2005-04-15

Ways and MeansHon. Albina Guarnieri (Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1) I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion to introduce an act to provide services, assistance and compensation to or in respect of Canadian Forces members and veterans, and to make amendments to certain acts.
I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of this motion.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from April 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-43, a bill reflective of the arrogance of the government. Before I speak to specific financial items, let us discuss why this piece of legislation is so large and includes items that should be put forward as stand-alone legislation.
I refer to the Atlantic accord, a promise made to the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, that is buried in this legislation.
The Prime Minister feigns support for this accord, but holds the provinces hostage by linking it, or perhaps I should say burying it, in the bill. The accord should be presented as stand-alone legislation. The government has dictated to the country for too many years and this level of legislative manipulation must stop. I and the Conservative Party see it, and the people of Canada agree.
The other item lumped into the bill is the so-called Kyoto plan. This conniving government knew the Kyoto measures were distasteful to the majority of the House, so it piled them into the bill to delay legitimate budget measures or at least put them at risk.
Let us turn to the budget measures in the bill. We should ask ourselves of the unfocused and wasteful practices of the government and allow Canadians to decide if the people handling our purse strings have the right stuff.
Certainly in the areas of projecting surpluses we have been woefully represented in the past and in the present, and using past behaviour to predict future ability, the government will not be able to predict correctly again.
Let us speak of our surplus predictions which in fact continue to result in the overtaxation of the Canadian people to the tune of billions and billions of dollars each year.
If honest business people in the country were to inadvertently overcharge their customers, I believe in each case an attempt would be made to find the customer who has been overcharged and rightfully refund the difference. However, the government chooses not to attempt to return this overtaxation to its rightful place. It uses it at its whim.
I may have just made two mistakes. I compared the government to the honest business people in Canada and with the current reputation of the government, I am afraid I have insulted the business community. I also said that if persons were inadvertently overcharged and the surpluses were inadvertent; however, I do not believe these surpluses were inadvertent.
That having been said, about the inability of the government to predict financial outcomes, is the reason why the Conservative Party continues to ask for the creation of an independent parliamentary budget forecast office. The government has announced so many items in the budget which will simply not occur for years to come. Most, if not all, of the tax relief in the budget is back end loaded. It will not be a benefit to the hard working people of Elgin—Middlesex—London and indeed all of Canada for several years.
The government has made announcing an art form. Every piece of news is announced again and again, and sometimes even again and again. Canadians continue to be retold each idea. Is this the trial balloon method? Does the government simply announce plans to the Canadian people in budgets and throne speeches to test the drive of Canadian voters with its schemes?
It announced this year's tax relief schedule for some time in 2009 to provide some perverse guidance as to whether anyone out there likes it or not. If they do not, it does not really ever take place anyway. I suspect that a great many items in the budget fall into this category.
The personal tax relief measures in the bill are insufficient. They amount to a reduction of no more than $16 next year and if we can wait until 2009, there are plenty of paltry goodies for us. This is a bait and switch game that the taxpayers of the country do not want to play.
Let us discuss tax cuts. I have already mentioned the personal tax cuts. Let us discuss the increase in the guaranteed income supplement, as paltry as it is, and the years of waiting it will take for it to come into effect. It may all be for naught as provincial governments allow for clawbacks or seniors in subsidized nursing homes will have this amount simply taken by the nursing home. Is this how we honour our seniors?
Let us discuss the air travel security charge. This is a tax on business, tourism, and on travelling Canadians. A meagre reduction of this tax will not result in any meaningful difference in airline fares. This continues to be yet another tax grab by the government.
Here is an example of the changes. The basic tax for flights in Canada is now $4.67. This is a reduction from $6.54. That is $1.87 per flight. Wow, I can buy a cup of coffee. Wait, no I cannot because airport rents in Canada are so high that any savings must be eaten up by increased airfares to cover these rents. What happened to the airport rent reductions?
The Conservative Party members in the last election set plans and priorities for both tax cuts and investments committing nearly $58 billion over five years. They were told by the government that they were being irresponsible, that the Conservative Party was just wrong. However, just 10 or 11 months later here we stand with a budget to almost the exact amount we had said.
Not only were Canadians being told it was affordable all along, again we have the arrogance and manipulation that only this government can be right. If anyone else finds a better or more responsible way, they are wrong, at least temporarily wrong until the government takes their ideas to make them its own. So again, it was just a political ploy at election time to discredit the Conservative Party and to prevent Canadians from electing a good, honest government.
This brings me to the area of management and I may repeat some, but it needs repeating. We as Conservatives have asked the government for tax relief for low and middle income Canadians. It has become more and more evident of late that despite bragging about great reductions in taxation, Canadians continue to say “show me the money”. Despite stated reductions in taxation, the hard-working people of Elgin—Middlesex—London and the rest of Canada have less money in their pockets.
We must find a way to both offer needed services for the citizens of this great country and to stimulate growth of our economy. We must ensure that all money taken from Canadians in the form of taxes or taken in payroll deductions or in fees by the government is treated with the respect it deserves.
We must remember the source of these funds: the pockets, the wallets, the bank accounts, and the piggy-banks of Canadians. These funds belong to the people, not the finance minister. It is the job of the government to wisely collect, account for, and prescribe spending that this country needs to support its people remembering that the money belongs to the people. We must ensure that only the amount needed to accomplish the needs of Canada is taken from citizens and that the habit of huge surplus budgets must end. We must, as suggested, implement a fully independent process for forecasting the government's financial situation.
The government has proven that either through deceit or ignorance it cannot be trusted to take billions and billions more from the taxpayer. If we just leave these funds with Canadians in the first place, we will save the cost of collection and influence the disposable income of all Canadians. The government must also ensure that tax dollars and other funds sent to the government must also be treated with the respect they deserve. We must erase waste. The government has a legacy of waste, mismanagement, and now corruption.
Canadians value their earnings more than the government. The waste of the sponsorship debacle, the gun registry fiasco, and budget errors, all have permanently set into the minds of all Canadians. Many Canadians cringe each time they send money or have it taken from them. They think of the wasteful way in which it is about to be spent.
Canadians are fully aware of the hoax of our employment insurance funding. So many young, low income earners are stolen from on every paycheque, EI deductions are made for a program they can never use. Employers then pay matching contributions into a fund that should be used as an emergency support fund to assist workers. Out of no fault of their own, the government uses their money as it sees fit.
In summary, let me say that this bill and this budget have some glaring faults.
It is a disservice to the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to have the Atlantic accord lumped into this bill. The Conservative Party continues to believe that its separation into stand-alone legislation would be best for Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.
The Conservative Party and most of this Parliament would like to see the Kyoto measures separated from this budget so they can be discussed on their own merit or lack thereof.
If one practises something long enough, one gets good at it. Over a decade of Liberal waste, mismanagement and scandal, billions of dollars sent to Ottawa would have been much better left in the pockets of Canadians.
The Conservative Party has said that it will strive to make this minority Parliament work so long as it is in the best interests of Canadians. Currently this bill is not reflective of that principle. We will work to try to turn this bill into legislation that is in the best interests of Canadians.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the debate today is certainly going to be interesting, but I cannot help but respond to the member's reference on the budget planning process. He seemed to take umbrage with the fact that the government has had a surplus this year, last year and the previous year.
Would he not accept that the existence of a surplus involves two separate things? The first is that it is a legitimate part of the budget planning process, whereby we do not plan to have a deficit; we plan to do better than break even. When we spend $150 billion a year, trying to get that dollar right on the money is difficult, and this government has decided to err on the side of caution and build in contingencies so we will inevitably end up with a surplus rather than a deficit. I think Canadians are happy with that. The second point is that every bit of our surplus, whatever it happens to be, and if there is one, gets applied to the national debt, which is a little heavy. We are making good progress on it.
Would he not accept those two elements in the budget planning process and would he not accept that his criticism of a surplus is a little over the top and a little unfair to Canadians?
Joe Preston: Mr. Speaker, what is unfair to Canadians is the amount of money taken from their wallets each and every year that is over and above what this government needs to do the job it is asked to do.
We have had eight years of surpluses. In each of those years there have been budgets that have had contingency funds in them. We need not mix up what the contingency fund is versus the surplus. We allow a flexibility in budgeting by allowing the contingency fund to be there for emergency use, but to then add to that another $9 billion or $10 billion worth of surplus is just excessive taxation on the backs of the people of Elgin—Middlesex—London and the people of Canada.
We have had eight years of surpluses. In each and every case, the surplus has been projected to be minuscule compared to where it has ended up. This is just poor planning and excessive taxation. As I stated in my debate, this is like walking into a store and being overcharged, with the owner of the store not caring whether we ever get our money back.
When my good citizens of Elgin—Middlesex—London send their tax dollars to Ottawa, they expect that those dollars will be enough to cover the difference. When they find out that the government has taken percentages more than it needed to do the job, they expect that perhaps they will get some value back for that money.
The member mentioned paying down debts and adequate use of surpluses. That tends to happen only when the surplus is discovered after the year has ended. If the surplus is discovered while the year is still in existence, then of course it goes to this government's whims and the spending non-priorities of this government.
Mr. Guy Côté (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague has expressed very well the tendency of this government to underestimate surpluses over at least the last eight years. What we have seen in the last eight years is in fact much more serious. Overall, we can say that the government is quite good at estimating expenditures, which are usually in line with its forecasts. The problem lies mainly with the revenues, which are consistently underestimated.
Recently, the Standing Committee on Finance heard some officials of the Department of Finance. We told one of them that we found it quite strange that the Department would consistently underestimate its revenues for eight years. The official's answer was exceptionally candid. He said that the Department of Finance had to calculate an average of the surpluses or a fiscal balance average, but that it could not be done on a ten year period. The figures have to be calculated every year. However, the government's budget is based on a five year period. The finance minister should, perhaps, be talking to his officials.
As far as debt repayment is concerned, there is no budgetary item in this budget for the debt repayment. What we have seen in the last eight years is accounting calculations, macroeconomic calculations, and what I now call creative calculations through contingency reserves, prudence reserves and ministerial anxiety reserves.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London for a short answer. His time is almost up.
Joe Preston: Mr. Speaker, my friend is absolutely right. The expenditures have been almost exactly the same in each budget. They have certainly known how to plan their spending. It continues to increase.
With what the Liberals have done for eight years, it is no wonder that there is no area in the budget that talks about debt retirement. Apparently even the IMF is critical of their budget planning from a surplus point of view. In each of the past eight years they just simply have had a surplus. That is what they use it for. They no longer have to plan debt retirement. They know they will have a surplus because of the poor planning they use to plan the surplus in Canada. They take the money from the good hard-working people of Canada and they have it left over at the end of the year.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this legislation is about implementing the budget delivered in the House on February 23, which implements many of the commitments made to Canadians by the government during the last election campaign and which were reaffirmed and expanded on in the Speech from the Throne. The budget is about planning for the future. What is going to be done to make this a better country, to make our communities better and to make life better for all Canadians?
I want to talk today about the fastest growing segment of our population and that is people over the age of 65. In particular, my riding has the third highest proportion of seniors of any constituency right across Canada, second only to Victoria and St. Catharines.
Measures in the budget to make seniors' lives better are extremely important. That is why I want to offer one comment on their behalf to the member who just spoke, because part of planning for the future is paying off one's debt. The seniors I speak about this morning have lived a long time. They have owned homes, they have had mortgages and they know the value of paying off one's debt or credit cards and saving on interest, which the opposite side seems not to understand. Perhaps opposition members prefer to see us continue to have rising interest payments rather than paying off debt and saving $3 billion a year on interest payments, which is money that we can invest in programs that are important for our citizens.
Obviously for many seniors who raised their families and grew old through much more difficult times than we are experiencing in this country today, enough to live on with dignity and comfort in retirement is extremely important. That is why a number of measures in the budget are very important to seniors.
For one thing, the guaranteed income supplement that goes to any Canadian senior below a certain level of income is increasing for the first time since 1984. There have been annual increases to cover the cost of living, but for the first time in 21 years there is an increase in the budget to the basic amount of guaranteed income supplement. That will benefit single seniors to the extent of $400 a year and couples by $700.
In total, that is an amount of $2.7 billion being dedicated to our lowest income seniors. The amount of $2.7 billion happens to be coincidentally close to the amount we are saving on interest payments every year because of the debt repayment that the government has made with its surpluses.
The other important thing for seniors on low incomes is increasing the basic income tax deduction to $10,000. When fully implemented, this will take 240,000 low income seniors totally off the tax rolls of Canada.
As people live longer, they are also staying more active. That is why the new horizons program is very important. In my riding there are numerous volunteer organizations, many of them run by seniors themselves. They provide programs and activities and get people out of their homes and involved with the community. I am pleased to note that we will be more than doubling the new horizons program in the next two years from $10 million to $25 million, allowing for more programs for seniors, more activities and more involvement with the community.
Many seniors are not so lucky and in fact need caregiving either by family or somebody else outside the home. That is a very expensive thing for families or for the seniors themselves. This budget doubles from $5,000 to $10,000 the amount that can be deducted in regard to the costs to provide the care for someone who needs it, care that costs money.
Increasingly this population will require special measures in a large number of areas. It will be an ever more significant part of the population of Canada. That is why establishing an national seniors secretariat to look at the ongoing and new needs of seniors is extremely important. I mentioned that many seniors stay much more active, much longer, but living longer also means more health problems such as mobility and eyesight. What we have invested in health care is also extremely important to seniors.
I know there is a lot of skepticism about whether the additional nearly $100 billion since 2001 we are giving to the provinces for health care is going to really make a difference. The difference this time is we have agreed targets with the provinces for improving wait times by two years from now. That amount of money also contributes to ambulatory and community care for people who need it, that includes a lot of seniors. The focus is very much on those diseases and conditions that affect seniors such as joint replacement, cancer, heart problems, and ensuring that diagnosis and treatment is available faster.
However, just as important is the money we are investing in public health. If we need more and more health care and treatment of illnesses, which does happen with an aging population, one of the ways to keep our public health care system sustainable is to ensure we do everything possible to keep Canadians as healthy as possible. In a couple of weeks I will be holding a forum in Ottawa West--Nepean with the Minister of Public Health to get the ideas from our community on how we keep all our citizens healthier, our children, our families, our seniors.
Seniors also benefit by the new money that will go to communities and cities, through forgiving the GST and transferring an increasing portion of the gas tax to municipalities. For seniors living in their own homes, property taxes can be a huge burden. They may have wonderful old homes, but their incomes have not kept up with what is required from them in the way of taxes. By transferring $600 million this year, and that goes on every year, increasing to $2 billion by the year 2010 to our cities, that will relieve the demands they have to put on property taxpayers to pay for things like roads, clean water, sewers, parks and recreation programs. That directly benefits seniors who often have the hardest time paying higher property taxes.
However, seniors care about more than their own interests. They have also worked very hard and sacrificed a lot to educate their sons and daughters. They want to be sure that their sons and daughters can use their education in their jobs and careers and that their grandchildren or great-grandchildren will be well looked after. That is why the national child care program is also important for seniors. It allows their children to live the lives that they have educated and raised them for and to live the most productive lives they can.
I want to also mention that seniors want the best possible lives for their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. In the budget money has been dedicated toward cleaner water, cleaner land and cleaner air. A planet that we can survive on is also important for seniors. They know and I know that long after we are gone, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be living with the decisions we make today on how to protect the environment of our world. That is one element of the budget that I am extremely proud of as well.
On behalf of the many seniors who I represent, while there is not everything in the budget I would like to see, there is a great deal there that will make life better for seniors in Canada.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member from the Liberal side of the House talk about the surplus. It is a good thing to have a surplus in the budget. However, I would remind her that for the past eight years her government has lowballed the surplus to the tune of almost $80 billion in terms of the amount over eight years.
We had the CEO of the congressional budget office before our finance committee. She talked about the independent budget forecast of the Americans. She told us that either the administration or the independent budget office could be out, but they were not consistently out one way all the time. In other words, they do not consistently overestimate or underestimate. There are a lot of variables. In fact, it would be wrong on the low side as often as it would be wrong on the high side.
I put it to the member that what this does is hurt the credibility of this government. It hurts the credibility of the industry that is assisting it. At a time when we have had a real flurry of corporate malfeasance across North America, I would think the finance minister and the government would want to be as credible as possible.
Only six weeks after the budget was presented on February 23, the fiscal forecasters hired by the finance committee has hired, have already said that the finance minister's figure is not accurate. They are already saying that it is $3 billion higher than six weeks ago.
I see that the member is getting some help from the parliamentary secretary. I do not think it will help because this is indefensible.
The Liberals are at it again. How does this member defend the practice of lowballing surpluses all the time?
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I would hardly be quoting the United States as a fine example of budget planning. Look at its deficit and rising debt. Look at how much Americans are paying in interest alone. This money is not going into providing health care. The Americans have a system with 40 million people with no health coverage and most of them are women and children. Is that the sample the member wants to put in front of this House and in front of Canadians as what we should be striving for? Thanks, but no thanks.
I spoke about seniors. Every senior understands the importance of saving for a rainy day, and that may be an old fashioned expression. If the government plans exactly what it thinks it will spend and receive, if revenues do not meet the expenses and if there is a sudden crises, such as the Persian Gulf war or the tsunami with which we want to help, we cannot afford it without going into debt.
If we budgeted the way the member opposite would want us to do, then we would be back where we were when we were in opposition, between 1988 and 1993, listening to repeated budget promises about getting out of the deficit and balancing the books. Instead the debt kept going up, the interest payments kept going up and services for Canadians kept dropping year by year.
I would rather err on the side of caution and pay off a bit of debt at the end of the year. I think most seniors and most Canadians want to see us pay down that debt. They know that means we save money in interest every year. This is money that we can spend on the environment, on seniors, on health care, on pensions and on many things that Canadians value.
Guy Côté: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member had really nice words for senior citizens and young children.
Unfortunately, they are just that, words. Actually, in this budget plan, the increases in the guaranteed income supplement benefits will only start next year. The first increase will be just $16 a month for an individual living alone. In 2007, the increase will be just $36 a month. I am sorry, but that is not enough to buy a single book in a bookstore. The hon. member should not lecture us about the benefits the government has granted to seniors. It is just window-dressing.
If there is one province where the early learning and child care system is working well, it is Quebec. Once again this is clearly a provincial and Quebec jurisdiction, but the federal government is intruding once more.
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I will simply repeat that this is the first time since 1984 a government of any political party has raised basic benefits for senior citizens. If the hon. member thinks $700 a year does not make a difference for an elderly couple, he is badly mistaken.
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal budget tabled on February 23 is unacceptable, because it ignores the priorities of Quebeckers. For the past 12 years, this Liberal government, no matter who was at the helm, has not taken any concrete measures to fix the problems with EI, adequate funding for health and higher education, financial aid for students, agriculture, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, culture, foreign aid, to mention just a few.
Once again, there is nothing in the February budget to fix these problems. So it comes as no surprise that, having voted against the budget, I will also be voting against Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled inParliament on February 23, 2005, which is now before the House.
The Bloc Québécois has always acted responsibly. We worked to make changes to the throne speech and, immediately after the budget was tabled, we presented the government with a series of amendments. This Liberal government has rejected these improvements, particularly for EI and correcting the fiscal imbalance.
With regard to EI, I have met with women's groups in my riding and they have confirmed the discrimination they are facing because the Liberal government has imposed overly restrictive rules denying them access to EI benefits. We cannot say it enough: the EI fund belongs to the employers and workers, not the government.
In light of this minority government, the Bloc Québécois has taken an important step in its fight to improve EI by putting it back in the hands of its real owners: the workers and employers who contribute to it. I want to thank my colleague from Chambly, who has done an excellent job as the EI critic. After much diligence and hard work, the adoption at second reading of Bill C-280, introduced by the Bloc, has put us one step closer to our goal of preventing the federal government from raiding the EI fund at will in order to satisfy its obsession with paying down the debt.
I also meet youth for whom access to the workplace is not always easy. They are often faced with precarious jobs with irregular hours. Even though they work hard, they are often among the first to be laid off and, as they have not accumulated enough hours, they are not entitled to employment insurance benefits. Why is this government so stubborn that it refuses to lower EI eligibility requirements to 360 hours?
Young people are not the only ones suffering from the decisions of this federal government. Workers who are close to retirement are losing their jobs. In the riding of Drummond, the situation in recent years is quite revealing. I will just mention the sometimes brutal closing of textile plants. Many people who have spent almost their entire working lives in these jobs find themselves with nothing when plants are closed because of an administrative decision.
Let us not forget that this is the government that put an end to the program for older worker adjustment, the POWA. The current human resources minister, the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, will certainly respond that pilot projects are underway. I will simply remind her that, while pilot projects are going on and on, many men and women are going through tough times because of the Liberals' decision. Recently, an organization from our region, Les 45 ans pour l'emploi, wrote to me to ask for the reinstatement of the POWA. The same request has been made to me every time a business has had to lay off workers.
My reply has always been the same, that the request was on the table but the Liberal government continued to turn a deaf ear to their needs, in its arrogance toward the needs of older unemployed workers.
As for agriculture, a large part of my riding is agricultural, with field crops and beef and dairy operations, for example.
Agriculture is in crisis, and has been for a long time. The past 24 months may have been marked by the mad cow crisis, but field crop producers have also been suffering.
I believe the government has a duty to assist agricultural producers who are having to cope with the mad cow crisis, particularly with compensation to achieve a floor price. But instead, its actions are timid and inadequate, so much so that the farmers have recently decided on a $7 billion class action.
As for the field crop producers, I have met with them in my riding office. Despite the representations they made last years, they have received nothing tangible to counteract the trade injury they are experiencing. They continue to suffer from the federal government's withdrawal from their sector.
At their meeting with me, the farmers of my region again told me of the very difficult, even unbearable, situation being experienced by Quebec and Canadian grain producers. Why? Because prices remain terribly low and do not even cover their production costs, which just keep on increasing. Then there are the concrete interventions by the American and European governments, which have been subsidizing their agricultural sectors for a number of years.
What is Canada's reaction? Over the past 10 years of Liberal reign, while the present Prime Minister was the Minister of Finance, Canada chose the path of withdrawal from the agricultural sector, including the grain producers. Would anyone be surprised to learn that support to the agri-food sector went from 3.9% of the federal budget in 1991-92 to 1.6% in 2001-02, at the same time as Quebec grain producers were recording negative net incomes? When they came to Ottawa they hit a dead end with a Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food who did not want to listen.
I also hear regularly from the young people of Drummond about their environmental concerns. I will take this opportunity to thank and congratulate my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for the excellent work he does on the environment.
The quality of our environment concerns each and everyone of us. Indeed, we must strive to improve things and every action is important. The recent announcement by the environment minister concerning the voluntary approach accepted by the automobile industry will not result in the attainment of objectives in the area of greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Who, in the final analysis, will foot the bill? It will be the taxpayers who will have to pay instead of the large polluters, because this government has opted for the polluter-paid rather than the polluter-pay principle. As to the implementation plan for the Kyoto protocol presented on Wednesday, it is overly timid.
In terms of social housing, the federal government has totally ignored the repeated requests of the Bloc. Why not use the surpluses of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which total $3 billion, in order to build new units of social and community housing?
Needs are great: such is the opinion of the representatives of the aid network Le tremplin, of the Fédération des coopératives d'habitation and the Office municipal d'habitation de Drummondville. On December 31, 2004, in Drummondville, the eligibility list consisted of some 172 applicants, the great majority of whom were receiving employment insurance or old age security benefits.
It is hard to find adequate housing with an annual income ranging from $9,000 to $13,000. The government must make a commitment to devote 1% of program spending to the development of housing.
Much more needs to be said, but I will conclude by saying a few words on the treatment given to our seniors. Any improvement of their financial situation is a good thing. However, part 23 of the bill does not in any way correct the injustice done by the Liberals to the most vulnerable members of our society when they unfairly deprived them of their guaranteed income supplement. The government is still refusing to give seniors full retroactivity, setting the limit at 11 months.
The members of the Bloc Quebecois are committed to continuing to pressure the government until seniors in Quebec and Canada get all the benefits to which they are entitled.
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak in favour of this excellent budget.
I believe this truly is an excellent budget. It is a fine example of promises made and promises kept. During the election campaign, the government made promises with respect to the environment, national defence, child care and various other things. In the budget, we kept those promises, we did what we promised to do.
I thought it might be useful in my 10 minutes to focus less on the excellent expenditures of the budget and more on the way in which these expenditures were financed. In my role as chair of the expenditure review committee, we were charged to find $12 billion over five years to help finance the commitments of the government. While we had a number of years in which to find the $12 billion, in the end, over the space of some six to eight months, we found $11 billion, so there is now $1 billion left to go.
I would say there are two reasons why this was an important initiative. First, we needed the money. We had made the commitments in our electoral platform, had costed those commitments and found that we were $12 billion short in terms of the fiscal framework. The Prime Minister and the government made the commitment that we would pay for all these commitments but that $12 billion over five years would be financed through reallocation. In order to deliver on the commitments, we needed to find that money and we succeeded in doing so.
I might point out that $11 billion is a lot of money. Eleven billion dollars is equal to 40% of the total new departmental initiatives in the budget, which are all the initiatives other than the transfers to provinces or individuals. It was important in terms of delivering on the commitments of the government to find this money.
The second reason I think is more fundamental. The second reason involves the sound stewardship of taxpayer money and it involves what one might call a second cultural shift in the way in which Ottawa does business.
I would remind hon. members that 10 years ago this country was mired in a $42 billion deficit and the Wall Street Journal was saying that Canada was approaching third world status. At that time, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the previous prime minister, tough decisions were made to turn that deficit into a surplus. I think at the time, 10 years ago, few believed that the government would turn that deficit into surplus. Little did they know that not only have we now become the only G-7 country to balance the budget but we have done it for seven years in a row.
These decisions were extremely difficult. All Canadians paid to get from a deficit into a surplus. The point I am making is that this was a true cultural shift. Whereas in 1993 few believed that we could get into surplus, today it is difficult to find anybody in Ottawa who thinks we should go back into deficit. The ultimate proof of that is that even the NDP professes today to believe in balanced budgets. If that has sunk into the NDP, it surely is a general proposition accepted by all. I do not necessarily believe that but the culture of surpluses is so strong that the NDP at least is obliged to pretend that it believes in surpluses.
The second cultural shift is that our Prime Minister said that being in the black was essential but that it was not enough. We have to go to that second level where it will become a culture of Ottawa to not only balance the books but to ensure that every taxpayer dollar is well spent. That implies a culture of reallocation so that each and every year the government examines all of its expenditures with a view to reducing those items that are inefficient, or that have become low priority, and to shift those resources into the high priorities of that day.
That is precisely what was the spirit and the philosophy behind expenditure review. We found $11 billion in lower priority expenditure areas, areas in which we could reduce expenditures to reduce inefficiency.
We had all of that money to deliver in the budget, whether it was for the environment, for national defence, for child care, or for the new deal for cities. It is an excellent example of the first phase of the second cultural shift in Ottawa where we move to a philosophy of reallocation each and every year as stewards of taxpayers' money. There is proof that we are serious in this regard.
Many people have asked me why in the world we would carry out this reallocation exercise when we have such a big surplus. They said that they thought that this kind of thing was only done in a fiscal crisis, such as when we inherited the Conservative deficit in 1993. No, we are not doing this because there is a fiscal crisis. Thanks to the fantastic work of our Prime Minister in getting rid of the deficit, we have no fiscal crisis at all. We are one of the few countries that has balanced its books. There is no fiscal crisis in the land.
The objective of the exercise is not to deal with a fiscal crisis. The objective is to deliver good government and good stewardship of taxpayers' money to the people of Canada. That is why the government found $11 billion in relatively low priority areas and shifted that money to areas that Canadians really care about, such as the environment, child care, health care and national defence. We were able to reduce spending in areas that were less essential and deliver the money to areas where Canadians wanted it put.
We are on the way to a second cultural shift in this country. The first cultural shift was the brave and courageous actions taken by the Prime Minister when he was finance minister to eliminate the deficit and move to a culture of surpluses. This is a culture that is so embedded that even the NDP accepts it, at least on paper.
We have moved from that first cultural shift to the second cultural shift. Each and every year the government, on behalf of taxpayers, will seek to spend more wisely. It will find areas which could be dealt with more efficiently and break down the silos which occur in any large organization. In that way funds will be available to be put precisely where Canadians want them to be spent.
While the finance minister's job was to deliver the funds, my job was to collect part of the funds necessary for this exercise. It was a very positive exercise because we needed the money, and also because we demonstrated to Canadians our sound stewardship of their money. Having moved from the Prime Minister's successful efforts to eliminate the deficit, we have now moved to the second stage where each and every dollar will be reallocated and wisely spent.
The Speaker: There will be five minutes for questions and comments for the hon. Minister of National Revenue when debate is resumed on this bill.

