2005-02-25

Points of OrderHon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to a point of order that was raised yesterday by the hon. member for Halifax.
Mr. Speaker, in your response you said that you would consider the matter further and come back to the House once a response from someone was provided. I am providing that response.
I want to make a couple of points for your consideration. One is that it should be borne in mind that our cabinet system of government is one in which no decision can be said to have been made until cabinet has agreed to it. In the case of BMD, cabinet did not make the decision until its regular weekly meeting, which took place yesterday. As soon as that decision was made, the Minister of Foreign Affairs quite properly informed the House of Commons at the earliest possible moment.
Since cabinet actually began its meeting after the time in the House agenda for ministers' statements and since the minister desired to enlarge upon the effects of the budget in his department by intervening in the budget debate, the minister chose to use that opportunity to provide the House with the information. I also want to make the point that it was only after the minister had made his statement in the House that the Prime Minister spoke to the media.
As to the assertion in the statement by the hon. member for Halifax yesterday that the decision was made many days ago and that American authorities had in fact been informed, once again it should be borne in mind that only cabinet can make a decision of this nature and that cabinet did not make this decision until yesterday.
It is true that the Prime Minister and the relevant ministers had reached conclusions on the course of action they would recommend to cabinet some days earlier. It is also true that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as an informal courtesy, which, frankly, is quite normal in international diplomacy, gave an indication to the U.S. secretary of state of what course would be recommended to cabinet.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, in any system of cabinet government a decision is not made until cabinet has agreed to it. That decision was made in cabinet shortly after it met at 10 o'clock yesterday morning, and until cabinet agreed no decision existed.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you consider these comments in your deliberation and in your consideration of the point of order the hon. member for Halifax raised yesterday.
The Speaker: I thank the government House leader for his intervention in this matter and I will take the matter under further advisement, as I indicated I would yesterday.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from February 23, 2005, consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 23, 2004, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-33, especially since, as you know, it implements certain provisions of the 2004 budget, and this week we were unpleasantly surprised by what was in the 2005 budget. I will quickly address Bill C-33 and then broaden the debate to cover what the government announced both in 2004 and in 2005. We have noticed that, despite the election promises by the Liberals, the Prime Minister, Minister of Transport and other ministers in this government, there was nothing in this budget to address Quebec's concerns.
As I was saying, Bill C-33 implements provisions of the budget tabled on March 23, 2004. This bill is in three parts: one on the air travellers security charges, another on the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act for facilitating fiscal arrangements, and a third on implementing a series of amendments to the Income Tax Act.
I will not go into great detail about the first two parts. I will, however, note in passing that, from day one, we have condemned the air travellers security charge, the purpose of which is still unknown. This tax heavily penalizes the airlines, particularly regional airlines and people in the regions needing to travel by air regularly for business or even to obtain health care. Therefore, in our opinion, this tax was never appropriate. Under Bill C-33, it has been reduced. However, it should have just been axed.
As for the second measure, there is a community in the Charlevoix region that would like to take advantage of this. So, obviously, in keeping with tradition, the Bloc Québécois always supports the demands of the first nations when it is a matter of providing them with the means to ensure their own development. We are convinced that the first nations are able to manage their own destiny, particularly their economic destiny. So this will not pose a problem.
However, I want to mention one point in relation to the third part before I return once again to the main budgetary policies—when I say main, I mean the largest, not necessarily the most intelligent ones—in the recent budget.
I want to come back to the general anti-avoidance rule set out in the Income Tax Act, which targets misuse or abuse of the income tax regulations, tax treaties and all other federal legislation.
We are being led to believe that Bill C-33 closes an important loophole identified by the Auditor General with regard to tax evasion. In other words, the capacity of some taxpayers—be it a corporate citizen or an individual—to avoid paying taxes in Canada.
At first glance, this measure seems positive. It was a minimum. However, we are missing the main point, which is that, since the Liberals came to power, the Canadian government has constantly promoted tax havens, particularly its own, which is Barbados.
Since the Liberals came to power, direct investments by Canadians in Barbados has increased 400%. This is a small island of 270,000 inhabitants, which receives approximately $24 billion in direct investments from Canada each year. I wonder what kind of services or goods are produced in Barbados that require that level of direct investments.
I remind the House that Barbados is now the third destination in terms of Canadian direct investments, after the United States and Great Britain. It is strange that an island of 270,000 inhabitants is able to absorb $23 billion to $24 billion in Canadian direct investments. We are no fools. To a large degree, it is simply money sent to Barbados to avoid the responsibilities of all citizens in a democratic country, that of paying taxes to fund our collective tools.
Barbados is now Canada's tax haven. I think particularly of the business held by the sons of the Prime Minister, who greatly benefits from this. Last Spring, on Enjeux , we saw a program on CSL Inc. It was quite interesting to see, when cameramen and the reporter arrived at the headquarters of CSL, that it was a law firm with about 130 names of other companies. In fact, it is an empty shell that benefits from good tax treatment in Barbados, because it must be recognized as an international business corporation .
In this context, it pays 1% to 2.5% in taxes. What is very interesting in Barbados is that, contrary to all logic, the tax is regressive. For example, if your volume of business and your revenues are low, you will pay a 2.5% tax. However, the higher your volume of business and your revenues, the lower is your tax rate. Beyond a certain amount, your tax is only 1%.
Let us do an exercise here and assume that CSL International pays a 1.5% tax rate on its income, which is more or less the average, between 1% and 2.5%. Let us not forget that it is the holding company that owns the companies which, in turn, own the CSL ships that sail the seas. By figuring out, based on the information available to us, the sales that CSL International must make, that is a profit rate equivalent to the average for that industry, we were able to calculate that, over the five-year period from 1997 to 2002, CSL International saved over $100 million in taxes by using this scheme, namely the tax treaty between Canada and Barbados.
These savings of $100 million by CSL International were covered by the average taxpayers, by those who cannot escape their fiscal responsibilities. This scheme results in a heavier tax burden for the middle class. I gave the example of CSL International. As I said, at least $23 billion are invested in Barbados every year.
Banks also benefit significantly from this convention. Recently, I read a small paragraph in the Bank of Montreal's report to the effect that the bank had saved $500 million in taxes. As we know, this is one of the five major banks. Therefore, it is easy to assume that, together, Canada's major banks saved $2.5 billion in taxes. These figures are from the bank's annual report; I am not making them up.
This additional burden lands on the middle class. It explains, to a large extent, why we are being overtaxed by the federal government.
Under the tax treaty between Barbados and Canada, once CSL International has paid its taxes to Barbados, at a rate of 1.5%, it can take its revenues back to Canada without having to pay tax on them here in Canada.
There was a slight problem, though. Since 1972, if my memory serves me right, we have had regulations on what is called passive income, in other words income generated by investments that are not used for concrete economic activity. For example, if you put money in the bank, earned interest is an income that is taxable in Canada, just like dividends, even if it has been earned in Barbados. This was a problem for CSL International, because this corporation is a holding company which does not own ships, but owns companies who are the owners of ships. Thus, the dividends paid by these companies to CSL International were taxable in Canada, under the Income Tax Act because this was a passive income.
This government has been quite creative in finding a way for CSL International and a few other companies that benefited from this taxation amendment—there were only eight of them, I think—to bring their income back to Canada after paying taxes in Barbados and not to pay taxes in Canada. Section 5907(11.2)( c ) of the Income Tax Act was amended so that, in the international shipping industry, the airline industry and another industry I cannot remember right now, holding companies would be considered as the owners and operators of their subsidiaries.
In this case, the scheme went like this: CSL would be the operator of the ships that generate the income and profits of the subsidiaries, so that it could get the dividends from these companies without having to pay taxes.
The Income Tax Act was amended to meet the requirements of a few taxpayers, including CSL International which has, I would remind you, been under the ownership of the Prime Minister's son since 2003. What is rather incredible, however—everyone alive must know this by now—is that the sponsor of the changes, the sponsor of Bill C-28, is none other than the Prime Minister, finance minister at the time. It is pretty incredible, in a country presented as an exemplary democracy, for there to be such a blatant conflict of interest and for this government and the governing party not to be more scandalized by it.
We have spoken out on numerous occasions about it, and have been accused of demagoguery and everything else under the sun, but one fact remains: the present Prime Minister is the one who amended the Income Tax Act in order to enable a handful of taxpayers, eight or so, to benefit from a change allowing them to bring back their profits from Barbados, thanks to the tax law in that country and the tax convention Canada has with it, and to pay no Canadian income tax. That needs to be mentioned.
There is another really juicy tidbit, if I can call it that. When the Prime Minister was in the finance portfolio , he had to move CSL International's headquarters, which had been in Liberia, because there was U.S. government pressure after Bill Clinton was elected to tighten up the rules on tax havens. Overnight, Liberia lost its status as a jurisdiction with all manner of tax advantages.
So then the Prime Minister moved CSL International's headquarters from Liberia to Barbados. That was in 1995. In 1996, the then Minister of Finance introduced Bill C-28, although that was not its title at the time, with the provision I have referred to. It stipulated that a shipping holding company is considered to be the direct operator of the ships of its subsidiaries.
However, along came the 1997 election. We know that during Mr. Chrétien's time the mandates were very short. I was not here at the time; they say they were about three years. In 1997 we had an election, and the bill died automatically. The finance minister at the time, who is now Prime Minister, came back with the same Bill C-28 after the election. That was in 1998. At that point, there was a little problem. What about the years from 1995 to 1998? Those three years fell through the cracks. That could not be, so they made the law retroactive to 1995, the date CSL International moved to Barbados.
We are not fooled. While the general anti-avoidance rule is a step in the right direction, it is not the solution to the problem. If the government had a bare minimum of ethics, I think this situation could be corrected once and for all. It would improve the reputations of the Prime Minister, the Liberal Party and Canadian democracy as a whole. I have a great deal of difficulty understanding why this essential amendment is still being resisted.
However, as you know, the Standing Committee on Finance, spurred on by our two representatives on it, will begin studying this issue of the tax treaty with Barbados. I believe this debate is far from over. Let up hope that common sense prevails and that all taxpayers assume an equitable share of their responsibilities for financing of our collective tools.
I am coming to the budget introduced this week, on Wednesday in fact, by the Minister of Finance. Unfortunately, he has not corrected any of the elements missing from the 2004 budget. There is not one word about tax havens. I will not say any more about it. I think I have been sufficiently eloquent.
What was particularly shocking on Wednesday, and it was pointed out by a number of political observers, was that not only have the legitimate demands of the Bloc Québécois concerning the issues the budget should address been brushed aside, but the needs of Quebec have been completely ignored, as well.
The first thing the Bloc Québécois asked the government to correct was the fiscal imbalance. People are well aware of that. Some may call it financial pressures on the provinces, but the fact remains that the Speech from the Throne recognized there was a problem financially for the provinces. We would therefore have expected corrective measures from the government. Yet, there is nothing more than what was negotiated or imposed by this government in the past few months.
Let me give the example of Quebec for the current year. As hon. members know, the governing party in Quebec is a federalist party. So, I do not think that anyone will question the objectivity of the numbers.
The Government of Quebec has estimated at $3.3. billion the shortfall caused this year by the fiscal imbalance, from too much tax paid to Ottawa compared with its responsibilities and not enough fiscal room for Quebec compared with its responsibilities.
At the time the health accord was signed, in September, Quebec's share resulting from the negotiations was $500 million. This has to be put into perspective. Quebec's health budget is $20 billion. That is to say that $500 million is the cost of operating this system for just a few days. It is no great hardship, but that is what was agreed on in September.
Following the imposition of the equalization formula by this government before budget 2004 and the October meeting, Quebec will end up with an extra $300 million this year. So, for Quebec, this year, what was agreed on in September and what was imposed in October adds up to $800 million.
We need $3.3 billion. The shortfall for this year is $2.5 billion. These agreements have done little to correct the fiscal imbalance.
Given the multi-billion dollar federal surplus, we would have expected the government to do a little more, in its latest budget, towards correcting the fiscal imbalance. The Bloc Quebecois never asked for it to be corrected completely. We struck a committee, presided by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, to find solutions. It should have a report ready by June. We would have liked to see some kind of political effort to alleviate the financial pressures felt by the provinces.
But there is none. The government, sticking close to the books, gave $800 million to Quebec, instead of the $3.3 billion it needed.
We have been told there will be an $11 billion surplus for the coming years. What does the Minster of Finance do? Exactly what Mr. Manley did before him, and what the Prime Minister did when he was finance minister. He does a little arithmetic . He says he'll put $3 billion in the contingency reserve, and $1 billion in the economic prudence reserve. I have already asked Mr. Manley what the difference is between those two reserves. There is none. They are exactly the same. Their sole purpose is to hide the federal government's surplus.
As surpluses will keep increasing, $3 billion will be maintained for the contingency reserve and, over the years, the reserve for prudence will be beefed up by $2 billion, and then $3 billion, $4 billion, etc.
The result is that we are being told that for the next three years, there will be a $15 billion surplus. Where does that surplus come from? Three plus one equals four; three plus two equals five; three plus three equals six. If you remember your arithmetic, that totals 15. It is not any more complicated than that. This is a wholly arbitrary assessment.
Actually, it will be at least double that figure and these are numbers that come from private sector forecasters whom the Standing Committee on Finance heard. In fact, a summary assessment foresees $34 billion to $35 billion over the next few years. So the trick which has been used by this government for many years, when the Prime Minister was Minister of Finance, when Mr. Manley was there and now, with the current Minister of Finance, remains.
The real financial situation of the federal government is being covered up so as not to meet the needs of provinces, to financially strangle Quebec. This is unacceptable to the Bloc Québécois, just as it is unacceptable to the Government of Quebec and to Quebeckers. Indeed, the latter issued a reminder to the Liberals last June 28. They will never accept a federal government continuing to strangle them like that.
I would have liked to talk about employment insurance, but I will have an opportunity to come back to that issue, hopefully, in the debate on the budget. I would have liked also to speak to social housing, for which there is absolutely nothing. As to tax cuts, it makes no sense at all. It is utterly absurd.
In closing, let me state again that if Quebec were sovereign, we would be able to collect all of our taxes, to make our laws, to make choices and to sign international treaties, and we would no longer talk about fiscal imbalance. That would be settled once and for all.
Hon. Robert Thibault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it seems that sovereignty is the answer to all problems. If Quebec were sovereign our dogs would not smell, everything would be perfect. The hon. member does not remember the time when we had a debate on Quebec separating because Canada was in a bad financial situation. Now, he complains of the contrary: Quebec is in a terrible situation and it is the fault of the federal government.
It is true that we made massive transfers to Quebec for health and under equalization. But that is not what I want to talk about. I am interested in something else.
Ethical questions are raised about the Prime Minister and his international affairs. I am happy to be in this House. I was a municipal manager. I am an ordinary guy from Nova Scotia. I have no holding company in other countries or in tax havens. I am happy here, but I would not want to be stuck with 308 municipal managers.
I believe that a good government and a good House of Commons is comprised of members from all regions of our country and all layers of our society. We cannot have a system without successful people, successful businesspeople who are knowledgeable about international trade and issues. Since we are talking about the Prime Minister's sense of ethics, we must recognize that he followed all the rules about trusts. No one has been more accountable on these matters than the Prime Minister. We are not talking about tax havens. Why not recognize that these matters are about international treaties that are not necessarily part of government budgets? They can be made at any time and need time to be negotiated. We are always moving forward, always allocating; that is the role of any federal government.
I certainly thank the member for his comments, but I believe we should recognize these matters. We should recognize that it is important for us to invite people who bring all kinds of views and experiences to the House of Commons. Does the member think that success should not rub off and should have a limited access to this place? We cannot simply have businesspeople who went bankrupt, we also need successful ones. We are very fortunate to have such high calibre and high quality people as the Prime Minister. I am happy to see him where he is. He is leading Canada towards a great future, including Quebec which is moving with us as an integral part of this country. That is using common sense.
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, the member's intervention is peppered with questions. Unfortunately, I can only respond to a few of them.
First, I must say one thing. Barbados is the only tax haven with which Canada has an agreement. It is not for nothing. It is because some people close to the government have interests there.
Liberia is no longer considered a jurisdiction with which business should be done. There are a whole series of tax havens with which Canada has not signed a tax treaty. How is it that Canada has done so only with Barbados? It is a tax haven, since it meets all the conditions for it to be a tax haven: negligible taxation, standard bank secrecy and a total lack of cooperation with international financial institutions.
