2002-02-08

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from February 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on December 10, 2001, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate today regarding Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled on December 10, 2001.
This wide ranging legislation includes measures to legislate in the following areas. It implements the Canadian air transport security authority which will deliver improved security at airports and on board flights. It implements the $24 round trip domestic air travellers security charge announced in the budget, which of course is discriminatory, toward short haul airlines and flyers two to three times higher than charged in the United States.
The act also amends the Employment Insurance Act and its regulations. These amendments provide increased flexibility to parents whose newborns are hospitalized for an extended period of time and clarify employment protection. There are no new benefits per se provided for in the bill. This issue addressed in these amendments affect approximately 7,000 women and 2,000 children, while the total cost of implementing these changes is estimated to be about $20 million to $25 million for next year.
The act also implements the income tax amendments. The purpose of the amendments is to push revenues into the following fiscal year when a budget deficit is more likely. The most visible amendment is the provision to defer certain income tax instalments for January, February and March for six months. This measure is accounting trickery and really has only marginal benefits for business, perhaps $50 million in total.
However that is not new.The government has been seriously criticized by the auditor general in the past for disregarding the generally accepted accounting principles to balance the books. It has front loaded and back loaded the expenses and revenues respectively to make it convenient for the government to balance the budget. For instance, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation was not even in existence but the funds for operations were included in the budget.
The act also provides for the new $500 million Africa fund to reduce poverty, provide primary education and set Africa on a sustainable path for a brighter future. This fund is without clear direction or a mandate nor does it have a control mechanism in place. Rather than logically putting it with CIDA, a government official was quoted as saying that the Prime Minister will make that decision.
Moreover, the act was also supposed to implement the $2 million strategic infrastructure fund which was intended to provide assistance to large infrastructure projects in co-operation with municipal and provincial governments, as well as the private sector. The government has flip-flopped on this particular issue. This fund will be under the control of politicians rather than under an arm's length board of directors. There is no policy statement or basis for approval of these funds. Thus it is the de facto Liberal leadership strategic slush fund. It will be distributed on a project by project basis.
The government's vision or, for that matter lack of vision, is supposed to be reflected through the Speech from the Throne. Any budgets, in turn, are supposed to fulfill the vision laid out in the government's throne speech. As is evident, the budget completely fails to do this. This is probably because the government has no clear vision to begin with.
The throne speech is supposed to be a statement of how the government plans to act and where it plans to commit taxpayer resources. Under this government the throne speech has become nothing more than an empty public relations exercise devoid of any true meaning.
I would like to look at some of the important differences between what the government said it would do in the throne speech versus what it actually did in the budget.
In the throne speech the government said it would focus on: creating opportunity by fostering an innovative economy; taking steps to make Canada one of the most innovative countries in the world; enhancing the skills and learning of our country, in part, by recognizing foreign credentials; strengthening our country's information infrastructure by expanding broadband access to remote areas; and fostering trade and investment by investing in areas such as skills, learning, connectivity and lower corporate tax levels.
Members will note that the throne speech ensured Canadians that every effort would be made to work co-operatively with the U.S. to ensure fair and open market access. Nothing has happened with the softwood lumber dispute. My province of British Columbia is suffering because of that.
The throne speech said the government would: help families by creating jobs and a stronger economy, especially for our native population; ensure health and quality of care for all Canadians by upholding the principles of the Canada Health Act; and work toward environmental preservation, including clean air, water and conservation of our national spaces. It stated that it would “safeguard Canadians from toxic substances and environmental contaminants”. I wish to mention that 8,600 tonnes of toxic waste will be coming to Richmond, British Columbia from the United States of America. I do not see how the government is creating a safe environment.
The throne speech also said that the government would: co-ordinate government programs and policies to support Canadian communities; ensure a vibrant Canadian culture and celebrate Canadian citizenship; and protect Canadians by fostering a more peaceful international climate.
From what I have seen in the budget and Bill C-49 the government has fallen short in every one of these areas. This means that it has failed Canadians by not implementing the priorities it outlined in its own throne speech.
Some people say the Liberals campaign from the left and govern from the right. However, I think they would say anything during the campaign to get votes and once in power would do only those things which fulfill their own agenda. We know about its promise to remove, eliminate, scrap and abolish the GST, but the GST is still here.
The Liberals said they would create opportunities for Canadians. Instead, we are falling behind in many areas such as: job creation, lowering taxes, paying the national debt, improving health care, improving the economy, and improving transportation and infrastructure. As far as job creation is concerned, although the figures indicate that the job creation figures for January are a little better, the situation in my own province of British Columbia it is still very bad.
Our standard of living and productivity continue to fall relative to that of the United States. This is made worse by the government's low dollar policy. The Liberals failed to significantly improve our economic competitiveness.
The Speech from the Throne and, consequently, the budget speech, fail to set the priorities right. It is the culture of the weak and arrogant Liberal government that needs to be changed. Wastage, mismanagement, patronage, corruption, cover-up, secrecy and favouritism are the benchmarks of the Liberal government. It plays politics with the important priorities of Canadians including the national sex offender registry, child pornography and victims' rights.
Over the last 10 years, the official opposition has come up with grassroots policies by listening to Canadians. These grassroots policies would set the right priorities for the federal government. The government criticizes us for our policies and tries to shut us up. In the end, it steals our policies.
There cannot be a band-aid solution to the national problems of governance, mismanagement, corruption and prioritizing the issues of national importance.
The official opposition has played a significant role in changing or improving the national agenda for the country. We have been carrying the flashlight and showing the dark side of the Liberals. We have been exposing their weaknesses and blind spots which they have left unattended. They have seen some light and stolen some of our policies. I wish they had stolen more policies. By stealing our policies they have managed to form three consecutive majority governments. Still they could not set the priorities right and improve the culture of the government to manage the issues that I have just listed.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-49.
I would like to deal with the parental leave under the employment insurance plan. I cannot deny I am happy with the impending chances, even if they are to be implemented over a two year period.
The government keeps repeating that the opposition is never able to give credit where credit is due. I am ready to do it today, even if I do not make a habit of it.
Fifteen weeks of sick leave, plus 15 weeks of maternity leave, and 35 weeks of parental leave add up to 65 weeks off. Last year, the maximum was just 50 weeks. The parental leave can be spread over two years.
I have a disagreement with the government however—after all, I cannot agree with everything all day—over the parental leave for adoptive parents.
The same conditions should apply to them. Under the bill, if a parent adopts a child, and the child is in hospital for three months, the parent will be entitled to EI benefits after these three months, and the benefits may be spread over a period of two years.
However, it seems unacceptable and discriminatory that during the three months the child will be in the hospital, the adoptive parents will not enjoy the same advantages the natural parents do. One can certainly imagine how adoptive parents who have often had to wait one or two years before adopting a child can feel when the child has to be admitted to the hospital.
The government can never do something completely right. It always seems to stop half way. It likes to compel us to challenge it. The government seems to like being spurred on by the opposition.
As the NDP whip, I will try to whip them into shape this morning. Once again, I think the government has gone against its obligation to eliminate this type of discrimination against people. We have fought long enough here in the House to say that there should be no discrimination against adoptive parents versus natural parents.
The government is introducing a new bill and this new bill too is discriminatory.
What will the adoptive mother or the adoptive father do while the child is in the hospital? What does the government have to say to the fact that the mother visiting her child in the hospital is receiving no money?
That was the whole idea behind the employment insurance system and Bill C-49, to allow parents to go the hospital, to take care of their child and extend the number of weeks.
Once again, this is why I say it is unfortunate the government missed the boat. It is unfortunate that the government does not take into account the global recommendations of the standing committee, which examined the issue of employment insurance. There is a $42 billion surplus, and all parties made unanimous recommendations to the government.
In the meantime, the government chose the bit by bit approach, and said, “We are nice. Every three or four months, we are nice”. They give a little bit here, a little bit there, a million here, a million there. They are like a bunch of people handing out peppermints every three months.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: What they give with one hand, they take back with the other.
Yvon Godin: As my colleague from the Bloc says, the government gives with one hand, and takes it back with the other. This time, it gave something to parents, but in the case of parents who adopt a child, it said, “You do not deserve the same thing”. I find that unpleasant and unacceptable.
At the same time, the changes to employment insurance that are proposed in the bill are totally unfair to the regions where many of us come from. I have someone here today and he knows what I am talking about. The riding of Acadie--Bathurst is losing $6 million to $9 million of employment insurance benefits. The region is suffering and small businesses in the region are suffering.
We have companies that came over from other countries, such as Finland, and bought our Canadian companies in the region. This week we were told that woodcutters would no longer have jobs in the woods. The Finnish company UPM is kicking them out of the forest and will not hire any more woodcutters.
The Liberals on the other side can smile and laugh but they did not do their job when it came to free trade. They did not protect us during free trade. That is why today Canadians are losing their jobs.
It is not enough that in our region, for example, Brunswick Mine will close down in five years. Foreign companies dictate to us how we should deal with our national resources and control the jobs given to Canadians.
The budget has made no changes to employment insurance to help people in regions like ours, and those in northern Ontario and northern B.C. who have problems with softwood lumber. There is nothing in the budget to help the working people who built this country. I say shame on the government. I cannot lift my hat to them.
Last night the Minister of Finance said that he would bring the municipalities into the infrastructure deal. I hope he follows through. I hope the municipalities would be able to sit down at the same table if they are to put one-third of their money into any infrastructure deal. I hope the local people would have something to say if they are to make money.
I hope MPs from the area of Acadie--Bathurst, and I see the member for Beauséjour--Petitcodiac, would support what the Minister of Finance said last night. It is very important. I am sure the municipalities would be happy to be able to participate in those negotiations. That is what the budget should look after; it should look after Canadians.
The budget should take into consideration the men and women, the workers who have built this country. Again, I believe that the Minister of Finance has failed. If we look at the budget, we see that it distributes crumbs here and there to try to keep people quiet. This is not the way to govern a country.
The time will come where the Government of Canada will have to stand up and say, “We have a country, we are proud of it and we want to have our word to say”. It is not like in the example I have given, where a Finnish corporation comes to New Brunswick, buys a company and lays off everyone, and governments can do nothing about it because of free trade.
This is terrible, unacceptable and I would say monstrous. It is monstrous to see that our workers will lose their jobs because foreign companies come here and dictate how we should do business here in Canada. We already have too few jobs to allow such situations to occur.
I hope that the Minister of Industry will be able to deal with this issue, show leadership and help the provinces, which are having a problem with free trade because of the federal government. I also hope that a part of the infrastructure investments will be distributed in regions like mine. In the Chaleur Bay area, the mine will close and fish stocks are dwindling. The government should be able to put infrastructures in place.
I hope that the government will put infrastructures in place to allow regions to create jobs. In my own area, we need a natural gas distribution network, a port at Belle-Dune and good highways. This is what is needed to attract companies to our area. I therefore call upon the federal government to stand firm here in Canada and help Canadians.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to rise in the House today and talk about the budget and the budget implementation bill as put forward by the Minister of Finance.
I want to first congratulate the Minister of Finance for putting together a budget which probably had the most widely consultative process we have seen within the country in some time. It is important that Canadians of all ages, from sea to sea to sea, have an opportunity to talk to government. It is important to point out first and foremost how the process was done because I think it really reflects what is in the budget.
What we in the House and parliament did was allow a committee of the House, the finance committee, to travel across the country, hold public hearings and listen to Canadians about what they felt was important, because these are challenging times. There is no question that the events of September 11 and the global downturn in the economy have made it much more difficult for governments at all levels to deal with their budgets and particularly to deal with public expectations as to what they feel should be in budgets.
I think it was quite good that members of parliament from all sides of the House went across the country and consulted with Canadians. Many of us went throughout our own ridings and talked to people at local grocery stores and at the gas stations and got a feeling from them as to what they felt should be key in the budget.
On this side of the House I know that the Minister of Finance met with a wide range of different caucus committees. He sat down with them and talked to them about where they thought the government's priorities should be. For my part, I chair a task force on the future of agriculture. My task force had an opportunity to consult with Canadians across the country and then sit down with the Minister of Finance, dialogue with him and show him directly where farmers across the country thought the government's priorities in spending should be.
On our part we were successful in some areas but what we got from the Minister of Finance, from the Prime Minister and from the cabinet was a commitment to look at the long term issues in agriculture and to make sure that the structural problems that we found across the country when we talked to Canadians would be addressed in the next and upcoming budget. I think the process went very well. Members of parliament on all sides of the House had an opportunity to sit down, talk to the Minister of Finance and put forward to him the concerns of their constituents.
The budget first and foremost gives a boost to the Canadian economy at a time when there is an international downturn, at a time when there are challenges. Given some of the difficulties we are seeing in the economy, such as some of the large manufacturers we relied upon during the last number of years to create many jobs but are now contracting a bit, it was prudent of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to give a quick boost to the economy.We did that in many ways.
We put $2.2 billion into air travel safety. Certainly after the events of September 11 we all realized the importance of making sure our skies are safe. We also put $1.6 billion into policing and intelligence to make sure that our police forces, CSIS and all the people who are out there looking for terrorists and possible dangers to Canada's national security have the resources they need to address these problems.
We also put $1 billion into more efficient screening of refugees and people who are trying to get into the country, to help secure our borders and make sure that Canadians can feel safe. Not only did we make sure that we kept our border secure on the outside, but we also have made sure that our borders with our most important trading partner, the United States, are more open and free for the free flow of goods across the country.
As hon. members know, after the events of September 11 the border was clogged. I know that many businesses in my part of the country and indeed across this great country were concerned that their most favoured, lucrative and protected market might be cut off. I thank the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade for their work. They took it upon themselves to go directly to Washington to make sure there was no danger of our goods being stopped at the border. It took a bit of work and some phone calls from the Prime Minister, but it was done. We have an effective and open border now. Although there still needs to be more effort put into making sure that we get a quicker free flow of goods across the border, certainly after the clogging up due to the events of September 11 their efforts have gone a long way to help open up the border.
One of the key things the government did in the budget was give dollars back to Canadians. The government made sure in this budget and particularly in the previous budget that $100 billion in tax cuts over the next number of years will flow back to Canadians. It is important for Canadians to have cash in their hands to spend, particularly in difficult times. It helps the little businesses to have these dollars in their hands to put back into the economy, particularly in my area of the country and in rural Canada. I was pleased that we in the government did that the last time. I am hoping that in future budgets we can go even further to make sure that more tax cuts are put back into the hands of Canadians.
We also did something that I think was important for rural Canada in particular, because what we are seeing across the country is that our rural infrastructure is crumbling. Governments have cut back to deal with budget deficits and debt. As a result, they have not been putting the dollars into infrastructure across the country, municipally, provincially or federally, that were needed in the past. Through this budget we have put an extra $2 billion into infrastructure. As federal and provincial governments have cut back and municipalities get sideswiped by our cutbacks, it is good to see that both federally and provincially we have put some of those dollars back into the municipalities to make sure that their infrastructure is kept up to date.
We in rural Canada were pleased to thank the former Minister of Industry for his program to make sure that rural Canada was wired to help it keep up with the technology in the urban centres. We are pleased that there is an investment in broadband in rural areas.
Health care in the country is a subject of debate now, with a national task force on the future of health care. I would say that it is a subject of debate in provinces and municipalities across the country. We made sure that the dollars we put into health care were increased over the last couple of budgets to make sure that those services were provided, particularly in the area of equipment in hospitals that needs to be upgraded. There have been more health care dollars put into the last number of budgets to make sure of that.
I want to say that the budget was a budget for young people in Canada. My two young children, Christopher and Victoria, are looking on today. I think the budget speaks to their future. It makes sure that this great country has the services and the ability to provide a lifestyle for the young children of Canada, for their future.
I again want to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance for a budget that I think addresses a balanced approach, which Canadians across the country were calling for.
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak, not as tribute to the Minister of Finance, but to criticize Bill C-49.
In reacting to a budget, it is normal for each member to take advantage of the opportunity to address the matters of most interest to him or her. The budget is, after all, the basis from which we can see where the government's policies are headed. The budget also offers us a way of seeing whether we will be pleased or disappointed by what the government is doing. It is also normal for the opposition to point out the weak points in the budget. I must say that, on this score, we have a pretty easy job of it, because there are many of those.
I have been following the debate on Bill C-49 since the start. I have heard the discussions on EI and on the situation in the regions. Yesterday, it was transportation. We heard how unhelpful the budget is in this respect, how in fact it is harmful to regional development. Communications and transportation are vital to regional development. This budget hits the regions where it hurts, by adding a tax on air travel.
I have heard one of the hon. members on the other side indicating that he was somewhat scandalized by our reaction. He asked, “Have you listened to Canadians?” and told us that they had toured Canada before bringing down the budget, had asked Canadians' advice, and people were, according to him, in agreement.
I do not think we have been listening to the same Canadians. We are not on the same wavelength. My concern about the guaranteed income supplement is well known. I have spoken with a good number of Quebecers on this. I have visited some fifteen different regions of Quebec and consulted with people. I have attended many well packed meetings in those regions.
Not a single Canadian or Quebecer asked me to tell the government to take over the employment insurance fund, that it can have the fund. Not a single worker asked me to do so. There is not a single worker who is not deeply shocked at the $42 billion in the employment insurance fund—$42,000 million—that belongs to workers. This is a fund to which the government did not contribute one red penny. This fund is sustained by only a part of society. Not a single Canadian or Quebecer told me, “It is a good thing that the government is taking over this fund and is paying the debt that is owed by everyone, is solving the problem of the deficit that is owed by everyone on the backs of the most needy, of workers who contribute to the employment insurance fund”. I never heard that. If someone on the other side heard that, I think he or she did not hear well.
In working on the issue of guaranteed income supplement, I did not meet either a single elderly person who told me, “The government is right to take our money”. It has taken $3.2 billion in the last eight years, $400 million each year, that belongs to the most needy in society, to elderly people who are the most vulnerable. No effort is being made to go get this money.
I can tell you that I did not have any congratulations to extend to the Minister of National Revenue or the Minister of Finance. This is a scandal that must be condemned.
It makes no sense that in this country, which has a Minister of Human Resources Development precisely to humanize the government's actions, we cannot do more to locate these people to whom we owe money. On this issue, there is not one senior citizen who has asked me to congratulate the government.
As for developing countries, we have heard all world leaders talk of sharing wealth more fairly since September 11. In terms of security, we are told that the best insurance policy against terrorism is to share the wealth. Let us stop allowing the same people to accumulate the riches, thereby increasing poverty around the world.
I recall a speech given by the Prime Minister here in the House, and another given by President Bush. However, there is one speech in particular that struck me, that of Tony Blair when he stated that once and for all, developed countries must decide to share wealth.
Lester B. Pearson, when he was the Prime Minister of Canada, was the first to propose to the United Nations that the rich developed countries reserve seven tenths of one percent of their budgets to help developing countries. It was Mr. Pearson, who won the Nobel Peace Prize incidentally, who sold the UN on this idea.
But in this budget, Canada's great generosity is taking the form of an amount of $500 million for developing countries, provided there are surpluses. I can tell hon. members that some 30 years later, after the wish expressed and the work done by Mr. Pearson at the United Nations, we are not at seven tenths of 1% of the budget: we are barely at one quarter of 1%, or 0.25% of 1% for developing countries.
This comes after the government congratulated itself for its work. Not too long ago, in the fall, I attended a committee meeting where they discussed hunger in the world, food and a better sharing of the wealth. I heard public officials from that department say that, at the rate things were going and given our generosity, by the year 2015 there will only be 400 million people in the world who will die of hunger. This is nothing to boast about. It does not make any sense to accept such a situation.
With $500 million in this budget, it is obvious that we will never fulfill the wish of a former Prime Minister of Canada, who wanted us to earmark at least seven tenths of 1% for developing countries.
Those who congratulate themselves for this budget did not look very far and they cut corners. When we have to make representations as we are doing now so that, for example, the elderly get their due, when the idea is obviously to keep a low profile to avoid having people claim their due, when the mandate is obviously to take the workers' fund to pay off a debt that was incurred by everyone, I do not think the government deserves to be congratulated.
Someone said “We did lower the contribution rate to employment insurance”. What did they lower? They do not contribute one penny. They are simply telling workers “We have good news for you. Next year, we will take a little less from you”.
When the contribution rate to employment insurance is lowered, it is the rate paid by workers and employers, not by the government. In fact, the government increases the possibilities of taking workers' money. This is a scandal that will not be forgotten. It is a scandal that is marked in time.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member who spoke before my colleague mentioned a couple of issues related to the budget. One was infrastructure and one was rural Canada becoming wired. I would like comment on a couple of those things.
The problem with the infrastructure programs that the Liberals have instituted in the past is that they have quite often ended up being boondoggles, handouts to friends and to special interest groups. They have not actually contributed to renewal of real infrastructure, like roads and bridges.
I do not disagree with the member that there is a need for some infrastructure investment, but not of the type that was done in the past in the $6 billion infrastructure programs that were introduced in 1994. Everyone knew that was a joke. They were handouts to all sorts of special interest groups. The degree to which I can support the member is; I would say yes, provided we really invest in real infrastructure.
As to rural Canada becoming wired, I think most people in the country would agree that that was a complete waste of money. The private sector was doing very well getting Canadians wired. Frankly, in areas where it was not economic to do so, people were coping by getting onto the Internet over the regular phone lines. This can be done on cell phones and satellite phones so I do not see any reason why taxpayers should have to pour huge amounts of money into that system. It is just ridiculous when the money could have been used in more worthwhile areas.
When I look at the budget as a whole, the finance minister has failed to put a stop to billions of dollars that flow out the door of the treasury every year by discretionary grants and contribution programs. Every year billions of dollars of taxpayer money is handed out by virtually every department of government in discretionary grants programs. It is fairly shocking when we look at where that money goes. I will give some examples of that in just a moment.
It is interesting to note that for three years now there have been generous federal surpluses, but instead of aggressively paying down our national debt, the Liberals use most of the surplus to significantly increase spending for their pet projects. As a result, it is still spending about 25% of the entire budget, $40 billion a year, on interest payments on the debt.
That is totally unacceptable because $40 billion a year could build 200 brand new Lion's Gate Bridges in Vancouver every year for what is being spent on interest payments on our debt. Instead of ramping up the spending to special interest groups, if the government had instead taken an aggressive approach to pay down of the debt, it would have freed up more money to spend on our important programs.
The problem is we have these terrible grants and contribution programs, and I want to give some examples.
The first example would be grants to political friends. The human resources development department has been atrociously handled over the past few years. We know that it wasted billions of dollars. It keeps sinking money into businesses that go bankrupt. The latest one is that more than $618,000 that was sunk into Celebrity Boats Corporation in the Prime Minister's riding before it went bankrupt.
Taxpayers have also backed loans to Air Wisconsin, Northwest Airlines, which is the fourth largest airline in the United States, to help them buy jets from Bombardier. Estimates of the cost of these loans to taxpayers exceed $1.6 billion. Frankly, the finance minister should be vetoing this corporate welfare and taking away the Prime Minister's credit card because it is just unacceptable to be blowing away this kind of money.
Then we have cultural nonsense. Quite apart from the almost $1 billion in subsidies to the CBC, there are numerous smaller amounts spent on questionable cultural grants that add up to hundreds of millions of dollars. For example, even though the previous foreign affairs minister skipped the world conference against racism in South Africa, his substitute, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism at the time, blew about $2 million on everything from child care expenses and bottled water to Starbucks coffee mugs, cookies and wall hangings.
Also, in this year's budget was around $25 million for provincial cultural events, 84% of which went to Quebec while the entire west, Atlantic Canada and Ontario received a paltry $3.8 million. The finance minister needs to put a stop to this sort of nonsensical and irrelevant spending.
The minister of heritage has a $2.2 billion Canadian heritage ministry. It has been identified by the auditor general as having no clear objectives, no criteria for measuring the success of its programs, yet the minister asked for a $26 million increase this year.
The example set by the minister herself leaves a lot to be desired. For the third year in a row, she topped the list for the most expensive travel budget in the Liberal cabinet. She racked up $159,000 in travel expenses last year, well above the travel budget for the previous minister of industry, Brian Tobin, who spent $105,438. Brian's bill though was for just six months of travel, so I would guess that if he was still here he would easily have toppled the heritage minister's record for the current year. It is time the finance minister called in their travel cards and cut them off as well.
What an example of misguided Liberal social engineering the gun registry has turned out to be. Just as predicted by Reform MPs back in 1994, the cost of the registry has spiraled completely out of control, yet the police commissioner to date has been completely unable to provide a single example of a crime either solved or prevented because of the registry.
We do know though of one murder which was apparently committed as a result of the so-called gun control legislation. A man in Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador, who was prohibited from owning firearms incidentally, went to the RCMP and picked up a rifle that had been held in storage for him. He has now been charged with killing a 15 year old boy, but it has been reported that the aboriginal exemptions and adaptations of Bill C-68 forced the RCMP to give this man his rifle.
When the former minister of justice introduced the gun control bill in 1994, he promised us in the House that it would not cost more than $85 million over five years, yet the registry has already consumed more than half a billion dollars. By 2003 it is expected to reach a billion dollars.
Are Canadians really getting value from the $750 million already spent and several hundred civil servants employed by the registry? The minister should abandon this waste of money and transfer the funding to the RCMP, CSIS and immigration enforcement budgets where we could start to get on top of the criminal refugee problem that we have in the country. That is what we should be spending the half billion dollars on, getting rid of the thieves and cheats who come here because of our inability to control our borders.
The millennium bureau is another example of waste. It is unbelievable and amazing that the Liberals are still pouring money into the millennium bureau almost two years after the celebrations. This year they want another $9.7 million. Are they planning for the next millennium? I hate to think what the size of the budget will be 98 years from now. It is time for the finance minister to sell off its furniture and close the office down.
One of my favourites is the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. More than $100 million disappears into this unaccountable pit of government waste every single year. I have tried for years to get someone, anyone, to provide me with a logical reason why this sinkhole for taxpayer money should even exist, but the entire organization seems to be shielded from scrutiny. It is about time the minister pulled the plug on this one and made a payment on our debt with the saved money.
I have pages of examples here, but I know that my time is running short so I think what I will do is change the tone of the debate for a moment.
I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following therefor: “Bill C-49, an Act to Implement Certain Provisions of the Budget, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time, this day, six months hence”.