Statements By Members
Terry Fox Marathon of HopeHon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this month marks the 25th anniversary of the Terry Fox Marathon of Hope. The magnificent commitment of this heroic Canadian is being honoured from coast to coast to coast.
As part of this celebration, the Terry Fox Foundation in cooperation with Strait Crossing Bridge Limited have announced a very special event. On Sunday, September 18 of this year, Confederation Bridge will be closed to traffic and will be the site of the 25th anniversary Marathon of Hope. From 7 a.m. to 12 p.m. people will be able to walk or run on this unique bridge, which is some 13 kilometres long.
I encourage all Canadians to come to P.E.I. and experience this event for Terry Fox. Everyone will find this unique event to be an experience of a lifetime. The Confederation Bridge is pledging $1 for every participant to commemorate the event.
VolunteerismMr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate National Volunteer Week which begins on April 17 and runs until April 23. This year's theme is “Volunteers Grow Community”.
Volunteers are indeed the backbone of our communities, both in my riding of Perth—Wellington and across Canada. By sharing their skills and knowledge with others, volunteers make an enormous contribution to improving our quality of life. We are all grateful that 6.5 million of our fellow Canadians choose to become active citizens in this way. It is therefore only fitting that we recognize our volunteers every year with a week dedicated to paying tribute to them.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the thousands of volunteers in my riding of Perth—Wellington who give so freely of their time and talents and make such a difference in our communities. Please join me in saluting our volunteers.
National Wildlife WeekMs. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during the week of April 10 to 16, Canadians will be celebrating National Wildlife Week in communities across Canada.
Sponsored by the National Wildlife Federation, for nearly 40 years, National Wildlife Week has been a useful tool to raise awareness among Canadians about our precious environment for nearly. This year the federation is encouraging people to think about wild places where they connect with nature. It could be a busy bird feeder in one's own back yard or an officially protected area like a national park.
As part of this year's campaign, the federation will be distributing National Wildlife Week educational kits to schools across the country. Thousands of young Canadians will be encouraged to learn more about wildlife conservation issues and to take an active part in protecting the environment.
Françoise Dallaire and Alfred GaudreaultMr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, two residents of my riding who have worked hard all their lives are about to take up another challenge. Tomorrow, before their families and friends, they will be uniting their destinies in the church of Saint-Alphonse.
What makes the wedding of Françoise Dallaire and Alfred Gaudreault so exceptional is the fact that that they are 86 and 96 respectively.
Counting just their sisters, brothers, children and grandchildren, their family numbers over 100. Theirs is an exceptional gesture that fosters hope and is a model for both current and future generations.
On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, myself and the people of the riding of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, I want to congratulate them and wish them many wonderful years together. Your determination and mutual trust are refreshing, and they move us.
Archbishop IakovosHon. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we were deeply saddened to learn of the death, last Sunday, of the former archbishop of the Greek Orthodoxarchdiocese of North and South America, His Eminence Archbishop Iakovos.
The enthronement of Archbishop Iakovos in 1959 ushered in a new era for Greek Orthodoxy in North America and South America. Deeply respected by all religious leaders when he retired in 1996, Archbishop Iakovos offered 37 years of service, which were distinguished by his leadership in furthering religious unity, revitalizing Christian worship and championing human and civil rights.
In the 1960s he had the courage to walk hand in hand with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., at a time when few others in the outside world did, standing up for both civil and human rights when it was not in vogue to do so, courageously supporting the freedom movement and continuously supporting the non-violent movement against poverty, racism and violence throughout his life.
Archbishop Iakovos was an admirable role model for Greek Orthodox Christians on the American continent, myself included, further affirming the importance of my faith, in my daily actions--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan--Shuswap.
Vernon VipersMr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am proud and pleased to congratulate from my riding a local junior A hockey team and four-time winners of the Royal Bank Cup, the Vernon Vipers, for donating to the Okanagan University College Foundation more than $10,000 from fifty-fifty raffle proceeds from their games between January and March of this year.
The money will be used to fund student awards, including a $2,000 scholarship for a student enrolled in full time studies, as well as bursaries for students enrolled in adult basic education, certificate, diploma and degree programs.
The mandate of the Vernon Vipers organization has always been to promote excellence in both hockey and education. With the cancellation of the NHL season, and with the Vernon Vipers' spirit of community mindedness and investment in the region's youth, I strongly recommend that the Vernon Vipers receive the Stanley Cup.
May I add that the Vipers did this without one cent of sponsorship money.
Commissioner of NunavutMs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Ann Meekitjuk Hanson on her appointment as commissioner of Nunavut. I know her previous experience as deputy commissioner in the Northwest Territories will be a great foundation for her new role.
Under the Nunavut Act the commissioner of Nunavut is the chief executive officer of the territory. The responsibilities and duties of a commissioner mirror those of a provincial lieutenant governor.
I would also like to extend my warmest thanks and appreciation to Peter Irniq who served Nunavut as commissioner for almost five years as an effective and thoughtful spokesman. I wish him all the best and thank him for his hard work on behalf of Nunavummiut.
I am confident Ann Hanson will be an effective ambassador for the north in promoting our issues and achievements.
Paul-Émile OttawaMr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during the Bloc Québécois annual general meeting in Joliette, Chief Paul-Émile Ottawa of the Conseil des Atikamekw de Manawan was elected vice-chair of our executive committee.
I am extremely pleased with Mr. Ottawa's decision to join our team because his knowledge will be extremely helpful to our Joliette executive committee and to the entire Bloc Québécois.
As chief of the Conseil des Atikamekw de Manawan, Paul-Émile Ottawa is extremely well placed to understand the needs and concerns of the people of Manawan, and is also very familiar with all the Quebec first nations claims. Furthermore, his past experience as director of social services in Manawan has also made him familiar with the daily problems of the people in his community.
To Chief Ottawa, the sovereignty of Quebec is inevitable, and the best way to represent the interests of the Atikamekw is to deal directly with Quebeckers, equal to equal, nation to nation. Congratulations to Mr. Ottawa.
Jean-Marc LalondeHon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this year the community of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell is celebrating the dedication of one of their own. The local MLA, Jean-Marc Lalonde, began his political career 35 years ago and has never looked back.
He was elected mayor of Rockland in 1976 and held that position until 1991. He made the leap to provincial politics in 1995. Among his many accomplishments, he was the driving force behind the adoption of the Franco-Ontarian flag as an official emblem. He was also the founding vice-president of the Association francophone des municipalités de l'Ontario.
Politics aside, Jean-Marc Lalonde is also dedicated to young people. For many years he was a hockey coach in Rockland, which has produced some great players including a certain Guy Lafleur, whom we all know became a hockey legend.
Congratulations to Jean-Marc Lalonde.
Alberta SceneMr. Ted Menzies (Macleod, CPC): Mr. Speaker, from April 28 to May 10 the nation's capital and Canada's National Arts Centre will come alive for Alberta Scene, a celebration of the best Alberta's arts community has to offer. Over 600 artists will perform in more than 95 events at 19 venues across the city.
As the member of Parliament for Macleod, I am particularly proud to invite all Canadians to attend the Thursday, April 28 or the Saturday, April 30 performance of Filumena , a truly Canadian opera based upon the romantic life and the tragic death of a young Italian immigrant to the Crowsnest Pass region.
In celebration of Filumena and all the great Alberta Scene performances, I invite hon. members from this chamber and the other place, Albertans and all Canadians who will be in Ottawa April 28 to May 10, to join me for a reception to be held in Room 200 West Block on Friday, April 29 at 5 p.m.
Charter of Rights and FreedomsMr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the 20th anniversary of the coming into force of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an important milestone for persons with disabilities.
This equality rights provision represents the Government of Canada's commitment to build communities in which everyone is fully included. It emphasizes that what we all want as Canadians is to have the opportunity to contribute to the economic and social life of our country.
The charter puts into words what we believe as Canadians. The guarantee of equal rights under the charter for individuals with a mental or physical disability is an important achievement and a major driver in helping Canadians with disabilities become full participants in our society.
As chair of the subcommittee on persons with disabilities, we remain committed to the goal of full inclusion for persons with disabilities.
Toronto Port AuthorityHon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Toronto needs control of its waterfront. Today a single federal institution stands between Toronto and the development of a vibrant and exciting waterfront, and that is the Toronto Port Authority.
The Toronto Port Authority was set up by the Liberal government against the wishes of the city of Toronto. It is unnecessary and worse than unnecessary, it undermines the work that needs to be done for Toronto's waterfront.
Without the port authority, the city would never have had to go through the fight that it did about the expansion of the Toronto Island Airport. Without the port authority the city would not have had to wait for the Liberals to actually pass a draft regulation to prohibit the building of a bridge to the Toronto Island Airport. That draft regulation was published shortly before the last federal election and still has not been enacted.
Perhaps the Prime Minister is waiting for another federal election in the vain hope that his party will win a majority and he can abandon this empty promise. Well, it is not going to happen. The power to decide the fate of Toronto's waterfront must be in the hands of the people of Toronto and the port authority must be abolished.
ZimbabweMr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, leading up to the recent rigged elections, Zimbabwe was the international community's cause du jour. Now that the elections are over, Robert Mugabe has manufactured himself an increased majority and the international community is doing what the international community does best, turning its attention elsewhere precisely when Zimbabwe needs it the most.
Bolstered by his increased majority, Mr. Mugabe is preparing to amend the constitution to entrench his party permanently and has started arresting opposition members of parliament. Nelson Chamisa, the courageous MP and opposition youth leader who is my parliamentary twin, was arrested for distributing pamphlets. Others have been detained on similar pretexts.
Meanwhile, in a country where food is in desperately short supply, Zimbabweans who are known opposition supporters have been ordered to leave the food lines where corn is being distributed. Only the worst monsters in human history have employed hunger as a weapon. International pressure could stop the use of this weapon in Zimbabwe.
Now of all times is the moment when the world must not forget the suffering people of Zimbabwe.
Employment InsuranceMs. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois reached a major milestone in its fight to improve the employment insurance program, despite massive opposition by the Liberal members.
On Wednesday, the House passed Bill C-280 at second reading. This legislation, which was introduced by the Bloc Québécois, is another step toward our objective of preventing the federal government from dipping at will into the employment insurance account.
The bill proposes the establishment of an independent commission to manage all the assets of the employment insurance account, set the premium rate and recommend improvements to the program.
This victory is a significant step for all workers, but the battle is not over. We will continue the fight until employment insurance contributors obtain justice by taking control of their fund.
The Prime MinisterMr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker,

Humming and hawing,Toing and froing,Bobbing and weaving,Coming and going.The seed of decision bears fruit but it withers,Who could it be? It's Prime Minister Dithers.His utmost priority's constantly changing,Polling and focus groups are a distraction.The Titanic deck chairs may need rearranging,He'd like to but can't find the courage for action.The Liberals say ice caps will flow into rivers,But there's only hot air from our Mr. Dithers.The Gomery commission, the Liberal connection,He promised to dig and he hoped for a plaudit,He's mad as hell and he will get to the bottom,As long as it doesn't involve a real audit.His claims of sincerity give us the shivers,No Clouseau, just clueless, our poor Mr. Dithers.