If the government in power and the Liberal Party were consistent, Canada would repeal its tax treaty with this tax haven, for the same reasons that it never signed any with any other tax havens.
As for the fiscal imbalance and Quebec sovereignty, I must first admit that the government has in fact improved its finances beyond belief. However, it has done so at the expense of the provinces and Quebec. It cut transfer payments, which has had a terrible impact on health and education, and continues to do so.
Who else was affected by cuts the federal government made in order to improve its finances? The unemployed. In order to avoid using unparliamentary language, I will say that $46 billion was pinched from the employment insurance fund, and used to inflate the surplus and pay down the debt. We can now boast that we have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio. But, in terms of education, students are striking in Quebec. Why? Because the federal government cut its transfer payments and the Quebec government can no longer sustain the loans and bursaries program.
The same goes for health. The difficulties we are experiencing do not originate with Quebec or the provinces, where numerous reforms have been undertaken. They are the result of federal underfunding. Ours is the only government in the western world that has managed to solve its financial problems on the backs of others, and has never shouldered its responsibilities. The proof: there has never been as much spending here in Ottawa as there has been in recent years.
The committee we set up with Jacques Léonard, former president of the Quebec treasury board, has discovered that, in the five years from 1997 to 2002, the federal government had increased its operating expenses—that is its bureaucracy: its pens, pencils, papers and desks—by 40%. That averages out to 8% annually. The explanation for this is certainly not the population increase, nor the inflation rate, nor increased federal services to the taxpayers. They have quite simply inflated the bureaucracy artificially in order to avoid giving the money to the provinces and to Quebec to enable them to remedy their situation.
This is tantamount to a policy aimed at strangling the provinces and Quebec and imposing federal government standards and vision on all provinces. That is a far cry from the spirit of Confederation in 1867.
Given this context, Quebec sovereignty remains the only path for Quebeckers.
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my colleague from Joliette on his speech; it was extremely pertinent and fair and exposed the true nature of this government, which serves its party and friends first, before it serves the country.
I have two questions for my colleague. First, with respect to his depiction of the way the members of this government succeed in avoiding the tax obligations of their businesses to the Canadian public, does he not think that this is a kind of money laundering, as we see in organized crime?
My second question came to me while the hon. member from the Liberal Party was saying that this budget was well received by municipal governments. Does he not think that in a sovereign Quebec the municipalities would no longer need to prostrate themselves and lick the government's boots in order to get their share of the pie to manage their communities? Does he not agree that if we were to collect all income tax directly in Quebec, the municipalities would be much better able to manage their communities properly?
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, I fully understand what the member for Chambly—Borduas is saying about money laundering.
The existence of tax havens and tax avoidance also allows for money laundering. Canadian law allows for this tax avoidance, and thus it is not tax evasion in the true sense of the word. Major international mafia and terrorist networks use tax havens for their financial transactions. It is estimated that at least one fifth of the money in tax havens is laundered money.
For the Canadian and U.S. governments to tolerate the existence of tax havens and say they want to fight terrorism, is a paradox.
In the case of CSL International—which no longer belongs to the Prime Minister, but his three sons, as I was saying—last spring the show Enjeux reported that the CSL headquarters in Barbados seemed to be a shell company, which is against Canadian law.
I know that an individual from Quebec filed a complaint with Canada Customs to ensure that CSL International was indeed obeying Canadian law, which is full of loopholes, as I just mentioned. I think this is something worth monitoring.
Now, I totally agree with the hon. member that if we collected our taxes ourselves, we could do things much more rationally.
The municipalities are a good example. Some of Quebec's mayors, especially those from larger cities, were pleased with the government's announcement, but when we look at the numbers there is a subterfuge. Billions of dollars are announced over a lengthy period, but this year only $600 million is being transferred to the municipalities, or $150 million for Quebec.
However, a small municipality of 3,000 people does not have as much of a say as the capital of Quebec. My region has 26 municipalities. The vast majority of these municipalities are better off allowing Quebec to help them choose their investments for infrastructure.
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-33, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 23, 2004.
I am pleased, but a little surprised that we are still dealing with last year's budget, particularly since we heard the budget for 2005 earlier this week. It was noted with some amusement by other members this morning when the Clerk called the debate on last year's budget. That is not to trivialize the importance of what is in this bill. Bill C-33 is a large bill that contains quite a number of measures and some of them are very important.
Bill C-33 contains a number of changes to other legislation.
Part 1 deals with amendments to the Air Travellers Security Charge Act to reduce the amounts charged to airline passengers under that act. It is probably a good thing to do, but I do have a general caveat around user fees.
When we put off the collective responsibility through our taxation system for things such as air travel security to user fees, it is a way of adding the tax burden on to individuals. We avoid our collective responsibility there. It is also a way of governments announcing tax cuts and then shuffling the real burden and increasing taxes in other very specific kinds of ways. It is not something that I generally support. I do raise a caveat about it, although reducing it I suppose is a good thing.
Part 2 of the bill amends the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act to facilitate the establishment of taxation arrangements between the government of Quebec and interested aboriginal nations in Quebec. I hope that takes place. It is good to facilitate agreements between our governments and our aboriginal nations.
Part 3 of the bill has many changes around the Income Tax Act and related acts. These include things such as introducing a new disability support deduction and improving the recognition of medical expenses for caregivers.
Clearly, there are new measures in the new budget earlier this week to do better on those provisions. Probably what we are debating this morning did not go far enough and needed to be improved. In the more recent budget we have upped that, which is good. I suspect we could still go some way to improve the situation of people with disabilities and the people who care for those who have medical health problems.
The bill also addresses expanding the education tax credit to apply to the cost of an otherwise eligible course taken without any reimbursement in connection with an office or employment. It accelerates the 2005 increase in the small business deduction threshold to $300,000. There are a whole series of measures, including things such as limiting the period during which taxpayers may open up old income tax returns to 10 years, preventing the use of schemes to sell otherwise unusable charitable donation tax credits and introducing a new regulatory regime for registered charities. Those are some of the provisions in the bill. There is quite a number of measures in the bill.
There are many important things in the legislation.
One particular measure I want to talk about is something for which the New Democrats have been calling for a number of years. It is with some pleasure that it has finally sunk into the consciousness of the government and it appears in the legislation, and it appeared in the budget last year.
Hopefully not, but probably because we were coming up to an election and this was such a glaring example of a failure of government policy, the government took the opportunity to make this change. The change I want to talk about is the elimination of the deductibility of fines and penalties.
This glaring loophole of avoidance of responsibility and tax responsibilities has been raised a number of times over many years. Members in this corner of the House have over the years called the provision perverse, outrageous and absurd. I have to agree that it is perverse, outrageous and absurd that corporations could deduct fines for criminal activity or for environmental violations and chalk it up to the cost of doing business. Somehow that flies in the face of what a fine or a penalty is.
A fine or penalty tries to seek some kind of corrective action, not provide another opportunity for a deduction against corporate taxation or taxes to be paid. This is an incredibly important issue, so I am glad it is finally being addressed. However, I wonder why it took so long to do so.
Bill C-19 deals with amendments to the Competition Act and includes changes to the fines levied against corporations for a wide variety of anti-competitive offences. However, in the committee my colleague from Windsor West felt that it would be inappropriate to deal with the changes to the Competition Act before we dealt with the change to the taxation laws. The cart was being put before the horse. Thankfully, the committee was moved by that argument and agreed to put off consideration of the legislation until we dealt with this matter.
This is an important issue for the folks who are looking at the Competition Act. If the fines and levies in reference to anti-competitive offences do not have any real effect, then why deal with them. The committee made a good decision, and I am glad the NDP member for Windsor West raised the issue.
Some examples of the kinds of situations that this has led to are really absurd, perverse and outrageous, as I said earlier. One of those examples is a pharmaceutical company was fined $50 million in September 1999 for a variety of conspiracy offences related to the sale of some of its products. That company was able to deduct no less than $10 million or 21% of the fine from its total taxable income. It is unbelievable that somehow the penalty was turned to an advantage for this company. That it got any advantage from being fined for conspiracy related to the way it did its business is a crazy situation. Therefore, it is good that the legislation finally addresses this.
New Democrats have raised this. The member for Winnipeg Centre, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, the member for Winnipeg North have all raised this issue over and over again, in 2002, 2003 and 2004. All pointed out the absurdity of this situation.
If I get a parking ticket, which I did a couple of weeks ago as I rushed off to an event and forgot to put money in the parking metre, I cannot deduct it from my income taxes. It is outrageous that a business or corporation can deduct fines it encounters in the misconduct of its business. To chalk up fines and offences that way should not be another cost of doing business. It is good that we are finally dealing with this. I cannot believe it took so long, but there is certainly some benefit to it, This has been a glaring example of some of the problems with our taxation system.
When I look back at the budget in 2004, I remember that budget seemed to be about tax cuts and debt reduction. The whole social deficit, the important social spending was ignored again in that budget. We did not need a year ago, just like we do not need now, budgets that ignore the important social issues and concerns, budgets that do not invest in the future of needs of Canadians to improve their quality of life.
The budget of last year was a blatant example of focusing almost entirely on tax cuts and debt reduction. I am glad we have seen a bit of a change this year with the most recent budget. At least there is some reflection that the government is in a minority position in the House and it took a broader perspective on the important needs of the country.
We found out last fall that the surplus projections of the government were completely wrong, which is a continuing trend. The surplus projections of the government have been wrong for a number of years in a row, and by whopping margins.
Last year the government predicted a surplus of $1.9 billion and in the end it turned out to be a $9.1 billion surplus. It shakes our confidence in the ability of the government to do the whole budgeting process. If it cannot get the figures right on what money is coming in, how can it make appropriate decisions about where that money should be spent and what the important expenditures are from year to year? How can the government determine appropriate priorities when it does not really know what is coming in?
Last year was a particularly blatant example of that where incredibly important needs of Canadians were ignored in the budget, yet as it turned out the numbers were based on a faulty projection of the surplus that year. The government could have done a lot more in the budget of 2004 than it did. I hope measures are in place to ensure that down the road it does not make those kinds of mistakes and that it can restore the confidence of Canadians in the budget process.
By focusing on debt reduction and tax cuts, important things were left out of the budget. The government promised for years to address the issue of child care, for instance, and last year's budget did not do that. Yet again for over a decade the promise of the Liberal government to deal with child care was missed. We know something not good enough happened this week, but at least it made it on to the list in this new situation in a minority government.
Last year's budget did not deal with the issue of housing. It did not deal with the issue of student debt. It did not really deal with the issue of poverty in Canada, of child poverty and families living in poverty. I want to talk a bit about some of those issues.
In my riding of Burnaby--Douglas, affordable housing is a crucial issue. During the last election, I campaigned hard on the fact that we needed more affordable housing in our community. Burnaby--Douglas had done very well back in the 1970s and 1980s when Canada had a national housing program. We did very well in terms of the kind of affordable housing which was built in our community. Co-op housing was a major component of our housing stock. Co-op housing is an excellent model of communities and people of mixed economic backgrounds living together and working together to maintain and manage their homes. It makes an incredible contribution to community life and to the overall community. There are a number of fabulous housing cooperatives in my riding.
We need a program like that and we still do not have it. We did not have it in the budget of 2004. We did not get it in the budget of 2005. I know some of my constituents are very disappointed that this did not happen. They know people in our riding are paying way too much for housing. People on the lower end of the economic scale are spending way too much of their available income to be housed in often substandard housing. We need better housing, more appropriate housing and affordable housing in our community.
I represent a community that is generally seen to be a fairly well off community, but the poverty in my community is very well hidden. Almost 30% of people in the city of Burnaby live in poverty. It is a tribute to the caring for people in the community which sometimes makes it appear invisible. This community, like all communities in Canada, has a crying need for more affordable housing. We did not get that in 2004 when more corporate tax cuts and debt reductions were the order of the day and investing in the future of Canadians fell by the wayside. Unfortunately, in 2005 it is the same story on affordable housing.
Students in my riding were really concerned about the budget in 2004. There were no measures in it to address the incredible $20,000 to $25,000 average debt loads that students face upon graduation. That limits the ability of students to undertake post-secondary education.
The cuts in transfer payments to the provinces which were made the Liberal government years ago, and which have not been restored, have forced up tuition fees, making post-secondary education unaffordable for many students and their families. That is a huge issue in my riding. Burnaby--Douglas has two fine post-secondary educational institutions: Simon Fraser University and the British Columbia Institute of Technology. We depend on students being able to attend those institutions. We want to ensure that they have access to them.
Families in my riding want to make sure that their children can get the best possible education so that they can succeed in life. That is very important to people in my riding. It is very important to new immigrant families in my riding. They very strongly believe in the importance of education and want to make sure that their children succeed in their new country.
This is an important issue. The 2004 budget did not deal with it. The 2005 budget dealt with one aspect. In the 2005 budget a student loan is forgiven if the student dies or is completely disabled. That hardly addresses the situation. It is a good measure, but students are literally dying to get help and the government is saying that they really do have to die before they get any assistance with their post-secondary education. That is not acceptable.
The Simon Fraser Student Society has decided to pursue this issue. It has been trying to be very creative about how it pursues the responsibility of the federal and the provincial government in British Columbia for post-secondary education.
Recently the society launched a complaint with the United Nations saying that both Canada and British Columbia are in violation of the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which was approved back in 1976 and which Canada signed at that time. Article 13 of the agreement calls for the progressive introduction of free education as a means to achieving equal access for all.
I think everyone in the House knows that we have been going in the opposite direction on free education. Education is becoming increasingly expensive. Tuition rates have gone up 75% to 150% in British Columbia. A significant part of the reason is that the federal government cut the transfers to provinces for post-secondary education.
I am proud that the previous NDP government in British Columbia put a freeze on tuition fees during its term so that students did not face ever increasing tuition fees. The NDP put on that freeze in the face of the decrease in transfer payments, the shortfall in money that the province received from the federal government. The B.C. government made education and health care a priority during the difficult period when funding from the federal government was cut because of the social transfer payment cuts to the provinces.
I am proud that the New Democrats held the line on that. As soon as the NDP was out of government and the Liberals were back in, tuition fees shot up dramatically. That is an unacceptable situation.
I strongly support the Simon Fraser Student Society in its attempt to bring attention to Canada's failure to move toward free education and improved accessibility to education. It is a very important issue and one on which Canada should be leading the world, not struggling to catch up with other countries that are making important strides in this area.
Last year's budget and this year's budget have done little for people living in poverty in Canada. We have heard how EI continues to suck money from workers and employers, but it is not being put back into programs for workers in Canada. We need to reduce the threshold for qualifying to 360 hours from 720 hours. That change is long overdue. The money is there to do it. There is no excuse. That move would go a long way to reducing poverty for families and children in Canada. EI is not just an insurance program; it is a key part to reducing poverty in this country.
The new budget increases the basic personal tax exemption. That is touted as a measure to help low income Canadians. I suppose it provides a small measure of support for those people, although it is hard to imagine how somebody who is only earning $11,000 a year should be paying any income tax. It is a very small measure. Unfortunately, proportionally it benefits high income Canadians far more than it benefits low income Canadians. We need to target our tax measures a little more carefully around eliminating poverty than we have been doing.
Mr. Speaker, I see you are indicating that I should be wrapping up my speech. I will say it has been interesting to speak to last year's budget when we are already dealing with the budget for the coming year. It is time to get on with it.
I am glad that finally after years of pressure from New Democrats in this corner of the House the government has finally sought to eliminate the deductibility of fines and penalties. That is a good part of the bill. With that I will close my remarks.
The Speaker: When the House resumes consideration of this matter, the hon. member will have 10 minutes for questions and comments following on his remarks.

