2003-03-28

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from March 27, 2003, consideration of the motion that Bill C-28, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 18, 2003, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is actually a great opportunity to speak on the budget implementation act and, I am sure much to the chagrin of the governing party, an opportunity to comment on what the budget is lacking and the failure of the budget itself to do what it needs to do to better the situation in the country.
I want to start by speaking first on an issue within the budget that is tied directly to my critic area, that being the issue of the infrastructure funding in the budget and, quite frankly, in past budgets, in that it is and they were severely lacking in the amount of dollars needed for transportation infrastructure and other infrastructure.
Certainly in the area of transportation infrastructure there has been a call throughout the country from the municipalities and the provinces that there has to be some real and serious investment by the federal government into infrastructure. We have heard of the numerous cases where water and sewer infrastructure are needed and where problems have arisen, but in the area of transportation we know wholeheartedly that the situation on a number of the roads throughout the country has reached points of absolute crisis and there are safety issues.
We know that the increased transportation of goods by road has put greater stress on the highways. The government's failure to make these improvements has as a result increased the risk to travellers on the roads, for the transport truck drivers as well as for others on the roads in smaller vehicles. The government, in the course of the last month or so, introduced through the transport minister a blueprint for a transportation vision in the country, “Straight Ahead”. I have stated before that it was sort of like straight ahead and off the cliff, because the highway infrastructure just is not there in a lot of areas. It is an increasingly serious problem.
One can have a wonderful vision but if somewhere in that vision one does not put in place the reality factors that have to be there to make that vision happen, there is just no point in talking about it with any serious approach. Quite frankly, that was certainly the case with the funding for transportation infrastructure in the budget.
As I indicated, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities had called on the government for increased infrastructure dollars at the municipal level, for assistance on roads but also with other infrastructure. I am not going to even try to recall what the exact amount was in this budget, because quite frankly when we looked at the different dollars that the government was suggesting for infrastructure, it was another one of these shell games that it often plays, when it says, “We have given money for this program through infrastructure, we have given money for it this year in this program for infrastructure, and in this one”. The reality is that it really is not the whole amount that it suggests it is putting into infrastructure this year, and it still is not nearly enough to meet the needs of Canadians.
I think the figure we came up with was that it would take something like 190 years to address the infrastructure needs in the country with the support that the federal government gives. While doing that, somehow the government suggests that it is okay to have tax cuts in numerous areas, which will not benefit the entire nation but will certainly benefit some businesses. That is disappointing, not that I want to see Canadians taxed to death, and nobody does, but the Canadians I know, who are more or less the middle income, small and medium sized business owners, do not mind paying their fair share. But they want to see something come back in return.
When we hear of tax cuts benefiting huge corporations that often do not even have head offices in Canada, that do not put in the investment that they need to in Canada, it is disappointing. It was no great surprise to see the Premier of Ontario doing the same thing in his budget announcement this past week, where the company in front of which he did his big advertising campaign for the budget is going to reap huge tax breaks in Ontario within the changes in that budget, the same company that gave him a whole lot of money. The premier in Ontario has chosen to do that but in reality the federal budget does the same thing in a lot of areas and that is disappointing, because it will have a direct impact on so many programs throughout the country.
Certainly the budget is lacking in the area of transportation infrastructure. If the government does not make some serious considerations in that area, it will continually get worse. Municipalities and provinces will feel the pressure to get into a privatized toll type of approach to the highway system. Canadians do not want to see that. Everybody says we have to do it but the bottom line is that we would not have to do it if there were priorities within the government and a real effort to make access available to everyone without those additional user fees in place.
As well, the budget is lacking with respect to the issue of housing, extremely so. I noted in some reading I did yesterday that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities again has called for changes to the whole CMHC mortgage structure. This has been a bone of contention with me for the last year or so.
As I did more reading of the propaganda that comes from CMHC, I saw how it was doing all these wonderful investments in different types of housing and in marketing of housing throughout the world, I was going, “Where the heck are they when it comes to putting in place a good CMHC mortgage structure for Canadians to be able access mortgages?” What about working at lowering the interest rates for mortgages in Canada and making them accessible to more people? What about getting rid of the whole attitude of making sure to get every penny out of everybody without making it possible for a good number of people to access housing?
When I see this stuff about how it is going to do the marketing to other countries, I think that it might be important but quite frankly that is not my vision of what CMHC is intended to do. To me, it is intended to be there to offer a good mortgage setup so Canadians are able to access housing. If it wants to go and do marketing, let industry do it. Let outside business do it. We have put enough money into all these different operations so that we can market this and promote the business aspect outside of Canada. How about promoting things that will benefit Canadians?
There was a situation in the community of Leaf Rapids, Manitoba, a one industry town. When the mine decided to close a whole lot earlier than it was supposed to, a number of people were left with mortgages. Some of these people were able to get jobs elsewhere and others were not, but they found that at every step of the road or every mile of the road there was a roadblock put in place. They had the insight and the fortitude to go out and get a job. They had mortgages in Leaf Rapids. Some wanted to turn back their mortgages because they could not afford them. They wanted to be able to go somewhere else, get jobs, work and contribute to the tax base of Canada. They were told that they still had to make the mortgage payments in Leaf Rapids and make them somewhere else with whatever income they were making, which probably was less because they did not have the seniority they previously had. For those people who were able to get jobs, it was a struggle.
What also happened, though, was that a number of people were told that they could get a quit order, that it was recognized that the situation was serious, but to get another mortgage after that they would have to wait for two years or put down 25%. The situation was that a family that had just lost its income, and often two incomes because if one in the family moved the other had to move, was trying to go somewhere else. In some situations in other communities they could not rent places; all they could do was buy, but meanwhile they could not get mortgages.
I would like to see a much more accessible and considerate CMHC mortgage operation than what we have seen. Again the budget did nothing to provide affordable housing throughout Canada to address some of those concerns. It went purely on the whole business aspect: “We are going to get every penny out of you even if we get you into the ground and have to stomp on you a couple of times”.
As well, let me suggest that there were some good things within the budget. One of the things mentioned was the accessibility to caregivers' assistance through the EI program for someone wanting to stay at home and look after a family member. There is going to be some time for people to do that, but to me the time that was offered was absolutely a slap in the face to those caregivers who have to leave their jobs to stay at home to look after a family member. A good number cannot and they want the opportunity to be able to do that. Our health care system is going through a challenging time and we have caregivers who are family members. Quite frankly, a good number of those doing this were women. By the nature of the way things worked, it was mostly the women who were willing to take time off work and stay home and look after a family member. There were men too, but it was mostly women, and there were extremely great financial difficulties.
What they wanted to do seemed simple enough. People are paying EI premiums. It is not as if this is something for nothing. People have paid for that insurance. They wanted to take a reasonable amount of time off to look after a family member at home with a terminal illness or a sick child who required acute care. What we were asking for were some real contributions through the EI program to provide people with reasonable time off. I think that what the government came up with was a six week period.
Anyone dealing with people with acute medical needs or a terminal illness knows that they need someone there for more than six weeks of that time. The challenges and emotions that are involved in that kind of family situation are really tough. What does the government respond with? It says it will give someone six weeks to access EI. This is from a government that has taken a $42 billion surplus out of EI. It says it will give back six weeks. This is not about a person receiving money for nothing. If people pay EI premiums, it is an insurance policy.
I once had a discussion with a previous minister and said that with most insurance policies one looks at ways of enhancing programs. If the funds are available, the program should be enhanced and extend what people can be given. What we saw under this government year after year were cuts to benefits, cuts to EI.
My colleagues from the Alliance have argued for cuts to the premiums that people had to pay in. The government gave them every reason to argue that point because it kept having a surplus and did not give the benefits back. I, on the other hand, as a worker had no objection to paying a few hundred dollars a year for an insurance policy which would ensure that if I did not have my job I would be able to collect EI for a period of time. If I had to access the sick and disabled part of EI, I could do that. If for other reasons I had to access EI, I did not begrudge paying that as a worker. I was able to claim it as a tax deduction.
What benefits do most workers and, for that matter, most businesses receive by the cuts to the premiums? Some would argue they are saving all this money in payroll taxes. A good number of small and medium sized businesses out there benefit through training programs they are able to access through human resources and the EI funds. It was not as if someone did not have the opportunity to gain from dollars going into EI.
As I said, as a worker I quite frankly did not mind paying for an insurance policy that was guaranteed. I did not see it as a tax. It was an insurance policy in the same way that I pay my life insurance. I pay so much money so that if I happen to die in an accident at a certain time a specific amount of money is going to come back to assist my family. If by luck I never have to access that life insurance policy, hallelujah brother, it worked out great. I am not going to ask for the money back because I recognize that it is an insurance policy.
That is what EI was intended to be, an insurance policy, so that if rough times fall upon people they are able to benefit from it. What we have seen time and time again are cuts to the EI program, cuts to the benefits, a few minor cuts to the premiums as a result of pressure, and the fact that there is a $42 billion surplus when what we really should have seen was more money going into the benefits side of the EI program so that women and other family members who wanted to stay at home to look after a sick or terminally ill family member could do that.
There is another aspect that should have been accessed under EI. We have called for this before. There are some workers who have worked for 5, 10 or 15 years who have never had to access EI even for minor things, but so be it. They have paid into EI and they might find that they want to try something different, like increasing their educational opportunities. I want to say that it was nurses in Canada who first brought this to my attention. They wanted the opportunity, after working 5 or 10 years in a certain part of the nursing profession, to perhaps enhance that professional training opportunity or to try something a little different like perhaps taking a year off to do some other kind of training. They wanted the opportunity to access EI, an insurance program that they have paid into year after year.
Did the government open up any of those opportunities? We need improved health care in this country. We need more trained people in this country. Did the government offer an opportunity for nurses throughout Canada to enhance their professional training, or to other workers for that matter? No, it stomped on them, saying, “We have a $42 billion surplus and we want to use it to give a tax cut to someone else over here, possibly, what the heck, Bombardier, Groupaction, whoever. We want to make sure all of them get a tax cut”.
However we do not want to open up any better benefits or opportunities for Canadian workers who have paid into these funds. It is not giving them something for nothing. They would access those funds because they paid that insurance. That would have been an enhanced EI program. That is what a good, considerate government with a conscience and caring for its people would have done. However not this government under this budget. It is extremely disappointing that the government had an opportunity to do that with a $42 billion surplus in EI but it never even bothered to think about it.
Another issue came up on EI in the last week or so. Flight attendants were always, in my view, considered part of the flight crew. They are our number one first responder if an airplane goes down. I always said how we expect them not to be injured any more than passengers was always beyond me. However they are considered the persons to respond to emergencies on the plane. Lo and behold flight attendants are not considered part of the flight crew. As a result of them not being considered part of that crew, it has changed the whole concept of how CCRA and human resources will make available to them the opportunity for EI payments.
Every contract with every airline has different kinds of agreements for the flight attendants. I hate to say this because it is disappointing to have to be reminding the government over and over again, but this has opened up a situation where once again mostly women will be challenged as to whether they can access EI payments, even for maternity leave, because of the way the government now sees their hours.
Without getting into how the hours for flight attendants work, we all know that we get on a flight and it leaves at a certain time. The flight attendant is there looking after us, helping out with a family member who might be a little tense or providing assistance if it is needed. If the plane is delayed and it is sitting on the ground waiting, for a lot of flight attendants that is not considered flying time. There are things built into the contract that mean it will be dealt with differently. However the government is not going to acknowledge that. It will only consider the flying time and it will finagle around other agreements flight attendants have as to whether they will be counted as hours worked. As a result, flight attendants will be denied EI benefits.
We are still working on this one and I hope the government will have the decency and conscience to recognize that if the flight attendant has to sit there and wait an hour and a half while the plane gets back on track that time will be considered as time worked and allow them to use that time to collect EI.
I know I only have a short period of time left but there were so many other things I wanted to mention. Let me just get on to a couple in that short two minutes.
I wanted to mention the situation with the seniors' access to pension. Once again, a government with any conscience would not put into place a rule that says if seniors did not let the government know they wanted this pension which was rightfully due, then they would not receive it because the time had expired.
These are our most vulnerable people in society as a result of cuts the government has made to health care, housing and numerous areas. They have paid their dues to Canadian society time and time again and have worked hard to get us good programs. Our seniors have supported health care over the years. With the Canada pension plan, seniors have been paying that for us. What is the government doing? It is telling them that if they did not apply on time they will not receive their pension which they were rightfully due. They might get $15,000 to $16,000 a year and the government expects them to live on that, and it will not give them any extra cash.
That is absolutely unacceptable from a caring, considerate country such as Canada, and obviously acceptable to the government, which is not okay for Canadians. I hope Canadians will recognize that next time around when they have seen the actions of this government in a number of areas.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intervention. I point out that the government has in the budget dealt with families, communities and with real Canadians. We have done it in a way which is fiscally responsible. We have no deficit again, with a balanced budget or better, which is the sixth in a row. We have been able to deal with health care.
I know the member is very concerned about health care. There will be $34.8 billion going into health care over five years. We have reduced EI premiums to $1.98 and we will have the commission look at future changes in EI, about which I know the member is concerned.
We are concerned about the fact that communities need to have the support. Through both the strategic infrastructure fund and the national infrastructure fund, there will be leveraging of money from the provinces and communities to help.
Governments are elected for a maximum of five years. During that five years they make targeted investments and do it in a fiscally responsible way.
Could the member comment on the issue of child poverty and on the important contributions the government has recognized with regard to poor and disadvantaged families in this budget? Could the member comment on how that will impact in particular on communities in her riding?
Bev Desjarlais: There is no question, Mr. Speaker, that a lot of work needed to be done. There is also no question that a lot still has not been done. Quite frankly the government's priorities were out of whack in some of the areas.
No one was suggesting that we do not want to get rid of debt and deficit. Absolutely a government does that. However the bottom line is Canadians paid for those savings, not the government with all its fancy finagling and book work. Canadians paid with loss of services. Most Canadians did not benefit from decreased taxes or premiums or this kind of thing.
There is no question there is a lot of work to be done, but there was also a lot of wastage of government dollars. I believe that happened within the gun registry, not gun control. These are two different things. I strongly support gun control. A much better job could have been done to ensure safety for Canadians through good gun control rather than through the mismanagement of the gun registry or that whole registry process which I think was just a sham to appease some people, giving an impression that it was going to provide safety when it was not going to.
There was also the money that was wasted through the whole Groupaction scandal. When Canadians hear someone say, “It was only a billion dollars, a bit of wastage here and we had to do this”, my gosh that money would have gone so far in those communities experiencing poverty to ensure that there was proper housing, proper dollars for schools and proper funding for increased infrastructure, for roads. So much more could have been done.
It is fine to say that we are putting this in, but year after year the government cut so much that it could have done a great deal more. We have to see that money go to where it is needed and that is not happening.
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the hon. member for Churchill who gave a very thoughtful speech that touched on, I felt, some extremely important points.
I would like to ask her some questions, because she spoke about poverty. She also talked about those seniors who were deprived of the guaranteed income supplement due to a lack of information.
I want to ask if she thinks that it is right—and the employment insurance fund is another example—for the government to boast about reducing the national debt on the backs of the workers, the unemployed and the elderly. I know that several billion dollars belong to the workers and not to the state. It did not contribute one dime to this fund. This money belongs to the workers. Some $3 billion belongs to the seniors who were deprived of the guaranteed income supplement.
Does she think it is right for this money to be used to pay down the national debt, when these people did not incur the federal debt. I would like to get her reaction to this.
Bev Desjarlais: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I know my colleague worked very hard on the issue of the guaranteed income supplement. It took a good three years of constant badgering before the government even made an effort to let seniors know that it should have been rightfully theirs. The government used all these arguments, that it could not breach privacy with this by letting seniors know that the money was rightfully theirs.
Talk about an act of omission, a lie of omission, an absolute unconscionable act of omission. The government's way of getting around it is proof to the Canadian public that governments do not act in the best interests of the people.
I would say that members would be hard pressed to find a handful of Canadians who think there should be a clause in place that says if Canadian seniors did not apply on time they would not get the money. If members can find a handful of Canadians, I would ask that they stand up in front of the Canadian public and say that they agree with the government that if seniors did not apply on time for this money, they should not get it. If they can be found I would like to see them.
Nobody believes that seniors should not get that money, even if it took them 10, 15 or 20 years to apply. They darn well deserve that money and the government should be giving it back to them.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my friend from the NDP mentioned a number of very interesting subjects. I want to focus on her interest in the poorest in our country.
The member mentioned the very correct notion that the government through its tax structure has been unfairly penalizing the poor and those who are struggling in an environment that is becoming increasingly more difficult as time passes.
I want to ask the member a simple question. Would she support changes to our tax system that nobody making less than $20,000 a year would pay any federal income tax? In my view people cannot survive on less than $20,000 a year. Why is the government taking money away from them with one hand and then expensively giving money back to them with the other?
Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any question as to the reason why the government does that. It has to keep raking in money because it keeps giving breaks to someone who is a whole lot higher up on the income scale.
When corporations that literally make billions of dollars are given tax breaks, then the government has to get that money back from somewhere. It gets the money back from the people it can harass to death for owing the government 50 bucks. However, the corporations that owe the government $200,000 or $300,000 or a million dollars are allowed to get away with it because it is too much trouble to get the money from them.
The government gets the money from a lot of little people down the road. There is no question that it is unacceptable. There needs to be changes to our tax system.
I believe the position the New Democratic Party had taken was $15,000. I am glad to hear my colleague from the Alliance who thinks perhaps it should be $20,000. There is no question, there needs to be a change. People have to be able to make a living, not a great living but a living to provide things for themselves such as heat, water, food, rent, clothing, basic needs. I am not talking about buying a huge television screen or a new car every other week. That is not about what we are talking. We are talking about the basic necessities of life that people need.
A good number of these people are seniors. They are the same seniors to whom the government refuses to give that money back.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I can do justice to this issue in such a brief period of time.
There was one simple adjustment that the Minister of Finance could have announced that would have given relief to thousands of Canadians. The time of the year that is the most costly for ordinary Canadian families is when they have to pay to heat their homes with the high fuel prices. Many of those same families pay EI and CPP contributions from January 1 for about eight months. Then they have a holiday at the time they have made the maximum contributions.
Would it not be sensible to shift the period of time that the government collects EI and CPP contributions to coincide so that the most expensive months for heating and fuel costs would be the tax free months in terms of payroll contributions? The government could begin collecting those contributions on April 1 instead of January 1. In the most expensive months of the year people would not be making any of those contributions to EI and CPP.
Would the member agree with that?
Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent plan. It is proof that the NDP is not always out there, as people would say, just to give a break. There are sensible ways of doing things that will not decrease the amount of dollars coming into the federal government.
I would say the government just wants to get some extra interest and again from the people who can least afford it. In a country such as Canada, we know the heating costs will be that much greater through those months. Climate change has not come to the point where we are sitting in 70° weather throughout the year.
The bottom line is some things could have be done. They are not major changes. The government did not like the fact that it would benefit a good number of ordinary Canadians, rather than the ones at the top of the scale.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Brandon--Souris.
I would like to comment on the remarks just recently made by my colleague from the NDP and also on the question asked by the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca. They talked about raising the exemption level in relation to the payment of income tax. That is something which not only will we support but we have also recommended.
We have too many people living on fixed incomes and very low incomes who quite often have to turn to the government for social assistance. The government takes away, as the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca said, on one hand through the income process, only to give back through some social program. It does not make any sense. It would be much better for the psyche of the individuals involved if they could go out, make a living, and hold on to the amount of money that they need in order to make a basic living.
The cost of living in this country and right across the world has gone sky high. We have not adjusted our exemption level in tune with the expenses and the needs of the average family in our country. Certainly, the government must look at that.
The NDP member for Churchill talked about seniors. They are perhaps one of the two groups in the country completely ignored by the government.
When I spoke earlier on the budget, I talked about the need to invest in our youth, to invest in education, and to educate our young people so that they will be contributors to society, rather than going out into the field without an education and forever taking from the system. It is a no-brainer. A young, educated population will be a contributing population
Any statistic we look at shows that individuals with a post-secondary education, plus any extra degrees at a higher level they might want to pick up, have a better chance of employment. If they cannot afford to go to a post-secondary institution they have no other choice except to go out and try to find some work in the workplace. These days such work is quite often intermittent, and therefore they end up on social assistance or drawing employment insurance, and because of the inability to look after themselves, their health costs escalate, and so on.
We have two choices. We can invest up front and have a population that contributes, or we do not invest and have a large portion of our population who, through absolutely no fault of their own but because of geographic or economic circumstances, will be taking from the system more than they will be putting in for the rest of their lives.
The other group includes our seniors. Many of them, especially in the rural areas, live on fixed incomes and old age pensions. Many of them have absolutely nothing else. If they worked in the private sector they probably do not have any extra pension except a small Canada pension which would be minimal. Many older people, particularly women, basically stayed home in their day, raised families, and consequently do not have Canada pension benefits.
These people are on a low fixed income which has not been increased for a considerable amount of time to any degree at all to meet the rapidly rising costs of living in this country. Yet, we expect them to maintain their residences, buy food, clothe themselves, cover the horrendous costs of health care that they face, in particular drugs which are not covered by medicare, and we do nothing to assist them. These are the people who built our country. These are the people we should be helping. We have not been doing it and it is about time we got around to doing it.
Let me talk about a few other concerns. The last time I spoke I gave the government credit for some of the new innovations in the budget. However, one of the concerns I have with the government, and I am sure others share it, is that we see all kinds of fancy announcements, but when we analyze them we realize they would be implemented over the next 3 years, 5 years, and 10 years. By that time the amount of money would diminish considerably in relation to value. When we look at the implementation process, the bureaucracy, and the money that must go to the advertising companies to advertise such programs, there is little left for individuals who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of such programs. It is not what is in the budget; it is what is not in it that is probably more important.
One of the interesting things when we talk about programs and the money going into new programs is that while the government is telling people it is doing this to a certain program and bringing in that new program, it is immediately telling its departments that they must cut $1 billion from programs. It did that, in fact, a couple of days ago. It gave the departments a deadline. The promises are extended over a considerable amount of time with all kinds of dollars that can be moved, taken out and changed. A lot of it has been double promised over the years and promised every time the government makes an announcement. However, the $1 billion is coming out today.
Some programs, for example, within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are being cut by $17 million. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been begging on its knees for money for the past 10 years. The government has made these cuts from day one. The Coast Guard is at rock bottom. Boats cannot even afford fuel to do their jobs and are tied up in port.
We have security concerns in the country and nobody to address them. We have infrastructure problems and people within the department openly telling the government and the country at hearings that it would take $400 million to bring our facilities up to par. About 21% of our wharves are not safe to walk on.
Then, of course, we have the science branch. Two days ago the FRCC made recommendations on the cod stocks and yesterday in relation to the northern cod. It is basically saying to the government that these cod stocks are not growing. In fact, the northern cod is practically non-existent, less than 1% of the biomass that was there 15 years ago. It will also tell us we do not know very much about what is going on in the ocean simply because we have no science. That is inexcusable. As we run into these problems we need an increase. We do not need the government, telling departments behind everybody's back, to cut and cut from such things as science.
One of the things the government can do to help this country prosper, to help small business, to help business generally and to get out there and create the money that can help seniors, students and our science is to cut out some of the red tape and bureaucracy. We have too much bureaucracy. The more complicated the system the longer the bureaucrats have their jobs.
We must streamline delivery. We must have one stop shopping. We do not need 13 stops to get permits to start developing our minerals or the offshore. We need to cut down on bureaucracy and let the private sector get out there to create jobs, and create the type of economy that can help those who need help.
Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the hon. member that cutting red tape is a continuing issue for government. The government is developing a new culture of accountability and transparency. The more we can do in that regard the better it will be for all Canadians.
The government has brought in a budget with no deficit. The national debt continues to go down from 71.5% five and a half years ago to 44.5% and is continuing to fall. We are able to contribute significantly with our partners in the provinces to health care, $34.8 billion over five years.
There are infrastructure issues. I would agree with the hon. member that it was the government that picked up on the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' infrastructure program and provided funding for St. John's Harbour, Halifax, roads or whatever it happened to be. The government took a program that lay dormant under the fifth party when it was in power and brought in three consecutive national infrastructure programs.
We are leveraging that by working with our partners in the provinces and municipalities. The leveraging is important. It is not simply federal dollars; it is provincial and municipal dollars. I would like the member to comment on the positive impact that the national infrastructure program would have on St. John's Harbour which I know has been a concern of the mayor of that city. I have spoken to the mayor before about it. I am sure it something that the member will see as an improvement for his community.
Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, let me first talk about the positive aspects of the question. He talked about the funding for St. John's Harbour. It has been long fought for, long needed, and is now promised. Hopefully it will be delivered upon.
I would suggest to the member though that the funding came through a special program because former ministers had been telling us in the House that it must come through the regular infrastructure. One cannot take $100 million out of regular infrastructure funding for any project and expect to be able to do everything else that has to be done.
If the member would check Hansard there is one member who recommended to the Minister of Finance, months before he brought in the new program, that we needed a new special infrastructure program to deal with major projects. He would see that I made that recommendation here and so I do take some credit for it.
The member talked about transparency and accountability. These are great words. The government would be transparent and accountable. We saw what it did a couple of days ago in getting $59 million more to put into the administrative side of the gun registry, not counting the other associated costs.
It was quite transparent that the Prime Minister cracked the whip and forced people on their knees to come here under threat of expulsion from caucus, or that he would call an election where a lot of them would know that they would not be back here, and forced them against their will and against the wishes of the country to vote for that kind of funding. It was very transparent but certainly not accountable.
He also talked about balancing the budget and giving money to health care. The government is only giving back a portion of what it took away and that is why it balanced the budget in the first place, along with raking in money from free trade and the GST. At present, HRDC is reducing services in rural Canada and playing games with the local bureaucrats because it has been told to cut programs. It is transparent but it is certainly not accountable to Canadians. No wonder it balanced the budget, but it did so on the people in the country who really need to be helped.
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, my friend from the Conservative Party brought up one of the essential bugbears of the House, which is the efficient use of government expenditures. We have seen from Groupaction to regional pork-barrelling expenditures where taxpayers' money is spent for the benefit of the governing party to invest in politically sensitive ridings.
Indeed, that must change because at the end of the day the money is taxpayers' money. It is not our money. What would the member do to ensure greater transparency, effectiveness, and efficiency of taxpayers' money and how the House spends it?
Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's very good question is one that has to be answered by the government.
The two words that are being used are “accountability” and “transparency”. We are elected by every individual in this country who is of voting age to come here and make the proper rules and regulations and the laws that govern this country. We are also here to administer the funds that we collect from them and which are spent for their benefit.
One of the ways this could be done and should be done, is as it used to be done. When a government brings forward a budget, that budget should be built upon the needs of the people of the country as collectively input by the people who sit in this place. The estimates should be fully scrutinized and debated right here in this chamber or thoroughly at the committee level. What happens now is the government brings in a budget, rushes through the estimates, and forces its members with the threat of expulsion to vote for funds such as for the gun registry. Nobody has any input.
The place to thoroughly debate these issues is right here so the people of Canada can make the government accountable as well as the members who represent them.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech made by the hon. member for St. John's West. He raised many good points. I would like to get his view on a point I raised earlier.
I wonder if he would agree with me that it was an oversight or an omission and the Minister of Finance could have done a very simple administrative thing. In order to provide some relief to the thousands of Canadians who are suffering under the spiralling out of control home heating costs, he could have staggered the months during which EI and Canada pension plan contributions are made so that they would begin to be collected on April 1. Everyone knows full well that many people make contributions for approximately eight months until they have reached their maximum contribution.
If that simple administrative change could be made, would it not provide some relief to families? Would the member join me in urging the government to do so?
Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member and certainly have absolutely no problem asking the government to do that. It is only a matter of adjusting when it takes out the necessary funds or the percentage of CPP or EI benefits. There is always a three or four month break. Why not give it to people when it is really needed, especially to people on low or fixed incomes?
Let me go a bit further. I am sure that by looking at government programs such as those and by readjusting them, we could find many ways to help people across the country, especially people on low and fixed incomes.
One of the other reasons people suffer with the high costs for fuel is because of government taxes. There should be a ceiling. The government should not be able to rake in windfalls because the price of home heating fuel and gas goes up. There should be a limit which would give the government the same amount of money, but would also give a break to the people who need it.

