimates, these amounts did not include the two amounts of $25 million each since they were transferred from vote 5.
(1015)
Today the President of the Treasury Board has tabled supplementary estimates which provide supplementary spending authority of $50 million to vote 10 for each of Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada. The full amount for the foundation, I believe, is listed separately in the grants section of these two departments. When the bill receives royal assent, I expect that treasury board vote 5 will be replenished for the $25 million advanced to the two departmental votes in April 2001. I also understand that $25 million is expected to be paid by each of Natural Resources Canada and Environment Canada in January 2002 and charged to their respective vote 10.
Essentially, the government is appropriating money in one fiscal year, placing it into a separate account and spending it in future years. This is unacceptable. I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Marleau and Montpetit at page 741 which says:
| The Chair has cautioned that an Appropriation Act gives authority only for a single year and is therefore not appropriate for expenditure which is meant to continue for a longer period, or indefinitely. |
That is what we have here. A foundation has been created with money appropriated by parliament which is meant to continue indefinitely.
The auditor general states in her observation at page 1.37 of the Public Accounts of Canada for 2000-01:
| However, I question whether it was appropriate for the Government to use a general contingency vote to provide $50 million in temporary authority so the departments could make the grant payments to the Corporation, all before Bill C-4 received royal assent |
Bill C-4 was given first reading in the House on February 2, 2001. The bill proposed the creation of the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology and proposed that any corporation proposed under part II of the Canada Corporations Act continue as the foundation.
Bill C-4 did not receive royal assent as the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Act until June 14. Prior to the House voting on supply, with specific funds for the corporation, which subsequently became a foundation, the government and the corporation signed a funding agreement on March 26. The government then transferred $25 million to the corporation on April 9 and $25 million on April 11, yet the request for supply has just been tabled in the House today, November 1, which is almost nine months later.
Members of the House as far back as 1971 have repeatedly objected to the government's use of estimates and appropriation acts as vehicles to spend money on programs that have not received legislative authority. Your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, have struck votes from the estimates several times: March 10, 1971; March 22, 1977; December 7, 1977; March 25, 1981; June 12, 1981; June 21, 1981; March 21, 1983; and March 21, 1984.
I refer you to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Jerome on March 22, 1977 at page 4221 of the Debates which states:
|
|
--the government receives from parliament the authority to act through the passage of legislation and receives the money to finance such authorized action through the passage by parliament of an appropriation act. |
The auditor general continues in her observation to state on page 1.37 of the Public Accounts of Canada:
| I also question Government statements that the Corporation had to be established and the funds transferred to it quickly or the spending...would lapse. Parliament had not granted any spending authority for 2000-2001; therefore, there was no spending authority to lapse. |
This is a typical way in which this government appropriates and spends money without parliamentary approval. Let us not forget that parliament is supreme. The Prime Minister and his cabinet have no authority to spend the tax dollars of Canadians without prior approval of the House.
(1020)
Standing Order 80(1) of the House is clear: It states:
| All aids and supplies granted to the Sovereign by the Parliament of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons,... |
That is the reason why the Magna Carta was signed away back in 1215, to remove the arbitrary power of the monarch and to replace it with the representatives of the people, who either approve or reject the government's spending proposal. As the saying goes, no taxation without representation.
The auditor general states in her opinion that it is likely parliament will approve the supplementary estimates, but that is no reason or excuse for the government to assume that the House will respond to its beck and call. If we are to be a rubber stamp where whatever the government proposes, it assumes we will approve, and whenever the government acts without our authority it assumes it will get it, then we might as well all go home.
I have stood in the House before and said that you have the title of Speaker because you speak for all of us. If this place matters to anyone, then in my opinion you must rule these votes out of order.
I concur with the auditor general who stated:
| Finally, should Parliament not approve the Supplementary Estimates and thereby not give retroactive approval of the spending authority for the $50 million already paid to the Corporation, my reading of Vote 10 for both Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada leads me to conclude that these two $25 million payments could not be charged to that Vote. This is because the grants to the Corporation do not fit within any of the classes of grants currently described in the Estimates of those departments. |
Again, I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the auditor general's conclusion that there has been no authority granted by parliament for this expenditure, which already has taken place.
If the House does not approve the supplementary estimates, the government would be required to obtain the return of the $50 million from the corporation, since no money may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund without the authority of parliament. Yet the government is bound by its funding agreement with the corporation, and any action to recover funds would put the government in breach of the agreement. Quite simply, parliament has lost control of the public purse and $50 million of taxpayer money. Fifty million dollars is now outside the scope of the Financial Administration Act. This is completely unacceptable.
The auditor general concludes with strong language. She says:
| I certainly hope that in the rest of my tenure...I will not see another such series of events carried out to achieve a desired accounting result. |
I would also point out that the auditor general who was appointed this spring has almost 10 years left in her mandate. I am glad to see that the auditor general, an officer of parliament, is standing up for due process and proper control of the public purse in the country.
It is clear that the government has used smoke and mirrors to achieve its goal. In anticipation that the House would approve Bill C-4, it set up a private corporation with four shareholders, thinking that it could subsequently legitimize the foundation by having Bill C-4 approved and that this corporation, under the Canada Corporations Act, would be swallowed up by the foundation created under Bill C-4.
The government could not wait for parliament to speak and approve the legislation. It could not wait for parliament to speak and vote supply. Its arrogant, presumptuous attitude says that it will take this place for granted and whatever it wants, the members will do.
I ask you today, Mr. Speaker, to speak on behalf of all parliamentarians and state clearly and unequivocally that this place matters and that before the Government of Canada spends the money, we approve the request in the House.
Therefore I am asking that you rule both vote 10 of Environment Canada and vote 10 of Natural Resources Canada out of order and demonstrate once and for all that parliament is the guardian of the public purse.
(1025)
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak only briefly on this because virtually the identical issue was raised in parliament some months ago by the member, almost word for word. I wonder whether this is developing into a tradition, almost, that every time estimates or supplementary estimates are tabled the same point is ruled on. The Speaker has ruled on this before and I am almost tempted to say see my previous speech and see the Speaker's ruling last time. That would about end the contribution there.
However I would like to take a moment to talk about the estimates process to indicate certainly the goodwill of the government in this regard. First, in regard to the integrity of the entire process, it is this government that has initiated pre budget committee contributions of members. As a matter of fact, the prebudget debate in the House will be held in the House today. What a day on which to talk about parliament being emasculated or whatever the words were that were used by the hon. member. They were words which I certainly do not agree with.
Also as further evidence of the commitment of all of us to have parliament in the loop, as it were, we have modified the standing orders under the modernization committee and its report, the result of which is that a number of estimates, where the opposition is dissatisfied, will now be discussed right on the floor of the House of Commons. These are all initiatives supported by the entire House, mind you, but initiated by the government in an attempt to make the estimate process more transparent.
Finally, the hon. member is referring to what he says are expenditures that are done without statutory authority and he buttresses his argument on the following quotation at page 735 of Marleau and Montpetit, which refers to a decision made by a previous Speaker:
|
|
--supply ought to be confined strictly to the process for which it was intended; that is to say, for the purpose of putting forward by the government the estimate of money it needs, and then in turn voting by the House of that money to the government...legislation and legislated changes in substance are not intended to be part of supply-- |
Having previously said that there was no legislation that existed for the scenario he had described, the hon. member only a few seconds later admitted that in fact the corporation was done pursuant to an act of parliament, namely the Canada Corporations Act. There appears to be a contradiction at least in that regard.
I will end my comments with that, because as I say I think it is quite clear that the Speaker has ruled on a virtually identical proposition in the past. If my memory serves me right, and I believe it does, he ruled that the standing orders of the House had not been breached.
(1030)
The Speaker:
The Chair will certainly take the matter under advisement. I do not recall the argument being made before this Speaker, but it is possible that it has happened and my mind has perhaps allowed it to escape.
I will look into the matter and get back to the House in due course, looking diligently for the precedent referred to by the hon. government House leader of course.
I thank both hon. members for their intervention.
* * *
Committees of the House
Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I move that the second report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, a report concerning the future role of government in the grains and oilseeds sector, presented to the House on Tuesday, June 12, be concurred in. The member for Athabasca in Alberta, who seconds the motion, also has a real concern about agriculture issues in the House.
The interim report that the standing committee on agriculture put forward was based on the presentations of a number of farm groups and farmers, which set out the point that the safety net programs in place for agriculture at the present time in many of the provinces are not sufficient to take care of the financial problems and the other issues in agriculture that demand and need attention.
We have just heard a debate on a point of order in regard to the authority of parliament to maintain control of spending so that the Prime Minister and the cabinet do not just run off and spend money without the authority of parliament. In regard to agriculture, parliament should also maintain and be involved in this issue over and above what the minister of agriculture and the cabinet feel and deem to be the appropriate actions in regard to safety nets and what they deem to be the appropriate vision of agriculture for the future.
The last position of the minister of agriculture was simply that he would like to wait and see at some point down the road how the safety net programs are working. Then, if he sees that they are not working that well, he would try to take some action or go to cabinet to see if something can be done. That clearly is not sufficient.
In our report from the agriculture committee, just to re-emphasize to the members in the House how important agriculture is to the Canadian economy, we state things very clearly, and when I say we I am talking for all members of the committee on all sides, both government and opposition members, because we put this report through with full agreement. One sentence in that report states:
| It is worth noting that the agri-food sector generates $130 billion per year and employs 1.8 million people. |
We put that in the report because we wanted to emphasize to the House the importance of agriculture and to put forward to the minister the fact that his vision of the future of agriculture did not seem to be working for those farm families producing the food and in essence really struggling to make a go of it, particularly in the grain and oilseeds sector.
The report also refers to the fact that the farm income safety net has improved in recent years and is helping grain producers in Canada, but the slump in the grain and oilseeds industry seems to require more than one solution. With this in mind. the standing committee held hearings on the future role of the government in the grain and oilseeds sector.
That is the situation we are in right now. It has been exacerbated by the massive drought in Alberta and Saskatchewan in particular and by the extremely dry conditions that stretched from Prince Edward Island, where potatoes of course are one of the main crops, through to the other maritime provinces and Quebec and Ontario and also to British Columbia.
(1035)
We need to continue to address agriculture in these times of security issues. The House has to spend the majority of its time on the war against terrorism but we cannot forget that we need to bring forward these other issues that are tremendously important to the average Canadian, to the average farmer and the average farmer's spouse and children who have to make a living in this country and who, by doing so, contribute significantly to the well-being of all Canadians. As we all know, food is number one after security.
I believe that to this point the minister of agriculture and the cabinet have not adequately addressed not only the drought issue but the issue of the safety nets. Farmers in every province are telling the minister that the safety nets do not work. They need improvement. Farmers see little or no action from the cabinet and the agriculture minister in making those improvements. Many suggestions have come forward and I will deal with a few of them in my speech.
I mentioned the impact of the drought. The grain and oilseeds sector, primarily based in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, has been impacted most by this drought situation. The safety net programs were not working for the grain and oilseeds sector before the drought and now we have the drought on top of that.
The minister already knows that the safety net programs are not working and that the time for action is now as opposed to waiting until Christmas or 2002 or 2003 before any action is taken in that regard.
The impact of the drought is of course particularly hard on the cattle producers of western Canada. The pastures have run out of grazing material for livestock. Ranchers have had to bring their cattle back from pasture early and are buying feed at very high prices, at $100 a tonne. That is a very high price for hay and that is what farmers and ranchers are paying now to keep their livestock alive.
With regard to the grain and oilseeds impacts, a Statistics Canada survey of 5,900 Saskatchewan farmers suggests that spring wheat production will fall by over 20% from last year. I think that figure is being revised all the time to show that it will be even worse. Canola production will be down over 38%. Durum wheat will fall by 49%. A lot of these crops are the very crops that are exported outside the country. They earn foreign hard currency which is then brought back into the country and makes us all wealthier. The grain and oilseeds sector is not simply circulating cash inside Canada and not creating any wealth.
The farm family in the grain and oilseeds sector that is trying to make a go of it on a zero net income or a net income of maybe $10,000 or $15,000 a year is creating wealth for the country and making all of us better off. I mentioned the figure of $130 billion a year in economic activity and the large number of jobs that rely on this sector.
In Saskatchewan alone the effect of the drought is estimated to be costing over $770 million. The province of Saskatchewan is asking for additional financing from the federal government. The Saskatchewan party is leading the charge in Saskatchewan to have the federal government shoulder its responsibility and do something that will keep the sector in Saskatchewan viable. There is serious consideration being given to the fact that many farms will go bankrupt.
(1040)
That is not just a shallow statement. I was speaking with credit union officials in my riding. While we did not discuss individual farmers, we did discuss the overall situation on the farm. Massive numbers of farmers are having to go to their financial institutions to ask for restructuring of their lines of credit and mortgages on which they are no longer able to make payments. What they are doing is extending them over longer periods of time and trying to lower the amount of the payments.
Even the Farm Credit Corporation is having to collect back only interest in some cases and is not even trying to get the principal repayment. This is the situation in the grains and oilseeds sector in particular. That is why the standing committee on agriculture put forward this interim report to try to get attention from the minister at an earlier point than when we finish our hearings.
In regard to the hearings, the chairman of the committee came to the House and asked for moneys to be appropriated in order to travel and get input from farmers across the country.
At this point it is still quite up in the air as to whether we will get any funding to hold the hearings. The hearings are necessary to bring farm issues to the House. We need to hear evidence from presentations in the cities or on the surrounding farms and bring the evidence back to the House for the benefit of the minister and cabinet.
I can only encourage the House and all members of parliament to make it known that the agriculture committee is important enough to receive funding to do the necessary work.
In regard to what must be done, we do not always need large amounts of money put into the agriculture sector in the area of subsidies. There are many things that could be done.
I will start with a provincial issue although we do not have any authority in the House to do anything directly about it. I will point out and provide moral support to the issue of taxes on farm land, the prairies in particular because I am the most familiar with them, but also across the country where education taxes are falling on the farmland bases.
The individual farm family is paying an awful lot more in property taxes in regard to the education tax portion than the family living in a town or a city. That is because farmers have had to have a larger land base and there are fewer of them. This unfairness is something I hope provincial governments across the country are looking at. I hope they can find a better way to finance education by doing it more on the idea that those who are able to pay should pay. That of course has to do with net income.
I have already pointed out that many farm families have a low or negative net income. Still, the burden of these taxes are on these families and they have no choice but to pay. If they do not pay their property and education taxes their land will be seized and disposed of and they will be totally out of business.
We must improve our existing safety net programs to ensure they meet the needs of farmers. Here are some examples of the needed changes.
The crop insurance program needs to be improved to ensure it covers all the costs producers incur in seeding their crops. Regulations surrounding natural disasters must be amended to ensure farmers can receive compensation for inputs lost due to natural disasters.
(1045)
We saw what happened in southwest Manitoba and southeast Saskatchewan a couple of years ago when the massive rains came throughout the spring. The farmers were not able to seed any crops. They lost all the inputs they had put into getting ready to produce a crop that year. They received no compensation whatsoever under the natural disaster provisions of the federal government because their losses were not considered to be infrastructure. However they were every bit as costly as if a building had been torn down by a flood.
If a better system had been in place farmers in southeast Saskatchewan and southwest Manitoba would have received disaster assistance for their flooded farmland back in 1998.
The net income stabilization account must be made more accessible to farmers in need. For example, instead of requiring the government's contribution to be brought out when farmers first accesses NISA, why can they not take out the portion they contributed and already paid taxes on? The money is theirs. Farmers could take it back out and leave in the government portion that is taxable.
People may ask why that would matter if a farmer is not making any net income on the farm. Individual farmers are subsidizing their farms by working off farm. Many farmers and/or their spouses work off farm and use the money to support the farm. They therefore have a taxable income although the farm portion is in a loss position. That is one change that could be made.
In regard to NISA, the minister has been well aware for some time that the expenses farmers pay for grain handling and transportation costs, which they pay from the farm gate right to the export point, are not eligible expenses for the calculation of NISA contributions.
This is a thing the government could change. Up to this point the government has been arguing that it cannot allow those expenses because the farmer is not the shipper and the wheat board is not the shipper. That was cleared up in the last agreement among the wheat board, the grain companies and the railways. They agreed that the wheat board is the shipper of grains and that as a result there should be no impediment whatsoever to having these as an allowable expense under the NISA program. There needs to be a modernization of the grain handling and transportation system.
Representatives of the wheat board appeared before the committee today and we were discussing the issue of GM crops and how to produce them. GM crops have tremendous potential to be a boon to humanity and mankind. The question of how we modernize the systems of grain handling and production is being resisted by groups like Greenpeace and other NGOs that feel progress should literally be stopped in regard to GM crops.
As I have said, wheat board representatives are here talking about these issues and trying to find solutions. I give them all the credit in the world for that. However the government and the Minister of Transport sit there and continue to rely on big regulation and big government instead of having a modern transportation system. We know from past experience when the government owned CN Rail that big government regulation does not work.
It is time the agriculture minister, the transport minister, the minister responsible for the wheat board and the entire cabinet get their acts together and put agriculture in the priorities of the government where it should be.
(1050)
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I move:
| That the debate be now adjourned. |
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[English]
Petitions
Kidney Disease
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present three petitions signed by hundreds of people in the Peterborough area who are concerned about kidney disease as a huge and growing problem in Canada.
The petition is a very practical one. The petitioners admire the work being done by Canada's national institute that is responsible for kidney research, the Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes. It supports research in relation to diet, digestion, excretion, metabolism, and a wide range of conditions associated with hormone, digestive system, kidney and liver function.
Members will have noticed that the name of the institute does not include the word kidney. My constituents believe the institute would be even more effective than it is with respect to kidney disease if the word kidney were mentioned in the name.
Therefore the constituents of Peterborough call upon parliament to encourage the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, which was set up to involve the public in health research, to explicitly include kidney research as one of the institutes in its system, to be named the institute of kidney and urinary tract diseases.
* * *
Questions on the Order Paper
Mr. Geoff Regan (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 Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[Translation]
Request for Emergency Debate
Softwood Lumber Industry
[S. O. 52]
The Speaker:
I have received a notice of motion pursuant to Standing Order 52 from the hon. member for Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques. The hon. member has the floor.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we know that yesterday the softwood lumber industry in Quebec and in Canada sustained a terrible blow.
Many jobs are at stake. In my view, there is no rhyme or reason to the anti-dumping duties imposed by the Americans. They have nothing to do with economic reality and require that parliament reaffirm its desire for genuine free trade.
Members need to be able to make their views known, and affected workers must also be able to count on an EI system and the necessary benefits so that they can maintain their solidarity in defending our position until the return to free trade, which we all desire in the wake of the rulings of international bodies involved in the matter.
* * *
Speaker's Ruling
[Speaker's Ruling]
The Speaker:
The Chair has considered the request of the hon. member for Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques. In the opinion of the Chair, the topic suggested for debate is an urgent one. There will therefore be a debate on the matter raised by the hon. member today in the House this evening at 8.00 p.m., after the House adjourns.
I wish to amend that. Pursuant to changes in the standing orders, the debate will begin after the House adjourns, around 6.30 p.m. I hope that all will go well this evening.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders ]
* * *
(1055)
[Translation]
Prebudget Consultation
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
moved:
|
|
That this House take note of ongoing prebudget consultations. |
Mr. John McCallum (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am not generally reluctant to offer my opinion on budgetary matters but today is different.
As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, my role is to listen, to sit here in the House and take note of the ideas hon. members have on the budget.
[English]
As members know, it has been a tradition for some years to have a prebudget take note debate. Traditionally it has been in the last couple of weeks of December but it is fairly evident that we would not want the take note debate to occur after the budget. Since the budget this year will be in December we are having the debate today.
While I do not want to give my own opinions, it might be useful to provide a bit of economic context for the setting in which we find ourselves and perhaps describe possible options without indicating which of those options the government or I prefer.
[Translation]
It is now clear, I believe, that the world economy, and the U.S. economy in particular, was experiencing a major downturn even before September 11 because consumer confidence had dropped significantly in the United States the week before that.
[English]
If the world were in the midst of a slowdown prior to September 11, it is obvious that the tragic events of that day made things worse. For the first time in some years we find ourselves in a synchronized global economic slowdown. Just about every region of the world is in the midst of that slowdown including Europe and Japan, which has been in trouble for a decade or more. South America, particularly Argentina, has problems. North America is slowing down. The only place that is not slowing down is that of China, but it is not a particularly large fraction of the world.
It is of some consolation that Canada is slowing down at a slower rate than our neighbours to the south. That may be in part because of the tax cuts brought in by the government in early January.
Canada is holding up better than the U.S. at this time. However we do not have a wall around our country. We are part of the North American and global economy, and there is absolutely no doubt that all of us are slowing down.
It is also true the majority of economists are making the argument that the Canadian and global economy will pick up in the second half of next year. They base their argument on sound fundamentals and a considerable fiscal stimulus. I believe this is the most likely case.
The events of September 11 are without precedent. Nobody can be certain that this recovery will occur. It is the best information we have based on what the majority of experts tell us. Life changes from day to day and from week to week. Everyone in the House would agree that we are living in extraordinarily uncertain times.
[Translation]
Now, I would like to touch briefly upon certain options. The government is prepared to listen to any ideas from hon. members, but I can present some options, whether they have government support or not.
The first concerns surpluses and deficits. The first question I would ask hon. members is this: are you really very serious, or not, about the necessity of our not getting back into a deficit situation? The government has its own ideas on this, but we would like to know what members of all political parties think about the degree of importance to be attached to not going back to the deficit situation of the past.
(1100)
[English]
I have mentioned the deficit, I will now speak about taxation. There are those who would like to delay some of the tax cuts to which the government has committed itself. There are those who would like to accelerate them. There are those in the middle who would like to carry through on them but neither accelerate nor delay them.
It would be interesting to hear what members of parliament including those in the Canadian Alliance have to say on the issue of taxation.
[Translation]
Finally, there is the matter of expenditures. These can, I think, be classified into two groups: those related to security, and the rest.
It seems that by far the majority of Canadians, myself included—here, I am expressing an opinion—set expenditures relating to security as a very high priority for at least two reasons. First, and most important, is the protection of Canadians' lives and security, and second is convincing the Americans that we are serious and do not represent a security risk.
As everyone is aware, it is absolutely crucial from the economic point of view for goods and individuals to be able to cross the Canada-U.S. border.