The Speaker: The question is on the amendment. However it being 11 o'clock the House will now proceed to statements by members.

Statements By Members
The EnvironmentMrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians both urban and rural care a great deal about endangered species. More particularly they have a clear understanding of what effective endangered species legislation should contain.
The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has completed its study of Bill C-5. In a tremendous spirit of co-operation, members from all parties came together to make recommendations that would improve the bill and that responded to the testimony of scientists, conservationists and industry. The committee's amendments would strengthen prohibitions against killing listed species, the protection of their habitat, and the listing process.
Canadians will notice if we do not fulfill this longstanding commitment to them and the international community in a genuine and biologically sound fashion. I therefore urge the government not to turn its back on the committee's work.
EducationMrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, chintzy, cheap and immoral are just some of the words being used to describe the Liberal government's decision not to pay school boards money owed to them on GST for school bus services. School boards are struggling with increasing transportation costs.
This attack on public education is made worse by the decision of the Liberals to only pay the province of Quebec the money it owes for transportation services and then bring in retroactive legislation to prevent all other provinces from receiving the money that is rightfully owed to them. Ontario alone is out $40 million in what is an additional tax on rural Canadians who rely heavily on school buses to send their children to school.
It is time the federal government realized that there is an importance to education and respected the federal court which ruled in favour of the school boards.
Vincent MurnaghanMr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a great Islander, Father Vincent Murnaghan who passed away this past December.
Father Vince was a courageous voice for those struggling in a world of inequity and injustice. He worked tirelessly in the Dominican Republic, returning to UPEI to teach. He was co-founder of the Latin American Mission Program in Charlottetown.
Father Vince had a special love for the land and those who farm it. He was the co-founder of citizens against farm foreclosures, a grassroots organization designed to assist threatened farm families to stay on the land. Although elder in years to those he worked with he was young in ideas and hope. He often said “In some small way we can make a difference in a world full of violence, injustice and fear”.
That is Father Vince's challenge to us in this place. We would honour him by accepting that challenge.
Member for Calgary EastMrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, aside from the partisan sparring in the House there is a sense of camaraderie, and I rise in that spirit today to acknowledge that the member for Calgary East has taken a turn for the worse following heart surgery that was performed on Monday. He is being treated in intensive care at Foothills hospital in Calgary.
After several years of involvement in local and federal politics the hon. member was first elected to the House in 1997.
I ask all hon. members to join me in sending our best wishes and hopes for a speedy and full recovery to the hon. member, his wife Neena, their three children and indeed the entire Obhrai family.
National Flag of Canada DayMr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, next Friday, February 15, is National Flag of Canada Day. It is a day set aside to celebrate the most powerful symbol of the values and ideals we hold dear: freedom, trust, diversity, openness, equality and compassion.
In the global community our flag represents democracy and caring. It recalls Canada's role in human rights and humanitarian missions and it welcomes those who seek a better life.
Our flag embodies our hopes and dreams and the achievements we have made together as a nation. It flies proudly above our peacekeepers, Olympic athletes, national parks, historic places, skyscrapers and coast guard cutters, our place at the United Nations and the top of the Peace Tower here in Ottawa.
This National Flag of Canada Day I invite all Canadians to celebrate the tremendous blessing it is to belong to this vast and beautiful country, Canada.
Liberal PartyGurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, the newly elected chair of the Liberal parliamentary caucus should be congratulated for his bravery. The Hamilton MP has inherited a hopelessly divided Liberal caucus and it is now his chosen task to help keep it together.
In the interest of bipartisan co-operation in parliament the Canadian Alliance has put together a short to do list so that he can get to work right away putting out Liberal fires. First, the member should probably apologize to the Prime Minister for asking him to resign just before election 2000. That will help his weekly meetings with the Prime Minister go a little smoother.
After that, he may want to try to pull the Liberal backbenchers off of the defence minister. We know they are upset about the Afghan prisoners fiasco but it looks bad.
Then he should settle the dispute over gender equity in cabinet and end the ongoing public feud over health care between the Liberal Winnipeg MP and the new health minister.
Then he should make the Prime Minister and the finance minister play fair during the leadership race.
The Liberal caucus is divided and I hope the newly elected Liberal caucus chair knows what a mess he is getting into.
Genie AwardsMs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since 1980 the Genie Awards have celebrated and honoured outstanding achievements of the Canadian film industry, an industry which has become an important means by which Canadians share their stories with one another and the world.
This year saw a major first for the Genies and our film industry. The film Atanarjuat , The Fast Runner, won an amazing five Genie Awards including best picture, best director and best screenplay. It is interesting to note that Atanarjuat is the first full length feature film by Inuit shot entirely in Inuktitut and in Igloolik, Nunavut. I commend everyone in the small community for their tremendous effort.
I take this moment to congratulate everyone involved in the making of Atanarjuat and all of the winners and nominees in the 22nd annual Genie Awards. We should all celebrate the achievements of Canadian talent.
White Cane WeekMs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, White Cane Week, the theme of which this year is “Aging and visual impairment”, winds up on February 10. The risk of developing a serious vision problem increases with age, and half of all those with visual impairments are 65 and older.
Thanks to the commitment of community organizations, however, these people can look forward to continuing to function as full-fledged members of the community, autonomous and no longer isolated, which is the first consequence of any significant loss of visual acuity. It was with this in mind that the Fondation des aveugles du Québec launched a pilot project on aging and visual impairment.
I urge everyone to take part in the many activities organized to mark White Cane Week. It is an excellent opportunity to learn more about the challenges facing the visually impaired.
Skating PartyMs. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what started out as a celebration to thank my constituents for electing me back to Ottawa, the annual St. Paul's skating party, has now permanently moved to Ottawa. Today and tomorrow residents of St. Paul's will descend upon the national capital region to partake in a variety of events including skating at the Governor General's rink at Rideau Hall and along the Rideau Canal, and a tour of the House of Commons.
I am thrilled to welcome the citizens of St. Paul's to Ottawa, including a full busload tomorrow, and look forward to spending the next couple of days with them participating in the festivities of Winterlude, North America's greatest winter festival, and enjoying the splendid beauty of our capital.
The St. Paul's skating party is full of fun, laughs, hot chocolate and beaver tails but builds real relationships between citizens and their parliament.
Member for Calgary EastMr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to inform the House that our colleague from Calgary East has experienced a small setback on his road to recovery. As all members must know by now our colleague recently had heart surgery to correct a weak valve.
This past weekend in Calgary he joked that most of his colleagues were surprised that he even had a heart. Most of us in this place know very well that he has the heart and the soul of a lion.
The member for Calgary East and I were both elected in 1997 and we have our origins in East Africa. Over the years, and I am not sure how, we have been mistaken for one another but what cannot be mistaken is his ability to crack a joke and make us smile.
To his wife Neena and his family, all of us here in this place wish them well and wish a speedy recovery for our friend. He is a fighter and I look forward to his return to the House.
2002 Winter OlympicsMr. Marcel Proulx (Hull--Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the members of the Canadian team now in Salt Lake City to take part in the 2002 Olympics Winter Games.
Catriona LeMay-Doan, carrying Canada's flag, will lead our delegation into the opening ceremonies. This will be the fourth time this resident of Saskatoon has taken part in the Olympics. It is the fourth set of games for five other Canadian athletes as well: Susan Auch, of Calgary, in speed skating; Jean-Luc Brassard, of Grande-Île, Quebec, in freestyle skiing; Ken Leblanc, of Ottawa, in bobsleigh; Edi Podivinsky, of Toronto, in alpine skiing, and Elvis Stojko, of Richmond Hill, in figure skating.
Each athlete in the Canadian contingent embodies excellence, devotion and rigorous discipline.
I therefore wish to take this opportunity to congratulate these athletes, who have sacrificed much in order to be able to make it to Salt Lake City. We wish them good luck and will be with them in spirit.
Canada Customs and Revenue AgencyMr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one month ago cabinet ministers opposite learned of a serious imbalance regarding the treatment of Canadian and American professional musicians wishing to work in the other's country.
Border changes in the U.S. now require a payment of more than $1,800 which effectively shuts out most Canadian musical artists from performing in the American market. The situation, however, facing U.S. musicians wishing to perform in Canada is entirely different.
Until recently Canada customs charged about $450 total for an American band of up to 14 in number to obtain a work permit. Now even this modest fee has been removed, meaning that many more U.S. musicians and performing artists can now work in this country without first obtaining any work permit.
That American musicians can cross into this country at will with no reciprocal treatment for Canadian musicians wishing to work in the U.S. is totally unacceptable. It has struck a sour note and one the government must take steps to rectify immediately.
Black History MonthMs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Black History Month was launched in 1925 in the United States by historian Carter G. Woodson. It has since spread across North America.
Throughout the month of February each year, we pay tribute to the cultural, social, political and economic contributions of the Blacks of Quebec and elsewhere in the world.
Many activities focussing on this year's theme of “Discovering our heritage from generation to generation” will be held, in Montreal and Quebec City in particular, to provide the public with more knowledge of black heritage. Many great women and men have made a huge contribution to the development of a modern Quebec that is open to the world.
Quebec's Black community is one with a thousand different accents, a thousand different faces. This diversity and dynamism, both cultural and economic, as well as political, deserves to be better known and to be celebrated.
Our congratulations and thanks to all those whose efforts are what will make this Black History Month a great success.
Stewart MacLeodMs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to Stewart MacLeod who died Wednesday after a long battle with cancer.
During his long journalistic career, most of it covering the national political scene, Mr. MacLeod won the affection and the admiration of fellow journalists, of members of parliament and of prime ministers. In fact, during one election campaign former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau stopped his campaign train in Mr. MacLeod's home town and indicated that it was he, the prime minister, who was travelling with Mr. MacLeod.
He was a journalist and columnist for 40 years. We remember him as president of the National Press Gallery and as leader of the National Press Club Allied Workers Jazz Band, but above all we appreciated his wit and skill. He in fact epitomized the best in journalistic excellence and integrity.
I am sure all colleagues join me in wishing Mr. MacLeod's family and friends our deepest sympathy.
Olympic GamesMr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents of Dewdney--Alouette I take this opportunity to wish all of our Canadian athletes, coaches and support staff well in Salt Lake City for the 2002 Olympic Games.
Our athletes have spent years training for the opportunity to represent our country and I thank them for their dedication, perseverance and commitment. No doubt their families have made sacrifices along the way to support and assist their loved ones to reach this world class level of performance and we acknowledge and thank them as well. I especially wish Kelly Law whose home town is in Maple Ridge in my riding and her entire team well as they go for gold in women's curling.
We look forward to hearing O Canada being played many times in the next two weeks and hope to see more Canadian athletes than ever on the podium in Salt Lake City.
Regardless of the results, though, we are proud of all of our dedicated Olympians. On behalf of all of my colleagues in the House we wish Team Canada well and say “Go Canada, go”.
The Art BankMs. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of this House, I would like to extend congratulations and best wishes to the Canada Council Art Bank, as it celebrates its 30th anniversary.
The Art Bank's collection of over 18,000 paintings, sculptures, sketches, etchings and photographs makes it the world's largest collection of contemporary Canadian art. Its holdings are rented out to the private and public sector.
Since 1972, the Art Bank has contributed to the creation of a stimulating and original work environment, as well as making Canadian art and artists better known. A number of its works can be seen in the offices of MPs or ministers, who have decided, like myself, to rent them to decorate their offices on the Hill.
Thank you to all those who have contributed to the vitality of the Art Bank and have done such an excellent job to make Canadian visual art accessible to greater numbers of our fellow citizens. May the next thirty years be equally successful.