Statements By Members
Canadian Red Cross SocietyMr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that March is Red Cross Month in Canada.
The Canadian Red Cross Society is a volunteer based humanitarian organization dedicated to preventing human suffering across Canada and around the world.
When disaster strikes, it is the quick response of the Red Cross that lessens the hardship suffered by survivors. In Canada alone there are approximately 65,000 Red Cross volunteers who provide for people's basic needs following a disaster, including food, clothing, shelter and first aid.
I want to take this opportunity to recognize this organization and urge all members to support the Canadian Red Cross Society. I urge all Canadians to volunteer their time and to financially support the Red Cross programs.
Gasoline PricesMr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I met with more than 800 people from my constituency in the first week of March. The most common complaint I heard was that the price of fuel and natural gas was too high.
Farmers trying to keep their vehicles and machinery running are especially hard hit. The price of natural gas is driving up the cost of fertilizer making it even more difficult for those struggling in the agricultural sector. High fuel prices, driven even higher by taxes, are nothing short of highway robbery.
Every year Canadians pay $4.8 billion in fuel taxes but instead of most of that money being put back into roads, it goes straight into general revenues. The Liberal government siphons $375 million in fuel taxes out of Saskatchewan each year, but since 1992 only a total of $26 million has come back. The sudden announcement that $39 million will be spent on roads in Saskatchewan this year is an obvious attempt to buy votes.
Why is the government robbing struggling farmers to fund corporate welfare?
Ontario Egg ProducersMr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the Ontario Egg Producers and its many members who represent a $300 million a year industry in the province of Ontario alone. What they do is provide consumers with guaranteed safe, high quality eggs. This organization also contributes to the efficient management in the production of eggs, research and promotion.
Yesterday in Ottawa the Ontario Egg Producers hosted its annual “Get Cracking” omelette breakfast. The directors of the organization prepared a nutritious, healthy breakfast for many of us on Parliament Hill.
I would especially like to thank Hubert Schillings and Victor Slobodian for their hospitality.
Women, Peace and SecurityMs. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Monday, Linden School, a primary and secondary girls school located in my riding, will be celebrating its 10th anniversary by encouraging students and members of the community to consider the importance of hearing women's voices in the search for peace.
The event is titled “Coalition for Peace: Women Take Action” and will address how to include women's voices at the peace tables worldwide.
They have assembled a distinguished and experienced panel, including Toronto journalist and author Sally Armstrong, Toronto Star columnist Michele Landsberg, political commentator Judy Rebick and Linden alumnus Sarah Shteir.
It will be my pleasure to take part in this event to share the excellent work that our government has done toward the implementation of UN resolution 1325 on women, peace and security.
It is my hope that future generations can continue the important work of ensuring that the views and voices of women are taken into account in the fight for peace.
Aboriginal Achievement AwardsMs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tonight in Ottawa 14 individuals chosen by a national jury of accomplished aboriginal people will be honoured at the 10th annual National Aboriginal Achievement Awards in a special televised gala ceremony.
These awards which are the initiative of aboriginal peoples, go to outstanding Inuit, first nations and Métis.
One of the awards is a special youth award and is accompanied by a $10,000 scholarship. Another is in recognition of a lifetime of achievement.
Established in 1993 in conjunction with the United Nations International Decade of the World's Indigenous Peoples, these awards provide role models for aboriginal youth and inform the public of the significant achievement of aboriginal peoples in a wide variety of areas.
Please join me in congratulating the recipients of this year's aboriginal achievement awards.
Government PoliciesMrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, residents of the city of Pembroke woke up this week to a boil water advisory over possible contamination in the municipal water supply. Thanks to the decisive action of Mayor Bob Pilot and county health officials, a potential crisis has been averted, though the advisory remains in effect.
It is clear that years of federal cuts to provincial transfer payments have taken their toll on all Canadians. From the tragic deaths of Canadian Forces pilots flying 40-year-old helicopters, to the tragic deaths of school children near Owen Sound, Ontario because the Liberals cut the funds for safety inspectors, to the sad tragedy of dirty water in Ontario that led to loss of life, the policies of the federal government are literally killing Canadians.
The legacy of the Prime Minister and the former minister of finance has been a continual erosion of Canadian values. How many more Canadians must die thanks to the failed policies of a government that can spend $1 billion chasing duck hunters but refuses to protect children?
Kidney DiseaseBryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, this is National Kidney Month.
Kidney disease is a serious public health concern in Canada and costs the lives of more than 3,000 Canadians each year. Kidney disease has a significant effect on the quality of life of those affected. More than 22,000 Canadians rely on dialysis to survive. There is no cure.
As the Canadian population ages, the number of people who will be affected by kidney disease is expected to rise. Kidney failure primarily affects the elderly and people with diabetes and heart disease.
Over the last decade medical research has increased the success rate of kidney transplant operations to over 85%. Through research we hope to one day prevent some forms of kidney disease and develop more effective treatment options for others.
I hope that kidney month will draw attention to important concerns related to kidney disease. Please join me in lending support to the Kidney Foundation of Canada during National Kidney Month.
Marie-Josée AubéMs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to pay tribute to a member of my riding of Laurentides, Marie-Josée Aubé, who has written a new chapter for women with a passion for cars.
Six years ago, she and an associate acquired the Laurentides Ford dealership located in Saint-Jérôme. What makes her stand out is that she is one of a very few women car dealers. In fact, out of 851 members, there are only 43 women.
Ms. Aubé's passion for cars did not come about overnight. As a young girl, she spent much of her time playing with her Fisher Price garage. She was constantly organizing parking lots and moving her little cars around. Later she set herself the goal of owning a car dealership by the time she was 30.
She achieved that goal and now she is striving to become an exemplary dealer who will be known for quality. Congratulations Marie-Josée Aubé. Your determination does businesspeople and the women of Laurentides proud.
Canadian Sport AwardsMr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to congratulate all the winners and nominees of the 30th Annual Canadian Sport Awards which were held this week at CBC headquarters in Toronto.
Catriona Le May Doan, Olympic gold medallist in speed skating, and Roland Green, Commonwealth champion in mountain biking, were once again crowned Canada's top female and male athletes of the year, respectively.The junior athlete of the year title was captured by Alexandre Despatie in diving, and Jennifer Spalding in sailing. Jamie Sale and David Pelletier were named the best pair of the year.
Many other great athletes, coaches and volunteers were recognized and nominated for other awards for their outstanding accomplishment and dedication to sport.
The Canadian Sport Awards were hosted by Ron MacLean and were televised last night on CBC.
I am sure all members will join with me in congratulating all the winners and nominees for their contribution to sport and in thanking them for bringing so much honour to our country.
Canada-U.S. RelationsMrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the members of the immigration committee of the House have just returned from Washington, D.C. We spent the week in meetings on security and border issues affecting our two countries.
Our U.S. counterparts respect Canada's right to take a different path if we so choose, but they are resolved to preserve the freedoms and homeland security that came under attack on 9/11.
While we were holding talks in the U.S. to constructively address issues of mutual concern, Liberals here continued their pattern of cheap insults and distasteful personal attacks on our traditional ally. The government shames us all by parading its immaturity and lack of class before the world.
MPs from all parties as well as Canadians across the country want to ensure that two independent neighbours continue relations of openness and mutual respect. Sadly, the government has become part of the problem, leaving it to others to work in the spirit of friendship and tolerance which is so much a part of Canadian values.
Canada Winter GamesMr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the 2003 Canada Winter Games Host Society and the more than 7,000 volunteers who successfully hosted the Canada Winter Games in Bathurst and Campbellton, New Brunswick.
Thanks to their dedication and effort more than 2,800 athletes representing all 13 provinces and territories were provided with optimal conditions to enable them to perform at their personal best.
Many of these athletes will go on to represent Canada on national teams, while others will continue in sport as coaches, officials or administrators.
I would like to congratulate Team Quebec for winning the Canada Games Flag and the Centennial Cup.
As well, I wish to congratulate the team from Prince Edward Island which won the Jack Pelech Award and the team from Nova Scotia which won the Claude Hardy Award.
I would like to pay tribute to the thousands of coaches, officials, event organizers and volunteers from northern New Brunswick who did a terrific job.
Species at Risk ActMr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is bad enough that the Liberals waited three terms to bring in a law for species at risk, but now some Liberal MPs want to weaken Bill C-10, a bill to update a law first written in 1892.
Yes, they want to make laws protecting animals from cruelty weaker than the 111 year old law Canada currently has. Under proposed changes, someone in Leamington, Ontario, who had not fed 300 pigs for months could not be charged with cruelty animals.
It is time the bill that the House passed became law, and time the Liberals said enough is enough.
It is also time the other place stopped splitting bills coming from the House. Unelected and unaccountable bodies have no right at all to split bills from the House, making the Senate even more outdated than Canada's animal cruelty laws.
Lawrence AdamsMs. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I announce the passing of Lawrence Adams, a former principal at the National Ballet of Canada, publisher and passionate champion of dance and dancers.
Lawrence Adams danced for the National Ballet of Canada and the Grands Ballets canadiens de Montréal. Admired for his vibrant personality and talent, he built his reputation on interpreting several classical roles.
He was on the board of directors of the Dance of Canada Association. He and his wife, Miriam Weinstein, established Dance Collection Danse, a not for profit publishing house dedicated to conserving dance heritage.
Canada has lost a generous man who contributed greatly to the advancement and preservation of dance in Canada.
We offer our condolences to his family.
Lubicon Lake Cree NationMr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in 1993, the present Prime Minister, then Minister of Indian Affairs, said the following in connection with the Lubicon Lake Cree Nation, “The Liberal Party understands your concern—. We support the swift resolution of all claims, and consider the Lubicon claim to be a priority”.
Members of this nation are still living in shacks with no running water and their community suffers from a dramatically high level of crime and multiple substance abuse.
Worse yet, the federal government has allowed the area of the Lake Lubicon Nation land claim to be occupied by super-polluting major oil companies. This has had disastrous effects on the health of those now living in the area.
The federal government has also allowed major forestry companies to clear cut the area, with disastrous effects on hunting, fishing and trapping grounds, to such an extent that the percentage of social assistance recipients in the community has risen from 10% in 1980 to 95% at the present time.
With all this, the United Nations has accused Ottawa of violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Mr. Prime Minister, keep your promise.
IraqMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party has laid out a four point plan for the government to follow in the war on Iraq. It is time for Canada to ensure that the United Nations gives itself the mandate to lead reconstruction efforts in Iraq.
The Prime Minister should instruct our diplomats around the world to forge a consensus that would allow members of the Security Council to draft and adopt the necessary resolution to authorize the UN to coordinate reconstruction efforts.
In addition to the financial contributions to humanitarian aid announced the day before yesterday, Canada should immediately dispatch a field hospital to Iraq to help deal with the mounting civilian and military casualties.
In addition to this and in addition to our contribution to fighting the war on terrorism, our ships in the Persian Gulf should be tasked with providing safe passage to ships containing humanitarian supplies through the gulf to Iraqi ports.
Canadian Race Relations FoundationHon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to the Hon. Lincoln Alexander, the first recipient of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation award of excellence for lifetime achievement in race relations.
A common thread that runs through Mr. Alexander's activities and accomplishments is his commitment to racial equality, acceptance, fairness and social justice. Throughout his lifetime and career as a lawyer, politician and Queen's representative, Mr. Alexander has broken down barriers and built bridges between communities.
He served Canada in the air force during the second world war, was the first black Canadian elected to the House of Commons, is a former Lieutenant Governor of Ontario and a recipient of the Order of Canada.
As he steps down as the first chair of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, Mr. Alexander deserves the thanks and gratitude of all Canadians for excellence in public service.
SpringtimeMr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the signs of spring are everywhere and all hon. members should pause and welcome the season.
For instance, we have heard from friends all over Canada that the great Canadian symbol has returned. The Canada geese are flocking back to their nesting spots. There are no doubt some golfers who will not welcome that news. Here in Ottawa we have heard that a cardinal was spotted yesterday and that warms our hearts as well.
All hon. members should pause and think about something other than politics. We should think about the two ducks spotted yesterday on the front lawn of Parliament Hill.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, two ducks. A mallard and a drake hen were wading in a puddle left by the quickly melting snow. Keen wildlife observers said that it appeared they were testing this location as a possible nesting site.
However we regret that the ducks did not stay long enough for someone to bring their presence to the attention of the Prime Minister.
It is the belief of many political observers that the Prime Minister should have known about them and even strolled out to look at them. It might well have been mood lifting for the Prime Minister to see a duck that was not lame.