[English]
We have the security related expenditures that one can look at as a group. Then we have everything else, all manner of possible projects. It would be useful for the government to hear the opinions of members on all sorts of initiatives that are on the agenda including innovation, learning, children, urban affairs, major environmental concerns, increased foreign aid to less developed countries and initiatives related to the poor living conditions of our aboriginal population. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list but those are some of the possible areas of new expenditure initiatives.
I do not want to give my opinion. At the same time I do not want to indicate that the government has no opinion. I will mention two points that the Minister of Finance made explicitly. He said he would work like hell to avoid returning to a deficit. He also said he would honour the tax cut commitment. Members of the House may have different points of view. If so, we look forward to hearing them.
I would like to make a point regarding adding up. It is not useful if an individual proposes that we have large increases in expenditures on whatever the case may be, have large additional tax cuts and keep a balanced budget. The government's point of view is that it is more useful if the proposals add up. We cannot have big spending increases, big tax cuts and maintain a balanced budget.
I look forward to listening to the opinions of members. I will be taking notes, consulting the written version of the debate and reporting back to the minister on the sentiments of members of parliament.
(1105)
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan--Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this take note debate on the upcoming budget. It is our sincere regret that it has taken the government nearly two years, over 650 days, to prepare a full accounting of the nation's finances.
It is unheard of in any free nation today that the government would go almost two years without tabling a budget. There is no premier in Canada or mayor of any city who could get away with such a high degree of unaccountability.
I congratulate the federal Liberal spinmeisters on deflecting media attention away from this glaring record, perhaps the greatest record of the last century in terms of length of time without accountability. This is not a laughing matter. It has been one of the many reasons for the lack of confidence in the Canadian economy.
[Translation]
Two years without a budget is far too long.
[English]
The finance minister has totally dismissed our concerns about the economy for months. We talked about the economy slowing down, the out of control spending of the government and how we were heading toward a deficit. The lack of clear information on the government's fiscal priorities was irresponsible and disrespectful toward parliament.
They laughed at us and ignored us. It is inexcusable that it has taken the beginning of a war and the onset of a recession to cause the finance minister and the government to finally table a budget.
It has been interesting to watch so many different areas of government public policy planning over the last seven years. In virtually every area the Liberal ship of state has been adrift at sea without an anchor and compass. When the winds of adversity blow the government panics. It puts up the sails and inevitably runs aground on some rocky reef of poor public policy planning. That is inexcusable.
It has been a decade of being adrift. It is not only in the area of not having a budget or fiscal priorities but also in the area of security where there has been no forward planning. There is only panic as with the anti-terrorism legislation that drifts into areas which perhaps we should not be going into.
We now have the softwood lumber problem that has thrown tens of thousands of people out of work. We warned the government about it for years. Yet it did not react. The panic sets in when those winds of adversity hit. It is inexcusable that nothing is being done and that people are run aground. We will continue to bring it to the attention of Canadians.
[Translation]
On September 11, the world changed and we have to view certain realities from a fresh perspective. It has forced us to review our priorities. We hope that the government will align its priorities with those of the people it is supposed to represent.
[English]
There are three critical areas in which the government must realign its priorities: first, the whole question of a deficit of resources for our national security concerns; second, the oncoming Liberal recession; and third, the long term decline in Canada's standard of living. Factual, calibrated and measurable, these must be addressed.
In the area of security, the first and foremost responsibility of any federal government is to defend national sovereignty and to protect the safety and security of its citizens.
That is why the Canadian Alliance, and before it the Reform Party, has consistently called for adequate resources for our police, intelligence and defence services, calls that have gone unheeded. We have done this even though we are a party that believes in smaller and less costly government in almost every other area. However we believe that freedom is not something we can take for granted. Freedom comes at a price and its price is eternal vigilance.
Regrettably, despite the blizzard of rhetoric from the Liberal government, its actions suggest that national security is in fact one of its lowest priorities. We can say all the things we want but we measure people on their actions and the actions of the government suggest national security for its citizens is among one of its lowest priorities.
Over the last few years the government has routinely dismissed our calls for necessary spending to enhance national security and defence. We made those calls long before September 11. It continues to dismiss those calls.
Since 1993 defence spending has been cut by $1.6 billion, a massive 23% reduction in real terms. Any time the Minister of National Defence stands up and talks about a very recent knee-jerk reaction in spending, moving up in a small incremental way, he must account for the fact that the Liberal federal government slashed our national defence by 23%. It was one of the single greatest reductions of any department. The government cut its own preferential spending by only 7%.
I get tired of hearing the Minister of Finance stand up and talk about dealing with the deficit in this country. He neglects to say that he did it by huge cuts in two areas: our national security and our national health care system. That is how he cut the deficit and did only 7% in terms of the government's own wasteful spending. Every time the minister talks about deficit reduction he should be mentioning how he did it and whose backs were affected. That is where the cuts have come.
During this time the reduction in terms of military personnel has declined from 90,000 to 58,000. The Conference of Defence Associations, which is the major scientific and advocacy group related to military needs, resources and spending, has defined in a very recent report that there is a $1.2 billion annual deficit in terms of the needs of our military. That $1.2 billion annual deficit is just for maintenance and ongoing operations and does not even address the ongoing needs of increased national security that we now face.
They are not alone. The auditor general has estimated between now and the year 2012 a $30 billion funding shortfall in defence equipment just in those few years.
The government has given Canada the embarrassing distinction of giving the second smallest defence commitment to NATO. These are the hard facts. Canada's commitment of 1.0% of gross domestic product is less than half of the NATO average of 2.2%. This is not something for which we can be proud. In other words, for Canada to match just the average spending in terms of the commitment that our allies share, it would require us to nearly double our defence budget from $10 billion to $21 billion. There must be an increase even beyond what the defence association says, of $1.2 billion.
I have addressed this subject many times. Our defence critic, the member for Lakeland, and other members of parliament in the Canadian Alliance have also detailed this enormous funding shortfall. We have made it very clear that it is impossible for Canada's military personnel, whom we personally believe are the most dedicated and the most courageous in the world and have proven that in the last century, to adequately meet all the commitments and requirements that are put upon them, which includes continental defence, treaty obligations, UN peacekeeping and now the war on terrorism.
We believe it is wrong to ask our military personnel, whom we believe are the best in the world, to defend this country, its assets and its interests at levels on which they are not able to do so. It is wrong for us to make promises we cannot keep. It is wrong for Canada to leave it to our allies, particularly the United States, to do all the heavy lifting on our behalf.
On September 11 Canada's free ride on national defence came to an end. The time has come for the government to make its lowest priority the nation's highest priority and that is the protection, safety and security of our citizens.
In analyzing what we believe will be the numbers in the budget, we have identified that it will require approximately $2 billion from low priority areas being moved to the Department of National Defence. That is as a down payment on additional future increases to give our military the resources it needs.
Maintaining national security is an increasingly important task of our domestic intelligence and police agencies, such as CSIS and the RCMP. Since 1993, again, the government cutting its own pet projects only by 7%, has reduced the CSIS budget by 28% in real terms at a time when we need more of that intelligence activity than at any other time.
Through the years the Canadian Alliance and our members before us have been telling the government about the concerns worldwide of bandit or rogue individuals or nations and that we would require even more resources in this area, but the government cut CSIS by 28% in real terms. That is a diminishment of our national security.
Given the enormous new demands on that agency it is only reasonable that the funding should be restored at least to the 1993 levels of $272 million. That would entail an increase of $76 million.
The RCMP is also currently in need of more personnel. Customs and immigration also require added resources, not just personnel but for major new technology acquisitions, updated passport scanners and computers, and potentially for advance biometric screening systems. They need all of this and it must be addressed.
It is interesting to hear the government talk about its concern for national sovereignty. The coast guard has seen its fleet cut by 40%.
(1115)
When the government talks about national security and protecting Canadian sovereignty, it thinks that means we must respond to the minister of culture and stop watching satellite systems that come from other than Liberal approved programs. It believes that is what will keep our national sovereignty in place. Well it will not.
A 40% cut to the coast guard is irresponsible and does put national sovereignty at some risk. It requires new funding to replace aging vessels, to increase the coastal patrols and to acquire satellite tracking systems for incoming ships.
Finally, the Department of Transport will have to assume some of the cost related to airport security. Some of those costs could and should be shared by users but the Department of Transport will have to be there to share some of the costs of increased security measures. Altogether, these and other security related measures are likely to cost in the neighbourhood of a billion dollars annually. I hope the finance minister is jotting these numbers down.
Let me say again that enhancing our national security and working with our American neighbours to create a secure, common perimeter is not an option for Canada. I cannot understand the Prime Minister's paranoia when he says that building a strong continental border and working with the Americans somehow puts our national sovereignty at risk. That is a ridiculous state of paranoia.
The other night millions of Canadians gathered around their Japanese made television sets, wearing their made in China, fleece lined exercise outfits, sitting on furniture made in Sweden, watching an American baseball game played by players from all over the world including Puerto Rico, drinking Coca Cola and munching Mexican tacos. Their sovereignty was not being threatened by those actions and they did not fear their sovereignty was being threatened. However our sovereignty is being threatened when we slash the military and our security forces and say we will not work in common with Americans to develop some strong policies for North America. That is simply irresponsible thinking.
It is a necessity that we work together to increase the levels of security and the levels of safety for all of our citizens. This is all a question of priorities.
My colleague, the member for Calgary Southeast, will outline several billion dollars in wasteful and low priority spending. He, other Canadian Alliance members of parliament and the auditor general have done some good work on this. This year the auditor general pointed out hundreds of millions of dollars of waste, and he called it waste. The auditor general wanted to know who was minding the store. Well the official opposition is going to mind the store because the government does not. We will take on and have been taking on that responsibility.
These areas of wasteful and low priority spending have been identified. We need to reallocate from low priorities of spending and move back to high priorities of spending on safety and security which is what Canadians want. For example, we talked about the $2 billion immediate increase in the defence budget that is required. That is roughly equivalent to what the government spends now on corporate welfare.
The $1 billion that we see in additional security measures is less than the industry minister plans to blow out the door on his Internet scheme.
We expect some intelligent prioritization to go on. When we talk about a billion dollars being blown out the door by an Internet scheme we do not expect a response from him saying that the Alliance does not care about Canadians having computers.
Canadians in the free world are among the highest users of computers and that has been done without the billion dollar plan to get higher speed chat rooms for all Canadians from the government. Canadians have moved on it aggressively themselves and they will continue to do so. Safety and security are areas of priority.
We talk about an oncoming recession. The government needs to get its priorities straight on national security but it needs to be honest with Canadians about the deteriorating state of our economy and the nation's finances. We are tired of empty accusations from the finance minister and the Prime Minister when we raise, as we have been raising for a long time, questions about the economic recession which we were in pre-September 11. We get accused of being unpatriotic. Economists, like Jeff Rubin at the CIBC, predicted over a year ago that within 18 months the dollar would be sitting at 60 cents. We hit historic lows just yesterday. Mr. Rubin had better be careful, the Liberal thought police may be coming to arrest him for being unpatriotic. The government has to become honest with Canadians about this.
Last spring we issued many well-founded warnings about a potential downturn in the economy, one which we were witnessing was taking place before our eyes. We talked about the need for the federal government to tightly control spending in order to avoid going back into a deficit. We talked about that over a year ago.
The Minister of Finance and the government dismissed our concerns and continued to whistle past the economic graveyard and go down the path of increasing our vulnerability to a bleak economic picture. The minister's budget will not be able to hide the fact that he and the government led us into a recession. A decade of economic drift, as I have already indicated, has led us into a full blown recession and all of these indicators were in place before September 11. We are getting tired of the disaster and horror of September 11 being used to cover up the government's out of control spending and poor management which was happening well before that.
The aftershocks of September 11 clearly deepened our economic trouble. That is a fact. Let there be no doubt though that Canada was headed toward a serious slowdown before that tragic day. Economic growth screeched to a halt in the second quarter of this year and it is almost certain to contract in the third and the fourth quarters, with many economists predicting that the slide could continue well into next year. We hope that will not the case but many economists are saying that it will be.
The government should not be accusing us of being unpatriotic because we are concerned about the future and economic uncertainty of Canadians.
Employment was up before September 11. Thousands of job layoffs have taken place. The dollar hit an all time low yesterday.
(1120)
As the Canadian dollar plummets, it is reaching out in desperation to grab on to some twig of confidence from the government but seeing none it continues to move downward.
The finance minister has allowed spending to get out of control at a time when revenues are beginning to contract. Yesterday's surplus may soon turn into tomorrow's deficit. Many economists, Dale Ore of WEFA, Don Drummond of the TD Bank and others, had predicted these planning deficits by the year 2003. The federal Liberals have been running three year projections in terms of where their spending was taking them. We analyzed the numbers and we could see that they were headed for a deficit before the three year mark. What was their response? They quit the three year planning and they put out two year projections.
If there is a projection that comes out that says we could hit a deficit in two years, maybe all they are going to do is project one year. It is irresponsible. They need to tell Canadians what we are facing. By knowing what we are facing we can prepare for it.
The Bank of Nova Scotia, for instance, is projecting an annual federal deficit of $5 billion by next year. What will that mean? Will it mean that our next projection will be only a six month one because we want to avoid the ones that people are putting out?
If the finance minister and the Liberal government lead us back into deficit, the slowing economy will not be to blame. Out of control spending, fuelled by the undeclared Liberal leadership campaign, has put at risk the surplus that the taxpayers have paid so dearly to achieve, paid for by a reduction in spending on security, a reduction in spending on national defence and a huge reduction in spending on our health care needs.
Spending jumped last year by 7%. That was twice the level of inflation plus population. The finance minister has allowed spending to so far exceed his targets year after year and to exceed this phenomenal growth in revenues being paid by taxpayers. If spending in the current year was at the level projected by the minister in 1997, we would have had a solid surplus of approximately $25 billion if he had kept his surplus in check rather than the $8 billion that most forecasters are predicting.
Markets look for signs of restraint in government spending and accounting but they have not seen it from this government and have made a judgment according to the value of the Canadian dollar.
The government must get its priorities straight. On the economic and fiscal front that means keeping a balanced budget while reallocating resources from low priority, unproductive spending to areas of high priority, including areas of continuing the stimulus effect of tax reductions in very necessary areas.
To stimulate and create jobs and create investment, the government must continue to implement the tax changes it announced last fall. It also has to proceed with other areas of taxing business and individuals in terms of high input costs, EI premiums being one alone where we have far in excess of what we need, even with the oncoming recession, in terms of the insurance fund being there. The government takes those hard-earned dollars, taxing individuals and businesses for employment insurances, and launches the money into all kinds of spending that has nothing to do with employment insurance.
The government should sit down and consider including a yearly basic exemption, as suggested by various industry groups, when it comes to EI. We must also look at eliminating or bringing down the very destructive capital tax. As recently as yesterday the finance minister pointed to capital going to the United States. Why does capital flee? It looks for quality and certainty. The government has provided neither. We have to start doing that and we can within our various systems.
These measures in the areas of input cost reductions and tax reductions can be accommodated within the existing budget. People across the way say that we should spend, spend, spend. Yes, we should spend on priorities but we should reduce on discretionary and wasteful spending.
Only if the government puts a freeze on all future discretionary spending and controls spending in the low priority areas can we do these things, but they can be done. Let us not respond in panic and fear to the accusations that they cannot be done. It is a matter of discipline. These are critical if the government is going to leverage the fiscal policy to join the Bank of Canada's efforts to fight this Liberal recession.
(1125)
I served as a finance minister in a time when commodity and oil and gas prices were going down. Even in a down time of plummeting commodity prices and with the Asian crisis, we had the discipline and foresight to continue tax reductions to send the signal of confidence to the economy, an economy which continued to be confident because it was being stimulated; investment staying instead of fleeing. That is what has to happen here.
When the finance minister tells us there is no room for additional relief in these areas, I have to question him. Where did he find the extra $6 billion for the ministries of industry and human resources development, those great stewards of the public purse, to spend on those pet projects? Then he says there is no room to allow Canadians to keep their hard earned money in their pockets.
Canadians know that an extra dollar left in the hands of a hard-working citizen or innovative entrepreneur will do a lot more to create jobs and wealth than a dollar in the hands of a federal Liberal politician. Canadians continue to suffer. Every time the finance minister gets up and does his arm waving he never addresses these facts.
We have the highest income taxes in the industrialized world. That is a fact. I want to see the arm waving today when he gets up and starts talking about the great things he is doing for Canadians.
The government needs to get its economic priorities straight by spending less on interventionist pet schemes that do not work and putting more on priorities for Canadians by allowing them to keep more of their hard earned money in their pockets.
The upcoming federal budget represents an enormous missed opportunity by failing to take more decisive action in all the areas I mentioned: proper spending, tax reduction and paying down debt. We will watch for the arm waving today. Any way we shake it out, even though there have been payments on the debt, and the official opposition has acknowledged those payments, they have not been what they could have been. It is another hallmark of the era of lost opportunity and the federal debt today stands higher, at $557, billion than it was in 1993. That is the plain basic fact.
Yes, when the surplus has been splashing over in its economic bucket, the government has allowed some of that to go to the debt but not as aggressively as it should have. It has not legislated the down payment of debt.
These are the signals the market needs to see so that investment will stay here and not run southward where it will be taxed at a less punitive rate.
Canada is headed into a recession exposed by some fundamental economic weaknesses. We continue to carry one of the largest debt burdens in the industrialized world. It costs taxpayers over $40 billion a year just to carry that debt. It costs $100 million a day to reduce a debt that should have been reduced far more aggressively and should have had a law behind it saying that a bigger chunk of the surplus would go to its reduction.
Our dollar has lost 25% of its value against U.S. currency since 1993. We want to see Liberals stand and applaud today when the finance minister gets up to address this. We want to see how loud the applause is when he says that it is true that our dollar has lost 25% of its value since those people took office in 1993. That makes all Canadians poorer relative to our American friends.
There is a 22% gap between the Canadian and U.S. standard of living, which amounts to a difference of $29,000 for an average family. We want to see the cheering on that today when the finance minister stands and does his usual rant. We want to see the pompoms go up in the air.
U.S. productivity has grown at a 50% faster rate than in Canada over the past decade. I want to see the finance minister go after the Chamber of Commerce for being unpatriotic because it has said the nineties will stand out as the poorest decade relative to growth since the 1930s.
All these figures point to Canada's greatest economic challenge, to stop the slide in our standard of living and eventually, as we stop the slide and put in place the proper policies that stimulate confidence, I believe that on the race track of economic growth we can sprint ahead of the American economy. We do not have to lag behind. Every time the dollar drops and debt increases or some other economic measure hits us, the finance minister stands and says that it is the Americans.
(1130)
Canadians can outpace them. We are a little upset that this year the Mexican peso is outpacing the Canadian dollar relative to the U.S. dollar. We congratulate President Fox. We offer no congratulations to this finance minister for allowing that to happen. We want to hear those cheers today when he stands up and addresses these factors.
We have a vision of our economy being strong and focused, a government that is disciplined and our business, our people, our hard workers literally being able to sprint past the Americans when it comes to productivity and growth. It is possible as long as we have a government that can recognize that.
The United States congress is in the process of passing an economic stimulation package that includes $100 billion in immediate tax relief on top of the $1.3 trillion tax cut that was passed earlier this year.
Canada cannot afford to stand still. The flight of capital and people is happening. There are 98,000 highly educated, highly skilled Canadians moving south this year alone. We have to get our economic priorities straight. That does not mean just more stimulative tax relief but tax reform that is designed to reduce and eliminate the disincentive that Canadians face right now when it comes to work, savings and investing.
The Alliance proposal is to eventually eliminate the marginal income tax rates. That would be a clear step in the right direction. The federal government should also explore ways to move Canada away from its huge overreliance on income taxes. It has to continue to look at reforming taxation, especially corporate taxation, relative to the recommendations brought forward by the Mintz commission.
If we are to close this gap in the standard of living, we must also implement some structural reforms, especially related to inefficient programs. The government took a big step backward in this regard, with Bill C-2, by rolling back its own very modest employment insurance reforms out of political fear and nothing else. Instead, we would pursue experience, rating and other reforms designed to modernize Canada's labour markets.
We should reform equalization to stop penalizing provinces that are starting to get ahead, especially those provinces having the ability to move ahead thanks to their non-renewable resources. Possibly for the first time since Confederation, Atlantic Canada has the opportunity to realize the promise of Confederation. However the federal government will continue to clawback its hard earned efforts at moving ahead. That is unacceptable.
The federal government has to drop its dogmatic approach to health care. Health care costs continue to skyrocket through the roof. The government's response has been to not restore health care to its 1995 levels. This is an economic situation as much as it is a health care and security situation. The government must begin to allow provinces to be innovative with internal market mechanisms within the public system, if we are going to preserve our provincial economies and help them to weather the storm that was set loose upon them when the government slashed their health care transfers by almost 35%.
We have to pursue serious reform of some of our entitlement programs to ensure that they are sustainable, making sure that maximum return to those people, especially on fixed income, is achieved. There are many ways in which that can be done. This federal government refuses to look at those possibilities.
The government should exercise real leadership in terms of striking down provincial trade barriers. It has not done that. It should be pulling the provinces together in many areas where those barriers still exist and get the type of reduction in those provincial trade barriers that is necessary.
Federal regulations need to be analyzed in a way that the costs are looked at carefully as to what regulations are effective and needed and which are ineffective, outdated and unneeded. That is a huge cost to business and a drag on our economy.
Rather than taking any of these bold steps to strengthen our economy and to secure our future, the finance minister, along with the rest of the government, continues to be adrift. The government ship of state is adrift at sea, tossed about on the waves of circumstance without an anchor when needed, without a compass when needed. For every serious challenge we face, the recession, the falling loonie, our slide in productivity, the finance minister blames some external forces.
(1135)
We can be masters of our own destiny but we have to take charge. In difficult times like these Canadians want and deserve tough decisions, not familiar excuses from their national government.
[Translation]
The Canadian Alliance will continue to do everything in its power to ensure that the government gets its priorities straight. These include providing adequate resources for our national security; fighting the Liberal recession, while maintaining a balanced budget; and reversing the current downward trend in our standard of living.
(1140)
[English]
I move an amendment to government Motion No. 17 as follows:
| That the motion be amended by adding: |
|
|
“and in particular, the need to increase spending on national defence and public security by reducing waste and spending in low and falling priority areas, such as the proposed new Industry Canada-HRDC strategy paper, preserve and accelerate scheduled tax reductions, restore confidence in the Canadian dollar, and avoid falling back into a fiscal deficit. |
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
I declare the amendment receivable. Debate is on the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Drummond, and that all of the other members of the Bloc Quebecois will also be sharing their time.