Oral Question Period
Softwood LumberMr. John Reynolds (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that negotiations had resumed and that we were making progress on softwood lumber, but the trade minister admitted that all he got was a phone call from the U.S. with no counteroffer, no timeline, just no counteroffers at all. If that is progress I would hate to see a deadlock.
The new talks seem to be more about political face saving than actually getting a deal. What assurances could the minister give the House that the U.S. is acting in good faith and will put a genuine counteroffer on the table?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to inform the House that yesterday afternoon former Governor Racicot and I had a long telephone conversation. Governor Racicot expressed very clearly to me that the favoured course of the United States administrations, both of Mr. Zoellick, the United States trade representative, and of Secretary of Commerce Evans, remains this bilateral solution. He informed me that the Bush administration believes that this is a viable course and that it is feasible.
I have informed him it was imperative for Canada that we have clear elements and that the United States is ready to consider secure market provisions as well.
John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, we heard the same answer from the minister when Governor Racicot was appointed. Forestry workers do not have time to waste. The minister admits we cannot stop the clock. If this is not settled before March 21 then we may be facing a countervailing duty that will cripple our industry and perhaps kill it.
Does the minister have any assurances from Governor Racicot that the U.S. will table a concrete, realistic counterproposal before the March 21 deadline?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Racicot knows that it is imperative for Canada to get it. He tells me that the Bush administration believes that it is the right course to follow, so of course I expect him to be in a position to react concretely to the propositions of the Canadian provinces that we tabled before Christmas.
John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, it is time to get tough. We have been getting the same answers from him for months now. If a long term solution is not found by March 21, thousands of workers may be laid off, mills may be shut down and communities will be devastated. It does not look like the government has a serious plan. We have been getting the same answers month after month after month.
What contingency plans are in place to support our companies and laid off workers if the countervailing duties are reapplied?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, the industries and a number of companies already have approached EDC and we have some bonding programs. A number of those companies are now discussing with EDC to see what we can do. Now there is no countervailing duty, so the bonding applies only to anti-dumping and that creates the present situation.
We have worked closely with the Minister of Human Resources Development for the workers. We will of course continue to serve them with a number of programs that we have on that track.
Instead of fearmongering and instead of finger pointing at the government, the opposition should realize that the problem is not in Canada. The problem is south of the border in the United States.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, if 60,000 people out of work is fearmongering I do not know where the minister's head is at. Contrary to the minister's optimism I refer members to the U.S. trade representative's appearance at the senate finance committee two days ago in Washington. If that was free trade talk I do not know what protectionism is either.
Industry in the provinces fear U.S. attempts to divide them against each other. That is the format of the negotiation so far and continuation in that format certainly is not in our best interests. Despite asking the question I have not received an answer. Will the minister guarantee that he will not allow the provinces to--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister for International Trade.
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, using the 60,000 number is fearmongering because this is not the case. The countervailing duties imposed by the United States have not applied since mid-December and they will not apply before some time in May. We cannot attribute it to countervailing duties that were applied some time in the fall but do not apply now.
Let us try to be constructive. I know the opposition has a hard time. I had a very constructive meeting with the forestry minister of British Columbia this morning and we are working as--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver Island North.
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, if the minister had a strategy the tactics would work themselves out. The tactics are not even working. He has reversed himself twice in the last two days in terms of whether the talks are on or off. It is all a face saving measure.
The minister talked about the Export Development Corporation's bond program. The program is so poorly designed that EDC admits no forestry company has taken them up. Will the minister redesign the bond program so that companies can qualify to cover--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister for International Trade.
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, our government has been working very closely with industry and with the provinces. We have been on the litigation road at the WTO making extraordinary progress on that front, which brings some pressure on the United States.
We continue to believe that the Bush administration is sincere when it says that it wants to solve it for the long term with good public policy. This administration will eventually have to push back on some of the U.S. producers. We will help them in that because we believe a deal is reachable.
Foreign AffairsMs. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the rules of international conventions were signed precisely so that they would apply during conflicts. Despite the most recent statements made by the Americans in an attempt to convince the world that they will respect the Geneva conventions as they apply to the status of prisoners taken in Afghanistan, there have been calls—from the International Red Cross in particular—not to defend the terrorists, as the Prime Minister claims, but to clarify the situation.
What does the Deputy Prime Minister have to say to the Red Cross, which is asking serious questions about the status accorded by Canada and the United States to prisoners taken in Afghanistan?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are very happy that the Red Cross has access, every day if necessary, to each prisoner and that the United States has said that it will respect the Geneva conventions. Therefore, we have the clarification that we requested.
Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the conflict, this government has continually gone along with the Americans' positions and statements.
Given all of the confusion, not only the Bloc Quebecois, but the International Red Cross, Canadians in general, and even Liberal members hope to see a tribunal established to determine the status of the prisoners.
What is the Deputy Prime Minister waiting for to announce the Canadian government's position?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I visited Afghanistan, I visited Kabul. The problems in the region are much more complex than that. There is not simply the issue of determining the status of prisoners. There is the issue of creating rules of law in Afghanistan. There is the issue of hunger among the Afghan population. There is the issue of creating a safe situation.
These are not only our priorities. They are also shared by Mr. Karzai.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government says it is happy with the Americans' clarification regarding the status of prisoners taken in Afghanistan. But this clarification has not actually clarified anything at all. All that we can conclude is that the government is choosing to interpret the Geneva convention in such a way that it is not really bound by it. Letting a government judge its own case may lead to some arbitrary decisions.
In this context, is the government favourable to the creation of an international tribunal for issues having to do with the war in Afghanistan?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, members should understand the situation. This is a situation of conflict. It is not a situation in which we can use all the processes available in criminal situations.
One aspect of our foreign policy has been to support the Treaty of Rome, which created an international criminal court. We support this and we have encouraged all the other countries to adopt it, but it is not for situations of conflict such as in Afghanistan.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, as recently as yesterday, the European Council asked the United Nations and the security council to pass a resolution creating an international tribunal with a mandate to clarify the legal status of the prisoners captured by the Americans.
Given the confusion still reigning within the Canadian government, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what position Canada intends to take at the UN regarding the creation of this international tribunal?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, the confusion is on the other side, because the Canadian government's policy is very clear. We are partners with other countries in the battle against terrorism. This is an effort which requires sacrifices, not just on the part of the government, but also from the soldiers who are in danger. We support our soldiers who are in danger in Afghanistan and we support the cause of fighting terrorism. That is clear.
Softwood LumberMrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade was asked in the House yesterday and again today about what he will do to assist the industry and workers during the softwood lumber dispute. He still has not answered the question. Today he is to have a press conference and tell the media.
I would like to ask the minister a question. Why does he not tell the House, tell all Canadians right now, what he will do to help the industry workers and the industry get through this softwood lumber dispute?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that the countervailing duties do not apply at the moment. They have been lifted since mid-December. They cannot apply before the final determination on March 21 and then it would take two months before they are applied again.
It is important to put things into balance here. Our government has a certain number of tools like EDC which has been working closely with industry in identifying solutions. We have the Department of Human Resources that has been very active, has been in touch with industry and workers in British Columbia, and our programming is there. However the countervailing duties do not apply now.
Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, it is crucially important that Canada stand firm on this issue in the forestry industry dispute. It will affect all our industries in dealing with trading with the U.S. in the future.
The Liberal government is letting the Americans hold our industry hostage. The minister says to wait it out, wait until we get the WTO decision and wait until we have negotiations. The minister knows full well that very few companies if any are even qualifying for EDC bond loans. The Liberal government's EI is insufficient. Therefore the workers are in jeopardy. What will he do that will help the industry?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, the government has been doing everything it has to do in terms of building a team Canada and meeting with the United States. We are tackling this problem with much seriousness.
The United States is not only one calling the shots. We are meeting the United States at the WTO. Every time we have had litigation and legal challenges this country has won for its industry and its workers in the forestry industry. It is time that we recognize it in the House as well.
National DefenceMr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, in his latest tirade the Prime Minister now feels that it is unpatriotic to demand better equipment for the soldiers fighting for freedom in far off Afghanistan. Meanwhile he is the one who asked them to fly in helicopters built in 1963. He is the one who tells our troops to go into harm's way but he will not give them camouflage gear or stoves to cook their food.
Some of our brave soldiers are even buying their own boots and they are rubbing paint and sand on themselves because their uniforms do not blend into the desert background.
Certainly our troops will perform admirably, but would it not be better to give them the tools to help them finish the job?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they have the tools they need to do the job. Perhaps the commander of the army had the hon. member in mind when he said:

Ill-informed and alarmist rhetoric surrounding the decision to send our soldiers to Afghanistan in the new green CADPAT...uniforms does little to inform the public and is corrosive to the morale of soldiers deploying on this important operation.

Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, probably not as corrosive as having to beg food from the Americans.
The Prime Minister said that the Canadian troops were better equipped than any other troops in the world, but that is simply untrue. Certainly our troops are among the best trained, the hardest working and, heaven knows, they are having to prove to be the most innovative.
The Prime Minister should crawl down off his high horse and simply get on with properly equipping our soldiers. The government has cut military spending and troop levels to the bone. Even the auditor general said that our equipment was in danger of rusting out.
Our troops are certainly showing their patriotism by carrying Canadian values into the theatre of war. Why does the government not show some of that same patriotism and start funding our military properly?
Art Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, over the next five years, we are putting more than $5 billion into defence spending. I do not know of any other department or any other program, outside of health care, that will be getting more money over that period of time.
In terms of the uniforms, they have the uniforms they need to do the job. They show innovation in camouflage. That is a normal thing to do. They are intelligent. They do have their own initiative in doing these kinds of things. That is normal for the military to do.
The dramatics from the hon. member are absolutely hollow.
HealthMr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Romanow did not say much in his interim report but he did say that the principles of the Canada Health Act were routinely ignored. He said that it was as obvious as a slap in the face and that it needed overhauling, and yet the federal government has done nothing for eight long years.
What is the federal answer? It is to wait even longer.
When will the government get on board with the provinces and help fix what is broken?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday in the House, we have been on board with the provinces, working collaboratively with them for many years.
The accord signed by the Prime Minister and the premiers in September of 2000 speaks to a shared commitment in relation to the renewal of the health care system. Not only did we enter into an accord but the federal government put another $21 billion on the table in relation to the CHST that will be paid out over the next five years.
The federal government has been on board, it has shown leadership and it will continue to work in partnership with the provinces.
Rob Merrifield: Mr. Speaker, when it suited the federal government politically, it was happy to slash transfer payments to health care by $6 billion a year.
The Liberals used fear about health care to help them win an election. Now they are stalling for time again because they are looking for political advantage.
Why is the government more concerned about political positioning than the health of Canadians?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that what we are concerned about is the renewal of the health care system.
Let me remind the official opposition that it was, I believe, a member of its party who endorsed the concept of two tier health care, a concept that we are strongly opposed to.
We are committed, as are all the provincial and territorial premiers, to the five principles of the Canada Health Act within a publicly financed system. We will renew the health care system within that context.
InfrastructureMs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as regards infrastructures, there is a consensus in Quebec on how things ought to be done. All the stakeholders in Quebec, including the Mayor of Longueuil and the Conseil du patronat, recognize that Quebec is already in control of this program.
I would like to know why the federal government is now challenging the operating rules of the infrastructure program, on which all the Quebec stakeholders agree.
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I do not see the problem, because there are no changes to the existing programs. We are creating a program for strategic infrastructure with a new fund and if there are consensuses, it will be a lot easier to work together.
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, in the last budget brought down by Pauline Marois, the Quebec government invested an additional $750 million for highways and infrastructure work in Quebec. That money will allow Quebec to provide work for thousands of workers.
Why does the minister not follow Quebec's example by making money from the fund available immediately, while respecting each others' jurisdictions?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of working together. The hon. member seems to be suggesting that it is only up to the provincial government to tell the federal government how to spend its money.
This way of doing things does not work well. We have to co-operate and we support co-operation.
Canada-U.S. RelationsMr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, an open and secure border is the number one priority of Canadian industry but the Americans are dragging their feet on allowing preclearance of low risk cargo due to their heightened security concerns.
The finance minister is meeting with his U.S. counterpart today. Could the government assure Canadians that U.S. concerns will be addressed on this issue in order to secure timely access to U.S. markets for Canadian exports?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, we are making very good progress on the 30 point action plan that former Governor Ridge and I signed on December 12 with respect to an intelligent border.
Some issues, as the hon. member is no doubt aware, were apparently raised in an article in the New York Times quoting Mr. Bonner of the U.S. customs service.
I have asked our finance minister to raise those issues with the secretary of the treasury who is responsible for customs on the U.S. side.
I am happy to note as well that Mr. Bonner himself has distanced himself from the quotations that were attributed to him. He too is in favour--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River.
Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, it has not shown up in access at our borders with the United States. Congestion was a problem even before September 11.
Just like the softwood lumber issue, the Liberal government is not delivering on its promise. There is a slowdown at the border.
We know a lot of good proposals have been put forward for streamlining the border access but the Americans will not consider them until we address their security concerns.
Months ago the industry committee recommended a high level bilateral summit on these issues. Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us how this is advancing? It does not seem to be translating into access for our product.
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, there have been high level bilateral meetings. I met with Mr. Ridge last Saturday and that has been in a series of meetings.
We have carved out a very ambitious program between us in terms of making progress. I am very happy to report that in our meetings the confidence that the United States is showing in the security measures we have taken is very high.
I am happy as well to report to the hon. member that Mr. Ridge reported to me that secretary of the treasury, Mr. O'Neill, has said that if other countries had done as much about terrorism financing as Canada he would be very happy.
InfrastructureMrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday, the Deputy Prime MInister indicated to this House that the complexity of the infrastructure projects made government-to-government discussions necessary. Yesterday, he maintained that he could go over the heads of the governments to deal directly with the municipalities.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister quit making these flip-flops and indicate to us, once and for all, what the mechanisms for application of this program will be?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. member wait until the bill is passed by parliament before we describe the program.
Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, why does the minister feel the need to review everything when all the structures are already in place and the only thing holding us back is the money?
What answer does he have for the Mayor of Longueuil, Jacques Olivier, who, in speaking of highway 30, commented that the Government of Quebec's position on this was far clearer than the federal government's?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member does not understand that what we are doing is creating a new program with new money, $2 billion, that will be made available for strategic infrastructure.
The objectives of the program are contained in the bill. We are going to try to work with all those concerned in order to discuss which projects are really strategic for the 21st century here in Canada.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government's Enron like accounting malpractice has caused the government of Manitoba to postpone its provincial budget.
The roads, health care and schools of Manitobans will suffer because the government has yet to clear the air about the $3.3 billion of taxpayer dollars it lost through bad accounting.
The finance minister of Manitoba said that it was the federal government's mistake and that the federal government should pay. Why will the government not own up to its own mistake?
Hon. John McCallum (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the House before, right now the government is seeking information because these payments go back to 1972, and it takes some time to do that. The auditor general is involved. When the information is developed the government will have discussions with the provinces and then make a decision.
James Rajotte: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that this delay and inaction is causing the provincial governments serious difficulty.
One reason that Manitoba cannot bring down its budget is because it has no way of telling how much less it may receive in health and other transfers from this government because of this huge accounting fiasco. Soon this cloud will pass over other provinces and other Canadians.
Is the government prepared to see every provincial government and the vital services they deliver to Canadians come to a standstill while we wait for the government to come up with a plan on how to recover this $3.3 billion in missing taxpayer dollars? When will this plan come forward?
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that this has occurred. I think the hon. member is exaggerating the disruptions by an order of magnitude.
As I said before, the government is working as quickly as possible to obtain the information, at which point we will have discussions with the provinces and then come to a decision.
Marine SafetyMr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since September 11, Canadians have been asking more questions about the coast guard's ability to monitor marine traffic.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans explain the role that the coast guard plays in the government's security program and indicate what tools they have been given?
Mr. Georges Farrah (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.
As you know, the coast guard contributes to the marine safety of Canada through its monitoring activities, which it carries out in concert with Transport Canada.
I am very pleased to inform the House that following the Minister of Finance's last budget, $3 million will be added for air surveillance, $5 million for leading edge equipment for Canadian vessel traffic services and an additional $7 million for Coast Guard activities, a grand total of $15 million in additional spending to make our marine borders safer in Canada.
Forestry IndustryYvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, a Finnish multinational has purchased a softwood lumber company, acquiring a monopoly over crown lands in northern New Brunswick.
UPM-Kymmene made the decision to use machinery to harvest wood, rather than using loggers. This decision has resulted in 200 loggers being laid off in the northeast area of the province.
Will the Minister of International Trade meet with New Brunswick's Minister of Natural Resources to ensure that no jobs are lost? Who is running Canada, Canadians or foreigners?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I am in regular contact with my colleagues, the ministers responsible for forests across the country. In fact, just this morning, I met with British Columbia's Minister of Forests, our friend Mike de Jong, who was in Ottawa.
I would be pleased to meet with New Brunswick's Minister of Forests at any time to discuss international trade.
However, if the member is suggesting that it is suddenly up to the Government of Canada to manage the country's forests and natural resources, I would ask him to look at the constitution. It is not Ottawa that manages Canada's forests.
TaxationMr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, prior to Christmas, one of the greatest insults the government has ever presented to Canadians was the disability tax credit form that was sent out to 106,000 Canadians. These are the most vulnerable people in our society and, what is worse, the government is making the people with disabilities pay for the new form.
Will the government get rid of the offensive form that is attacking the most vulnerable people in our society and allow them to claim the disability tax credit as they have in the past?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we were made aware of the situation some time ago. I can tell the member that Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and Human Resources Canada have been working together to ensure that the population is better informed and that they will have access to that tax credit.
Softwood LumberMr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister for International Trade received a phone call relating to the softwood lumber dispute and he could barely contain his excitement. His reaction speaks volumes about how often the Americans actually call him about this issue.
The minister boasts today of his good public policy which is proving to be good only for the Americans. Rather than bragging that the countervailing duties do not currently apply, why will he not quit staring at the phone waiting for it to ring with a made in America solution and act like a government minister who actually cares about the Canadian softwood lumber industry?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, that is a very bizarre way of looking at it. The government has been working extremely closely with the provinces. We have been working with industry from coast to coast to coast, so much so that for once we do realize in Canada that the problem is not between us and among us, contrary to what the opposition is trying to say this morning. The problem is south of the border in the United States where the Bush administration finds it hard to deal with its U.S. coalition. The problem is not in Canada. It is in the United States.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, what is bizarre is that apparently the minister did not know, while all other Canadians knew, that the softwood lumber agreement was going to expire years ago.
The B.C. Liberal finance minister has warned that British Columbia will soon be a have not province. This is without factoring in the disastrous effects of the American softwood lumber sanctions.
If the Prime Minister takes this issue seriously, why did he not extend his recent visit when he went to New York and actually go to the White House and discuss this issue?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, the problem is of course that the White House happens to be in Washington, not in New York where the Prime Minister was at the world economic forum.
I want to be clear in the House. I am impressed by how much this Prime Minister, the Prime Minister of the government at this time, contrary to the Conservative prime minister before, has raised the softwood lumber issue on every opportunity he has had with the White House and President Bush. This Prime Minister has been fully committed to our effort and he has used every opportunity he has had. He has been involved in the file. I thank him for his leadership on it, which is leading us to the right place.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, recently Indian leaders, private business owners, financiers and the Canadian Alliance met in Winnipeg to discuss concerns over the current third party management practices of Indian Affairs.
The minister has stated that the federal government has no legal obligation to third parties, but the current practices are causing undue financial hardship for both bands and private business. Suing a band in order to be paid is not an option because there is no way to enforce the judgment.
Will the minister explain to private businesses in this country how they are to be paid for outstanding debts owed by bands whether they are in third party management or not?
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the member's information and for the information of all members of the House, when first nations are put into third party management it deals directly with the federal dollars that are transferred for core services like education, social services and infrastructure. That does not stop the first nation that has access to other sources of revenue from paying its bills.
Reed Elley: Mr. Speaker, I wish that the minister would simply relay that information to the Indian bands because this kind of thing happens all too frequently.
Right now there are businesses like Chemical Industries of Calgary, Alberta, cutting off the supply of goods and services to all bands because of its experience with a few bands that cannot manage their financial affairs.
Businesses are concerned. Banks are concerned. Aboriginal bands are concerned. Unfortunately the minister does not seem to be doing anything about it.
He truly has an opportunity to stimulate economic activity at the band level and increase the standard of living for many aboriginals across Canada. All of us want that. When will the minister fix his government's disastrous third party management policy?
Bob Nault: Mr. Speaker, if we are indeed to accept the argument that we believe in a government to government relationship with first nations, I do not think, and I would assume that the member is not suggesting, that the Government of Canada should guarantee every single transaction between a first nation and the private sector. It is very much up to them to deal with that as they would with any other contract in the private sector.
The environmentMr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Alberta and the oil industry are trying to make the government back off on its commitment to ratify the Kyoto protocol next June. We know that the Minister of the Environment said that he wanted that document to be ratified. We also know that Canada, excluding Quebec, has the world's worst record on greenhouse gases.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm to the House that the government shares the opinion of the Minister of the Environment and that it is firmly determined to ratify the Kyoto protocol by June?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no change in the policy of the Canadian government. We support a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. We have a plan in Canada. Our objective is to reduce these emissions by 6% compared to the 1990 level. We will achieve that objective.
There is no change, whether on the part of the government or that of the other parties involved.
Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, what I understand from the non-answer given by the Minister of the Environment is that there is no commitment to ratify the protocol before next June.
However, the oil industry claims that Canada cannot ratify the Kyoto Protocol, since the federal government did not release any study on the costs of such a commitment. It is totally unbelievable that the government would not have a study on this issue.
Could the Minister of the Environment confirm whether a study on the costs of implementing the Kyoto protocol exists and, if so, will he table it in the House?
David Anderson: Of course, Mr. Speaker. We have studies that go back to 1997. We had talks with the provinces. I will attend a conference with provincial officials at the end of the month, and I will meet them again at another conference in mid-May. The discussions are continuing.
Over the past 12 months, I travelled five times to Alberta, that is to Calgary. I had meetings with the industry on two occasions over the past three weeks. We are in almost constant contact.
FisheriesTed White: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has been called before the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations because Canada's aboriginal fishing regulations have been declared illegal.
It is now clear that the minister has never had the right or the authority to establish a fishery based on race.
I would like the minister to tell the people of Canada why he has not announced an end to this illegal race based fishery.
Georges Farrah: Mr. Speaker, this is an issue which has been raised relatively recently. As the member is aware, the new minister has just been appointed. He will look at all aspects of the issue and, in due course, be in a position to reply.
Ted White: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has not done any research at all. In fact this issue was raised in March 1997, almost five years ago.
The scrutiny of regulations committee advised the government that its regulations were illegal, but the government has deliberately and irresponsibly ignored its obligations to fix the problem and has put a bunch of fishermen's livelihoods at risk because of that.
I would like to know, when is the minister going to abandon his repugnant race based fishery and stop awarding fisheries on the basis of the colour of a person's skin?
Georges Farrah: Mr. Speaker, the member is referring to a case which is before the courts. I think that it is entirely normal and prudent at this time not to answer the question directly. Let us wait and see what the outcome is.
2002 Winter OlympicsMarcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, this evening, all attention will be focused on Salt Lake City as it hosts the 2002 winter olympics.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage highlight for this House the government's commitment to our Olympic team?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all Canadians can be very proud of the Canadian Olympic team, which will be composed of 345 exceptional individuals, including 156 of our finest athletes.
The Government of Canada is pleased to support the 2002 winter olympics through contributions to the Canadian Olympic Association and the Canadian winter olympic association, containing winter athletes, as well as national sports associations.
I ask members to please join me in wishing all of our athletes their personal best. They are truly a source of great pride.
AgricultureMr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the agriculture industry in Canada is facing yet another challenge by the U.S. The implementation of country of origin labelling on our agriculture products in the U.S. will adversely affect Canada's agriculture industry and cripple our beef industry.
Will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food instruct the CFIA to immediately implement the terminal feedlot protocol to indicate that Canada is open for business to head off this potentially disastrous situation?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is some connection between the terminal feedlot protocol and the country of origin labelling. I discussed that with Secretary Ann Venamen as recently as 6.15 yesterday afternoon.
I would also remind the member that the first thing that would have to be considered in this case is the disease risk. That will be number one and that risk assessment will be what dictates the results of that program.
Guaranteed Income SupplementMarcel Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, the Fédération de l'âge du Québec has reported some troubling facts about HRDC officials' treatment of seniors trying to obtain information about how the guaranteed income supplement program works.
Will the minister tell us what measures she intends to take to end this situation, which has seniors who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement complaining?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I applaud and recognize the hon. member's interest in this very important Canadian program. The guaranteed income supplement is there to help low income seniors with resource issues that they may be facing.
In support of ensuring that those who are eligible for the program indeed have access to it, starting in February we will begin a direct mailing campaign to seniors and will supply them with pre-filled application forms. It is expected that the majority of these seniors will simply have to sign and return the form to get the guaranteed income supplement.
IndustryMr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. Will the minister tell the House if Inco or any subsidiary company has applied for research and development funding to assist in the overall development of the Voisey's Bay project?
What is the status of the request, if there is one, and is the request for site specific funding? I refer to Argentia, Newfoundland.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that Technology Partnerships Canada has received an application for research and development in relation to this project.
That application is under consideration by officials. No decision has yet been made, but I will let the House and the hon. member know as soon as a decision has been made in respect to that. As to it being site specific I do not know, but I will find out and will let the member know when I do.
The EconomyMr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the economic slowdown. We hear stories every day about layoffs and people who are hard hit by a soft economy. Many Canadians are concerned about their jobs, their livelihoods and supporting their families.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development tell the House whether there is good news on the horizon for Canadians, and whether there are any signs of an improvement in the economy?
Jane Stewart: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform the House that in January total employment in Canada grew by 76,000 jobs. This is the biggest monthly increase in jobs, in total employment, since 1994. Our unemployment rate is back on the decline, dropping to 7.9% in January.
What is most important about this is that it is the first time since August that there have been gains in full time employment as well as part time.
AgricultureRick Casson: Mr. Speaker, in his previous response the minister was wrong. The studies on health issues have been produced and the minister has seen them. They conclude that any possible health threat is manageable.
It is strictly a lack of will by the minister and foot dragging by the CFIA that have produced this potentially disastrous situation.
Will the minister of agriculture be willing to accept the responsibility for killing our Canadian beef industry?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into an argument here, but I have discussed as recently as this morning with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency the results of the risk assessment that has been made.
There are a number of cattle feedlots that would like to have a pilot project. That is being discussed, but I can tell the House that the Canadian Cattlemen's Association has very grave doubts about the extension of that program.
Steel IndustryMr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last fall the United States International Trade Commission brought down a preliminary decision on the application of general safeguards in the steel sector, which has proven to be rather moderate for Canada despite NAFTA.
Given the fact that Canada is itself a victim of the excess world production and dumping of steel, can the Minister for International Trade reassure Canadian steel producers and tell us whether the government does indeed intend to implement, as requested by the parliamentary caucus on steel, the necessary provisions to protect our market against such unfair practices?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, we are fully aware that there is a world-wide problem relating to steel, and that here in North America the industry is becoming more and more integrated. Canada has certainly done nothing for which it can be faulted on the U.S. market.
What I pointed out to Trade Secretary Evans last week is that Canada ought to be exempt from any American action as a partner under NAFTA.
Presence in GalleryThe Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the honourable Michael De Jong, Minister of Forests for the province of British Columbia.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Ways and MeansJohn McCallum: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1) I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act, as well as explanatory notes, and I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.

Routine Proceedings
Exports of Military EquipmentMs. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House and pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I would like to table, in both official languages, the annual report on exports of military equipment from Canada for 2000.
This is the 11th year that we have issued these reports. The measure was conceived as a way of encouraging greater international transparency about sales of military goods. Many other countries have since followed our example with their own reports, but I believe as yet that few of them provide the same standard of information as the Canadian reports.
TreatiesAileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to table under Standing Order 32(2), in both official languages, 31 treaties that entered into force for Canada in the year 2000.
Pursuant to recent practice, I am also tabling CD-ROMs that contain the electronic version of these treaties. These CD-ROMs allow us to reduce paper consumption and they greatly facilitate access to the treaties, through the Library of Parliament.
Government Response to PetitionsAileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to one petition.
Committees of the HouseGurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. In accordance with Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons the committee requests the government to table a comprehensive response to the report.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the Special Committee on non-medical use of drugs be authorized to travel to and hold hearings in Toronto and Windsor from February 17, 2002 to February 22, 2002 in relation to its mandate and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.