The EnvironmentHon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me quote what the leader of the official opposition said on CTV Canada AM, September 6, 2002: “What I am supportive of is, frankly, not ratifying the Kyoto agreement and not implementing it”. Or how about this one on CTV news, September 4, 2002: Kyoto is “the worst international agreement this country has ever signed”.
Is the position clear on Kyoto? The Conservatives oppose Kyoto, right? This week they tried to camouflage their opposition to Kyoto. They state that they support Kyoto, but want to achieve targets almost 10 years later than we have agreed to. That is like saying that I want to run the marathon, but I need 10 years more to make it to the finish line.
Canadians are not fooled by the Conservative Party's newly found love of the environment. The Liberal government has shown leadership all along on Kyoto. Shame on the Conservatives for trying to--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
Art CoulterMr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the working people of Manitoba had no greater friend than Art Coulter who passed away on April 11.
Art dedicated his long and full life to elevating the standards of wages and working conditions for all Manitobans. After serving in the second world war, Art helped organize the union at Canada Malting, became secretary-treasurer of the Winnipeg Labour Council, executive secretary to the Manitoba Federation of Labour, and was elected to Winnipeg City Council.
A lifelong supporter of the New Democratic Party, Art served as the official agent for Stanley Knowles through seven federal elections and over 25 years. Art has been recognized with an honorary Doctorate of Laws, the Order of Manitoba, and many service awards. Perhaps his greatest legacy is the gratitude and appreciation of his brothers and sisters in the labour movement, and in the international struggle for social and economic justice.
Art Coulter, a social democrat, a life well lived, was a great Canadian.

Oral Question Period
Sponsorship ProgramHon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard testimony from one of the star witnesses at the Gomery commission. I think I can summarize Mr. Corriveau's testimony in this way. The more money he received from the Liberals, the less he remembered. Is that not lovely?
We do not need a final report from the Gomery commission and we do not need a court order to get the government to start paying back money.
Why does the Prime Minister not do the right thing, get his friends in the Liberal Party together, tell them that the jig is up, that all the commissions, kickbacks, and dirty money they have received should be returned to the people?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the individual attacks a witness before the Gomery commission. His leader has in fact said that some of the witnesses are lying. The deputy leader over there has accused some of the testimony as being a sham.
It is very clear that opposition members do not trust a lot of the testimony before Gomery, which is even more reason why they ought to wait for Justice Gomery to sift through all the testimony and then to report to Canadians by using his extensive experience as a jurist to get to the bottom of it to present Canadians with the truth.
I agree with the hon. member, we should--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Niagara Falls.
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, next week, the House will adopt a motion proposing that the Liberal Party put in a trust account the dirty money from the sponsorships. The Prime Minister has already endorsed the idea. He said they had made it very clear that this money would be put in a trust account, and his Minister of Transport said the same thing. However, yesterday, in the House, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services contradicted his leader.
Do the Liberals intend to run a fourth election campaign with dirty money, yes or no?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, that is not true. The party made it clear that if it received inappropriate funds, it will refund taxpayers.
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, for over a year now we have witnessed the worst fraud and corruption this country has seen since Confederation, and yet, throughout that period of time, the government has refused to answer questions on this.
I want to remind the government that the Canadian House of Commons is the highest democratic institution in this country, and we deserve answers on this and every question every day.
What does the minister have to hide? Why does he not come clean and start paying that money back to Canadians now?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the opposition called for and wanted to have an independent judicial inquiry. There is an independent judicial inquiry. That independent judicial inquiry is actually working quite well and progressing properly, and is getting to the truth. The way Canadians will get to that truth is to have the report from Justice Gomery.
There certainly is no need for a parallel inquiry, a partisan pithy inquiry on the floor of the House of Commons every day. I think when Canadians watch question period and they see this kind of partisan exchange, and they see a political party that puts party above country, they prefer to have Justice Gomery sift through the--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary--Nose Hill.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government tries to make Canadians believe that money skimmed off the sponsorship program by the Liberal Party will be recovered, but the government's promises evaporate when it comes time to act.
Yesterday a motion in the House simply asked that the Prime Minister keep his promise to set up a trust fund. People should have seen the Liberals run for cover. They even tried to completely gut the motion.
Why did the Prime Minister break his clear commitment?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps his promises and he is keeping his promise to get to the bottom of this issue by supporting Justice Gomery.
It is interesting. Yesterday the hon. members opposite were attacking Deloitte and the credibility of PricewaterhouseCoopers. They should note that Deloitte and PricewaterhouseCoopers have been financial contributors to the Conservative Party, and to the Alliance Party and Reform Party over the years. Carman Joynt, the auditor for the Conservative Party of Canada, is in fact a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell mister diversionary tactic over there that this is exactly what the Prime Minister publicly promised: “We've made it very clear that in fact, we will put that money into trust”.
His Quebec minister pledged over a year ago that hundreds of thousands of dollars that went to the Liberal Party from sponsorship ad agencies would be put into a special account.
Yesterday the Liberal government had a chance to put its money where its mouth is. Why did it choke?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been clear, the Minister of Transport has been clear and the party has been clear that any funds received from inappropriate sources would be returned and will be returned to the Canadian taxpayer.
I draw the hon. member's attention to the Winnipeg Free Press editorial today, which says:

--an allegation made before an inquiry is not...a conviction in a court of law. And when such an allegation is made...by someone facing criminal charges in a court of law, it might be a matter of elementary prudence not to rush to judgment on the basis of that allegation...This is a recognizable part of the partisan game, but let us recognize that political advantage will not withstand scrutiny when trotted out as high principle.

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government, still in search of the dirty money, claims that there is none in the Liberal Party coffers. However, the riding associations have very substantial funds, some of which are from the former personal trust funds of a number of Liberal ministers and MPs.
Will the government admit that it is quite possible, even probable, that some of the dirty sponsorship money now belongs to Liberal Party riding associations, after transiting through the former trust funds, which are outside—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member knows that the problems related to party financing have nothing to do with the administration of the government; therefore, questions on this subject are unacceptable.
The hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean has the floor to ask another question.
Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, Parliament reformed political party financing in the fall of 2003. One of the measures imposed by the government concerned the blind transfer of funds from personal trusts to the riding associations before midnight on December 31, 2003. That is the reality.
Will the government admit that this was a huge money laundering operation, which probably wiped out all traces of sponsorship money in the trust funds?
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, if the member opposite or anyone else in the House wants to obtain a report by any riding association representing any party, they need only go to the Elections Canada website, which has all the information on all the riding associations for all the registered parties.
Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, we are hearing about cash payments, phony invoices, salaries paid by agencies, and now about the laundering of trust money on December 31, 2003.
Will the government admit that the audit done by Deloitte &amp; Touche involved only the books of the Liberal Party, and did not in any way include the books of the riding associations, on which there were millions of dollars, some of it transferred from MPs' and ministers' personal trust funds?
The Speaker: Once again, the hon. member has asked a question relating to a party's business. Another firm is involved, but again it concerns a party's finances. The hon. member has not made a connection with the government's responsibilities. Perhaps she would like to remedy this with a second question.
Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, on December 31, 2003, the government used the political party funding legislation to organize the blind transfer of sums of money from trust accounts.
Will the government admit that part of the dirty money is with the riding associations, because millions of dollars were transferred to them on December 31, 2003, without any control by the chief electoral officer?
The Speaker: Once again, this question relates to the finances of a political party and not the administration of the government. It may relate to the chief electoral officer, but not the government. The question cannot, therefore, be allowed.
The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.
The EnvironmentJack Layton: Mr. Speaker, when--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. We are moving on to the next question. The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth has the floor.
Jack Layton: Mr. Speaker, when both the Globe and Mail and Greenpeace agree that the government's Kyoto plan is simply not going to work, we know that we are not going to be getting clean air any time soon.
The Minister of the Environment has even acknowledged that the rules for the big polluters have not been established. They are clearly going to benefit under the government's plan. The others who will benefit will be the big drug companies, who will be selling a lot more puffers to families whose kids are going to try to breathe the dirty air this summer.
My question simply is why, after 12 years of promising to do something about the environment and cleaning the air, have the Liberals delivered such a--
The Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Hon. Bryon Wilfert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, this government has delivered on a balanced plan for the environment. In fact, this government is being praised not only in Canada by organizations such as the Sierra Club, but let me point out to the hon. member that the German environment minister said he was pleased that Canada is advancing climate protection with an ambitious plan of action, that the host country of the next world conference on climate hereby sends a strong and progressive signal to the world, and that Canada offers evidence of climate protection.
I would rather rely on the German minister of the environment than on the leader of the NDP.
Jack Layton: Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder that the Europeans are celebrating the plan. Canadian tax dollars are going to be sent over to Europe to clean the Europeans' air instead of being invested here to clean the air that Canadians breathe. It is no wonder that they are thrilled with it.
The fact is that the Liberals have promised year after year to clean the air. Thirteen years ago the Prime Minister was banging his chest about how he was going to clean the air. We have kids in emergency wards trying to breathe. When is the government going to take some responsibility?
Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, I would have expected that kind of comment from those across the way who do not even believe the ice age occurred. However, for the leader of the NDP to suggest for one moment that this plan does not deal with the health of Canadians and does not deal with the greening of Canada is a disgrace.
That member knows the trading credit system in Europe is a closed system. He knows that we have confidence in Canadians to expand and develop green technologies. We are going to do that. We are going to prove all those members on that side wrong.
EthicsJoe Preston: Mr. Speaker, yet another Liberal public works minister is now under an ethical cloud. Media reports today reveal the minister is under police investigation for a suspicious $4,000 cheque that he cashed from his Conservative riding association.
It turns out that the minister never provided receipts or statements to justify the payment. He did not report the money to Elections Canada. He has not reported the cheque as a gift under conflict of interest guidelines.
How can the minister continue to defend Liberal corruption when he himself is under an ethical cloud?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. The Progressive Conservative riding executive at that time made decisions respecting the expenditure of funds. That Progressive Conservative executive no longer exists. In fact, a large number of those Progressive Conservative executive members joined me when I joined the Liberal Party of Canada.
The treasurer's report at that time fully accounts for this expense. In fact, the treasurer said today, “All was appropriate. All procedures and rules were followed. This is just some Alliance people playing cheap politics”.
Joe Preston: Mr. Speaker, speaking of cheap government politics, the minister, the government's lapdog on scandals, has landed in an ethical cesspool of his own. Will the minister now make arrangements to pay back the money that he has taken inappropriately and perhaps talk to his own counterparts about paying back some that they have taken inappropriately?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the justice critic for the Conservative Party, who was the attorney general for the province of Manitoba and who is a lawyer, someone who should know the rules and the laws of the land, has been found guilty of campaign finance infractions. In fact, he broke the law.
Everything in my riding has been done in full respect of the laws of the land, and everything was done above the board, unlike the justice critic of the Alliance Conservative party who knowingly broke the rules of the land.
Liberal Party of CanadaScott Reid: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in question period the Minister of Justice stated regarding Beryl Wajsman, “He is not a special counsel to the Minister of Justice”. I have with me a photocopy of Mr. Wajsman's business card and it says in English on one side and French on the other, “Special Counsel to Irving Cotler, MP, Mount Royal”. Does this not mean that it is legitimate to ask the Minister of Justice for his response to Mr. Wajsman's statement that in the Liberal Party, cultural communities are treated as “campaign slaves and ticket buyers”?
The Speaker: I would remind the hon. member that even reading a document with a member's name on it as a means of getting around our rule against using names is inappropriate. I caution him. I know that in this case it may have felt important, but he knows the rules.
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly the hon. member was in the House and heard the response of the minister yesterday. It was very clear and unequivocal as it related to the individual involved. Quite frankly, I do not believe that anything more needs to be said on that matter.
Scott Reid: Mr. Speaker, today Mr. Wajsman issued a press release in which he states that he personally had been trying to set right a longstanding injustice within the Liberal Party. Mr. Wajsman said in his press release, “I faced resistance within the Liberal Party in Quebec to giving cultural community representatives responsible positions other than as campaign slaves and ticket buyers”.
My question, therefore, is for the former political minister for Quebec, who is now the Prime Minister. Why does the Liberal Party treat ethnic minorities with such astonishing disrespect?
Paul MacKlin: Mr. Speaker, I think what that hon. member said is inappropriate in terms of what this party stands for. Clearly this party is a multicultural party. Let us look at the people who are assembled here today. Clearly we do not represent anything other than a very representative and immigration friendly party. That hon. member ought to go back and take a look at this party and its record.
Sponsorship ProgramGuy Côté: Mr. Speaker, everyone involved in the sponsorship scandal resorted to all sorts of tricks to give money to the Liberal Party: front men, phony invoices, salaries, unreported donations and so on.
Is it not obvious that, among the means found to give kickbacks to the Liberal Party, the communications firms could easily have used personal trusts, which are not subject to any external control? Therefore, what is the government waiting for to establish a dirty money trust?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the party made it clear: if the party received inappropriate funds, it will reimburse the taxpayers.
These are allegations, not facts. To know the facts, we have to wait for the Gomery report.
Guy Côté: Mr. Speaker, the money in personal trusts was not subject to any control and, at midnight on December 31, 2003, it was automatically transferred without any explanation being provided as to where that money came from.
Will the minister at least admit that it is very possible that this is where part of the dirty money is and that it is necessary for the government to establish a trust into which to deposit this dirty money?
Dairy IndustryMs. Denise Poirier-Rivard (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, BQ): Mr. Speaker, farmers have long been aware that despite rules to ensure the proper functioning of the supply management system, control of imports can easily be gotten around by all sorts of products specially designed by the industry. Imports of butter oil and milk proteins account for $70 million a year in losses for dairy farmers in Quebec.
What is the government waiting for to take action?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we certainly respect the supply management system. It is very important for our farmers and all Canadians. We will continue to work very closely with them to protect the supply management system.
Denise Poirier-Rivard: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has introduced a motion to strengthen the three pillars of supply management. The government has a duty to support it with concrete action.
What is the minister waiting for to limit the import of butter oil and other products designed specifically to get around trade barriers?
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of International Trade has said, we defend supply management and we aggressively promote it. What I am surprised the member did not say in her preamble is what the loss to dairy producers in Quebec could be if they ever separated from the country like that party wants them to do. This is a national supply management system in which we defend and promote the rights of farmers.
Federal-Provincial RelationsMs. Belinda Stronach (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today a CIBC World Markets report says that Ontario's gap now stands at $23 billion, 10 times what it was just a decade ago. It says:

Its sheer magnitude weighs on an already burdened economy, taxing the Ontario government's ability to invest in a strong, vibrant provincial (and hence national) economy.