Statements By Members
Black History MonthHon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every year to celebrate Black History Month the Government of Canada holds the Mathieu Da Costa Challenge. I am pleased to acknowledge the presence in the House of Commons today of the winners for 2005.
The 11 winners in the 11 to 17 age group for the best drawings are Peter Millman, Sarah Robert and Tae-Kyung Kim and for the best essays in French Benoît Beaulieu, Roman Blomme, Jean-Daniel Bergeron and Ariane Brun.
For the best essays in English, the winners are: Julia Spears, Kristi Martin, Varman Koneswaran and Kaitlin Wood.
Mr. Speaker, congratulations to all of them.
City of LangleyMr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on March 15, 1955 the City of Langley was born. This year it celebrates its 50th year, its golden anniversary.
At the inaugural council meeting first magistrate of the city, Archie Payne, officiated the oaths of the new council by stating, “The pioneers have handed you the torch and it is yours to hold high”.
Langley city has grown from a country town of 2,100 residents to a bustling urban centre of 24,000 residents with hotels, a convention centre and the largest shopping district in the Fraser Valley. Langley city has kept the friendly small town community spirit and a vibrant urban core.
Congratulations to Mayor Marlene Grinnell and the city council, and to the citizens of Langley city as they celebrate 50 years of success. Their legacy of pride in the past and confidence in the future makes the City of Langley “The Place To Be”. I invite everyone to join the City of Langley celebrations on March 15.
John Gilbert ChambersMr. Marc Godbout (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just recently we learned that a Canadian resident from Ottawa--Orléans, Dr. John Gilbert Chambers, died in a tragic car accident in New Zealand.
Dr. Chambers had an illustrious career as a scientist and a public servant. In the early 1960s he pioneered research in laser optics and he established the first fibre optic communications project in Canada.
As director general of Space Communications, he was instrumental in developing experimental satellite communications programs. He initiated cooperation between Canada and the European Space Agency. He also played a key role in the creation of the Canadian Space Agency in 1989.
After his retirement in 1996 he continued to be very active and appreciated as a consultant and adviser to the Canadian space program.
I wish to take this opportunity to extend my deepest sympathy to the Chambers family and friends. Our thoughts and prayers are with them. On their behalf I would also like to thank the minister and the Department of Foreign Affairs for their assistance and cooperation in this unfortunate matter. Their help was greatly appreciated by all.
PovertyMr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Référence Espoir is a new organization that has been set up in my riding of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord to help the most disadvantaged by offering to accompany them as they lift themselves out of poverty.
I would like to congratulate the founders of this organization: Pascal Thibault and the board of directors.
Poverty hurts, even in the regions, and the riding of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is no exception. Fortunately, people in the field are actively looking for ways to change things.
People in the field have possible solutions to suggest, but they need the support of the government to fight this war on poverty.
The Bloc Québécois wishes good luck to this new organization: Référence Espoir.
Huntley DingwellHon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the passing of Mr. Huntley Dingwell of New Glasgow, P.E.I.
Huntley defined what being a citizen of a community means, being active in business as well as the volunteer sector. Many will recall his dedication to his work with the New Glasgow Fire Department.
Huntley held the positions of deputy fire chief as well as treasurer. In recognition of his service, the New Glasgow Fire Department made him an honorary deputy fire chief in 1987 and honoured him for 50 years of service in 1999.
Key among his many awards are the Certificate of Merit from the Government of Canada and the Prince Edward Island Firefighters long service medal.
Huntley was an active member of the New Glasgow United Church, as well as a longstanding member of the Prince of Wales Masonic Lodge where he held an outstanding record of 35 years of perfect attendance. Imagine that, Mr. Speaker, 35 years of perfect attendance.
On behalf of all members, I extend my condolences to Huntley's wife, Giena, and daughter, Heather.
AgricultureMr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, one in five grain and oilseed producers in Essex are facing spring foreclosure. Income projections for 2005 are bleak. Family farms in Essex expect to lose $26 million.
These losses are the direct result of trade injury from U.S. subsidies, something over which our producers have no control, yet the 2005 Liberal budget wilfully ignores their plight.
Last week Liberals voted against the Conservative motion to drop the CAIS cash deposit. Now they want to drop it--eventually. For the sake of farmers, I say get rid of it now and honour CAIS payment commitments to producers not later but now.
To get farmers through the spring the government must also fund a per acre, per commodity lump sum directly to producers.
Last, the government must refine CAIS for sectors where it works but design a market revenue style support program to backstop grain and oilseed producers against trade injury, one that will end when this government finally gets foreign subsidies to end. The government owes it to family farmers.
EstoniaHon. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians of Estonian heritage celebrated the 87th anniversary of the declaration of the independence of Estonia.
On February 24, 1918, the Salvation Committee declared the independence of the Republic of Estonia. This date was celebrated as the date of independence until the Soviet occupation of Estonia in 1940. However, during the Soviet occupation, Independence Day continued to be celebrated in Estonian communities around the world, including those in Canada.
This is an important day for all Estonians. Even during the days of Soviet occupation, Estonians around the world openly celebrated this day in hopes that once again Estonia would be a sovereign state.
Since the restoration of independence on August 20, 1991, Independence Day continues to be a day of celebration and a day of reflection for the Estonian people.
I would like to offer my congratulations to the people of Estonia and Canadians of Estonian descent on this momentous occasion. Elagu eesti .
Steve DumasMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to extend my warmest congratulations to writer-composer-performer Dumas, originally from Victoriaville, in my riding, on winning the Jutra award for best movie soundtrack.
With his partner Carl Bastien, Dumas—whose full name is Steve Dumas—signed the score of the Quebec movie Les aimants , which I encourage you to see, Mr. Speaker, because it is an excellent movie.
A gas station attendant in another life, this local artist has come a long way since 1999, when he took home top honours in the writer-composer-performer category at the renowned Granby International Song Festival.
The following year, he won the people's choice award at the Festival en chanson song festival in Petite-Vallée. After putting out a very well crafted self-titled CD in 2001 and performing several shows, he signed on for a second CD Le cours des jours , released in 2003, which I encourage you to listen to, Mr. Speaker, because it is excellent.
With his creativity, Dumas is among the new wave of francophone writer-composer-performers who make Quebec proud and are an inspiration for the next generation of artists in Quebec.
National Flag of Canada DayMr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to acknowledge the individuals who recently took part in an event held to mark the National Flag of Canada Day. The event, which took place in Sainte-Anne-de-Madawaska, was conducted in an exceptional fashion by Alfreda Bérubé, and I thank her.
I also wish to draw attention to the presence of participants from the Atelier Éclosion, namely Jeannot Beaulieu, Manon Boutot, Mathieu Cyr, Rina Cyr, Nicole Girard, Diane Leclerc, Emmanuel Levesque, Gérard Martin, Julie Martin, Mélanie Martin, Pauline Martin, Bobby Mitchell, Robert Parent, Camilla Perrault, Julien Sirois, Ghislain Violette, Yvon Violette and Yves Voisine.
Finally, I want to thank the employees of Atelier Éclosion for their dedication to this activity to mark flag day. They are Julie Francoeur, Anne Deschênes, Jocelyne Deschênes, Anne Gauvin and Claudette Martin.
InfrastructureMr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today all members of the House are invited to northern Alberta.
From Edmonton to Fort McMurray it is a five hour drive, and members may even survive. There is one lane north and one lane south, and on the way, members should try to avoid the 300 logging trucks and 60 buses that make the same journey every day.
They should stay away from the many wide loads that block most of the highway and the moose that may wander into their path while they take time to enjoy the view on the highway with the highest death rate per mile in Canada.
If they do survive the drive, they are welcome to Fort McMurray, the city with the lowest doctor to patient ratio in Canada. It has 19 doctors for 70,000 people.
The Liberal government takes $10 billion per year from my constituency and with this budget gives us less than $2 million for infrastructure for the fastest growing city in Canada. That is not enough.
We need doctors and we need highways and we need them now. Our families and our friends are suffering and dying every day in northern Alberta. The government can fix it.
Paul FournierMr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two days ago the Government of Canada committed over $275 million for the purchase of 10 new large vessels for the Coast Guard. This investment, along with the $47 million budgeted annually in the 2003 budget, is a significant investment in our Coast Guard and it is good news for the people of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.
Today's Coast Guard is served by highly skilled and trained men and women and we thank them for their service. We also honour those who served in the past and risked their lives in the service of our country.
Captain Paul Fournier is one such person. He died recently in Nova Scotia at the age of 91. Born in Quebec, he served in the Canadian Coast Guard from 1941 to 1976. He was in command of the Sir John A. Macdonald when that ship escorted the Manhattan through the Northwest Passage in 1968. He was made an Officer of the Order of Canada.
We remember Captain Fournier for his long service and love of country. I hope all members will join me in extending our condolences to the family of Captain Fournier.
FisheriesMr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is promoting seriously flawed policies that are threatening the coastal communities of British Columbia. The science around open net farming is clear: this man-made technology is threatening the existence of wild salmon and destroying a tradition that is centuries old. The DFO and Gordon Campbell refuse to acknowledge the science, preferring instead to placate their big money friends and political contributors.
The communities I represent are deeply concerned with the serious risks posed by sea lice to wild stocks. There are viable alternatives available to this industry, which the Liberals have chosen to ignore. The NDP has pledged to support farmers who would establish closed net or land based systems and yet the Liberals insist on continuing down their reckless path.
I call on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to show leadership today. I call on the minister to step in and save the wild salmon fishery in British Columbia before it disappears by putting a halt to the expansion of open net fish farming.
Accountability of FoundationsMr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and this government have buried over $7 billion in government foundations. This money is beyond the reach of the Auditor General. In fact, it is beyond the scope of the Access to Information Act.
Foundations are failing the most basic fundamental rules of accountability. They are not subject to the scrutiny of Parliament. This is the fourth time the Auditor General has raised the issue of foundations, and four times the government has failed to act.
Where is the government's commitment to transparency and accountability as promised? Parliament voted this past Tuesday 161 to 114 in support of our motion, which called on the government to ensure that the Auditor General has the authority to audit and to investigate foundations.
Canadians have spoken. Parliament has now spoken. If the government truly believes in financial accountability and responsibility, it will honour the will of Parliament and put an end to these abhorrent financial practices.
AgricultureMs. Denise Poirier-Rivard (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this year, February 8 was Food Freedom Day. It was the day when middle income taxpayers had earned enough money to pay for their entire year's food supply.
Quebec farm producers are pleased to contribute to the abundance of safe and high quality products available to us. In addition, our food basket is one of the most affordable in the western hemisphere.
However, there is a down side to this situation. Our farmers are getting a smaller share of the money spent on groceries, because their production costs are increasing. For example, the farmer who grows corn only gets 11 ¢ on a box of corn flakes that sells for $3.99 at the grocery store.
I invite hon. members and all our viewers to eat a bowl of corn flakes produced here, with some good milk produced here by our own producers. In doing so, we will contribute to their situation and their independence.
JusticeMr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great Canadian lawman. I speak of Julian Fantino, Chief of the Toronto Police Service, who will retire from active police duty on February 28, 2005.
Chief Fantino was called to the police profession 36 years ago. He rose through the ranks of the Toronto police and established an extraordinary career: patrolman, investigator, division commander, and later Chief of the London Police Service, then Chief of York Regional Police and finally Metro Toronto's chief constable.
Chief Fantino served his city, province and country with integrity and courage. He called things as he saw them. In spite of the verbal attacks he often endured from his critics, he always stood tall, rose above his attackers and sought only the truth.
I thank Julian for his friendship and encouragement over the years. I express my thanks for his strong advocacy on behalf of children and for fighting child sexual exploitation. Finally, I express our thanks for his commitment to public service and the safety of all Canadians. May God bless him in his future endeavours.
The BudgetHon. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Budget 2005 contains good news for Manitoba.
The Liberal government has decided to share the gasoline tax revenues with municipalities, an amount equal to about $167.3 million over five years.
The Department of Western Economic Diversification will allocate $186 million in funding over the next five years for new economic development initiatives.
Furthermore, the department will receive $74 million in new funding over five years to work with communitiesvulnerable to economic adjustment pressures and with Western cities on their specific economic issues.
Under the 10 year plan to strengthen health care, Manitoba will receive $1.5 billion in new health care funding. I also want to mention that Manitoba will reap huge benefits from its investments in wind and hydroelectric power, agriculture, early childhood, seniors and immigration.

Oral Question Period
National DefenceMr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister declared in December that he had received no proposal from the United States on the topic of the missile defence shield. And yet the Prime Minister's spokesman Scott Reid, said yesterday that he had received a written proposal. Canadians have the right to know what the Prime Minister said no to.
Why is the Prime Minister hiding this important information from Canadians and how does he explain this contradiction?
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thought that the Minister of National Defence made our position crystal clear yesterday. Yesterday, cabinet made a decision on BMD; second, the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced that decision in the House; and finally, the Prime Minister announced that decision publicly. I hope that clarifies the whole chain of command on this for the member opposite.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, what a lot of dithering mud.
According to Scott Reid, the Prime Minister's communications director, the government received a memorandum of understanding on missile defence from the Americans. After dogged dithering by the Prime Minister, he finally pulled the pin on missile defence.
True to form, he broke his promise of a full debate in the House and a vote, hiding this important information from Canadians and making decisions in the backroom of the PMO.
Why did the Prime Minister bypass Parliament and Canadians on such an important decision affecting the lives of Canadians?
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made it very clear that he would bring to this House an agreement before it was going to be signed onto. We do not have an agreement to sign onto. What we have done is exert our sovereignty. The PM made a decision yesterday.
We have put $13 billion into our defence forces to engage in a wide array of sovereignty issues, including the protection of our north, including making our borders safer, and including working with the Americans on an array of common security threats. I think that is a responsible decision and we are going to continue to work toward that goal for the benefit of Canadians.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the point is that the Prime Minister made a decision on important information not shared with Canadians.
The Minister of National Defence, as recently as Tuesday, said any decision about ballistic missile defence would be discussed with members of the House. While the marginalized Minister of National Defence was assuring us of this, the foreign affairs minister was telling his counterpart, Condoleezza Rice, that we would not participate. That is dazzling duplicity on the part of the Liberals.
These latest contradictions make a mockery of the Prime Minister's promise to make Parliament the centre of national debate and slay the democratic deficit. Why was Parliament, the Canadian public and the Prime Minister's own cabinet so out of the loop on this important decision?
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I will go back to a quote provided by the Leader of the Opposition in question period on February 22. He said:

All parties in the House agreed that there would be a vote before we became part of missile defence.