(Motion agreed to)
PetitionsBev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have two petitions to present.
The first one is from people throughout the country who want to state their objection to Canada being involved with the U.S. national missile defence program. They call on Canada to stand behind the numerous treaties it has signed that would go against such a program. In other words, they want Canadian values for Canadians.
Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, the second petition, from people throughout Canada, is with regard to the proposed increase in hours of service for truck drivers. They are opposed to the increase in hours of service for truck drivers and want to make that point strongly to the Government of Canada.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling five petitions, including four on the cosmetic use of chemical pesticides. The petitioners are asking the government to immediately pass legislation that would impose a moratorium on the cosmetic use of chemical pesticides, until the safety of these products is proven and their long term consequences are known.
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, the fifth petition is similar to the one my colleague on the other side just tabled. It calls on parliament to declare that Canada objects to the national missile defence program of the United States and that Canada and parliament play a leadership role in banning nuclear weapons and missile flight tests.
Questions on the Order PaperAileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from February 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on December 10, 2001, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the budget implementation bill. We have had substantive interventions by members on all sides of the House about many of the elements of the budget.
Members have reminded us of the implications of September 11 and the importance of having a budget that would provide a security foundation for Canada. An amount of $6.5 billion has been earmarked for policing, intelligence, airline and airport safety and security, emergency preparedness and military deployment, all of which are emerging developments on a daily basis.
Much of the discussion has been with regard to income taxation, particularly tax cuts. Members will know that we already introduced a five year income tax plan of $100 billion. Additional cuts set in the five year plan would come into effect with this budget so that Canadians could see that each and every year their income tax burden would be going down.
It would include elements not only in reductions of rates of tax but would also include the benefits of the reindexation of the Income Tax Act. This means that various credits and other matters within the Income Tax Act would be indexed to inflation allowing Canadians to continue to reap the benefits of the difficult times we went through and the cutbacks that were necessary to ensure that we could get our fiscal house in order.
It is notable that Canada has experienced five years in a row of balanced budgets. We managed to pay down substantial amounts of debt. There is a commitment by the finance minister, who continues to provide projections for Canadians on a rolling basis, to again balance the budget for the next two years. That is good news for all Canadians.
Health continues to be the number one priority for Canadians. On Wednesday we received from the hon. Roy Romanow the interim report of the state of Canada's health care system. It is my hope that Canadians will comment and provide their input to that special commission on the important elements of the health care system. We need to address the delivering of the kind of health care system that Canadians have earned and deserve.
I encourage Canadians who are interested to contact their member of parliament to receive a copy of the Romanow report. There is a website where information can be requested and input can be provided directly over the Internet. That is very helpful for Canadians.
The budget included an infrastructure program of $2 billion. Infrastructure has always been an important part of renewing our economy. I creates jobs making sure that critical infrastructure is in place. It has benefited every region across the country and I was pleased that the item was still there.
One of the areas I want to talk about in a little more detail and which seems to come up often is the whole issue of the Canada pension plan. A number of members have raised the fact that notwithstanding cuts in income tax rates CPP premiums have gone up. We have reindexed various tax credits, increased child tax benefits which are not taxable, and we have put dollars into the hands of Canadian families each and every month to assist in dealing with the exceptional cost of raising healthy, well adjusted children in Canada. I want to amplify a bit as to why Canada pension plan premiums have increased.
First, people have suggested the Canada pension plan system is not financially stable. Back in 1997 the Canada pension plan system had some big choices to make. At the time we had five workers for every one retiree. Each of those retirees was receiving about $8 for every $1 they put in. That was sustainable at that point. As our society ages, as the baby boomers move through the system, they will start to retire. We will see that five workers for every one pensioner reduced down to about three workers for each pensioner. That means that more support has to be put into the Canada pension plan system to ensure that Canadians will have the security of having their pension benefits when they retire.
Canadians should know that the Canada pension plan system is under the auspices of not just by the federal government. The provincial governments are also responsible for the planning and strategic operation of the pension system. All the benefits and changes, whether it be the premiums, et cetera, have to be approved on the basis of the agreements among the provinces and the federal government. Canadians should know that all our elected leaders across the country, representing all regional national interests, work to ensure the Canada pension plan system remains on a stable footing.
I also point out that there seems to be a lack of knowledge on behalf of some as to what exactly the Canada pension plan system does. Not only will we receive the obvious pension retirement benefits when we reach retirement age, we will also have a number of other elements which are quite costly but I think are important to Canadians.
For instance, should a pensioner pass on there are survivor benefits so a spouse can receive additional support. There is a death benefit under the Canadian pension plan system to the estate of the deceased person. Also a death benefit is payable to any dependent children, which also recognizes the benefit earned in the plan.
Probably the most important element of non-pension benefits of the Canada pension plan, which is quite expensive but quite valuable to Canadians, is the disability benefit. If self-employed people do not have a long term or a short term disability plan but have earned income and paid into the Canada pension plan like any other working Canadian, a disability plan provides benefits to the disabled workers which would be more than they would ultimately get if they were retired and receiving a pension. This is an important security or underpinning for Canadians.
Many Canadians are injured on the job or develop long term illnesses or diseases and are unable to earn incomes to take care of their families. This element of the Canada pension plan system enables them to have that protection, but it is quite expensive. The number of Canadians drawing on the pension disability benefits continues to grow but it is important to sustain.
Those members who have raised the point that while we have had tax reductions in a number of ways, those are offset to some extent by Canada pension plan premium increases are quite correct. However it should be clear to all now that Canada pension plan premium increases are there to ensure that not only will Canadians continue to enjoy the generous benefits out of the Canada pension plan, but that they will also have the protection of long term disability which cares for the families of many Canadians.
Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate on the budget implementation bill.
I will begin by acknowledging my Liberal colleague who just spoke. I think this is the first time I have ever heard a Liberal member acknowledge that CPP increases somewhat knock into the tax cuts that have been given by the government. I appreciate that candor.
At the same time, I want to talk about the legacy of the Liberal government during its reign from 1993 to today. The government has done some good things in terms of tax cuts, but it has not been enough. As the Liberal member just mentioned, the cuts taken away on the one hand have been increased with CPP contributions in other areas. The overall impact has not had the maximum effect of what real, substantial tax cuts would do in stimulating our economy.
I do want to talk about the Liberal government's missed opportunities. Throughout the early part of the Liberal government's term in power, it had to make some cuts. In recent years the country has had unprecedented growth. The Liberal government has missed the opportunities to plan for the future. It thought of as many ways as it could to spend taxpayer dollars, and I will reflect on some of that.
The growth that occurred in our economy previous to the current recession we are now in, somewhat related to September 11 but other factors as well, was in spite of the government not because of it. For years we have heard the Liberals say that the policies of the government have made things happen economically in the country.
Seeing as I have the floor, might I take this opportunity to perhaps move a motion, seconded by my colleague for Elk Island, that for the rest of this term in parliament we make all private members' bills votable? Would there be consent for that motion?
The Deputy Speaker: Certainly the member is entitled to ask for consent. Is there consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to raise that and hope my colleagues will be able to hear the riveting speech on which I will continue to embark because it has to do with the missed opportunities of the Liberals during their term. We just heard numerous stories about government mismanagement, and I want to remind people of the legacy of the government.
When I was a new member, first elected in 1997, I remember a small story that started up about a Liberal fundraiser named Pierre Corbeil from Quebec. What happened with this Liberal fundraiser, and perhaps with others as well? He was convicted of influence peddling. He had lists of individuals in Quebec who were receiving government grants. Lo and behold he would knock on their doors during an election campaign, point out they were on the list for a grant and would ask for some cash for the Liberal Party of Canada.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Shakedown.
Grant McNally: Shakedown, as the Liberal member says. It was a shakedown by a Liberal fundraiser in Quebec and he was convicted. I might hazard a guess that this is the tip of the iceberg of the kinds of things that go on behind the scenes here.
We see the facade of the government when it says it is doing this or that. However another level is operating of scandal and mismanagement with the Liberal government. I make these assertions of fact because in the end how can Canadians trust the government to manage their dollars when these kinds of things go on? How can Canadians trust the government to manage the budget of the country when a Liberal fundraiser is convicted of influence peddling in the province of Quebec. As the Liberal member said, shaking down individuals for donations to the Liberal Party of Canada before they would get their grant?
Might I remind people that a government grant is taxpayer dollars, the hard earned cash that Canadians remit to the government. That money is supposed to be used wisely for services that Canadians want. That is the attitude of government members. I am sure they are just as embarrassed by this as much as members of the opposition are.
However it does not stop there. Not only was this Liberal Party fundraiser convicted of influence peddling, but there were other debacles such as the HRDC billion dollar boondoggle scandal. We are all well aware that grants were handed out, taxpayer dollars, often when applications had not been filed. Paperwork was done wrong. Grants went to Liberal ridings in disproportionate amounts. Part of the defence in the whole argument was for ministers to draw opposition members into the web. They said we were writing letters on behalf of programs also. This is part of their strategy. They draw in others as a defence mechanism to justify the mismanagement of taxpayer dollars. That is just not right.
Of course that boondoggle scandal led to the Shawinigate case. More police investigations have taken place in the Prime Minister's riding than perhaps anywhere else in the country. It is unbelievable. The Prime Minister admitted he had contacted an individual at the Business Development Bank on behalf of a constituent. He said that he was doing his job.
I guess his friend, Alfonso Gagliano, the former minister of public works, was just doing his job too when he intervened and called the head of a crown corporation on behalf a friend. Well, he is no longer with us for who knows what reason. Perhaps it could be related to that incident.
The fact is this kind of scandalous mismanagement, this kind of corruption which goes on behind the scenes on the government side is an embarrassment to the country. It is an embarrassment to members on this side and I know it is an embarrassment to many of my colleagues on the Liberal benches, and it is wearing thin.
I am running out of time and I have five more pages of information having to do with how the government has missed opportunities over and over again and how it has betrayed the trust of Canadians in ways that are unspeakable. These occurrences are too common. These are taxpayer dollars given by people to the government for it to manage.
I also mention the parallel grant process. This story broke during the 2000 election. Grants that were given out in Quebec were put through a parallel process of approval through the Quebec Liberal Party. It was the Quebec branch of the federal Liberal Party of Canada. Who could imagine such a thing? It is unbelievable. It relates to the Pierre Corbeil incident, the convicted Liberal fundraiser from Quebec.
Those kinds of things go on behind the scenes. It is because of those kinds of actions that during this debate on the budget I propose the fundamental thesis that this governing group of Liberals cannot be trusted with taxpayers' dollars. It is time for them to be thrown out of office because of their scandalous record of mismanagement.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords--Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of rhetoric from the Liberal side especially about balanced budgets for the last five years. If Canadians did the math they would realize that these guys have been in power for seven, going on eight years now. The first year was a little tough. A big deficit was brought forward and the Liberals had to deal with that, although they did it in certain ways we did not agree with. Then they kind of missed a few years. Probably the reason was there was no budget. A lot of us missed the chance to harangue them last year when they did not bring one down.
Since that time the loonie has basically tanked. There are a couple of quotes by the new Liberal member, the member for Richmond, which I would like to share with folks. On December 11 just after the budget came down he talked about the Liberals strangling the Canadian economy. That is his quote. He also talked about condemning Canada to a bargain basement dollar. I wonder if he still shares those ideals with folks now that he sits in that caucus. It would be very interesting to be involved in some of their caucus discussions to see if that is still the rule.
In balancing the budget, which the Liberals claim they have done, a few things stand out as glaring errors or omissions in the numbers that have kind of been fudged to make that happen. An EI surplus of almost $40 billion has disappeared. There is no money in that account. It went into general revenues. Some $30 billion has grown legs and walked away from the civil service pension plan. In that same timeframe, $25 billion has been pulled out of health care and social transfers to the provinces. Add that up and there is $95 billion of funny money creative accounting to help balance the budget.
We always have to pay the piper. Somewhere down the line we will have to put some of that money back in. Where is it going to come from? We are barely squeaking by now. We saw a surplus this year of $1.5 billion. That is not going to cover a $95 billion asset that will have to be put back at some point in the future.
In its political spin, the government branded it as a security budget. Canadians do not feel very secure with the economy in the tank like it is. The government branded it as a security budget, yet just days before the budget came down, the auditor general in her report talked about $16.5 billion of wasted, mismanaged spending in various government departments.
The auditor general pointed out that defence alone needed $2 billion to get ratcheted back up to a standard that would not leave us limping behind places like Luxembourg and other world powers such as that. The auditor general called for $2 billion. What did the government deliver? Two hundred million dollars.
It is a pittance compared to what the armed forces need, especially now that we have sent them off to Afghanistan in funny coloured uniforms, with half of their equipment stuck in Germany which cannot find its way to Afghanistan. They are borrowing rations from the Americans. They are rationing water. We are one of the richest countries in the world when it comes to clean water and our troops over there have to ration it because we cannot get their supplies to them. The government has absolutely ridiculous accounting practices. Our troops do not have stoves and they are bumming candles from the Americans to heat their borrowed food.
They have rigged up latrines out of fuel barrels, planks and tarps. It is a coed army. I am sure some of the ladies are doing an exemplary job by simply being over there. Our troops are limping along because the Liberals will not supply them with what they need to get the job done in a way which lets them hold their heads high. Our troops are doing a tremendous job.
In talking about government priorities, one of the major priorities over the last number of years has been the long gun registry. The Liberals have put between $650 million and $800 million into that bogus program, depending on whose numbers one looks at, and only $200 million into the military. They are targeting the wrong folks. Let us get the money to where it is needed. If we are going to fight a war on terrorism, let us target the terrorists, not the farmers and duck hunters.
As I said, the auditor general pointed out there is over $16.5 billion in waste and mismanagement across this great country. That is a huge statement. Not one thin dime of that was addressed in the budget. It all disappeared. There is no consensus or drive by the government to find out where that money went and whether we are getting a bang for our taxpayer dollar. The auditor general says no, that it is very questionable. Canadians are saying it is very questionable.
There is a lot of talk about the Minister of Finance forwarding the big tax program he talked about just before the fall 2000 election. People should look at their January paycheques. I looked at mine and my net pay is down. No one is going to cry for a member of parliament; we are overpaid and underworked. My paycheque is down so that tells me that all the folks whom I represent are facing the same dilemma.
With regard to the Canada pension plan, there is a 14% increase to maintain a program which has been gutted by lending money to provinces that have not paid it back.
There are huge unfunded liabilities. These are huge dollars. We are mortgaging our future on to the next generation and the generation after that. It has to stop.
When I first became involved with the Reform Party we had a saying that if we wanted to stop digging a hole, the first thing to do was to quit digging. We are digging ourselves further and further into debt. The creative accounting we see in budget after budget does nothing to address that huge hole which has been created.
There are a couple of decent things in the budget when it comes to my riding. The government announced that it is going to target fetal alcohol syndrome. That is good news and is long overdue. Let us get it done, but let us go to the source. The budget is long on dollars but short on detail. Apparently $60 million has been allocated for that but how is the government going to do it? How is it going to make the program work where it needs to work? It does not say in the budget.
The finance minister was in North Battleford the week before we came back to this place. He was harangued by the crowd about the government's lack of vision for agriculture. That is our bread and butter out there. It is everybody's bread and butter across the country. Anybody who enjoys eating has to thank a farmer somewhere along the way.
Yesterday was food freedom day. Yet it is only nine days into the year that producers themselves are paid for their hard work and their sweat equity and all the overhead costs they incur to give us the safest, most secure food supply in the world. It is just unfair.
The budget showed what the government thinks about agriculture. There is one line which talks about the long term sustainability of agriculture. There is no idea of how to do it and no dollars are allocated to it. There is no program, no plan and no strategy. There is zero, absolutely nothing.
The agriculture minister cried about the AIDA program. He said it was great, that it was going to be the answer and would do wonderful things. It was a huge disappointment.
The only thing that angers people in my part of the world more than the long gun registry is the way the government treats agriculture. A Liberal could not get elected out there. If they tied pork chops around their necks, the dogs would not even play with them. That is how bad it has become out there. People do not trust those folks at all and that is their absolute right because they see that these programs are long on rhetoric and short on substance.
The agriculture minister said that they will redo the safety nets. I started farming in 1972. I have heard that line again and again and they are still a dismal failure. There is no way that people out there are ever going to buy into that type of rhetoric.
Huge dollars, $2 billion, have been allocated to infrastructure. That is great news. The problem is the asterisk beside the figure in the budget and the little note at the bottom of the page which says it is only going to apply if there is a surplus and money to do it. Again, it is long on rhetoric and short on planning.
In the past year my own community of North Battleford suffered a severe blow with a water problem. We applied to the government for emergency funding. There is a program in place to build a new sewage facility. We cannot trigger the money to speed that up and get us over the hump when it comes to safe infrastructure, water and sewers and so on across the country. This is another huge glaring deficit.
Highway 51 is in my riding. A group in my riding formed a committee. Saskatchewan has seatbelt rules and they are a necessity for anyone who drives down that highway. People would be thrown out of their trucks if they were not wearing their seatbelts. That is how bad it has become. Small vehicles cannot drive down that road because they would disappear into the pot holes. We would drive right over top of them. Volkswagens are good because they have a nice and smooth curved roof.
It is absolutely ridiculous that these guys cannot understand that Canadians are finally catching on to their unfunded, undelivered promises. The budget is a glaring error of omission. It is long on rhetoric and short on substance.
Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-49. It is interesting that the bill is entitled an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on December 10. I think it is important to mention that in view of September 11 and everything that has happened as a result of September 11, the government has spoken numerous times about making sure airports were secure in Canada. Shortly after we got back in September, the transport committee began holding meetings on airport security and a lot of things were brought forward.
In the government's news release on the budget implementation bill the number one item listed was to establish the Canadian air transport security authority which would deliver improved security at Canadian airports and on board flights. The second item was to implement the air traveller's security charge as of April 1, 2002, to fund the air security enhancements.
I suggest that when we look at the budget implementation bill, which contains about 110 pages, there are over 70 pages relating to the airport security agency and the collecting of the fee.
Nowhere in the bill does it say for sure that we will have improved training for airport security workers or that RCMP officers will be on flights when necessary. It also does not ensure that training will be improved. We see a lot of innuendo. The government has the audacity to say that it will deliver improved security at Canadians airports and then dedicates over 70 pages to the security agency, which, without a doubt, will be made up of Liberal appointees getting paid a darn fine salary for sitting on that agency with a couple of appointees by the airport authorities, the airport authorities that have been appointed by a Liberal government. Quite frankly that is no change to what we have. That is the status quo in my view as of September 11.
The airlines looked after airport security workers prior to September 11 and the security was contracted out to the lowest bidder. I do not blame airport security workers for September 11, not for a second. They were working under a set of rules that were in place and, for the most part, did their job as best they could.
Through the numerous witnesses we heard in the transport committee meetings, everyone maintained that there had to be improved working conditions, improved wages and improved training for airport security services. Everyone also maintained that there had to be a cohesive security package involved.
We should not have the RCMP doing one section, provincial police doing another section, security agents doing another section and possibly in another area some other security group.
The committee also felt that having airport authorities take over security was not the best route to go. Airport authorities also operate on a bottom line. Anybody who would suggest that one airport authority is not competing against another just has to look at Toronto and Hamilton where they are competing for the business. It is because those people who are on those authorities are being paid a darn fine salary. It is another level of management that has been put there to give jobs to a good many Liberals, although I am sure there is one token person who is not a Liberal, but, quite frankly, I find it appalling.
Something that is as important as the security of our nation and so important to improving the stability and confidence in the airline industry, and the government's approach is to let the airport authorities look after it again. The airport authorities can subcontract it out or the agency can subcontract to the airport authority which can subcontract it out to the lowest bidder. There is no guarantee.
Why on earth do we have security under the auspices of Transport Canada? What is wrong with this picture? We have a justice department and we have a solicitor general's department. Are they not the specialists in security and justice? The solicitor general's department should be the security specialist and should be in charge of security at our airports, our ports and at all federal installations.
How do hon. members feel about the Minister of Natural Resources being in charge of our health care or the minister of agriculture being in charge of communications? Something is wrong with this picture. Why on earth do we not have security under the solicitor general's department? Why are we adding another level of management that will be taking huge pay and not doing any better in providing security at our airports?
I am extremely disappointed that the government, as far as I am concerned, has exploited September 11. There is not a doubt in my mind. The finance minister and the cabinet saw another way of getting a little bit more money into general revenue coffers so they put in a $12 security tax. I need to clarify that. It is $11.22 security tax and on top of that will be the GST, which makes it $12.
Certainly, on something as important as airport security, Canadians should not be charged the GST. That rates up there with certain health care products and certain educational needs. It is just one more way of getting more money. The government has gone beyond being a government for the people, of providing services to Canadians, of providing good social policy and a good plan for this country. All it is out for now is to make a buck wherever it can get it out of the pockets of Canadians.
I am tired of hearing how much money we are saving on income tax. People may be saving $27 or $100 on their income tax each year but they are spending $200 to $300 in additional charges on things like NavCan fees, fees on some toll roads, increased health costs because so much has been cut, and increased education costs because there is no longer any fairness or equal distribution of dollars among the provinces. The government has less and less responsibility to put money back into the provinces for the needs of Canadians.
It is being set up as a place where the government can employ a few more people and give them a good wage to make it look good. The government wants the finance minister to make it look good because it has all this money sitting there. Of course it has the money. It is taking it out of the pockets of Canadians every day and not giving them back any services. Then they have to pay for those services again.
How could the Liberal government not have money? It has cut EI benefits. The benefits are so insufficient now that only one-third of unemployed people can collect EI. Workers in northern communities, where the cost of living is tremendously greater than other areas, have the same maximum earnings limit for collecting EI as everybody else.
We have a situation where a mine is closing in Leaf Rapids. A good number of workers have spent 20 some years in the north. Now they will try to collect EI. They will get their severance pay and will not be able to collect EI during the time they collect severance pay. They have to pay income tax on their severance pay. At a time when one is down an out, that is kind of annoying. If they have worked part of the year they have already reached that maximum allocation of money they earned and then they cannot collect EI. They go for months with no money or they have to go on welfare. They want to be an active part of society and work, but they have to go on welfare after working for years. Just because of cuts by the government, they have to go on welfare.
Obviously there is not near enough time to comment on everything that is or is not in the budget implementation bill screening but I do I want to mention one other aspect regarding the screening.
The equipment that the Government of Canada purchased for the screening of people going through airports will be turned over to the new agency which will then lease it out to the airport authorities, that will then increase the cost of airport fees to offset the costs of increased rents and fees for security equipment. It sounds like an awful lot of loan sharking on behalf of the Liberal government.
James Rajotte: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-49 which will implement some of the measures in the budget of December 2001. It is always a pleasure to speak in the House of Commons to such a large and attentive audience. I rarely have an audience like this so it is a real pleasure.
I was speaking to our House leader's assistant, David Prest, earlier today who really put the government's financial record into perspective for me. David and his wife, Carolyne Campbell, had a baby girl on Wednesday at the Queensway Carleton Hospital. They named her Amelia Carolyne Victoria. I asked David who she looked like and he said that he could not quite tell yet, but that the baby reminded him of the Liberal government. I asked him what he meant by that. He said that it was because she has a ferocious appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.
The budget was a missed opportunity. It was an opportunity to address the security needs in our nation and to put us back on financial track but what does it actually do? If we look at what it does not do, we see that there were no new debt payments resulting from the budget. It is inexcusable, particularly to people in my generation but also the generations that follow, for the government not keep its fiscal house in order and pay down the debt so that we can have a future.
We see no new taxes in the budget. The government has been bragging a lot about the fact that it has held taxes to the same level since October 2000, just before the last election, and that it will not go back on its word, but that is inexcusable, especially considering that the finance committee's report recommended tax reductions, particularly on capital. Reducing the tax on capital would allow more investment in Canada and would help address the economic slowdown we currently are experiencing.