When will the Prime Minister meet with the premier of Ontario to address the Ontario gap?
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, Ontario enjoys the status of a relatively wealthy province. As a consequence, on a per capita basis, relatively more moneys do generate from Ontario and go to the national government.
On the other side of the equation, Ontario does not have as many poor seniors. On a per capita basis, Ontario does not have as many unemployed people, the consequence of which is those transfers do not come back into Ontario.
I do not understand the argument. Should we be asking that Ontario be less wealthy, have more poor seniors and more unemployment?
Belinda Stronach: Mr. Speaker, the government should stop taking Ontario voters for granted.
Glen Grunwald of the Toronto Board of Trade said that the government's failure to address the Ontario gap has resulted in “crumbling infrastructure, declining service levels and increasing municipal and provincial taxes. It has also seen Ontario squeezed financially towards deficits and tax hikes that kill prosperity”.
When will the Prime Minister meet with the premier of Ontario and address the Ontario gap? When will he give us a firm date?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that we are willing to work with the province of Ontario, department by department, minister by minister, on issues of substance. We have been doing that. We will continue to do that.
AgricultureMr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we in the official opposition have been calling on the government to use all the legal tools at its disposal in the fight to open the U.S. border to our live Canadian cattle. The Canadian cattle industry now is calling on the government to do the same.
The second anniversary of the border closure is fast approaching and prices paid for slaughtered cattle in Canada are once again in free fall. The adverse effects of this dramatic fall in prices is being felt in the trucking, grain and other related industries as well.
For the sake of all those affected, will the government finally initiate the NAFTA and WTO dispute mechanisms available to it.?
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows full well the efforts of all members of the cabinet on this side of the House, especially the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister. In fact, the U.S. administration is onside with Canada that the border should be open to cattle coming from Canada. We have aggressively gone out there and we have in fact achieved that. The only reason the border is closed is because of the decision of one judge in the state of Montana.
Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture has continued to announce band-aid solutions for farm families. The agriculture industry has its jugular severed and is bleeding red ink, and the band-aid being offered will not stop the hemorrhage. The latest flawed program is just another in a long Liberal lineup of flawed agricultural programs. It is based on outdated data. The money farmers get will be clawed back in the CAIS program.
What farmers really need is a minister with the backbone to challenge our trading partners and fight for market access. Why has the government not challenged the U.S. and other countries under the WTO and NAFTA--
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, what the farm community really needs is a party in opposition that would at least be reasonably straightforward and honest with the facts instead of saying that this is a band-aid solution. Do those members call $1 billion to the farm community a band-aid solution? Do they think Canadian taxpayers call $4.8 billion last year from federal and provincial governments band-aid solutions?
The minister is negotiating hard. The government continues to negotiate hard at the WTO, and we will stand with farmers in their time of need.
HealthYasmin Ratansi: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Public Health. Last fall the first ministers agreed to establish health goals in order to improve the health of Canadians and reduce the pressure on the health care system.
Could the minister update the House on progress in implementing this part of the accord?
Hon. Carolyn Bennett (Minister of State (Public Health), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, together with Theresa Oswald, the minister of healthy living in Manitoba, we have launched a completely non-partisan program across the country to hear from Canadians as to their dreams and visions on what it takes to keep as many Canadians healthy for as long as possible. Poverty, violence, the environment, shelter, equity, education, dignity, a sense of belonging, we know these things matter to Canadians and we want to hear from them at www.healthycanadians.ca.
Liberal Party of CanadaMs. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. When a woman attacks George Bush, she is out. When a man attacks women and equality, he gets to stay.
What kind of double standard Liberal Party is this? Attack George Bush and members are out. Call a woman, an MP, “dumb blonde bimbo” and advocate for charter rights to be taken away and members are in.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain why attacking George Bush is bad and attacking women and equality is okay?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, first, the comments that were made were completely unacceptable. That point was made plain by the Prime Minister. No one on this side of the House supports or condones the making of those comments.
The hon. member in question did apologize for the making of those comments. However, let there be no misunderstanding, no one condones or accepts those comments on this side of the House.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Liberals to take responsibility. The MP who attacked George Bush apologized, but she was kicked out anyway. The MP who attacked women and who openly advocated charter rights being stripped away is still there. Worse, the Prime Minister has cut a deal with him that delays the very equality that Liberals pretend to want.
Again, what kind of Liberal Party is this? Why is it when Liberals attack Bush, they are kicked out, but when they attack women and equality, they get to stay?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand what the hon. member does not understand about what I just said, which is the following.
The Prime Minister, no one on this side of the House accepts or condones the comments made by the hon. member in question. The Prime Minister made that plain yesterday. The hon. member apologized.
I think that is the end of the matter. The case is closed.
Grain TransportationMr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government screws up everything it touches. It owns 13,000 hopper cars which it has decided to dispose of, but it will not hold an open procurement process. Originally, the Liberals said that they would only deal with one group. Now a second Liberal friendly organization has the opportunity to buy cars. All the other producer groups are completely frozen out.
What is going on here? What is the minister trying to hide as he disposes of a $200 million asset?
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been very open and transparent on this deal. We said that we would start negotiations and discussions with the FRCC. We said that we were biased toward the farmers and we would start negotiations to see if we could make a deal for the betterment of Canada and for the betterment of the farming community and that of the transportation system. This is how we will deal with it.
ForestryMr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, British Columbia asked the government for $1 billion to $1.5 billion over 10 to 15 years to help mitigate its pine beetle disaster. Knowing full well the magnitude of the beetle crisis in B.C., the Liberals have offered B.C. less than 10% of the money that is needed with no guarantees to the future.
I want to ask the Minister of Industry, British Columbia's senior minister, why is the government so intent on shortchanging British Columbia over and over again?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, it is far from shortchanging the province of British Columbia as it relates to the challenge of the mountain pine beetle. The government has provided some $100 million to the province of British Columbia to help deal with the challenge of the mountain pine beetle.
Nobody on this side of the House needs to take lessons from those guys in relation to the challenge of the mountain pine beetle. The Department of Natural Resources has been working with its counterparts in British Columbia for years on this challenge and we have come to the table--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Leeds--Grenville.
JusticeMr. Gord Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, anyone familiar with justice in Canada, including violent crime victims, must have been shocked yesterday to hear the justice minister say that mandatory minimum sentences did not deter crime. I understand Liberal nervousness about crimes with mandatory jail sentences. I was asking about crimes with knives, not cash envelopes and chequebooks.
Could the minister explain his outrageous view, which is an insult to crime victims, police and law-abiding Canadians who demand protection?
Paul MacKlin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member really should do a little research. If he did the research, he would find that mandatory minimum penalties do not generally work.
If we look at the experience in the United States, we will see that it now is removing so many of its mandatory minimum sentences simply because the courts and the lawyers in the system have found ways around them and they really have not become effective as deterrents.
Gord Brown: Mr. Speaker, the minister's academic banter may sound enlightened in the we know best taxpayer subsidized limousine lecture hall, but it rings hollow to people victimized by knife crimes and the police who fight crime on our streets each and every day.
Could the minister explain yesterday's answer in light of existing mandatory minimum sentences for firearm homicide, drunk driving and other crimes? Is he perhaps looking at a Liberal knife registry?
Paul MacKlin: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member looks at the record, he will find that we have more mandatory minimum sentences relating to gun use and gun crime than any other area within our law. That is already in place. We have to work with many tools within our arsenal in order to deal with crime. Mandatory minimums are there, but we also need to put resources with our police. We need to ensure the police have all the tools necessary to meet the needs of our communities.
The EnvironmentMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to justify Quebec's treatment in the Kyoto implementation plan, the Minister of the Environment said that there was no target for hydro electricity because it does not produce greenhouse gases. What a thing for a minister from Quebec to say.
Is the Minister of the Environment's reductio ad absurdum reasoning not proof that with his plan, Quebec is a victim of its own success since its past efforts to reduce greenhouse gases are being completely ignored?
Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, Quebec is not a victim. Quebec is a partner in terms of the plan. It is because of the good work in Quebec and in the other provinces and the partnership fund. It is in our work with Quebec, Ontario and the other provinces that we will be able to advance this plan. Fortunately, the Minister of the Environment has more confidence in the people of Quebec than the hon. member.
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister said in committee that he plans to sign bilateral agreements with each province. Does the minister intend to change his approach and can he commit to signing an agreement with Quebec, giving it full authority to implement the plan on its own territory?
Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, in this federation we all work collaboratively together. The minister is working with his counterpart in Quebec, I know very effectively. In fact, the minister in Quebec has more faith in what is going on than the Bloc, but I would expect that. What I do not expect is that the party across the way, which is supposedly concerned about climate change, continues to shoot hot air rather than talk about the real facts on this subject.
Employment InsuranceMr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC): Mr. Speaker, individuals who apply for employment insurance benefits have now been informed that from now on they will have to apply online. No more report cards will be sent out and, in the words of one office manager, “These will be paperless offices”.
Could the minister inform us how individuals who have no access to or knowledge of the appropriate technology will be able to apply for employment insurance benefits?
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, we worked on the transformation of services to give citizens the choice as to which channel that they wanted to use to be in contact with the Government of Canada. It could be by phone, by the web, in person or by mail. All the services are designed right now to answer those choices.
MarriageMr. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC): Mr. Speaker, despite a Supreme Court of Canada decision that clearly said otherwise, the Liberal government continues to falsely claim that it can change the definition of marriage and also protect freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
Now Bishop Henry of Calgary is facing complaints before a human rights commission for speaking out on marriage.
The government and the Prime Minister have been a total failure at protecting Canadian freedoms. Will the Prime Minister simply admit that he will not and cannot protect Canadian freedoms?
Paul MacKlin: Mr. Speaker, we have spoken about this matter in the House on numerous occasions and clearly the charter is very important to each and every one of us. Within the context of federal law and federal jurisdiction, we are protecting everyone who would be affected in that regard.
Within the provincial structure, we recently held provincial-federal meetings where Ontario was one of the provinces that had conducted many of these marriages. It has not had any problems whatsoever.
Dairy IndustryDon Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of International Trade involving Canada's dairy policy.
Canadian milk producers want better controls at the border on imports of dairy ingredients. However, for the last number of weeks now the Canadian International Trade Tribunal has been making certain changes that will dramatically affect the industry.
Will the minister now initiate, under article 28 of GATT, measures that could stop the erosion of our supply management system?
Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for the very strong stand he has taken on behalf of our agricultural producers and in particular our milk producers.
Let me assure the House that the Minister of Agriculture and I will work as hard as we possibly can, leaving no stone unturned, to protect supply management and our milk producers. The number one thing that we have to get through is the WTO negotiations where we have worked to date, along with the supply management, to protect those industries.
Canada PostMr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
The President of the Treasury Board stated that there was no policy to close rural post offices. That is small comfort to my constituents when, in an audit by Deloitte &amp; Touche, it was found that Canada Post failed to comply with its policies in 355 of 599 cases that were reviewed.
The workers' union president said that the corporation was more interested in paring down post offices than building them up.
In a year of record profits, will the minister state on the record in the House for the constituents of Souris--Moose Mountain that there will be no closure of rural post offices in 2005?
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I am acutely aware that the post office is the most important face of the federal government in much of rural Canada. That is why the government has for many years had a policy of not closing post offices in rural Canada.
I do not know how many times I have to say this. The only time when there may be temporary closures is if there is a small building with conditions that are not subject to the health rules and nobody willing to run the post office. Other than that, the post offices stay open.
Brian Pallister: Mr. Speaker, without a doubt that minister is the Forrest Gump of the postal service. Stupid is as stupid does.
Despite his denouncement--
The Speaker: The hon. member is smart enough to know that we do not use that word in the House, and twice at that. The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar will want to withdraw that after question period but he can continue now.
Brian Pallister: Mr. Speaker, despite the fact the minister denies it, post offices are closing across Canada. Canada Post has closed three post offices in Manitoba alone in the last four months and ten have been closed in Saskatchewan in the last two years. While that is happening, the minister makes excuses and denies it in the House. No more denials.
When did the government decide to end the moratorium on post office closures and when will it be restored?
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know the difference between urban and rural. Urban means cities. Rural means countrysides and small places. The moratorium applies to rural, countrysides and small places. No moratorium assessed the conditions and in fact the number of urban post offices has increased.
Rural: country; urban: city. Please get that clear.
National DefenceRobert Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Bagotville military base is the only air force base operating in French in North America. This promotes the recruiting and training of francophones who contemplate a career in the air force.
Despite the reassuring words of the Minister of National Defence regarding the base's future, there are still concerns and these are shared by several former members of the military.
Can the minister confirm that the Bagotville base will remain operational and that the government has no intention of reducing the activity level at that location?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am going to repeat what I have said time and again in this House. We have absolutely no intention of reducing any operational activities at the Bagotville base.
Of course, there are always reorganizations taking place within our air and armed forces. We are currently discussing a very important policy to reorganize our air force and our Canadian forces, so that they can deal with threats. This is extremely important for Canada. We will do that, but there is no question of closing the Bagotville base.
TransportationDavid Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the port of Prince Rupert has the advantage of much shorter sea routes to Asian destinations than all the other west coast ports in both Canada and the United States.
I wonder if the Minister of Transport could explain to the House what plans the government may have to improve the capacity of the port of Prince Rupert.
Jean Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to tell the House that at this moment the Minister of Industry is in Prince Rupert announcing the contribution of $30 million from the Government of Canada to ensure we have a great container port in Prince Rupert opening the gateway to the Pacific. I want to pay tribute to the members of the B.C. caucus and also to the Deputy Prime Minister for their efforts in making this happen.
This is a great day for Prince Rupert, a great day for B.C. and a great day for Canada.
AgricultureMr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is about time the government did something for B.C. It has been 13 years.
There is mounting evidence and concern that the United States has been hiding its cases of mad cow while keeping its border closed to Canadian beef. These concerns have been raised by the U.S. department of agriculture inspectors themselves.
Since we are importing American beef into our country and its safety is in question, will the minister close our borders to American beef, launch an investigation and stand up for Canada and the safety of Canadian food?
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, we always stand up for Canada and the safety of Canadians and food. The member has referred to but one program. The fact is that regulations north and south of the border are much the same. We abide by international protocols. We can absolutely assure Canadians that our products and our inspection system are among the best in the world. We have among the safest food in the world.
PrivilegeMs. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege pursuant to Standing Order 18, which states that “no member shall use offensive words against either House or any member thereof”.
Yesterday, in the context of a debate on the opposition motion by the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the Bloc Québécois member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup made some very offensive remarks about me. The Chair asked him to withdraw them but he refused, claiming he had not uttered them.
I would draw your attention to the remarks he himself made:

Why do we want to see this motion passed? To make sure that the member for Gatineau will not finance another electoral campaign with the dirty money collected by the Liberal Party of Canada. That is basically why.

That is what he said, though he denies having said anything that was directed at me personally. Judging by the attitude of the Bloc, Mr. Speaker, you will have no trouble seeing how much a comment such as this can be offensive to someone who has newly entered politics after an election campaign. Behaviour such as this casts a very wide net and attacks people's reputations. Perhaps he does not attach much importance to people's reputations, but I do, and so do the people of Gatineau.
The Speaker: I take this question of privilege as notice. I have listened carefully to the hon. member's comments and will take them into consideration.
Does the hon. member for Drummond wish to speak on this matter also?
Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc member referred to in this question of privilege is not here today. We will pass on to him the comments made by the member for Gatineau and he will be able to explain himself next week.
The Speaker: That is why I took the question of privilege under advisement and will report back to the House later.
Points of OrderBrian Pallister: Mr. Speaker, during question period, in response to a question regarding post office closures asked by my colleague adjacent, the minister denied that post offices were closing. I referred to him as the “Forrest Gump of the postal service”.
Mr. Speaker, you did not admonish me for that comment but you did for my comment “Stupid is as stupid does”. Despite the fact that in the minister's response he proved my point, I do withdraw those comments as I expect they were offensive to fans of Forrest Gump.
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I too rise on a point of order. During question period, representatives of the Bloc Québécois put certain questions which you ruled out of order because they dealt with a matter that did not pertain to the administration of government.
Following your rulings, the Bloc House leader accused you of having interpreted these questions in a partisan fashion. I would be remiss if I were to leave these remarks unchallenged. You received the unanimous support of the members of this House when you were elected as the Speaker of this assembly. You have always demonstrated a non-partisan attitude and a very thorough knowledge of our rules. I think it was inappropriate to accuse you of partisanship, when you had clearly used your best judgment in directing the debates in this House.
Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is likely a misunderstanding in the assessment you may have made of the questions we asked. In fact, we were referring to the new election financing legislation. It may be a matter of interpretation on your part, why you did not allow our questions.
Now, regarding the remarks the deputy government House leader attributed to our colleague from Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, the member in question is not here right now to explain himself. I suggest that, at some later time, he be asked to comment on the remarks attributed to him.
The Speaker: I could not hear what the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean was saying, but I could see that he was perhaps a bit upset with what I had said. This happens from time to time in the House, but we will wait for him to comment some other time.
The hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington is rising on a point of order.
Scott Reid: Mr. Speaker, during question period the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice seemed not to believe the truth of my statement that I had Beryl Wajsman's business card stating that he was special counsel to the Minister of Justice in the minister's capacity as a member of Parliament. That of course was why I had to give reference to the minister by name.
I would be happy to table that business card if there is the unanimous consent of the House, and also to table the public press release in which Mr. Wajsman makes reference to the fact that he was trying to fight against the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party's habit of treating members of ethnic communities as campaign slaves and ticket buyers.
I will post these on the website anyway at www.scottreid.com, but I would be happy to do this--
The Speaker: I am sure the hon. member is trying to be helpful. Is there unanimous consent for the tabling of these documents?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsPaul MacKlin: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
Interparliamentary DelegationsBryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum on the 13th annual meeting held in Halong Bay, Vietnam from January 10 to 13, 2005.
Committees of the HouseMr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Health.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and a motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, April 7, 2005, your committee recommends that the government present a new strategy on the prevention of fetal alcohol syndrome disorder.
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.
In accordance with its permanent mandate under Standing Order 81(4), your committee undertook a study of the main estimates 2005-06, tabled in Parliament on Friday, February 25, 2005, and agreed to reduce vote 25 under Privy Council on Thursday, April 14, 2005.
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
Following the meeting with the Auditor General of Canada on February 8, 2005, your committee adopted the following motion and agreed to present it to the House:

That the committee report to the House of Commons on the Auditor General of Canada report, requiring each entity involved in audit report on the Protection of Cultural Heritage in the Federal Government chapter 6, November 2003 (Canadian Heritage, Treasury Board Secretariat, Parks Canada Agency, Library and Archives Canada) report to the Committee on the development of a strategy and action plan, including timeframes in response to the Auditor General recommendations addressed to them.

Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 33rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
In accordance with its order of reference of February 25, 2005, the committee has considered vote 5 under Parliament in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006, less the amount voted in interim supply, and reports the same.
PetitionsDarrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions on behalf of constituents of Okanagan—Shuswap.
In the first petition the petitioners call 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.
In the second petition the petitioners believe that fundamental matters of social policy should be decided by elected members of Parliament. They request 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.
Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, I have five petitions today. The first one calls upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all steps to outlaw the materials promoting or glorifying pedophilia and sado-masochistic activities involving children.
Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, the other four petitions call on Parliament to define marriage in federal law as a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of petitions I would like to present pursuant to Standing Order 36. These are from the good citizens of Lethbridge in southern Alberta.
The petitioners pray that Parliament pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Mr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to table two petitions. The first petition has been endorsed by in excess of 450 residents of Prince Edward—Hastings and the surrounding area.
The petitioners pray that Parliament define marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Daryl Kramp: Mr. Speaker, the second petition requests Parliament to support federal funding for juvenile type 1 diabetes research.
Canada has one of the highest rates of type 1 diabetes in the world. We must secure federal funding to target specifically juvenile type 1 diabetes research.
Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, in light of the concerns being expressed about the condition of rural post offices and the future of such entities, I am pleased to present a petition from the residents of Cappahayden in the great province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The petitioners call upon the government to ensure that the rural post office in Cappahayden is kept open to serve the resident users.
Scott Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have nine petitions all on the same subject and which were circulated among churches in my constituency, for example, the Church of The Annunciation in Enterprise, the Evangel Temple in Napanee, and other churches in Smiths Falls, Carleton Place and Lanark Highlands.
In each petition the petitioners pray that Parliament retain the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. The petitioners point out that marriage is the best foundation for raising families and children. They point out that this is the point of view of most Canadians.
Questions On The Order PaperPaul MacKlin: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 99, 105 and 106.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Question No. 99Mr. Ken Epp: What differences are there between the policies for the imposition of entry fees on golfers wishing to golf at the course in Elk Island National Park and the course in Fundy National Park, and why do any differences in policies exist?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in both cases, park entry and green fees are charged. In Elk Island National Park of Canada, the minister sets the entry fees, which are collected at the entry gate. However, the golf course is operated independently by a lessee, who sets the green fees and collects them at the pro shop. In Fundy National Park of Canada, Parks Canada operates the golf course. Consequently, the minister sets both the entry and the green fees, which are packaged together and collected at the pro shop on behalf of the Crown.
Question No. 105Loyola Hearn: With regard to the study of the relationship between cod and seals being done by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans DFO: ( a ) when did this study begin; ( b ) how is this study being undertaken; ( c ) how many DFO personnel are involved in the study; ( d ) is any portion of the study been outsourced; ( e ) what is the cost of the study to the department broken down by fiscal year for the length of time the study has been underway and for the projected time it will take to complete; and ( f ) what DFO policies or recommendations have been cancelled, altered or implemented because of this research?
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Atlantic seal research program was announced by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on April 24, 2003. The objective of this program was to expand current research activities to assess the impact of seals on fish stocks. A research program to address this objective was designed in the spring of 2003 and the research activities began in the summer of 2003.
In response to (b), scientists from the Quebec, Maritimes and Newfoundland and Labrador regions designed a research program containing three major components: (1) seal distribution and diet; (2) seal populations assessment; and (3) development of seal management tools. The field portion of the program is now nearly completed.
In response to (c), seven scientists, two biologists and five technicians from the Quebec, Maritimes and Newfoundland and Labrador regions have been involved in this project. In addition, about 30 invited scientists and students were involved in this study.
In response to (d), partnerships were developed to address various components of the study. The three large surveys, harp, hooded and grey seal populations, used logistical support from Canadian Coast Guard. Scientists from other research organizations in Norway, Denmark, and the United Kingdom cooperated in various components of the study. Some of the work was done in partnership with Memorial, Laval and Dalhousie universities. Some work was conducted by fishermen and sealers. A contract was also developed with ARGOS to obtain the information from the satellite transmitters that were used in the seal distribution study.
In response to (e), the Atlantic seal research program had a budget of $6 million. The project was initially planned for two years, fiscal years 2003-04 and 2004-05. However, it was extended for an additional year to allow the completion of the analyses of the data obtained and to produce a thorough report of the program's major findings. For fiscal year 2003-04, the budget was $3,125M, for fiscal year 2004-05, the budget was $2,548M , and for fiscal year 2005-06, the budget is $327.5K. The project will be completed at the end of fiscal year 2005-06.
In response to (f), the results of the Atlantic seal research program will be used to provide advice for seal management and for ecosystem based management, especially as it relates to the management of groundfish in the Atlantic. It is too early to evaluate which policies or practices have changed, but the programs are relevant to a number of DFO strategies or recommendations to come in the future, such as cod recovery, the seal hunt, et cetera
Question No. 106Loyola Hearn: With regard to the oil spill on November 21, 2004 off the Terra Nova platform and Canadian Coast Guard, CCG, involvement in any response: ( a ) how many CCG personnel were involved; ( b ) over what period of time were any CCG personnel involved; ( c ) how much CCG equipment, if any, was dedicated to the response and for what amount of time; ( d ) was there any reporting internal or external to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that resulted from any CCG involvement in responding to this spill; ( e ) if CCG ships were part of the response, what responsibilities were forgone in order to respond to the spill?
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, under the CCG environmental response, ER, response management system, RMS, there were three dedicated personnel involved in on-water containment and recovery operations, two dedicated shore based personnel in support of on-water operations and one individual to conduct fixed wing aerial surveillance patrols in an effort to estimate the volume of oil and its trajectory. In total, six CCG ER personnel were involved with the response to this incident. One additional person was tasked in an administrative capacity for two days, pursuant to cost recovery standard operating procedures.
CCG ER personnel were involved for a total of eight days. Pursuant to cost recovery standard operating procedures, one additional person was tasked in an administrative capacity for two days, post incident, to compile and submit the claim for ER's involvement in the operation.
One piece of dedicated pollution countermeasures equipment was deployed to the operating area for eight days.
As per standard operating procedures, incident, situation and status reports were generated and distributed internally as a result of CCG's involvement in this incident. Status reports were also distributed externally to Environment Canada, Transport Canada, the Department of National Defence and the Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund.
While no CCG ships were involved in any capacity in the response to this incident, there were three dedicated on-water CCG personnel who provided assistance to the response operation from two different industry owned vessels.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsPaul MacKlin: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 97, 113 and 114 could be made orders for returns, the returns would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Question No. 97Mr. John Williams: With regard to performance pay for public servants in the Executive (EX) category and the Deputy Minister (DM) category in fiscal year 2003-2004: ( a ) for each department, agency or Crown corporation, how many employees received performance pay, broken down by EX category (e.g. EX-1, EX-2, etc.); ( b ) for each department, agency or Crown corporation, how many employees are there in each EX category; ( c ) for each department, agency or Crown corporation, how many employees received performance pay, broken down by DM category (i.e. DM-1, DM-2, etc.); ( d ) for each department, agency or Crown corporation, how many employees are there in each DM category; and ( e ) for each department, agency or Crown corporation, what was the total amount paid out in performance pay?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 113Mr. Brian Masse: What discussions have taken place between government officials regarding the proposal to “twin“ the Ambassador Bridge with: ( a ) the Ambassador Bridge Company; ( b ) the Canadian Transit Company; and ( c ) any other level of Canadian or American government?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 114Brian Masse: With regard to a new international crossing in the Windsor-Detroit corridor: ( a ) what discussions have taken place regarding public versus private ownership; and ( b ) what timelines have been set for decision-making for the new crossing?
(Return tabled)
Paul MacKlin: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005, be read a second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Raynald Blais (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech given by the minister, and I want to thank him for being honest and plain-spoken. I do not know whether he realized that, at the start of his speech, he said in French, “promesses faites, promesses retenues”. I just want to remind him that when a promise is “retenue”, it means it is not kept.
That is exactly what the unemployed got with regard to EI: “promesses faites, promesses retenues”. That is exactly what happened, too, with regard to sharing the wealth. The riding I represent has many expectations about many things, in different areas. The motto here too is “promesses faites, promesses retenues”.
With regard to government transparency, the unfortunate conclusion is also “promesses faites, promesses retenues”. I repeat, in French, “retenir” means to forget and not to implement.
With regard to the fiscal imbalance, too, Quebec and the provinces are being strangled, “promesses faites, promesses retenues”.
I want to thank the minister for his honesty and give him the opportunity to tell us more about the reasons why many of the promises made by this Liberal government were retained and therefore not kept.
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, what I meant to say, and what is in fact the case, is that the government has done exactly what it said it would do.
It was totally clear in this budget; during the election campaign, the government had promised various initiatives for the new deal for cities and communities, the environment, child care, defence and health. In the budget speech, we saw that, without fail, the government did exactly what it had promised to do.
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, on February 1 I rose in the House to speak to hon. members about the policies and priorities that I believe should have been reflected in this budget. My comments today may reflect the disappointment that I feel in the lack of acknowledgement of what I felt were very obvious and valid suggestions. Much like the first few months of the government, there has been so little action on the real issues that affect Canadians.
The Liberal minority government across the floor is sinking deeper into crisis with nothing to fall back on. There is no defence review. There is no international policy statement. There are no solutions to something that is very important in my riding, and that is the issue of BSE. We are nearing the 24 month stage of this crisis. We have seen no results.
Canadians have rightly lost faith in their elected representatives. At a time when real leadership should shine like a beacon in the fog, so many ministers are making announcements with no real plans, giving speeches with no real substance, and spending money with no real strategic vision.
In February I directly addressed the issues in the international cooperation portfolio. In February the world was just coming out from underneath the shock of the tsunami aftermath in southeast Asia. In the cool light of hindsight, there were so many lessons to be learned from Canada's response to this disaster. The government did not have a coordinated plan to react. It did not have a grasp on the seriousness of the devastation.
On the eve of unveiling the international policy review, there is an opportunity to decide who we are and what we do in the world. I believe we have been on the eve of this policy review for several months now.
What is clear is that we will not be able to meet the expectations of the world or of Canadians under this budget. Do not be fooled by the well-intentioned words of the Minister of International Cooperation. The department is not growing under the minister or under the Prime Minister. In fact, Canada's official development assistance spending has systematically been gutted under the Liberal government.
There are some damning facts from the OECD. It monitors the world's commitments to development assistance. A peer review of Canada looked back on a decade of Liberal rule, and the OECD pointed out that the ratio of its official development assistance, ODA, to gross national income has been halved. Rather than going up, it has been halved, down to .22% of gross national income in 2001 from .45% in the early 1990s. I might mention that it was the former Conservative government that got it up to the .45% level.
Canada ranks 19th out of 22 development assistance committee members in terms of ODA. Those are not stellar records. This is all based in terms of official development assistance as recorded against gross national income.
Put very simply, the government has reduced our foreign aid budgets by half since it has come to power. This is not good enough. In fact, it is unacceptable. The 8% annual increases that it has suggested are just not good enough. This will not even return Canada to our former levels of generosity in the next decade.
Finally, I want to bring to the attention of the House to the shocking news released by CIDA itself only a few weeks ago. Despite the damning rebuke of falling aid levels by the OECD and commitments to raise spending levels by the Liberal government, CIDA's most recent statistical report stated that Canada's ODA spending for 2003-04 amounted to some $2.7 billion, which represented only .23% of gross national income.
We have not moved anywhere in three years. We have fallen behind in the 11 years of Liberal government and we have fallen off the radar screen in the world.
Clearly international aid suffers under Liberals, but it has flourished under Conservatives, so rather than try to help the government find its way out of this mess, I want to address the budget bill as it stands before us.
As my colleagues have said, the Liberals should have brought at least three separate bills forward instead of trying to bully members of Parliament into passing a mish-mash of legislation all in one bill. By dividing the bill into three parts, the House would have had the opportunity to consider Kyoto measures on their own merit, the provisions to implement the Atlantic accord, and traditional budget bill measures with appropriate seriousness.
This bill just shows how arrogant the Liberal Party has become after a decade in government. It is time the Prime Minister stopped governing like he has a majority and starts governing in the best interests of Canadians.
The Liberals knew that the majority of the House would not approve their Kyoto measures if they were presented in stand-alone legislation, which is why they attached them to Bill C-43. This move has, at the very least, delayed legitimate budget measures from implementation and may have even put their implementation at risk.
The Liberals have also shown their true national unity colours in the bill. The Liberals have become toxic on this topic. They are extending their ability to alienate Canadians on our eastern shores by linking the Atlantic accord provision, that most members in the House of Commons support, with the bill to pass Kyoto. Essentially, they are holding the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia hostage with their devious ways. The Atlantic accord provisions in Bill C-43 could have been passed in one day if the Liberals had placed it in stand-alone legislation.
The Conservative Party does not play games with the well-being of Canadians. It is high time the Liberals stopped playing politics and followed the lead of the Conservative Party by acting in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.
In the last election, the Conservative Party committed to $58 billion in new spending and tax reductions over five years. Instead of following the leadership shown by the Conservatives, the Liberals have lined the pockets of their friends with taxpayers' money, hidden massive surpluses, and failed to address the real problems facing Canadians.
Many of the steps taken by the Liberals in the budget, as reflected in the budget, do not go far enough or occur fast enough to have a substantial impact on the well-being of Canadians. The personal tax relief measures in the bill are insufficient and are back end loaded. They amount to a reduction of no more than $16 next year. We will not have trouble spending that tax reduction. It is all of $192 when fully implemented by 2009.
The inadequate productivity enhancing measures in budget 2005 illustrate that the government is not taking warning signs that Canada's high priority programs could be put in jeopardy if comprehensive steps are not taken to grow the economy before the demographic crunch.
Some of the measures in this bill are not reflective of how they were presented in the budget document. The Liberals have once again been caught behind their false numbers. The budget document was not telling Canadians the truth about how much surplus money is available in funds for priorities.
Last week, Parliament's four experts on budgetary estimates reported to the finance committee that on average their surplus projections, parliamentary numbers, showed a surplus of $6.1 billion. That is already double what the Liberals claimed in budget 2005. This is the same pattern we saw last year with the 2004 budget, where it started out at $1.9 billion and in fact, the reciprocal was $9.1 billion when all of the smoke cleared.
The Conservative Party will work in committee to strengthen the bill, so that it is more reflective of what hardworking Canadians want and deserve.
The Conservative Party will continue to hold the Liberals to account when spending is unfocused and wasteful. Over a decade of Liberal waste, mismanagement and scandal has shown that billions of dollars sent to Ottawa would have been much better managed if they were left in Canadians' pockets.
Guy Côté: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43 and the budget provide a series of measures that are absolutely not in tune with Quebeckers' priorities. Let me just quickly remind the House that the government's management of the EI plan has been a disaster. Bill C-43 does not in any way respond to the concerns of Quebeckers.
With the Kyoto protocol, once again the polluter-paid principle is being applied instead of the polluter-pay principle, at the expense of all Quebeckers and indeed all Canadians.
Budgetary forecasting by this government has been abysmal. A Conservative member mentioned that within a few weeks time, they went from a $1.9 to a $9.1 billion surplus forecast. It is outrageous.
The Liberal government very often accuses the Conservatives of having a hidden agenda. How can they have a hidden agenda when the Prime Minister talks about it every day in the House?
Bill C-43 does not in any way meet the needs of Canadians and Quebeckers. Could the Conservative member tell us more about the impact of this bill on his constituents?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member's comments in relation to the EI shortfall.
Kyoto is very near and dear to my heart and I am glad the hon. member raised it. In its present form, even though we do not actually seem to have a plan in place and although there was something announced the other day on whether or not it is actually a plan, it is definitely going to hurt the people in the riding that I represent.
The agricultural industry is going to be put at a tremendous disadvantage with this planned Kyoto implementation. The farmers in my riding have improved their farming practices. They have reduced emissions and increased carbon sequestration. They have put a lot of effort and expense into improving the environment. The Liberals do not seem to want to recognize that.
As producers, and I am a farmer myself, we are good stewards of the land and of the environment. We have done a lot to improve them and that is not being recognized. We have a system that is going to be top down driven if we are going to be buying hot air credits from other countries. We are going to be giving them the advantage that we have gained by voluntary measures.
I look at Australia and the improvements it has made in its environmental practices. It did not sign on to Kyoto. Kyoto is a flawed science that does not do anything to help the environment. It provides an environment to trade carbon credits and that is not beneficial to Canada.
Alan Tonks: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the budget today. The last overview that was given in response to a question from my colleague was an entree into the perspective on the budget that I would like to address.
In as much as I am the chairman of the environment and sustainable development committee, commenting on those aspects of the budget from an environmental perspective is probably very appropriate.
From time to time in the House the economic sustainability with respect to what we do is often drawn into question. It has often occurred to me that in the heat of partisanship we tend either to forget what the corporate memory is with respect to our economic advancement or we deliberately choose not to remember it.
In fairness, when we do reflect on Canada's economic position on a comparative basis in the world, it bears repeating that we have achieved, in a global context, a pretty remarkable and quite substantial fiscal success.
I would like to emphasize that in a world where even our provinces are struggling with fiscal deficits, Canada's record, in several consecutive budgets since the early nineties, has been to bring the deficit under control. In fact, in 1997 we eliminated the deficit. Among the G7 countries, Canada continues to have one of the most progressive and successful economic strategies, to the extent that we have one of the best job creation records with the creation of nearly three million jobs since 1997. For people watching their government struggle with economic pressures and issues in the global village, that in itself is a tremendous success.
Yes, we face huge challenges with respect to rural areas, in particular in our farming and agricultural communities, in our softwood lumber industry and in our cattle industry, but, generally speaking, living standards across our country are improving. When we look at those who are most affected, such as our first nations people, many aspects of the budget reach out and attempt to deal with those issues.
When one reflects on the stagflation and inflation cycles over the last 30 years, one cannot help but look at the economy in terms of its key indicators: the low rate of inflation and the stability within our interest rates and financial regime. These have contributed to the kind of confidence that people have, not only domestically but externally, entrepreneurs and those who are looking to invest capital, and are looking at Canadian opportunities. They have in fact voted with their confidence in sustaining that level of growth in the economy.
I think the budget attempts, which is what the Minister of the Environment said, to find the confluence of two important and fundamental phenomena. One emphasizes what Canadians truly feel in terms of the environmental legacy that they would like to pass on to future generations. All the indicators are, in terms of climate change and so on, that legacy is threatened and every poll has indicated that Canadians are very concerned.
The second phenomenon is the economic phenomenon, the value added that comes from the investment in new technologies, the recognition that globalization is changing a lot of things in terms of tariffs and barriers to commerce and capital. The Minister of the Environment has captured those two essential economic phenomena and has said that we have to combine the concept of sustainable development with a sustainable economy. He calls it the sustainable economy in the sense that we are not only creating a legacy for our environment but also value added in terms of our economy. Everything we do is an attempt to balance those two particular characteristics.
The other criteria that we attempt in this budget and in everything we do is to first invest in people. We want to know what capacity the people of Canada have to be entrepreneurial, to be creative, to add value to their own lives and, in turn, build a stronger Canada, to also invest in ideas and research and enable the commercialization of that research to add value to the Canadian economy.
The third criteria was to look at the regions. Canada really is, and has been throughout history, cognizant of regional needs. Whatever the budget does it should attempt to satisfy those regional needs, to maintain a fair and competitive tax system and to finally to make markets more efficient and more effective.
When we talk about the environment, we try to capture the stability of our economic past in this budget by attempting to maintain those five or six critical areas for investment in reinvigorating the Canadian dream.
When we come to the economy, the record has been quite clear in terms of the environment. Since the 1997-98 budget, the government, with the support of the opposition parties, has invested over $10 billion in areas related to adding value from an environmental perspective to the Canadian economy.
The 2005 budget delivers on some key commitments that have been in two or three red books or throne speeches. The budget delivers on the government's commitment to a green economy with a $5 billion package of measures over the next five years. It does this by addressing the issue of greenhouse gases and by recognizing that investing in environmental technologies will transform the economy and add jobs as we do it. It also recognizes that building on the tax measures that have been announced in the past will create a stronger investment climate and, in particular, in the area of renewable energies.
The whole concept of investing in public infrastructure, be it through cities or be it through the areas of the green funds through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, cannot help but add value to the Canadian economy.
In terms of climate change, I just wanted to mention, in case it has been missed, if we look at the $1 billion with respect to the climate fund; the $250 million in the partnership fund that is reaching out to the provinces and regions, the cities and rural communities; the $225 million over five years for the retrofitting programs in residential and commercial homes and buildings; and the sustainable energy science and technology strategies, all of these form a comprehensive framework within which there will be investment and returns that will come back. Those returns cannot help but improve life for Canadians, make us more competitive and create a better environment for the future. I would hope that those elements of the budget would be supported by all members of the House
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, questions certainly come to mind after listening to what the member for York South—Weston said this morning in the House of Commons.
Bill C-43 is a bill that has some flaws in it. As we all know the Atlantic accord provisions could be passed in a day in the House if they were stand alone legislation.
I heard the member across the way say that he believed in people and in investing in people. The people in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia have some big concerns at this point in time and the Atlantic accord could be free standing legislation.
Could the member tell me why all this was linked together? Why was the Atlantic accord linked to the bill at the present time, when the people from the east coast have such grave concerns about having the legislation passed, in view of the fact that the Kyoto measures are also linked to it and most members in the House do not agree with that part of the bill?
Alan Tonks: Mr. Speaker, I am not experienced to the extent that others are in the House with respect to procedures. I can only infer, from the degree of support that had been in the House from all sides with respect to the Atlantic accord, that the government thought it would not be a hindrance and it would not fetter a bill on which there was so much agreement.
It would appear that the omnibus approach is being held back somewhat because while there is total agreement on the accord, the instrument appears to be the part that is contentious. I would hope that we would find some resolution to that.
It has been brought to my attention that we would be prepared to pass the budget today if we had unanimous support.
However, on the second point, we also, creatively, will find solutions to that particular issue. I think we have found a solution with respect to the second case that the member has mentioned and that is the proposal to take toxic out of the CEPA legislation and to incorporate that into the budget bill as it has been deemed to be a necessary instrument to the implementation of some of the funds that are mentioned.
There appears to be a resolution to that. I tabled a report from committee that delineates why there is another way of doing it. I would suggest that once that goes through finance there will be no obstacle to approving the budget bill, at least not from that perspective.
Guy Côté: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member made a point of stating that he sits on the environmental and sustainable development committee and of mentioning the plan to implement the Kyoto protocol.
However, the vast majority of observers agree on one point: the Liberals have been very generous with heavy greenhouse gas emitters. They also note that the plan presented by the Minister of the Environment is lacking crucial elements and that it took eight years before a plan was tabled to implement the Kyoto protocol.
The bill talks about expenses of about $10 million to implement the Kyoto protocol with a rather vague and incomplete plan.
What does the minister have to say about all the criticism surrounding the Kyoto protocol?
Alan Tonks: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, as obviously time did not allow me to bridge or link the climate action plan that was presented by the minister a few days ago and which will be the subject of ongoing consideration by the environment and sustainable development committee.
Let me say in relation to the issue of the large emitters, which was raised by the member, the large emitters have been reduced to 45 megatonnes. That is their target; there has been a huge amount done through the sustainable development and economically sustainable framework to evaluate what those reductions should be. There is a huge degree of buy-in from the large emitters. That means they will meet their targets and in fact they will continue to create jobs at the same time. We have achieved what the minister says is a sustainable economic approach.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of my constituents of Battlefords--Lloydminster and speak again to budget 2005.
Of course this is a bit of a stretch, in that the budget for 2004 is still sitting in the Senate. This is definitely a pre-election ploy. We have a budget coming down in the dying days of this Parliament, no doubt about it now. We hear the Prime Minister and some of the other ministers saying, “Oh, no, we are going to lose all of this if things happen”. But it really flies in the face of logic when we see that the budget for 2004 is still sitting in the Senate, which is controlled by Liberals at this point. There is no reason for it to languish there other than the fact that these guys campaign a lot better on promises than they campaign on reality, so I guess that is part of the reality bite over there.