We are not part of missile defence.
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, top U.S. defence experts issued a scathing condemnation of the Prime Minister, calling him a failure of leadership, saying that he had a lack of guts, and that he had created a setback for Canada-U.S. relations.
The Prime Minister expects the U.S. to consult him on any incoming missiles entering Canadian airspace. This is delusional. There are only minutes available for a decision.
How can the Prime Minister realistically believe the Americans will consult him before firing their interceptor missiles?
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, we have been working with the Americans on continental defence for 30 years. We have been a part of Norad for 30 years. We will continue to be a part of Norad. Our government exercises sovereignty not to be a part of BMD. However, we have exercised our sovereignty with a $13 billion investment into defence for our border security, port security, and Arctic sovereignty.
We will continue to work with the Americans on issues such as terrorism in Afghanistan and other areas. We are continuing to work with the Americans on a number of issues that are important for both of us, and we will continue to do just that.
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, quick decisions are not a forte of this Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister's spokesman said yesterday that the Prime Minister had not rejected a memorandum of understanding that committed Canada to an open-ended ballistic missile system. As the one who did all the groundwork for missile defence, would the Minister of National Defence advise if he has seen this document, and if so, why is he hiding it from Parliament?
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, as we have said before in question period, we would bring to the House an agreement before that agreement was going to be signed. There was no agreement signed.
The EnvironmentMs. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the intentions of the Minister of the Environment became much clearer yesterday, when he told the industry, “Bring me your tons of greenhouse gas emissions and we will give you funding”.
Did the Minister of the Environment not confirm in his own words yesterday that, in addition to continuing to subsidize major polluters, he will be giving them another gift by adopting the polluter-paid principle?
Hon. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. In fact, not only has the member misread it, but I think if the member were to hold her fire there she would see a new and improved plan for the 2002 action plan on climate change. At that time, I would expect some very constructive comments and support of our plan.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, some, like Quebec and its manufacturing sector for example, have made an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and others, like the auto industry in Ontario, refuse to do their part.
Is the minister aware that his choice amounts to rewarding those who do nothing and doubling the cost to those who do make an effort?
Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased that all sectors of the economy are in fact working collaboratively to deal with greenhouse gas issues. Again, it is misrepresentation on the part of the member to suggest somehow that one industry is not doing its job. Everyone is expected to do their job and they are coming to the plate.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ): The Minister of the Environment want to reduce gasoline consumption in cars by 25% and he thinks he can now count on a voluntary approach. It is clear that without mandatory measures this target will not be met, and all the more so because negotiations with the auto industry broke down yesterday.
Is the Minister of the Environment going to face the fact that the Kyoto targets will not be met until the day there are mandatory measures?
Hon. R. John Efford (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member could not be any more wrong in his assumptions in the statement he just made. He is absolutely wrong.
We have 14 previous voluntary agreements with the auto industry. We are now close to signing another voluntary agreement where we will reduce by more than 25% over the target.
What the hon. member should do is work with the people in Canada and not be critical of the target. We are moving the file forward.
Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, there are two options available to the minister: the voluntary approach, which is obviously ineffective, and the mandatory approach, the only one that can work.
If the minister wants to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle motors, why is he not imposing stricter, mandatory standards on the auto industry?
R. John Efford: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the hon. member that he eliminate the word if. There is no if. We are going to reduce the auto industry targets by 5.2 megatonnes. We have 14 previous agreements. The auto industry is bringing forward new technology all the time.
Eliminate the word if. There is no doubt in our mind that the reductions will be made in the right way and not according to the member's way.
National DefenceMr. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
He says that he did not mislead people about the missile defence shield, because Condoleezza Rice was merely informed of the cabinet's intentions. This raises two questions. What kind of democratic cabinet do we have, when decisions are made in advance?
Why did Condoleezza Rice know cabinet's intentions before cabinet members did themselves?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the opposition, the NDP, does not understand how the government operates.
Clearly, all decisions of such importance are reached in cabinet. The decision was in fact reached there, but that did not prevent the Minister of Foreign Affairs from speaking with his U.S. counterpart and indicating that this discussion would be taking place within cabinet.
The decision was therefore reached in the appropriate manner in cabinet and then made public after the Minister of Foreign Affairs had announced it in the House of Commons.
Jack Layton: Mr. Speaker, talk about dithering through the jaws of victory. The fact is that we have seen here a complete mishandling of our relationships with the United States. So much for dealing with our relations with the U.S. professionally.
Not only that, but the Prime Minister broke his promise to Parliament when he said that there would be a vote. What we see here clearly is a democratic deficit. We have Frank McKenna out of the loop. We have the cabinet out of the loop. We have Canadians out of the loop. In fact, we have Condi knowing before Canadians.
Who is going to resign over this fiasco?
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I want--
The Speaker: Order. I would remind hon. members it is Friday, not Wednesday. We could have a little order in the House. The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor and members want to hear his answer, particularly the member for Toronto—Danforth.
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think the leader of the NDP must think of another adjective one day.
In any event, he should understand that this government drives its foreign and defence policies through Ottawa, not Washington. Let us make this clear. The decision not to enter into BMD was made yesterday in cabinet. Yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister announced that decision in the House and to the public.
AgricultureMs. Belinda Stronach (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in just over a week the U.S. border should open again for younger cattle, but the Prime Minister's failure for more than a year and a half to get that border open has caused devastating losses to the entire cattle sector.
Worse, the media report that Alberta truckers and feedlot owners fear there will be another six months to a year of harassment at the border. Many truckers have already gone to the oil patch and others will just not bother trying. The border will be open on paper, but not in practice.
When the trade minister was in Washington for the first time recently, did he receive assurances from the U.S. government that it will not harass Canadian truckers and open the border for real on March 7?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is well aware, the USDA put forward at the end of December a revised rule that would govern how the border would be open to younger cattle. That rule is based on science. Officials on both sides of the border are working with each other to develop the necessary protocols to bring that into effect.
Belinda Stronach: Mr. Speaker, to add insult to injury each truck carrying live cattle into the U.S. starting March 7 will be inspected individually. This higher administrative cost will be passed on to the Canadian producer at between $5 and $15 a head extra. More holdups and more delays.
Has the minister negotiated with the Americans a special protocol for clearing our cattle faster and if not, when will he do that?
Andy Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my answer to the first question, officials on both the Canadian side and the U.S. side are in the midst of discussions in anticipation of the rule coming into force. They will ensure that the regulatory regime that will be necessary to facilitate trade is put in place and they will work on that in a manner that works for producers as well as consumers.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the lack of any meaningful commitment to agriculture producers in this budget is appalling. An industry struggling to cope with a myriad of problems received .3% of the Liberals' $42 billion wish list. That is an insult.
Is this pathetic attempt a reflection of the finance minister's ignorance on the issue or the agriculture minister's incompetence?
Andy Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the comments from the hon. member are utter nonsense. He ignores the almost $2 billion that has gone to assist the beef and cattle industry. He ignores the fact that in the first two years of the new business risk management program $700 million beyond what was originally projected to be spent will flow to producers.
The reality is that there has been substantial support for producers across the country. We have done that in the past and we will continue to do that in the future.
Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, if the minister was to show that indignation at the cabinet table, we might actually get a program that he can deliver. The minister can repeat all the big numbers he wants, but his record on delivery five days or five years from now is despicable. It is one of failure and a litany of excuses.
The minister finally got the message that the cash deposit on CAIS had to go, but like everything else in this budget, it is a promise without a deadline. Will the minister stand up right now and give us an exact date when that ridiculous requirement will be gone?
Andy Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member conveniently ignores, which is not the case that he puts in his question, is that real money has gone to real producers to assist them with real needs.
I know it does not fit the member's political agenda to have to admit that, but the reality is, and all those folks over there should listen, the real money has gone to real producers to deal with real issues and not simply the rhetoric that we hear from the other side.
Child CareMr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec's intergovernmental affairs minister said he was disappointed that Quebec's share, this year, for Quebec's child care program will be limited to $165 million because federal funding for the first year of the program is only $700 million.
Are we to understand that, because its child care program is operational and efficient, Quebec has to pay for the other provinces, which are not prepared to implement their own child care programs?
Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, I seriously wonder where the Bloc gets its interpretations.
We have always said that the Government of Quebec was an innovator in child care, and that the other provinces might want to look at what Quebec has done and draw inspiration from it to develop their own systems. Clearly, we will not penalize a province that has been innovative in an area as important as early childhood development.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, speaking of interpretation, I am looking forward to the minister's answer to this question.
In the budget, the federal government earmarked $100 million for the development of a new accountability program.
After the Prime Minister promised to give Quebec the money for child care with no strings attached, how does the minister explain why $100 million will be spent on this, if the goal, ultimately, is not to impose Canada-wide standards on Quebec?
Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, once again, what exaggeration on the part of the hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes.
Every province in this country is accountable to its own citizens, and I am all for that. Be it Alberta or Quebec, they report directly to their citizens. That is precisely what accountability is all about in any government system.
Employment InsuranceYves Lessard: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development stated yesterday that she had heard the budgetary policies described by a spokesperson for seasonal workers as a victory for them.
What does the minister have to say to the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi, the Sans-chemise coalition, labour organizations and the Mouvement Action-Chômage, which, like others, are condemning the policies announced and saying they are completely disappointed with the crumbs the minister has thrown them?
Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc has so much trouble admitting when we take a step in the right direction. It is always like this.
Let me quote Rodrigue Landry, the spokesman for seasonal workers in southeastern New Brunswick, who said,

This is a real victory. This news here is nothing less than a victory. It is what we wanted from the start: the 14 best weeks out of the last 52.