The fact is, the government actually raised taxes. As the previous speaker indicated, it has raised taxes in the bill for airport security: $24 for a return trip. It is inexcusable that the government is forcing passengers to pay such a high cost for airport security. We have to consider it in relation to all the other taxes that are charged currently.
The base cost of a return ticket between Edmonton and Calgary is currently $100. How much tax is added on to that $100 ticket? With this airport security charge, it will now be $86 in taxes on a $100 ticket. Then we wonder why people are flying less and less each year. It is not only because of the situation caused with the increased security and the concerns about what happened on September 11, it is because we are taxing airline travel too much and it is hurting our air industry. I believe seven or eight airlines have collapsed or merged since the Liberal government took over. That simply is unacceptable.
I had the opportunity of having lunch with someone from the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association who said that payroll taxes were severely hurting his businesses. Payroll taxes, employment insurance and Canada pension plan, which have been increased, have severely hurt middle and low income earners to work their way up through society and pay for their families.
The EI surplus now is approximately $36 billion, which is unacceptable. As the auditor general has pointed out, a $15 billion surplus is more than enough to pay for any foreseeable economic downturn, including the one we are in, even if it worsens.
There is no reduction in program spending in any area. It was interesting to hear the finance minister earlier on in the year indicate that he favoured some reductions in program spending and that he would target and not move spending from lower priority areas to higher priority areas, especially given the events of September 11 and the need for increased spending for the RCMP, CSIS and defence.
However there was not one dollar in reductions in spending at all. There are many areas that have come to light, especially recently, such as Technology Partnerships Canada through Industry Canada, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and a lot of the R and D investment. If times are good and we are sitting in a very high surplus position maybe we should consider investing in these areas.
However when times are tough, when the economy is in a downturn and spending is needed for other areas, surely that is the time when it is moved from these lower priority areas to higher priority areas.
If we look at other additional spending investments, at a time when our troops are overseas in Afghanistan we are spending more money on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Canadian television fund. That simply does not recognize the priorities that Canadians want the government to have. They want more accountability and transparency in how their taxpayer dollars are used.
An older gentleman and a good friend of mine named Keith Cumming from my riding refers to this point all the time. He says we need to look at taxpayer funds as funds in trust.
Often when ministers rise to speak about spending they will often say their departments are spending the government's money on this or that. The fact is that it is not the government's money. The fact is that it is taxpayers money.
We do not own this money. Parliament is supposed to oversee this money and disburse it according to the priorities given to us by Canadians, but it is not our money. It should be considered taxpayer funds in trust.
This is an opportunity to address what are obviously the two most serious issues: the economic downturn and the need for increased security spending. The government failed in that aspect.
There has been a lot of discussion recently about whether or not the opposition supports our troops. Of course we unequivocally support our troops. The fact is it is our duty to stand in the House to ask on behalf of them and all Canadians that they be properly equipped.
When we send them into a situation where the rules of engagement are that they could very well face serious fire or serious resistance, we have to ensure that they are properly equipped. We have a situation where the equipment they are using will become obsolete over a number of years and where billions of dollars will be required in investment. Those billions of dollars are not being invested now. The fact is that the government will not be investing properly in equipping our troops. That is unacceptable.
The first priority of a nation and of a government has to be national security not only in the external arena but in the internal arena as well. Frankly those are areas where the government is simply not fulfilling its mission.
New defence spending of $1.2 billion is simply not enough. The Conference of Defence Associations, the Canadian Alliance and others have said that at least $1 billion to $2 billion each year is needed to address the shortfall in defence spending.
It was interesting in 1994 that defence was hit the hardest in the government's first budget. We are feeling the repercussions now. The decisions made then are unfortunately reaping the dividends of not preparing our troops and of not updating their equipment enough. The fact that the Sea King helicopters have not been replaced and will likely not be replaced until at least 2005 or even 2015 is simply unacceptable.
The budget was an opportunity to address economic fundamentals. One of the concerns Canadians in my riding raise with me is the Canadian dollar. They find it absolutely unacceptable that we allow a 62 cent or 63 cent dollar to exist over a long term.
If we look at what the dollar has done under the Liberals we see that it has been on a steady decline. When the Prime Minister was in opposition he complained about the Conservative government at that time having an 80 cent dollar. An 80 cent dollar is much better for us because the dollar is a symptom of the country's overall economic health.
The dollar signifies that our economic fundamentals are wrong, our productivity is too low, our debt levels are too high, our program spending is too high, our taxes are too high and thus investment is not coming in. It was released this year that Canadians are investing more outside Canada than inside Canada. It is unacceptable for a first class world nation to be in that economic situation.
We are the most blessed nation in terms of our natural resources. Yet we have a situation where the government is so mismanaging the financial aspects that we are becoming a second tier economic power. That is simply unacceptable and that is why I urge all members of the House to oppose the bill.
Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, it is again with pleasure that I stand to say a few words in relation to the bill and to comment on the budget such as it was.
When I read the budget of the few months ago sometimes I think of my old days as a schoolteacher. I often say that if some of my students passed in an assignment that was so incomplete and contained so little about the subject I would send it back to them.
We talk about a six month hoist. I think we should talk about just sending it back. We should forget about the period of time and demand that the government produce a real document. Having said that, we have to deal with what is before us.
A previous speaker from the NDP talked about the government squeezing every cent out of the Canadian public. It is so true. Poorer people are being squeezed left, right and centre.
It reminds me of the old story of the five parties in the House having a social together. Five flies were flying around and happened to pitch into each glass. The four parties on this side automatically threw away their drinks. The Liberal member took the fly, squeezed the beer out of it back into his glass and drank the works.
That illustrates the way the government operates. It is trying to grab every possible ounce, every possible cent it can out of the Canadian public.
I will mention a couple of examples. One is the $24 tax on air travel. That might sound insignificant to most members. Many of us travel to the far reaches of the country and the cost of our airfare is horrendous. That is another issue.
To fly return from Newfoundland to Ottawa is anywhere from $1,800 to $2,400 for a return trip. People in British Columbia are paying just as much or more. Some people will say that $24 on $2,400 is only 1% , big deal. What about the shorter flights taken every day by people who have to use air travel to get to work or small business people who have to use air travel to get to meetings across the country where the flights are perhaps a little over $100? Now we are looking at 24% extra. What does that do to the people who travel?
What does it do to the budget of students who are trying to get back and forth to colleges and universities? Students have not been helped in any way by the budget. A country such as ours should depend on youth because they are our future. We invest less in our main resource, our greatest resource, than we do in anything else. We completely ignore our youth just as I would say we ignore our aged.
There is nothing in the budget to help seniors. What is happening as all this unfolds? As our interest rates drop, seniors, many of whom are on fixed incomes, are surviving on their little investments. They have seen the return on their investments diminish to the point where they have absolutely no income. What has been done to offset that? Nothing. Of course that is the operable word with the government.
The EI fund with its $30 billion surplus is an insult to working people and small businesses. Did the government take into consideration suggestions such as a $3,000 exemption that would help many students who work during the summer and see a lot of their money being deducted to pay for EI premiums which they never draw back? No. It certainly was not even considered.
What about small business people who hire a lot of part time employees? I am thinking particularly of those in the restaurant, bar and hotel industry. Are these people who earn very little exempt? Do they have a basic exemption? No. That was not considered. Why? It would help a lot of people help themselves and the government has shown that it does not care.
When I talk about what is in it perhaps I should also talk about a couple of positive points. Let us not be totally negative because we get accused of doing nothing except criticizing the government. I had problems finding anything positive. One interesting one was in relation to a new infrastucture fund of $2 billion that would be set aside to deal with special projects such as water, sewer and environmental projects which could not be handled under ordinary infrastructure funding.
It is a bit ironic but a couple of weeks before the budget came down I spoke at length one day on the same topic. Several of the ministers over there responded to me when I asked questions about funding for the cleanup of St. John's Harbour, Halifax Harbour or Victoria Harbour. It does not matter which one. They are all in the same boat, pardon the pun.
The answer was that the government gave infrastructure funds to the provinces and they could do whatever they want. If they did not use them to clean up the harbours, that was tough. We know that the one-third, one-third, one-third cash shared municipal, provincial and federal funding is not enough to deal with the pressures on provinces to deal with water and sewer concerns throughout the many towns and villages within the different provinces.
That money could not be used for major projects. I suggested at the time a special fund be put in place to deal with major projects such as harbour cleanup.
Apparently the minister was listening to me. The former minister of industry who represented our province had been saying to use the old money. He did not have the creative mind to come with the possibility of a new fund. Anyway the new fund is there. Will it be delivered fairly and squarely? We thought so because an arm's length organization was to deliver it. Now we see the minister will be responsible. The government will be responsible. It is to handle the fund directly.
Will the funds within that fund be delivered to the different provinces fairly? We do not know. We hope there will not be political manipulation. We hope the funds will be used for what they were originally intended to do and that a place like St. John's will benefit from that fund to clean up a harbour, which will mean so much to the port, to the tourism of the province and so on.
Another interesting item in the budget in relation to infrastucture was the $100 billion cut from marine infrastructure. There was also $10 billion or so to improve the coast guard. What is ironic about that is that it happened after a damning report was tabled in parliament regarding the cuts that had taken place in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has done a phenomenal job. I recognize people from all sides of the House who sit on that committee. They have forced the government to make a move on dealing with the horrendous state of affairs within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans simply by bringing into the open what has been happening to the marine infrastucture and the coast guard.
Some good things were included because of the pressure of members on this side of the House. It has nothing to do with members on the other side. What is in the budget is one thing. What is not in it is interesting.
I mentioned there was nothing for seniors, nothing for our youth and absolutely nothing for our homeless. Luckily this is a very mild winter in this region. Ordinarily that is not the case. Quite often as we walk to work on cold mornings when it is 40 below outside we see young people, middle aged and even in some cases older people huddled in corners where they have spent the night. What is the government doing for them? What is in the budget? Not a word. What is it doing for the fishery? The word fish or fishery is not included in the budget.
What is in it? Very little is in it. What is not in it? A tremendous amount is not in it. I could go on for a week about the issue. I hope if we can keep this going we will get another chance. I am sure others want to thank the government for all it has done for all of us in this great country.
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the budget the government presented last December 10 was a great disappointment to many of us. We were expecting the government to do something about the fundamentals. However we saw no provision for scheduled debt reduction, no measures to stimulate the economy, no tax relief and no substantive or significant increases to medicare and the things people in Canada value so much.
The Canadian dollar was at 78 cents U.S. or thereabouts when the government came in. It is now sitting somewhere around 62 cents. People are not calling it a dollar. They are calling it a dollarette. We used to make comparisons on a North American context and compare ourselves in the worst case with the Mexican peso. Now we cannot even do that because Mexico has become a much friendlier place than Canada for investment. The Mexican peso has increased in terms of double digits in relation to the U.S. dollar while we have gone in the other direction. It would be flattering to be able to compare ourselves with the Mexican peso but we cannot make that claim.
The largest symptom of what is going on is that Canadians have chosen not to invest in Canada. The world has become a much more flexible place. Canadians will no longer be held hostage in their own country in terms of how they choose to make investments, and money is very fluid as we all know.
We had a longstanding restraint which was counterproductive. We were only allowed to put 10% of our RSP investment into non-Canadian investments. That has recently been increased although it is still not a free for all. There is still some constraint. However even with the constraint Canadians are choosing more and more to invest outside their country. We are investing more outside our country than inside and there is a reason. The expectation is that the Canadian dollar will continue to do poorly against its international comparison which is primarily the U.S. dollar. Until we turn that around it will become a self fulfilling prophecy.
The only way to turn this around is to change the fundamentals. However the government has chosen not to address the fundamentals in the budget at a time when we need to bolster the credibility of the government in the public eye. We all know that after September 11 a lot of anxiety was directed toward how the government would address a lot of things. Without trade Canada's prosperity is jeopardized. Some 87% of our trade is with our U.S. partner. What we did in the budget to address our security and other concerns had obvious implications for our trade.
I will pose a rhetorical question. What has happened to Canada's pride? Because of the unique circumstances and timing of the budget the government did not address the things on which people were placing the most personal emphasis. We ended up with the Department of National Defence getting an increase to pay for Operation Apollo, our commitment in Afghanistan, and nothing to address the rust out and other major considerations we all know are so necessary to upgrade the armed forces and give our personnel what they deserve.
Last year I went with seven or eight members of parliament to Fort Lewis, Washington to watch Canadian army reserves from British Columbia participate in a training exercise. Since the army base in Chilliwack, B.C. is closed it is a way for them to train cost effectively. It was an eye opener. First, there are more U.S. military personnel stationed at Fort Lewis than there are Canadian personnel in the entire Canadian armed forces.
Second, while we were there we were given presentations on the Canadian Clothe the Soldier Project. I saw state of the art, technically developed and internationally acclaimed clothing, body armour, boots and other instruments that would be the envy of many of our NATO partners and other countries around the world.
It was with great concern that I discovered yes, we had seen all the prototypes and yes, we had spent $300 million on the program, but when it came to deploying our troops we did not have what was required. That was the impression I was left with.
I have made this statement but I will repeat it. The budget did nothing to address the fact that in its early response to September 11 Canada, the major trading partner of the U.S., was displaced as a friend of the United States by the U.K. We have not got that status back because we have not put our money where our mouth is.
We need to do more, spend more and have a firmer policy on border security. We need an immigration and refugee determination process that places Canadian security concerns first. We need to address our lack of military spending. We have been criticized across the board by Lord Robertson of NATO.
The Bush budget of last week added $46 billion to the U.S. military. If we were to do that on an equivalent basis it would be $4.6 billion. It shows how silly our commitment looks. We need an enhanced set of personnel resources on all fronts. This includes our park wardens, customs officers and every other front line service.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to rise and address the budget implementation act this afternoon. However I saw how things unfolded during the day. Since I suspect all MPs will be going back to their ridings for the upcoming break week I felt compelled to get up and add a few words to the issue.
I have been a member of parliament for over eight years. The budget brought down on December 10, almost two months ago today, was the greatest disappointment I have witnessed in my lifetime as an elected member of parliament. I think I speak for the vast majority of Canadians who were led to believe by the Liberal government to expect much more than was delivered in December.
As a number of colleagues have pointed out during the debate, even those from the government benches, there were extenuating circumstances. It has been about five months since the horrible tragedy of September 11. The ripple effects of the dastardly terrorist attacks on the United States of America have been felt not only in the United States but around the world and in Canada in particular. All of us in this place and Canadians from coast to coast recognize that the ripple effects of the attacks are felt in meaningful ways in our everyday society and should have been reflected in the budget the government brought down. I think most Canadians were prepared to be quite understanding about that when looking at the budget.
However what has come to light over the last month or two since we have been actively involved in the war on terrorism, specifically the campaign in Afghanistan, has been how ill prepared the government and our country have been. The once extremely capable Canadian armed forces are but a shadow of what they were in the past. I mean this in terms of equipment and tools to do the job. This is because of nothing more than the Liberal government's misplaced spending priorities. It is that simple.
When the government would rather throw money away on make believe job programs, ill thought through grant programs, and fountains for the Prime Minister's riding rather than the equipment needed by our men and women in the armed forces there is something seriously wrong with our country and our government. That is what has transpired.
Speaking for the constituents of Prince George--Peace River I can tell members that in the real world, outside the Ottawa bubble and the House of Commons, Canadians understand this very clearly. I have heard from a number of my constituents about the issue.
Canadians are reading about our young men and women overseas in Afghanistan having to go cap in hand to the Americans to ask for food rations because they do not have stoves to heat their own food. Our soldiers are dressed in green camouflage uniforms that only allow them to conduct operations safely at night because they are in a desert theatre. They do not have proper equipment. This is because the government has chosen to blow billions of dollars on pet projects over the last eight years instead of properly funding our armed forces.
I believe there is a day of reckoning coming on this. The $1.2 billion that this government committed in the December budget to our military is very clearly an insult. It is not just the opposition parties playing politics with this issue. It is not because the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative coalition has pointed this out to the government. This is beyond the issue of politics.
The minister stands up and accuses any of the four opposition parties of fearmongering when we endeavour to raise these very serious issues. I would suggest it is not fearmongering. I would suggest we are not fearmongering when we are talking about the lives of our young men and women who are so proudly serving our country overseas. That is not fearmongering. No one can tell me that Liberal MPs do not hear this from constituents just as much as we do. We have a duty to raise these concerns on the floor of this Chamber with the cabinet, the executive of the government, which has made these poor choices that have put our young men and women at risk.
It is not just the opposition that has said this $1.2 billion is completely and totally inadequate. About $1 billion a year is needed for our armed forces just to catch up to where we should have been before we undertook this latest mission in Afghanistan.
As other colleagues have said, this budget has failed in so many areas that one does not know where to begin. There is nothing for seniors, nothing for youth, nothing for the most vulnerable in our society. Supposedly this is a caring government. The Liberals keep saying they care about the most vulnerable members of society yet the budget does not reflect that, not one bit.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 1.30 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, February 7 it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of second reading stage of the bill now before the House.
Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure that you can correct my thinking, but it seems to me that since it is 1.30 p.m. we should be going on to private members' business. I do not know on what grounds you are conducting this vote.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Elk Island has raised a procedural point. There was a special order adopted stating that at the conclusion of today's proceedings any questions would be put.
We now come to the matter of deferral.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made yesterday, February 7, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, February 18 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
It being 1.32 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
National Horse of Canada ActMr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): 
moved that Bill S-22, an act to provide for the recognition of the Canadian Horse as the national horse of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honour that I rise to sponsor in the House of Commons this bill that has already received tremendous support in the other place. This is the third time around for me and I would like to thank those hon. colleagues who have worked with me to get Bill S-22 to where it is today.
The history of Canada is incomplete without the recognition of the role played by the Canadian horse. That is why today I ask the House to bestow on the Canadian horse an honour long overdue: its recognition as the national horse of Canada.
To many of us who grew up in the age of the automobile, it is easy to see a horse as just an elegant animal we pass on a drive through the countryside. Some of us have even ridden them for pleasure. As kids in Holstein, around the farm we had horses that we rode all the time.
These days, though, it is really hard to imagine the vital role that they played in the lives of our ancestors who first settled this nation. When we drive through the countryside we see huge tractors, combines and farm machinery. It is hard to visualize the day when there were multiple horse hitches pulling ploughs and binders and running treadmills that ran threshing machines. This was the history of the Canadian horse.
Confederation and later events that brought together the provinces of Canada remind us that the railway was built to unite this country from sea to sea. For more than two centuries prior to Confederation the Canadian horse played a role as least as important, if not more so. No other animal has worked so hard with our ancestors to build this country. Arriving first in New France from 1647 to 1670 from the stables of Louis XIV, they were instrumental to the success of the colony. They cleared the land. They ploughed the fields. They were ridden between remote communities. They pulled sleighs in the wintertime. They eased trade with New England and they themselves actually became a commodity of trade.
To the inhabitants, the Canadian horse was like family. In fact, history records that in 1757 when the settlers ran desperately low on food, the colonial officials told them to butcher the horses and eat them. The people were absolutely horrified. “We cannot eat our friends” they said. Such was the relationship between the colonists and their animals. Quite frankly it was a relationship of survival in the early days of this country.
At the time of the conquest in 1760, there were an estimated 12,750 horses in New France, descended from the original horses sent over by Louis XIV. As other parts of Canada were opened up, the Canadian horse also played a role in Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Manitoba. For instance, I have read the different history accounts within Ontario of the surveyors Rankin and Trainer, who surveyed the townships of Grey, Bruce, Huron, Wellington and on down into that area at the edge of Toronto into the regions of Peel and Dufferin. These horses were used to move supplies through very dense wooded areas in Ontario. They were able to help with the surveys that laid out the lots for the farms, which we see now as all open land as we drive through the countryside of Ontario, for instance. That was not the case when the Canadian horse first came to Canada.
They worked the fields of upper Canada. As I said, where I live in Grey county they helped the surveyors with their supplies. They also carried settlers westward to the Red River Valley of Manitoba. They hauled supply wagons across the prairies on the great march west. They were part of the Hudson's Bay Company overland transport system to Fort Edmonton. They later carried the North West Mounted Police to Fort Steele, British Columbia.
In short, they have had such an impact on the history of Canada that it seems to me mind-boggling that we have not done this before. They are definitely the national horse of Canada.
They have also been an ideal horse in battle because of their endurance. The Canadian horse carried our troops in the war of 1812 and again nearly a century later in the Boer war. Indeed, its ability in battle almost led to its extinction in the 19th century, when vast numbers were exported to the cavalry for the American civil war and after that the Indian wars. The Americans knew a good horse when they saw one.
We recognize this noble breed in the historic paintings of Cornelius Krieghoff, in the illustration of the rural life of Canada more than a century ago. This horse has left a lasting mark on our history.
The Canadian horse is a breed that has been developed here in Canada and has adapted itself to Canadian conditions. Its ancestors, primarily from Normandy and Brittany, in turn have ancestors that are Andalusians, Percherons, Clydesdales and other European horses.
Here in Canada it developed unique traits that remained virtually unchanged through the centuries. The cruel winters, the shortages of barns, hunger and the forces of natural selection led to the development of the shorter, sturdy breed with short ears and a thick mane. This hardy horse with almost infinite endurance is often called “the little iron horse”. It is a gentle natured, hard working, loyal and intelligent breed. In fact, that pretty well describes a Canadian. Our gentle nature is one of the values we as a country hold dear.
A story has been told of a wood merchant from Pennsylvania who bought a Canadian horse and harnessed it to the same pole as another horse 200 pounds heavier. According to the 1914 Breeders Gazette of Chicago, the Canadian always held up his end and never seemed to tire. Two years later, when the heavier horse died, the driver explained “that Canadian horse, he just worked him to death”. Another heavier horse was teamed with the Canadian and a year later it too died. The Canadian just kept on working.
That is something like the pioneers of this country. They put in probably close to 20 hours a day forming this great country of ours. They knew the merits of hard work, as the Canadian horse did, and these people worked side by each.
Historian and breeder Alex Hayward once commented on this horse's versatility and claimed that Canadian horses can do just about anything but dance. He was quickly straightened out by a girl from Guelph, Ontario, who wrote to him to say that her Canadian horses can in fact dance. I am not exactly sure what type of dance they do, but I will not dispute the fact that her horses do in fact dance.
Today it is a multi-purpose breed that can be used for work and pleasure. Its greatness, courage and endurance make it ideal for trail riding. Within my riding of Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey, there are a number of breeders and they are very proud of this horse. It is a very smart horse to look at, with very clean lines. As I said, it is what we as Canadians hold very true.
Canadians were also the foundation stock for other breeds that are very prominent in our equine industry. For instance they are part of the base breeds for the Morgans, the standardbreds, the Tennessee walking horse and the American saddlebreds. All of them claim Canadian ancestry.
These were the horses that took the Americans through their conflict of the 1860s, the American civil war and the Indian wars after that. The pony express used some of these breeds as the United States opened up. It just goes to show that not only did the horse open up Canada, but the Americans used the same horse to open up their own nation.
Its numbers reached a peak of about 150,000 by the middle of the 19th century. Despite that, the American civil war took an enormous toll. Crossbreeding also reduced the numbers of the purebred Canadian horse and threatened it with extinction. Efforts have been made throughout the first half of the 20th century to restore the breed but again in the late 1970s the number of registered animals fell to less than 400.
Twice the Canadian horse almost came close to extinction. Twice it has rebounded, thanks to the dedication of the breeders in all parts of the country. I like to think it shows the resilience we have as Canadians and as a country when on the world stage we are looked upon by other countries as the builders of bridges and not fortification in our reputation as great peacekeepers.
Today there are more than 3,000 registered Canadian horses. It is no longer considered a rare breed. The federal government played a leading role in restoring this breed in the first half of the 20th century. A breeding farm was established at Cap-Rouge, Quebec in 1913. Many of today's Canadians can trace their ancestry to that federal effort. The program continued later at Saint-Joachim until 1940.
Breeders from across Canada tell me that national recognition will help raise the profile of the Canadian horse and will ensure its continued survival. I agree with them. This includes many breeders from Quebec where the breed was first developed. Quebec is home to about two-thirds of the horses today.
From Mission, B.C., Roxanne Salinas wrote to say:

I have raised horses for over 30 years, mostly Arabians, but it is only in the last few years that I learned of the Canadian horse. It saddens me to think that for so many years I knew nothing of its existence, and I hope that your national horse bill will help to change this for others. We need symbols of strength in this country. The Canadian horse is the perfect symbol--proud, strong and enduring--not a victim of his environment, but a true survivor and a hero.

A letter from Quebec said:

Thank you so much for your time and efforts in this cause. A truly Canadian symbol, the little iron horse.

From my own riding of Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey, Brenda Pantling of Orton wrote:

One advantage to having the Canadian horse made a symbol of Canada...is the opportunity to use it as a tool when teaching Canadian history. What better way to interest young people in our history than to wrap it all up with a beautiful horse?

The Canadian horse is a symbol that can unite Canadians from one end of our country to the other. I note that breeders in Quebec and Ontario often work closely with their counterparts in British Columbia and Alberta. We cannot underestimate the importance of the symbols of our identity as Canadians. We recognize both officially and unofficially such animals as the beaver, the loon and the Canada goose. Our provinces recognize provincial flowers. Nationally we recognize the maple leaf.
It struck me that our other animal symbols are wild and indigenous to Canada. The Canadian horse by contrast is domesticated. As befitting a country of immigrants, it came from abroad and adapted itself to the harsh Canadian conditions. It is unique as a breed having been developed in this country. Our country also is unique.
Symbols draw on a nation's history. Just as the beaver was a source of the country's early trade, the Canadian horse was the engine of agriculture and on the land, a primary means of transportation. As a farmer today, I am proud of our agricultural heritage and the role of farming in Canada's development.
Canada would not be unique in recognizing a national horse. Peru recognizes the Paso and Mexico recognizes the Azteca for example.
Our choice of a national horse would be uniquely Canadian. No other horse can seriously make a competing claim as a Canadian symbol. As much as we acknowledge the local importance of the Newfoundland pony, I have had no opposition from the breeders of other horses. Instead, like Roxanne Salinas, the Arabian breeder I mentioned earlier, they offer encouragement, knowing that this is a boost to the equine industry as a whole.
This is my third attempt to get this bill passed. A former hon. colleague noted my determination and suggested that I might just have a little Canadian horse blood in me too. Maybe I have farmed too long and that is where the stubbornness comes from, but I think this is a very important piece of legislation. Members can form their own opinions.
I hope that at last my timing is right. Next week marks the start of the Chinese lunar new year which appropriately is the year of the horse.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: That was my line.
Murray Calder: Well, I am sorry I stole it.
In the recently published book, Little Horse of Iron , Lawrence Scanlan concluded:

These sturdy horses, on whose powerful bodies the history of the nation has been etched, are our horses. For that reason alone, they deserve a future and not just a glorious past.