The last member who spoke talked about balance, saying that the Liberals do certain things because they are trying to strike a balance. I guess there's a balance that they have never really been able to handle: political rhetoric and promises are one thing, but trying to balance that off with practical solutions never seems to collide in this place. They are always held far apart from each other. As I said, the Liberals campaign better on promises than they do on reality.
There was an interesting editorial in the Montreal Gazette , which says that the Prime Minister suggests that “a quick election must be avoided because his [minority] government has not accomplished anything yet...this might be a better reason to bring down his government than to sustain it”.
There was a huge, ambitious agenda, which is what the Prime Minister ran his leadership on and of course also last year's election, the throne speech and now the budget. There is all this ambition they talk about, but we are not seeing anything move ahead. We are seeing bill after bill introduced and get shovelled off to committee, which helps the Liberals control the committee agenda, but nothing ever really goes past the starting gate from this point and gets out there to the people.
Last year's promises have not been delivered. As I said, they are still tied up in the Senate. The ones that have been pushed through this place and are at committee are largely ignored at this point as committees get piled up with legislation that is coming forward. The stuff that did sneak through is either forgotten about or the promise is broken and it is not being delivered, so at best, that ambitious agenda started, stumbled and fell. It never did get going like everybody thought it would. The hype has not measured up to the reality in this case.
The Prime Minister was touted all through last year and he chased Mr. Chrétien until Mr. Chrétien caught him; there is no doubt in anybody's mind now. The hype was that he was the Liberal Party's biggest asset. I guess they got it half right, because everything is coming home to bite, and it is all tumbling down.
This house of cards cannot last. We are seeing some unprecedented things. There is more money than ever to play with in this budget. That means taxpayers are getting ripped a little too deeply. We are seeing a lot of time and energy tied up in the sponsorship fiasco, and rightly so. Justice Gomery is doing a tremendous job. Whatever it costs is not an issue with me and my constituents. We want to see the bottom of that barrel. We know whose face is going to be reflected back out of there, so let us keep on going with Justice Gomery. An election call is not going to stop him. He is on a roll. He has his witnesses lined up. He is ready to go.
The concern I have is that we will not see a report until November of next fall at the earliest, and judging from what these guys on the opposite benches do with reports from the Auditor General and different people who blow the whistle on them, those reports kind of get buried and sanitized and cleaned up. When the reports finally do see the light of day around this place, they are usually too late or there is so much whiteout on the pages that we cannot really tell what the person wanted to say in the first place.
We hear ridiculous arguments like “forensic reviews”. There is no such animal. I am not a high-priced accountant or lawyer or anything like that, but I have run a lot of businesses. There is just no such thing as a forensic review. The government is hiding behind this type of rhetoric.
There is a tremendous amount in this budget that sort of starts to go in the right direction, but these things either never got a plan or dollars attached. It is always, “Trust me. We are from the government. We are here to help. We will get it right. Give us five, six, seven or ten years out there and we will see some differences”.
We heard a lot of talk about what great things the government has done balancing the books, but nobody ever talks about--
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Hear, hear!
Gerry Ritz: The member is a little premature with the applause. Nobody ever talks about the extra $140 billion that went on the debt from 1993 until the government finally got things slowed down and turned around in 1997. The Liberals should look in the mirror. Some of the blemish is on them as well for those high deficit years and the high debt accumulation that we face in this country.
The Prime Minister stands in his place and tells everybody he has fixed health care for a generation. Then the other day he stood up and went off on a tangent. Even he does not believe that anymore. He knows it is not working, because the provinces are still scrambling to deliver health care to their people. In spite of what the Prime Minister says, in spite of that political rhetoric, it is not fixed for a generation. As it turns out, it is going to take a generation to fix it at the rate these guys are going.
The rhetoric and the actual solutions never quite balance off. That is part of the problem we see in this budget. We see the equalization formula coming under attack. In order to make this budget saleable, the Liberals have hooked in the Atlantic accord. Of course the other provinces, Ontario, Saskatchewan and even British Columbia, all these other provinces, are coming forward and saying, “Wait a minute, this thing is almost 50 years old”.
There are some 30 different formulas that make up the way they arrive at the numbers of who gets what. Non-renewable resources have to be taken out of the formula. It requires 10 provinces to agree; I think we are getting close to that. Everybody has some concern and the Liberals will not address it. The Prime Minister will not even sit down with his country cousin from Ontario and talk about it. He is saying that there are more substantive issues. In reality, there are not.
Money makes the world go around when it comes to governments. That is the lifeblood, that taxation system and the cashflow that erupts from it. What about when a province is not getting its fair share, as is the case in Saskatchewan? There is $1 billion a year for the last eight years that we have been watching, that we have not received and that we should have received under the formula that is a sidebar deal with the Atlantic accord.
We have a problem with that, because that really comes back to haunt the farmers, especially in Saskatchewan. The provincial government, rightly or wrongly, is not ponying up its share. It has some dollars in the wrong pigeonholes, there is no doubt about it, and that extra $1 billion probably would be tossed aside and put on some of its pet projects, like the potato fiasco that took place in that province. However, the reality is that Saskatchewan still has the right to that dollar. Then it is up to the province's electorate to decide whether they like what the government is doing or not.
The federal government, in its wisdom, likes to take on all that power and control it through the dispensation of money. In the budget itself Saskatchewan gets a bit of money for equalization through the treatment of the Crown leases: $6.5 million out of a $1 billion shortfall. That is an insult. As it turns out, Ottawa keeps the mine and Saskatchewan gets the shaft. That is what is happening. It is a little short of what has been promised or even what has been talked about.
I started talking about agriculture a minute ago. One of the major concerns I had with the original budget was that again agriculture was left out. There were a few dollars tossed around here and there, but most of those dollars went to the bureaucrats and different government programs. There was really nothing to the farm gate other than a cashflow promise to cow-calf guys, which does not start for over a year, not until 2006. Of course this is the year we are having trouble because the government's own safety net programs do not work. We are always destined to fail.
The Liberals are great at making big announcements. We heard one again a couple of weeks ago: another $1 billion. The consumers in the big cities ask how farmers can be hurting when they have been given another $1 billion. It sounds like a lot of money, but when we get past the smoke and do not look at the mirrors that the Liberals are setting up around there, less than 50¢ on each of those dollars will ever or could ever be delivered the way this particular program is set up. It is a separate sidebar deal outside of the CAIS system that was supposed to be the answer to every farm gate woe.
I guess that in doing this the Liberals are finally admitting that CAIS is not working. We cannot even get a cash advance out of that critter, so the government has come up with another way to try to trigger money out to the farm gate. The reality of that one is that delivery, as I said, is going to be about 50¢ on the dollar of what is announced, and it is going to get clawed back in any future payouts through CAIS. It negatively affects our reference margin, which holds us even more in abeyance in any further cashflow. It is another recipe for disaster.
Again, the government is great in the promises and the headlines are always wonderful, but reality never measures up. That is the balance that the Liberals always seem to miss. As we get closer and closer to an election, they have to start looking over their shoulders and saying, “We promised this. Where is the delivery?”
I am sure that this time around Canadians are going to hold these guys to account, not just for the Gomery inquiry and the sponsorship fiasco, but for every other little aspect that they promised and never really delivered on.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the discourse of the hon. member, although there was a little factual inaccuracy in it. Maybe he could explain it better to the House. In other words, I am trying to give him a second chance.
The hon. member has complained about the fact that the Atlantic accord is in the budget bill, which is where it should be. However, what he has failed to indicate is that the government offered on two separate occasions to have a stand-alone bill and pass it right away, but the opposition refused.
Perhaps the hon. member across the way could explain to us whether this is simply a case of deathbed repentance on the part of Conservatives who think they can now pretend to care for Atlantic Canadians? Their now Leader of the Opposition made such disparaging remarks about Atlantic Canadians not that many years ago, remarks that all of us on this side of the House remember. He talked about the culture of welfare and things like that and criticized, wrongly, the proud people of Atlantic Canada. Is that the reason why the Leader of the Opposition may have inculcated these values in his colleagues?
Perhaps, by giving this additional chance to the hon. member, he can now explain the real reason. Is it this deathbed repentance to try to make Atlantic Canadians forget Conservative statements of the past and Conservative actions of not that long ago in relation to the bill?
Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for giving me that second chance. I am not sure the electorate of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell will be as kind to him this next election.
The hon. member has it completely backward. When he talked about being factual, it is the opposition that offered the Liberal government a couple of times that if it to hived that off from the budget bill, we would pass it in one day. He should go back and read the blues. The Leader of the Opposition stood in the House of Commons in question period and put that idea across to the Prime Minister and the Liberals refused to do it.
If the hon. member goes back and checks media clips in Newfoundland and Labrador, and my colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador is sitting right here, it is this party that led the charge at the federal level when the Prime Minister would not even talk to the premier, Danny Williams. We had calls from Premier Hamm in Nova Scotia saying that he needed us there to do it because he would not talk to them. We were happy to carry that load.
Going back further into the past, the now minister of public perks over there, who used to be from Nova Scotia and represented those people, parroted the words of the Leader of the Opposition. He talked about the dependency that the Liberals created in Atlantic Canada and then lived off that like scavengers on a dead cow. The minister opposite knows all about dead cows and the scavengers that can show up.
When we talk about the actual Atlantic accord, the hon. member has no lessons to give anybody.
Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in his remarks painted a pretty bleak picture of things. I cannot believe my day to day life and the day to day life of Canadians is as bleak as all that and that everything is wrong with the picture.
When I look at the picture, I see historically low interest rates and unemployment rates and huge paydowns of our national debt. Our current account is in surplus. Our trade balance is in surplus. Our debt to GDP ratio is down under 50%. We have rising personal incomes. It is actually a very good picture.
There might be something good happening around the country that is not just political, from the very narrow political lens that he uses. Will the hon. member admit there are some good things happening economically in the country?
Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, I would laud Canadian taxpayers for bearing up under the burden that the government has heaped on them year after year.
Let us talk about the $50 billion farm debt. Let us talk about the $25 billion that the Prime Minister, as finance minister, carved out of the health and social transfers to provinces. Let us talk about the $40 billion that he ripped out of the EI fund to balance his books and fudge them. Let us talk about the $60 billion infrastructure deficit across the country at which they are throwing nickels and dimes.
We have the lowest productivity and the highest taxes of the G-7, and that member wants to say that is a record to laud. I would like to see him take that on the hustings.
Mrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois opposed the adoption of the budget presented in February, and it will also oppose its implementation act. Not only do we feel that the budget is unacceptable in terms of its content, but it is just as unacceptable in terms of what is not included in it. A number of people, the forgotten ones, are affected by this situation, and I will mention some of them.
The forgotten ones include, in particular, all Quebeckers. Indeed, no significant measure is taken to correct the fiscal imbalance.
Then there are those who do not have adequate housing and the homeless. There is no money for housing programs such as the RRAP, the residential rehabilitation assistance program, and SCPI, the supporting communities partnership initiative. This is unacceptable.
There is also nothing for workers and the unemployed. Seasonal workers asked that the number of hours required to qualify be reduced, and that more be done to deal with the gap than just resorting to transition measures. However, these workers did not find anything in this budget.
Vulnerable workers, young people and women wanted the government to completely eliminate the discriminatory 910 hour eligibility threshold for new entrants to the labour market, but they also did not find anything for them in this budget.
Workers and employers who wanted the government to immediately stop dipping into the employment insurance fund did not find anything in this budget.
Older workers who are affected by massive layoffs did not find anything in this budget regarding POWA, the program for older worker adjustment.
In short, there are many things related to this budget that are unacceptable to Quebec. As for what is in it, we feel that it is very sad. This government campaigned on a so-called social program but it is governing conservatively, in both senses of the word, and it presented a budget that does not in any way meet Quebeckers' needs.
The federal government has also increased Canada's fiscal imbalance through the cuts that it has been making since 1993 in transfer payments to Quebec and the provinces. This imbalance has grown so much that it is literally stifling Quebec and the provinces.
The result of this is that the federal government has financial means that exceed its needs, while the provinces are in the opposite situation. The federal government continues to hypocritically deny the existence of such an imbalance. It was merely forced to talk about “financial pressures” in the budget. The Bloc Québécois will continue to demand that the federal government recognize the fiscal imbalance and deal with it.
Despite recommendations by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, calling for a more comprehensive reform of employment insurance, there are no improvements that could be applied immediately, except for the mention of a possible $300 million measure, which is hardly enough for seasonal workers. In addition, the 2005 budget prevents any actual improvements to the EI program because the main objective in changing the fund is to eliminate the annual surplus.
As for the plan for implementing the Kyoto protocol, it gives major polluters carte blanche. The budget confirms the choice already expressed by the federal government of a voluntary approach to the Kyoto protocol, which will not lead to the achievement of the objectives for the reduction of greenhouse gases and will place the financial burden on the taxpayers rather than the major polluters.
The absence of tax measures in the transport sector will not help Quebec to improve its greenhouse gas reduction record. These measures are not appropriate to Quebec, which has done its fair share in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Instead of the polluter pay principle, this government has implemented polluter paid measures. While Quebec has set up Hydro-Québec at its own expense, the federal government is proposing to finance the major fossil fuel consumers to help them meet the Kyoto protocol objectives. In so doing, it is asking Quebeckers to subsidize the environmental irresponsibility of Ontario and Alberta.
When it comes to social housing, the federal government has completely ignored the repeated demands by the Bloc Québécois that reflect the social consensus in Quebec, where needs are great. In the meantime, it is investing in sectors such as the military, which is not a priority to Quebeckers. I will come back to this.
As for correctional officers, in appendix 8, the budget proposes changes to the Income Tax Act. In his budgetary statement, the minister proposes increasing the maximum pension benefit accrual rate to 2.33% for RPPs, registered pension plans, and benefit limits to 2% for public safety related professions.
There are special rules on pension benefits for individuals working in a public safety occupation. Under the income tax regulations, a public safety occupation means the occupation of a firefighter, police officer, commercial airline pilot or air traffic controller. This year, corrections officer was added.
These regulations authorize individuals in a public safety occupation to retire five years earlier than other RPP, registered pension plan, contributors, without any reduction in benefits, because it is standard practice for members of these occupations, whose role is to ensure public safety, to take early retirement.
In extending this measure to all public safety occupations, including corrections officers, the government is finally recognizing that those ensuring our safety face disadvantages compared to other workers. They have demanding jobs. In fact, unlike in other occupations, stress increases with experience and, as a result, these workers must retire earlier.
In passing, the case of corrections officers is patently absurd. They have been bargaining for more than three years with Treasury Board and have been without a collective agreement since June 2002. Their specific demands have been systematically turned down, including recently. We wonder, then, how the government can agree in principle with its budget and, at the same time, refuse the demands of corrections officers.
The budget provides an additional $12.8 billion over five years for national defence. This is the most significant increase—equal to 46%—over a five-year period in the past 20 years. The government is using this money to expand the Canadian Forces by 5,000 regular force personnel and 3,000 reservists. Over $2.5 billion will allow for the acquisition of helicopters and utility aircraft, trucks for the army and specialized facilities. Some $3.8 billion will fund capital and other projects to support new roles for the military to be identified in the upcoming defence policy statement. Some $1 billion over five years will support key national security initiatives. The defence budget has already been increased by 48% since fiscal year 1996-97. In 2009-10, the defence budget will increase a further 46%, for a total increase over 1996-97 of 116%.
The government lacks consistency, confirming in its budget that a defence policy has to be in place before any new funding is allocated.
The Bloc Québécois has been asking for quite a while that, before any new money is invested in that area, Canada develop a strong, structured defence policy approved by the government.
With respect to the aerospace policy, once again, there is a big hole. This budget does not contain any measures benefiting the aerospace industry in Quebec. In fact, this government has no aerospace policy. The federal government is holding off from implementing an aerospace policy and providing assistance that would allow businesses to develop new aircraft, like Bombardier's aircraft for instance, in Quebec.
While the federal government is investing $200 million in the renovation of GM Canada's plants in Ontario, the aerospace industry in Quebec and Canada is still waiting for a real support policy. The aerospace industry accounts for $2.1 billion annually in tax revenues for Ottawa.
Last fall, the Bloc Québécois presented its own aerospace policy. This policy is designed to stimulate investment in research and development, finance export sales and support the growth of SMBs supplying the giant aerospace companies. We encourage the federal government to cut and paste our aerospace policy.
The concentration of the aerospace industry in the Montreal area, and the south shore in particular, is such that the École nationale d'aéronautique of Édouard Montpetit College was established and has been developing in Saint-Hubert. Saint-Hubert is also home to the École nationale d'aérotechnique, which is located next to the Canadian Space Agency and the Saint-Hubert airport. This is the only school in North America offering training in French, English and Spanish in the design, production and repair of all aircraft components.
That is not all that makes Quebec unique in the field of aeronautics, but it is one more reason for Quebec to be to the aerospace industry what Ontario is to the automotive industry.
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her renewed demonstration that this budget is completely unacceptable for Quebeckers. She has shown once more that the Bloc Québécois is the party that really stands for the interests of Quebec.
One point that got my attention in her remarks concerns correctional officers. She said that the minister proposed to increase to 2.33% the maximum pension accrual rate in registered pension plans. The hon. member explained that very clearly. This is the 2% rate in defined benefit RPPs for public security occupations. This is good news.
Could the hon. member tell us why this proposal is in the budget and the government did not implement it? We cannot figure out what is going on, and correctional officers cannot either. We would like to understand what is going on. Would my colleague care to comment?
Carole Lavallée: Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent question. Indeed, correctional officers always find themselves in altogether weird situations. As I said earlier, they have been wanting to renegotiate their collective agreement for three years. They have been without an agreement for three years and they cannot find a representative within the Treasury Board who would enable them to sit down and engage in serious negotiations.
Suddenly, in this budget, in annex 8, there is some good news for them. Indeed, there is something that they had not exactly requested, namely an increase from 2% to 2.33% of the maximum pension benefits accumulation rate. They had not asked for that at all. It is a fact that they wanted a pension scheme which would be more acceptable and would correspond more to the specific nature of their work. They have a very difficult job. In fact, studies have demonstrated that stress increases with experience.
They were thus very happy to see this measure, which will enable them to retire faster, something they really need. So, faced with a statement like that in the budget, the Union of Correctional Officers tried to get in touch with people in the Treasury Board to explain this measure to them and to negotiate it. By the way, I did not mention it earlier, but it is retroactive to January 1, 2005. That is some good news!
There is some reason why somebody sat down at a some point and wrote this provision into the budget. They said to themselves: it is clear, they really want to give us something and they have understood our line of argumentation. They want to sit down to negotiate with the Treasury Board. They want to make a reality of that promise that is in the budget, but they can find nobody to do so. This is utterly unacceptable and I think that somebody in the Treasury Board may possibly wake up and return their calls to actually negotiate what is provided for in the budget.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in this debate on the implementation bill relating to the excellent budget the Minister of Finance tabled some time ago.
It is important for us to review all of the good measures in the budget. That might take a while, since it is chock full of good news for Canadians.
We have, for instance, made some major commitments to Canadians on key social and economic priorities. We respect those commitments, as the Liberal Party has always respected its commitments. We keep our word and, of course, we keep our promises to Canadians—and we are known for that—by continuing to ensure good financial management and balanced budgets, reducing the debt, achieving savings as a result of a careful examination of our spending, and improving the efficiency of our operations and service delivery.
This alone is evidence of the commitment of our government. To give one example, the members across the way were just saying that the Liberal Party had not, in their opinion, administered public funds as well as the Conservatives would have. We have memories of the Conservative administration and the sad events of that period. For years I sat on what is now their side of this House. What do we remember about the Mazankowski and Wilson budgets, and the budgets of all those Conservative ministers?
First, there was always a deficit. Second, even the deficit forecast was wrong, because the deficit at the end of the year was always worse than predicted. Hon. members will recall the total lack of discipline in the government of that day. There was no sense whatsoever of the common good. Things were never right at year's end. People were in despair. Interest rates and unemployment rates were high, and I am sure people have not forgotten that. They finally got rid of the Conservatives in 1993,12 years ago. It is my opinion that Canadians still do not want to go back to a government like the one they had then, with its total ignorance of how to administer public funds.
On our side, we are going through a period of prosperity since our party came into office. Thanks to the wisdom of the former prime minister, of the current Prime Minister, when he was the finance minister, and of other finance ministers who succeeded him, we have managed to put our fiscal house in order. This must be said, because it is very important.
I am not saying this because we, the Liberals, want to brag; this is not how I do things. However, it is important for Canadians to know that we now have low interest rates, which are at historic levels. Why? This is simple. The government, which was itself the biggest client of financial markets, no longer borrows money. It has not borrowed money in seven years.
In the history of our country, one Prime Minister's regime, under Brian Mulroney's regime actually, accumulated more debt than the entire history of this great nation put together. Have we forgotten that some $200 billion of debt was accumulated under one Conservative Prime Minister? That is a very sad legacy and we have been fixing it ever since.
We have been repairing things, making them better, and reducing the debt. The debt to GDP ratio has gone down considerably. We have repaid accumulated debt. We have enabled the country to prosper and grow. That is what we have been doing and there is more to do in the future. We intend to continue delivering good governance for Canadians.
The hon. members across were asking earlier why the government did not split up the budget into three or four portions, so that they could vote and cherry-pick. They would split up the budget, so they could vote and pass the part they liked and vote against, and presumably defeat, the part of the budget that they did not like. One has to be a Conservative to understand this and I am not very good at that and you, Mr. Speaker, being non-partisan, probably cannot do it very well either. But I guess for the folks across the way they can reason that way.
They want the budget to be split in different pieces. They then will have the liberty of cherry-picking, so that they will not offend anyone by voting against part of the budget. They will please their constituencies that will like the parts that they vote in favour of. It does not work that way. This is real life here in Ottawa.
It is important to point out that we have, of course, provided aid measures for agriculture in the budget. Agriculture has suffered a lot and is still suffering. Yesterday, I met with a group of farmers in my office, here in Parliament. They explained to me, for example, how much they appreciated the recent measures. The billion dollars in surplus that the Minister of Agriculture has just announced to us is welcome. In spite of this, agriculture is still suffering.
A little later today, we will have another debate on supply management. I am very anxious to speak about this and to offer my support to this agricultural sector, which is faring better than other sectors, but which is suffering, particularly dairy producers when it comes to cull cows.
Thus, a lot of work has been done to support the Canadian economy, to provide sound management and to manage taxpayers' money effectively. This budget is yet another illustration of this. However, I can tell you that there is still work to do. With a good Liberal governance that we will continue to have for a long time, we will continue, of course, to manage the public finances effectively.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from November 23, 2004 consideration of the motion.
Rob Moore: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion. As a new member of Parliament, I have had the opportunity to travel around my riding and meet with farmers from different agricultural sectors. One thing they have in common right now is that agriculture has been hard hit.
We know what we have seen as a focus of late. We have seen how taxpayer money in the past has been squandered in such an irresponsible fashion, and perhaps illegal fashion, when hard-working families and farmers, those in the agricultural sectors, have seen very little support for an industry currently in crisis.
Farmers need our support now more than ever. Strong leadership is needed on the agricultural files. I would suggest that is exactly what has been lacking from the government.
I met informally with a group of farmers in my riding, representing the different agricultural sectors. They shared with me how Liberal inaction and lack of leadership had hurt them and their families. We spoke about the grand announcement of programs and billions of dollars announced, or perhaps re-announced. We spoke about the millions of dollars thrown about here and there and how often times they were perplexed because none of that money reached them on their farms. Perhaps it is because the forms they need to access those funds have been so terrifically complicated that one must hire a lawyer or an accountant to find out what exactly they have to do to qualify. In many cases the programs that are out there are not enough and farmers do not qualify. In the end, they are left in a desperate situation.
I spoke to many farmers who have lost their farms as of late and many who have considered getting out of the family farm, Many have children, who wanted to follow in the footsteps of their parents, are now questioning whether that is a viable reality.
We talked about plunging beef prices. We talked about a lack of slaughter capacity. We talked about the new budget and in particular the news for Atlantic Canada about the closure of research centres in Atlantic Canada. That is terrible news. We are a vast country and every region has unique needs. These Atlantic centres were providing research that was applicable in that area. To announce something like that in a budget is just another kick when so many are down.
I am please to say that the Conservative Party has been listening to farmers and we are working hard to ensure that they have a better future.
I was pleased to attend and participate in our Conservative Party of Canada's first policy convention this past March. This was an opportunity for Conservatives from coast to coast to put forward policies for our party as we headed into the future. Due to the great importance of agriculture to our country, agricultural issues were at the forefront of our meetings.
Under the leadership from our agricultural critic, the member for Haldimand—Norfolk, our party passed strong resolutions to support Canadian farmers.
Agriculture plays a very important role in my riding of Fundy Royal. In fact over 50% of New Brunswick's dairy production comes from my riding alone. Therefore, I was pleased particularly with our party's strong support for industries under the protection of supply management.
As a matter of fact, at our policy convention we passed a resolution specifically on supply/management which I would like to read. It states:

The Conservative Party of Canada believes it is in the best interest of Canada and Canadian agriculture that the industries under the protection of supply management remain viable. A Conservative government will support the goal of supply management to deliver a high quality product to consumers for a fair price with a reasonable return to the producer.

Further to that, we also passed a resolution that forms our party's guiding principles when dealing with agricultural issues, forms the foundation for how we deal with agriculture in the future. I will read from that also:

The Conservative Party views the agriculture industry to be a key strategic economic sector of Canada. We recognize that various regions of Canada and sectors of the industry hold competitive advantages in agricultural production. National agricultural policy will reflect our belief that one size does not fit all.
Agriculture policy must be developed only in consultation with the agricultural producers. Our farmers today are business operators and to dictate policy which might have an adverse effect on this business community would have negative consequences and go against Conservative Party principles. Balancing financial responsibility with support programs that actually work is a major priority of this party.

As can be seen, one fundamental difference between our party and others is the high value we place on Canadian agriculture. We put farmers first when we deal on the international stage and when we deal with domestic support for agricultural communities. It is for that reason that the principles I read form part of our policy of going into the future.
Canada's agricultural sectors are as diverse as Canada itself. I believe our policy reflects that. It is in light of that diversity that we proposed to the Bloc, who moved this motion we are debating today, a friendly amendment to the motion we are now debating. Our friendly amendment read:

That in the opinion of this House, in the current World Trade Organization negotiations, the government should seek an agreement that strengthens the international marketing position of Canada's agricultural exporters while at the same time does not weaken the supply management system and collective marketing strategies.

Unfortunately, the Bloc have chosen not to support our amendment.
For the record, the Conservative Party of Canada and myself fully support supply management. Our policy reflects this support. In fact, both our leader and our agricultural critic are on the record as supporting the three pillars of supply management. Our party supports as well the 90% of Canadian and the 66%, I might add, of Quebec producers who are not under supply management.
Therefore, our amendment seeks protection for supply management and also seeks the enhancement of agricultural exports that is so needed by many sectors in our country.
We know that no one agricultural sector wants to profit at the expense of another and our friendly amendment to this motion reflects that reality.
I am pleased to speak to this motion brought forward by the Bloc and I also wish to call on the government to honour the commitments it has made to Canadian producers and to negotiate in good faith at the World Trade Organization.
Too often our farmers are let down by a Liberal government that will not negotiate in their best interest on the international stage and on agricultural issues. We need to look no further than the current BSE crisis which is also having a tremendous impact on many sectors of agriculture across the country in every region, including sectors under supply management.
The Liberals have failed time and time again to negotiate an open border with our largest trading partner and we know that Canada's farmers have suffered greatly for that failure. We have also seen Liberals pit one agricultural sector against another in international negotiations.
All sectors of agriculture in the country deserve our support. I am pleased to be part of a caucus that is determined and committed to supporting and defending all Canadian farmers.
The Conservative Party will continue to support Canada's farmers. We will continue to stand by dairy, poultry and egg producers. Unlike our current government, a Conservative government will protect Canada's farmers in international negotiations.
All Canadians deserve nothing less than a government that will always act in their best interest. I look forward to working with all members of this House to see that interests of our farmers are defended in international negotiations.
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the motion introduced by my colleague from Montcalm. In fact, I want to congratulate the sponsor of this motion, my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, for introducing the first Bloc Québécois motion since Parliament resumed. This shows how important the supply management system is to us.
Allow me to reread the motion, to our friends from the Conservative Party especially, to show the extent to which it responds to their concerns and to indicate why they should be able to vote in favour of it.

That, in the opinion of the House, in the current World Trade Organization negotiations, the government should not agree to any concession that would weaken collective marketing strategies or the supply management system.

It is very clear that this motion defends the supply management system, not to the detriment of other agricultural sectors, but as a complement to their needs, in particular the need for a reduction in the subsidies given by the U.S. and Europe to their agricultural exports. Our motion absolutely does not go against the needs of all the agricultural sectors in Canada and Quebec.
The supply management system covers five sectors: two in poultry, two in eggs, and one in dairy. It is a way of ensuring a fair income for farmers, and we know how much difficulty they have been through in recent years, in the cattle and grain sectors in particular. Supply management ensures a fair income, even though the Canadian Dairy Commission is asking for a substantial increase in the price of milk.
It also ensures a constant supply to processors. Therefore it is also in the interest of processors to have this system in place because it assures them a constant, dependable supply.
It ensures high-quality products at a very good price for consumers.
For a system to ensure fair income, quality products and consistent supply, it has to be supported by three pillars, which are, of course, interdependent. We cannot weaken one and hope to maintain the supply management system. These three pillars have to be solid.
The first pillar corresponds to production planning. Product supply has to correspond as closely as possible to the estimated domestic demand. That is the first pillar and it is extremely important.
The second pillar consists of a pricing mechanism that ensures a fair income without government subsidies. This is very important. I would remind our Conservative friends that the supply management system is in no way dependent upon government assistance. This is truly in line with the spirit of the World Trade Organization's agreements. This is, of course, a system that feeds the domestic market.
The third pillar deals with import control, now taken care of by tariffs. Relatively high tariffs will indeed be imposed to prevent the importation of products that would compete with our national products.
We all understand that if this pillar, corresponding to imports, is weakened, the whole system falls down because supply exceeds demand. This brings prices down, the revenues are not fair anymore and the whole system crumbles.
That is, unfortunately, what is happening now because of the Liberal government's lax attitude. I am not the one who says this: Mr. Groleau, the president of the Fédération Québecoise du lait, says:

This is huge. If we do not do anything, all Canadian milk production will disappear. There has to be an end to the federal government's lax attitude. Does it intend to abandon the dairy sector as it did the textile industry?

We can feel that people are very concerned and rightly so. We have let foreign competitors get around the WTO's rules and Canadian regulations as well.
As I mentioned earlier, this failure to control imports is jeopardizing the overall viability of the supply management system.
Butter oil is often used as an example—my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant referred to it during oral questions. This product is used essentially to make ice cream and, to a great extent, has replaced cream and fats. Apparently, 50% of all ice cream is now made using this butter oil.
The current Minister for International Trade, like his predecessor, is refusing to put this product, made mostly from milk by-products and essentially used to make ice cream, on the list of commodities subject to quota, which means that they are increasingly entering our market and competing with our dairy products.
For example, since 1996, butter oil imports have increased by 324%. This is not negligible; in fact, it is very significant. As a result, dairy producers have suffered losses totalling $52 million. Significant damage has already been done.
We are asking the minister, then, to add butter oil to the list of commodities subject to quota; it would be relatively easy for him to do this. However, we cannot stop there. New technologies are also creating products that separate milk into by-products, thereby creating new products that are not regulated or that are poorly regulated in Canada.
Milk contains lactose, proteins and fats. Now, new technologies separate milk into by-products—not covered by our regulations—for import to Canada. When we signed these agreements, these technologies did not exist.
Unfortunately, the federal government is pretending that this problem does not exist either. I want to quote Mr. Groleau again. He said:

We are asking [the federal government] to accept its responsibilities and stop the bleeding, in keeping with its commitments to producers. This situation is costing dairy producers millions of dollars and in no way benefits consumers.

By allowing these dairy products to enter separately, we are weakening, perhaps even permanently, the supply management system.
Members will recall that when the Marrakesh accord was being negotiated, as I mentioned, this problem did not exist at the technological level. Import controls were thus replaced by tariff rate quotas. We must now find a way to seal off this weak spot in supply management and to find ways to regulate things more adequately.
As you know, article 28 of the GATT allows the establishment of quota systems on certain tariff lines. What is requested by the industry is to use that section in order to be able to modify the tariff schedule so as to cover by tariff quotas all food preparaions having a milk content of at least 10%.
We would then be in a position to close the gap that has opened up over the last few years, which causes extremely large losses for milk producers especially—I am using the example of milk, essentially. We are looking at $170 million in losses in 2004 and, for Quebec alone, $70 million. The whole future of the supply management system is at stake.
As I mentioned, this is not to the detriment of the other agricultural sectors nor of our work against the subsidization of agricultural exports. In this context, if my colleague for Montcalm is agreed, I would like to amend our motion by adding after the word “system” the following:

“and should also seek an agreement establishing fair and equitable rules that foster the international competitiveness of agricultural exporters in Quebec and Canada.”