He is a spokesman for seasonal workers.
Yves Lessard: Mr. Speaker, we would do better at agreeing to listen to what organizations, not individuals, have to say.
If the minister is so sure of the quality of the measures she announced, why does she not go and see what is really happening on the ground, as advocacy groups for the unemployed are asking her to do?
Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, since yesterday, again today, tomorrow and next week, all of the government members, myself included, will be on the ground, to meet Quebeckers and explain to them the benefits of belonging to the Canadian federation, unlike what the Bloc is telling us.
AgricultureMr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this year's budget proved yet again that the government is ignoring the plight of farmers.
Farmers will get no more cash in their pockets. The cash advances are like finding a needle in a haystack and do not even kick in until next year, if at all.
Two weeks ago the Liberal Party and even the minister voted against removing the CAIS deposit requirement. Yesterday he declared that he would not apologize for it. The March 31 deadline is fast approaching.
The government admits that the program is a disaster and says that it will fix it, but, surprise, surprise, the government votes against any improvement.
Will the minister stop stalling? Will he support farmers and agree to the necessary changes needed today?
Andy Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a similar question from an hon. member on that side, I made the comment that it was political rhetoric. I want to make sure we make the point crystal clear.
Each one of the members on that side knows that the CAIS program is a federal-provincial program that requires both the federal government and the provinces to agree to the changes. They know that is the case but in their questions they try to infer that it is something else.
Do they want to help producers? No they do not. Do they want to make political rhetoric? Yes they do because that is all they are capable of.
Transport CanadaMr. Jeremy Harrison (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has proposed a draconian new set of transport policies for my home province of Saskatchewan.
First, the government wants all outfitters, commercial fishermen and guides to complete an operators course offered in Vancouver or Halifax, even if they have been operating their boats for decades. Guess what else? The Liberals want them to register their canoes.
We have already seen at least a billion dollars wasted on the Liberal gun registry. How much more money is the government going to send up the creek with the Liberal canoe registry?
Hon. Jim Karygiannis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, talking about people not having any sense of direction and people being rudderless, that is the party over there.
Let me reassure the hon. member that we on this side take any kind of vessels very seriously. Transport Canada is responsible for the registration and licensing of all vessels.
Canoes, if used for commercial purposes, are classified as small commercial vessels and are required under current regulations to be licensed.
I know a lot of the hon. members across do not want to hear the answer. Maybe they should get the wax out of their ears.
AgricultureMr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC): Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that the government brags about investing in research, it is closing the only agricultural research facility in Newfoundland and Labrador without even consulting the provincial government which shares the facility.
The Minister of Natural Resources says that there is a silver lining: jobs might stay in the province at the university. This is impractical and that minister always settles for silver rather than gold.
Before the minister rushes off to meet his program review commitments, will he discuss this with the provincial government, industry and his own people in the province?
Andy Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, to be charitable, the hon. member is simply ill-informed. The reality is that the work that is being done in science will continue to be done. The people who do the work will continue to do the work.
What we are doing as a department is cutting the overhead so that there will in fact be more money to do more science to the benefit of producers.
The EnvironmentMrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, new environmental regulations have forced municipalities to once again retrofit waterworks that were recently upgraded. They are being told that funds will not be made available for these unforeseen additional costs.
An amendment to the new Canada-Ontario municipal rural infrastructure fund to include completed green projects not fully covered under the old program is needed.
Will the minister consider making this change?
Hon. Joe Comuzzi (Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canada-Ontario infrastructure program is coming to a close and while we complete these closures we are finding that some programs which had been funded will not be proceeding.
It is our intention at this time to take those funds and assist those communities that have experienced an overrun in their costing. I hope the hon. member and I can work together on Laurentian Hills and the 800 overage that the community is experiencing.
Gasoline IndustryMr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the industry committee has considered the lack of competition in the retail and refining sectors of the gasoline industry.
With inexcusably high prices for gasoline in many markets, with little or no competition in these sectors, could the Minister of Industry advise us how proposed amendments to the Competition Act aimed at predatory pricing will help consumers in all regions of the country?
Hon. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River. Last year he organized a task force to look at gasoline prices in his area and, quite frankly, across the north. He did a marvellous job there.
He has, on a regular basis, contacted the minister and talked about gasoline prices. Very properly, he is asking about the Competition Act today. It will be more effective in dealing with corporations and dealing with unfair practices that happen in this country. That is one of the reasons that we are trying to move the Competition Act forward.
Through monetary penalties, we will make sure that corporations that treat others unjustly--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver East.
HousingMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, what does the Prime Minister say to the 1.7 million Canadian households that desperately need affordable housing? What does he say to homeless people around the streets? What does he say to aboriginal people off reserve?
In his rush for Conservative support, he betrayed them and there is anger and outrage that he broke his own promise for $1.5 billion for housing while rewarding his corporate buddies.
I challenge him to get out on the street at night, experience the impact of what he has done and then think about his corporate tax cuts. Is he willing to take that responsibility and see what he has done?
Hon. Andy Scott (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the promise of $1.5 billion in new housing will be kept. That was repeated in the throne speech.
The reality is that money that is available now, about $800 million, has simply not been spent.
On the question of first nations housing, we have a round table process in place. It is slated to come to a conclusion this spring. The Minister of Finance has acknowledge that we will need more money and we will get it.
EducationMs. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government's stall on education funding over the past decade has caused the doubling of tuition and crippling student debt loads.
Grubbing for youth votes in the spring election, the Prime Minister promised to restore $8 billion to $9 billion to educational core funding. Yesterday's budget did no such thing.
Education core funding remains below the 1995 level. There is no tuition relief and students have to either die or become permanently disabled in order to qualify for debt relief.
Why the betrayal of Canada's students of yesterday, today and tomorrow?
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member took the time to read the budget, she would understand that there has been no such betrayal at all.
In fact, coming out of the previous budget, there is the new Canada learning bond for low income families, an enhanced Canada education savings grant for low and middle income families, new upfront grants of $2,000 for students with disabilities and $3,000 for first year students from low income communities.
She might want to speak to Premier Doer of the province of Manitoba, who has congratulated the Prime Minister and the finance minister for keeping their promises.
Correctional Service CanadaMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, recent media reports state that Stoney Mountain Penitentiary just ranked third out of 54 federal prisons for weapon seizures.
Corrections officers confiscated nearly 1,200 weapons across Canada during 2004. Corrections officers put their lives at risk every day but the government will not supply them with stabproof vests. As well, the government has continually delayed coming to an agreement with the officers union. They have now been without a contract for three years.
When will the dithering government settle this matter and make sure our corrections officers work in safe conditions while being compensated properly.
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the safety of the corrections officers as well as the safety of this country continues to be a priority and will remain that way.
JusticeMr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Albert Walker stole millions of dollars from the hardworking people in my area.
While on the run in Britain with his 15 year old daughter posing as his wife, he murdered Ronald Platt and took his identity. His family is terrified and they do not want him back here.
When the Deputy Prime Minister signed for his transfer back to Canada, she showed sympathy for the murderer and disdain for the family.
Will the minister assure the family that this murderer will not end up within 2,000 miles of them?
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, I cannot comment on the specifics of an offender's case.
However, the International Transfer of Offenders Act enables Canadian offenders, who are convicted abroad, to serve their sentence in their country of citizenship whenever a treaty has been signed to that effect. That has been the case in this instance.
Child CareMr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in a recent Vanier Institute study, day care centres rank a distant fifth when Canadians are asked who they would prefer to care for their preschool children. A parent, grandparent, another relative and home day care all ranked higher. Even in Quebec, which has a day care program of the kind that the Liberals plan to introduce, most parents would prefer to have children cared for by a relative.
Conservative Party policy would allow parents to make their own child care choices. Why do the Liberals continue to promote a plan that discriminates against the preferred choices of 75% of Canadian parents?
Hon. Tony Ianno (Minister of State (Families and Caregivers), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as was stated in the election platform, we are investing $5 billion toward early learning child centres. We are working with the provinces. The finance minister put the commitment in place, and we will continue to work with the provincial and territorial governments to ensure that all children have the opportunity to be productive citizens in the future.
The EnvironmentMr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it has been reported that the Kyoto Keystone Kops are again abusing automakers. Auto manufacturers are being handed all the work in changing consumer behaviour in order to achieve artificial emission and fuel economy targets by 2010.
Does the minister realize that this could lead to catastrophic job losses, while making little difference in emission and fuel economy levels? If the Minister of the Environment cannot write his own Kyoto plan, why is he forcing the auto manufacturers to do his work for him?
R. John Efford: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Industry and myself have had several weeks of ongoing discussions with the auto industry. In negotiations from day to day there are always things that will come up on which there will have to be a further agreement.
I have full confidence that at the end of the day we will work out an agreement to the satisfaction of the auto industry and to the environment and government.
International AssistanceMr. Roger Clavet (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government's contribution to international assistance is more than disappointing, to say the least. Canada has dropped from 6th to 12th place among the contributing nations. Unfortunately, the budget has not changed matters.
At the rate he is increasing budgets for international assistance, will the Prime Minister admit that it will take Canada 30 years to reach its target of 0.7% of GDP for international assistance and not 10 years by 2015, as it promised the United Nations?
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am a bit taken back. I would share with the member that it has been a wonderful week for foreign aid in Canada as a result of the finance minister's budget.
The budget allocated significant resources to the international assistance envelope, $3.4 billion over five years. This is on top of a $248 million increase in my budget for 2005-06 and $641 million in additional funding at the end of the year.
I cannot say that it has not been a very good news story.
Roger Clavet: Mr. Speaker, it has been such a good week that there is four times more money for national defence than for international assistance. It just goes to show how compassionate this government is.
When the Liberals came to power, Canada's contribution was 0.43% of GDP. It then fell to 0.29%. Yet, other countries like France, Belgium and Great Britain are doubling their efforts to achieve the UN target. What is Canada waiting for to follow suit?
Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I join countries and like-minded donors like France, Britain and other countries in our absolute commitment to fighting poverty and to reaching the millennium development goals.
We are looked on by those countries as a strong partner. I work with them in many different venues. I will be with them next week as we work at the OECD and DAC committee to move forward in the achievement of the development goals.
Because we are a balanced government and have assigned funding to the armed forces at a time when they need it, we have also done equal funding for aid. This is a balanced response.
ForestryMr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, three years ago the B.C. government formally asked the Liberals to help in a plan to mitigate the damage caused by the pine beetle, and nothing happened. Five months ago the B.C. government formally requested, with a brand new more aggressive plan, help from the Liberals. Nothing has happened.
The pine beetles have not been dithering. They have chewed their way through 300 million cubic metres of mature pine and are threatening to go to a billion within eight years.
Why has the government done nothing to help the B.C. government in this pine beetle crisis?
R. John Efford: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how many people from the opposition would get up and ask a question, do absolutely no research and not know what they are talking about. To say we have done absolutely nothing is absolutely false. First, we have already put $40 million into working with the B.C. government and the industry to find a way to deal with the mountain pine beetle.
To say we have done nothing is absolutely false. We will do much more.
Sport FisheryMr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, CPC): Virtually nothing, Mr. Speaker. I have been asking the agriculture minister since October to ensure that Canadian caught sport fish can receive a health certificate and be taken back to Europe under tough new EU rules.
Our competitors in Alaska, Russia and Norway have responded to the changes. Canada has not. This is leading to millions of dollars in losses in cancellations for B.C. fishing resorts.
Despite the minister's assurances otherwise, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency continues to say that it has no mandate for sport fish.
Why does the government continue to abandon B.C. sport fishing lodges?
Andy Mitchell: Quite to the contrary, Mr. Speaker. Even though the CFIA does not have a direct mandate, we have asked it to put in a protocol to assist lodges so they can continue to compete effectively.
Beyond that, we also are engaging the European Union, both in terms of having it change the minimum weight amount so it can be increased, as well as to ask it to deal with the policy in its overall context so we can have others besides the CFIA do the necessary inspections.
Public ServiceMarc Godbout: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. Could the hon. member please once and for all put an end to the opposition's fearmongering tactics and inform the House on the real impact the expenditure review will have on our public service employees?
Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member and also the members for Pontiac, Gatineau, Ottawa South, Ottawa West—Nepean and the deputy House leader for their work on this file.
I fully expected the member for Ottawa Centre to stand up in the House to apologize for the statements he has made about massive job losses in the public service. In fact, what we have is a modernization of the public service, bringing to public servants the tools they need to do the jobs they want to do.
They are excited about it. They are the best in the world and they will be better still.
HousingMr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the housing minister.
On February 14, the minister of housing specifically promised, “the February 23 budget will commit another $1.5 billion to help Canadians who lack affordable housing” now, not in future budgets. A good portion of the money was slated for rent subsidies to help low income Canadians meet their housing needs.
The $1.5 billion is not in the budget. Why did the minister make the promise if he could not deliver? What does he intend to do about his broken promise to low income Canadians, and the $1.5 billion that is not in the present budget?
Andy Scott: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the promise will be kept. The $1.5 billion will flow. The reality is there is $800 million still unspent in the last agreement and that is the issue.
Senior CitizensMs. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, many seniors may not see all or part of the guaranteed income supplement promised in the budget. In Ontario, for example, the guaranteed income supplement is integrated with the provincial guaranteed annual income supplement for seniors or GAINS. If the GIS goes up by a dollar, GAINS will go down by 50¢.
Would the minister advise this House if he has obtained any assurances from the McGuinty government that the GAINS clawback will not swallow half the GIS increase for very low income seniors in Ontario?
Tony Ianno: Mr. Speaker, first, I am very happy that there is $2.7 billion in this budget that will go to low income seniors.
In respect to the provinces at large, not just Ontario, there is very minimal impact on the GIS increase for low income seniors. That is great news for low income seniors.
Official LanguagesMr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Commissioner of Official Languages, Dr. Dyane Adam, told the Standing Committee on Official Languages of her concern that the federal government was running out of steam as far as its official languages action plan is concerned.
The president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada expressed his regrets that the budget does not contain the $18 million increase he had been demanding for the francophone and Acadian communities.
What is the government waiting for before it makes the financial commitment that is essential to implementation of the official languages action plan?
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages, Minister responsible for Democratic Reform and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's official languages action plan will be implemented in its entirety. We should point out that the $751 million committed to by the government two years ago is maintained in the budget in its entirety.
There were also four new initiatives in the budget that include funds for official language minority communities.
The government is maintaining the action plan in its entirety, along with its commitment to those communities.
HealthMichael John Savage: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Public Health. Last year we were assured by the government that the public health investments were just a down payment, that more would be done in this area.
Could the minister indicate what the 2005 budget has done for the critical areas of health promotion and disease prevention?
Hon. Carolyn Bennett (Minister of State (Public Health), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is a tremendous advocate for chronic disease prevention. The province of Nova Scotia has really taken health promotion seriously.
We are pleased that the 2005 budget expands the initial investments in the Canada Public Health Agency and sets out $300 million over five years for a strategy focussing on healthy living and chronic disease.
There is now a strong consensus in the country that working together on the common risks is the best way to get results. We will also deal with the three pillars of prevention, promotion and--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.
ForestryDick Harris: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Natural Resources knew anything about the pine beetle crisis he would hang his head in shame after that answer and slink out of here. That $40 million was an insult.
The province has asked for about $400 million from the government to offset and help mitigate the damage of the pine beetles. The government has done nothing. That minister should get a lesson from the Minister of Industry who should know about the problem but who has done nothing as well.
R. John Efford: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member stood to ask the last question and said that the Government of Canada had done absolutely nothing to help with the problem of the pine beetle. I said clearly that we put in $40 million, and that is far from nothing. That is a fact.
We are working with the province on research and we are working with it on a daily basis. As I said, we will continue to work with it, and we do recognize how serious the problem is.
Presence in GalleryThe Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of this year's recipients of the Mathieu Da Costa Award: Julia Spears, Kristi Martin, Varman Koneswaran, Kaitlin Wood, Benoît Beaulieu, Roman Blomme, Jean-Daniel Bergeron, Ariane Brun Del Re, Peter Millman, Sarah Robert, and Tae Kyung Kim.
Congratulations.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Points of OrderMrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to something the President of the Treasury Board said on February 24 during question period and his responsibility to correct the records of this House.
On page 63 of the 22nd edition of Erskine May, it states that:

--ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments...it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament....Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister--

The statement is recorded on page 3937 of Hansard where it states:

Mr. Speaker, in the case of the post office that was closed in British Columbia, there was no one in the town who wished to operate it. It is a town with 27 homes in it and an operator could not be found for it. Therefore, it was not a lack of willingness on the part of Canada Post to keep it open, there was no one to run it.

There is a post office scheduled for closure on the north shore of the city of Kamloops. I guarantee there are more than 27 homes. There are people to operate it. People in my riding are extremely upset. I would like a correction made by the minister.
Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, that is not the post office I was talking about. In fact the information I was providing to the House came directly from Canada Post in response to a question that had been made earlier. Unfortunately I do not have the name of the town in front of me. I would be prepared to provide it to the House, but that was taken directly from the notes provided by Canada Post.
The Speaker: I am sure the House will hear more on the matter in due course.
A message from Her Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates (B) for the financial year ending March 31, 2005, was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and read by the Speaker to the House.

Routine Proceedings
Supplementary Estimates (B), 2004-05Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I have copies of the supplementary estimates and the distribution to committees. I have additional copies for members of the House.
A message from Her Excellency the Governor General transmitting main estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 2006 was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and read by the Speaker to the House.
Main Estimates, 2005-06Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I have copies of the estimates for the Table, as well as the list of committees to which they are referred, and additional copies for members of the House.
Order in Council AppointmentsRaymond Simard: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments which were recently made by the government.
Interparliamentary DelegationsMr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canada-China Legislative Association regarding the seventh bilateral meeting held in China from October 29 to November 9, 2004.
Committees of the HouseMr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Bill S-2, an act to amend the Citizenship Act.
Criminal CodePeter MacKay: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-339, an act to amend the Criminal Code (order of prohibition).

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House a private member's bill that would amend the Criminal Code of Canada.
This enactment would change Criminal Code section 163 pertaining to the court orders that may be made with respect to the prohibition of an offender attending certain places. This would amend that section to include “dwelling house”, where an offender knows or ought to know that a person under the age of 14 years is present and that a parent, guardian or other person who has lawful charge of that person under the age of 14 is not present.
This bill was initiated by a woman by the name of Donna Goler from Nova Scotia. A very sad situation involving that family brought her to propose this type of amendment. Therefore, I would ask members to support this legislation, which is aimed specifically at helping children where sexual abuse most often occurs, which is in a dwelling house.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Peter MacKay: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-340, an act to amend the Criminal Code (breach of a conditional sentence order).

Mr. Speaker, this bill would amend section 742.6(9) of the Criminal Code, which provides direction to the court when an offender who, without reasonable excuse, has been found guilty of breaching a conditional offence.
The purpose of this amendment would be, in essence, to create a reverse onus upon that person who has breached that order. This enactment removes the court's option of taking no action, changing the optional conditions, or suspending the order, and requiring part of the sentence to be served in custody.
I will not get into the merits of conditional sentences for certain types of offences, but this enactment in essence would give real meaning to the breaching of conditional sentences. It requires the court in such circumstances of a breach to terminate the conditional sentence order and direct that the sentence be served in custody.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Peter MacKay: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-341, an act to amend the Criminal Code (recruitment of children and swarming).

Mr. Speaker, this is an attempt to amend the Criminal Code to bring more meaningful deterrence and prevention with respect to what I would describe as two relatively recent phenomena of young people having been involved in the act of swarming, where violence is perpetrated on others. It often is associated with bullying in schools.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to create a specific offence making it illegal to recruit children to commit offences or to participate in the violent act of swarming.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Peter MacKay: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-342, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (interference with a peace officer's protective equipment).

Mr. Speaker, this bill also deals with an amendment to the Criminal Code. It is specifically aimed at protecting police officers as they serve the public.
The enactment would expand the scope of current section 270.1 of the code to provide that anyone who wilfully interferes with the protective equipment of a police officer or peace officer while that officer is engaged in the execution of his or her duties is guilty of an offence.
This is a common sense amendment which has the broad, wide support of those in the law enforcement community.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Income Tax ActHon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (capital gains exemption on disposition of fishing property).