It is my pleasure to speak in this take note debate today regarding the budget that the Minister of Finance will be bringing down.
We would have liked to have had this debate earlier, since there have been clear signs of an economic downturn since September 11, and even earlier. This downturn has been exacerbated by the events of September 11 but it was already apparent several months beforehand.
We have been calling on the finance minister to intervene in support of the economy since October 3. He has the means, as I will explain later in my speech.
First, I would like to begin with a comment. If it can be said that anger does not help us think rationally, then the same can be said for excessive fear. When I hear the Minister of Finance say that nothing will ever be the same since September 11, obviously, security is the first priority, but there is more to it than that. By focusing on this aspect, the government is putting off other decisions that a responsible government must take.
Let me say from the outset that I accuse the Minister of Finance of contributing to the economic slowdown through his statements, his pessimism and his inaction. When he says that we did not have surpluses during the current fiscal year and that he cannot afford to make massive investments, he is deceiving consumers and making them much more cautious in their spending.
One of the reasons for this economic slowdown, if not this recession, is the consumers' unwillingness to spend. When the Minister of Finance keeps saying that things are bad everywhere, thus contributing to the economic slowdown, it can only make consumers put their spending on hold.
The Minister of Finance is also responsible for the economic slowdown because of his inaction. He should have taken action long before his upcoming budget. He could and still can act to support the economy and employment but he is not doing it.
What are these means? We are too used to seeing the minister fibbing every year when he says “Listen, we must be careful, there will not be any surpluses”. In the last fiscal year the government ended up with surpluses totalling $17 billion.
By not telling the truth on the actual surpluses, the minister avoids debates in the House and among the public on the use of these surpluses. Then, a few months before March 31, which is the end of the fiscal year, he no longer has any choice and must use all the surpluses that he deliberately overlooked, even though he knew full well that they existed, to reduce the debt.
We have nothing against paying off the debt but this government must deal with other priorities, and while security is important, so is people's economic well-being.
We did calculations regarding the evolution of public finances, as we have been doing for the past seven years, particularly for the past five years where there have been surpluses. This year, while a recession, which is a negative growth of the GDP in real terms, is likely over the next six months, there will still be a $13.6 billion surplus. This is the most conservative scenario. With a negative growth of less than 2% of the GDP over the next six months, we arrive at $13 billion.
The Minister of Finance can do something. He has the means. We are not asking him to return to a deficit situation, we hate deficits more than any other party in parliament. We even presented a bill on balanced budgets three years ago and the Minister of Finance rejected it. He rejected a bill opposing deficits. We detest deficits much more than they do.
We want a realistic plan that would use $5 billion of the $13 billion surplus expected in the present fiscal year to support the economy and jobs in order to guarantee the economic security of Quebecers and Canadians. This would also ensure that the slowdown, however deep it may be, would not turn into a deep and protracted recession. It would seem that the minister has forgotten the multiplier effect of a dollar invested in the economy and its effect on employment and tax revenues. We can support the economy.
(1145)
This $5 billion plan we are proposing to the Minister of Finance includes the following. First, we want, and it is not costly, SMBs, which are currently suffering from the economic slowdown and need a breath of air, to enjoy a little relief from provisional instalments, that is the taxes they will have to pay in the coming months. We are asking that the instalments be put off for six months. This would cost almost nothing, $50 million, but it would be so effective right now that even the Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business support this sort of measure.
We are also calling for some relief in contributions to the employment insurance plan. We can afford this too. There is a surplus of $6 billion or $7 billion in this fund. These two measures would inject nearly $2 billion into the economy.
We are also calling for—and this can be readily done to support workers facing the economic slowdown—the Employment Insurance Act to be amended. There is consensus in the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development on increasing benefit coverage for young people, women and regions hit with high unemployment.
One does not have to be a genius to realize that, in addition to the economic slowdown, there is restructuring in certain resource regions. These are calling for more extensive government intervention, at the cost of $1 billion.
We are also calling for another billion to help the tourism and aiarcraft industries, the most heavily hit by the economic downturn, which has been exacerbated since September 11. One billion dollars is being requested.
Last, we are calling for an acceleration—if this government can possibly grasp the concept—of investments that would have been made anyway during this fiscal year, for instance funding for social housing, within the infrastructures program.
Taking $5 billion of the forecasted $13 billion surplus for this year still leaves $8 billion. Part of that amount the Minister of Finance can reserve for security because we do not know what is around the corner. He can also show some open-mindedness in the next budget.
There are provinces suffering at this time because they have obligations toward their population as far as health and education are concerned. They are short of money.
Every year there will be a structural surplus in the coffers of the federal government. Would there be any way of having a meeting, a real federal-provincial meeting, on sharing taxation resources? There were such meetings in the sixties, seventies and eighties. Why is there such a closed mind about tax base redistribution? The needs are in the provinces and in Quebec as far as health and education are concerned, while the taxation resources are here. Surplus funds are accumulating year after year and this will not change, even after the recent events we are having to cope with.
What we are calling for is something very simple: for the government to realize that there are two kinds of security, one Security with a capital S and the other economic security. It is rather awful to experience feelings of insecurity because of the terrorist threat and at the same time to have to deal with economic insecurity because we cannot predict what the outcome of the economic slowdown will be on our lives and on our jobs.
We are asking the government to intervene. It has the means. We are asking it to use $5 billion of the $13 billion surplus expected for this year. We are asking it to permanently avoid deficits, forgetting of course that it was the Liberals who created the first deficits and who have a way with spending that is not always efficient or effective.
We do not want a deficit but we would like the Minister of Finance to get moving, to stop being so pessimistic about a balanced budget and to stop talking about the deficit. Such comments are not relevant this year. There will not be any deficit. The most skeptical outlook forecasts a surplus of $12 or $13 billion. So he should hold the rhetoric.
In the past, we heard about extreme caution. The Minister of Finance has lost so much credibility when it comes to his forecasts that he can no longer show his face. Today, the focus is on security. I am all for security. The terrorist threat is real but we also need to think about and look after people's economic security.
For this next budget, we expect the Minister of Finance to have understood this message and to have come up with a plan to stabilize the economy and employment. Since October 3, we have been offering him concrete suggestions to help him do this. He must consider security, but he must also consider peoples' economic security which is also important.
(1150)
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ):
I want to congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot on his speech. I think he ran out of time and would have wanted to talk longer.
He raised this, but I wonder if he could give us his opinion on the whole issue of reapportioning the tax base. As we know, in Quebec a commission on fiscal imbalance is examining this matter. I wonder if my colleague could tell us more about this.
Mr. Yvan Loubier:
Mr. Speaker, at the same time as we are proposing an emergency plan for the next six months, which is an ad hoc initiative by the federal government and not a recurring yearly measure, we have been noticing, particularly in the past two years, a tendency by the federal government to accumulate significant surpluses every year.
This is due to the federal tax structure. For example, in Quebec, 60% of the total personal income tax paid by Quebecers goes to the federal government, compared to 40% to the Quebec government.
The federal government is enjoying incredible fiscal capacity. And personal income tax is the type of taxation that increases the most rapidly over time. This means that there is truly a constant increase in tax revenues collected from individuals.
Because of this distortion in the tax system, the federal government finds itself year after year with a large structural surplus in its coffers, while responsibility for health, income security and particularly education needs falls to the Government of Quebec and the provinces of Canada.
We are therefore stuck with this skewed system, which must be corrected. There is a way to do that. We saw it used in the 1960s and particularly in the 1970s. The tax fields of the federal government and of the provinces were redefined.
In other words, the federal government gave out tax points. It gave the provinces additional tax capacity and it partially withdrew from the tax field in order to allow the provinces to collect additional money so they could meet their primary obligations, which are health and education.
Today we are back in the same situation we faced in the 1960s and 1970s. The federal government has excess tax capacity but the provinces are facing growing and inescapable demands in the fields of health, education and income security.
The Séguin commission is looking at ways of addressing this tax imbalance. We have specific proposals for a phasedin solution: gradually transfer tax points to the government of Quebec, starting with the portion the federal government is now paying in cash to the government of Quebec and the provinces for the Canada social transfer, the transfer for funding health, education and social assistance.
A portion of these transfers was already handed over to the provinces in the 1960s but there remains a cash portion of almost $2 billion for the government of Quebec.
This would be a good place to start.
(1155)
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot on his speech. I have a question in connection with his last remarks.
Is this concern over the federal-provincial transfer unique to Quebec or is it a general concern of the other provinces?
Mr. Yvan Loubier:
Mr. Speaker, my answer is that the concern is generalized. For some two years now, every time the first ministers and provincial finance ministers meet, this has been a concern.
At their last meeting in Montreal, the provincial finance ministers welcomed Quebec's proposal. It was to analyze the wisdom of having the tax point transfer accompanied by, for example, changes in transfer payments. To some provinces, tax points are not worth $260 million as they might be for Quebec or $450 million for Ontario, for example. They are worth less.
A maritime province, for example, would suffer with a tax point transfer because with tax points it would not get nearly what it does under the Canada social transfer. The reason is a matter of the relative wealth and population of these provinces. Generally speaking, the principle of transferring tax points was well received in Canada following the suggestion of the Quebec minister of finance.
However, one thing was agreed to by all. At the moment, there is too much money in federal coffers and this will be the case every year, despite the recent events. Quebec and the Canadian provinces have responsibilities in areas where there are desperate and unavoidable needs, in the areas of health and education, for example.
The federal government cannot set these needs to one side and look good by waving about billions of dollars in surpluses, which, we must not forget, come out of taxpayers' pockets. There is too much money here because there are taxpayers who pay too much tax and because the provinces do not have enough of the pie to meet their obligations as set out in the Canadian constitution, which these people claim to want to defend.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, there is one issue that is very important to the Bloc Quebecois and that is employment insurance.
I would like the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to tell us if he has any suggestions for the program. I believe he does and I would like to give him the opportunity to expand on this topic.
(1200)
Mr. Yvan Loubier:
Mr. Speaker, yes, our $5 billion emergency plan to support the economy and employment contains some of the measures from the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. These measures were aimed at reforming employment insurance.
Among our proposals, a billion dollars would be set aside for the most urgent reforms, including changes for older workers. Since the POWA program disappeared there has been nothing to come to the assistance of workers aged 55 and older, a bracket that has been hit with massive layoffs by big business.
During an economic downturn, casual workers are the first to feel the crunch, workers who have less experience. This obviously affects young people and women more. Our plan to boost the economy contains extra measures to help youth and women survive the economic crisis.
There is also an increase in benefits for low income workers. Currently,employment insurance coverage stands at 55% but if one is a low income worker and has the misfortune of living in a resource based region that has suffered from the global downturn, one is doubly penalized. We are asking that the coverage for low income workers be increased.
In addition to these special measures that take into account the urgent nature of assistance for those who will be affected by the economic slowdown there is, of course, the whole issue of employment insurance reforms. Today we have a rare opportunity in this parliament. We have a unanimous report from a committee made up of members from all political parties. Why does the government not acknowledge the needs and carry out these much needed reforms?
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for St. Hyacinthe--Bagot for his speech. My colleague has been described by Canadian economic analysts as one of the top economists ever in the history of this House. He is known for his accurate and credible predictions.
Since the events of September 11, the economy on the world scale has been seriously shaken. Most experts believe that nothing is the same as before. At a time when our future was already uncertain in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks and with obvious signs of economic downturn on the horizon, the Bloc Quebec has acted in a responsible manner by suggesting a number of measures to the Minister of Finance to boost the economy.
Just recently the minister was still issuing the challenge to us to make some targeted and highly detailed suggestions in advance of his December budget. So the Bloc responded with alacrity, and presented its $5 billion economic stabilization plan. Our objective is clear: to attenuate the economic downturn and the loss of thousands of jobs resulting from the events of September 11.
As the minister delights in repeating in this House, and according to the witnesses heard at the Standing Committee on Finance, the Bloc's plan is without a deficit. I repeat, if that is what worries the government, we are anti-deficit.
Application of this plan relies on the principles of economic stimulation, increased aid to the provinces by handing tax points back over to them, paying back the debt and a zero deficit.
I would like to take this opportunity to mention the work being done by the Quebec minister of finance, Pauline Marois, who will be presenting her budget this afternoon. She will do so with courage, despite the limited openness of her federal counterpart, and the cool reception the federal finance minister afforded her this past weekend.
As the minister is well aware, he has in his coffers a surplus of several billion dollars. Even if he intends to make national security his priority, the battle against terrorism represents an expenditure of somewhere around one billionn dollars. These expenditures moreover, in large part, will not take place before the start of the next fiscal year. He therefore most certainly appears to have sufficient reserves to cope with unexpected expenditures and to sustain the economy.
It is all very fine for the minister to argue that his objective is to balance his budget and pay the heavy bill for national security, for he still has plenty of money left in his sock.
Let us take a closer look at the situation. Despite the economic downturns anticipated in the third and fourth quarters, this year the average growth for 2001 is expected to be 1.5%. At the same time, inflation is going down while unemployment is on the rise. And the Minister of Finance, true to himself, is underestimating budget surpluses. He began the year with an anticipated surplus of about $8.3 billion. An informed person would expect a $12 billion surplus and would not be far off the actual figure.
The surplus stood at $10.7 billion after the first four months of the year and at $11.1 billion after five months. When he talks about having limited leeway, the Minister of Finance is undermining his own credibility.
He really should seriously consider the plan that we presented to him to stabilize the economy. It is a serious and responsible proposal that would not put the country back into a deficit. It is so effective that the minister would have all the necessary leeway to fund security costs, support the economy and even pay off part of the debt. How? The minister challenged us and we met his challenge.
Under the Bloc Quebecois' plan, a mere $5 billion would be used for the following: $1.85 billion to support small and medium size businesses; $1.15 billion for employment insurance; $1 billion for various sectoral initiatives; and $1 billion for security and defence.
This plan is not a public relations exercise to reassure the public. It is a proactive and targeted measure.
(1205)
I feel the duty to remind Canadians and, more importantly, the Minister of Finance, that history has proven that he is incapable of predicting his deficits because he inflates them artificially and he continually underestimates his budget surpluses.
Quebecers and Canadians should know that according to figures published by Canada's Department of Finance subsequent to the budget years, the federal government has accumulated more than $30 billion in budget surpluses since 1996.
Unlike the government forecasts, the Bloc Quebecois' forecasts were accurate on several occasions. With his misleading forecasts, the Minister of Finance is skewing the true picture of Canadian public finances. Accounting standards being what they are, the minister ends up allocating the entire unexpected surplus to pay off the debt. We understand that repaying the debt is a priority but it is one priority among many others.
Need I remind members that this past year's federal surplus was taken in large part from the pockets of workers? We are talking about $7.5 billion taken from the employment insurance fund surplus. In August 2001 the fund's surplus reached $39 billion.
With respect to forecasting, the Bloc Quebecois believes that, despite negative growth over the next months, the government will have a generous surplus: $15.4 billion with zero growth, and $13.6 billion with a negative growth of 2%.
Being prudent, responsible and realistic, the Bloc Quebecois has decided to go with the most conservative hypothesis: that the surplus will be $13.6 billion.
We are suggesting that the minister go ahead with specific, temporary measures to accelerate investments in order to give momentum to small and medium sized businesses. As requested by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which never got a reply from the government, instalment payments for SMBs could be deferred. The government of Quebec has already done this, giving SMBs some breathing space, some liquidity. All the government has to do is pay the interest, which would have a minor impact on the budget. It could also at least reduce EI premiums. We suggest that the minister give businesses a contribution holiday for the next two months.
The effects of these combined measures would be appreciable. They would put $1.8 billion back into the economy; $750 million for workers and even more for businesses.
The Bloc Quebecois is proposing active and passive measures to help unemployed workers. Active measures, such as investing the maximum in active job measures, or 0.8% of the payroll, or $640 million Canada wide, would encourage entrepreneurship and training.
The Bloc Quebecois is also proposing that help be given to those who will bear the brunt of the economic downturn. The minister must immediately implement the recommendations contained in the report tabled by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development in May and adopted unanimously. To that end, he will have to convince his colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, of the wisdom of these recommendations, which deal with older workers, low income workers, young workers, and support to the regions, and which propose increasing benefit periods from 45 to 50 weeks.
Since my time is quickly running ou, I will wrap up my remarks. I also wish to put forward an amendment to the amendment.
It must be clear to members that the minister can do more than merely protect transfers already budgeted. There is room for investment in health, in infrastructures and elsewhere. His budget should tackle the issue of health care.
It would be quite simply immoral of the minister to pour all these surpluses into paying down the debt when the provinces are grappling with health care costs which will not be going down.
In closing, I would like to move as follows:
|
|
That the amendment be amended by adding, between the words “tax reductions” and “restore confidence”, the following: “while improving the employment insurance plan”. |
(1210)
The Deputy Speaker:
The Chair declares the amendment to the amendment to be in order.
The hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the member for Drummond on the work she does in finance.
Last week I went with her to visit a business in her riding, as I was on my way back to Lévis. I heard from a number of people in her riding who commented on the member's effectiveness and assistance to the businesses in her riding, which until recently had a low rate of unemployment. Despite that, she is especially dedicated.
In her remarks she spoke of support for business. Despite the dynamism of business since the attacks of September 11, some industries have been affected, such as aviation and tourism. I know many people visit Drummondville to see the heritage village and to take part in the festival. These organizations are having difficulty at the moment.
I have a question for my colleague on help to small and medium sized businesses, which create 80% of jobs in Quebec. Could she talk about these measures a little?
(1215)
Mrs. Pauline Picard:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière for his kind words.
It is true that the riding of Drummond has experienced extraordinary economic growth. Small and medium sized businesses in the riding are doing rather well but they are adversely affected by the economic slowdown. They are concerned about this. Most of these businesses are in traditional sectors and they export 80% of their production to the United States. Everyone is concerned about the situation.
We are also affected by globalization. Some businesses invest in our region, which makes up for some layoffs, but people who have worked for 25, 30 or 35 years for a company are losing their jobs because of globalization. A company will shut down and move its operations to Mexico because workers there are paid less to do the same job.
This is very disrupting. Sometimes as many as 400, 500 or 600 workers can be laid off. The textile industry, in particular, is very vulnerable.
These workers include people who have been with a company for 30 or 35 years. These are older people who have worked at the same job throughout their adult life. They have a very hard time qualifying for another job because under our rules they are considered to be older workers. These people, who are in their fifties, often have children who are still in university, which is very costly. Unfortunately, since the federal government abolished the POWA program, they have nothing to turn to.
These measures, which were included in the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development signed by all committee members, including Liberal members, would have given some hope to those who have been laid off because of the circumstances, the economic slowdown and globalization.
I may not have answered the hon. member's question specifically but I wanted to stress the fact that it is a very important measure for workers and for all Quebecers and Canadians.
The government absolutely must restore this measure. It should be changed, as we said in the past, but it should be restored to support people who lose their jobs.
Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I read something today on which I would like the hon. member of the opposition to comment. I share her concerns about older workers. This is a growing phenomenon, particularly concerning workers in industries like the textile industry, whose level of education is not very high.
Would it be totally normal under the circumstances for the government to avoid investing in services per se, since investing in government services will only increase its expenditures in the service sector and not necessarily stimulate employment?
Ought not the government nstead focus its efforts more on supporting the economy, which is supporting business, rather than reinvesting in services?
Mrs. Pauline Picard:
Mr. Speaker, such an idea surprises me a great deal. It has been proven in the health field that investment in health services and health care stimulates the economy.
Everyone knows that poverty has negative effects on health. Often the poor have health needs because of a number of different factors. Investing in health care, investing in resources, that stimulates the economy.
At this point in time, the government really does have the means. The proposed plan is in the order of $13 billion. Those are very conservative figures. Using $5 billion leaves it with $8 billion. The government need not worry. We also know very well how the Minister of Finance operates. All surplus funds go toward the debt, while the provinces are in obvious need.
(1220)
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words this morning on this matter. It is a subject of great importance to the people of Canada.
[English]
There is a slowdown in the economy and it started before September 11. September 11 accelerated the slowdown in many ways across the entire world, not just in Canada. Figures released yesterday show that in the last three or four months the economy has slowed down by 0.4% in the United States. That is having a profound impact on Canada as well.
Yesterday the Canadian dollar closed at its lowest level in history. It was down to less than 63¢. A number of years ago the Canadian dollar was worth about $1.04 American. It went down to the range of 73¢ to 74 cents about 20 years ago. Then in 1990-91 it went back up to the range of 83¢ to 84¢. Now it is down to about 63¢.
We are facing a looming economic crisis. There is a decrease in government revenues and we are facing a recession. The recession will probably be a long one and not a short one. We have to figure out what we will do to navigate through these stormy economic times.
During the last five weeks, as a member of the finance committee I have spent a lot of time in prebudget hearings. We have heard from many Canadians from coast to coast. We travelled for two weeks. We were sitting here in Ottawa this morning. We sat here two, three and four weeks ago. We will be sitting next week. We are hearing from all kinds of Canadians and associations.
It is interesting that we hardly hear anything at all now about more tax cuts or paying down the national debt. Most Canadians are saying that the government's number one priority should be security because of what happened on September 11. In addition to security and extra money for security in the RCMP and customs and so on, the other priority should be building a stronger economy and creating jobs for each and every Canadian.
The budget that the Minister of Finance will bring down in a few weeks should concentrate on, in addition to security, how we build a stronger country, how we create more wealth and eventually create more equality in this great country of ours. That has to be the priority of the Minister of Finance when he brings down the budget.
We have to once again make this our country, make this our Canada. We must build a stronger Canada where we have security and prosperity for each and every Canadian.
Since the summer there have been tens of thousands of layoffs. The most recent layoffs were yesterday when 2,000 people received notice at the CIBC that they would be laid off.
What do we have to do? We have to do seven or eight different things. We have to put a lot more money into research and development, training, education and early childhood education for the Canadian people. We must have that long term vision of building a stronger country despite the fact that we are going into a recession or an economic slowdown. We have to have the vision of trying to make our country stronger. One way of doing it is by putting more money into research and development, scientific research and the training and education of our people right across the country.
In the years ahead it is knowledge and education that will become power. Knowledge and education will determine whether or not Canada will be a strong country that has a lot of jobs, as opposed to other places in the world.