Oral Question Period
Canadian ForcesMr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Prime Minister has told the Canadian people, a British military spokesman confirmed that Canadian soldiers are in fact on the front line facing the same dangers as British troops in Iraq. The only difference is that our soldiers are fighting without the full support of the Liberal government.
It is bad enough that the Liberals are not supporting our friends but why will they not support our soldiers?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think there have been answers to this question in the last few days from the Minister of National Defence.
The fact is that Canadians are attached to certain British and American units in the region. As to their actual whereabouts and function, that is something that is not in the best interests of the soldiers or national security to reveal.
Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, Canadian soldiers paid a huge price for democracy and freedom. In fact, it is said that our nation was born at Vimy Ridge.
Thanks to the Liberal government, the fight for freedom and democracy in Iraq is being undertaken underneath the Union Jack.
These brave Canadian soldiers are doing this country proud. Why has the Liberal government abandoned them?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, to the contrary. It is a longstanding practice that we have had Canadian armed forces personnel attached to various units with our allies, and the Government of Canada and the people of Canada support them in every way.
Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, support them but will not even say that they were there at the start.
Canadian air force personnel are also involved in this war in AWACS radar planes in Iraqi airspace. Here is what one wife said about her husband. She said “He is extremely proud to serve his country”. She had one simple message for the Liberals across the way. She said “Let's be proud. Let's stand up. Let's cheer them. Let's say 'come home safely'”.
The Canadian Alliance is proud. The Canadian Alliance is standing up. We have cheered them. We say “Come home safely”. Why will the Liberal government not say the same?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, we need no lessons from that bunch of ne'er-do-wells.
The government has supported the Canadian armed forces. We have supported our men and women over the years and we are is proud of them. All Canadians are proud of them. The Alliance should not make this a partisan issue in the House of Commons.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, they have a strange way of showing it.
This is what a British officer said yesterday:

There are Canadian officers that have been deployed into theatre alongside and with British units.
They are working with British units right now.... They would be in the same danger as our troops, indeed....

They may be in the same danger but they certainly do not have the same kind of support from their government. They are in harm's way, yet the government does not have the decency to publicly support them in their efforts when their lives are on the line.
Why is it that when our troops are fighting on land, in the air and on the sea the government has abandoned them in their fight for freedom?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, the statement by the hon. member is complete and utter rubbish. The Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have stated in the House and in other fora that we are immensely proud of all our men and women who are part of the theatre in that particular conflict.
I think we should recognize the great work our men and women do. We should recognize what their role is and the fact that certain of our forces are attached to the various British and American units. Let us support them.
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the government is so proud of them that they have asked to fight under someone else's flag.
Regardless of anyone's opinion on this war to free the Iraqi people, the Liberals' position is hard to understand and it is tougher even yet to stomach.
The government says that it does not support the war in Iraq but we have troops there on the land, at sea and in the air.
The government says that it will not help our allies but we are escorting their warships in the gulf.
The government says that it does not support regime change but apparently believes Saddam should be tried in an international criminal court.
The government will not expel the Iraqi ambassador but Liberals over there want to kick out U.S. Ambassador Cellucci.
When will the government put principles ahead of polls, do the right thing and support our allies and troops?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the first thing is that we should calm down the rhetoric and not use false images like not kicking out the Iraqi ambassador when the American government itself is not unhappy with our position in this respect for reasons which these members are completely ignoring.
The fact is that our troops, as the defence minister has said over and over again in the House, and the men in our naval services are engaged in an important war on terrorism beside our allies, the British, the Americans and others. This is part of what we are doing. It is a proud tradition of ours and we will continue to that.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, not only are Canadian soldiers currently in combat in Iraq, as several British military sources have confirmed, but yesterday in Vancouver, the U.S. ambassador, Mr. Paul Cellucci, stated that with its ships in the Persian Gulf, and I quote, “Canada will provide more military support to this war in Iraq than most of the 49 countries that are part of the coalition”.
Will the government finally admit that Canada is taking part in the war against Iraq on land and on sea, and all this, without the backing of the United Nations, and that as a result—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Bill Graham: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. We have answered this question repeatedly in the House. We are taking part, with our allies, in a war against terrorism, a war on which we are all focused. And if the ambassador of the United States indeed recognized that our participation in the war on terrorism helps our allies, then good. However, our objective is to fight terrorism, and that will continue to be our objective.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs should respond to comments made last night in Vancouver by Ambassador Cellucci, that say that indirectly—he states—Canadian ships in the Persian Gulf are providing military support for the war against Iraq.
Will the government finally admit that under the guise of the fight against terrorism, Canadian ships in the Persian Gulf are indeed taking part in the war against Iraq, despite the fact that the Prime Minister has said several times in the House that Canada would not take part in this war without UN approval?
Bill Graham: The situation is the exact opposite, Mr. Speaker. The war on terrorism absolutely needs our ships in the gulf, and we will stay there. As the Minister of National Defence has said repeatedly, we are not about to pull out of this mission that is so important for civilization and for all our allies, because our opponents believe that it will contribute, in some roundabout way, to something else. We are there against terrorism, and we will remain there.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, again yesterday, the Prime Minister stated that Canada was not taking part in the war against Iraq, and yet evidence to the contrary continues to mount.
Following on the statement by Lieutenant-Colonel McCourt of the British Army, today a military spokesperson confirmed that Canadian soldiers integrated with the British forces are involved in combat.
How can the government maintain that Canada is not taking part in the war when those accompanying the Canadian soldiers are saying otherwise?
Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the government has replied ad nauseam, as have the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence, that our soldiers are there in the context of exchanges with our allies.
We, on the government side, were very proud that the House strongly supported our soldiers on exchanges who will remain with our allies. Pulling them out in such an irresponsible manner, as the Bloc Quebecois is suggesting, will not protect our military, who are doing an excellent job.
Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, the more time goes by the clearer it becomes that Canada is taking part in a war that the Prime Minister has called unjustified.
How can the government reconcile this statement, made before the war, about respecting multilateral institutions and the UN framework, with the participation of Canadian troops in combat in Iraq?
Are we to understand that the values Canada upholds are subject to change? One set for before the war and one set for after war has been declared?
Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, our values have remained consistent. What is also consistent is that we are smart enough to realize that circumstances evolve, and that our values must be the right ones in all circumstances.
Our values have not changed. The circumstances have changed. We are, and will remain, at war against terrorism.
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, what can the government possibly say? On March 17 the Prime Minister said that Canada would not participate in Bush's war. On March 20 he said that we did not have any troops there and that there would be no troops.
Clearly Canada and our troops are participating there. About 35 members of our troops are with Bush's coalition.
Did the Prime Minister deliberately mislead Canadians about the troops in Iraq?
Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst knows that the Prime Minister would never mislead the House of Commons.
The only thing that perhaps the member is having trouble understanding is the answer that has been given time and time again. Our forces are in the region in support of a campaign against terrorism, that is very clear. The House and the government has supported that initiative since the beginning.
The exchange officers who are currently serving with British, American and Australian forces are doing a wonderful job and they will remain there.
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, Parliament asked that the government not take part in the war, period.
Canada has more soldiers in Iraq than Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands or Italy. It is a good thing we are not taking part in this war. However, as unbelievable as this may seem, Canada refuses to comment on the legality of Mr. Bush's war.
Given the presence of Canadian soldiers in the combat zone, will the Prime Minister tell the House whether George Bush's war violates international law?
Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, as we have said many times, the soldiers who are there right now are taking part in exchange programs. They are not there for direct combat.
Perhaps the member has difficulty understanding this because he may not have realized that the House clearly stated that it was in favour of keeping our soldiers—who are there on exchange programs—in auxiliary positions. If the member thinks that this House was not very clear about the support we are giving these soldiers, then he is wrong.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, despite the defence minister's insistence on the contrary, a senior British officer has confirmed that Canadian troops are involved in combat.
Will the Minister of National Defence tell the House whether the government's denial of their involvement affects their status, their pensions or their benefits if they are injured, captured or worse? What is the government doing to ensure that these soldiers do not become the forgotten soldiers?
Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member poses a question that is entirely hypothetical as to what may happen to our exchange officers.
If members perhaps would stop shouting and listen, what I can tell the House is that the Canadians forces have always looked after personnel who have been involved in operations in theatre, including exchange personnel. Obviously the Canadian Forces will do whatever is appropriate to look after Canadian forces at all times.
Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, for weeks now my party has been asking the Prime Minister to tell the House whether Canada would play a leadership role in ensuring it is the United Nations and not the Pentagon that is mandated to lead reconstruction in Iraq.
Yesterday Canadians finally got a response. It came in New York, not in Canada, not in Ottawa.
Would the acting prime minister confirm what Canada's ambassador told the UN Security Council yesterday and would he explain why the Prime Minister chose not to make a similar statement here in the House?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member wants to talk about leadership. Let us talk about the leadership of his own leader on this matter.
This is the individual who has criticized the Prime Minister and the government, yet he made a speech a few days ago and said:

I think the world has rarely seen more skill than was mobilized by the first President Bush... They took extreme care. They were highly sensitive. That has not characterized what has happened in the approach to potential allies taken by some members of the Bush administration, most notably...[Mr.] Rumsfeld.