Mr. Speaker, the Income Tax Act allows an individual to claim a $500,000 total lifetime exemption for capital gains that arise from the disposal of qualified farm property.
I am pleased to table this bill today which amends the act so that an individual may also claim this exemption in respect of qualified fishing property.
This bill is very important to the fishing industry. I urge the House to support it.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Criminal CodePeter MacKay: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-344, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (review of parole ineligibility) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Mr. Speaker, this is a Criminal Code amendment dealing with the review of parole eligibility. This is an issue that has been before the House on numerous occasions.
The bill attempts to repeal section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, commonly known as the faint hope clause. It would allow persons sentenced to life imprisonment for acts of high treason to murder to apply after 15 years for a reduction in the period of parole ineligibility.
This bill has the support of those in the law enforcement community, those who, I would suggest, have been affected by horrific crimes. It would affect those who have not been deemed dangerous offenders under more recent Criminal Code amendments. This bill would do away with the section that allows for early parole for murderers.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
PetitionsBetty Hinton: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of submitting nine petitions signed by constituents from my riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to recognize the institution of marriage as being a lifelong union between one man and one woman. They call upon Parliament to do whatever is necessary to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in Canada.
Marc Godbout: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table on behalf of 25 constituents of Ottawa—Orléans and others in the region a petition calling upon Parliament to maintain the traditional definition of marriage.
Ms. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to table this petition calling upon the Prime Minister not to commit to the missile defence shield.
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions from the Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values, an 80% ethnic Chinese group based in Vancouver. These petitions contain 7,000 signatures in which the petitioners are supporting the traditional definition of marriage.
I had previously delivered a petition from the same group on the same subject with 22,000 signatures, so it is now up to 29,000.
The petitioners are urging Parliament to use all possible democratic, legislative and administrative measures to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present which states that since it is recognized that the best foundation for society, families and the raising of children is the traditional definition of marriage, the petitioners pray that Parliament will keep the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Mr. Ted Menzies (Macleod, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the petition that I wish to present today on behalf of my constituents concerns children suffering from an autism spectrum disorder. It calls upon Parliament to amend the Canada Health Act to include intensive behavioural intervention therapy for children with autism as medically necessary treatment.
It requests that all provinces provide or fund this essential treatment for autism and to contribute to the creation of academic chairs in each province to teach this treatment at an undergraduate level.
Tom Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I have six groups of petitions signed by 440 people from my home province of Ontario. The petitioners pray that Parliament use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including invoking section 33 of the charter if necessary to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions today from Canadians. They are asking Parliament, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to use all possible legislative and administrative measures including invoking section 33 of the charter if necessary to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I have 14 petitions from concerned citizens with a total number of signatures of 1,623 from the Canada family action committee concerning the issue of marriage.
The undersigned petition Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures including invoking section 33 of the charter if necessary to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure today to present a petition on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Kings—Hants, signed by people from all across Canada.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that an appropriate question is included in the next census questionnaire aimed at determining the demographics of brain injury and to ensure that the government closely examines aspects of its health policies, pension provisions, including CPP and justice issues, in order to properly support those with brain injuries.
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from the good folks in Redverse, Antler, Fertile, Wauchope and Bellegarde, Saskatchewan, and the communities of Storthoakes, Carievale, Stoughton and Weyburn.
The essence of their petition is that marriage is the best foundation for families and the raising of children, and that the majority of Canadians support the traditional definition of marriage as the voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
The petitioners ask Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures to preserve and protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
I also have a petition from the people of Gladmar and Minton, Saskatchewan. They ask that Parliament, as it did in 1999, vote to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. They ask that a renewed debate be held on the definition of marriage and to reaffirm as it did in 1999 its commitment to take all necessary steps to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from the constituents of Kildonan—St. Paul in Winnipeg, Manitoba. My constituents want to define marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Mr. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to table on behalf of my constituents of Fundy Royal and nearby area of Saint John a petition drawing the attention of government members to the plight of human rights workers in Colombia and to call on members of government to promote peace in that country.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise again, as I have been doing on a daily basis, to present petitions from my constituents in Prince George—Peace River. These citizens are from the city of Fort St. John and the neighbouring community of Charlie Lake.
These citizens call upon Parliament to note that in June 1999 Parliament reinforced that marriage continue to be recognized as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. They know that marriage is the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament and therefore, they call upon Parliament to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions from my riding and from outlying areas on the subject of marriage. I would like to pay particular tribute to Donna Clarkson, a constituent in my riding, who has really helped to assemble these petitions and to allow concerned citizens in our country to express themselves in this way.
This petition asks Parliament to respect the vote that was held in 1999. The petitioners say that the majority of Canadians support retaining the current definition. Social policy should be made by elected parliamentarians and not by appointed judges, so they are asking that we use all possible legislative and administrative means including section 33, the notwithstanding clause, if necessary in order to restore, preserve and protect the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two bundles of petitions. The first bundle includes two petitions from Langley residents and also from greater Vancouver residents. These petitions deal with the definition of marriage. The petitioners strongly urge Parliament to oppose any legislation that would in any way change the traditional definition of marriage being between a man and a woman in order to accommodate any other lifestyle choices.
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, the second bundle contains two petitions that deal with autism. The petitioners ask Parliament to deem treatment for autism to be a medically necessary treatment in the Canada Health Act and also to create academic chairs at universities in each province to teach autism treatment.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am please to present three petitions. The first is on behalf of my constituents of Okanagan—Shuswap which calls upon Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
The last two petitions, that I am in total favour of, also from my constituents of Okanagan—Shuswap, request that the Government of Canada hold a binding national referendum together with the next federal election to ask the following question: “Must the Government of Canada continue to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others? Yes, or no”.
Questions on the Order PaperRaymond Simard: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from February 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 23, 2004, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas still has 10 minutes left in questions and comments. The hon. member for Davenport.
Mario Silva: Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to ask a question of the hon. member as I feel there has been a little bit of rewriting of history.
We should note the fact that it was the provincial Liberal government that issued a freeze on tuition and it was the NDP government in Ontario that allowed tuition to more than double when it was in power. This government has put in $5 billion annually into the transfer students assistance programs and $15 billion into the hands of provincial governments to deal with post-secondary education and other issues.
On the issue of housing, again there is obvious great concern by all of us, but we should remember, and it has been stated incorrectly many times in the House, that it was a Conservative government that eliminated the national housing policy in 1992 and not the Liberal government. The Liberal government struggled for many years in Ontario under the Harris government to get a housing policy in that province. There has been over $600 million already committed by the government to the province of Ontario alone. Many of those projects are still yet to be fulfilled.
Certainly, when I was a city councillor in the city of Toronto, the issue was not the money. The issue was trying to get the program going. It was a struggle because many of the programs had been killed by the provincial Tory government at that time.
It is very important that we get our facts correct in the House. As I see it, it is our government that has been working very diligently with the provincial and municipal governments to get housing going across this country.
Bill Siksay: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel the need to have any lectures about the NDP record on things like education and housing. The NDP record is really clear.
The federal housing program had its genesis back in a minority Parliament in the 1970s. It was because the NDP put pressure on the government of the day to include a national housing program that we had the kind of national housing program that we should have today. There is no doubt in my mind where the NDP stands on these kinds of issues.
The member mentioned Ontario. The NDP government in Ontario inherited a record deficit from the previous Liberal administration. That was one of the reasons it was under such stress.
In B.C., the NDP government held the line on tuition increases, even though the federal Liberal government cut transfer payments dramatically to the provinces in the period it was in power. Our priorities are absolutely clear.
On housing, the member mentioned there is money that has not been spent. It is a crying shame that money for housing is not being spent, given the need in the community for it. The lack of action on that file is outrageous. We need to be spending the money, the paltry sum that has been committed, and if we are not spending that, then there is a problem with delivery and the government needs to attend to that.
There is also a problem with the government's promises on this. During the election campaign, we heard a promise of $1.5 billion for affordable housing in this country. In the budget there is nothing. We will fight against the betrayal of Canadians and the betrayal of yet another promise on an important program that Canadians need.
Mr. Guy Côté (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I hope you will permit me to point out the irony of being here on February 25, 2005, discussing a bill to implement a number of measures in the 2004 budget, which was brought in a year ago. I find it quite ironic.
As my colleague from Joliette mentioned earlier in the day, we will vote in favour of this bill because it contains a certain number of measures which can remedy—to some extent—a number of problems.
This bill lists many things. Unfortunately, what is even more striking is that it also ignores a number of things. On this point, I would like to read an extract from an article which, although the journalist was speaking of Wednesday's budget, could be applied very well to the measures in the 2004 budget and all the budgets presented over the past eight years. He says:

The lack of credibility is much more worrisome. It comes from the fact that the budget is based on figures no one believes anymore. For eight years, federal financial operations have generated large surpluses which budget speeches, year after year, have denied. Last year, as always, the Minister of Finance predicted a surplus of $3 billion. It will be $10 billion, $12 billion, $15 billion or something like that. For this year, the minister is announcing, as always, a $3 billion surplus. We do not believe him.
The gap between the forecasts and the reality is too wide, too predictable, for it to be justified by thrifty management. But especially, this gap is corrupting the very essence of the budget process. What a budget is meant to do, in addition to providing an update on public finances, is to establish the resources available and have a collective debate on their best use. This debate is essential for democracy and impossible if the real size of the surplus is not known.
For example, recognizing the fact that there are large surpluses could lead Canada to begin to seriously reflect on making different choices, reducing income tax substantially, creating a new agreement with the provinces, greatly reducing the debt or, perhaps, engaging in extraordinary initiatives—debates that are impossible if, technically, manoeuvring room is $3 billion.
More importantly, as a result of this budgetary fiction, important decisions are now being made outside the budget process, as surpluses materialize out of thin air. For example, for fiscal year 2004-05 ending in March, Ottawa incurred $10.9 billion in expenditures that were not included in last spring's budget. These are significant expenditures that escaped budgetary debate. And it looks like it will be the same this year. The new initiatives for 2005-06 announced in Wednesday's budget are in fact very modest, at $2.9 billion, probably because the real 2005-06 expenditures will come later, once a surplus has been uncovered.
—The fact that the federal government is so affluent while the provinces are increasingly struggling to carry out their responsibilities is creating an imbalance, both politically and fiscally. Besides the fact that it is unfair and causes misuse of collective resources, Ottawa's refusal to recognize this imbalance is translating into moves that are not always very bold.—
—Because of this dynamic, the finance minister's budget lacks consistency, credibility and legitimacy.—
—As a result, when the Minister of Finance announces an initiative, even an intelligent one, instead of applauding, we tend to think that the money he is spending should not be in his hands to begin with.

There are such initiatives in this bill.
These remarks were made by Alain Dubuc, a reporter with La Presse and Le Soleil , among others.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): 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: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from February 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-8, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act, the Canada School of Public Service Act and the Official Languages Act, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat stymied by this third reading of Bill C-8.
During the debates held in the House at second reading, we discussed Bill C-8 extensively. At the time, we raised a number of questions that have yet to be answered by the government, but that are very valid questions regarding the purpose of this legislation and the objectives of the government. Since the bill is now at third reading, we can assume that, indeed, these considerations and questions have been left unanswered.
Bill C-8 illustrates once again the scenario that we had with other bills proposed in this House. Indeed, with Bill C-31 and Bill C-32, we saw that the government had implemented administrative changes without consulting those who are most affected by these changes, and without putting in place a plan to develop those administrative changes.
As regards Bill C-31 and Bill C-32, since there were no plan or justification with respect to these changes, the House rejected these motions. In the case of Bill C-8, even though we said at second reading that we had some concerns and fundamental questions regarding this legislation, we still reviewed, in the hope, of course, that these questions would be answered, and that some objectives as well as a plan would be defined.
Unfortunately, as I said, our questions were not answered. I should point out that this is an issue of particular interest to the NDP. Indeed, we have always believed it is important that the government maintain good relations with public servants. Unfortunately, over the past several years, we have seen that those who spend their lives in the service of their country, Canada, to ensure that we have an effective public service and to maintain and even increase services provided to the public, we have seen that all these public servants who do so much to support programs, services and Canadians, were not consulted when the government decided to make the latest changes. Here, one week. There, the next.
We saw this recently during the surprise announcement of the single window for government services. So documents and information were leaked. We learned a few days ago that the government was planning to make some major changes, once again without consulting the public and the workers, the people devoting their lives to maintain and increase services for Canadians. There are no consultations. An announcement is made. We know that major changes are coming, once again, in the form of a single window, in the absence of planning and the implementation of all administrative procedures.
Unfortunately, I suspect that, once again, the Liberal government is deciding to make all kinds of promises of job offers here and there, without any plan to ensure the provision of services throughout the country. British Columbia, where I come from, is under-represented in the public service.
It is extremely important to people in British Columbia to be able to say that access to the public service corresponds to our demographic weight in Canada.
However, putting something like that in place requires a plan. There really have to be consultations with Canadians and public servants so we can a plan in place that will work. We know that this government has a tendency to make plans similar to those of the official opposition—sketched on table napkins—plans strung together with bailing wire that are not properly or sufficiently thought out, and ultimately, we end up with something that does not work.
We saw this with the Kyoto protocol; the government had in fact promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It was supposed to reduce them by 20% by 2010. It is now 2005 and in actual fact greenhouse gases have gone up, not down, by 20%.
We have also seen other plans, including an anti-poverty plan. The NDP member for Ottawa Centre introduced a motion in the House in 1989. With the agreement of all members of this House, we adopted a plan whereby child poverty would be reduced by the year 2000 with a view to its total elimination.
Now here we are in 2005, and, tragically, there has been an increase in the number of children living in poverty in this country. They now number over one million. Among aboriginal children, 40% are poor or living in poor families, and liable to end up homeless. We know that 30% of families with disabled children are in the same situation.
This 12 year Liberal idea of a plan has once again resulted in failure. There has been a failure as far as the environment is concerned. A failure as far as housing for the homeless is concerned. The surprise announcement of a few days ago leaves us once again with a plan that has been cobbled together without consultation, without any clear objectives. This one will have a considerable effect on the Canadian public service, and that is most regrettable.
Now, if we look at Bill C-8, we see once again that it dates back to a year ago, after the decisions had been reached, without any connection between the two or any consideration of the impacts.
It must be pointed out that the hon. member for Ottawa Centre works tirelessly both in this House and outside to protect the public service and to ensure that its members are taken into consideration when the government plans to do something. I would like to congratulate him on the work he does. He is a new member like myself, but one with a long history in this place. He is new only in that his riding, Ottawa Centre, is a new one for him, but he is already hard at work, not only representing that riding, but also defending the interests of those who make such a great contribution to the running of our Canadian governmental services and the federal government's outreach in this country. The member for Ottawa Centre is making a remarkable contribution.
Let me point out the problem. We have Bill C-8. We have had questions raised in the House. Those questions have stayed there without a definitive response from the government. We know that morale is very low in the public service. We know of the surprise plan that was thrown out there, a one stop shop thrown out on the backs of the public servants who have contributed so much to this country.
Again we see a government proceeding without a plan, going from photo op to photo op, without considering the implications of each decision that is made. We saw with Bill C-31 and Bill C-32 how little forethought had actually been given to these decisions that the government was throwing forth to the House. At second reading we asked those questions and did not get the answers we wanted to hear.
We see very clearly that there has not been a consultation process with the people who are most concerned about this: the public sector workers who have contributed so much and yet receive so little consideration from the government. Last summer, after a real decrease in public sector wages of 10% and a salary gap in many sectors of 20%, as we saw with table 2, we saw the government, rather than engaging in meaningful negotiations, basically push through a settlement that of course public sector workers had to ratify after that.
What we see is a lack of respect for the public service. We do not see a change in attitude toward public sector workers. We do not see a change in responsibility. We do not see this government working with public sector workers and trying to engage in meaningful consultation, not relying on the strength of public sector workers who contribute in every community of this country, small or large, giving their hearts and souls, giving their efforts and their labour to make sure that we have the best possible services at all levels.
The responsibility for any concerns people have about public service and the state of public service in this country remains with the government, this government that does not consult, that refuses to recognize public sector workers as the assets they are for our country, that shows the same lack of respect for public sector workers we have seen it show to students with this recent budget. Students are not taken into consideration, nor are farmers. We see the same lack of consideration for people with disabilities and for poor Canadians. As well, in my area of greater Vancouver we have seen a threefold increase in the number of homeless. This is due to a lack of a housing strategy or policy.
We have seen, as I mentioned, an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. We have seen an increase in smog and toxic pollutants across this country, yet we saw the government last week actually vote against the NDP motion that would have set mandatory emission standards in this country and thus actually address the issue of increasing smog and pollution and the deaths caused by that.
We saw the Liberal government and the Conservative Party voting against that simple measure. Now we see the Liberal government and the Conservative Party voting for a budget that does not address housing and homelessness issues. It does not address the issues around the poor.
It does not address the crisis that we are facing in post-secondary education. As my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax, has said so often and so effectively, we need to address the crisis in post-secondary education. There is nothing in the budget for students.
There is also nothing in the budget for people with disabilities, even though we know that four million Canadians live in the poorest conditions and with perhaps the lowest quality of life of all Canadians.
There is nothing in the budget to address aboriginal issues.
There is nothing in this budget that addresses those important issues, except the lack of respect for Canadians generally. The Liberal government and the Conservative Party in opposition are still going to support this budget, so who does get the respect if public sector workers do not get it, if students do not get it, if seniors do not get it with that tiny buck a day increase?
We know who gets the respect. It is the big corporations, with a $4.6 billion tax break. It is the wealthiest of Canadians, who actually see the cap on RRSP contributions lifted for those who earn more than $100,000 a year. They get respect. It is wealthy people, big corporations and the banks. We heard them lobbying to have the foreign content limit, that cap of 30%, lifted. That lobbying paid off for them.
Banks, big corporations and the wealthy are the ones that get respect from this government, not public servants. That is why I again raise concerns about Bill C-8 and the fact that the government is not showing proper respect for public sector workers. The government has shown this pattern consistently over the months that I have been in Parliament and certainly in the years before I came to Parliament. We have seen a consistent pattern of a lack of respect and a lack of consultation.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the bill. The concerns remain.
Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-8, a bill our party supports, naturally. Why? First because we believe that maintaining some consistency in human resources management within the federal public service is fundamental.
In terms of human resources management in the federal government, depending on whether we are talking about classification or compensation, there are two different types of agencies or departments that do this sort of management.
Does my colleague think Bill C-8, being debated today and to be considered at third reading, will improve consistency? There are some major omissions. I am referring to clarification and to integration in the bill, which would fight psychological harassment more vigorously. That is the first omission.
Also, linguistic duality is not recognized in the bill. These two aspects were fundamental omissions in Bill C-25 on management.
Does my colleague think that Bill C-8 will provide better consistency in human resources management in the federal public service?
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. As he noticed during my presentation, I am concerned by the general lack of consistency in this government when it comes to our public service, while its employees make such a big contribution to Canadian life, and work hard to represent their country. They also improve the outreach of federal services.
The concerns raised during second reading, which were clearly identified, still remain. General concerns have to do with the government ignoring linguistic duality. We saw this many times in many different areas. French does not receive the respect it deserves. It is widely used across the country. As the fourth largest francophone province in the country after Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick, British Columbia now has 65,000 francophones. British Columbia is fourth in the pack in terms of the strength of its francophone community.
It must be said that in British Columbia there is a lack of services in French; still, at the same time, immersion schools are overflowing in that province. In fact, the immersion schools in British Columbia are the leaders in the country when it comes to people, parents and children, participating and wanting to learn French. In British Columbia, there always are obstacles to getting into the public service. It is always a problem. British Columbia is under-represented in the public service, while we are busy, in our immersion schools, teaching more and more bilingual young children who would like to contribute to their country by providing service in both official languages.
The entire issue of linguistic duality is and always has been a concern of the NDP. I was just talking to the hon. member for Halifax. Even when she was NDP leader in Nova Scotia, she fought to ensure that the Acadian community was well represented and respected in Nova Scotia. We could also talk about other governments, for instance, New Democratic governments, which have advanced francophone rights. We could mention the members of legislatures all over the country who have advanced francophone rights.
Everywhere in Canada, the NDP message is the same, whether in British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, with the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Elizabeth Weir in Alberta and Léo Piquette. The governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba have done the most to advance francophone rights. In fact, the New Democratic government in British Columbia set up the first francophone school boards. All over the country, we have the same message about linguistic duality and we always take the same care. That is a fundamental aspect of the NDP's existence and the reason why it must continue to speak on behalf of people all over the country.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): 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: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
Hon. Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe that if you seek it you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 1:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.