Our country has been gradually sinking in the last few years. For a number of years according to the United Nations human resource index, Canada was the number one country in the world in which to live. Now we are number three. If we include our aboriginal people, the number is 63 using the same index.
We have a long way to go in terms of improving the human condition. The place to start is with education, training, skills and innovation. Compared to other countries in the OECD, we are not leading the pack. At the very best we are in the middle of the pack in terms of most of these indices. That is where we start. We should also be investing in infrastructure.
A few weeks ago I had a chance to speak in Peterborough, Ontario. I flew to Pearson airport and I rented a car and drove the 150 kilometres to Peterborough. The 401 is a big highway. I thought it would take about three hours on the road. I pulled into Peterborough four hours later because of the congestion on the 401. The member for Markham knows exactly what I mean. All the trucks and cars sitting on the 401 are spewing pollutants into the atmosphere. We wonder why our country has let its infrastructure deteriorate in terms of rail transport and rapid transit.
(1225)
Europe and the United States have invested a lot more in rapid transit. A lot more freight is moving by rail than in Canada. We heard in our prebudget hearings across Canada that we should be putting a lot more money into rapid transit to move both passengers and freight across the country. It is good for the environment. It is good for the economy. It is good for the country. It has to be a priority. It has to be an investment.
If that is included in the upcoming budget, we will be creating more jobs, strengthening our country, building our infrastructure and saving our environment. There has to be a vision in terms of how we make our country stronger by investing in rail transport.
The same is true on the prairies. I see the parliamentary secretary across the way. If he were to go to my province he would see the consequences of a decision of the federal government many years ago to allow the railways to abandon rail lines, which forced grain companies to build inland terminals and close down elevators in small towns across the prairies.
The Saskatchewan and Manitoba provincial governments have spent millions of dollars building thin membrane highways to carry cars, small trucks and light vehicles. When the rail lines disappeared and were abandoned, big trucks were moving grain on highways which in some cases are like roads that have been bombed in terms of the potholes, ruts and breakage of the thin membrane.
Now millions of dollars have to be spent building thick membrane highways, but we do not have a national highways policy. We are one of the few countries in the world without a national transportation policy.
The hon. member for Churchill knows what I am talking about. In terms of the country's infrastructure, building highways and roads across the prairies, we need some assistance from the federal government. Because of the mistake made by the federal government many years ago by abandoning rail lines, elevator companies were forced to abandon elevators, which forced farmers to truck grain in big trucks on highways and destroy the roads.
It does not make any sense in terms of what has been done to our environment and to the economic viability of rural Saskatchewan.
A lot more money should be spent on cleaning up our drinking water. Walkerton was an example of that last year. North Battleford, St. John's, Newfoundland, and many aboriginal and other communities across Canada have real problems with drinking water. Money should be put into those areas to build a stronger Canada and have a viable country in the years ahead. Money should be put into infrastructure and research and development, two very important places to start.
Third is the whole area of housing. The federal government pretty well withdrew a long time ago from the whole market of affordable housing, social housing and co-op housing. We have heard brief after brief from people across the country talking about a housing crisis; the price of housing in Vancouver and Toronto, big metropolitan areas; and the lack of affordable housing in many communities.
If we want to kick start the economy, if we want to create jobs, if we want to build a stronger Canada to invigorate the economy, one way of doing it quickly is by putting money into housing. For every average house built an average of 2.8 person years of jobs are created.
If we want to kick start the economy, get people back to work, have people paying taxes and keep people off the unemployment insurance rolls, one way of doing that is by building houses. Let us have a national project to build houses across Canada. That is something that should be done.
In addition, the houses are needed. Many people are living in substandard housing. There is a housing crisis. People cannot afford housing. More and more people are facing homelessness in large cities.
When we walk in downtown Ottawa in the morning to the House of Commons, we run across homeless people. We see this in every major city in Canada today. The situation is getting worse instead of better.
It is training and education. It is infrastructure. It is housing. I will mention a fourth area in which the federal government should invest money: the agriculture crisis facing our farmers today not only on the prairies but across the country.
(1230)
Farmers on the rural prairies are being forced to leave the land. Social problems are being caused by the economic crisis. Small towns are deteriorating. People are moving into the cities. People are going on to the welfare rolls because of the farm crisis.
I will give one example of the prairie farmer and what the prairie farmer is facing. The prairie farmer now gets about nine cents on the dollar from the federal government for support prices. The prairie farmer in the United States who farms in Montana and North Dakota, just across the border from Manitoba and Saskatchewan, gets about 35¢ or 36¢ on the dollar from the federal government of the United States in Washington.
The farmer in France gets about 56¢ on the dollar from Brussels. With 56¢ on the dollar for the European farmer, 35¢ or so for the American farmer and 9¢ for the Manitoba or Saskatchewan farmer, is it any wonder our farmers are going under?
I call on the federal government to implement a decent safety net program or farm support program for our farmers. It is needed and needed now if we want to protect our rural infrastructure, the production of food and the export of grain.
There is no reason at all we could not be spending an extra couple billion dollars a year without violating WTO rules. This is what experts told us before the committee. That is what the federal government should be doing if it wants to protect the family farm and ordinary farmers.
I will go from agriculture to other resources. I think of the crisis in forestry today. I think of the woodworkers that are being laid off across our country. I think of British Columbia that produces half of our softwood lumber. Softwood lumber and timber exports are our single largest exports, even larger than automobiles.
We saw the tariff levied by the United States. We saw yesterday the increase in the duties and charges on dumping Canadian lumber into the United States. Our government has to take a very strong stand to make sure these duties are rolled back so that we have a level playing field for Canadian workers in the forestry and lumber industries. That is how to create jobs.
On one hand the Americans applaud us for being great friends in their campaigns, but on the other hand their policies are laying off thousands of Canadian men and women across the country, particularly in the province of British Columbia. Our government must take a strong stand in doing what it can to make sure that this unfair practice by the United States is stopped right away.
These are some of the things that we have to do. If we are to get the country back on its feet, if we are to have a stronger Canadian dollar in terms of its purchasing power for the things we import, we have to build a stronger economy and a stronger country.
I am concerned about the erosion of our country, the sellout of our economy by more and more things going to the United States. Just last June, for example, the federal government decided to privatize the administration of Canada savings bonds to a company based in Texas.
I ask the parliamentary secretary why the government would do this. Some 60, 70 or 100 people who were doing this before in the public sector were laid off. These jobs are now in the private sector with call centres in Mississauga and Ottawa. Why privatize what was done by the Bank of Canada to Electronic Data Systems headquartered in Texas?
Canada savings bonds are a great symbol of our nationalism. I do not think the Americans would ever do this. Yet we are doing it as a country.
This is just one of many examples of what we are doing wrong: how we are selling out our country, how we are selling out the soul of our country instead of creating a country where we do more things for ourselves; where we do more upgrading of our natural resources; where we do more manufacturing, more research, more development, more education and produce more of our own commodities. Those are some of the things that are extremely important.
Then there is health care. We heard this morning from the Canadian Medical Association and the national nurses union at the finance committee in the railway committee room about the problems in health care and how the federal government cutbacks in 1995 have hurt our health care system and put it in jeopardy.
(1235)
I am reminded that the medicare idea was brought to Canada by such pioneers at Tommy Douglas, Stanley Knowles and people in the CCF and the NDP who back in the 1960s forced the minority Liberal government led by Lester Pearson to implement national health care.
We were told at that time that health care was funded on a 50:50 basis by the federal government and by the provinces so that the federal government could have a publicly administered system, a single payer system with some clout in terms of uniformity across the country in the delivery of services of health care.
An hon. member: Now look what they have done.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: As my friend from Vancouver says, look at what they have done. The Liberals must be hanging their heads in shame about what their party and what their government have done to health care. The cash transfers have been cut back. What does the federal government fund now? Is it 14, 15, 16 or 17¢ on the dollar as cash transfers to the provinces?
I know the parliamentary secretary says they are getting tax points, but he should have heard the CMA and the nurses this morning when they talked about tax points. If tax points are transferred to the provinces to cover some of the costs of health care, at the very best about 30% to 35% is being covered. However the power of the federal government is also being forfeited to enforce national standards. If there is a transfer of cash the federal government can withhold the cash to the provinces for implementing user fees, setting up private clinics or violating the Canada Health Act.
If Ralph Klein decides to violate the Canada Health Act and the federal government is only putting about 13% or 14% of the cash into an economy as strong as that of Alberta, Ralph Klein can just thumb his nose at the federal government.
I know the parliamentary secretary had to be here this morning when I was at the finance committee, but if he were there to hear the CMA, the nurses union and other people express their concern that the federal government must eventually fund once again half the cost of medicare or health care in terms of cash transfers, I am sure he would be moved by the argument. He would lobby the Minister of Finance to mend his conservative ways and go back to a national health care program eventually funded 50:50 by the provinces and by the federal government.
That is what we need. We need a strong federal government with a vision of making this our Canada, making this a stronger country, making this a country of which we are very proud. That is what should be happening in the budget that will be before us in the next month.
We should be leading the way in terms of a new international vision or a new world order to come to grips with some of the problems we have today because of starvation, famine, the AIDS pandemic in Africa and the like. We should be leading the way by articulating a vision of an international economic development organization that starts putting money into poor countries of the world and a vision of a modern day Marshall plan for the development of places like Africa and to make sure that places like Afghanistan have a chance to develop and their people have quality of life, some food to eat, some medical services, some housing and some education.
Those are the kinds of things we should be doing internationally. When the Minister of Finance goes to the IMF, the World Bank, the G-20 and other international fora, he should be speaking proudly of the motion we passed in the House two years ago to endorse the idea of the Tobin tax, a small tax on the speculation of currency around the world. I proposed that private member's motion which was carried by the House in a vote of 164 to 83 in March 1999.
This would go a long way to curbing some of the speculation on currencies we see today. Speculation is one of the problems we are having with our dollar: speculation on our dollar and on other currencies and the retreat of currencies into the United States as people visualize it as a bigger and stronger economy.
Our minister should have an international vision of some order and some regulation in terms of currencies in the world, a vision of putting more and more money into international development. If we had a Tobin tax in the world today where more than $1 trillion a day is speculated on currency markets, a small tax of 0.1% to 0.5% would create an international development fund of several hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars each and every year.
Let us imagine the kind of world we would have if we could spend tens of billions of dollars a year on international development.
(1240)
Today we spend about $10 billion a year on the United Nations and the world spends about $800 billion U.S. on armaments and military equipment. We should flip those priorities around. Our country should be leading the way with that kind of international economic and social vision, which would help make this country strong.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment to follow up on my earlier question.
I would like to say that in today's issue of Le Quotidien, November 1, Minister Guy Chevrette, a member of the Parti Quebecois government in Quebec City, said that the budget was designed to help boost the economy:
| Guy Chevrette promises that Ms. Marois' budget this afternoon will help boost the economy. |
| Without giving away any secrets, the minister of transportation indicated that the emphasis would be placed on creating and maintaining jobs, and not on increasing spending for services. |
| People will be critical because we are not increasing spending on services, but in order to act as a responsible government, we must support the economy, which is the government's source of revenue. |
This was the context in which I asked the question of my colleague. I wanted to hear the Bloc Quebecois' opinion on its counterpart in Quebec City, the Parti Quebecois, regarding the direction that Canada's finance minister should give to his budget.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker:
It is not for me to interpret the comment. I will give the hon. member for Regina--Qu'Appelle an opportunity to respond before I recognize another member.
[Translation]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom:
Mr. Speaker, the member asked me my opinion on the Bloc Quebecois' perspective. I am a proud New Democrat in this House of Commons. I have no idea about the Bloc Quebecois' perspective. He should ask this question to the Bloc Quebecois, not the NDP.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Regina--Qu'Appelle on a very excellent presentation. It called on the government to show the kind of vision, transparency and scope that we need to look for in a federal budget both internationally and nationally. He laid out the very critical need to build not only our physical infrastructure but also our social infrastructure. We have built up a social deficit as a result of successive cutbacks.
The member stated that we need to invest in training and education and that we need to ensure that post-secondary education is accessible to all young people across Canada without the burden of a massive debt. Student debt load has risen enormously. We must have accessible post-secondary education if we expect to perform in the future as a knowledge based economy. Would the hon. member care to comment on that?
Hon. Lorne Nystrom:
Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. We have created a huge human deficit in Canada. The first nations population is a perfect example of that.
The United Nations human resource index rated us as number three in the world in terms of the best country to live. Using the same index, our first nations people are number 63 in the world, somewhere along the lines of many developing countries. We need to look at the abject poverty and the lack of opportunities among the first nations people. It is not a very good commentary on what our vision has been in terms of having an inclusive society and creating more equality. That is probably the best example of where the lack of opportunity has been.
Representatives of the CMA told a committee this morning that we have 50 aboriginal medical doctors in Canada, yet we have well over one million aboriginal people. They pleaded with us to ensure more spaces are made available for aboriginal people to be trained as medical doctors and registered nurses. Getting rid of the human deficit has to be a priority.
We must start with people like the first nations and the Metis who had tremendous problems in terms of being treated equally by our country. We can begin by gradually eliminating tuition fees and other barriers toward post-secondary education. That is the kind of vision we need, one that invests in people and human resources to create a strong country and a strong economy with greater equality of opportunity for everyone.
(1245)
Mr. John McCallum (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member for Regina--Qu'Appelle made thoughtful comments overall. I am not agreeing with every word but they were positively enlightening compared to the two speakers who preceded him.
It is sometimes said that if one has 18 priorities, one has no priorities. The member listed about eight initiatives that he would like the government to focus on. It would be interesting to know, in order for me to transmit this information, the order of his priorities. Is it the same as the order in which he presented them? If there is not enough money to do everything, it might be a good idea to know which priorities are the more important ones. Could he tell us what his first three top priorities might be?
Hon. Lorne Nystrom:
Mr. Speaker, I could answer that question in part by saying what some of the priorities are not. We could be cutting out some of the corporate welfare to save a bit of money. We could be abolishing the Senate and saving $60 million a year. We could be perhaps scaling back on some of the very generous tax cuts to some of the wealthy people and large corporations to save a bit of money.
We could then spend that money along with the projected surplus on the priorities I listed: long term investment in education, research and development, infrastructure and housing. Housing kick starts the economy and creates a lot of jobs. We should not forget the farm crisis.
The finance committee has heard that those are very important priorities. The parliamentary secretary should be aware that we are hearing very little about more tax cuts and paying down the national debt at this time of economic slowdown. He knows what I mean by priorities. I have stated them a couple of times now.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, a few years ago the Alliance came to the House asking the government to get out of the lives of Canadians and to let the marketplace rule everything. It claimed everything would be okay if that happened. I was completely shocked yesterday when in question period Alliance members asked for government intervention in the economy. What a complete flip-flop by the Alliance.
Would my hon. colleague comment on the complete reversal of the Alliance's economic policies?
Hon. Lorne Nystrom:
Mr. Speaker, it was Halloween yesterday. When members of the Alliance, the Reform or whoever they are came to the House in 1993, they spooked the Liberal government across the way into the biggest cutbacks we have ever seen in terms of social programs in Canada. The government gutted social programs. It privatized and it deregulated because it was scared of the member for Calgary Southwest and the Reform Party.
Now we see the flip-flop. Members' pensions is a very good example of that. We were all pigs at the trough for accepting pensions. All of a sudden that party did a flip-flop with regard to pensions and those members are now accepting the pension plan.
There was also the issue with Stornoway. That party was to turn Stornoway into a bingo hall. I recall the leader of the Reform Party doing a photo op with Audrey McLaughlin's old used car that she got as leader of the third party. The leader of the Reform Party would not accept the leader's car when he was the leader of the third party.
I also recall sitting in the gallery a few times between 1993 and 1997 when I was not an MP. The leader of the Reform Party sat in the second or third row of the House of Commons and said that politics would be done differently. That was another flip-flop by the Reform Party or Canadian Alliance.
Today the Alliance wants the federal government to spend more on security because there is a security crisis in the world. It wants the government to spend more on national defence, customs, CSIS and the RCMP. It is interesting to see these flip-flops by the Alliance.
An hon. member: Almost as good as Liberal flip-flops.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: They are not as good. The Liberals say one thing when they are out of office and another thing when they are in office. Maybe the Alliance is trying to imitate the Liberal Party sitting across the way.
(1250)
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to our prebudget consultations. It is unfortunate that the Minister of Finance is not here to listen to the views being expressed.
The Deputy Speaker:
Order please, I remind the hon. member that we are not to make any mention of who might not be here because we never know ourselves that for whatever reason we might not be here. That is a good policy.
Mr. Scott Brison:
Mr. Speaker, I apologize for my lapse of judgment. The fact is that it would be important to have the Minister of Finance here to listen to these views because they are important views which reflect the people whom we represent not only in our own constituencies but across Canada.
His opinion of parliament is so low that he has not presented a budget to the House since February 28, 2000. Some 22 months, over 600 days, have gone by, which is far too long for a country to go without a defined and accountable economic plan. The government's opinion of parliament is so low that it does not believe it owes parliament a budget every year.
An annual budget imposes a discipline on the governance system. It provides important fiscal information to the domestic and foreign communities. It enforces deadlines on the public service, a feature well known to any municipal council in Canada, and provides accountability to parliament and to the people represented by parliamentarians. Constitutionally it enables the House to pronounce judgment on a government by debating and voting on the motion to approve government policy.
It imposes a discipline on opposition members by forcing us to present to the public our views on alternatives to government policy. Perhaps the government's view of the opposition is best summed up by Jeffrey Simpson's label of friendly dictatorship when he describes the Liberal government.
I am prepared to share with my fellow members of the House some of my views and our party's views as to what should be done in the upcoming budget notwithstanding the disdain that the Minister of Finance has demonstrated for the people of Canada represented in the House. Clearly Canada needs leadership at this very difficult time.
The events of September 11 remind us of how desperately important it is for governments to be there during times of crisis to provide some guidance and reassurances to people. However we should not make the mistake of assuming that the events of September 11 caused the recession or caused this economic downturn. It deepened the recession, but we were heading to a recession long before September 11. We had the worst quarterly results in Canada in the last six years prior to this recession.
In a post-September 11 environment we are probably in one of the greatest periods of economic uncertainty that Canada ever faced. This is a time when the finance minister had to be dragged kicking and screaming to introduce a budget in the House. During this time of economic uncertainty the finance minister has done very little to provide some level of reassurance or certainty. He consistently fudges his numbers, inadvertently or otherwise, and provides very little firmness in terms of the estimates to the House and parliament.
Some estimates are that there would be a surplus of perhaps $1 billion while other estimates are saying $13 billion. Bank of Nova Scotia chief economist Warren Jestin is saying a deficit of $5 billion. We need to have a budget and we need some guidance to move forward to firmer ground with this range of potential outcomes.
The industry minister is more optimistic than the finance minister, but the industry minister would not let a problem like lack of cash prevent him from pursuing some new opportunity to spend money and invest in opportunities that might not make a great deal of sense.
The government coasted for nine years and relied on the success of previous government policies such as free trade, the GST and deregulation. When the economy grew as a result of Progressive Conservation policies the finance minister actually took credit for growth. When our economy grew as a result of our closer integration to the U.S. economy and that juggernaut that performed so well during that period, the finance minister took credit.
He is now saying it is not his fault that we are in an economic downturn. It is the fault of the U.S. economy. He cannot have it both ways. The government cannot have it both ways. There has been a lack of accountability for their own actions. That is what has been fundamentally missing. He is again trying to avoid and duck responsibility when Canada faces a recession.
(1255)
There has been no post-NAFTA vision from the government and it is little wonder that the government has been ill equipped to provide a post-NAFTA vision because that party when in opposition was opposed to NAFTA. Donald Macdonald, who chaired the commission that led to NAFTA, actually stated that the current Prime Minister and the current government would not have pursued NAFTA in the vigorous and courageous way that Brian Mulroney and his government did at that time.
I am proud to say that our party had the courage, vision and foresight to pursue aggressively and lead the agenda that helped attach the hands of Canadians to the economic opportunities that led globally in the 1990s. However I am disappointed in the current Liberal government for its lack of vision and its inability to provide any level of vision and policy in a post-NAFTA environment.
The greatest economic changes in the last hundred years have occurred in the past nine years. If we look at any barometer or gauge, whether it is technology or integration of economies, notwithstanding what occurs in terms of trade agreements, but globalization led by technology and the telco revolution, there have been so many changes, challenges and opportunities and there has never been a more expensive time for Canadians to have a caretakership, cruise control style of government.
Under this government our dollar has lost approximately 13 cents U.S. Under the previous government, over a nine year period the dollar only lost one penny. We are now seeing our dollar trading at record lows. The low dollar is the price Canadians are paying for nine years of cruise control, visionless government.
Every time the dollar drops Canadians take a collective pay cut. The Liberals were applauding the finance minister yesterday when there were questions asked about our low dollar. They do not really care about Canadians taking a pay cut because they live in an insulated little world where people can actually vote themselves a pay raise if they need it. Canadians cannot do that.
In 1998 in response to a question about the low dollar the Prime Minister said it was good for tourism. The logical corollary of his flawed argument would be that if we were to reduce the dollar to zero we would be the greatest exporting nation in the world. The minister said in 1998 that the problem really was not the Canadian fundamentals, the problem was that the market just did not get it. Three years later the market is still not getting it. I think Galbraith said it best when he said that we should beware of governments that say the fundamentals are good.
The biggest flaw in our current fundamentals is our lagging productivity growth, particularly relative to that of U.S., and not just the U.S. but most OECD countries. Our dollar, better than almost any other gauge, reflects our productivity levels.
The government, instead of pursuing the types of policies that can strengthen productivity, has been tinkering with policies. The best example of this is that instead of actually pursuing a tax reform package that could revolutionize productivity in Canada, that could actually put Canada on the leading edge as opposed to the bleeding edge, the government believes in tax tinkering based on polls and focus groups. More than anything else right now we in Canada need major broad based tax reform, starting with our profit insensitive taxes and capital taxes in particular. For every $1 in capital tax revenue collected by the government our economy loses $1.50 in productivity. There is no more expensive tax than capital taxes in regard to productivity, growth, opportunity and prosperity. Our federal capital tax revenue is about $1.5 billion per year. I would suggest that should be a good starting point in terms of tax reform.
Profit insensitive taxes in general, including payroll taxes, have to be given a more serious look. Not using payroll taxes, employment insurance in particular, which is in and of itself a regressive tax to begin with because it levels off at $39,000, should be addressed.