As I have said, the Canadian horse is very much a part of the history of Canada. We as Canadians need to have this as our national horse. I hope everybody in the House supports me.
The Deputy Speaker: I regret that the member stole another member's line but I am sure by the end of the day we will have all heard from the horse's mouth.
Reed Elley: Mr. Speaker, all puns aside, I will carry on here.
It is a great pleasure for me to speak to Bill S-22 which provides for the recognition of the Canadian horse as the national horse of Canada. I am pleased to allow my name to stand as a co-sponsor of the bill. I congratulate the member for Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey for bringing the bill to the House.
It has been my personal pleasure to have attended a number of Canadian horse shows in my riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan on Vancouver Island and indeed to have presented the award to the grand champion Canadian horse on those occasions. These animals are magnificent creatures. They are wonderful examples of equine pleasure for those who truly love horses.
There are several breeders of the Canadian horse in my riding, for example, Dennis St. Denis and others. They likewise have expressed their support for this bill and the recognition it gives to the Canadian horse in our heritage.
The Canadian horse traces its roots back to the 17th century when King Louis XIV sent horses to Canada to the settlers in New France in their effort to clear and cultivate the new land. As members well know, Canada can be a very harsh and unforgiving country. Cold winters and hot, often humid summers are enough to slow down the best of any breed, but this horse comes from sturdy stock. One must wonder what limitations the inhabitants of New France would have faced had the Canadian horse not been available to them.
It is interesting to note that some of the very best known breeds in North America today can trace their pedigrees and their lineage back to the Canadian horse. One only has to mention such well-known breeds as the Morgan, the standardbred, the American saddlebred and the Tennessee walking horse to realize that the Canadian horse has had a deep and lasting effect on horses all across this continent.
They were used as cavalry horses during the American civil war. They were taken to Africa by the Canadian cavalry to be used in the Boer war at the turn of the 20th century. Although these horses proved valiant, they were never returned to Canada. That played a serious role in forcing the breed to come close to extinction on several occasions. Today I am pleased to report that there are now over 3,000 registered Canadian horses in Canada.
In worldly terms, Canada is still a very young nation. Compared to many countries, our history is still relatively fresh. As the explorers set out across uncharted rivers and lands, they associated the new country with the bountiful wildlife they found.
Today Canada is still recognized around the world officially and unofficially by the Canadian beaver, the loon, the Canada goose and the polar bear. Today we have the opportunity to officially recognize the Canadian horse and add it to the list with these other well-known Canadian animals. Perhaps some day the Canadian horse will also grace the national coinage as these other animals do.
Versions of this bill were presented to the House on two previous occasions. Unfortunately on both occasions the bills died on the order paper, as did many other good pieces of legislation when the Prime Minister called an early election. Just as a political aside, I would say one of the frustrating parts of our Canadian democracy is that there is so much power in the Prime Minister's Office. We need to reform the parliamentary practices of our government so good pieces of legislation like this bill cannot be put off.
Canadians are a proud people, however we are also a very quiet people. We do not go out and beat the drum, calling attention to our nationalism and international or domestic feats. Many of us do not want to rise to the level of nationalism that says my country right or wrong as many of our American cousins to the south display. Maybe we could learn a lesson or two from them and apply it in our own unique Canadian way.
We need to rightfully recognize what it is that makes us Canadian. I believe that this is one of those times. This is the time to stand up as a nation and claim what is rightfully ours. Let us be proud of those things that are uniquely Canadian and support them as a means of binding the nation together.
I note in the research provided to me that many people across Canada do not really know very much about the Canadian horse. Many have not even heard about this magnificent beast. However, we here today can begin to change that. Let us find the passion and the desire to move beyond the partisan and sometimes petty politics that we practice in this place and continue to build our nation rather than pull it to pieces.
I ask all members of the House, representing five different parties and every single region of the country, representing different cultures and different lengths of stay, to stand up and be supportive of the bill. Now is the time that we should be able to all agree on something collectively and do something for the common good of the nation.
Will the recognition of the Canadian horse make a difference to some of the other issues that we discuss in the House? In many cases it will not. Perhaps in other underlying ways it can make a difference. By building on the positive things that this nation was formed upon, we reinstill the confidence and pride that I believe we are sometimes lacking in our nation today.
The hon. member for Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey has stolen a line out of every speech that will be made in the House this afternoon by saying that this is the Chinese year of the horse. I agree with him. I can think of nothing more Canadian than recognizing the Canadian horse as Canada's official horse in the year of the horse.
The bill has my full support. I am proud to allow my name to stand as co-sponsor of the bill. I urge all good members in the House to do likewise.
Marcel Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, at this time on a Friday afternoon, with the benches filled by a raging throng of MPs, we are addressing a very important bill.
This discussion of the Canadian horse brings back memories. In 1976, I was a newly elected member of the Quebec National Assembly. Of my nine years there, eight of them were spent as the chair of the agricultural caucus.
At that time, I met with the Syndicat national des éleveurs de chevaux in connection with the Canadian horse. Their purpose in coming to us was to call for recognition of this animal as the emblem of Quebec.
At that time, we had just begun in government, replacing the Bourassa government after a lengthy Liberal presence in Quebec, and the agricultural caucus had a huge job to do. When we were asked to support the Canadian horse issue, it was not exactly pigeonholed, but it was somewhat set aside.
Hon. members will recall that, in 1976, Quebec agriculture had not yet set the parameters on the protection of agricultural land. This was one of our top priorities at that time. We were also addressing the parameters for farm income security, and the plans relating to this, and were in fact very much occupied with setting the parameters for agriculture in a modern Quebec.
It is safe to say that in the nine years I served in the National Assembly, the agricultural sector changed a great deal. Issues that were not necessarily secondary, but that may have seemed less urgent than others we were working on, were put on the back burner.
However, to my great pleasure, in 1999, through the MNA for Rimouski, Solange Charest—and I thank her and all those who are interested in the Canadian horse—the Landry government managed to pass a bill at the National Assembly recognizing this breed, which many people spoke of with great eloquence and truth, as part of Quebec's animal heritage.
This is a source of great pride for me. Indeed, the Canadian horse goes back to the beginning of our colony. It was around in the early days of New France. Quebecers have known the Canadian horse since the 1600s. It was given to the Chevalier de Montmagny, then Governor of New France, as a gift by the King. The Canadian horse became established among us. It is a breed we are proud of.
We are proud of it. It fought for its own survival, just like Quebecers. It had to fight, and so did we. We too had to fight.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: And we are not finished.
Marcel Gagnon: And we have not finished fighting. This breed is now protected by the Government of Quebec. I hope that it will not have to fight so hard in the future.
It is protected by the Government of Quebec. It is a proud breed that has helped us break the land, and till the soil. It has worked hard. It even adapted its size to the difficulties in Quebec. It managed to ensure the survival of the fittest. It is with pride, with great pride, today that I state that the Canadian horse is recognized as part of Quebec's heritage.
I have no objection to its praises being sung all across Canada, but I will certainly not share it. As a symbol of a people marching towards victory, the Canadian horse fought hard for this victory.
Earlier speakers mentioned that we even almost lost it. The Government of Quebec had to step in, with the help of schools of agriculture, and give it a hand. At one point, it was used for everything, and was even the forerunner of several American breeds, such as the famous Morgan horse, which is a direct descendant of the Canadian horse.
I will be asked “But why should the Canadian horse be the emblem of Quebec? Why is Quebec so interested in the Canadian horse?” Because of the name. I will read from a speech given by Ms Alarie about the Canadian horse. Ms. Alarie is the former member for the riding of Louis-Hébert, a member who left her mark, who spoke with conviction and competence. I think that she was the first female agronomist in Quebec, and maybe even in Canada.
“When we talk about the Canadian horse, the word Canadian, according to the Glossaire du parler français au Canada , refers to a colony of French origin established in New France or to an inhabitant of French Canada, as opposed to the word English, which refers to those inhabitants of English origin”.
So the Canadian in Canadian horse is used to mean of French origin, from New France, and it was given by France to New France.
I will not give a long speech to say how proud I am of the tribute being paid this breed, and how very much I want it to remain a part of our history. It is part of Quebec's animal heritage, along with the Canadian cow and the Chanteclair hen. In fact, Chanteclair the rooster probably did a lot of crowing, and we are crowing too as we see Quebec's sovereignty coming into view.
So we are not about to share this horse, which is part of our proud heritage.
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the federal New Democratic Party it gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to today's bill about the Canadian horse. It was our hon. colleague of 20 years in the House, Mr. Nelson Riis, who spoke on behalf of the bill several years ago and said back then how pleased he was to be able to speak on the bill in order to move it forward.
I would like to bring attention to John and Ruth Ann Hart who live in the Margaree Valley of Cape Breton who actually breed the Canadian horse. They have several of them and are very supportive and proud of the fact that the House of Commons would take time out of its extremely busy schedule to debate a notion that is important to them because they would like to see the Canadian horse become a national symbol.
I say to my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois that they have every right to stand up in the House and be proud of the Canadian horse. However they should be equally as proud to share that recognition with all of Canada and not just narrow it down to one area. Historically, the Canadian horse was found throughout the entire country, not just in one area. I plead to their good senses and to their great hearts and compassion to understand that by spreading the news of the Canadian horse throughout the country would do Quebec an awful lot of good in this sentimental argument we are having of where the horse should be.
Nova Scotia currently has over 56 of these fine animals to be found at Sherbrooke Village, Highland Village in Iona, Fortress Louisbourg and the Ross Farm. After a long absence from the province they originally came back to the Margaree Valley in 1987. One thing that has not been mentioned yet is that these types of horses were used to assist in the American Civil War.
It is imperative that we move on to the recognition of the Canadian horse, a special breed with a long history. The Canadian horse is extremely proud, tough, good-natured and strong in endurance. What better thing can we call Canadian than that? Mr. Speaker, I say without reservation that you will have neigh objection from this side of the House.
Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging the hard work done by many people on this issue. I do not want to take up much time by adding to what has been said by my colleagues who are very knowledgeable on the facts and history of the Canadian horse. I would simply add my voice of support to the debate.
I have something I would like to read into the record from a constituent of mine who was in contact with me on this issue.
I also want to acknowledge that we have heard support from all parties in this debate so far. That is something we do not see happen very often and it is refreshing. It is always good when we can work together in a non-partisan way because that sets the tone for other things we can do together as colleagues, regardless of which party we represent.
A constituent of mine, Roxanna Salinas from my hometown of Mission in Dewdney--Alouette wrote to me. She was very pleased that we were moving forward on this debate. She said:

Personally, I too feel that Private Members' business is important. We need some “grass roots” democracy in Canada. All too often, people give up and choose not to exercise their voice as they feel they will not be listened to, and don't exercise their vote as they feel it won't make a difference. Then we end up with a government that does not represent the people.
Aside from recognizing the horses, Bill S-22 has brought people together from across the country. People from Quebec and B.C. were able to work together to focus on one objective, and there was agreement from all provinces on the use of BOTH official languages. This, in itself, is significant.

I want to congratulate my colleague from Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey for his hard work on this issue. Also, I congratulate Senator Murray in the other place. I had a chance to work with him on a task force, and I know he is a hardworking senator. I appreciate his efforts not only on the task force, but also on this issue. He has worked very hard with the member and with others to bring this issue forward. I also congratulate him for his effort to shepherd this through in the Senate. Not only having the different parties in this House working together, but also having both houses working together, which we do not see happen very often either, is also an important accomplishment.
Some might wonder why we are debating this topic in the House. However this is important because it is a symbol for our country. We have heard a lot about the importance of this breed of horse and its significance to our history. We acknowledge that. In another sense, we are always looking for ways to bring people together from all parts of the country. Having the Canadian horse recognized as the national horse of Canada is a perfect opportunity to do that.
I fully and wholeheartedly support the bill, as I think most of my colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Democratic Representative Coalition would.
Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate upon one of the most venerated animals in the ancient assembly of divine creatures, one of the most widely celebrated over the breadth of the earth and the reaches of time.
The horse has captivated the imaginations of people young and old since the two species first came into contact. It was a monumental prehistoric moment I am sure and one that some believe occurred in North America. In fact some scientists have said that just as the early humans were coming over the land bridge from Asia, the ancestors of the horse were leaving, heading the other way. It would be many thousands of years before horses made their way back to North America on the ships of the Europeans.
As it migrated over the ancient world, the horse became a figure in most of humanity's oldest religions. Some religions made the horse their earth god. Others tied it to the creation of the universe itself. The ancient Greeks watched as the fiery horses of the sun pulled their blazing chariot across the sky. They told stories of the white wild stallions of Poseidon that could race across the oceans without getting their hooves wet. The Pegasus, an immortal winged stallion that could summon water from the ground with the stamp of his hoof, is a child of the horse, as is the unicorn which appears in the art and legends of India, China, Islam and medieval Europe where in Christian nations it was often associated with Christ himself. More important, to this day the unicorn lives on gracing our own country's coat of arms.
The centaur is yet another mythological creation resulting from the bonds between horse and human. Half man and half horse, the centaur was renown in legend for its powers of prophecy and healing. It is a figure of our fantasy and of our imagination and through its symbolic fusion of our two species, the centaur represents within itself the close relationship that humans and horses seem always to have shared.
The horse has also been immortalized in art as well as in legend. In the world of sculpture, bronze horses have stood stately under bronze nobels since the inception of statuary. In portraiture I think immediately of the image of Napoleon on his magnificent rearing white stallion. Kings, queens, emperors, conquerors, generals, sheiks, sultans, chiefs, mandarins and samurai have all had effigies of their horses placed beneath effigies of themselves, so great was their love for their mounts.
In literature tales of horses are found in the earliest manuscripts known to man. Horses are inseparable from the stories of the Arabian knights, the chivalry of medieval European tournaments and the buffalo hunt of native Canadians.
In Gulliver's Travels , his grand satire on the follies of mankind, Jonathan Swift used horses to represent and embody the virtues of nobility, serenity and honour that he believed humans lacked. In Timothy Findley's classic, award winning novel, The Wars , this great Canadian author gives us insight into the dismal and thankless duties of horses of the great war. These horses carried men into battle on their backs, hauled guns to the trenches at the front and pulled wagons filled with the dead and wounded back from the slaughter. Like Swift before him, Findley portrays horses as the most noble creatures in history. Horses bring redemption, hope and escape from the madness of man.
Of course not all horse stories have been so heavy. If we are to talk about horses and their veneration in literature, we would be absolutely remiss if we did not mention those beloved children's tales, Black Beauty and The Black Stallion. How many lifelong love affairs with horses have these two tales been responsible for? The number no doubt is staggering.
Love is the right word because the bond between humans and horses goes well beyond the fields of labour and war and sport. It is certain that the emotion that most people feel toward their horses is love and it is difficult not to imagine that the sentiment is being returned, especially when one considers the timeless, tireless, companionship and support that this animal has provided us. I think now of the wonderful work that is being done in the disabled community with kids and horses.
All of these demonstrate the point that the horse is one of the animals of the earth most near and dear to the hearts and minds of people everywhere, people of all backgrounds and all ages. This fact cannot be overstated and should make it very clear that the prospect of a national horse for Canada is one which will capture the imagination of Canadians far and wide, young and old.
It is true that the prospect of a new national symbol is a weighty one but I am confident that the strong back of the Canadian horse can bear that weight.
From the time it arrived in Canada, the Canadian horse was essential to the development of this country. As was said by the member for the Alliance, it was given to Canada by Louis XIV in the mid-1600s, which makes it the first breed on Canadian soil and one of the first breeds ever to come to North America. From the outset it provided tireless labour, transportation and entertainment in the form of horse racing.
Tough and resilient, the Canadian horse played a role all across our young nation. From Nova Scotia to Manitoba this assiduous animal could be found hauling lumber, ploughing fields, carrying riders, pulling merchants' wagons, carriages, sleds, sulkies and stumps out of the ground.
Today the Canadian horse can be found in every province across Canada.
In its name and character, the Canadian is also symbolically very appropriate. It is prized for its calm courage, its friendly disposition, its hardiness, its endurance and its intelligence, all of which are characteristics that represent the Canadian people as well.
One can see that by its history and its symbolism, the Canadian horse makes a fine candidate for the status of national horse.
The Canadian horse was certainly not the heavy horse breed used in Canada. A number of the other heavy horses that arrived later also became very popular. However it must be remembered that the Canadian breed literally cleared the way for all the others.
Since no horse breed is indigenous to Canada, and since every horse in North America traces its ancestry to a horse brought here from elsewhere, and since the Canadian horse has been here the longest, and since it so well represents Canadians and the characteristics we all hope to find in ourselves, it is my firm belief that the Canadian horse would make a perfect national horse, a Canadian symbol of which we will all be proud.
The French historian, Faillon, described the horses as:

--small but robust, hocks of steel, thick mane floating in the wind, bright and lively eyes, pricking sensitive ears at the least noise, going along day or night with the same courage, wide awake beneath its harness, spirited, good, gentle, affectionate, following his road with the finest instinct to come surely to his own stable.

The little iron horse, as it has been nicknamed, is a fine specimen of the species. It deserves to have its numbers increase and to be appreciated for all it can offer to so many different types of horse owners and horse lovers. It deserves the title of national horse of Canada.
I urge my colleagues and friends in the House to support the bill, to preserve this truly Canadian breed and to give Canadians this new, positive national symbol.
Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek your guidance. I know I have already spoken on the bill but I wonder if there would be consent of the House to deem the bill read a second time, referred to committee and reported without amendment. Seeing as all parties have spoken in favour of the bill, we could wrap this up and get it done in one hour here today.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred until the usual time of adjournment on Monday, February 18, 2002.
It being 2.26 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, February 18, 2002, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28 and 24.
(The House adjourned at 2.26 p.m.)