This is the leader of the fifth party raking over the coals the American leadership. Shame on him.
Divorce ActMr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday at committee the Minister of Justice said that parents did not have rights, they only had responsibilities. It is just unbelievable.
Before a divorce, both parents share, and I emphasize share, the rights, responsibilities and obligations they have to their children. This should not change when a marriage ends.
Why does the Minister of Justice not believe that both parents deserve equal rights to parent after divorce?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member essentially referred to the notion of shared parenting that was discussed yesterday at committee.
We said that we had decided to move away from that notion of shared parenting because essentially it had been proven, based on some experiences, that shared parenting was referring essentially to a sort of legal presumption. When I refer to experiences, I am referring to a country like Australia, for example. In Canada we have decided to proceed with the notion of parental responsibilities.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, concerning the misguided Divorce Act amendment, the minister must understand that he has made a serious mistake by succumbing to special interests and twisted Liberal ideology.
My personal experience as an officer of the divorce courts and my years as a divorce mediator tells me that we have a disaster brewing in this country.
Will the minister listen to the real experts, some of whom are on his own backbench, and the expertise rooted in the experience of Canadians who gave their evidence in the “For the Sake of the Children” report? Will he withdraw his bill and instead choose the wise course of real compassion for children?
Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, when we talk about family law, we have to understand that one of the most important principles, if not the most important principle which is to be seen in the existing bill, is the best interest of the child.
If we look at our reform, there are essentially three pillars that are very important in order to put in place our philosophy: the question of the social programs that are developed by provinces to which we are contributing as well; the question of the unified family court, which is a very important component; and the legislative modifications that are very important in talking about the--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Laurentides.
IraqMonique Guay: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Defence said he was looking into whether Canadian soldiers seconded to foreign units had participated in armed conflicts in the past, while Canada was not at war.
Is the government able to provide an answer to this question today?
Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, as has been said on a number of occasions, these military exchanges have been going on for decades.
The minister clearly indicated yesterday that the exact facts on this are being looked into. I can tell you that the minister met yesterday with the department's history directorate and we are continuing to look into this.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, will the government acknowledge that its reluctance to answer this question is because it is aware that it is creating a dangerous precedent by having soldiers in combat units when Canada claims it is not participating in the war in Iraq?
Dominic LeBlanc: Not in the least, Mr. Speaker. The government has stressed that these soldiers are involved in exchanges that have been taking place for some years now.
The House spoke clearly on this matter when it voted not to pull out soldiers on exchange. The only precedent that has been created in this House is to support our military personnel when they are in dangerous situations.
Divorce ActMr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government wants to concede the sovereignty of this nation to the UN.
In 1991 Canada ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. For children who are separated from one or both parents, the convention states that children have the right to maintain direct contact with both parents. However the government's bill to amend the Divorce Act ignores this right of children by excluding shared parenting from the legislation.
Why does the Minister of Justice deny that children have a right to maintain a relationship with both parents after divorce?
Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, essentially the hon. member is referring to what we call the notion of maximum contact. That notion is to be found in the existing bill.
To be more precise, we have decided, when we talk about the best interests of the child, to develop a list of criteria to be used by the judge and both parties if they decide not to proceed in court. That list is an exhaustive list, and the criteria just referred to is found on that list.
Correctional Service of CanadaMrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Fern Fetterly, an 81 year old constituent of mine, is living on less than $1,000 a month and barely getting by. She is not the only senior facing this problem.
It was tempting to suggest that she commit a felony so that she could be incarcerated in one of Canada's club fed resorts complete with bungalows, three squares a day and tennis courts, but I controlled myself.
Why are prisoners in federal prisons in Canada treated better than Canadian seniors?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows quite well that there is no such thing as club fed in our Correctional Service system.
What we do have is a responsible system to ensure that when convicted offenders are released into the community, we have done everything we can in terms of education, providing them with work skills, living skills and family skills. They are released in such a way that we ensure as much as we can safe communities.
BanksMs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in its report on bank mergers tabled yesterday, the Standing Committee on Finance completely overlooked the issue of service to disadvantaged urban areas. This, despite the fact that the issue of accessibility to banking services should be a prime factor in any decision regarding bank mergers.
Will the minister assure us that before making a decision about bank mergers, he will assess the impact a merger would have on services to consumers, competition, employees and communities?
Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question. I know it is an issue that she cares about as much as we do. As the hon. member would remember by reading Bill C-8, she would understand that consumer protection is indeed a major part of Bill C-8 that deals precisely with the issues with which she is concerned.
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, the work of the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce has revealed that the Minister of Finance does not have a single study on the macroeconomic impact of bank mergers.
Will the minister admit that it would be irresponsible to authorize bank mergers before such studies are completed?
Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows the merger review process includes the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions as well as the Competition Bureau, precisely to deal with competition issues as well as safety and soundness.
The request that myself and the Minister of Finance made to the finance committee was to clarify the second component of the public interest assessment, to clarify that issue.
We look forward to reviewing the report, and as soon as we have the answers we will of course report to the House.
Canada Customs and Revenue AgencyMr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue is doing her best to alienate customs agents that protect Canadians. First she called them glorified bank tellers and earlier this week she said: “Giving guns to customs officers would be like giving 3,000 accidents an opportunity to happen”. The only accident is the minister.
How does the minister expect customs agents to keep our borders secure, protect themselves and Canadians if she will not allow them to be armed?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for a moment I thought I heard the voice of Charlton Heston, the spokesman for the American gun lobby, but in fact we have the official gun lobbyist here for the Alliance Party.
He would know that the commissioner of the RCMP, Mr. Zaccardelli, has said very clearly that customs officers should not have guns. The job hazard analysis was conducted by an independent expert in this area. In her early working draft said that it would be like having an accident waiting to happen.
I would say to the member opposite: get with the program.
Parks CanadaJim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, the government's irrational aversion to guns in the hands of enforcement officers continues to place Canada's park wardens at personal risk. They have been ordered back to campground patrols. Like domestic disputes handled by armed police officers, settlement of campground disputes is the most unpredictable and dangerous of all enforcement in our parks.
Why does the government continue to believe that park wardens and the Canadian public do not deserve protection.
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this question has been answered many times before. Obviously--
[Intervention]
An. hon. member: Not satisfactorily.
Don Boudria: The hon. member says not satisfactorily. It was quite satisfactory.
My colleague just behind me a while ago thought she had her Charlton Heston. I can now confirm that we did not.
Official LanguagesMr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
In its decision on the application of the Contraventions Act in Ontario, the Federal Court ordered the federal government to modify its agreement with Ontario to ensure that linguistic rights set out in the Criminal Code and in the Official Languages Act are clearly mentioned.
Can the minister inform the House whether the agreement has been modified accordingly, and what measures the government plans on taking to ensure linguistic rights are respected in Ontario?
Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this very important question.
It will be recalled that a Federal Court decision required the government to modify the agreement on contraventions with Ontario, in order to ensure that the quasi constitutional linguistic rights set out in sections 530 and 530.1 of the Criminal Code and Part IV of the Official Languages Act were reflected and the agreement adjusted accordingly.
I would simply like to report to the House that earlier this week, an official agreement was reached with the Government of Ontario to ensure that we can move forward with the required elements of this Federal Court decision.
HealthBev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the World Health Organization recommended screening measures for travellers departing the Toronto airport to contain the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome.
SARS is already beginning to spread beyond Toronto. A case was reported yesterday in Winnipeg. Could the Minister of Transport tell the House if the government has begun screening passengers as the World Health Organization recommends, and what steps, if any, have been taken to protect airport workers and other travellers from the risk of contracting this deadly disease?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after the WHO recommendation was issued yesterday my officials began discussions with the GTAA, the airport authority at Pearson international. It is now in the process of developing a plan to respond to the WHO recommendation. My officials will be talking to officials at the GTAA later this afternoon to outline the specifics of the proposed plan.
IndustryYvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, steelworkers and steel producers alike are appalled at the inability of the government to halt the flood of cheap steel plate from China, Brazil, South Africa, Italy and Romania. The latest casualty of government inaction is the closure of the plate mill at Hamilton's Hilton Works, which means the dislocation of another 200 jobs.
Would the minister of state for finance tell the House how the government is planning to protect these vital Canadian industries, jobs and communities such as Hamilton and Sault Ste. Marie from the impact of cheap offshore steel?
Mr. Murray Calder (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is studying this right now and, quite frankly, the issue of imports remains most critical. The key factor for the steel producers and users in Canada is ensuring the free flow of steel in North America, and we are watching that.
Perth--MiddlesexGerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, the constituents of Perth—Middlesex have no representation in the House.
The Stratford Festival in Perth--Middlesex is the largest theatre festival in Canada and is of great importance to the local economy, drawing more 600,000 tourists each year. Many of these tourists are Americans and many will be deterred from attending the festival this season owing to border delays and government anti-American rhetoric.
Would the Prime Minister inform the House when an election will be called in Perth--Middlesex so those people can have representation in this place?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is fully aware of his constitutional responsibilities and has called many byelections in the past. He will follow the normal procedures.
FisheriesLoyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council made a recommendation to the minister in relation to the state of the northern cod stocks, noting clearly that in the past recommendations made were not adhered to. It also said that no single action, such as closing the recreational fishery, can solve the problem, but a full comprehensive set of strategies must be followed.
Will the minister now tell us clearly that he will accept a clear set of strategies?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for this very important and pertinent question and I would also like to thank the FRCC for the incredibly good work it did in hearing all the communities under a very difficult set of circumstances. On the FRCC's recommendations, I am studying them very carefully, as well as the all party committee, the Quebec industry committee, and look, as we always have, to implementation of the ecosystem approach, where we cannot look just at one single species but we have to study the entire ecosystem in rebuilding the stocks.
IraqMr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, some brave hearts from Canada's first nations communities have enlisted themselves with the American forces and are fighting alongside our American friends in the coalition of the willing.
The Canadian Prime Minister would not approve Canadian troops to fight alongside Americans in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Why will the defence minister not commend these aboriginal Canadian soldiers for fighting alongside our friends and allies against Saddam Hussein?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, it is known that a number of Canadians, voluntarily, as described, are participating with the U.S. forces and the same appreciation that we have expressed for the men and women officially attached to British and American units also applies to these individuals. We salute all of these people who are putting their own lives in jeopardy in the cause of peace.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow at 12 noon thousands will gather on Parliament Hill to stand up and show support for the allied forces in the fight to free Iraq. The allies fight to remove the butcher of Baghdad. They fight to remove the threat of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. They fight while weaker leaders dither and quiver behind public opinion polls.
Will the Prime Minister listen to the calls for our government to stand up with our allies to help free the people of Iraq? Will he?
Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, our government will continue to be consistent in absolutely working toward problems of disarmament of governments like the Iraqi government, which we have always worked on with our American allies through the right multilateral process, which by the way is supported by a majority of Canadians.
I respect those who wish to come to Parliament Hill and demonstrate their support for our American allies. Believe me, we too believe our American allies are very important and we are working with them in resolving these terrible problems in the world. We will continue to work with them as allies. We will not be stopped by this sort of rhetoric that we are getting from the other side.
International Civil Aviation OrganizationMr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this government claims to be keeping Canada's international credibility at its highest level while complying with the treaties it has signed, including existing agreements between Canada and the International Civil Aviation Organization. However, it is preventing the ICAO from using the powers conferred upon it by these agreements by refusing to let the ICAO move into the premises made available to it by the Government of Quebec since June 2002.
Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs confirm that the complexity he referred to on February 12 comes from his officials wanting to take advantage of the situation to revisit these agreements by imposing something very similar to administrative tutelage on the ICAO?
Bill Graham: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. We have a very good relationship with the ICAO. We are working closely with the organization to find the premises it needs. We will take all necessary steps, as we have in the past, to make sure that this international organization remains in Montreal and has appropriate offices to work in.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, offices are already available, courtesy of the Government of Quebec.
Given the ICAO's role in planning alternate air routes because of the current war, does the minister realize that his bureaucratic delays are preventing the ICAO from expanding in terms of space and personnel, which interferes with the development of international aviation safety programs?
Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, real property issues such as this one are always more complex than we might have wanted, but I can assure the hon. member and this House that the Government of Canada is working closely with this international organization to make sure it has appropriate offices that meet its needs. We will keep working in that direction.
Firearms RegistryMr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Hession report reveals that $400 million was wasted on the failed computer system of the firearms registry. The government's answer to this problem? Outsourcing. But the privacy commissioner has concerns with this outsourcing.
Given the government's slipshod record with hundreds of millions of dollars and its lack of concern for citizens' privacy, could the justice minister tell us how many external groups hold personal information databases related to the firearms program, and when was the last privacy impact assessment done?
Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that when we are talking about the money invested in the gun control program we are not talking about a waste of money. We have built a good program and we, as well as Canadian society, are starting to see the benefits of the program. When we talk about the technology is in place, we have a good tool for public safety that we are using as a government and that police forces are using in order to make sure that we will keeping building a safe society.
With regard to the question of privacy, of course there is a question involved there and it is not the first--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Elk Island.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, our daughter lives in Saskatchewan, the presumed home of medicare. She told me that two of her friends had to travel to Alberta and Manitoba to get critical health care. Her father-in-law had to wait six months for a critical heart operation and was told to be very careful while he was waiting. Our daughter was very upset about this. This is her question, and I quote, “Why does the government insist on spending billions of dollars on a useless gun registry when this money is so badly needed for health care?”
Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, let me come back to the gun control program, which is a very important part when we are talking about public safety. One more time, we are not talking about $1 billion. Second, we have never said, and the Auditor General as well has never said, that money has been wasted. We have to talk about an investment in a very good program. We are starting to see the benefits of that program, and as we have said in the past, we will keep proceeding with that fantastic public safety tool.
AgricultureMr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. In light of the release of the Harbinson report, will the minister please inform the House what Canada's position is with respect to supply management?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has always been very clear in that we are strong supporters and full supporters of the supply management system in Canada for the benefit of the producers and the benefit of the consumers of dairy, egg and poultry products in Canada.
Unfortunately, the second draft of the Harbinson report was as fundamentally flawed as the first draft report. Our negotiators, along with industry representatives, are in Geneva this week and we will push in order to ensure that domestic marketing decisions for those products are made in Canada.
Export Development CanadaMr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Export Development Canada is guaranteed by the Canadian taxpayer and should not be the first line of defence for companies in trouble. Contrary to market advice, EDC financed Bombardier's last quarter and taxpayer exposure is now several billion dollars.
Bombardier needs to reorganize and restructure, not rely on federal assistance. When will the minister insist that EDC stop increasing the risk to the taxpayer for Bombardier?
Murray Calder: Mr. Speaker, our aerospace industry is now the third largest in the world. Our aerospace products are recognized internationally. They are renowned for their superior quality and cutting edge technology. In the past 10 years, Canada's aerospace sales have more than doubled. This is something that we are very proud of.
AgricultureMr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we know the Americans are going to require country of origin labelling for imported beef and pork products. The cost of compliance will be staggering.
We wanted to work with the Americans to have this law amended or repealed, but not only has the Liberal government done nothing to address the situation, it has made it far worse. U.S. consumers are now beginning to boycott Canadian products, while the reckless and irresponsible comments by cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister are destroying our trade relationship.
Does the Minister of Agriculture understand the negative consequences for agriculture brought about by foolish, asinine comments such as the one by the member who sits beside him, the Minister of Natural Resources?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, we are all very concerned about the country of origin labelling requirement in the United States, but the hon. member needs to recognize that the first two years of that is voluntary. He needs to recognize, and he knows, that we are working with the industry in the United States. We are working through our embassy in the United States.
There is a growing feeling in the United States as well that the law is flawed. It is hoped by all of us that if the law does not get struck down or changed by the United States, it will at least just keep it to the voluntary system which is not working now and will not work for anybody's benefit, U.S. or--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Champlain.
Marcel Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said that April 1 was no longer the deadline, as he had suggested previously.
Will the minister confirm that this statement applies to the entire agricultural policy framework, which includes the net income stabilization account program, the new risk management program and the agriculture income disaster assistance program?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I said right from the start that there was not a strict deadline of April 1. The hon. member has heard me say that a number of times. We have time to continue to develop the business risk management aspect of the agricultural policy framework. As the ministers agreed in the last federal-provincial ministers meeting, when that is completed, any federal-provincial agreement that needs to be signed, because they do cease on March 31 of this year, will be retroactive to April 1 of 2003.
Auto TheftMac Harb: Mr. Speaker, every three minutes a car is being stolen in Canada. In fact, in my own community here in Ottawa, in one year alone over 4,000 cars were stolen.
What is the minister doing to ensure that these cars will not continue to be stolen from Canadians?
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, auto car theft is a serious public safety issue that costs Canadians between $1 billion and $2 billion a year in property losses, damages, injury and even death. Particularly alarming is the involvement of our youth in auto theft.
Therefore the government, working with its stakeholders, has acted. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, in collaboration with the national crime prevention strategy, has developed a CD-ROM and website on youth and joy-riding which was launched on March 24, 2003.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
Environment CanadaPat Martin: Mr. Speaker, in spite of an era of massive climate changes and unprecedented instability in global weather patterns, Canada's weather forecasting system has been slashed from 14 centres to 5. Our Winnipeg office narrowly avoided complete closure.
Will the Minister of the Environment explain by what logic he chose to slash this critically important service? What assurances will he give to the Winnipeg office that this critical service will remain open for our prairie region and northern region?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I have, on a number of occasions, answered questions in the House about the improvements to the Meteorological Service of Canada that is taking place with the reorganizations which I outlined some two weeks ago.
Obviously, with new technology, satellites, more powerful computers, Doppler radars and very high levels of technical skills by our personnel, we intend to continue to have the very best service for Canadians from coast to coast.
I would point out to the member from Manitoba, which has a major agricultural sector, that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has endorsed what we are doing.
FisheriesLoyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, in the bureaucratic mess of downsizing the fishery many people who have fished for a lifetime are being told that they are not core fishermen.
Will the minister agree to revisit this issue provided that proper documentation can be brought along to back up their claims?
Robert Thibault: Mr. Speaker, when the policy on core fishermen was adopted there was an appeal opportunity for all those who felt their case might not have been properly dealt with.
I have agreed that if some of them have new evidence or new information to bring forward to show that their case was not properly dealt with or that there was an error in the appeal process, I would review it.
Business of the HouseThe Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that, under the provisions of Standing Order 30, I am designating Tuesday, April 1, 2003 as the day for the consideration of private members' Bill C-280 standing in the name of the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, and Thursday, April 3, 2003 as the day for the consideration of private members' Bill C-235 standing in the name of the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.
These additional private members' business hours will take place from 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. after which the House will proceed to adjournment proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38.

Routine Proceedings
Federal Electoral Boundaries CommissionThe Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It is my duty, pursuant to section 21 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, to lay upon the table a certified copy of the report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Quebec.
This report is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Government Response to PetitionsRodger Cuzner: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
Employment Insurance ActKen Epp: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-423, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act.

Madam Speaker, the bill I am introducing today is one of great importance to a number of different people.
First, bills do not stop coming because one loses one's job. My bill would eliminate that two week waiting period. It is a very important issue.
The second thing the bill would do is that if people are denied benefits because they were disqualified, they would get a rebate, as would the employer, of the premiums paid. This is particularly valuable to students.
I have other issues as well but I do not think I should give my whole speech at this time. I will be pleased to do that when 196 comes up on the list.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
PetitionsCheryl Gallant: Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of the people of Ontario requesting that Parliament recognize that the Canadian Emergency Preparedness College is essential to training Canadians for emergency situations; that the facility should stay in Arnprior; and that the government should upgrade the facilities in order to provide the necessary training to Canadians. Now, more than ever before, it is so necessary to have our first responders ready and able.
Maurice Vellacott: Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by 802 residents of Canada who draw to the attention of the House that hundreds of thousands of Canadians suffer from debilitating illnesses and diseases, and that Canadians do support ethical stem cell research to provide cures and therapies for these illnesses and diseases.
The petitioners would like that non-embryonic stem cells, which are also known as adult stem cells, receive the focus of legislative support and dollars such that we find the cures and therapies for treating the illnesses and the diseases of suffering Canadians.
Questions on the Order PaperRodger Cuzner: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 102, 128 and 164.
Question No. 102Mr. John Cummins: With regard to agreements since 1992 between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and various aboriginal organizations that contain provisions for the sale of fish on an annual basis under the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy: ( a ) what quantities and species of salmon caught for aboriginal food, social and ceremonial purposes in British Columbia were stored in cold storage, processing or other facilities in British Columbia on an annual basis since 1992; ( b ) in what year were the salmon being stored caught; ( c ) what quantities and species of salmon caught for aboriginal food, social and ceremonial purposes in British Columbia were stored in cold storage, processing or other facilities in the United States on an annual basis since 1992; ( d ) in what year were the salmon being stored caught; ( e ) which agreements required the collection of royalties by the aboriginal organization on the sale of fish caught under the agreements to support management or other activities of the aboriginal band or DFO and which did not require the collection of royalties; ( f ) what is the value of the fish sold under each of these agreements; ( g ) how much was the required royalty, both in terms of a percentage of the total value of the fish sold and in dollars; ( h ) in terms of percentage and in terms of dollars, how much royalty was collected in each of these agreements; ( i ) who collected the royalty; ( j ) by what means was the royalty collected; ( k ) was a special fishery required to catch the fish to pay the royalty; ( l ) for what was the royalty expended; ( m ) who spent the royalty monies; ( n ) in cases where the royalty was not collected or was less than the amount required by an agreement, what were the reasons for the shortfall; ( o ) what action was taken by DFO to recover the shortfall; ( p ) if no action was taken, what were the reasons for not taking action; ( q ) in cases where no royalty was required to be collected, what was the approximate market value of the fish sold; and ( r ) in cases where no royalty was required, what was the reason for the absence of a requirement to collect a royalty?
Mr. Georges Farrah (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): The answer is as follows:
a) Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) does not collect this particular statistical information on the food, social and ceremonial fisheries. Fish stored in freezers are stored in the name of a company or individual and not by fishery or species.
b) As per the answer to a) above, DFO does not collect this type of data.
c) As per the answer to a) above, DFO does not collect this type of data.
d) As per the answer to a) above, DFO does not collect this type of data.
e) In the early years of the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy (AFS) program (1992-1997), two AFS agreements on the Fraser River, the Musqueam/Tsawwassen First Nations joint agreement and the Sto:Lo First Nation agreement, required a percentage of the landed value of salmon harvested under the pilot sales fisheries and then sold to be returned to the fisheries management program of the aboriginal organizations. Pursuant to the AFS agreement, from 1993 to the present on the Skeena River, 10% of the landed value of salmon harvested under the pilot sales fisheries and then sold under the AFS agreement is required to be returned to the Skeena fisheries management program during years when there is an excess salmon to spawning requirements (ESSR) fishery in place. No funds were required to be returned to DFO.
f) DFO cannot determine the value of fish sold under the pilot sales fisheries. DFO does not record the portion of pilot sales fisheries that is retained for food as compared to the amounts sold. With respect to the ESSR fishery on the Skeena River, due to concerns from the Skeena first nation regarding commercial confidentiality, available information regarding commercial catches and values for individual bands and companies has not been provided.
g) According to the AFS agreements noted in the answer to e), the percentage of the landed value of salmon harvested under the pilot sales fisheries and then sold, which was to be returned to the fisheries management program of the aboriginal organization, varied between 5% and 15% on the Fraser River; and 10% of the landed value of salmon harvested and then sold for the Skeena ESSR fisheries.
h) The aboriginal organizations reported the following amounts collected under each of the agreements, which was to be returned to their fisheries management programs. (The requirement for a percentage of the landed value of fish sold under the AFS agreement to be returned to the fisheries management program of the aboriginal organization was not applied to fish caught for food, social and ceremonial purposes.) In 1992, the Musqueam and Tsawwassen first nations reported $4,996 was returned to their fisheries management program. In 1993, the Musqueam first nation reported $11,891 and the Sto:Lo first nation reported $25,457 (which was a payment instead of returning a percentage of the landed value of salmon sold under their AFS agreement to their fisheries management program). In 1994, the Sto:Lo indicated that $178,036 from a one-time only specific fishery was returned to their fisheries management program. In 1995, the Musqueam first nation reported that $48,373 was returned to their fisheries program. The Sto:Lo first nation did not have a pilot sales fishery in 1995. In 1996, the Musqueam first nation reported that $60,550 was returned to their fisheries management program, while the Sto:Lo first nation again did not have a pilot sales fishery. In 1997 the Sto:Lo reported that $67,053 was returned to their fisheries management program. With respect to the Skeena ESSR fishery, DFO has not collected this data.
i) On the Fraser River, the buyers of the fish withheld from the fishers the percentage of the landed value of fish sold under the AFS agreement that was required to be returned to the fisheries management program. Individual first nations or first nations’ groups collected the proceeds on the Skeena ESSR fishery.
j) On the Fraser River, the buyers of the fish withheld proceeds of the fish from the distribution of the sales and then provided them to the respective first nation.
k) In 1994, a specific fishery was provided to the Sto:Lo first nation as noted in the answer to h) above. There have been no special fisheries provided for the Skeena ESSR Fisheries for which the percentage of the landed value of fish sold under the AFS agreement was to be returned to the fisheries management program.
l) Revenues from the proceeds were to be used for the fisheries management programs of the aboriginal organizations in question.
m) The first nations in receipt of the proceeds spent the monies.
n) There were three reported instances concerning the Sto:Lo first nation where the percentage collected was less than the amount required under the agreement: in 1994, where DFO determined there were inconsistencies in some of the reporting of the fisheries; in 1995, when the salmon runs were poor; and, in 1996, when the pilot sales fisheries were severely hampered by protest fisheries.
o) In the case of the Sto:Lo first nation, with respect to the specific fishery in 1994, DFO contracted KPMG to undertake an audit because of inconsistencies in some of the reporting of the fisheries. As a result, the amount reported by Sto:Lo from this fishery as well as the amount of the shortfall, was deducted from the total DFO financial commitment to the group under their 1994 AFS agreement. In 1995, DFO was satisfied that poor salmon runs prevented the Sto:Lo from harvesting the amount set out in their agreements. In 1996, DFO was satisfied that the Sto:Lo first nation made every reasonable attempt to harvest their quota but were unsuccessful, and, therefore, DFO did not require Sto:Lo to collect the proceeds which were to be used for the fisheries management programs.
p) With respect to the years 1994, 1995 and 1996, see the answer to o) above.
q) Where there was no requirement for a percentage of the landed value of fish sold under the AFS agreement to be returned to the fisheries management program of the aboriginal organization, DFO did not collect this data.
r) The main reason for the non-requirement was the fact that the run size did not support a pilot sales fishery and thus no fishing occurred.
Question No. 128Loyola Hearn: How does the seniority of personnel figure in the processes the Department of Fisheries and Oceans use to engage or release employees of the Canadian Coast Guard?
Georges Farrah: The seniority of personnel does not figure into the processes the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) uses to engage employees of the Canadian Coast Guard. DFO along with all other federal government departments, is governed by the principle of merit as outlined in the Public Service Employment Act (section 10), which reads as follows:

(1) Appointments to or from within the Public Service shall be based on selection according to merit, as determined by the Commission, and shall be made by the Commission, at the request of the deputy head concerned, by competition or by such other process of personnel selection designed to establish the merit of candidates as the Commission considers is in the best interests of the Public Service.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), selection according to merit may, in the circumstances prescribed by the regulations of the Commission, be based on the competence of a person being considered for appointment as measured by such standard of competence as the Commission may establish, rather than as measured against the competence of other persons.
For releases, reverse order of merit is applied, as outlined in the Public Service Employment Regulations (subsection 32 (1)), which reads as follows:

(1) If the services of one or more employees of a part of an organization are no longer required in accordance with section 29 of the Act, the appropriate deputy head shall assess the merit of the employees employed in similar positions in the same occupational group and level within that part of the organization, and identify the employees who may be declared surplus and laid off in reverse order of merit.