I think that, in this way, we can assuage the concerns raised by some speakers from the Conservative Party.
So, if my colleague is in agreement, I would amend the Bloc Québécois motion in the way I have just proposed.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the member for Montcalm agree that his motion be amended?
Mr. Roger Gaudet: Mr. Speaker, I agree.
The Deputy Speaker: The debate is now on the amendment.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice has the floor.
Paul MacKlin: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to have this opportunity to debate something that in my earlier days meant a lot to me, at least in the practical sense, because I was born and raised on a dairy farm, and today I realize the importance of all the complexities that go along with the process of protecting that dairy farm and the interests of the farmers in our communities.
Today I want to say that when we talk about our country's history as we look at trade, Canada has played what I would call a unique and constructive role in international affairs. Multilateralism has been a hallmark of our foreign policy and it has defined our reputation as a country that works in partnership with others to achieve goals that benefit people all around the world.
Likewise, when we talk of the multilateralism that has defined Canada's trade policy since the creation of the GATT before World War II, our trade policy has been built on the long-standing belief that Canadians prosper from secure access to foreign markets.
Secure access offers Canadians a more stable and predictable business environment and a more level playing field for our producers. Equally important is the recognition that Canadians need clear and enforceable rules and effective dispute settlement mechanisms to ensure that power politics do not impair the way our agrifood products are traded around the world.
Canada has consistently worked in partnership with many different countries to build a global trading system in which all countries, regardless of their political or economic power in the world, can compete on a level international playing field governed by multilaterally agreed upon rules.
This is why the WTO agricultural negotiations are so critical for Canada as a whole and for the agrifood business in particular. The negotiations offer us the best opportunity to work hand in hand with other countries to achieve greater market opportunities and to level the playing field for addressing foreign subsidies and tariff barriers that hinder our ability to compete fairly in foreign markets.
Since the negotiations began almost six years ago, Canada has been working in partnership with many countries to move the negotiations forward. As has been the case many times before in international relations, Canada has played a very effective broker role between divergent points of view, building on our current alliances and forging new ones.
It should be no surprise that this approach has been very successful for Canada. Many of our ideas and approaches have been reflected in negotiating texts to date and, most important, the framework that the WTO members reached in July.
The framework agreement will guide the next stage of the agricultural negotiations. As the framework was being negotiated in July, Canada's negotiating team met with the other WTO members, developed and developing countries alike, to promote our views. They worked day and night, leaving no stone unturned, as one would say, to advance Canada's objectives and to work toward a framework in the interest of the entire agrifood sector, including the five supply managed industries and the Canadian Wheat Board.
The framework clearly points the way toward a more level international playing field and moves in the direction of clearer and fairer rules that can address some of the existing inequities facing Canadian producers. The framework provides scope for Canada to continue pursuing our negotiating objectives and reflects many of the key ideas that Canada has been putting forward since the negotiations began.
I am proud to say that this government has been working in close partnership with our domestic partners, the provincial governments and the whole range of agrifood stakeholders over the course of these negotiations. Even before the negotiations began in the year 2000, the government consulted extensively with the provincial governments and the entire agrifood sector to develop Canada's initial negotiating position.
Because of this close partnership, our negotiating position has enabled Canada to put forward strong and credible ideas and approaches throughout the negotiations. I would like to applaud both Minister Peterson and Minister Mitchell for the amount of time and energy they and their officials have devoted to working with the stakeholders over the course of these negotiations, for these negotiations are not easy.
With the agricultural framework that we now have in place, Canada can continue to work toward achieving our negotiating objectives. It is true that Canada will continue to face pressure on our domestic sensitivities. When we talk about domestic sensitivities, we are specifically looking at such areas as our supply managed industries. We are ready and Canada will continue to work closely with the stakeholders to achieve a positive outcome for the entire agrifood sector.
The government is fully committed to continuing to work closely with our stakeholders, including the five supply managed industries and the Canadian Wheat Board, as negotiations progress. We will continue to aggressively pursue these objectives as set out for the negotiations and developed with the provinces and Canadians across this country.
We will continue to strongly press Canada's positions in the negotiations because all of our producers need a rules based trading system in which to do business and a level playing field in which to compete fairly and effectively.
This government will continue to defend the ability of our producers to choose how to market their products, including through the orderly marketing structures like supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board.
We welcome the momentum that the July package provided to the negotiations. We were glad to see that the July package integrated many of the key Canadian ideas. There is much hard work to be done this year if we are to move the negotiations forward to a successful sixth ministerial conference in Hong Kong, China, in December of this year.
We need to make every effort to advance the trade interests of our agrifood sector by working with other countries to move the negotiations forward in ways that not only advance our objectives but help meet the needs of the producers from countries around the world, especially those from developing countries. We need to continue to work together with our domestic partners to support Canadian agriculture, which depends heavily on exports, a predictable trading system, supply management, and the Canadian Wheat Board.
Coming from an agricultural background, I can certainly confirm the importance of the supply managed system as it relates to the dairy industry. So many in my community depend on the certainty of that business being there for them next week and next year, producing quality products at competitive pricing for all our citizens of this country.
At a recent policy convention of my party, a resolution that was raised by my own constituency brought forward the need for strong support for this particular supply managed industry. It was adopted virtually unanimously as a resolution of the party.
All of these factors speak to the importance that our communities give to supply managed industries and the need for the support of these industries within our country. We believe in supply managed systems. We believe they have been good for this country.
I am very pleased to stand here today and say I support supply managed industry, in particular of course because of my background in the dairy industry, and I want to see it flourish.
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, I too want to thank my colleague from Montcalm and my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant for bringing forth again an issue that is so important, especially for me.
As you surely know, this is not the first time that I rise in this House to speak to this issue that affects my riding. There are about 1,400 supply managed farms in the Centre-du-Québec region and about 760 in the Estrie region. These are the two regions that border my riding of Richmond—Arthabaska.
In the Arthabaska RCM, there are 397 dairy, poultry and egg farms. There are 137 supply managed farms in the Val-Saint-François RCM and 90 in the Asbestos RCM. All this to say that this is an important issue in my area. We hope that the government and the other parties in the House will feel the same and support Motion M-163.
A good part of my local platform—and I was the only candidate in my riding to have one—dealt with agriculture, and much of that addressed supply management.
We met with SM5 people during the election campaign and everyone was quick to sign the SM5, with the exception of the Liberal candidate, who took some persuading but eventually did so also. It must be kept in mind, moreover, that all party leaders here now signed it during the 2004 election campaign.
Members of all parties, Conservatives, NDP and Liberals—no need to add the Bloc Québécois, since our leader is well informed on this—need to remember that commitment that they signed on during the 2004 election campaign. We hope that they will respect that commitment by supporting Motion M-163.
In my platform, I pointed out the vital importance of agriculture to my riding. For example, the Arthabaska RCM is the top-ranking milk and cattle producer in Quebec. We are renowned for the quality of our dairy production and a number of exceptional cheeses are made in our region. I am sure my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant will back me up on that, being a connoisseur of goat's milk and other types of cheeses.
In recent months, agricultural producers have been in trouble, not only as far as mad cow is concerned, but also supply management and access to markets. These are all matters of concern to people in the agricultural community, not just in my area, but throughout Quebec and even in the rest of Canada.
Much of what is produced in my region is governed by supply management, milk, chicken and eggs for example. In fact, dairy products account for 50% of the entire agricultural production of central Quebec, so supply management is vital to these farmers.
So that hon. members will have a proper understanding of what this is all about, I will just give a quick overview of supply management. It has three basic components: limiting production through a quota system, regulating prices, and maintaining the balance between supply and demand by keeping the borders closed through the imposition of high import duties on poultry, eggs and dairy products.
I should make it clear that it is essential that the three elements co-exist; if one falls, the whole system crumbles. This is what we have been fearing for some time. In 2003, we nearly ran into difficulty at Cancun. We did have problems, but fortunately the supply management system survived. It is, however, still in a precarious position.
The benefits of the supply management system are twofold in that it provides a decent income to our producers, while not creating distortions on world markets. As I said a moment ago, the federal Liberals have been claiming for years to support supply management. However, whenever that system was challenged, the government continued to undermine it.
Earlier, my eminent colleague, the hon. member for Joliette, referred to butter oil. Therefore, I will not elaborate, but I will say that this is just one example. There is also the example of cheese sticks, regarding which the member for Joliette also made representations, at the time, to the former Minister of International Trade, who is now the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This was an endless saga, as is the case whenever the government yields to lobbies that leave Quebec dairy producers to fend for themselves, as was the case then.
As regards butter oil, I want to point out that the federal government decided that this type of oil was not a dairy product, thus opening the border to imports. Over a five year period, between 1997 and 2002, these imports increased by 557%. This is no joke. It represents a loss of half a billion dollars for Quebec dairy producers.
I read the papers this morning, as every member of Parliament should, and I saw that this issue is still being reported today, April 15, 2005, in the daily La Presse :

—Quebec dairy producers...want to slow down the massive entry into Canada of dairy ingredients that come primarily from European countries.
These milk substitutes are increasingly replacing milk and cream in the manufacture, among other products, of cheese and ice cream. According to the president of the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec, Marcel Groleau, this substitution results in an annual loss of $70 million for Quebec milk producers.

The federation received the support of Quebec's agriculture minister, Yvon Vallières, who is also the MLA for Richmond, in my riding. He recognized that import controls on butter oil blends can be easily bypassed by importing a product containing 40% butter oil and 51% sugar. Here is what Minister Vallières said on this subject, and I quote:

This product is imported duty free into Canada, but if the dairy content was 1% higher, a 212% duty would apply.

We defend supply management in Quebec, but we expect the federal government to do the same, which, unfortunately, is not the case. This is the reason why we are debating Motion M-163 in the House today. We hope that, when it is time to vote, members will understand why we brought forward this motion.
All this information regarding the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec found its way into the paper today because that organization held its annual general meeting yesterday and the day before. You can be sure that supply management was discussed at that meeting.
In conclusion, producers have asked the Canadian government to use the rules provided in trade agreements to restrict imports of these ingredients into the country. They have done so by invoking section 28 in particular of the WTO agreement that deals with this. In invoking this section, Canada could establish new tariff quotas that would make it possible to maintain these imports at the current level and to increase them by a maximum of 10%. In the press release of the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec, its president, Mr. Marcel Groleau, says:

We are asking the Canadian government to use the right that the WTO has granted it and to immediately invoke section 28 to limit the damage. As a champion of supply management, it must do so without delay. This is urgent!

It is not I who is saying this, it is the president of the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec himself who says so, and I think that he knows quite a lot about the issue.
He concluded by saying, “It must put an end to the erosion before irreparable damage is done”.
I think we just heard someone who, having worked for so long in this sector, knows what he is talking about. We would like the government to pay urgent heed to this call.
I also dug out a very interesting study on the matter. It found that the dairy supply management system in Canada is a good model that needs to be maintained. While the World Trade Organization agriculture negotiations are threatening the foundation of this system, the study shows that the system benefits farmers just as much as consumers and the government. The study was conducted by Daniel Mercier-Gouin, director of Groupe de recherche en économie et politique agricole, GREPA, and professor of agri-food economics and consumer sciences at Laval.
In his study, Mr. Gouin makes four observations. I will list them. First, he observes that the prices paid to Canadian farmers for milk are stable and higher than the prices paid in the other countries in the study. Second, he observes that the favourable and stable prices paid to Canadian dairy farmers do not necessarily mean an increase in the price of milk for the consumer. On the contrary, the three countries with supply management, Canada, France and the Netherlands, saw the lowest increases in consumer prices between 1981 and 2002, the period under review.
Third, the researcher points out that the countries heading toward deregulation of their dairy economy—New Zealand and Australia—are those where consumer prices have increased the most. They are also seeing an increase in the aggregate margin of dairy processing and distribution.
Fourth, in conclusion he shows that the incomes of Canadian farmers are better protected and that Canada is one of the countries with the lowest government subsidies.
If other studies are needed, others exist. However, I think this is quite conclusive. I invite all the parties to vote in favour of Motion M-163.
The Deputy Speaker: It is necessary that I read into the record the actual amendment to the bill:

That the motion be amended by adding after the word “system” the following:
“and should also seek an agreement establishing fair and equitable rules that foster the international competitiveness of agricultural exporters in Quebec and Canada.”

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have felt personally touched many times today. Agricultural issues are often discussed here and they are close to my heart. It is therefore a pleasure for me to rise in support of this motion and of the proposed amendment.
The amendment seems a bit redundant. Right from the start, I consider that the rules governing supply management do not in any way infringe on trade. Justice and fairness are an inherent part of this system.
Contrary to what others sometimes say, the rules governing supply management do not infringe on trade. First, they apply to the domestic market, the Canadian market only, and not to the exports, at least not those that have been produced according to the rules. Second, there are no subsidies offered and so, no one can claim that they are distorting the market. That is a second element of fairness. Of course this whole system was defined under the GATT, particularly article 11.
To me, it is obvious that this amendment is not redundant since fairness is already inherent in the text. However, if this can reassure some people, that is great. However, the rules governing supply management already contain this element of fairness.
We have witnessed, over the last several years, the evolution of the supply management system in Canada. Let us recall that these measures were adopted under a Liberal government, several years ago. Let us recall as well the strenuous efforts of the hon. Eugene Whelan, the agriculture minister, who managed so well to defend his interests against a group that was then called the Consumers' Association of Canada. This group derived pleasure from constantly badmouthing the supply management system. It contended that it was damaging to free markets and all kinds of other things. In a nutshell, if a scapegoat could be found somewhere. according to those and other people, supply management was always the culprit.
However, it should be pointed out that producers who were governed by the system supported it. Of course, several parliamentarians showed their mettle, in the beginning, to support this system, as it otherwise would not have survived for so many decades.
In the riding I represent, there are maybe 600 or 700 milk producers, which is a lot fewer than before. When I was first elected, there were maybe 1,100. But that does not mean production is decreasing. In reality, there has been the phenomenon of consolidation, as we well know. There are now, in my riding, very large farms having a lot more quota and more livestock. These days, the farms are bigger. But, in my area, they still are family farms, even though they may describe themselves differently now.
We only have to ask ourselves what would have happened to farming and milk production had these rules not existed. Would we have seen the phenomenon that appeared in the northern United States? For example, in the State of New York, there is one dairy farm that spreads over thousands of acres and is not subject to any quota system. Some of its employees have probably rarely or never seen the owner of the farm. That is the kind of farming they are doing. There was some consolidation in our area, but on a much smaller scale. We were able to preserve this lifestyle because of supply management.
Our farmers have always benefited greatly from this system, and we must continue to defend it in this House.
When I sat as an opposition member, I was one of two agricultural critics for several years, and I fought for this for a long time. Incidentally, I was just telling some of my employees that during the election campaign I drew up a 10-point priority list for my constituents, and protection of supply management was on that list.
I would like to go back to the issue raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Northumberland—Quinte West and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. He was talking about a resolution his riding association and mine co-sponsored at the Liberal convention. It provided for the continued support and enhancement of supply management. The debate on the motion was minimal. If my memory serves me right, all speakers at the convention were supportive of the points I just raised. That tells us how much Canadian farmers have benefited from this system.
This may be a bit controversial for some, but I think we should consider setting up a similar system for beef production in this country. I notice some members opposite do not agree. If it had been done 10, 15 or 20 years ago, our producers would be far better off today. They would not have all the problems and hardships they are having today. I see a Conservative member shaking his head. He is quite free to disagree, but I think we did something very good for the poultry industry, where it applies. Almost all species except ducks and geese are included in the system.
Farmers in my riding make a good living or at least a better living than those who do not have a supply management system, such as the producers of beef, field crops, grains, oilseeds, and so on. They are really struggling. Those who are in supply-managed products are better off.
We have more proof of this. Even where quotas offer some protection, for example in the case of dairy products, there is an unprotected area, which is that of cull cows. Unprotected areas do not fare well. We have demonstrated that the system protects some areas, but that where the system does not apply, there are problems.
I do not think that beef producers would want to establish a similar system. I hear what is being said in the west and even in my own province, except in my riding, where I believe beef producers would agree to such a system. Even elsewhere in my province, I can see that there is little interest in a system of quotas for beef production. Nonetheless, I believe that such a system would have avoided many of the problems we have today.
All of this to say that I support the motion before us today. Earlier today, I raised the issue in the House with the Minister of International Trade. I called on him to use section 28 of the GATT to establish some protection in areas where we were hurt recently by the Court of International Trade. Therefore, I will support wholeheartedly the motion and its amendment, as they were presented to us today, although I think that the motion was good enough as it was and did not need to be amended. Nevertheless, I support both and I recommend their adoption to the House.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Montcalm has five minutes to summarize and conclude.
Roger Gaudet: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House what supply management, or SM5, is all about. Supply management is a tool enabling milk, chicken, turkey, hatching and table egg producers to achieve the best balance possible between supply and demand for their products across Quebec and Canada.
This way, producers only produce just enough products to meet Canadian needs and avoid producing surpluses which would then have to be cleared at a loss. This planning process, coupled with import control and a mechanism that enables producers to negotiate collectively a price based on their production cost, assures them of a stable and fairer income, without governmental subsidies.
At the request of dairy producers in Quebec and Canada, who met with the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant and me, it was agreed to add the following to the motion. Allow me therefore to read the new, amended Motion M-163:

That, in the opinion of the House, in the current World Trade Organization negotiations, the government should not agree to any concession that would weaken collective marketing strategies or the supply management system and should also seek an agreement establishing fair and equitable rules that foster the international competitiveness of agricultural exporters in Quebec and Canada.

That is what the Dairy Farmers of Canada asked for to help exporters. Let me read an excerpt from the press release of Grey, Clark, Shih &amp; Associates, Limited, International Trade &amp; Public Affairs. It reads as follows:

The Canadian government must do more at the WTO to ensure a better balance in agricultural trade.
Ottawa, April 14, 2005.
“The Government of Canada must be more firm in its negotiations on agricultural trade at the WTO, because the current framework of negotiations will not make it possible to alleviate the imbalances between participating countries. If the ties between subsidies and tariffs are not taken into consideration, this will perpetuate and worsen existing imbalances in the WTO rules that apply to agricultural trade”. This is what Peter Clark, from Grey, Clark, Shih &amp; Associates, said during the presentation of the findings of a study sponsored by Canada's dairy producers. The presentation was made yesterday, in Quebec City, at the annual general meeting of the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec.
Peter Clark used empirical data to demonstrate that the subsidies granted in countries like the United States allow their producers to better absorb the impact of tariff reductions. In 2003, American dairy producers benefited from direct and indirect support to the tune of $13.8 billion US. This means that the subsidies that they receive from federal, state and local governments account for about 40% of their revenues. These subsidies have the effect of restricting access to the U.S. market. The United States is advocating tariff reductions, because it can restrict access to its market, while trying to export American products abroad.

In conclusion, all political parties in this House must agree with motion No. M-163, as amended, to protect our five supply management groups, which do not cost Quebec and Canadian taxpayers a penny.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on the motion, as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: It being 2:27 p.m. this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:27 p.m.)