Our capital taxes have to be addressed. Other countries are addressing theirs. I was in Germany for a conference last week and learned that in Germany all capital taxes will be eliminated in 2002. In fact we are in the minority of industrialized nations that tax companies not just simply for the profits they make but on the capital they have.
(1300)
When we tax capital we reduce investment. When we reduce investment we reduce productivity. Our dollar reflects that. Locking up our equity and capital in a capital gains tax prison is not a way to spur productivity. Other countries like Ireland and the U.S., and social democratic countries with vision, like the U.K. and Germany, are pursuing tax policies and tax reform packages that have significant potential to make a difference and turn productivity numbers around.
The approach of the industry minister and the government is one that is focused on spending. Could anyone actually disagree with the notion of broadband availability across Canada, in every small town and every rural community? No, of course no one could disagree with that notion, but let us look at it objectively. The fact is that in most of our cities now we have broadband availability yet the majority of people living in those cities still does not use broadband. The fact is, if the minister is speaking of the problem of a digital divide existing in Canada, the issue is not strictly rural-urban. The issue is a socioeconomic divide that exists even in our major cities.
It is an inconvenience in rural communities to access the Internet, but it can be done. I do not disagree with the notion of moving forward aggressively with this sort of plan in time, but in the short term it simply is wrongheaded. In fact the greatest single economic issue facing Canada right now, in a post-September 11 context, is the issue of a perimeter and the security of our external borders to ensure that the $2 billion of trade per day with the U.S. from which we benefit is not jeopardized. There is no better defender of our economic sovereignty than continued access to the U.S. trade that we need as Canadians. This is not a security issue alone. It is an economic issue.
Before I go further, I should have mentioned from the beginning that I will be sharing my time with the member for Brandon--Souris.
The Deputy Speaker:
I regret that it might not be possible unless we have unanimous consent because the member already has surpassed the time limit of 10 minutes by approximately two minutes. That being the case, I will now turn to questions and comments for the hon. member for Kings--Hants and would recognize his colleague which would complete the 20 minute portion.
Does the House give consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member for Kings--Hants. He gave us a history lesson on what has been going on for the last few years. Some of it I agreed with, but I thought he would come forward today with some specific ideas. This is a day when we put all our ideas on the table. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is taking notes on all the ideas and I noticed from the member's remarks that there were no new ideas here today. I am surprised and I want to say that the single biggest challenge we face as a nation is consumer confidence.
Consumer confidence right now is being challenged. It is very low. I would like to know if the member has any ideas on what we in the House can do in terms of giving recommendations to the Minister of Finance and the parliamentary secretary for the budget coming forward in three weeks or so. What can we do in this budget to stimulate consumer confidence so that we do not miss the Christmas cycle, which represents about 60% of a year's purchasing power, a year's consumer buying?
(1305)
Mr. Scott Brison:
Mr. Speaker, the member for Toronto--Danforth is right that consumer confidence was jettisoned after the events of September 11. Prior to that, the last bastion of optimism was in the consumer confidence area.
Clearly there is no better way to make Canadians feel optimistic and comfortable with the future than securing and ensuring that our trade with the U.S. is not jeopardized. That is one of the biggest fears currently, so our perimeter issues are extremely important, issues like defence, like funding for our military, CSIS, the RCMP and coast guard. These are the types of policies that are required now. We need to reverse the trend that the government has pursued in gutting these institutions, which has jeopardized our sovereignty.
Ironically, the government is dilly-dallying and dithering on perimeter issues under the guise of sovereignty. There is no greater threat to Canadian economic sovereignty than the loss or jeopardizing of that $2 billion of trade per day with the U.S. The government has allowed itself to be dragged to the table, as opposed to leading as the Progressive Conservative government did under the leadership of my leader, the member for Calgary Centre, and Prime Minister Brian Mulroney at the time of free trade. That took leadership.
We need that type of leadership now. I thank the hon. member for Toronto--Danforth who earlier referred to a deathbed conversion on behalf of the Alliance. I do not know what they call it in Liberal circles when they flip flop on issues like free trade, the GST and deregulation, but it is not a deathbed. They are still living. I guess Liberals must have more lives than the rest of us mortals.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I as well enjoyed the sometimes caustic remarks from the member for Kings--Hants, but I also noted an absence of ideas, an absence of anything concrete that might be recommended here in terms of stimulating the economy or even in terms of availing ourselves of this opportunity to give some direction to the government in this prebudget period.
The hon. member did mention the 62 cent Canadian dollar. He pointed this out as a negative. Then he mentioned economic sovereignty in another context.
Would the hon. member agree with me that perhaps the biggest challenge to our economic sovereignty is not what I believe he mentioned, consumer confidence, but the fact that with a 62 cent Canadian dollar all of our Canadian industry sectors are vulnerable to foreign takeovers? As our country loses its economic sovereignty to foreign ownership, inch by inch and step by step we lose our national sovereignty as well.
Is it a concern of the PC Party that our economic sovereignty could be jeopardized through foreign ownership as a result of the 62 cent Canadian dollar?
Mr. Scott Brison:
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from the New Democratic Party for his intervention. He may not have heard ideas he agreed with, but if he had listened closely he would have heard some ideas. I suspect the New Democratic Party is not with me on this capital tax elimination proposal.
That being the case, he is absolutely right that a low Canadian dollar certainly jeopardizes our sovereignty. We have seen our forestry industry effectively taken over. We have seen companies such as MacMillan Bloedel taken over by Weyerhaeuser. We have seen our petroleum industry largely taken over, with huge levels of takeover and unprecedented levels of acquisition by U.S. companies.
The hon. member's solution would be different from my solution. His solution would be to put up artificial barriers and try to pretend that Canada can live insulated from the pressures of a global economy.
However I would suggest that the best way to address the issue of the Canadian dollar or the best way to address the question of our economic sovereignty or the threat of a U.S. takeover of our Canadian economic interests is to strengthen our productivity. The best way to address that is through major, broad based tax reform, addressing capital taxes, capital gains taxes, those taxes that pummel investment, that punish initiative and those taxes that hold Canadians back when the rest of the world is moving forward and seizing opportunities that we simply do not have here because of the visionless government that continues to dilly-dally as other governments leap further ahead.
(1310)
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak briefly and will use only the remaining time. I have no difficulty with that for the simple reason that my colleague from Kings--Hants, the finance critic for our party, is very knowledgeable and understanding of the issues which face Canadians right now and which face the government as it tries to create the confidence in the Canadian economy that is required in these days of uncertainty.
I will reduce my time to simply say that my colleague did an extremely good job. He had some good ideas that he put forward to the House and to the government. As was indicated, if people do not wish to agree with or listen to those ideas it is certainly not my colleague's fault. No one can say he did not try to instill a change of direction into the rather lethargic economic pace of the government we have today.
I thank the parliamentary secretary for being here. I have had the opportunity to talk to the member for Markham on a number of occasions although not necessarily about the economic situation that faces us. Every chance I get I ask the member for Markham what the economy is like. He simply sloughs it off as his government and the Minister of Finance have done in the past.
However the member for Markham, the parliamentary secretary, has some good ideas. He was a chief economist for a very large corporation in Canada and he has implemented processes in the past that have stimulated his industry. However he acted in a proactive fashion. What we are seeing from the government is more of a reactive policy with respect to finance and economies.
I will give an example. We have asked the Minister of Finance over and over again in the last 12 months what the government sees happening in our economy and why there is a lack of confidence in Canadian society today. Unfortunately it is because the Minister of Finance in all his wonderful rhetoric rails upon what happened 8 or 10 years ago but does not put forward to Canadians what it is that he should be dealing with today to stimulate the economy.
If I have heard it once I have heard a dozen times about what happened in 1993 when the government took over with respect to the unemployment rate, deficits and interest rates. That is not what Canadians want to hear. When we ask the Minister of Finance what he is prepared to do to stimulate the economy he has no ideas. Let us not blame the member for Kings--Hants for not putting forward ideas. The Minister of Finance who should have the ideas has not demonstrated those ideas. That is deplorable.
I would rather hear some of the ideas of the parliamentary secretary. Perhaps he has some fresh ideas as to where the Minister of Finance should be going.
The first question we asked in the House was why there had not been a budget for some 600 days. A simple question should have a fairly simple answer. Why was the Minister of Finance so terribly embarrassed to bring forward a full budget in the last 600 days? He should tell Canadians why.
Why would the Minister of Finance not tell Canadians what the revenues were in the last fiscal year? Why would he not tell Canadians what the expenditures were in the last fiscal year? Why would he not tell Canadians what the surplus would be? The surplus figures have been fudged since the minister became the Minister of Finance.
Why could the Minister of Finance not do this? Was it because the PMO was not allowing him to do his job properly? Was it because other leadership contenders in the government benches would not allow him to put forward proposals he thought would be necessary to get us out of the doldrums? He cannot stick his head in the sand any longer.
Day after day economists tell us we are not only in a recession but a deep recession. Day after day economists tell us the falling Canadian dollar is putting us in a worse position to compete with our major trading partners. The Minister of Finance must come forward. He has been forced to do so. He says the events of September 11 have exacerbated the situation and forced him to come forward.
(1315)
Let us not think that Canadians do not recognize that the situation existed long before September 11. The Minister of Finance cannot use that as his excuse. The government cannot use it as an excuse for not putting in place other policies, tax cuts and positions that were necessary prior to September 11. We want answers. We want suggestions. We suggest that the capital tax could and should have been cut.
This morning on television when I awoke I heard the president of the United States say that congress had better have a stimulus package on his desk by the end of November. That was leadership. That was the president of a country who said he knows what is happening and knows how to fix it.
Never once has the Prime Minister stood and said we must put in place a stimulus package to get things going. Do members know what he said? He said it does not matter if our dollar is 62.96 cents because it is better for exports. That is sticking one's head in the sand. That is letting the standard of living we have developed in Canada go continually down.
The parliamentary secretary knows we need a stimulus package. He knows we need tax breaks. Capital tax is a start. He knows we must make sure we are retroactive in dealing with trade with the United States. Some 80% of our economy comes from trade with the United States. The United States is showing protectionism with softwood lumber right now. It has attacked agriculture in the past. There will be a ruling in the WTO today regarding the American attack on the Canadian Wheat Board.
If we do not have open access to our major trading partner our economy will suffer dramatically. Where are the proactive positions of the government to stop that from happening?
I am nervous. I am concerned. Canadians are concerned. The member asked what we would do to promote consumer confidence. What has happened in the past up to this point on those benches has done nothing to instill confidence into Canadians. That is the job of those members. They are the government. They should come up with the ideas, put the packages in place and let Canadians get on with their economic livelihoods. That is not happening at this time.
Mr. John McCallum (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I must confess that notwithstanding the kind comments toward me from the hon. member I have a bit of a problem. I have been making notes on suggestions. I have a quarter to a third of a page from the Alliance, a quarter of a page from the Bloc and a third of a page from the NDP. When I come to the fifth party my page is blank. To be charitable I have three words: lower capital tax.
My question seeks to amplify what has been said before. Other than a statement of platitudes about needing higher security or a potted version of history, which I would dispute, I have heard absolutely nothing in terms of concrete suggestions as to what the budget should contain. That is the purpose of this debate.
Are the two leaders of the fifth party bereft of ideas? Do they have anything concrete to put forward?
Mr. Rick Borotsik:
Mr. Speaker, if we were bereft of ideas we would have to sit on the government side. Obviously we do not, so we are not bereft of ideas.
Did the member not hear the words capital tax reduction? It is pretty simple. Did the member not hear the words reduce frivolous spending? He should have. Let us get the departments together and if there has been exceptional or frivolous spending in certain departments let us reduce that spending and put it into priority items.
Did the member not hear that we must make sure we are proactive in the trade we have between Canada and the United States? Does he need to sit back and say we should close the borders to our major trading partner? Is he suggesting that? We should make sure our borders are open to trade. If we do not our fiscal position will become even worse than it is now.
Did he not hear us say we should demonstrate confidence? Let the Prime Minister stand and give Canadians the consumer confidence that is lacking right now. He should show confidence. That is leadership. We have not seen any of that.
Where is the Prime Minister during this debate? He should be leading by example but that has not happened. The president of the United States has done that. Why has the Prime Minister of Canada not done the same?
Does the parliamentary secretary want more ideas? I would love to have a cup of coffee with him. We could certainly run the Department of Finance a lot better than it is being operated now.
(1320)
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with shock when I heard the hon. member for Brandon--Souris speak. On the heels of $100 billion in tax cuts, much of it to the middle class and to the corporate tax rate, we are entering a period of increased spending for the military because we find ourselves in a long and complicated military conflict. In the current situation the only thing the hon. member recommends is capital tax cuts.
The hon. member's party has been accused of being devoid of ideas. Is that all its members can recommend at this juncture in our history when we are going into a new budget that will require extra spending on the military side? Most people would hope opposition parties would come forward with recommendations as to from where the money would come so that it does the least harm.
To even suggest that this is a time for further tax cuts boggles the mind. The hon. member's party believes that is a panacea for everything as if people with toothaches could feel better by giving themselves a tax cut.
From what part of the budget does the hon. member believe the new spending will come? Will it come from the aboriginal issues raised in the Speech from the Throne? Will it come from transfers to the provinces through the CHST? Who will be asked to tighten their belts to pay for the extra money we need for this military intervention? What does the Tory party think about that?
Mr. Rick Borotsik:
Mr. Speaker, I find it rather interesting that all of a sudden there has been a change of heart in the NDP. All of a sudden it feels the military should have more spending. I thought it was the NDP that did not support the military action and did not want to look at increased spending. I find inconsistencies in the position of the member from Winnipeg.
I said we should look at areas that do have frivolous spending attached to them. The first thing we should talk about is the potential $1 billion going into Mr. Tobin's pet project. I think it started out as $6 billion. Those new priorities--
The Deputy Speaker:
The member causes me to rise again on the same matter as when I intervened earlier. I know that sometimes with all our enthusiasm we might get a little carried away so I caution the member for Brandon--Souris.
Mr. Rick Borotsik:
Your caution is well taken, Mr. Speaker. I apologize. I should not have used the name of the Minister of Industry. However his pet project is not a priority expenditure line item right now. That should be identified in the budget that comes forward.
I understand that the minister of HRDC wants to expand her empire quite substantially. That is not a necessary expenditure right now as we enter an economic downturn and require expenditures of priority.
I see priority expenditures in defence, as I have just heard from the NDP. I see expenditures of priority in CSIS, the RCMP and certainly in agriculture. I say that honestly. I am sure the member from Manitoba would agree that agriculture throughout the country has a necessary expenditure attached to it because of the huge drought we suffered over the past year.
It can be done. We all do it in our own households. We make sure in our budgets that we live within revenues lines. We cut back where spending is not necessary and spend money where there is a priority.
That is all we are saying. We should have done this a long time ago. We should not have to wait until the 11th hour for the Minister of Finance to come forward with a budget when one has not been presented for almost two years.
Ms. Sophia Leung (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the prebudget debate. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for London West.
I want to speak about the priority my constituents of Vancouver Kingsway request for the coming budget.
It is clear that our country has fundamentally changed since the September 11 attacks in the U.S.A. It is for this very reason that the security of Canadians has emerged as the number one priority for my constituents.
The government in recent weeks has taken some major steps to address this new reality. I would like to outline a few of them now.
The safety and protection of Canadians at the border is of paramount concern for all of us. The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency took on the important task of reforming border management by introducing Bill S-23, a bill that would modernize our customs system. The bill was passed last week by the House and received royal assent October 27.
The fundamental premise behind Bill S-23 was the concept of risk management. Advances in technology combined with our experience at the front line have paved the way for many of the initiatives contained within the bill. The expansion of the Canpass program, the expedited passenger processing system for airports, and the customs self-assessment program will all help to speed the flow of low risk personal and commercial traffic into our country. At the same time, those programs will free valuable resources to focus on those who would try to break our laws.
The horrific events of September 11 let us pause to think about how we manage our borders. It is important that this budget addresses the concerns of Canadians regarding the border by providing additional financial resources to ensure that trade and commerce in Canada continues to grow and flow to drive the Canadian economy.
Since September the Standing Committee on Finance has been conducting its prebudget consultations with various institutions and organizations throughout Canada. The committee has listened to Canadians, including my constituents.
It is very clear that national security is the most important issue for all of us. It will require increased financial resources for defence and security measures to support additional needs for customs, immigration, the RCMP and CSIS, et cetera. It is important that the budget addresses this new concern of Canadians.
Throughout the years Canadians have made sacrifices in order to reach the government's goal to eliminate the deficit. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the members of parliament have worked very hard to be able to use our surplus to offer $100 billion in tax cuts over the next five years while at the same time increase spending on such things as the child tax benefit and reinvesting in our national infrastructure innovations, education and green environment.
It is very clear that our economy is slowing and the surpluses as a result will be smaller. However we cannot allow ourselves to slip into deficit once again. This is what I heard from many Canadians.
The government has made it clear that we will continue to fulfill our commitment to health care, education and innovation programs for Canadians. I believe, despite a slowdown in our economy, that we must continue to invest in Canadians and ensure that our economy thrives in the long term.
(1325)
In British Columbia, we are facing financial difficulty in the forest and tourism industries. We need economic stimulus from the federal government. The small and medium businesses have repeatedly asked for a capital tax reduction. The universities need support for their core funding.
I have no doubt that, despite the increased cost of national security, the government will continue with a balanced budget while providing the programs and services that Canadians need and want while avoiding any unnecessary spending and waste.
The people of Vancouver Kingsway and indeed all Canadians can expect that the government will be responsible for Canadians' needs. I hope the upcoming budget will be a fair and balanced one and one that will restore the confidence of Canadians.
First, the budget should support security measures to provide protection and safety for all Canadians. Second, it should fulfill the commitment for increased funding for health and education. Third, it should provide additional support for international development for peace and foreign aid. Fourth, it should keep Canada out of a deficit situation.
(1330)
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the member for Vancouver Kingsway opened her remarks by saying that the people of Canada have just come out of eight or nine long years of budget and spending cutbacks to where most people felt that the deficit was paid down on the backs of social spending.
I certainly agree with her because of the $100 billion that we have now given away in tax cuts: $30 billion came from the Canada health and social transfers to the province; $30 billion came from the public service pension plan surplus; and another $30 billion came from EI surpluses. I agree that after eight long years Canadians have just about had enough.
Now that we can see the light at the end of the tunnel again and we have had budgetary surpluses, we are told we cannot get into a spending mode and go back and deal with some of the social deficit because we now have this military intervention we have to worry about.
Given the fact that there is no longer a surplus but we now need a whole whack of money to go and fight this new war, and given the fact that Canadians are being told they will have to tighten their belts and water their wine down somewhat because of the military spending, where in the budget is she going to see the cuts happening? Will it be in aboriginal affairs? Will it be in the Canada health and social transfer? Where does she see this new money coming from and what direction would she give to her government in this prebudget debate?
Ms. Sophia Leung:
Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that we will fulfill our promises and commitments, whether it be on tax cuts, health, education or any other social program.
I am not saying there will be cutbacks. I must stress that we will, wherever possible, attempt to ensure that there is no unnecessary spending or waste. We know there are perhaps delays in some programs. In the meantime, we have made commitments and we will fulfill those commitments.
Mr. Pat Martin:
Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver Kingsway says that some programs may need to be put on hold and that maybe we will have to wait until the government introduces some of the things that were advertised in the Speech from the Throne, some of these things Canadians have been looking forward to after eight or nine long years of cutbacks and lack of social spending.
When she says that some things may have to be put on the back burner, I wonder what she means and what issues her government is contemplating. The information we have gives us reason to believe that some spending will go toward aboriginal issues which was much vaunted in the Speech from the Throne. People welcomed the fact that the government was finally going to deal with some of the terrible backlog of need in aboriginal communities.
Does the member think that perhaps aboriginal affairs will be one of the things that might have to be put on the back burner? In other words, will someone be dipping into the budget or future budgets or the future spending plans of aboriginal affairs to fund the military intervention?
(1335)
Ms. Sophia Leung:
Mr. Speaker, I think the beauty of the House and the reason we have debates is so members, who feel that certain social programs are a high priority, can speak up.
In the meantime, I have confidence in the Minister of Finance and in the finance committee. We will take into consideration all the suggestions from the House.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the minister responsible for the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency suggested in her speech that the government was open to different ideas. I wonder how open she thinks the government is to the idea coming forward from the Ministers of Industry and Human Resources Development to spend apparently $6 billion additional dollars on corporate welfare and on some Internet scheme.
The member sits with me on the finance committee. I do not think we have heard a single witness ask for more corporate welfare or job creation schemes but we have heard a lot of talk about the need to eliminate the capital tax and reduce EI premiums to create more jobs.
Will the minister not agree with me that it is a much greater priority to reduce job killing taxes than to sink more public money into job creation schemes which we know do not work?
Ms. Sophia Leung:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his suggestion. I would not place numbers in any order as to requests from programs. We have confidence in the finance committee to listen to all suggestions. In the meantime, we will present it to the Minister of Finance. He is also trying to get all the different suggestions to see which are more important. It is very basic. We have to live within our means, and in the meantime decide which is the higher priority.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say what my personal priorities are. Hopefully these reflect the views of a number of my constituents on issues that have been raised across the country and in a prebudget debate that was held in my riding a couple of weeks ago.
I will start from the premise that fiscal credibility is important to our government. Fiscal credibility was paid for by Canadians. It was paid for by processes and successive prudent expenditures, prudent investments and prudent budgeting which have brought us to the point where we can enjoy the $2 billion plus of savings on interest on our national debt. This brought us to the point before September 11 where we were looking at a very large skills and learning agenda and a very large innovation agenda. These are good, positive things for Canadians to invest in. I believe there is a difference between spending without thought and true investment that is stimulus.
So many hours, so many days of weeping and wailing have been spent wondering whether or not we were going to have a budget. Whether or not it was called a budget, there were $100 billion of tax cuts spread over five years and $20 billion went into health care. A year ago many things went through this parliament and were effective. President Bush, our neighbour to the south, had to wait for the legislation but we were already on that train and that is part of the stimulus that will continue.
Most Canadians would agree that we should not go into a deficit position at this point in time. I have heard from some people who are willing to go with a debt to GDP ratio that continues downward which would allow for a few billion dollars in deficit in one year. Fiscal credibility is important psychologically at this point in time. The prudence that has been the hallmark of our government, even though it has not been the traditional Liberal philosophy is the current Liberal philosophy. We are an accountable government. We have made proper investments.