Seniority could only figure into the process to release employees, in the event of a tie between individuals being assessed in the reverse order of merit.
Question No. 164Mr. Rob Merrifield: With regard to the Minister of Health’s oversight of tissue banks: ( a ) when did Health Canada first become aware of potential safety breaches at the British Columbia Ear Bank; ( b ) when did the minister or her predecessors first become aware of the problems at the British Columbia Ear Bank; ( c ) what actions is Health Canada taking to ensure that recipients of tissue from the British Columbia Ear Bank did not contract an infectious disease; ( d ) why did Health Canada wait until February 19, 2003 to inform Canadians, though the clinic was shut down in October 2002; ( e ) what national standards are in place to regulate the collection, use and dissemination of human tissues such as those collected at the British Columbia Ear Bank; ( f ) when will Health Canada adopt and implement its own national standards; ( g ) when was the British Columbia Ear Bank first inspected by Health Canada; ( h ) are such tissue banks subject to regular inspections by Health Canada and, if so, when was such a regime put in place; and ( i ) what actions is Health Canada taking to ensure that problems such as those incurred at the British Columbia Ear Bank do not occur again?
Anne McLellan: The answer is as follows:
a) On October 9, 2002, Health Canada received information that the Vancouver St. Paul's Hospital B.C. Ear Bank, under the responsibility of Providence Health Care, may have been processing and distributing tissues which do not meet basic safety requirements. Providence Health Care is a legal entity providing health care services on eight sites in Vancouver, B.C.
b) A question period note was provided to the minister’s office on December 17, 2002.
c) Under its authority, Health Canada asked St. Paul's Hospital to recall the products and to notify the physicians who have used tissues from the Ear Bank in transplantation. St. Paul's Hospital complied. On February 19, 2003, Health Canada notified acute care hospitals, tissue banks and health professionals across the country of the situation in the B.C. Ear Bank and has recommended that recipients of tissue from the bank be tested for infectious diseases, as a precautionary measure.
d) On October 9, 2002, Health Canada received information that the Ear Bank may have been processing and distributing tissues which do not meet basic safety requirements, and that the distribution of tissues had been discontinued. Within 24 hours, Health Canada acted on the information received and subsequently initiated an investigation. As part of its investigation, Health Canada obtained from the Ear Bank information on their processing and distribution activities. Due to poor record-keeping, Providence Health Care provided most of the requested information in January 2003. Based on this information, Health Canada immediately undertook a risk assessment. This Health Canada risk assessment was completed on February 5, 2003.
On February 7, 2003, based on its risk assessment, Health Canada asked St. Paul's Hospital to mitigate the risk that may be posed by the tissues by recalling the unused tissues and notifying the physicians who have used tissue from the Ear Bank in transplantation. On February 14, 2003, St. Paul's Hospital complied. On February 19, 2003, Health Canada advised all establishments and individuals in Canada handling and/or processing human cells, tissues and organs for transplantation. Health Canada’s investigation is still on-going at St. Paul’s Hospital.
e) Moreover, Health Canada has published three additional documents respecting tissue and organ safety: Guidelines for Organ and Tissue Donation Services in Hospitals; Guideline for the Prevention of HIV infection in Organ and Tissue Transplantation; and Guidelines for Basic Safety Requirements for Human Cells, Tissues and Organs for Transplantation.
Health Canada also developed and published the standard Technical Requirements for Therapeutic Donor Insemination, which is required, by regulation, to be followed by processors of donor semen for assisted conception.
There are currently many sets of standards available to tissue banks in Canada. The American Association of Tissue Banks Standards for Tissue Banking, the Eye Bank Association of America Standards and the Foundation for the Accreditation of Hematopoietic Cell Therapies Standards provide comprehensive information on safety requirements for specific tissue types and are used internationally. These three organizations also provide accreditation services at the international level. Many tissue banks in Canada are accredited by one of these organizations.
On January 28 and 29, 2003, Health Canada issued a directive entitled Technical Requirements to address the Safety of Cells, Tissues and Organs for Transplantation (directive and guidance Document) and its corresponding guidance document entitled Basic Safety Requirements for Human Cells, Tissues and Organs for Transplantation to establishments and individuals in Canada who are involved in the handling and/or processing of human cells, tissues and organs for transplantation.
The purpose of the directive and guidance document is to advise these establishments and individuals of the importance of adhering to basic standards of safety with respect to the manufacture and use of these products for transplantation. These documents are based on the content of the National Safety Standards being developed by the Canadian Standards Association in consultation with medical experts from the field of transplantation and Health Canada. These are minimum standards that should be met by all establishments and individuals in Canada who are involved in the handling and/or processing of human cells, tissues and organs for transplantation in order to minimize the risk of disease.
f) Safety standards for Canada are available and have been communicated to stakeholders. In 1996, Health Canada appointed and funded a working group of experts in the field of tissue and organ transplantation to develop a set of standards for the safety of tissues and organs which would encompass all of the requirements of the documents referenced above and address any additional Canadian specific requirements. A General Standard on the Safety of Cells, Tissues and Organs, and five separate standards for specific tissue types were completed by this group of experts in 2001. Health Canada subsequently funded the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) to transform these six sets of standards into National Standards as recognized by the Standards Council of Canada. CSA has completed these standards in December 2002, and it is expected that the national standards will be published in the spring of 2003. These national standards will be maintained by the CSA under the terms of an agreement with Health Canada, to reflect new technological or safety issues which may arise in the future.
g) There was no prior Health Canada inspection of the B.C. Ear Bank. It is important to note that in Canada, the primary responsibility related to product safety lies with the manufacturer which is in this case, the tissue bank/hospital.
Health Canada has an important role in protecting the health and safety of Canadians; however, it is but one component of a complex system of health protection, which includes, among others, various levels of government, government agencies, the health care and medical professions, the academic and health sciences research and development communities, manufacturers and importers, patient groups, and individual Canadians.
Where Health Canada identifies or is notified of a potential problem, Health Canada will take steps to determine whether non-compliance has occurred.
h) Health Canada is conducting a national review of all establishments handling and/or processing human cells, tissues and organs for transplantation with the objective of assessing adherence to basic safety standards and to take appropriate action to prohibit the distribution of unsafe products. Health Canada will initiate investigations upon receipt of information of situations where cells, tissues, and organs may not have been handled and/or processed in accordance to basic safety standards.
In general, problems may be identified by consumer complaints, industry complaints, referrals from other provincial and federal regulatory agencies, international partners or Health Canada's compliance monitoring program. Investigations may also be triggered by the identification of problems via other Health Canada organisational units and various post-market surveillance programs.
Also see f) above.
i) Please see h) above.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRodger Cuzner: Madam Speaker, if Question 143 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Question No. 143Mr. Richard Harris: For each year from 1993 to 2001 what was the total amount billed to the government and its agencies by Leger and Leger Research Associates?
Return tabled.
Rodger Cuzner: Madam Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-28, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 18, 2003, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Rick Borotsik: Madam Speaker, the Deputy Speaker allowed me to start my time after question period and I do appreciate that. I also appreciate you being in the Chair, Madam Speaker, to listen to this debate. Where else would you rather be on a Friday afternoon than sitting right here in the House debating and talking about and to a budget that was put forward by the government which seems to put as many spins as possible on it.
However, after having spent time in our ridings and time visiting the country we now recognize full well that there is very little support for this budget and very little that Canadians would like to say in a positive vein about the budget.
I will touch on a couple of points but I first would like to say that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is deluding himself and living in a bit of a dream world when he tries to put the spin of having this budget accepted, not only the majority of priorities within the budget but the one with respect to infrastructure.
The individual himself, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, at one point in time being the president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, certainly would have been singing a different tune. He would have been suggesting that the government has let down the municipalities and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities with the absolute sorry contribution that it has made to the infrastructure program.
As a matter of fact, yesterday I had the opportunity of dropping into an executive meeting of the Association of Manitoba Municipalities. These are people I know and the member for Oak Ridges knows. The very first thing these local politicians, people who have the real finger on the pulse of what is going on, not only in their communities but certainly within the province of Manitoba, asked me was, “Is it not a travesty that we were perceived to have been promised so much from this federal government with respect to infrastructure and we received so little?”
They went on to say that there was such a desperate need for infrastructure dollars that they were actually embarrassed with the inability or the lack of funding that came forward in this budget with respect to infrastructure.
I can also say that my leader had a meeting with the mayor of Winnipeg who sits on the big city mayors' caucus. He also echoed the comments of the AMM, where he said that they were led to believe that there would be sufficient help in putting the infrastructure dollars into municipalities but that again they were very disappointed. Some $15 billion is needed to put infrastructure back into place. Right now there is $3 billion that was identified over 10 years, but of that $3 billion is a special infrastructure fund, one that is called strategic, which normally, if one were to look in a Liberal dictionary, we would see that the special or strategic infrastructure fund usually means political pork-barrelling infrastructure funds so that they can pick and choose perhaps the ridings, perhaps the contractors or perhaps the consultants they want to use for these projects. Unfortunately, there really is a lack of control and accountability on those dollars in the strategic fund.
Not only that, let us analyze this: $15 billion just from the cities themselves for infrastructure, but next year for budget year 2003-04, there is $100 million. I understand the Liberals are thinking of bumping that up. I do not know to what levels just yet but I know there has been some talk of bumping that up. However let us assume that it will be twice as much, and that would be about enough to do one major project of water and sewer.
Budgets are important and are necessary to identify priorities. I have a soft spot in my heart for the infrastructure priorities, not only for municipalities in sewer and water, but we see it now in the issue of what is going on in Iraq. The three major issues facing the people of Iraq right now are water, sanitation and transportation. That is what is necessary in our own communities, safe water, sanitation and sewage, and transportation; the roads, the bridges and the ability to move goods and services and people, not only within our communities but across the border, because that is what our economic lifeblood depends on.
The government certainly does not see that as being a necessity. What it sees as a necessity for the expenditure of these dollars are wonderful policy programs such as the gun registry which has wasted $1 billion. The government says it has not wasted it, that it is an investment of $1 billion in a registry that certainly will not be able to provide any return on that investment.
Certainly this is one policy direction all Canadians would like to see them stop spending the money on, yet it continues to throw the taxpayers' good, hard cash into that black hole. It is not prepared to put it into what I consider to be a priority, which is infrastructure, sewers, water, bridges and the like. The government's priorities seem to be different from our priorities.
In talking of infrastructure there is another area that has a soft spot in my heart. I have put forward a private member's bill to the House with respect to a national highways program.
It is very important to understand that the federal government has abdicated its responsibility. It takes no responsibility, no jurisdiction whatsoever of a national highways program.
There are many interprovincial and interconnecting highways, one in particular being the Trans-Canada Highway. In my province there are no dollars, zero dollars that go from the federal government into the capital costs for rebuilding or reconstructing that highway into a twinned highway, or for that matter the operating or maintenance costs for that highway. Those are totally provincial dollars that go into maintaining a national infrastructure, the national highway system.
I do not know if members are aware of this but there is a wonderful in today's newspaper. Canada is the only country in the G-8 that does not have a national highways policy. We are the only country in the G-8 that does not put any money back into a national highways program so that goods and services can move from point to point.
There is an organization in this country called the Canadian Trucking Alliance. If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance wants to stick his head in the sand, I am sure he will not be happy to hear this, but the Canadian Trucking Alliance has been extremely disappointed with the lack of government direction on the national highways policy.
The United States has done a wonderful job. That federal government has decided unilaterally to put dollars into that infrastructure because it is absolutely mandatory that the lifeline and the lifeblood of the federal government in the United States remain open. As a matter of fact, our truckers now are using that highway system in the United States because it is certainly far superior than what ours is here in Canada.
I put forward a private member's bill and suggested that two cents per litre, which is half of the excise tax, be allocated to the funding of that national highways program. It was defeated on the floor of the House because the federal government obviously does not want to see that as a priority.
The federal government collects in excess of $4 billion in excise taxes on gasoline. It is probably more now because the price of gasoline has increased quite dramatically. It also collects the GST. However, of the excise tax of $4 billion being collected, none of it goes back into the infrastructure that it comes from. None of it goes into the highway system.
If we did not have the highways, as we are seeing now in pictures from Iraq, believe me, goods and services would not be moved to the necessary points. That is what we are facing right now in Canada. It is absolutely despicable that the government's budget does not speak to that infrastructure.
There is so much more I would like to talk about. One point would obviously be the mismanagement by the government. I have already mentioned in passing the $1 billion that was spent on the gun registry which could have gone into infrastructure, health or something else.
There is also the $1 billion that has been wasted on the EH-101s which the government did not purchase. It has invested $1 billion into helicopters, but it does not have any helicopters. The government wasted a $1 billion of taxpayers' money. That money could have gone into the highway system, the health care system or the education system.
There is so much that we could say is wrong with the budget. Unfortunately, there is not enough time to put all of what is wrong on the table.
Agriculture probably will be a mere shadow of itself after the government gets through with it. The starting point is April 1. The government has failed to deal with that issue. I feel very sorry for people who are involved in that industry because there is absolutely no assistance from the government.
Bryon Wilfert: Madam Speaker, I cannot believe the comments my friend in the corner has made on infrastructure. He will be sitting in the corner for a long time with the comments that he has made on infrastructure, I can assure everyone. He should be ashamed of himself for standing and criticizing the government on municipal infrastructure. His party is the one that in 1984 when it came to power did not embrace the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' national infrastructure program.
As a former president of the FCM I take great exception. He should know better, being a member of the board for so many years, in our struggles to get the Conservative Party to support infrastructure. I have a letter from the president of the FCM dated March 5 stating that the FCM has enjoyed a long and productive relation with the Government of Canada and that many specific initiatives include the national infrastructure program, working with the homeless, affordable housing, et cetera.
The fact is that the relationships the government has with urban communities in this country are very strong. We have had three national infrastructure programs. We are about to embark on a fourth, leveraging money with municipalities and the provinces. The member forgets the leveraging. I should also point out the strategic infrastructure program.
I would like to ask him where his friends are in the province of Ontario now that the government has committed over $430 million to GTA transportation. We are still waiting for the Conservative government in Ontario to do something to match the funds in order to meet the $1.2 billion. Perhaps he could pick up the phone and call his good buddies in Queen's Park. I know they are not sitting but perhaps he could find them. I would like to know where the money is because this is an important issue.
The member cannot have it both ways. He cannot criticize the government for not doing anything according to him, and when we are doing things not recognize the valuable contributions being made with our partners.
Rick Borotsik: Madam Speaker, is that not usually the way the Liberal government operates. It does not take any of the responsibility itself but always blames someone else. By the way, that government has been in place since 1993, 10 years ago. The Liberals blame someone else because they do not want to take any of the responsibility.
I really am sorry that the member, whom I have an awful lot of respect for, is starting to believe the government's own propaganda and spin. I remember when the member would look at everything at face value and certainly analyze it to the point where he would look for the truth. Unfortunately, he is looking for something outside of the truth right now.
I have that truth. I have met with the people. I have met with the real people who are being affected on the front lines of the municipalities. I would ask the member to please talk to who used to be his friends and get their opinions on this because their opinions are not the same as the member is putting forward right now. They are ashamed of the infrastructure program that came forward.
The member held up a letter from the FCM. Of course the FCM is going to say, “We are not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. We will take what is given to us. We are not going to bite the hand that is giving us this little pittance”. I should also say it is that same membership of the FCM whom I have spoken to, the big city mayors. They are absolutely disgusted with the promises that were made and with what was delivered.
Let us get back to realities. The member and I agree on one thing. Infrastructure, sewage, water, bridges and roads are absolutely vital to the continued growth and the continued economy of this country. I know he agrees with that. What he will not say publicly is that with the pittance the government has put into this priority, it will be 100 years before the municipalities and provinces ever get to the level they should be at. Unfortunately, we are going to be left in the dust by our American neighbours. They will be far ahead of us economically, head and shoulders above us in the not too distant future, if they are not already today.
I am sorry that the member has not taken the time to listen to the people whom he serves and hear the real story as opposed to holding up one line of one letter and suggesting that is the fact.
Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, my question is simple. Does my hon. friend believe that the municipalities ought to have long term budgetary expenditures on the part of the federal government so they will know what long term moneys they are going to receive from the federal government? Right now they receive it on a year by year, ad hoc basis and cannot plan for the future.
Rick Borotsik: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for that softball lob.
Absolutely, there should be a number of issues if the government was really trying to put something in place. It should give a long term budgetary process that municipalities could follow.
It should also look at some sort of tax regime where municipalities could have other opportunities to raise taxes other than just property taxes. Perhaps there could be tax point sharing, where the municipalities could use the money. Perhaps the excise tax on gasoline should go to the municipalities to assist in their--
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I am sorry but 10 minutes does go by rather quickly. Resuming debate. We are now on 10 minutes with no questions and comments.
Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill.
Everyone in the House knows that our responsibility is the responsible expenditure of the people's money. It is not our money. It is not the House's money. It is the people's money.
When I watched the budget being introduced in the House, my heart sank. It sank because I thought that the government had an enormous opportunity to really close the gap with our major competitor, the United States.
President Bush has been spending money, I would say recklessly. The U.S. has turned a massive surplus into a massive deficit. The tax difference between us and the U.S. has been wide. Its competitiveness historically has been better. We had a grand opportunity when we were dealing with surplus budgets to close that gap dramatically, strengthen the Canadian dollar, improve investment into Canada and reverse the brain drain.
Sadly for all Canadians, the government chose to make the budget a political instrument. It chose to disburse money in an unfocused, shotgun approach, doling out money without firm objectives. That is utterly irresponsible on the part of the government. We missed a grand opportunity to strengthen our economy and thereby strengthen our social programs.
I will deal with just a few points which I think the government could have dealt with if it had chosen to. There are four major spending priorities the government ought to have addressed in 2003: health care, education, infrastructure and defence.
It is a good thing the government chose to split the CHST into two transfers. The Canadian public will know where the moneys are going from a federal perspective. The way to get around the moneys being spent irresponsibly is for the federal government to ask the provinces what their spending priorities are and to ensure that federal expenditures are congruent with that. In other words, the money would go to the sharp edge of patient care on the ground. It is simply intolerable for Canadians to have to wait a year to a year and a half for essential surgeries or for poor or middle class Canadians to do without essential health care services, but that is what is happening.
On education, we cannot build a strong economy without the people of our country having the educational opportunities to be the best they can be. It is not something that simply ends in their 20s; rather it is a process that will go on throughout most of their lives, given the changing demographics and our changing economy.
The government should have provided the provinces the flexibility to do that. It has an opportunity to ensure that workers have a chance to upgrade their skills without leaving their jobs and those who need to acquire skills can do so without being hurt. If we do not enable people to acquire the skills to be integrated members of our economy, those people will become a drain on our social programs.
People do not want that. People want to work. They want to use their talents to the best of their abilities. They want to contribute to Canada, but the system we have now is so ossified it does not enable them to do that. There is a chance through EI to provide that.
The government had a chance to change taxes. It had a chance to reduce payroll taxes and reduce personal and corporate income taxes. Instead it has kept them at an unacceptably high level.
The government continues to trot out the notion that Canada has a low tax rate. Anybody who has looked at the tax rates of the OECD or our G-7 an G-8 partners knows full well that we have the highest tax rates among the G-7 and G-8 nations. We are in the highest third of tax rates among the OECD nations. That affects our ability to be competitive. It affects our ability to contribute to the strong social programs that will enable us to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.
On the issue of infrastructure, the pathetic and small investment in infrastructure will only hurt our country. The federal government has a role to work with the provinces to deal with the acute infrastructure needs of our nation. Our country has at a minimum a deficit of $130 billion yet the government has put in a paltry $1.2 billion into infrastructure, something that does not even scratch the surface.
No wonder the municipalities were beside themselves, as were the provinces. The chronic deterioration of our infrastructure in terms of our transportation is something that would substantially and significantly affect our ability as a country to have a strong, dynamic and competitive economy. This can be reversed. That is a choice that the government must make. I would suggest that it work with its partners at all other levels of government to ensure it happens.
I have a base in my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I can tell the House that the men and women in uniform who give their lives to protect us here at home and abroad have been doing a yeoman's job. In fact, they have been giving much more consideration to our country than the government has given to them.
For the last 10 years the government has underfunded and disrespected our military by not giving our people the tools to do the job. As the PC member mentioned, the helicopter is but one issue. We can go through manpower, equipment and training. Our people are wanting at every level. They have the desire and the will to do the job, but they do not have the tools.
The Canadian public would be shocked to know that many of our service people are spending upward of 11 out of 12 months abroad, away from their families. Why? Because the government has gutted our military and our manpower is so low that it does not have the ability to put the people that we require into the field to do the job of our nation.
This is important not only on a security level. If we do not contribute internationally to security issues governed by the UN, NATO, and our partners, then when we come to the table in terms of our ability to negotiate on economic issues, we will be taking a back seat to those who do contribute. That is the cold, hard reality.
For too long we have been living off the coattails of our allies on the international security concerns that we all share. The NATO secretary general mentioned two years ago that Canada must come up to the plate and contribute. That, sad to say, has fallen on deaf ears on the part of the government.
There have been umpteen numbers of constructive suggestions from members across this nation and the military. The top levels of the military have said clearly that we should invest in our military now or we will not be able to do the job to protect Canadians here at home. It will affect us in our pocketbooks.
The $800 million that the government put forth is but a tiny sliver of what our military needs now. We will need even more in the future. I would strongly impress upon the government, and especially the Prime Minister's Office where a lot of this is held up, that it listens to the cold, objective analysis of the situation and make the investment that the Canadian public wants, that our military wants, and that our partners want.
What else can we do? Part of the responsibility of the government is to spend our money wisely. Unfortunately, it tends to have ill-conceived objectives or an absence of objectives. It does not know what it wants to do. It does not measure what it is doing. Therefore, it does not know what its output should be. Furthermore, a lot of moneys are spent to curry favour in certain ridings to make the government look good. This is a characteristic of governments everywhere.
Surely the government can do a much better job of ensuring that our moneys are spent effectively. The government should identify its objectives, measure its output, and ensure that the moneys will be spent wisely, efficiently and effectively. We have not, sad to say, seen this. From the gun registry to the Groupaction debacle to the HRDC $1 billion boondoggle, sadly Canadians have seen the abysmal mismanagement of their moneys for far too long.
It is not rocket science. The Auditor General, people in the public service, and people in the public who know how to manage money properly have given clear and constructive solutions to the government as to what our objectives ought to be to ensure that the people's money will be spent wisely and effectively.
They have not been listened to. Moneys are used to curry political gain. The government looks to see which way the wind is shifting and moves in that direction. It needs to show leadership and use public moneys wisely and effectively. Only then will we build a stronger country.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, I rise today to participate in the second reading debate of the budget implementation act.
This week police officers from all across the country converged on Parliament Hill to deliver this year's demands for improving the safety and security of Canadians. They had an important list which included: better protection for children, no more club fed style prisons, a national drug strategy, pension accrual rate for public safety occupations, and funding for police services.
The Canadian Police Association, representing some 30,000 frontline officers, is recommending that Parliament provide increased priority funding for local, provincial, national, federal and trans-jurisdictional policing responsibilities.
Well over a year ago the Canadian Police Association appeared before the justice committee regarding the anti-terrorism legislation. During its presentation it said:

We have serious reservations, however, about the capability of Canada's police and law enforcement officials to meet the increased demands of anti-terrorism requirements and sustain important domestic policing and law enforcement responsibilities.

To date, the government has never meaningfully addressed the Canadian Police Association's concerns.
As the CPA pointed out in its fact sheet, the 2002 federal budget allotted several millions of dollars in new spending for national security. However, only $576 million spread over six years was dedicated funding allotted to the RCMP. This amounted to only $87 million per year. Translated into human resources, it allowed for the hiring of only 446 full time employees for the RCMP, not over this year, not over next year, but over the next six years.
Need I remind the government that its slash and gouging of the RCMP that occurred in 1993 resulted in 2,200 positions being lost, a loss that has never been recouped despite years of protests and requests for increased spending.
Last year the commissioner of the RCMP openly admitted that 2,000 RCMP officers were withdrawn from other enforcement duties to respond to the terrorism crisis. These officers were taken from assignments previously considered to be priorities, such as fighting organized crime and providing frontline policing in Canadian communities. Many of those jobs were left unattended. In the commissioner's own words these files were “put on the back burner” while the RCMP attempted to apprehend terrorists suspected of using this country as a staging ground.
According to the CPA, of the complement of approximately 15,000 RCMP officers, 9,000 were assigned to municipal and provincial contracting responsibilities. Of the remaining 6,000, 2,000 or one-third of them were taken from other law enforcement responsibilities and reassigned to the terrorism file.
Minimally, 2,000 additional officers are needed to service the deficiencies that are being felt the hardest at the community level. The RCMP provides federal policing to all Canadians as well as services under contracts to all provinces, except Ontario and Quebec, the three territories, 200 municipalities, and more than 190 first nations communities.
Last year, I met with the mayor and town manager of Three Hills which is one of the larger towns in my riding of Crowfoot. Mayor Bauman raised concerns about the national resource methodology used to determine RCMP allocations within small communities and the fact that the municipality had no input in terms of how the contracts were drawn up. At our meeting, the mayor informed me that the town was faced with 20% to 25% of its budget being allocated toward policing, an expenditure that this small rural town could ill afford given all the other demands on its financial resources.
Furthermore, the RCMP stationed right in Three Hills was used by neighbouring municipalities who did not contribute financially for this essential service. More and more, Mayor Bauman explained that the services of the police officers were being stretched routinely and there was not a police presence in the community.
While I took the mayor's concerns to the Solicitor General of Canada, she took them to Alberta Solicitor General Heather Forsyth. At issue was the provincial rule that communities of less than 2,500 have police costs fully covered by the provincial and federal governments, while communities such as Three Hills, with a population greater than 2,500, would pick up the entire tab. Mayor Bauman, saying she is only looking for equity across the province, is threatening to refuse paying for the RCMP.
Another town in my riding, Drumheller, has expressed similar frustrations regarding the cost of policing. Last December, I attended a council meeting of the town of Drumheller and although it expressed a number of concerns, the most notable was the lack of RCMP resources. Although RCMP policing is primarily a provincial issue inasmuch as Alberta municipalities contract directly with the provinces for police services, I took the Drumheller concern to the Solicitor General. I did so because Drumheller is in a unique situation in that the RCMP is utilized to investigate disturbances and escapes from the Drumheller prison, which is a federal institution.
In 2001, a riot and murder investigation at the Drumheller prison cost $40,513 in overtime costs, of which $28,359 was the responsibility of the town of Drumheller. As a result of the related trials, the town also incurred significant costs in terms of the overtime and the burden of police services while officers were called to testify. At one time the town of Drumheller had an officer solely dedicated to federal issues such as the Drumheller Institution. However, that position was eliminated and it is now the responsibility of the town.
In 2000, the average caseload for police officers in Canada was 42.1 Criminal Code incidents per officer. In Drumheller, the average was 97 incidents per officer. This number is significant in that Criminal Code offences in Drumheller had dropped 24% from 1999 to 2000.
Quite obviously, the workload of the RCMP officers stationed in Drumheller is unacceptable. It puts a tremendous strain on police officers who are there, a strain that could jeopardize their ability to effectively do their jobs. Therefore, on behalf of the town of Drumheller, I have requested a review of this matter by the Solicitor General with an end to receiving a dedicated RCMP officer employed and paid for directly by Correctional Service Canada, and deployed as soon as possible.
As I stated at the onset of this debate, the RCMP was basically gutted in the early 1990s as the government introduced a program of restraint. This resulted in the loss of 2,200 RCMP positions.
Just over two years ago, in the wake of 9/11, I wrote the attorneys general and solicitors general of each province to inquire how, if indeed at all, community policing had been affected in their respective jurisdictions. In response, the Alberta solicitor general wrote back explaining:

In Alberta, there are 63 urban centres that are responsible for their own policing and contract directly with Canada for policing by the RCMP. These agreements are cost shared between the municipality and Canada based on population size...Through most of the 1990s, federal funding was insufficient to meet the needs of the contractual obligations of the agreements with Alberta...The prolonged period of federal fiscal restraint negatively impacted the RCMP's ability to deliver services required under the various contractual arrangements.

I implore the government to finally do as the Canadian Police Association has asked and that is to provide adequate priority funding for the sake of the children, and for the sake of the nation.
In closing, I wish to express the sentiments of Toronto Police Chief Fantino who said he was:

...deeply disappointed at the recent comments by (the) Solicitor General that police are adequately resourced in the area of child pornography. The Toronto Police Service has received no funding or resources from the federal government in this area. We have, however, managed to move forward thanks to a $2 million grant from the provincial government.

Police Chief Fantino has congratulated the Ontario government for moving because the federal government has not, and today we stand in the House to say thanks to the provincial government in Ontario for responding to the great need.
Yvan Loubier: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak about the most recent federal budget. I could have started this budget critique by talking about how the Minister of Finance has quite deliberately underestimated, once again, the federal surplus for this fiscal year and next.
Because the new Minister of Finance has done exactly the same thing as his predecessor. In fact, he has resorted to the same trickery in underestimating the surplus. Therefore, to a certain extent, he has distorted the democratic debate we should be having here. We do not have a true picture of public finances. How can we judge the relevance and value of government measures, without knowing the real range of possibilities available to this government to benefit the public and serve the public interest?
I could also have talked about those left out of this budget. The most important such group are the self-employed, who are still unable to take advantage of employment insurance. There are also the workers who have suffered from the softwood lumber crisis. And yet, the other side of the House had proposed implementing measures to at least partially bandage their wounds following the Americans' refusal to budge for the past few years.
We could have also mentioned the first nations peoples, who were totally left out. It sounds good to mention them in the throne speech. Aboriginals and their problems have been mentioned in at least three consecutive throne speeches. Each one calls for new arrangements to be negotiated with each nation. But when the time comes to take concrete action, nothing really substantial is offered.
I would like, instead, to talk about a new measure found in this budget which no one has said very much about. From the outside, it might seem very positive, but when one scratches the surface, the reality is rather Kafkaesque. It is in true Kafkaesque tradition.
I am referring to the new employment insurance benefit for compassionate care leave. We have been talking about it for a long time. Even the last Speech from the Throne said that people who decide to stop working for a short period of time to take care of a sick loved one, deserve the chance to do so without penalty.
The last Speech from the Throne gave the example of a mother who has to take care of her sick child. It said that the federal government was prepared to take measures to allow her to provide care without penalty.
The budget includes an initiative that is quite peculiar when examined more closely, and could lead to very dehumanizing, inhumane and cynical situations. On close examination, it does not measure up to be a good program.
For instance, we are told that this compassionate leave initiative will come into effect in January 2004. That is one year from now, which is too late; it is too far away. They also say that a parent will have a maximum of six weeks to take care of a sick child, but are quick to add there will be a two-week waiting period.
In reality, the parent who takes care of a sick child will be entitled to four weeks of benefits. Why is there a penalty? This is beyond comprehension. In the beginning, when you decide to stop working because your child is seriously ill, you should not be penalized for two weeks. Above all, it should not be set out in writing that there is a two-week waiting period. It is an utterly cynical initiative.
In addition—and this is where cynicism is added to sarcasm and insult to injury—we are told that the program is for a parent, a child, or a spouse who will very likely die in the next six months. This is the condition that must be met. In other words, Human Resources Development Canada will require proof that the child you are taking care of will die in six months in order for you to receive net compensation of four weeks of employment insurance, because there is already a two week penalty.
I have questioned the value of such a measure. I wondered about the current procedure. The Employment Insurance Act contains a provision allowing a parent to stop work in order to care for a child. For a number of years now, over-zealous departmental employees have felt this provision entitling people to care for a sick family member was at odds with the one requiring them to be available for work.
I have had recent examples of this in my riding, which have resulted in unbelievable exclusions. For instance, there is the case of the mother of a child with a brain tumour. The child had been ill for a year, but the doctors could not find the cause. The mother herself fell ill from the stress of not knowing. She applied for employment insurance, and normally would have been entitled to it under the current provisions. She had to take her case to the board of referees. The three members were unanimously in favour of her claim, saying she was entitled to benefits to care for her sick child, having fallen ill herself from the stress and worry.
The Human Resources Development administration at Saint-Hyacinthe appealed the decision of the board of referees and took it before an umpire in order to have the case reviewed. Imagine, taking to an umpire a case that had been unanimously accepted by a board of referees concerning benefits to a mother whose child had a brain tumour.
Fortunately, public pressure, and the efforts by my office and by the MAC, a coalition for the unemployed, managed to get the appeal dropped. That was fortunate. But is this much effort necessary every time, is public pressure required just to get people to see common sense? That is the way things are at present.
How is this being replaced? With the program I have just referred to: six weeks, including the two week waiting period, in order to qualify for employment insurance benefits for one or the other parent to look after a seriously ill child, provided they can establish that the child will die within six months. If a program like this is not Kafkaesque, if it is not dehumanizing, if it is not devoid of compassion, then I do not know what it is.
Given what has happened over the last seven years, following this government's EI reforms—and the example I just mentioned proves this—we know quite well that when it comes time to interpret the act over-zealously, and for the local Human Resources Development Canada office to issue cold-hearted correspondence to workers, they are capable of being inhuman.
Will we be seeing notes like the following:

Dear Ms. X,
Since you were unable to establish that your child will die within the reasonable timeframe of six months, we hereby notify you that you do not qualify for compassionate care leave.
Sincerely,
“A bureaucrat”

Is this the type of correspondence we should expect? Those are indeed the eligibility requirements for EI leave to provide care for a child who is seriously ill. That is the type of correspondence that a mother who wants to care for her sick child will receive, because one of the two parents must always make that terribly difficult decision. It is either the mother or the father who will look after the child who will die within six months, but not both. That, too, is incomprehensible.
There is not a scintilla of humanity in what was presented; there is not a scrap of compassion. Imagine the surreal, Kafkaesque administrative straitjacket you find yourself in when you are in the grips of a very dramatic situation, when you are dealing with the blow of fatality, when your child is extremely sick and, on top of that, you have to establish that he or she will die in the next six months.
This should be the kind of correspondence you receive in that type of situation:

You have proven beyond any doubt that the person you wish to provide care for is likely to die in the coming six months. We are pleased to notify you that you qualify for benefits.