Private Members' Business
Bankruptcy and Insolvency ActAlexa McDonough: 
moved that Bill C-236, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (student loan), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as the New Democratic Party advocate and critic for post-secondary education I rise to launch second reading of my private member's bill, Bill C-236, with very mixed feelings. I will try to explain that in the time available to me.
This is a measure that is desperately needed to provide some relief to students who are in dire straits. The reason I rise with mixed feelings is that it was my hope and the hope of hundreds of thousands of students and their families that the need for such legislation, this debt relief for students, would not be so great today after the budget was tabled in the House this week.
Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth. What the students of yesterday, today and tomorrow have received from the budget is the back of the hand and a kick in the teeth with respect to the priority needs for young people and for all Canadians who understand the value, the importance and necessity in today's world of being able to afford a post-secondary education.
I want to briefly outline what the bill would do. The summary states:

This enactment amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to reduce, from ten to two years after a bankrupt leaves school, the period of time during which an order of discharge does not release the bankrupt from the reimbursement of his or her student loan.

I have no doubt that some people who are trying to follow this debate are asking themselves why on earth the NDP member from Halifax would be introducing a bill to deal with bankruptcy. I am also sure they will be asking themselves whether there not other more urgent priorities for students and greater needs that ought to be addressed by the federal government and raised by all members of Parliament.
The answer to those questions is an unqualified yes. A lot of things are of higher priority to the overwhelming majority, especially to all post-secondary education students today and those who will follow, but the sad truth is that students have been virtually abandoned by the budget that was brought in here this week in terms of those priority needs.
It is absolutely clear that yesterday's students and their struggling families needed a meaningful program of debt relief, debt forgiveness in many instances.
Second, today's students, because of the crippling debt loads that are amassing and the continuing spiraling of tuition fees, desperately needed the government to reinvest in post-secondary education to make it possible for universities to both freeze and lower tuition fees. However, not only has the government not addressed this urgent matter, it has once again broken an election promise in this regard.
We are not just talking about some casual election commitment. We are talking about a specific commitment that the Prime Minister made in a grubbing for youth vote exercise in which he participated, the great Canadian job competition, a debate that was held with my leader, the member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale. At that time the Prime Minster said that the government recognized that there had been massive cuts over the last decade that have caused the financial crisis for students and he committed to the reinvestment of $8 billion to $9 billion in core funding for post-secondary education. There was absolute silence in the budget on that matter.
Tomorrow's students need to know there will be a post-secondary education system still standing when the government is through hacking and slashing at it. We have damage done, not just to the finances of students and their families in terms of debt burden, but we have an erosion of the post-secondary infrastructure because of the massive unilateral cuts that were introduced in that infamous 1995 budget. After one takes into account the paltry dollars that were contained in this week's 2005 budget, today the level of core funding to our post-secondary education system is below the level of core funding in 1993 when the government came to office some 12 years ago. It is unbelievable.
It is a tragic irony and it is heartbreaking. It is so important for the discrimination that now exists in our insolvency legislation to end as it relates to students. That is what we are talking about today. Others who become bankrupt, whose circumstances beyond their control have driven them into the situation of financial disaster where bankruptcy is an option, are eligible to apply for bankruptcy protection after two years. However, the government has removed that protection from the student population who have indebted themselves because of the inadequacy of the student aid programs in the country and particularly because of the withdrawal of any meaningful support from the federal government. They are in the position where they are not eligible for such bankruptcy protection for 10 years.
This is out and out discrimination against a category of Canadians that needs to be fought in the courts. I applaud the student leaders of the country, through the Canadian Federation of Students, who are fighting this discriminatory provision through the courts. It is pathetic that our students have to do this to get the government to pay attention to their desperate lot.
It is unbelievable the one measure, which we could hardly even call it an initiative let alone a major initiative, contained in the budget for which the government keeps congratulating itself is if students die or become permanently disabled, then they will have the debt forgiveness for their student loan.
I applaud the government for its effort. In fact I had a private member's bill to propose exactly that. I am glad that my other private member's bill to provide for such relief is no longer needed. I say that without qualification. However, it is such a tiny measure in relation to what is needed.
Since I have become the post-secondary education critic, I have received an avalanche of letters, e-mails, phone calls, personal approaches from students whose lives are in ruin because of the inadequacies of our student aid system. The government has pushed money over into a foundation to escape accountability. It has absolutely turned its back on the universally recognized need for a student aid system that is based on needs. That has left incredible numbers of students in desperate financial straits.
I could share with my colleagues today the kinds of problems students are having in no more effective way than to briefly quote from the letter from just one such student. I had introduced the bill before I ever heard from this student in my riding. I will not have time to read it in full today because it is quite lengthy. He says:

For years I have been a slave to the student debt I was forced to incur in order to receive a post-secondary education. With no funding available from my family and only minimum wage earnings saved by myself I embarked on my higher education with five years of student loans, leaving me approximately $40,000 in debt upon completion of my studies...

He goes on to describe the nightmare of trying to deal with the student aid system and the frustrations in all of that. He then goes on to say:

My intention at 18 years old, when I accepted my first student loan, was never to have to declare bankruptcy with the debt I was assuming. But the reality of it ends up being so. After speaking to many different sources over the past couple of years, ranging from financial advisors, bankruptcy counsellors, legal aid lawyers, and going through my situation in great length, I was told by the majority of them that bankruptcy is my best option.

Because this student and every other student in a similar situation in the country is actively discriminated against by the insolvency provisions, I have introduced my private member's bill to amend and to correct the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act so students will be given fair and equal treatment.
He goes on to say:

More than anything, I want and need the stresses of this to be eliminated from my life so I simply can get on with it and create a decent living for myself.

He finishes with the following:

I am one of thousands who desperately need this change to occur. We, as young Canadians, need to get on with our lives and become productive members of society so that we may create lives for ourselves that will enable future generations to succeed. I feel as though the Liberal government has put young Canadians in a position that prevents us from doing so, preventing us from moving forward with a proper life's path.