Turning to my priorities in investments, I come from London, Ontario. I represent a city that is very rich in industrial research capacity, medical research capacity, engineering and social science research capacity. Over many years the government has talked about having moved Canada up the scale from being one of the lower countries in the OECD to being fifth in the world in supporting R and D. This is a valid investment. There can be no interruption in the current flow of money to research and development in my opinion.
Another issue that has been spoken about in research circles is the indirect cost of research. The part of me that thinks with a jurisdictional hat says that historically at our post-secondary education facilities the infrastructure supporting all of this work has been borne by the provinces. However it is our productivity agenda. It is our innovation agenda. Therefore I believe there is no more capacity for these researchers to absorb the cost of their work if we are not contributing in some way to the soft costs of doing that research, whether it occurs in a university or in a hospital. I come from the province of Ontario where unfortunately per capita spending on post-secondary education is the lowest of all the provinces and territories. That is an appalling situation but it happens to be the truth.
If this cannot be done in this budget, I would ask the Minister of Finance to put a marker on the table so that the research community knows that this is a concept that has been agreed to, understood and will go forward. I would urge that there be some start in this budget. The position has to be made very clear so we can extend hope to all the people who are helping with future productivity in Canada. That is very important not just for my riding, but it is important across the country, whether that comes from our granting councils or the CIHR, which took over from the Medical Research Council of Canada.
(1340)
There are some fine point tools that we can utilize. On October 12 when I was in my riding the United Way asked for favourable tax treatment on capital gains when people donate stocks to charities. The United Way was very pleased to see that was extended permanently. The tool is appropriate for use in public foundations also.
More and more as governments, especially provincial governments, circumnavigate themselves into a corner by putting the no deficit legislation into place, we are going to be looking to our charities and our public foundations to help carry the weight of the true social need that exists in the country. That is a technical provision which I do not think will cost large sums of dollars to the fisc. However it will have an incredible impact on donations by concerned corporations and individuals in this country to transfer shares by having a more favourable capital gains tax situation. That is being extended to the charities right now. There is no logical reason that the foundations could not get similar treatment.
I would like to talk about the aboriginal communities. One of the reasons I asked my government to go on the finance committee was so I could move the aboriginal agenda forward. There has to be sufficient funding to continue all of the necessary work. It is true that the standard of living enjoyed by most Canadians is not shared to the same degree by our aboriginal communities. This is a necessary agenda. It seems that some communities always are told to wait. There is always a reason that we cannot take care of their needs.
The needs are pretty basic in the aboriginal communities. They are safe water, housing and education needs. We should understand as a government that the demographics of this particular population is different from that of average Canadians. There is going to be a huge increase in aged people in the non-native population but it is the reverse in the native population. In fact there is going to be a 25% increase in aboriginal youth before 2015. All of those youth need the tools to be educated and the department is the all encompassing vehicle for transfers at this time, unless they come out from under the Indian Act like the Nisga'a which I celebrate. They need those funds.
A number of people across the aisle have talked about human capital and I concur. My metaphor for this budget is an accordion. Some programs, for instance the security programs, will have to be squeezed in. In other words what might have been a five year roll out on security items and security spending perhaps will have to come down to a one year or two year roll out. Obviously that will have to go up and that means that type of spending will not be a one time hit. It is something that Canadians are demanding.
There are ongoing security needs in our country, not only for personal safety reasons, but economic security as well. This includes making sure our borders are working properly and that low risk goods and people get through in a timely manner. All of our resources, whether human intelligence resources or enforcement resources, must be there to help our markets work properly. We are a trading nation. We have to have the confidence at our borders and in our land of all of our trading partners to make our economy work.
The security agenda is high on my list but I see other areas being expanded a bit. I believe in our innovation agenda. I believe in our jobs and skills agenda. If it is necessary in the very short term to roll out those programs a little slower, it is not saying we do not value what we are doing. I am just saying we must live within our budgetary means. This is important to Canadians.
Many valuable tools, techniques and programs are being put before us. No one in this Chamber does not want the preservation of our environment. No one in this Chamber does not want a federal park that we can all enjoy. Perhaps we cannot acquire the 14 parks that we say we need to complete the infrastructure of parks across the nation right now. Perhaps that is not on the table today. Maybe we should be doing the options to lease around the parks where we think we will be working in the future trying to make sure they are there when we do have the fiscal capacity.
(1345)
This is an important debate. It cannot be about the historical context or the wish list because from what I have seen, everybody comes to the table saying, and very rightly so, that their investment is more important and is the one that needs to be funded. Most of them could be funded if we had a wish fountain but in reality we have tax revenues. Our economy is now slower than it was and that means there is less money coming into our fisc. There may be more drains on it as people need temporary employment and to get to their next period of employment, assistance from the government.
It is interesting that for the first time across the country, including the west, I heard that there is an important role for government in the lives of people. On September 11 it was not the private corporations that they looked to for security, it was the government. We have to fund properly our security element which has a military element.
To my mind there is a division between the military component and the security component. How I have interpreted what I have heard across the country is that it is not so much a discussion about hardware as it is about humans and using technology properly.
Even the technology costs are not going to be a one time cost. Nobody has ever set up a technologically advanced office and said that now that they have bought a computer, that is it and they do not have to do anything for the next 20 years. We all know that updates are needed. Even the hardware is not a one time cost when we get into biometrics at our borders. These are important points to consider.
I want to talk about dedicated taxes. I heard that especially with respect to highways. Dedicated taxes take away from the flexibility of governments to react appropriately in times of crisis and need.
It is with very good reason that money comes into the federal government by way of general revenues. Those people arguing, and they know who they are across the country, that they have spent so much on a certain tax and therefore so much should be reinvested, cannot understand that if everybody had their silo of dedicated taxes, we as a government could not respond to the true needs. The true needs are here and abroad.
I will put one small marker on the table. Historically Canada has done a very poor job overseas as a percentage of GDP in contributing to international assistance. We, with many countries, had a goal of 0.7 of 1% at one time. We are well below that.
Even if the foreign aid goes more to the good governance envelope, which I firmly believe should be part of the agenda, there are situations where we are spending money overseas on military and peacekeeping operations where if the governance of a country, the strength of the democracy of a country were there and assisted in the first place, perhaps we would not be going out in a military fashion after the fact.
Canada has a role to play. It is a very small portion of the overall budget picture and I would not like to see it abandoned at this time.
(1350)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the member for London West with whom it is my privilege to work on the Standing Committee on Finance. She does her work very seriously and most competently.
I agree with what she said about indirect spending on research and development. The fact that research grants do not apply to indirect spending on equipment or infrastructures remains a major concern of academics, not just in the health sector but in all other sectors as well. It is beginning to get in the way of scientific research and technological development.
When there is an economic slowdown, such as the one we are now experiencing, which may well go on for the next few months, the first spending to be sacrificed is spending on research and development by business in particular.
When universities are asked to tighten their budgets, the first thing to go is research. So on that score I agree completely with her analysis.
However I would really appreciate it if, during the next meeting of her caucus, the member could ask the Minister of Finance to stop saying whatever comes into his head about the surplus, to stop misleading the public and to give the real picture.
My greatest fear in connection with the next budget is that, in a situation where people need to be encouraged and given support, the Minister of Finance will play exactly the same game he has been playing for the past five years, which is to misrepresent the real surplus so as not to have to do what he should.
I urge her, because I can see the member's great ability and determination, to convince the Minister of Finance to stop saying any old thing and to come up with real measures in the next budget to stimulate the economy and help those who have lost or who are at risk of losing their job.
Can we count on the member for London West to take this up with the Minister of Finance?
[English]
Mrs. Sue Barnes:
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that any chance I get to talk to the Minister of Finance I do and I make my views very clear. I also wish we had those billions of dollars. I do not think they are in the surplus right now. It will be very difficult right now.
The problem with trying to propose a budgeting measure that goes forward to the future is that, as an economist knows, we are using numbers on which we do not have the most up to date numbers. Our real numbers are history. We are really working with the projections.
I am pleased he concurs on the soft costs or the indirect costs of research. This is an important time for researchers. They have hope that they have not had for many years. I agree that the worst thing we could do is to interrupt that in any way, shape or form.
The increases might not be as much as if September 11 had not occurred. However the marker has to go down and something has to be mentioned, hopefully in the budget text itself, about the indirect costs of research.
I also enjoy working with the hon. member on the finance committee. Many of us work every day. We have had over 70 meetings. However, for many reasons we cannot attend all those meetings. We all work with the best interests of all Canadians at heart, including Quebecers.
(1355)
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for London West for using her time to raise some very important issues, not the least of which is the budget line dealing with aboriginal issues. She is as aware, as are all of us, that a key factor in the Speech from the Throne dealt with the idea that it was finally time to address some of the backlog of social needs which existed in aboriginal communities.
Some of us are apprehensive now that first, there is less of a surplus or no surplus at all and, second, there is an increased spending line which will be necessary for this military intervention.
We have reason to believe that those who will be to be asked to tighten their belts to pay for the military intervention are the very people who need support and have been promised it in this Speech from the Throne.
Will she give us her commitment or at least her point of view, as a member of the finance committee and a member of the Liberal caucus, that she will push to make sure that the spending for the military intervention does not come out of the budget line of aboriginal affairs; current spending or future programs?
Mrs. Sue Barnes:
Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not the Minister of Finance. However spending on aboriginal affairs is a necessity in Canada especially when we are talking about education. We cannot afford to waste the potential of people. We cannot afford to take away hope.
We must be concerned with the demographic signals that are out there right now. The children who are very young will either be drains in their own life and not be happy or they will be productive members of Canadian society.
We have ways, means and tools that we know can work and have been shown to work when there is goodwill among all three levels of government and in the House to move forward treaties.
When people have a land base they get economic viability and move outside the current Indian Act. I saw this when I chaired the aboriginal affairs committee during the Nisga'a agreement. I think we will see a productive society in the Nass Valley that could not have occurred as easily inside the Indian Act. My vote goes in that direction.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[English]
Landmines
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Israel's military withdrawal from South Lebanon left the area heavily contaminated with landmines. Most remain unmarked and unfenced. This is a serious threat to the lives of thousands of displaced civilians returning home.
In the month following the withdrawal 99 people were maimed and 20 were killed. Landmines have accounted for 80% of the mine related casualties registered in the last year.
While UN peacekeepers are co-ordinating mine clearance activities in the region the maps provided by Israel are incomplete, making mine clearing very unsafe. The UN reports that over 100,000 landmines exist throughout the region, their exact locations unknown.
The Ottawa convention demands that each state in a position to do so shall provide assistance for mine clearance and related activities.
I encourage our government to seek creative ways to help solve the crisis in South Lebanon and attempt to accelerate the process of clearing these hidden killers by asking the Israeli government to provide full disclosure of all maps, and for Canada--
The Deputy Speaker:
The hon. member for Richmond.
* * *
(1400)
Toronto Sun
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise today to pay tribute to the little paper that grew on its 30th anniversary. Thirty years ago today the Toronto Sun was born.
The vision of Douglas Creighton and Peter Worthington led a small bunch of reporters, editors, production people and photographers to start a new alternative newspaper in the most competitive media market in Canada.
From its humble beginnings in Toronto the Sun chain has now moved right across Canada. “Get it first, get it fast and get it accurate” has long been the motto of the Sun. They should be proud to know that readers see this reflected in their morning paper every day.
On behalf of my leader and my caucus colleagues in the Canadian Alliance I offer my congratulations to the Toronto Sun and all its employees.
* * *
[Translation]
4-H Clubs
Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, from October 29 to November 4, we honour 4-H clubs.
In Quebec, 4-H clubs attract young people who care about improving and maintaining the quality of our environment. Together, they work to protect trees and forests.
Moreover, by joining these clubs, young people develop a respect for others, a sense of responsibility, creativity and initiative.
The first 4-H clubs in Quebec were established in 1942. Today, many young Quebecers wear the motto “Honneur, Honnêteté, Habileté, Humanité” on their coat of arms.
As in the other provinces, 4-H clubs in Quebec are taking advantage of this week to inform the public about their activities. I invite the public to take an interest, and young people to participate. You will make interesting discoveries and you may find a new passion.
* * *
[English]
Transportation
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, public transit in Kitchener is getting a facelift thanks to a new project announced this week. VIA Rail has announced an additional mid-morning and late evening link between Kitchener and Toronto. As well, the federal government is contributing $350,000 to renovate the local train station for improved access and service.
This new service makes good sense for the environment and provides a practical alternative to congested highways. Transportation is one of the single largest sources of air pollution in Canada. In urban centres it accounts for up to two-thirds of smog forming pollutants and for 27% of greenhouse gas emissions.
The expanded service enables commuters to park their cars. Sustainable transportation encourages travellers to make use of active transportation instead of relying on single occupant vehicles.
I ask the House to join me in congratulating the local members of Transport 2000 for their perseverance in supporting this much needed project. Clearly Kitchener is on the right track.
* * *
Victims of Violence
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, October 28, I attended a mass memorial service for young victims of violence that was organized by the Black Action Defence Committee. We remembered the lives of young black men who had been slain prematurely and offered our condolences to the mothers, fathers, siblings and children of these victims of violence.
In the past five years over 100 black men in Toronto have been killed by other youth. Their murders remain unsolved. This cycle of violence must stop.
Valerie Steele, president of the Jamaican Canadian Association, says clearly that the black community is planning a new strategy, one that involves education, policing, housing and job opportunities. They will be working on it with the federal government.
I call on all members of the House to support this community based approach. We must console those who have lost their loved ones to violence, unite to address the causes of hopelessness and anger, and build a brighter future for our youth.
* * *
Dmytro Pryhoda
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, today in Edmonton Mr. Dmytro Pryhoda celebrates his centenary with his family and friends. Born 100 years ago in Ukraine, Mr. Pryhoda left his wartorn country in 1927 to make a new life in Canada. The Canadian Pacific Railway became his workplace for 40 years until his retirement in 1966. Dmytro's wife of 57 years, Rose, passed away in 1989.
Family and faith are two important pillars that Ukrainians cherish in their new Canadian communities. St. Barbara's Russian Orthodox Cathedral will be particularly honouring Dmytro this Sunday.
I am sure I speak for all in the House as I wish Dmytro well today.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Ukrainian and provided the following translation:]
Wishing you many more years, Dmytro.
This day is yours. Enjoy.
* * *
(1405)
Chinese Cultural Centre
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last Friday the Minister of Canadian Heritage and I had the pleasure of attending the annual fundraising dinner of the Vancouver Chinese Cultural Center.
The dinner marked the 28th anniversary of the Chinese Cultural Centre. The centre has been a leader in the Chinese community in Vancouver by helping to promote racial equality, cultural understanding and the celebration of Chinese Canadian heritage.
It is particularly appropriate that I give the tribute during the International Year of Volunteers as the many hardworking individuals who give their time to the centre are volunteers.
The Chinese Cultural Centre is the kind of outstanding organization that makes Canada such a vibrant society.
* * *
[Translation]
Travel Agencies
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the travel and tourism industry has suffered and is still suffering from the September 11 events.
Travel agencies are among the hardest hit. Most of them are small businesses that lost their revenues when the airspace was closed.
Their work is intimately related to that of airlines, since they are often the ones that print tickets and deal with customers.
The U.S. government has already designed a program to help travel agencies that are suffering. However, no such measure has been taken in Canada.
The Association of Canadian Travel Agents is asking, justifiably so, to be compensated for losses estimated at $20 million.
I remind the Minister of Finance that if it was important to help airline carriers, it is just as important to support travel agencies. Otherwise, tens of these small and medium size businesses will disappear in each of our ridings.
* * *
[English]
Performing Arts
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I extend congratulations to the recipients of this year's Governor General's Performing Arts Awards. These awards celebrate the lifetime achievements of Canadian performing artists. This year marks the 10th anniversary of the first awards ceremony.
[Translation]
The recipients of these awards reflect the tremendous talent that exists in Canada. I invite hon. members to join me in recognizing the exceptional achievements of the following artists: conductor Mario Bernardi; actor Christopher Plummer; singer Diane Dufresne; ballet dancer Evelyn Hart; author and radio personality Max Ferguson; and filmmaker Anne Claire Poirier.
I also want to congratulate the winner of the volunteer award, Thea Borlase, and of the National Arts Centre award, Edouard Lock, and his La la la Human Steps dance group.
* * *
[English]
Down's Syndrome
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, November 1 to November 7 is National Down's Syndrome Awareness Week. Currently 1 in 900 children in Canada are born with this chromosomal disorder. It causes delays in the physical and intellectual development of these children.
While this disorder seems to be a limiting factor, many individuals with Down's syndrome are able to lead active and productive lives. They have many unique abilities and strengths. Down's syndrome adults are able to live independently, hold jobs and contribute to their communities.
During this awareness week I applaud the organizations and community groups that help those with Down's syndrome. I also congratulate those individuals with Dow's syndrome and their families as they face limitations with strength and determination.
* * *
[Translation]
Remembrance Day
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in November, poppies suddenly appear on the jackets, coats and hats of Canadians.
Wearing a poppy is a way of paying tribute to those who died in war, peacekeeping operations or conflicts.
During the Napoleonic wars, writers noted that poppies flourished on the graves of dead soldiers. This flower became the symbol of remembrance in Canada in 1921.
The poem by John McCrae expresses very well the significance of wearing a poppy. Here are a few lines from the poem:
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
In honour of our soldiers, I urge everyone to wear a poppy.
* * *
(1410)
[English]
Softwood Lumber
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, things cannot get much worse. Up to 30,000 workers in B.C. alone will be forced into unemployment, devastating small communities and local businesses. This is the real and terrible impact on Canada's $10 billion softwood lumber industry, 60% of it in B.C., as a result of the new U.S. duties that are blasting our economy.
It is outrageous that the U.S. government will not play by its own rules and ignores that Canada has won three rulings from international tribunals which agree that Canada is not dumping into U.S. markets.
We call again for the federal government to negotiate fair and unrestricted access for softwood lumber entering the U.S. We urge the government again to commit to an income support program for workers hit by this crisis. We need a national solution, not one that allows individual cave-ins by B.C. or any other province.
The NDP urges the government in every possible way to make resolution of this crisis an immediate priority. People's livelihoods depend on it.
* * *
[Translation]
Solange Chaput-Rolland
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, it was with sadness that we learned this morning of the death of Solange Chaput-Rolland at the age of 82.
Despite our differences of opinion with respect to the future of Quebec, Solange Chaput-Rolland always defended what she believed to be in the interests of Quebecers. She made a rich contribution to Quebec society as a politician, a journalist and an artist.
Solange Chaput-Rolland was a journalist and a television commentator. A prolific author, she relied on her extensive political experience to co-write the popular television series Monsieur le ministre.
Solange Chaput-Rolland was, successively, a member of the Pépin-Robarts Commission, an MLA in Robert Bourassa's second government, and a senator in the Parliament of Canada. Her contribution to Quebec society was recognized in 1985, when she was made an officer of the Ordre national du Québec.
On behalf of Bloc Quebecois members, I offer our deepest condolences to the family and friends of Solange Chaput-Rolland
* * *
Canadian Association of Broadcasters
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters has been holding its 75th annual convention in Ottawa for the past few days.
One of the activities of the congress was the awarding of scholarships by a number of private broadcasters, Astral Media, Canwest Global and CTV, to name but a few, along with BBM Bureau of Measurement, to outstanding students in journalism and communications. Nine students in all were selected.
I had the pleasure of presenting the scholarship from BBM Bureau of Measurement to a young woman from Laval, a resident of my riding, named Élise Breault.
Élise attends the École des Hautes Études Commerciales in Montreal. She is 24 years old, and proposes to enrich the Canadian broadcasting industry by examining experiments in other countries.
Well done, Élise and the rest of the winners.
* * *
[English]
Lumber Industry
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, as of yesterday U.S. tariffs on softwood lumber now exceed 30%. As a result, the Canadian forest industry is now paying out $9 million to $10 million every single day. Further job losses are guaranteed.
In the face of these pressure tactics, we need to do the following. First, we must stand firm. We must not cave. We must fight to make sure we get free trade for the Canadian forest industry across this country.
Second, we need to work with our consumer allies in the United States. Americans who want free trade with Canada far outnumber those who want to destroy it.
Most important, the Liberal government has to have the will and the resolve to try to resolve this issue. Right now it has not. When the minister stood yesterday and said that some time next week he may get to Washington, that was not good enough.
Our Prime Minister has to become directly involved. It has been almost six months since the softwood lumber agreement expired. We knew for years that this was coming, yet the government has been content to do nothing.
Be assured that if the government insists on doing nothing, the Canadian forest industry will be left with nothing.
* * *
Rail Industry
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, today, November 1, marks the rail industry's annual day on Parliament Hill.
How many times since September 11 have we said in this House and elsewhere that things have changed? What has not changed is the importance of our rail sector to our national economy.
If we speak directly to the implications for cross-border trade with our American partners, it is clear that border efficiencies will have a significant impact on both our economies.
The economic importance of improvements to allow for the free but secure movement of trains and trucks across the Canada-U.S. border cannot be overstated. The federal government will continue its role in initiatives that facilitate cross-border movements of freight and passengers in all modes.
In the words of Bill Rowat, president and CEO of the Railway Association of Canada, the Canadian rail sector is on track for the future to make an important contribution to Canada's prosperity.
* * *
(1415)
Ground Zero
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this week the foreign affairs department released the names of the 24 Canadian victims of the World Trade Center attacks. The names, the faces, the emerging stories about those people and their loved ones remind us once again of the tragedy of September 11.
I rise in the House to let the families of the men and women who died at ground zero know that we stand alongside them. I rise to let them know that parliamentarians on all sides of the House share their grief. We will remember them.
The Prime Minister has denied a request to hold a national memorial service. It is our hope that the Prime Minister will reconsider this request.
As we remember the grief and loss of September 11, we must also lift up the timeless truths and comforts found in religious faith. Canada is richly blessed with a diversity of spiritual traditions and we welcome this diversity. Let us not ignore it. As a nation we grieve. As a nation let us lay these Canadians to rest.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
National Security
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, at a time when Canadians are losing jobs, the dollar is at an all time low and the United States is worried about our security perimeter and border access, our government should be pursuing a priority of a North American security perimeter. Instead of that, it fights over what it should be called. Even some of its own ministers are saying that they should not be fighting over such silliness.