That is no way to run a program, void of any compassion, and then call it a special program that was established for compassionate reasons.
Sometimes, I ask myself how the government is running the public administration. It would have been so simple to produce a short memo to HRDC officials and tell them, “from now on, if parents are providing care for a sick child, they will qualify for EI benefits for the maximum number of weeks” rather than coming up with a program that is as Kafkaesque as this one, which tops cynicism with sarcasm.
Betty Hinton: Madam Speaker, the budget of February 18 has been described here in the House and elsewhere as the most socialist budget to be tabled in this place since the Trudeau era. I was not here then and I am not prepared to take issue with that statement. However without question, it is a spending budget, much to the great disappointment of Canadians who have been hoping for a budget of restraint and tax relief.
What the budget did was the opposite of what taxpayers wanted. Instead of fiscal prudence, taxpayers got an astounding 20% increase in federal spending over the next three years.
It was called a legacy budget by some at the time of the tabling. If the Prime Minister and the Liberals clustered around him consider a 20% increase in spending a legacy, perhaps Canadians should start thinking about changing this regime government into a democratic government.
The expression “nickel and dimer” comes to mind. It is used to describe individuals or operations which think and act small. Another expression, “chump change”, comes to mind. Both have application here when it comes to the Liberal government and its budget. The Liberals are nickel and dimers and dealers in chump change as far as the budget is concerned.
It was chump change when they set the EI premium at $1.98 in 2004. Why wait until 2004? Why not lower the rate by much more and do it much more quickly?
I will answer my own question. The Liberals will not lower it by any more or any quicker because they want that money. They need that money to continue funding hare-brained schemes like the gun registry, to make up for losses from GST fraud or for new hare-brained schemes that they have yet to come up with.
It would never occur to a Liberal that surpluses are not for spending. No, a Liberal believes that once a taxpayer has sent that money to Ottawa, it belongs to big daddy.
We on this side believe that surpluses belong to the people and that the people deserve some of their money back. We know as well that Canadians will agree to some of it being used to reduce the debt. That should not be a difficult thing for anyone to understand. Even a Liberal should be able to grasp it.
The money belongs to the people who sent it here to fund the programs that they want. Anything left over, oftentimes referred to by the government as surplus but is in fact gouging, is not to be used to fund new programs about which the Canadian people have not been consulted. However the Liberals refuse to acknowledge that.
Liberals believe in the divine right of kings and little guys from Shawinigan to do whatever it is they want to do with the public purse. They will vigorously defend the concept of the divine right to spend however much they want, whenever they want, on whatever they want, as long as it reaps them votes at election time.
What Canadians want, on top of fiscal responsibility, is creation of an economic climate in which businesses and individuals can thrive and grow and, with their success, create an even more receptive climate for others to do the same. Tragically, the Liberals believe government is the engine of success.
On this side, we favour deep and broad based tax relief, a stable monetary policy, funding for essential national infrastructure and stimulating medical and scientific research.
Over here, we lament the millions being stolen from Canadians through GST fraud. We lament even more the attitude of the Liberals, as personified by the member for Mississauga West. He said recently at committee on GST fraud that he actually contemplated moving that the meeting be adjourned. Why would he do that? Because the percentage being stolen was so insignificant.
Over $150 million stolen out of taxes is not insignificant to Canadians. Only a Liberal, or perhaps a New Democrat, would consider the theft of over $150 million an insignificant matter. Is it any wonder Canadians are in despair?
Of course Liberals also consider tax fairness for families to be too insignificant for consideration. We in the Alliance disagree. We believe that it is essential that there be greater tax fairness for families and we provide that by eliminating inequities between single and dual income families. We believe that there should be equity in choices regarding child care arrangements, including child care at home.
The Alliance believes as well that there should be integration of the tax system and social programs to better meet the needs of low income families and individuals.
When it comes to equity and equal treatment, Liberals have a philosophy, believe it or not. Liberals believe that every hard-working Canadian or Canadian family should be gouged to the max. Spare the rod and spoil the taxpayer is the Liberal mantra.
Another question Canadians have is why the high cost of vehicle and heating fuels was not addressed in the budget. There is something the Liberals do not want Canadians to know about and that is the huge windfall that comes from increasing crude oil and natural gas prices. If high wellhead prices continue, and there is every reason to believe that they will, the Liberals will have additional hundreds of millions of dollars to use to buy votes.
For every litre of fuel purchased, the Liberals gain millions through the GST that they once so despised. They get it because they put the GST, the goods and services tax, on a commodity that is already taxed. In other words, Liberals simply do not get it. They believe in sucking every last penny they can from the pockets of hard-working Canadians. They believe in taxing the taxes that Canadians already pay. It is the Liberal way: take as much as one can get and do not worry if it creates hardship for lower income Canadians.
Why was there no consideration from either the present finance minister or his predecessor for lower income hard-working Canadians in terms of the tax on gas? They are too busy fighting. One prepares to be the emperor and the other is busy squandering what he believes to be the rest of his money.
Unlike those two, we in the Alliance believe that taxes imposed for a specific purpose should actually be spent on that purpose. Is that not a funny concept? Not surprisingly, the vast majority of Canadians believes that too. Like the Canadian Alliance, the majority of Canadians believes that when a specific tax for a specific purpose is no longer needed, that tax should be cancelled.
Liberals shiver in horror at that suggestion. “Cancel a tax”, they ask in disbelief? They say that we must be insane for wanting to cancel a tax and ask if we do not realize that it is not the Liberal way. They say, “No, never. We need that money. We need that money to buy votes”.
If too many Canadians complain, the Liberals have a solution. They suggest that the complainers join a special interest group and apply for a federal grant. Canadians are ahead of the Liberals on that one. They already have joined a special interest group, under the endangered species category. They believe it is the only way taxpayers can seek and get protection from the Liberals.
They are also thinking about joining another special interest group called the tumbrel troop. These are people who believe the tumbrels should be rolling down Wellington Street in front of Parliament, bearing as passengers those responsible for the billion dollar firearms registry scandal or the HRDC billion dollar boondoggle. If there are some elected Liberals among the passengers on those two-wheeled wagons, Canadian taxpayers will applaud and cheer and happily do their knitting while they wait for the blade to fall.
Enough is enough. The government does not address the needs of Canadians. It addresses the needs of the Government of Canada. That is not the way this is supposed to work.
Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to be able to add critique to the budget that the Liberals are pushing upon us.
We know, of course, that the legislative process, the parliamentary democratic process in the House, is severely limited. It is very unlikely that my speech today is going to change any of the minds of the Liberals. I just wonder how carefully they are listening over there and whether or not my appeal to their reason is going to say, yes, we should change this.
As a matter of fact, it came to me very early in my elected career why we have had such fiscal disasters in this country. Soon after my first election in 1990-93, I was asked by a member of my constituency how come, with all the best economic and accounting minds in the country available to the Department of Finance, we had sunk into such an extremely low level of economic prosperity and such a huge debt.
You will remember, Madam Speaker, that in 1993 it was a great issue. We had so many people who were really concerned that our annual deficits were severely hampering the ability of the government to deliver programs when one dollar out of every four was being spent just on interest. That continues to be so, despite what the government tries to spin in our direction.
I would like to emphasize that the call for deficit reduction and elimination came from us. As a matter of fact, if one were to check the record, one would see that when we first arrived here as Reformers in 1993 and in the next few years while the government continued to add to the debt, it regularly made all sorts of scurrilous comments to us because we had the gall to suggest that there should be balanced budgets.
Now, having done it, the government endlessly gloats about it. I am glad for it. I am glad that we are no longer adding to the debt of our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. I am very glad and--in a way I do this often in the House--I give the government a sort of reluctant compliment for having resisted the temptation to spend it all, because that is what Liberals do. It is just part of their nature. I do give them reluctant congratulations for at least not being able to figure out how to spend the billions of dollars coming their way, mostly because of the issues they were against.
We will recall that in 1993, 10 years ago, the Liberals ran that election on two big issues. One was that they were going to kill the crazy free trade agreement. Today it at bigger risk due to the Liberals right now because of their way of engineering the deteriorating relationship with the Americans. One billion dollars a day of our economy depends on that trade. They were against the policy in 1993, but it did work, and now it has brought such prosperity to the country that even the Liberals could not figure out how to spend the money that came our way because of it. Yet they were against it philosophically.
The other issue they ran on in the election was the GST, saying, “We will kill it. We will nullify it. We do not want that tax”. Well, Madam Speaker, we still have it. It is still there. And it is bringing in a lot of money. In my view, it is a huge brake on our economy. I would like to see it reduced. In fact, that is what we have been saying all along. We would like it reduced in stages until it is zero, because it is a huge administrative nightmare for every employer in the country and for every business person. It is a drain on the economy on that account but it does bring in a lot of net revenue to the government, which has used it in order to stop borrowing. That is okay. The government is not borrowing anymore.
However, the Liberals also like to say--and I believe the parliamentary secretary over there can hardly resist heckling and I appreciate that he is so good at resisting--that the government has brought the debt down. The parliamentary secretary himself likes to say, “We have brought the debt down”.
It is curious when we look at the numbers. Despite the fact that revenues are way up, the amount by which the Liberals have reduced the debt is actually less than two of the thefts it has been involved in. I use that word advisedly, but generally when one takes money to which one is not entitled we call it theft, so that is the word I am using. The government took money to which it was not entitled. It took over $40 billion from the EI fund. That is how much it has taken out.
Has it reduced the debt by $40 billion? As a matter of fact, the debt increased from, as I recall, around $508 billion to $583 billion after the Liberals came to power. They reduced the debt, all right, but not by the amounts they took from the EI fund and the civil servants' pension fund.
As a little aside, if you will indulge me, Madam Speaker, I read in the paper the other day that the ex-finance minister, now seeking to become the prime minister, is divesting himself of his shares in his shipping company. I read a little article that said before it happens he wants to get back his pension fund surplus there and have it paid to him as a cash payout. I forget the amount. I think it was around $80 million or something. It is chump change for him, but for most ordinary Canadians it is an astronomical amount of money.
This was done to the federal civil servants while he was the finance minister. The government unilaterally said, “We have a surplus of $30 billion there and we will just take it”. I searched in vain to see where that entered into the public accounts and how it was used to pay the debt. There was no direct connection. Yet between the EI overpayments and the theft of the civil servants' pension surplus, we had $72 billion. If it had all been applied to the debt, then the debt now would be close to where it was when the Liberals took office. Instead, it is still considerably higher. I am disappointed in the budget and in the implementation act we are debating today because of the fact that there is no specific plan to reduce the debt.
I recently read about what happens in this intergenerational transfer. It is very embarrassing to us in our generation. Let us say that I am taking my children and grandchildren out for a picnic. We are on the way to the picnic with my son driving the car while I am in the back with the grandkids. While they are not watching, I reach into their little lunch buckets and eat their sandwiches and take their chocolates and things like that, so that by the time we get to the picnic their baskets are empty. If I were to do that, everybody would say, “What a nasty grandfather that is. Two weeks ago he was bragging about his new grandson and now he is eating out of their lunch and leaving them nothing”.
Collectively, we in our generation, with the government continuing it, by having this huge debt, this is what are we doing to our children and our grandchildren: We are eating their lunch. We are saying that we will enjoy the benefits of all these programs and we will let them pay for it for generations to come, plus interest. I think that is unconscionable.
The fact is that this government, being given huge amounts of money as a surprise, could not figure out how to spend those amounts and therefore had to apply it to the debt. And now it is gloating because it reduced the debt, the debt that it had allowed to grow to such a hugely astronomical amount.
That is one thing, but for it not to have a plan to reduce and eliminate the debt is a tremendous failure on its part. It is the biggest failure because the servicing of the debt is still the biggest expenditure of our government and it is saddled onto the next generations.
Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, yesterday the hon. member at around 5:25 p.m. raised a question and did not have a chance to get an answer to it in response to a statement that I made indicating that 70% of our revenues went toward paying the interest on the deficit. The reality is 30% of the revenues go toward paying the interest on the deficit. He was quite right and I wanted to tell him that.
Having said all that, being an engineer, like all engineers around the world, I always have a tendency to go right to the point and I have done that. I wanted to just point it out for the record.
David Anderson: Madam Speaker, we are here today to discuss the budget and the implementation act regarding that.
I have a quote from Ronald Regan that reminds me of some of the facts about budgeting and governments. He said at one time that the government was like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and absolutely no responsibility at the other. We see some of that in the budget we are addressing now.
I want to talk about some of the issues that really have not been addressed much. Those are agriculture and how it fares in the budget.
We have been misled once again by the government in terms of the promises it made to farmers. Over a year ago the minister had made a commitment that farmers would get some funding over the next few years toward their farm programs.
We have watched farmers fight over the last year to get a program in place under the new agriculture policy framework, which has not worked well. There is very little co-operation from any of the farm organizations. The government has been unable to put the program together so the details are in place, and that program has to be put in place by April 1.
Here we are a week before implementation is supposed to happen and the government after 18 to 20 months of consulting and talking about the new agriculture policy framework has been unable to put a program in place that producers can agree would be of any use to them. I may come back to that a little later.
I want to talk about the money which was promised specifically in the budget. The farmers were once again given a balloon that looked like it was blown up to be quite a big thing and once we started looking at it, the balloon popped and we realized there was nothing there but more hot air.
The finance minister told us that there would be $465 million in new spending for producers. We took that at face value, went back to our offices and started to look over what he had promised farmers. It turns out that of that $465 million, $220 million is called an advance for crop insurance spending. Over the last couple of years the crop insurance programs in a couple of the provinces have basically gone to zero or have gone into the hole because of claims. Rather than put money into that, the government has given farmers what it calls an advance. We have found out that this is not money at all; it is a loan that producers will have to pay back to the government over the next 15 years.
Out of the $465 million, the first $220 million will not even go to farmers. The government calls it an advance. Producers themselves and the farmers will have to pay it back. To tell people they are getting money under those circumstances is to mislead them.
Then the government said that it would give $20 million to FCC. That is not going directly to producers. It is a stand-alone institution. It has been given to it for some specific projects and specific things that the government wants to do. Once again, that money is not available to the farmer who is sitting on his farm wondering what he will to do this spring to get a crop in the ground.
The government also mentioned that $113 million would go to the vet colleges. It is great that this money will go to the veterinary colleges, except this was announced six months ago. The agriculture committee travelled last year and heard regularly and often from the veterinarian colleges that they needed some help. They were in danger of losing their accreditation which allowed them to credit veterinarians for international standards. In every presentation they made, the veterinarian colleges made that same plea for money to upgrade their facilities which had been left to deteriorate by the government for the last 10 years. The government announced last year that it would put that $113 million into the colleges. Then it announced it again in the budget, trying to convince people that it was new money.
The government also announced that there would be $100 million for the CFIA. That was only partially true because it was spread out over two years. I guess I am like most Canadians. It annoys me when I hear the government is to put huge amounts of money into a project and then I find out that it will be divided by two, three, four or five years. All of a sudden money that it said it would put into these programs basically amounts to virtually nothing.
As someone who is interested in agriculture and is committed to agriculture and our farmers, it is frustrating to see a government across the way either be incompetent in its programs or mislead farmers about the support it says it will give them.
Of the $460 million that has been announced, not one cent will go directly to farmers. Basically, most of this will go toward an expanded bureaucracy. It is hypocritical for the government to mislead farmers by pretending to give them support and money when in fact it is not doing that.
I want to talk a bit about the APF and the struggle the government has had to find a successful program. It was set up under five pillars. Farmers do not really know what is going on with this program. The government is coming forward now with different aspects of it. From the beginning, it looked like it would be a bureaucratic nightmare for farmers. In so many of the programs over the last few years, like AIDA and CFIP, the accountants and the bureaucrats did very well. We know for the AIDA program alone, between $150 million and $200 million worth of program money was spent on bureaucrats.
One of the top bureaucrats told a member of the agriculture committee a month ago that we should be happy for this new program because it would mean more jobs in Winnipeg. The point of the program is to help farmers. It is not a make-work project for urban areas. Once again the government has failed in its ability to come up with a program that is easy to use, that will backstop farmers and give them some success.
We see the government committing $100 million to environmental farm plans. I guess I would have to ask the members around me this. How can $100 million be spent to come up with a farm plan for farmers to use so they can explain what they are farming and whether their farms are safe and secure? That is appalling. It is ridiculous to think that much money can be spent on a bureaucratic device so that farmers can say what they are doing with their sprays, chemicals and gases. It is crazy.
There are other things like renewal. The government talks about renewal and trying to get younger farmers onto the land to renew the rural communities, but it does nothing that directly affects those communities. It has massive bureaucracies and meetings here and there with their rural secretariat and those types of things but it never comes back and touches the rural people.
I mentioned the risk management part of the APF earlier. It is extremely frustrating to have to deal with a bureaucracy that gets billions of dollars a year, but has taken two years to come up with a program that will not be ready when it needs to be. Farmers do not know what kind of coverage they have. They do not know what kind of triggers will be used to trigger coverage. Farmers are expected to take between $2 billion and $3 billion out of their own pockets to get this program off the ground and make it viable.
The really frustrating part about that is they have between $2 billion and $3 billion in the NISA program already. It is sitting there. It is in a program that has worked reasonably well for farmers and the government has persistently said that one of the things it wants to do is shake that money out of the NISA accounts. It is going to do that, but then it is going to turn around and force farmers to put that money back into the new programs which the government has set up. It seems to go on and on.
Another frustration is this. We were told a $45 billion EI surplus existed. It supposedly existed up until just before this budget. Then all of a sudden we are told that it is not there. We know someone is attempting to take the prime ministership away from our present Prime Minister. He is the person who has been responsible over the years for building this fund, putting it in place and letting us believe that it was there.
I guess I am reminded, as I think about him, of a quote from George Bernard Shaw, which says that a government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. Unfortunately, the problem is that the one who is named Peter in this country is the taxpayer, it is not the other prime minister. The government took $45 billion from taxpayers under the guise of putting it into an EI system. Then it turned around, applied it somewhere else and told people the money was gone; it has completely vanished. If anyone in the House did that, I think we would find ourselves in some serious difficulty with the legal authorities.
I will close with another quote from P.J. O'Rourke, who is a well known civil libertarian from the United States. He says that giving money and power to government is like giving whisky and car keys to teenage boys.
Pat Martin: Madam Speaker, I thank the Canadian Alliance speaker who raised many valid issues on behalf of prairies farmers about the situation they face and the lack of any relief or deference to their issues in the federal budget. I was interested to learn more about the NISA program. He said that the program still had $2 billion that we could shake out of it. Could he explain that a little more?
Also, while I am up and have the opportunity to ask him questions, would he expand even further on the abuse of the EI program? Would he agree with me that to deduct a certain--
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Order. There are no questions and comments, but the hon. member is welcome to finish his remarks during the debate period.
Pat Martin: Madam Speaker, I am happy to be recognized and appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-28.
It was my intention to ask the hon. member to expand somewhat on the NISA program and the $4 billion that he maintains could be put to better use or put into the pockets of farmers instead of being lost to the bureaucracy. Even though I represent an area of downtown Winnipeg, I would not want to see an agricultural assistance program being used to create bureaucratic jobs or to do anything other than to provide much needed income maintenance for beleaguered prairie farmers.
I appreciated the hon. member's comments. He was bang on. Perhaps in another speech he will be able to enlighten us more about the five pillars he made reference to.
I would like to speak at some length to the last point the Alliance member spoke about, the EI program.
The federal government is very proud of its announcement of $100 billion in tax cuts. As the member pointed out, it seems that any of the government's good news announcements are sequenced and timed to come into play over a period of three years or five years. The amount is not as huge an amount of money as people might expect when spread out over that timeframe. The erosion of that amount of money during that period of time due to inflation also has to be factored in. That $100 billion will not really mean as much five years from now as it did when it was announced. The government is trying to get the maximum political bang for its buck.
We should point out to people who are listening today where that $100 billion the government has put into tax cuts came from. I can say that $45 billion of it can be traced to the pockets of hardworking Canadians and their employers. As people should know, the EI fund is strictly made up of contributions from employees and employers. The federal government puts nothing into that fund. Canadians have clearly overpaid into the EI fund to the tune of $45 billion cumulatively over the last couple of years.
If there is a surplus in the EI fund, there are two ways of looking at it. One legitimate argument was put forward by the Alliance that premiums should be reduced. We are paying in too much in terms of what is being paid out in benefits. The flip side of that coin, the NDP's argument is that benefits should be increased or the eligibility requirement should be lowered so more people who pay in would be eligible. Either one of those arguments is legitimate.
What is not legitimate is to use that money for some purpose other than income maintenance for unemployed people. I would go further and say that to deduct something from a person's paycheque for a specific purpose and then to use that money for something completely different is out and out fraud. At the very least it is a breach of trust.
A trust relationship has been created with that individual. When that individual allowed the government to deduct money from his or her paycheque for a specific purpose, a trust relationship was formed. That person trusted that the government would hold that money until such time as he or she became unemployed and needed it. To do anything else with that money is a breach of trust. To use money paid into the unemployment insurance fund to build roads, or for health care, or to give tax cuts to somebody, is a breach of the fiduciary trust entered into with the Government of Canada as employees.
I cannot emphasize enough our continued disappointment, shock and horror at the flagrant misuse and abuse of what was supposed to be an insurance program for unemployed workers.
I appreciate that there are still MPs in the House of Commons who raised that as an aspect of their comments on the budget. To not do so would be to resign ourselves to the fact that the Liberals have managed to get away with something again. Some of us are not prepared to do that.
To put in context the size of the surplus, I am fond of reminding people that the EI program is running a surplus of $700 million a month, not per year, per month. Every month that ticks by, people are contributing $700 million more than is being paid out in income maintenance to unemployed workers. Talk about a cash cow. Talk about the gift that keeps on giving.
The Liberal government cannot believe how lucky it is. It seems to have gone under the radar on this one. Most Canadians are not upset about it. We are upset. Those of us who know about it in the House of Commons are upset. We are trying to alert Canadians to the fact that they are being gouged, but seemingly the public has not really got up in arms.
Unemployed people are up in arms, but unemployment is relatively low these days with 7% unemployed. That is not enough to form a mass movement of people to object to the abuse of the fund. Unfortunately when Canadians do find themselves in the unfortunate position of being unemployed, they will also learn that under the current EI rules, less than 40% of them will be eligible for any income maintenance whatsoever. The EI rules are structured in such a way that only 40% of unemployed people qualify. What kind of insurance fund is that?
What if people were obliged to pay into a house insurance fund with mandatory contributions and if their house burned down, they would have a 40% chance of collecting any benefit?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from February 10, consideration of the motion that Bill C-314, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act, be now read the second time and referred to committee.
Bernard Bigras: Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me today to speak on Bill C-314, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act—and I am quoting from the summary of the bill—“in order to make it more difficult for adults and non-custodial parentsto abduct children by means of air transportation”.
The legislation is also aimed at reducing the incidence of child abduction and kidnapping in Canada, by requiring all adult passengers travelling with young persons to produce written proof of the consent of their parents or of other persons who have lawful custody over them.
I said that it is a great pleasure for me to speak, but it is also a very emotional moment for me because this House will remember that on May 28, 2001, it adopted a motion that I had introduced. I am referring to Motion No. 219, which was unanimously adopted and which aimed to get the federal government to force as many countries as possible to sign and ratify the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
Furthermore, Motion No. 219, which I sponsored, also aimed to ensure that the federal government take the necessary steps to fight against international child abduction. This was the objective of this motion, unanimously passed on May 28, 2001. I am pleased that my hon. colleague in the House has introduced a bill to implement the object of this motion.
I recall that this motion was initially the result of a personal matter. In fact, on Sunday, January 17, 1993, my wife's son was abducted by her ex-husband, an Egyptian-born Canadian. So, one Sunday, she learned that her ex-husband had abducted her son and left for Egypt. From that moment on, she lost all contact with them, although she had been granted legal custody of her child by Quebec courts.
We knew then that legal proceedings would commence and that the necessary steps would have to be taken. However, what this case showed us is that, inevitably, the border controls were somewhat lax when a child was accompanying one parent who wanted to leave the country and travel abroad.
The House will remember that I asked a number of questions at the time. I asked how my wife's son, Karim, who was three, could have left with his father, who does not have custody of the child, without permission from the mother, who had a custody order. What document checks were made, particularly in terms of issuing the child's passport? Another question I asked at the time was whether customs officers and airline personnel have the authority and training to prevent such a situation. We already knew that roughly 200 or more children were alleged to have been abducted in the year 2000 alone.
So, a certain number of questions were raised at the time. We felt then—and still do—that Canada must take action, but that international action must be taken as well. That was also the finding of the report by a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, which reached a number of conclusions in April 1998 on what action should be taken to prevent international abduction, but also abduction in Canada.
At the time, my colleagues had studied the impact of abduction on extradition, and the measures to take for passport control or in the case of divorce and custody proceedings. Would it not make more sense when there is a custody order and a clear risk of abduction that we make it mandatory for customs officers to require documents approved by the parent who has custody, before authorizing the child to leave Canada?
They also reviewed the issue of travel documents and the financial assistance we should provide parents who are victims of international abduction. This fight against international abduction, is above all a fight for the rights of the child. Many countries have signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but unfortunately, in practice, too few countries—even among those who have ratified the Hague Convention on the civil aspects of international abduction—agree to apply this convention. In my opinion, we must take action.
I am thinking about recommendation 12 the committee made in April 1998, and I quote:

Review the feasibility of creating a process for verifying documentary proof that both parents have agreed to international travel of children under 16 years of age before airline tickets are issued.

In 1998, the committee proposed document checks be carried out. The government's response a few months later, in January 1999, was that actions should be taken. It said:

The departments taking part in the “Our Missing Children” program will be discussing the international child abduction issue with Transport Canada, and in particular the role that can be played by control and security agents at airports in recognizing cases of child abduction and reacting appropriately.

The government was therefore proposing nothing more than “working in collaboration”. I have always called for legislation, for the necessary changes to be made to the law. Such was the essence of my motion No. 219, which was passed in this Parliament on January 17, 2001. Its purpose was to ensure that the necessary steps were taken against international child abduction.
Today I hope that this House will vote in favour of this bill. It seems fundamental to me that, if child abduction by a parent is a priority, we must be consistent and take the necessary steps, particularly since my motion was passed unanimously by this House.
We cannot merely settle for the Hague Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction, which came into effect on December 1, 1983 and was ratified by 54 countries. Why not? Because, although Canada is trying to sign bilateral agreements with certain countries, Egypt among them, we are forced to realize that these international conventions are not being applied seriously. As a result, international abduction continues to be a scourge.
I still maintain that international child abduction is primarily a children's rights issue. It is a battle to ensure that children have the right to remain with their parents, particularly when custody has been awarded by the court.
I am therefore extremely pleased to support this bill. I feel that it represents a concrete adaptation, a concrete measure, consistent with my January 17, 2001 motion against international child abduction.
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties with respect to today's debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-314 in the name of the hon. member for Lethbridge and I believe you would find consent that in the event today's debate on second reading of Bill C-314 collapses and if a recorded division is requested thereon, the said vote be deferred until Tuesday, April 1 at 3 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Carole-Marie Allard: Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-314, to amend the Canada Transportation Act to make it more difficult for adults and parents who do not have custody to abduct children by means of air transportation and requiring all adult passengers travelling with young persons to produce written proof of the consent of their parents or of other persons who have lawful custody over them.
Unfortunately, while I support fully the intent of the bill and its objective of trying to reduce the incidence of child abduction and kidnapping, I cannot support the proposed amendment to the Canada Transportation Act.
It is a far too sweeping and heavy-handed amendment that would impose onerous obligations on Canadian airline carriers and be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to effectively implement. The effect could be that anyone attempting to travel with a child, even a parent in an intact family travelling with their own child, would be required to provide written proof of consent and prevented from getting on the plane if this is not produced. To someone unaware of this requirement, a planned trip at Christmas with their child to visit out of town family could end up being a nightmare.
This is a bill that is trying to accomplish something that the government takes very seriously. Unfortunately, sometimes children are taken by a parent, relative or caregiver without the consent or permission of the other parent. This can occur in the context of a divorce or separation, for example, and may be done for a variety of reasons, including revenge or a legitimate concern about the child's safety.
The 2001 annual report on Canada's missing children indicates that in 2001 there were 387 parental abductions. In some of these cases where the children are reported missing they are only missing temporarily because a parent is late in returning the child from an access visit. In other cases children remain missing for many years. Although children are rarely physically harmed by their parent, there is no doubt that these actions have a detrimental effect on the well-being of the children involved and, in some cases, are extremely traumatic for the child.
This government is strongly committed to protecting children from all forms of abduction and kidnapping. The “Our Missing Children” program is a key example of this commitment. Five government departments—the RCMP, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and Justice Canada work in partnership to prevent adudctions, locate and recover missing children.
Although each department has its own function, the “Our Missing Children” program operates as one unit. The National Missing Children Services is Canada’s clearinghouse for reports of missing children and provides investigative services. It is linked to all Canadian police and related agencies through the Canadian Police Information Centre, and most foreign police agencies through Interpol.
These connections allow investigators to link and trace quickly and expeditiously the whereabouts of an abductor or missing child. In addition, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency places border alerts and detects and recovers missing children at international airports and border crossings.
The program also provides a photo-aging service, as well as investigative research and ongoing development and distribution of information related to missing children for parents, children and police. It has connections with not for profit search agencies and collectively provides a unique and powerful program to prevent, locate and recover missing children.
I mention all this to reinforce the point that the government is already doing many things to address the problem of child abduction and kidnapping; important things that are well planned, well coordinated and effectively assist in protecting children from abduction and kidnapping.
As I said, unfortunately, while I support fully the intent of the bill and its objectives, I cannot support the proposed amendment. One of the problems is that the provision is too vague and is directed to the airline companies that hold a licence to operate a domestic air service. The bill does not provide any guidelines about how this should or could be done. It does not explain what form written proof of consent should take. It does not indicate how this provision should be practically enforced. In fact, each licensed air carrier could implement this requirement differently.
Many different questions arise about the bill. What proof of consent would be required if one parent is deceased? What costs would be associated with implementing this requirement and who would bear those costs? Would there be a liability associated with not doing so? This statutory amendment only impacts on domestic air carriers and it might not in fact even prevent a true abduction. The abductor could simply choose a different non-Canadian airline.
Reasonable measures to protect children from abduction are already in place. The Canadian passport system, for example, already imposes specific requirements respecting the issuing of passports for children, to respond to concerns about parental child abductions.
The “Our Missing Children” program that I mentioned earlier provides many examples of law enforcement measures, programs and tools that can and do work to address the problem of child abduction.
Our missing children program, which I mentioned earlier, provides many examples of law enforcement measures, programs and tools that can and do work to address the problem of child abductions. I do not think, however, that amending the Canada Transportation Act is the right response. I cannot support Bill C-314.
Rick Borotsik: Madam Speaker, I echo the comments of the previous speaker. My colleague from Gander—Grand Falls, who sits on the transport committee, has spoken previously on this proposed legislation and has indicated that, from the logistical aspect of the airlines themselves, he cannot support the legislation.
However, in saying that, I would like to thank the member for Lethbridge for putting forward legislation that is legitimate. The issue of abductions is a serious one, with non-custodial parents looking for ways to have access to the children. We have heard that in a number of cases this has been achieved. Children have been abducted and taken far from their homes and their custodial parent. We recognize that there should be, and in fact are, certain protections, certain abilities, certain attempts to resolve this issue and stop them at the onset.
However, it is our party's opinion and our transportation critic's opinion that this, unfortunately, is not the vehicle by which a lot of this will be corrected. If anything, the enforcement of this would be almost impossible.
As a father I have travelled alone with my children, as has my wife when she was bringing them to points where I was located. It would be very simple for her, if she did not have the right to have my children, to forge notarized documents that said she had total custodial rights. I suspect that would be one of the ways anyone could get around this legislation. If people were doing something of that nature they would not be terribly honest at the best of times, so I am sure they would try to circumvent the law and the legislation in any way, shape or form that they could. Enforcement would almost be impossible. Any document provided by an individual to the airlines would have to be scrutinized, and that in itself is almost impossible. The enforcement, the logistics would not make that possible.
Also, to circumvent this legislation, it would be very easy for a parent to simply go by vehicle, by rubber tire, across the border or fly overseas or to other points on American airlines which would not have this type of legislation in place.
Again, it would be difficult to enforce and difficult to restrict the kinds of movements that the hon. member legitimately, as I said, is trying to prevent.
It would also put a lot of the onus on the air carrier. I read the legislation and it says “the holder of a domestic licence”. The air carrier itself, under this legislation, would be responsible and would have some liability attached to it. Even though there may well be a forged document, there may be one circumstance where in fact someone could slip through. This legislation, in my opinion, would then hold the domestic licence holder liable. It is difficult enough currently, under the circumstances of the world, to operate an airline under our current regulations. To have the airlines now anticipating these kinds of issues and problems would be very difficult and it would be something else stacked on to the operations of the airlines that would make it most unprofitable.
I will not take a lot of time in the House on this. I simply wanted to be on the record of saying that I appreciate the member's concern. I have a lot of respect for the member for Lethbridge and I do know that his heart is in the right place when he brings forward this kind of legislation. However sometimes one has to think with one's head as opposed to one's heart and, unfortunately, the head says that the legislation is not enforceable and not something that we can put into place and make work.
That is not to say that we should not put in place other measures. That is not to say that the custodial enforcement procedures that we currently have should not be enforced in another fashion. That is not to say that we condone non-custodial parents abducting their children and moving them outside of our jurisdiction. That is not the case. We have to firm up the consequence. We have to firm up on our ability to stop that from happening in this society but this is not one of the tools that I and my party believe is available to us to stop this.
I thank the House for the opportunity to speak to this on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party. We will not be voting in favour of it when it comes forward. I look forward to helping the member perhaps draft something else that may be more workable for this circumstance.
Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I want to begin my speech on this topic with a confession. I want to confess that I had a bad thought when I heard the parliamentary secretary speak to the bill.
This was the awful thought that I had. I hope not, but could it be that the people who are writing these speeches are somehow involved in these crimes and that is why they want to protect them? That is such a bad thought that I have to apologize for even thinking it, but it occurred to me.
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Oh, give us a break.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Order, please. We will show the hon. member the same courtesy we showed all hon. members in the House. The hon. member for Elk Island.
Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, the reason I said that is that there are so many attacks on our children in these days in our society. Every time we try to do something about it what we get from the other side, and now even from the member speaking on behalf of the PCs in the corner, are all the reasons why we cannot do it.
I would just love to see that attitude changed. I would like to see the people on the government side say, yes, our children are important, as she said, and yes, we want to take measures to protect them, as she said, but then, instead of saying “we cannot do it, we cannot do it”, I would like them to say, “And we will leave no stone unturned until it is done. We will work on it to find a way that will work instead of making excuses as to why it cannot”.
I want to be rather specific here on some of the reasons given for not supporting the legislation. One of the things both speakers talked about was that it was unenforceable. That is just not true. The member from the PCs just said that someone could just get into a car and drive into the States and then go to another country. Lots of luck: Getting across the border into the United States these days is not that easy.
For a number of years already, people have been required, if going on an international trip by airplane or across the border into the States at the border by car, to prove that they have legal custody and that their possession, if we want to use that term, of the child is valid. That is done right now, so why is it so difficult to say that if people are boarding an airplane they will have to show some documentation to prove that they are the legal custodial parent or legally entitled to have the custody of this child?
For example, I might get on an airplane with my little grandson. There is nothing wrong at all with me having a certificate or a letter or something that says, “Yes, grampa can take his grandson to Vancouver”. That is fine. There is nothing wrong with that. I have to do that if I want to take the kid to Seattle, so why not to Vancouver? It is not that big a deal. Instead, we get a bunch of excuses that the government will not do it. We get the same thing with the sex registry. The government says it is going to have a big sex offender registry but it is not going to put anybody on it. This is stupid. What is a computer going to do? It is a giant paperweight if it is not used for a reasonable purpose.
We always are given all of these reasons for why we cannot implement procedures to protect our children from attack. This is doubly important nowadays because of the fact that we have such an intrusion into our lives and into our homes by things like television and the Internet, which are very, very evil, and I am going to use that word. They are evil. We have totally lost the moral perspective on how we deal with each other with regard to sexuality and now we are getting it with children. I cannot believe it. Adults who want to have sex with children are getting onto the Internet. It is being used to lure these children.
It is so easy because children are so trusting. The other day I was standing with other people milling around and suddenly I felt something on my leg. It was a little toddler, probably about two years old, who did not realize that he had grabbed my leg instead of his dad's. How trusting. Those two year old and three year old children totally trust the adults in their life. When they get to be five or six they start generating a little bit of the self-protective mechanisms, but in that interval it is our responsibility as adults and as parents and as legal custodians to protect them from people who would betray that trust.
We are not doing it in this country. We are not doing it with our legislation. We are not doing it and we are not serving those children and their protection when a member like the one from Lethbridge brings forward a step, just one, that is going to improve the protection of children and all we can do is stand up and say that we cannot do it. What a pathetic response. I am really totally disgusted with it.
Because it cannot fix everything the government will do nothing. I admit that if this were implemented there would probably still be some abductions. There would still be some people who would engage in forgery and other things that are illegal, but at least two things would happen. First, it would reduce them and we would save some children. Second, there would be a serious breach against persons who broke the rules in order to abduct a child. There would then be another thing on them and they could have the book thrown at them.
We do not need these people in our society, the ones who would steal our children, and use and abuse them. It is time to clamp down on them hard, not continue to say we cannot do anything, let them be and that is okay.
I am not speaking just about my own children and my precious five grandchildren. I am speaking of millions of children in Canada who are looking to us for protection. It is time that we give it. If I were the Liberal government I would not wait for the next election. I would resign. I would say that I am so inadequate at my job that I am quitting to let someone do it who can do it. It is time for it to happen.
I would like to say with respect to the Internet that, unfortunately, I am aware of at least one person who was lured by the Internet. I wish I did not know it but I do. The results are totally devastating to that family. In this particular case it was not a child who was lured, it was an adult. A mother was lured through the Internet to go and meet a guy. What a sad thing that was. If it can happen to an adult, one can bet it can happen to children.
We had better start thinking of all sorts of ways to prevent these predators from getting onto an airplane and moving that trusting child to another location, even within Canada. These excuses we got are lame. The procedures are already in place for international flights. All we have to do is apply them to domestic flights. To say it cannot be done is just the lamest of lame excuses. The fact is that it is very necessary.
I know that some of the members present who have heard my speech have recoiled against it and I apologize. I was very hard on members opposite, but I am challenging them. I am saying to them, for the sake of our children, to vote in favour of this. If it is not good enough let us get it into committee. Let the committee improve it and make it better but let us do something. Let us not just say that this is no good and we will not do it. We will betray our children, let them down, and we will say that here is another success to put on the wall for the predators.
We are on the wrong side of this issue if we say that in debate. Yet, this is exactly what is happening. I appeal to all the Liberal members over on the other side, about 170 of them. They are the ones who have the numbers to control the outcome of these votes.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe there was a previous decision that if we came to the vote collapsing that the vote was already asked for and deferred until next week.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I beg to differ with the hon. member, who always keeps me on my toes when I am in the Chair, but I must read the actual motion into the record before we get to the order that was moved earlier in the day.
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Pursuant to the order made earlier today, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, April 1, at 3 p.m.
Is there unanimous consent to see the clock as 2:30 p.m.?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It being 2:07 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:07 p.m.)