This is the problem we have created for a lot of our students today. However, the problem does not only exist for students. In many cases the very low income families, who could not afford to help them with their escalating tuition fees in the first place, are now stuck trying to help bail them out of situation out of which they simply cannot get.
I to appeal to every member of the House to understand that this is a small measure. This is a measure to which every other Canadian is entitled, yet we are insist on dragging down our students with student debt, through no fault of their own. The government has effectively abandoned any meaningful system of student aid.
We have to address the crisis and emergency that exists with respect to the bankruptcy provisions while we continue to press the government to reinvest, starting with the Prime Minister's very specific commitment during the spring election to restore $8 billion to $9 billion of core funding to the post-secondary education system. We can do no less if we mean what we say about our youth being our future.
Bill Siksay: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her private member's bill and her speech this afternoon. It is a very important issue. It is a very important issue in my constituency of Burnaby--Douglas where the B.C. Institute of Technology and Simon Fraser University are located. Many students in my riding are facing exactly the situation she describes.
The member read a letter from a student about the situation he faced. It is one I know very personally. I have listened to those same stories from many students in my riding over the years when I was constituency assistant, and since I have become a member of Parliament.
I commend the member for seeking to right this wrong and end this discrimination against students.
I also commend the Canadian Federation of Students for taking this matter to the courts. It is sad when students and the people affected by this kind of injustice have to take the initiative to right it.
This is the place where we should be undertaking restitution of that and restoring the bankruptcy provisions for students. I am glad the member for Halifax has done that.
In the broader perspective, the issue of funding for post-secondary education and the rising cost of tuition forces so many people into this situation. Students at Simon Fraser University have made a complaint at the United Nations that Canada is not living up to its international obligations under an agreement signed by the United Nations and Canada in 1976 to work toward free education in Canada. All the countries that have signed on have done that.
Clearly, in Canada we have gone exactly in the opposite direction whereas countries have made gains. Could the member for Halifax comment more broadly on the underlying issues around the bankruptcy issue?
Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Burnaby—Douglas for his strenuous advocacy on behalf of students in his own riding and elsewhere. What the students in all 308 of the ridings need is a serious commitment from the federal government to post-secondary education.
The government should be humiliated that students at Simon Fraser University felt compelled to go to the United Nations to plead their case that Canada was failing to live up to its 1976 obligation to ensure students would receive adequate education. As a Canadian I feel humiliated but I applaud their efforts.
Students have every reason to call their elders hypocrites, and that includes all of us, if we keep saying that it is essential for them to have a post-secondary education and then fail to provide the means for them to obtain it. I hope I am correct in the number, although it may have varied by one or two in recent times, but I think there are something like 18 OECD countries that actually have a tuition free post-secondary education system.
People may wonder how we could afford more generous student aid, as if we have a generous student aid program, which we absolutely do not. I agree that in order to be fiscally responsible we cannot do this overnight, but we not only need to lower tuition fees but we need to be on path to move toward a tuition free post-secondary education system.
When we are done with tuition, we still need to recognize that students need resources to live. They need to eat, they need shelter and they need transportation. In many cases they have families. We know that increasingly, with workers being thrown out of jobs, often without any adequate transition measures or opportunities for retraining and so on, they are going back to school with grown families in order to obtain the education they want. However what we are doing is making it virtually inaccessible for a great number of students.
The reason that this bill becomes necessary is that on the one hand we are driving students into bankruptcy and on the other hand, because of the discriminatory provisions in our insolvency system, they are not even given the opportunity to declare bankruptcy on a basis equal with other Canadians. The bill simply asks that students be given equal, not discriminatory, treatment with respect to their ability to be considered eligible for bankruptcy.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I applaud the member for Halifax for her bill. During the federal election I knocked on over 6,000 doors in my community. One of the things I heard most regularly about was the number of young people who cannot go on to post-secondary education because of the post-secondary crisis that we are living through.
As she pointed out at the beginning of her remarkable presentation, the budget that was tabled this week does not deal with this post-secondary crisis. We have the Liberal government and the Conservative opposition both supporting a budget that does not deal with this fundamental crisis that is not only hurting younger generations of Canadians but is also going to hurt our economy as fewer and fewer Canadians go on to post-secondary education and to obtain the skills that are vital for tomorrow's economy.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: It is a betrayal.
Peter Julian: It is certainly a betrayal of what is needed in Canada and it is a betrayal of election promises that were made by the Liberal government and the Conservative Party in the last election.
I ask the member for Halifax what she believes is behind this total betrayal of students and young people across the country.
Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, it is a difficult question that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster raises, because I am flummoxed by this. I am flabbergasted. One tremendously bright, energetic young student who has been doing a lot of work on these issues described the budget as being “appallingly bold in its silence” on education funding. What a good example, I thought, because there are silences and then there are silences, but this is appallingly bold silence.
How flagrant can this government be? This may not be very parliamentary language, but the government is thumbing its nose at students and their families. I do not know what to say about that in answer to the question, particularly given the Prime Minister's commitment to reinvest $8.9 billion.
I am sure he did not have any thoughts of doing that tomorrow, and we would be saying we cannot afford to do that tomorrow, but this Prime Minister, when he was finance minister and had made up his mind, when he really meant what he said about something, knew exactly what to do to get on with implementing it. We set targets, set timetables, develop a plan and actually implement the plan come hell or high water.
So when he makes a commitment to reinvest $8 billion that he has hacked and slashed out of post-secondary education over the last decade, to the detriment of this nation's future in addition to the detriment of our students who are weighed down by debt, we would think he would actually make a plan and say “here is what we intend to do” and then get on with it.
Why was this government absolutely silent? I will tell members what I think. I think the government believes that students are so overburdened trying to get an education, working at part time jobs for crummy pay, paying off debts and dealing with all of this that they cannot actually be politically active, that they will not do anything to fight back.
I do not believe that for one moment. The student leaders of every one of the major student umbrella organizations and national organizations and Quebec's student leaders came before the human resources committee to deal with the one paltry, pathetic bill that this government introduced, which will not give one iota of financial assistance to students today or tomorrow. In fact, it will not have any effect whatsoever for 18 years. Those student leaders were there to say not only is this inadequate and not only is this paltry, it is fundamentally flawed and it is a fraud because it actually does not do what it says it is going to do, that is, help the most financially disadvantaged.
They also indicated what they believe they represent through their organizations, through CFS, CASA and FEUQ. They absolutely were here to say that they were going to fight for a better deal. That is what this bill does in a very narrow way. It fights against a discriminatory measure and, let us make no mistake, the New Democratic Party is absolutely committed to working in solidarity with those students to fight for a deal that will work not just for them and their families but for all Canadians.
Yves Lessard: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to indicate that I am replacing my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry, who is unable to be in the House today because of the textile issue in Huntingdon.
First, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Halifax for her bill and the quality and relevance of her remarks. What stands out in her speech is the position that this is a matter of equity and fairness for students, as opposed to people in other groups in our society that are forced to go bankrupt. Bankruptcy is not something you choose, but something you are forced into. This is particularly tragic for students because it happens when they have not had the time yet to enter the labour market or find a job that would give them enough money to meet their financial obligations.
I want to say at the onset that the Bloc Québécois agrees with Bill C-236. We are in favour of reducing from ten to two years the period of time during which a former student cannot be released from the reimbursement of his or her student loan.
Naturally, this measure will lighten the load for less fortunate students. This is also a good measure to ensure that students repay their loans not only for extremely moral reasons or incentives, but also because of a legislative obligation.
If I am not mistaken, only students face such a long period before they can be free of their debts. Anyone else in society who goes bankrupt can ask to be discharged long before.
The Bloc Québécois is well aware of the fact that declaring bankruptcy must not be an easy way out. There must be a moral obligation and a legal obligation, in reasonable proportion to everyone else in society faced with declaring bankruptcy.
The issue is that, overall, bankruptcy by students will have to be taken into consideration in light of the fiscal imbalance, among other things. We are well aware that constraints on the provinces resulting from the fiscal imbalance are creating obligations for the provinces. In turn, the provinces will have to limit their loans and even bursaries, thereby adding to the financial difficulties faced by students.
We know that, over the past few years, particularly since 1990, the federal government has gradually cut transfer payments to the provinces for education, which has—as I said earlier—added to the difficulties faced by students. Our interest in this bill is that we must call on the other parties in the House to consider this problem in a more global context, particularly in relation to the fiscal imbalance.
At the same time, it points up the Liberal government's lack of leadership in the overall administration of education, to name just one example. The federal government is insensitive not only to the difficulties of the provinces as a result of cuts to transfer payments, given their obligations in education, but also to the difficulties students face as a result.
That is the end of my introduction, now for a brief historical overview of the situation.
In 1949, the first legislation was enacted, and this made the federal government a preferred creditor in the event of a student bankruptcy. It was therefore the first one to be paid off, and so the student could not escape his indebtedness to the federal government.
In 1992, that measure was attenuated to include only a student's first bankruptcy. In 1997, this same government added a two-year deadline. Less than a year later, to the surprise of everyone—and to this day we do not know the reason behind it—before that two-year period could even have a proper trial, they extended the period by another two years. Totally incomprehensible, that.
So, without any trial period, students found themselves faced with a discriminatory measure compared to others in society who declare bankruptcy, unable to be free of their debts for ten years.
It seems to us that it is time now for this situation to be remedied. The measure proposed by the hon. member for Halifax in Bill C-236 will enable us to correct that injustice and establish fair treatment for students.
I would not want to talk about this bill without looking at both its positive and negative aspects. In the Bloc we think the negative aspects also have to be looked at in order to make a fair judgment and see whether there is any need for amendments.
First of all, let us look at the positive aspects. Obviously there is the idea of relieving financial pressure on the most disadvantaged, in particular, and correcting the unfairness I was speaking of earlier, especially with regard to people who have trouble finding a job because, of course, these people are the ones with the most problems.
In addition, this way of doing things does not unduly liberate the individual by applying the two-year rule. A degree of responsibility is thus maintained. I will come back to that, because we think this responsibility seems rather limited.
I am coming to the disadvantages. Perhaps the hon. member for Halifax has already considered them. Perhaps she already has some answers. For our part, we are trying to find a way that students would feel a little more responsible in that time period. The length of time seems about right. Still, we often talk about moral responsibility, but how can we see it in this bill and say that it will not only be felt but also assumed and put into practice?
I will conclude the last part of my remarks with a few words about the federal government's withdrawal. Since 1990, the federal government has been gradually backing out of transferring funding to the provinces for education, which created a fiscal imbalance. This is one central aspect of the debate as we consider the budget.
This withdrawal represents a 40% shortfall in transfers to the provinces for education. This means that, from 1994 to 1998, an amount of $6.2 billion was not transferred to Quebec for health and education. That is a huge amount. This situation was never corrected. It still exists and its impact can still be felt. It is reflected in almost every area of society, including this issue. That is why we believe it should be considered from the angle of the fiscal imbalance.
Mr. Lui Temelkovski (Oak Ridges—Markham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak about why we need to preserve the integrity of the Canada student loans program and ensure access to higher education in Canada by voting against Bill C-236.
In the Speech from the Throne the Government of Canada pledged to build a Canada where the creativity and talents of all Canadians are maximized. The role of government is to give Canadians the tools and opportunities they need to make the most of their lives. We understand that investing in the skills of our citizens is simply one of the best investments we can make as a nation.
By 2007, 70% of the new jobs in Canada will need some form of post-secondary education, whether it is a trade, a college diploma or degree, but as many as 42% of working age Canadians lack the necessary literacy and other essential skills to meet these requirements. Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the Government of Canada has made skills development and learning a priority.
Certainly part of the answer lies in opening up access to post-secondary education. Among OECD countries Canada has the highest rate of participation in post-secondary education. Canada has one of the most effective student financial assistance programs in the world.
Through the Canada student loans program we are doing much to help students cope with the rising cost of post-secondary education. Over the last 40 years the Canada student loans program has earned respect across the country by helping countless students meet the cost of post-secondary education. About 330,000 Canadian students a year currently benefit from this program, which last year lent $1.6 million to students in need.
We recognize that more must be done to improve access to education. More must be done to help students cope with the rising costs and high debt load upon graduation. That is why we have made improvements to the Canada student loans program.
Members may recall that the 10 year prohibition on discharging student loans was introduced in 1998 as a means of improving the integrity and accountability of our student loans program in Canada. By increasing the prohibition on discharging loans to 10 years and introducing improved measures to assist students in financial difficulty, we were able to significantly reduce the number of students declaring bankruptcy in Canada.
If a student goes bankrupt, the student loan stays on the books for 10 years, allowing the student time to settle down, find a job and begin making payments. The Government of Canada recognizes that it is wrong to penalize students with bankruptcy and a bad credit rating right after completing their studies when their potential for earning has yet to be realized.
Over the years the Government of Canada has made significant improvements to the Canada student loans program. New debt relief measures were introduced to help students manage their debt and avoid declaring bankruptcy. These include interest relief and debt reduction in repayment. Interest relief is a debt management measure which provides students who are experiencing temporary financial difficulty in repaying their student loans with up to 54 months of relief on loan repayments. While students are on interest relief, they are not required to make any payments of either the principal or interest on their loans. During that time the Government of Canada pays the monthly interest on the loan.
Debt reduction in repayment is a targeted debt management measure. It is available to help students who have exhausted interest relief, but continue to remain in financial difficulty.
Debt reduction in repayment reduces the student's loan principal by up to $10,000 and aims to lower the monthly loan payment to an affordable level relative to his or her income. In the event that a student continues to remain in financial difficulty following this reduction, he or she may be eligible for two additional reductions of up to $5,000 each in 12 month intervals.
In implementing debt management measures, our goal was to encourage more student borrowers to make use of them as an alternative to declaring bankruptcy and creating bad credit histories.
These programs have been a tremendous success. They have helped many Canadian students avoid declaring bankruptcy and get back on their feet again.
Since their introduction in 1998, more student borrowers are taking advantage of these debt management measures. In fact, in 2001-02 over 140,000 student borrowers accessed the interest relief program at a cost of $77 million.
In the 2003 federal budget we introduced new measures to allow borrowers who declared bankruptcy to be eligible for new loans, interest relief and debt reduction in repayment. These new amendments came into effect last May. This change has helped literally hundreds of Canadian students complete their studies.
New changes to debt management measures were introduced in the last federal budget. They include measures to increase the income threshold used to determine eligibility for interest relief by 5%, and to increase the total amount of debt reduction in repayment from $20,000 to $26,000.
Bill C-236 asks Parliament to revert to the two year rule used before 1998. We know from experience that the two year rule simply does not work. It does not give Canadian students the time they need to become established, find well paying jobs and begin making payments on their loans.
Before changes were made to the bankruptcy rules, more than 53,000 students declared bankruptcy between 1990 and 1997 at a staggering cost of $445 million to the government in unpaid student loans.
By extending the period to 10 years, the Government of Canada has been successful in helping to curb the number of bankruptcies of recent student borrowers. Only 5,945 student borrowers declared bankruptcy between 1998 and 2000. During that same period approximately 230,000 borrowers received interest relief and over 900 borrowers benefited from debt reduction in repayment.
As a matter of fact, high bankruptcy rates between 1990 and 1996 were the catalyst for the government's decision to introduce new measures to lower student bankruptcies, such as the 10 year rule.
Allowing students time to make their way in the world after graduating is the right thing to do. That is why I am urging members to vote against Bill C-236.
Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in today’s changing economy, education is a critical ingredient. This is the case both for individual improvement and advancement, and for the development of human and social capital, essential to growing our country’s economy.
The Conservative Party understands the importance of higher education to improving the condition and standard of living of our families. We know the important role of education in making the cultural fabric of our communities stronger, and our individual lives intellectually rich and fulfilling.
And the Conservative Party understands the critical contribution of a skilled and educated workforce to the innovation, productivity and competitiveness of our economy.
Encouraging higher education and personal skills development is seen by the Conservative Party as fundamental to a strong economy and a brighter future for all Canadians. Learning and higher education in particular, is a positive social good that particularly benefits the individuals involved, while at the same time enriching all of society.
This bill to address the issue of problem student debt is well-intentioned. While I share the objectives of making it easier for graduates to cope with student debts, I am not convinced that the proposal before us today is good policy
We believe that the current law, providing that any student debt survives a bankruptcy for 10 years after a student leaves school is too long. But 2 years, as proposed in this bill, is too short, and may well encourage unnecessary bankruptcy declarations to shed debt, before individuals have an opportunity to become fully contributing workforce members and citizens for whom bankruptcy brings other adverse consequences.
Responsibility is also a value we want to promote--and we should be encouraging individuals to honour their obligations to their fellow citizens, whether that be by paying their taxes or paying their student loans. That is why we feel a five year period is an appropriate middle ground.
For those who feel student debt should be treated the same as any commercial debt, we should remember that there is a difference.
The criteria for commercial lending is credit worthiness and availability of assets for security. Student loans, however, are awarded on the exact opposite criteria—a lack of financial assets and a lack of income. Student loans are more like a social program than a commercial loan.
That is why we cannot understand the way this Liberal government is operating the Canada Student Loans program as a profit-making centre today. When banks lend to their best customers, those borrowers pay prime rate. A typical loan to an average customer is prime plus 1%.
Yet this Liberal government is charging students prime plus 2.5% on floating rate loans, and a staggering prime plus 5% on fixed rate loans.
Is it any wonder students are having trouble coping with debt. When the compounding factor is considered, it is not long before young people, trying to establish themselves and start families, find themselves sinking towards bankruptcy.
Right now, at posted floating rates, the government is charging 6.75% on student debt, money the government has borrowed at an average of 3.8%—that is a pretty good margin. It shows how the Liberal government is using the Canada Student Loans program to make a profit, rather than to assist young Canadians in achieving an education and building brighter futures.
We in the Conservative Party have been calling on this government to stop this practice of gouging students with excessively high student loan interest rates, and to lower the rate to a more conventional prime plus 1%.
Lowering student loan interest rates is a much better solution to student debt than having more young graduates start their working lives by going into bankruptcy. That is why we prefer lower student loan interest rates to a policy of making it easier to default on debt and go bankrupt.
While we have been calling on the government to restore fairness to student loan interest rates, we continue to have only uncaring, insensitivity in the Liberal indifferent response. In fact, notwithstanding higher tuitions, and rising debt burdens, this Liberal government seems blissfully unaware of the challenges students face today.
In the Conservative Party, we do not want the financial costs of education to be a barrier to learning. Fear of mounting student debt and bankruptcy cannot be allowed to prevent young Canadians from pursuing their dreams. If the financial burden of education is discouraging students from achieving their best, and enjoying the benefits of higher education, then all of us, and all of Canada, will be poorer for it.
This legislation is well-intentioned, but flawed. And its greatest flaw is that the answer to student debt problems lies not in easier bankruptcy, but in more manageable debt loads, with lower, fairer student interest rates.
That is why we, in the Conservative Party, once again are calling on this government to lower student loan interest rates to prime plus 1%. That is what Conservatives believe. And that would be a change for the better.
Mr. Wajid Khan (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak on a bill that concerns the future of young Canadians in our country.
I commend the member for Halifax for encouraging us to revisit the timelines and procedures we have in place for the repayment of Canada student loans by those facing financial difficulties.
It seems that the bill is asking us to take a very simple step. Currently, students or recent graduates who declare bankruptcy cannot discharge their Canada student loans for 10 years following their declarations. The bill requests that we change the 10 year period to a 2 year period. We can presume that the intention behind the bill is to ease the financial responsibilities of those who declare bankruptcy by discharging their student debt earlier.
Unfortunately, the issue is more complex than we might at first think. We will need to examine closely the repercussions of taking such a step.
Let me first acknowledge that students today are facing increased costs of post-secondary education and, as a result, increased debt loads. It is not easy for them to finance their education and that is where the Canada student loan program comes into play. Without these loans, many Canadian students would never make it to college or university. It is our way of levelling the playing field, of increasing access to post-secondary education for all Canadians regardless of their socio-economic status, their gender or their ethnic background. Everyone can apply and everyone is treated equally.
For most students, post-secondary education helps them develop the skills and experience they need to launch their careers and find employment. With this employment, they are able to pay back their student loans over time.
Some students, however, face financial difficulties and have problems meeting their loan repayment obligations. Between 1990 and 1997, for example, 53,000 students and recent graduates declared personal bankruptcy to discharge this obligation, at a cost to taxpayers of $445 million in defaulted federal student loans. That is an average of over 7,500 students and $63.5 million per year. Incidentally, that was when we last had the two year rule: after a two year waiting period following bankruptcy, student debt was automatically discharged.
Not surprisingly, the Government of Canada became concerned about the high number of bankruptcies taking place in the 1990s. We did not and we do not want young Canadians to make such a drastic move so early in their lives. They often do not realize the negative impact that declaring bankruptcy will have on their credit rating and their future financial and personal well-being.
In 1998 the Government of Canada decided to act. We brought in the Canadian opportunities strategy, which introduced new measures to help young Canadians manage their student debt. For the first time all students were eligible to get tax relief for interest payments on their student loans.
Interest relief was extended for a maximum of 30 months to up to 54 months during the first five years after leaving school. The measure provides students in financial difficulty with relief of loan payments. While on interest relief, students are not required to make any payments on their loans, of either principal or interest.
Students were able to extend their loan repayment period from 10 years to up to 15 years in order to lower their monthly loan payments to more manageable levels.
Debt reduction in repayment was introduced to provide students remaining in financial difficulty five years after leaving school with a reduction in loan principal of up to $10,000 or 50% of the loan principal, whichever was less.
These debt management measures were introduced in tandem with a change to the bankruptcy rule from two years to 10 years to help students manage their debt and provide an alternative to bankruptcy.
As a direct result, the number of student loan bankruptcies in defaults declined significantly. Between 1998 and 2000, only 5,945 borrowers declared bankruptcy, representing $42 million in federal student loans. This is less than half the average annual figures for the previous seven years.
As demonstrated by the Canadian opportunities strategy, we are doing much to support students as they work to repay their student loans. In doing so, we are also making sure that bankruptcy is absolutely the last option and one they will hopefully never have to take.
The 2003 federal budget announced further enhancements by extending eligibility for debt management measures to students who, despite their best efforts, found themselves in bankruptcy. As of May 11, 2004, students who declare bankruptcy may be eligible for both interest relief and debt reduction in repayment. In addition, new Canada student loans are available to students who declare bankruptcy while still in school so that they can finish their post-secondary studies and meet their obligations to repay outstanding student loans.
The 2004 federal budget further enhanced existing measures to provide even more support for borrowers who face financial difficulties. These include: increasing the amount of debt reduction available from $20,000 to $26,000; and increasing the income thresholds used to determine eligibility for interest relief by 5%.
If we are doing all of this to support Canadian students, why not go one step further and change the 10 year rule back to the 2 year rule that we had before 1998? It is for three very important reasons: we need to be fair; we need to be realistic; and we need, most of all, to be accountable.
First of all, we need to be fair to Canadian citizens. We are using taxpayer revenues to finance Canada student loans. Canadians are therefore investing in the future of their country by investing in the future of its young people. As investors, they have every right to expect that legally binding agreements will be respected and student loans will be repaid.
We need to be fair to other students by treating them equally and affording them all the same rights and responsibilities under the Canada student loans program. Canadian students have the right to apply for a student loan, but they also have the responsibility to pay back that loan, even when times get tough. We are responsible to them, but they are responsible to us.
We need to be fair to future students. The Canada student loans program has existed for 40 years. We must ensure that it remains an economically viable program for the next 40 years and beyond.
Our parents benefited from student loans and many of us have benefited from student loans. We must protect this program so that our children can also benefit. We cannot do that if the money loaned out today does not get paid tomorrow.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
It being 2:06 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday March 7 at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:06 p.m.)