When will the government stop its silly game of “You say tomato; I say tomato” and get on with negotiating a security perimeter for North America to protect our citizens and Canadian business?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I say that the premise of the hon. member's question is nonsense. In fact, his question is like a squashed tomato because we are having discussions with the United States on better ways of co-operating with respect to our common borders. The Minister of National Revenue is in Washington today to have discussions along these lines.
We take these matters very seriously. We are making progress on them, and this was confirmed by the U.S. ambassador in an interview on television yesterday.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat what the U.S. ambassador, since the minister has raised it. He said that there has to be a sense of urgency about this, that we should not be just talking about these things and that it needs to move ahead and be done within a year.
Will the Prime Minister commit to negotiations and assure our American neighbours that we will implement joint immigration controls, joint screening of airline passengers and common visa policies to protect our perimeter, to protect Canadian trade and to protect our citizens? He should be specific.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are looking at all these matters. Our officials are examining them in co-operation with American officials. We treat these matters with real urgency and we are making real progress.
American officials have said that there is excellent co-operation, and this should be underscored.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
They have been looking for too long, Mr. Speaker, and they are not looking too good.
[Translation]
With a struggling economy and the dollar at an all time low, we need a North American security perimeter.
Does the Prime Minister commit to making a North American security perimeter an immediate priority?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the American ambassador said on Canada AM yesterday:
| Some people have put a spin on this that we want to eliminate the Canada-U.S. border. We have never suggested that. We have no plans to suggest that. We're talking about using technology as an ally on the U.S.-Canada border...some people have tried to spin this out of control. |
If we look at what the American ambassador has said, it is directly in line with our approach, and he has certainly not adopted the fallacious Alliance approach.
(1420)
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the U.S. is really quite serious about this security perimeter. In spite of the infighting, we would like to propose something from the U.S. It asked for a specific proposal: visas from visitors from the Saudi Arabia.
Some of the individuals involved in the tragedy were from Saudi Arabia. Will the government consider visas for visitors from Saudi Arabia and show the U.S. good faith in these negotiations?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, over the last number of days we have repeated on numerous occasions in the House that we are discussing with the Americans a number of issues as they relate both to visas and to greater security.
I want to assure the member opposite that if he or anyone else has good ideas of things we should be talking to the Americans about, I ask them to give us those ideas.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance):
I could give quite a list, Mr. Speaker, and I do not hear any listening.
Visas from Saudi Arabian visitors is one thing. Here is another suggestion coming from the U.S. It would like to share passenger manifest information for individuals visiting from Canada.
I have another question for the government, and it is a constructive suggestion. Will we share passenger information with the U.S.? Yes or no.
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on greater border security for both Canada and the United States, there are a number of issues which are under active discussions with our American neighbours.
I want to quote American Ambassador Cellucci who said it very well. He said:
| This is about working together. And that's exactly what both countries are doing right now. |
He also said:
| But I don't think anyone is saying you have to have exactly the same immigration policies. |
* * *
[Translation]
Softwood Lumber
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the many regions of Canada and Quebec that depend on the forestry industry were already hard hit by the U.S. countervailing duties on softwood lumber.
But yesterday, the United States announced an additional antidumping duty of 12.6%, which further affects business and workers.
To support our regions, will the Prime Minister commit to asking President Bush to respect the spirit of the Free Trade Agreement by suspending all American duties on softwood lumber until the WTO issues its ruling?
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member will know that the Prime Minister has raised this issue with President Bush on several occasions and as recently as at APEC last week in Shanghai.
Our policy is to proceed on a two track approach to this. We have filed at the WTO on October 25, and a series of intensive discussions with American and Canadian officials continues. However the solution to this is very clear and it has been clear all along. The Americans need to live up to the free trade spirit they claim to adhere to.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister may well have spoken to President Bush about this at APEC last week, but this decision was made yesterday at noon, and it is more urgent than ever.
I think that he must make another call, especially since the American allegations have always been rejected. Softwood lumber is not subsidized and the United States is well aware of this. What the Americans are doing is using stalling tactics; meanwhile, our industry is suffering.
Will the Prime Minister tell President Bush that we have had enough of their free trade talk and their protectionist walk? They will have to be consistent, and the Prime Minister needs to set things straight with the U.S. president.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I have seen the hon. member be naive in the House of Commons. However, I am afraid he is if he believes that the president of the United States is not subject to all kinds of pressure in his congress and that we do not have a situation where he needs to work with congress for certain other initiatives which he wants to take. The fact is his administration has been supporting this.
Privately we can get a different message, but publicly it is very clear that our approach has to be to consistently go forward with a two track policy and with a legal approach, if necessary, which we will win again. At the same time, we have to proceed with the discussions we have been having and which continue in Washington--
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Joliette.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the economy of regions in Quebec will be hard hit by the Americans' decisions to impose anti-dumping duties on top of countervailing duties, for a total of 30% . Yesterday, the Minister for International Trade said he was prepared to organize a meeting of the stakeholders at the appropriate time. I hope he got the message from the industry, which is asking him to organize the meeting.
Since the stakeholders in the softwood lumber industry want a meeting immediately to be sure that everyone is working together, does the Minister for International Trade intend to invite everyone to a meeting as soon as possible?
(1425)
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member realizes that the minister and his officials are in daily contact with the stakeholders in this situation. We have tremendous support from the provinces. We have the support of most people in the industry. There are a few nervous nellies in one part of the country, but most of the industry supports the Minister for International Trade. He is showing outstanding leadership in keeping this consensus together and is in daily contact with those people who are affected by this file.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I do not have the impression that the parliamentary secretary reads the same papers or the same press releases we do from industry representatives who are demanding a meeting immediately.
Is it not time for Canada and its American allies to launch a vast advertising campaign in the States to explain to Americans what they are doing to the Canadian industry, their prime trading partner, and to explain to American consumers that it is they who are footing the bill of the protectionist policy of their government and industry?
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague is aware that there have been a number of initiatives taken by this government in the United States through the Canadian embassy, through a trip of the parliamentary subcommittee, which he and I attended, and through visits by the Canadian Parliamentary Association to build support in the United States because they understand that the American consumer is being unfairly hurt by the inefficient practices in the United States.
* * *
Anti-Terrorism Legislation
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, more and more Canadians are joining our call for a sunset clause in Bill C-36, the Canadian bar, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Newspaper Employees' Guild, Canadian Civil Liberties, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, the Special Senate Committee and others.
It is time for the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to send a clear signal that they will support a sunset clause. Will they do that today?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what it is really time for is respect for the work of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It has in fact been working hard. I am going to return to that committee late next week. At that time, the committee and I will engage directly in a discussion around issues surrounding review mechanisms, be it a three year review or other proposals that I am sure members of the committee will put forward.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the justice minister is conveniently ignoring the fact that Bill C-36 is a particular threat to visible minorities and that is why there is a split in this caucus.
If the Prime Minister refuses to listen to Canadians, perhaps he can listen to his colleagues. They are worried about this bill and its potential for abuse. Instead of bullying them, perhaps the Prime Minister could start listening to them.
Why will the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice not act on their advice and commit now to a sunset clause?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, again let me make it absolutely plain that the definition of terrorist activity in this legislation does not target minorities. It does not target religious groups. It targets terrorist activity. It targets terrorist organizations and their supporters, those who would kill, those who would maim and those who would destroy innocent civilians.
* * *
National Security
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Canada has no comprehensive program to manage our borders and to protect the quick and free movement of goods and services within North America.
If Canada continues to wait, the Americans will impose a made in America model for border management.
Will the government propose a binational border management agency, a Canadian initiative that would assert our sovereignty and jointly monitor and manage the movement of goods and people into and out of North America?
(1430)
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, where has the hon. member been the last number of years? Since 1995 we have had with the United States a Canada-U.S. shared border accord.
We have built on that with a Canada-U.S. shared border forum. We are pursuing the discussions based on existing agreements.
My hon. friend has an interesting idea but the world has gone on without him.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, 99% of the individuals and goods crossing the Canada-U.S. border pose no security risk to either country, but long line-ups have prevented expedited transit for these goods and people.
Will the government agree today to dedicate resources and infrastructure to expedite the movement of goods, people and services that do not pose any risk to either country?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have already had announcements from the relevant ministers, in national revenue, immigration and transport, on measures taken to strengthen our security, including our borders.
The real problem is on the American side. We have to be pressing, as our Minister of National Revenue is doing today, the American administration and congressional officials to take the necessary steps on their side of the border so that goods can go freely back and forth in the interests of both our countries.
* * *
Terrorism
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has failed to do anything with the CSIS warnings regarding the 50 organizations and 350 individuals with terrorist links operating here in Canada.
It should now come as no surprise that Canada may have been used as a staging ground for the September 11 attack.
I ask the solicitor general, in the face of mounting evidence will he finally admit that there may have been or there still are groups or individuals here in Canada that assisted those responsible for the atrocities in the United States?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague is asking me is there any connection, direct link, between any Canadian and what took place in New York on September 11, at this time there is no direct link.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, police have arrested another man suspected of supplying fake documents that ended up in the hands of one of the hijackers of flight 93. The list of suspects apprehended in Canada and abroad with ties to Canada continues to grow. Yet the solicitor general refuses to admit that there may be a Canadian connection to the September 11 attack.
Now that the minister is openly sharing information, will he finally admit that documents forged in Canada were used by terrorists in the September 11 attack?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is discussing the biggest investigation that ever took place in this world. I am sure and I know that he would not want me to divulge any sensitive information that would affect that investigation. I will not.
* * *
[Translation]
Employment Insurance
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, there will be a lot of jobs lost in the area of softwood lumber and related areas in Quebec regions, which have already been hit hard by high unemployment.
Since the huge cuts by the government, the employment insurance program no longer offers sufficient protection to workers in the hard hit regions.
Could the Minister of Human Resources Development not have some feeling for the workers who are going to lose their jobs and reverse her decision to shelve the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, which proposed reasonable, specific and realistic solutions?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would note that we are concerned about the potential impact of the recent decision in the softwood lumber question and the impact it may have on workers in this sector. We are fortunate in Canada that we have an employment insurance system that is strong and flexible and is there to help Canadians who find themselves without employment.
We anticipate that the majority of Canadians working in the softwood lumber sector will be eligible for employment insurance should they need it.
(1435)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the minister has the solution in her hands. The North Shore, the lower St. Lawrence, the Gaspé, the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and other regions have an unemployment rate of some 15%. They are the regions that will be hit most by the American decisions on softwood lumber.
After taking billions of dollars from the employment insurance fund to pay for the government's deficit, will the minister not admit that she should now draw a little money from the fund for those who have lost or will lose their job in the coming weeks? It is a matter of dignity as well as justice.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that in addition to income supports we transferred to the government of Quebec almost half a billion dollars for it to use specifically in circumstances like this to help deal with challenges region by region.
I would also note that the hon. member has in his own hands an opportunity to participate with us in communities in Quebec that are faced with challenges in the area of seasonal work. As I did at committee, I would encourage him to work with us to find local solutions to these local problems.
* * *
Terrorism
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Samir Mohamed is a friend and partner of Ahmed Ressam and a known criminal involved in terrorist activities. He entered Canada in October 1997 on a visitor's visa and, guess what, two weeks later he applied for refugee status. This claim was denied.
I would like to ask the minister, why is he still here in Canada after having his claim denied in 1997?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, recently the leader of the official opposition has been making requests that all refugee claimants who arrive in Canada without proper documentation be detained and actually jailed.
I see members applauding that suggestion.
I would also point out to him and to members of his party that since September 11 he has been advocating that we allow a failed refugee claimant to stay in Canada and he arrived even before 1997. I want to know from the Leader of the Opposition, does he want us to put him in jail or does he want us to allow a stay of deportation?
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, what was that? I do not know what that was about. I am not the Leader of the Opposition.
I want to talk a bit about the bumbling over there. Now I have found out that Samir Mohamed was given yet another refugee hearing this past September. According to a transcript of United States evidence, over the last four years he has been raising money in Canada for terrorist activities through guns, credit card fraud and robbery.
What does it take for this government to refuse an individual--
The Speaker:
The hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that privacy legislation does not allow me to give details of individual cases, but what I can point out to him is that they want to have it both ways. They want to suggest that we put in jail and detain all undocumented refugees, and even when those claimants have failed they then make representations to allow them to stay.
I would like to know how that party can justify both positions. I would like to know what its position is today. Is it to put him in jail or let him stay?
* * *
[Translation]
Foreign Affairs
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs met with the prime minister of Israel. Today he will be meeting with the Palestinian Authority, if he has not done so already.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that Canada's objective is to get Israel to recognize the Palestinians' right to a viable state and withdraw from the occupied territories, and to get the Palestinian Authority to recognize the state of Israel's right to exist and have its security respected?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the minister's goal is to encourage both parties to return to the negotiating table and end the violence, particularly against civilians, in Israel and elsewhere. I hope his efforts will be successful.
(1440)
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, given the sharp rise in violence in the Middle East and the importance of peace for the situation around the world, can the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, like many others, including his French counterpart, will urge the parties to enter into negotiations without prior conditions?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has encouraged negotiations. He will continue to negotiate and I hope that there will be a return to the negotiating table and that peace will be restored in the Middle East.
* * *
[English]
Immigration
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, when the opposition calls upon the minister of immigration to protect our refugee system by taking firm measures against those who abuse the generosity of Canadians, she denies the system has failed or, like today, simply hides information.
Now the department's own figures demonstrate that the number of claimants is out of control, with at least double the anticipated numbers. Why will the minister not put the necessary legislation and resources in place to protect legitimate refugees and weed out those who would criminally abuse our system?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am the first person to acknowledge the fact that changes need to be made in the existing refugee determination system. That is why we brought in the bill, which has just been passed in the Senate, I am pleased to say, even though the members opposite did not support it.
I think that the streamlining of the procedure will do exactly what the member opposite is asking for. However, I would repeat again that on one hand they are asking us to take one policy objective while they are making representations quietly for the exact opposite policy objective. I think that inconsistency should be brought to their attention and to the attention--
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Provencher.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this minister when she has no answers simply name calls or hides information. She continues to ignore the need for an effective refugee determination system. Her neglect has resulted in unprecedented abuse of our system by bogus refugees and criminals. Even today she has rejected effective proposals. Why has she placed--
The Speaker:
The hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, he is doing it again. I hear him equating refugees and criminals. Nothing could be further from the truth.
There are over 23 million people around the world in a refugee situation, fleeing persecution. Canadians are proud of their humanitarian and compassionate response. We are not going to allow the official opposition, nor are we going to allow terrorists, to deter us from our humanitarian obligations to welcome those in genuine need of our protection.
* * *
Finance
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions.
Canada will soon be hosting the G-20 meeting. Would the secretary of state please tell the House what is expected as a result of this meeting and specifically why financial global governance is important to Canadians today?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as members know, the G-20 consists of 20 countries comprising 87% of the world's GDP, 65% of the world's population and 60% of the world's poor. Chaired by the hon. Minister of Finance, the best finance minister in the world, this forum will be looking at the issues--
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Regina--Qu'Appelle.
* * *
(1445)
The Economy
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister with the new hairstyle.
The Canadian dollar has now hit an all time low, trading a few minutes ago at less than 64¢ compared to the U.S. dollar. Over the 10 years the Canadian dollar has lost 30% of its value compared to the U.S. dollar.
I want to ask a specific question of the minister. How low does the Canadian dollar have to go before the minister will instruct the Governor of the Bank of Canada to intervene in the financial markets to halt the erosion of the Canadian dollar? How low does it have to go before he will do that?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let us look at what Canada has already done. We have brought in the largest tax cut in the history of our nation. Our interest rates are the lowest that they have been in 40 years. We have paid down more than $35 billion of debt and at the same time have made major new investments in health care, education, research and innovation.
Our obligation as a government is to get our economic fundamentals right. That is what we have done and that is what we will continue to do.
* * *
Canada Post
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I will try another minister. My question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post.
United Parcel Service is suing Canada under chapter 11 of NAFTA to try to put Canada Post out of the courier business. Both CUPW and the Council of Canadians have just been denied standing at this tribunal, with the Canadian government lining up with UPS to block them.
Why is the Liberal government siding with UPS to keep Canadian workers and the Canadian public out of the secret NAFTA tribunal hearing on the future of public postal services in Canada?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are, as a government with Canada Post, fighting this decision before the Canadian international trade tribunal and we will continue to fight it. We are working with all the partners. When it comes to the trial, Canada Post and the Government of Canada will definitely be there.
* * *
National Security
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, it appears that the only economic policy consistently followed by the government is its dubious plan to drive the Canadian dollar to record lows in the hopes of promoting Canadian exports, yet Canadian exporters are saying that problems at the borders are putting the industry at risk. They warn that the government still has no concrete plans in place to address the problem.
Will the government commit today to the creation of a new ministry to co-ordinate public protection and improve border management for our exporters and for Canadian people?
Ms. Sophia Leung (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member is not well informed. We have just passed Bill S-23. We already are implementing modernizations to our customs system. In the meantime, the member should know that we are implementing some of the new technologies that will tighten up the borders without any problems.
* * *
The Economy
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, when questioned about the record low Canadian dollar, the finance minister consistently responds that it is not his fault, that all currencies are doing badly compared to the U.S., yet in the last three years the Canadian dollar has fallen 5%. Over the same period of time the Mexican peso has gained 10%. Since September 11 the peso has gained 2.5% while the Canadian dollar has lost a point and a half.
If Canadian fundamentals are as strong as the minister likes to say, why is the Mexican peso doing so much better than the Canadian dollar?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not have to accept just my word that the government has been getting its economic fundamentals right. I refer him to the world economic forum which just a couple of weeks ago published its most recent report. Canada has moved from seventh to third in terms of global competitiveness.
* * *
National Defence
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the defence minister said that we had thousands of sailors for future rotations and that we had no problems.
The facts are that even before this latest commitment he closed down ships due to lack of personnel. He mothballed one of our four destroyers due to lack of sailors. He put 7 of our 12 frigates on a lower state of readiness due to lack of sailors. Where are we going to get the people trained, ready and rested to meet future rotations?
(1450)
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what he said yesterday was nonsense and it is nonsense today. Or, as his leader says, tomato or tomato, it is the same thing.
We have over 2,000 troops involved in the campaign against terrorism, many of whom are navy. We do have people back here who will both serve to protect our country and who will also relieve the people we sent overseas from their service after a period of time.
We will continue to honour our commitment. We are going up in terms of recruitment at this point in time. We are getting additional people into all three armed services.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, either the minister does not understand the problem or he just does not care about our men and women in the forces.
In May of this year, before we had committed the 2,000 people to this latest cause, the war on terrorism, Admiral Maddison, head of the navy, said “At the moment, I'm about 400 people short. Almost all of those are technicians, highly skilled”.
The CISS and the CDA report that the navy is already robbing technical staff from the army and the army is short as well.
How can the minister be so out of touch with the military when it is his area of responsibility?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, now he has given up on tomato and tomato and he is into apples and oranges but he is very out of date with all his information.
We have been going through a recruitment plan which has been quite successful in getting initial people. We are also offering incentives and bonuses to bring in people in certain trades and occupations in the military in which we have been short.
Yes, we have joint efforts. The army, navy and air force do co-operate together and they have for years. Where has the hon. member been? It makes sense to better serve Canada by training our forces to do the best they can to fight terrorism.
* * *
[Translation]
Anti-Terrorism Legislation
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, a unanimous Senate report recommends what the Bloc Quebecois has suggested right from the start: a sunset clause for the anti-terrorism bill.
Wil the minister at least recognize that the Bloc Quebec and the Senate are right, as were the many intervenors who all suggested in their recommendations that sunset clauses are absolutely necessary?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. It is one we have heard in the House on a number of occasions but I am afraid my answer is the same.
I understand the concern in and around the appropriate review mechanisms. I know the House committee is working very hard on the matter. I will be reappearing before that committee in the next week to 10 days. I know that at that time the committee and I will engage in a useful discussion about the whole area of review mechanisms and what may and may not be possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the minister has heard the same question many times but we have never had a reply. We realize the minister has reservations, as does the Prime Minister moreover.
Is the minister prepared to bow to the numerous opinions and recommendations from the Canadian Bar Association, the Barreau du Québec, the Canadian Lawyers Association, the Association des avocats et criminalistes and the Canadian Council of Civil Defence Lawyers, and include sunset clauses in the anti-terrorism legislation?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we are indeed listening. I look forward to my reappearance before the House committee where I know I will engage in a fulsome and vigorous debate with members of that committee.
* * *
The Economy
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian dollar has dropped to 62.74¢ as we speak, another all time low. That means it costs $1.60 Canadian to buy $1 U.S.
Could the fact that the Liberal loonie has lost 25% of its value since this government came to power have anything to do with the fact that we have the highest income taxes in the G-7, the second highest level of indebtedness in the G-7 and that our productivity under this government has grown half as quickly as in the United States?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely not true. Canada in terms of the G-7 is in the middle band in terms of its overall tax cuts.
We made record tax cuts of $100 billion over five years. We cut corporate taxes so that we will have corporate taxes in Canada that are about 30% compared to 36% in Michigan, 40% in New York and 41% in California. These are some of the things we have done to make sure Canada has a very competitive tax environment.
(1455)
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, according to KPMG, Canada has the highest corporate tax rates in the OECD. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce said “the 1990s will always stand out as the poorest decade in terms of productivity since the 1930s”.
When will the government finally take responsibility for the lame Liberal loonie which is making Canadians poorer, imports more expensive and causing our standard of living to deteriorate year by year?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is the hon. member whose program for strengthening the economy was to accelerate our tax cuts by two months. A year ago we accelerated them by three full years. Even his lame-brained suggestion was rejected by the Canadian Payroll Association as being administratively impossible.
The member calls for added stimulus. If it were in significant amounts it would drive us into deficit, and that would be fully irresponsible.
* * *
[Translation]
Indian Affairs
Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan (Québec East, Lib. Ind.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Consultations began across Canada with the public and the leaders of the first nations on April 30 in the context of the measure known as “Communities First: First Nation Governance”.
The aim of this measure is to examine the basic principles of the government of the first nations on the reserves, a matter that has not been reviewed since the Indian Act was passed 125 years ago.
Could the minister tell us whether the consultations on first nations governance have concluded and what the next stages are?
[English]
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne the Government of Canada put forward a governance initiative, building better governance tools for first nations people.
Over the last number of months since April we have consulted with over 400 first nations communities and their organizations. That consultation just concluded here at the end of October. We look forward to the next phase of consultation putting forward modern governance tools to bring an economy to first nations citizens.
* * *
Religious Organizations
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has demanded that Canada's churches sign over their buildings. The reason is that they want a mortgage on the churches in exchange for financial assistance in paying for the residential school lawsuits.
What will the Deputy Prime Minister do with these church buildings once he forecloses?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is totally wrong. We have not demanded mortgages on church buildings. The allegations on the part of Mr. Smith as reported in the National Post are totally without foundation.
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister seems to be taking his cue from Henry VIII, Robespierre and Lenin. It does nothing to help the victims of residential schools to make victims out of Canadian churches.
Why should Canadian churches be asked to mortgage their beliefs to pay for the government's past mistakes?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, instead of reading her already prepared question based on a false premise, she should have listened to my answer. I said that we were not seeking mortgages on church buildings. Instead we are seeking to work with churches to provide fair compensation to victims of abuse in Indian residential schools.
I do not know why my hon. friend is unwilling to get back to the priority of helping victims of abuse in residential schools. That is what we should be concentrating on, not false allegations, misusing the House.
* * *
[Translation]
St. Hubert Technobase
Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, Ind. BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of National Revenue said that the St. Hubert Technobase have been studied by an independent firm, which recommended the minister continue.
We learn that the Technobase investment fund is technically bankrupt and that, despite what the minister says, it is not such a good thing. We are entitled to know where the million dollars went.
My question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Given the way the million dollar fund was managed, why is the Minister of National Revenue not investigating the administration of the Technobase?
(1500)
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member's game is obvious. Mr. Olivier is running in the municipal elections, and the Bloc Quebecois is now involved in municipal politics. It is very clear.
In fact, the Technobase created 600 jobs. The government thinks this is a very positive thing for Canada.
* * *
[English]
National Defence
Hon. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Two weeks ago the permanent joint board of defence held its 208th meeting in Ottawa to discuss continental security.
Could the defence minister explain the nature of this important Canada-U.S. institution and brief the House as to what was accomplished at that meeting?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the permanent joint board of defence is the senior bilateral advisory group between Canada and the United States on continental defence matters. It reports directly to the Prime Minister of Canada and to the president of the United States.
The board existed since the second world war. It is not a policy setting device but it is an opportunity for broad ranging discussion on defence and security issues. It has both military and civilian personnel. It is co-chaired by someone from each side of the border. The member of parliament for Brossard--La Prairie ably represents Canada on the board. It recently had discussions about September 11 and its fallout, which of course is the current issue.
* * *
Presence in Gallery
The Speaker:
I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of six recipients of the 2001 Governor General's Performing Arts Awards. I ask all hon. members to refrain from their applause until I have introduced all six.
The four recipients of the Governor General's Performing Arts Awards for lifetime artistic achievement are Mario Bernardi, Max Ferguson, Christopher Plummer and Anne Claire Poirier.
[Translation]
The winner of the Ramon John Hnatyshyn Award for Voluntarism in the Performing Arts is Thea Borlase.
[English]
The recipient of the National Arts Centre Award is Édouard Lock and La La La Human Steps.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I invite all hon. members to join me and the winners of these awards in room 216 for refreshments in a few minutes time.
* * *
Business of the House
[Business of the House]
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader if he could advise the House of the business for the rest of this week and for next week, leading up to the Remembrance Day break.
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the House leader of the official opposition for the question. This afternoon we will continue the prebudget debate that we commenced this morning.
Tomorrow we will deal with the miscellaneous statute law amendment bill introduced earlier today. I understand there is some agreement pursuant to the usual process of passing the bill at all stages. We will then consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-33, the Nunavut bill.
I wish to advise the House that there will be a royal assent later this afternoon on Bill C-11.
Next week we will debate Bill C-39, the Yukon bill. That will be followed by report stage and third reading of Bill C-10, the marine parks bill. When this is completed we will turn to Bill S-31, respecting a number of international tax treaties. If and when Bill C-35 is reported from committee we will turn to its report stage and third reading.
I would like to report to the House that if we have time next week I will be prepared to entertain a second day of prebudget debate or consultation.
I understand that some members will be producing a motion to defer a debate until next week. I am awaiting that process.
I also wish to inform the House that there is ongoing consultation among House leaders, although not quite complete, about having a take note debate next week, possibly on the issue of the World Trade Organization and international trade generally. Those consultations are not yet complete.
(1505)
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien:
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. This morning, at the request of a member of the Bloc Quebecois, you authorized an emergency debate this evening.
However, if you seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent of the House to defer that debate until next Tuesday evening, with a view to accommodating all parties and enabling everyone to attend, including for instance the minister, the critics concerned, and the MPs directly affected by this matter.
So, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent of the House to proceed with the debate on Tuesday next, rather than this evening.
The Speaker:
Is there unanimous consent to defer this evening's debate until Tuesday evening?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie:
Mr. Speaker, if it has been denied there is no point in my speaking. I wanted to speak before you sought unanimous consent of the House. However I heard somebody say no so it is a moot point.
Mr. Jay Hill:
Mr. Speaker, I denied consent at this point in time because I believe we can still have some negotiations. The coalition would agree to moving tonight's debate to Tuesday. However we would not want any time limit. We would want the debate to continue on autopilot until no member rises in his or her place. We would be in agreement as long as that is the agreement for the debate on Tuesday night.
Mr. Bill Blaikie:
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to negotiate on the floor of the House. Our party had a concern with respect to the request to move the emergency debate from Thursday to Tuesday. If it is an emergency I do not know why we should not be having it tonight. We need to be careful what we ask for because we might get it. That is what we learn from these things.
We wanted to have a take note debate on the WTO. There is a big meeting of the WTO at the end of next week. Unless we can be guaranteed or unless we have agreement that we will have a take note debate on the WTO, we cannot agree to sabotage that in order to move an emergency debate from one week to another.
The Speaker:
Might I suggest that negotiations continue on this point. When that happens I am sure the House leaders will come back to the House with wondrous proposals.
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[The Royal Assent]
* * *
[English]
The Speaker:
I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
| I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Jack Major, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 1st day of November, 2001 at 4.30 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills. |
| Deputy Secretary, Policy, Program and Protocol |
* * *
(1510)
Privilege
Access to Information
[Privilege]
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I realize you have important guests so I will try to be brief on my question of privilege. Opinion is divided on whether or not this is a question of privilege. I am told by some that it is and some that it is not. It is however an important matter to bring to the attention of the House as it pertains to the right or opportunity of ordinary MPs to have access to government officials.
It is something that has arisen in exceptional circumstances. We will need your decision on whether it is a question of privilege, or even has the aura of a question of privilege, to decide whether or not it should be considered.
I will remind everyone that in the House we are a company of equals. When I stand or sit at my place I am exactly equal to the Prime Minister in his place. Every colleague is equal to every other colleague, be they ministers, parliamentary secretaries, members of the opposition or otherwise.That is why all our desks are exactly the same.
That is why, I might add, Mr. Speaker, you sit in an elevated chair, not because you lord it over us but because you are our servant. You are the one who makes sure that we do act as equals in the Chamber and indeed on Parliament Hill because as members of parliament we serve the public equally. We do many things by common consent. We decide who is the government. We set up rules in the House. Everything functions in the House by common consent.
I have an instance that appears to be outside the rules of parliament. No rules exist to cover the situation that occurred to me as an individual MP. I am referring to attempts last June by a group of members of parliament to set up a special committee to examine an issue of immense public interest.
The special circumstance was that it was summer and the House was not sitting. We thought we had a deadline. We wanted to present a report before a bureaucratic task force that existed on the Access to Information Act. We thought it was very important that we do this as soon as possible during the summer months.
Part of our plan was to receive briefings from government officials. We sought out those government officials and we had a work plan. We lined them up and many of them agreed to appear before our group.
We were going to hold meetings for the record in the open on Parliament Hill with all the attention to detail of a normal standing committee. However, and this is so important, we were not a standing committee. We were a group of MPs from all sides of the House who were not part of government and who were concerned about an important public issue.
To our surprise, the government suddenly ordered the officials we had lined up not to appear before our committee. The order extended not only to the government officials that we lined up but also to officials from crown corporations. It was every official in government. We had also hoped to talk to some very junior people with respect to access to information.
The issue is not the reason why the government decided to do this. We recognize that the government has certain powers that we by common consent give to it. One of those powers is the right to determine when public officials appear before members of parliament.
What is different in this particular case is that a situation occurred where backbench members of parliament were not carrying out ordinary business. They were carrying out exceptional business, in the sense that the law we were looking at was a law that was quasi-constitutional and affected all members of parliament. Ironically there is a direct analogy with Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation that is before the House because this is a piece of legislation that affects civil liberties. Consequently it affects all members of parliament.
(1515)
There are situations which occur in which backbench members of parliament or ordinary members of parliament, if you will, might find an absolute necessity to receive briefings from government officials. This is not trivial. It is not as though this was just a casual incident where a group of MPs wanted a briefing from government officials. I think we would all agree that the government would be correct in determining when and where it was appropriate to do this. This was an exceptional circumstance. The government said no and the officials were unable to come.
Mr. Speaker, the guidance I seek from you is that I think there are exceptional circumstances where members of parliament are acting in the most absolute interest of the public, in which the government needs some guidance from parliament, some guidance where it recognizes there are exceptional instances where there should be some sort of mechanism whereby the MPs who are seeking these briefings from officials, briefings in public I might add, can go to perhaps you, Mr. Speaker and say “Mr. Speaker, this is an exceptional circumstance. Will you advise the government on whether this is an appropriate request?”
Mr. Speaker, what I am asking is if you feel that I as an individual have had my work compromised as a result of this decision of the government.
I have before me the report of this committee of MPs who were studying the Access to Information Act which was presented to the public today. It is entitled “A Call for Openness”. It is an excellent effort on the part of backbench MPs to examine a very important issue. Mr. Speaker, I regret to tell you that although I think it is an excellent report, it is less than what it could have been because we were unable to receive briefings from public officials whom we had asked to appear and had no opportunity to question them.
It seems to me that this strikes to the very heart of the privileges of a member of parliament. Whether we are prime minister or backbench MP, when we set out to examine a policy issue that is in the deep public interest, we must have access to the officials whom we need to have access to. It cannot be left absolutely to the government to decide that issue. I am not saying that on a day to day rhythm of things that the government should not have this say, but there are exceptional instances and I believe this report “A Call for Openness” is an exceptional instance.
This report contains 11 recommendations. It is a clarion call for more transparency on the part of government. I have to say that it is a unanimous report by 12 backbench MPs covering most of the major parties. The contribution was entirely non-partisan. I want to particularly mention the Bloc MPs, the member for Saint-Jean and the member for Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, who made a particular contribution that we all applauded. So, Mr. Speaker, I do not want you to think that this was not an entirely joint effort.
I do not know what the answer is. I think the government acted the way it thought it should act. I think it was perhaps afraid that if backbench MPs can call government officials, that this might happen all the time. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, it would happen only rarely. I think every one of us on the committee still believes in partisan politics. We were no less members of our parties because we were acting in a non-partisan way. It was a very fine example of the kind of co-operation that can occur in the House.
(1520)
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to consider my remarks. What I would like to do is that if you feel that there is a prima facie case for a breach of privilege here, I would like to suggest that I would move a motion that the matter be referred to the appropriate committee of the House to give guidelines to the government on how to deal with these very exceptional instances where backbench MPs might feel they have to gather in a non-partisan manner, and I mean non-government MPs, to consider a major issue. Mr. Speaker, I do thank you.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot. He seems to recognize this is not a question of privilege. On that point I must agree with him.
Mr. Speaker, I refer to page 71 of Marleau and Montpetit where it states:
| The rights, privileges and immunities of individual Members of the House are finite, that is to say, they can be enumerated but not extended except by statute or, in some cases, by constitutional amendment, and can be examined by the courts. Moreover, privilege does not exist “at large” but applies only in context, which usually means within the confines of the parliamentary precinct and a “proceeding in Parliament”. |
Those are the key words because the group about which my hon. colleague has spoken was not a committee of the House. That is the essential important point and therefore no parliamentary privilege is involved in this case.
Privilege is strictly ancillary in nature. Members of parliament do not have any privileges per se except insofar as it relates to parliamentary proceedings which this was not.
The hon. member claims that the government denied him briefings. This is not accurate. In fact he was told that officials would be available to brief these members of parliament in private. However, I understand the member insisted that it would have to be in public, that is, that the meetings were going to be held in public.
A public meeting is not a briefing and the hon. member was told that. I want to read from a letter that was sent by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to the hon. member on August 9. It has an introduction and then it goes on:
| My colleagues and I must, however, repeat the view, which we have maintained for two months, that officials should not meet with your group, which, although meeting in public, is not a committee of the House of Commons and, therefore, cannot offer persons who meet with it any of the protections offered by the rules, privileges and immunities of the House. In addition, as we have stated previously, there are cases now in litigation that could be affected by such proceedings. |
| I should also point out that the same officials who you would seek to have appear before your group are, in the course of their duties, participating in the work of the Task Force on Access to Information announced by the responsible Ministers. We would not want their contributions to the Task Force to be compromised in any way by any confusion or misunderstanding that could well arise from anything they may say to your group, which may, of course, be interpreted wrongly or taken out of context, especially by the media. |
| It is important to note that, once the Task Force has reported and the Government has developed policies based on the report, Parliament and its Members will have a complete opportunity to examine the matter before such policies are put in place. At that time, the appropriate Standing Committee of the House of Commons will be fully empowered to study those proposed policies, whether in the course of considering proposed legislation or through undertaking a study pursuant to Standing Order 108. In those circumstances, Ministers and officials would, naturally, co-operate fully with the Standing Committee. |
| It is our view that the review of the Access to Information legislation in an ad hoc fashion would be incomplete and unsatisfactory. This very important task ought to be undertaken in an orderly and rational process, fully regulated by the rules of Parliament, and it is our intention to proceed in this manner. |
Another letter was sent to the hon. member on August 17 providing information with regard to the question of cabinet confidences, the application of solicitor-client privilege and so forth and enclosing background documentation on cabinet confidences.
Mr. Speaker has previously insisted numerous times that questions of privilege, if this were one which it clearly is not, must be raised at the earliest opportunity. It is clear that has not happened here, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask you to rule in that regard. I have numerous other references from Marleau and Montpetit that I could refer to but I understand you are pressed for time and I now conclude.
(1525)
The Speaker:
The Chair wants to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader for his remarks and the hon. member for Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot for raising this matter.
I am inclined to say that the matter was raised at the earliest possible time, given the hon. member deliberately waited until his report was ready so that as it were, his question of privilege had grown into full blossom by the time he brought it to the attention of the House.
Having raised the question and suggested that it was a question of privilege, I have to say that in my view the matter is not a question of privilege.
The member who raised this issue is an experienced member. I think he is well aware that members do have certain privileges but I do not believe that any one of us has the right to call before us a government official and insist on answers to questions. That is in effect what he is saying because by his own admission in the course of his remarks, he stated that the committee that he was chairing was an ad hoc caucus of members. It clearly was not a committee of this House. Had he wished to have a committee in place, he could have introduced a motion under private members' business to establish a committee for the very purpose of studying the materials and issues that his ad hoc group in fact studied.
Had he done so, I have no doubt that the motion establishing the committee would have empowered the committee in accordance with Standing Order 108(1) to send for persons, papers and records. That great power that our committees have would have enabled his committee to summon these officials, whether or not the government House leader said they were to appear, because had they failed to appear, the committee could have reported the matter to the House. Of course the House could then have summoned the individuals to appear at the bar of the House for chastisement for a contempt of parliament.
An hon. member: Caning.
The Speaker: An hon. member suggests caning but that has not been in our lexicon of punishments. However, there is the fact that people can be called to the bar of the House and chastised for contempt.
Of course the ad hoc group had no such powers and so it was perfectly legitimate in my opinion for some to say, “No, you may not appear”, and for people to refuse to appear either on instructions or because they themselves chose not to appear, because the ad hoc group had no power to compel attendance.
In the circumstances, I am unable to find there was any breach of the hon. member's privileges. I would urge him in future to look to the other options that are available to him and to all hon. members in asserting their claims, by going through the proper channel of a parliamentary committee with all the wondrous powers that each of those committees enjoys.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. Obviously there is a conflict among government members on this particular issue. You have ruled, Mr. Speaker. We acknowledge and accept that ruling. I am wondering if there might be a way to compromise in good faith among members of all parties.
I was a member of the ad hoc committee. We did good work together. The member for Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot did a good job.
I am wondering if we might be able to receive this report in a formal way and have it tabled here. I would ask for consent that we be allowed to do that because there are many good recommendations that we came up with as a committee.
The Speaker:
The hon. member has asked for consent to table the report of this group. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
Business of the House
[Business of the House]
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Pursuant to your excellent advice, there have been further consultations among House leaders on issues that were before the House earlier this day. I believe if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following. I move:
|
|
That, the emergency debate ordered for later this day be deferred until Tuesday, November 6, provided that during the said debate, the Chair shall not receive any dilatory motions, quorum calls or requests for unanimous consent, and when no member rises to speak, the House shall adjourn until the next sitting day; and |
| That, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1 a debate shall be held at the conclusion of government orders on Monday November 5 to consider a motion that this House take note of the upcoming WTO meeting in Doha, Qatar. |
(1530)
The Speaker:
Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Prebudget Consultations
The House resumed consideration of the motion, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on this take note motion with respect to the budget. As my esteemed colleague, the hon. Leader of the Opposition pointed out in his remarks this morning, this budget has been far too long in coming.
In fact the budget date still has not been formally announced. The finance minister still has not come before this place to give us a date. All we have is a vague commitment that it will happen before the House rises before Christmas. However, if it is some time near the adjournment of the House that means that we will have waited some 650 plus days since the previous budget to finally get something approximating an accounting of the nation's finances from the hon. Minister of Finance. This is a complete contravention of the convention in this place and in every other Westminster style parliament.
Parliament came into being and exists as the voice of the commons to provide a check and a balance to the power of the crown, the power of the executive and particularly its huge power of the purse. The annual presentation of the budget and the estimates is historically the central legal role of parliament, yet it is a role which, like so many other traditions, conventions and privileges in this place, has been incrementally derogated by the government over time.
I see my friend the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, who says in public debates that this is a moot point, that it is not relevant when the budget is. It may not be for academics or wealthy big bank economists in their towers with gold leaf windows on Bay Street, but it is important to those of us who understand the purpose of this institution, namely, to provide a check and balance to the otherwise unchecked and unbalanced exercise of executive power and particularly its awesome power in matters of money.
I hope all members will join me in saying that it is about time and we hope that never again will Canadians have to wait for two years to finally see the state of their government's finances, not the minister's budget, but the budget of this country and this federation.
It is even more unfortunate that the finance minister has waited until the onset of a recession, a time of war, this moment of crisis, to introduce such a budget. He ought not to have waited. I stood in this place last spring, as did other colleagues, warning about the real, credible possibility of a downturn. I was then looking at the economic data and projections and it seemed evident to me, based on cycles in the economy, the situation in other jurisdictions and softening demand here in Canada, that there was a very good chance of us moving into recession.
I asked these questions last spring. I asked why the finance minister would not introduce a budget that would stimulate the economy to protect us from a potential downturn. He said then much what Michael Wilson and Don Mazankowski said when they sat in the ministry of finance in the early 1990's. They said “Don't worry, be happy, there's no recession, don't scaremonger, don't be a Chicken Little”. Just trust us, they said, the economy will continue to grow.
In fact it was only four years ago that the Minister of Finance told us that we had finally learned to beat the business cycle, that the future in Canada was one of endless, gold paved streets. We were just going to see growth endlessly as long as he was Minister of Finance, he implied.
(1535)
We see now how wrong he was four years ago and how wrong he was four or five months ago when he refused to take action to prevent a downturn. Now we find ourselves in the middle of a recession. In the second quarter of this year the GDP growth in the country screeched to a halt. Unemployment began to tick up. Of course we have not yet received complete data from September but there is no doubt in anyone's mind that with negative growth in July and in September we will have a contraction in the economy in the third quarter. There is very little doubt in anyone's mind that it will follow through to the fourth quarter of this year.
That equals, technically and in every other sense, a recession, a Liberal recession, a recession that the Liberals have denied. It has happened. There is a recession which they still deny exists. It is here and it presents us with some very serious challenges.
I know it is tempting for members of the government to suggest that the Liberal recession is simply the fault of the tragic events of September 11. It would be factually inaccurate and politically insensitive to make such an argument, because as I have outlined, negative growth was well underway in the country prior to the events of September 11. Undoubtedly that day and its political and economic consequences have deepened the downturn here and abroad and made a difficult situation even more complex, but let us not let the government off the hook in terms of it taking the lion's share of the responsibility for the economic consequences of its policies.
It is very interesting. The finance minister, during the several years of growth we are just coming out of, was very quick to take full credit for any growth in the Canadian economy even though about three-quarters of that growth was driven by exports to the United States, which had been on the rise thanks in large part to free trade, a policy with which he was not associated. Those exports also were being fuelled by the depressed value of our currency, hence the lower cost of exports.
He had a bit of a free ride through the 1990s in terms of economic growth, but he still took credit for the easy ride. Now suddenly when the road gets bumpy he cannot take any responsibility for the government simply being adrift on an ocean of economic tides beyond its control. I do not buy it. He needs to be consistent. If he wants to take any share of the credit for the expansion in the 1990s, then he and his government must take their share of the blame for the downturn in which we now find ourselves and which has a very real, human cost. A recession is not just some statistical accumulation of data that economists look at. A recession is a period when real people suffer real economic harm in their lives through layoffs and uncertainty. We see this with thousands of layoff announcements every month, and in fact every week, in the country.
How is it that the government has contributed to the conditions of a recession which the finance minister must now address in his budget? It has done so by missing an enormous opportunity to finally get Canada's economic fundamentals right. As they say in the west, make hay while the sun shines. We ought to have been making economic hay in the country when we had a period of growth for eight years in the 1990s. We ought to have been moving quickly to deeply reduce our national tax burden and to structurally reform our tax system.
(1540)
I see my hon. colleague, the member for Toronto--Danforth, a lonely voice for economic common sense in the Liberal caucus and for a single rate tax. His has been one lonely voice for tax reform and broad based tax relief.