Debates of April 2nd, 2003

Government Response to Petitions

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 21 petitions.

Death Penalty Referendum Act

[Jim Pankiw, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-425, an act to require a referendum on the restoration of the death penalty as a sentencing option and to amend the Referendum Act and the Criminal Code in consequence.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce this bill which would require a referendum to be held so that Canadian citizens could decide if a jury should have a sentencing option to recommend to a judge the death penalty in cases of first degree murder.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Canada, I am presenting a petition requesting Parliament to recognize that the Canadian Emergency Preparedness College is essential to the training of Canadians for emergency situations, that the facilities should stay in Arnprior and that the government should upgrade the facilities to provide the necessary training to Canadians.

We are seeing the need for this right now, especially with the SARS situation.

[Rob Anders, Canadian Alliance, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition which states that the Canadian parliamentary system is in need of reform and that a government without adequate checks and balances on its power does not lead to good government.

Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to take the measures necessary for reform of the Senate of Canada so that it would be an elected and effective House of Parliament.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from citizens of various communities in Ontario, including Oro Station, Orillia, Barry, Borden, Bracebridge, Wyebridge, Elmvale and Coldwater. These citizens are concerned about the war in Iraq.

The petitioners point out that there exists no humanitarian, moral, ethical or practical grounds for participation in the war in Iraq and that there has been no broadly based public forum for the expression of the opinions of ordinary Canadians about going to war or working for peace.

They call upon Parliament to adopt a resolution: (a) opposing any direct or indirect involvement of Canada in any military assault, police action or war against the people or government of Iraq; and (b) calling for an end to all sanctions against the people of Iraq.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the pleasure to present to the House a petition from the people of Beaverton, Brechin and Woodville and areas in Brock township.

The petition draws to the attention of the House that the creation and use of child pornography is condemned by a clear majority of Canadians; and that the courts have not applied the current child pornography law in a way which makes it clear that such exploitation of children will always be met with swift punishment.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 170.

Question No. 170

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

In Quigley v. Canada House of Commons, now before the Federal Court of Appeal, Docket No. A-399-02, how much has been spent on lawyers' fees, consultation fees and all other expenditures related to the defence of the House of Commons in this matter, at the trial level and in appeal preparations, since the start of the recourse?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

The subject matter of this question falls within the responsibilities of the Speaker of the House of Commons and not the Government of Canada.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to be so kind as to call Motion No. 21.

Motion P-21

That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documentation, including reports, minutes of meeting, notes, e-mails, advertising, memos and correspondence since January 2002 within the Department of Environment that relates to the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol that sets out the benefits, how the targets are to be reached and its cost to the department.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Environment Canada advises that its files contain approximately 60 megabytes of material, representing approximately 244,615 pages of information corresponding to the broad range of the request.

As such, it is prohibitively expensive in labour and money to produce and would not be available in any reasonable timeframe. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Would the hon. member for Red Deer agree to transfer the matter for debate?

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Accordingly, the matter is transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 97.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before resuming debate, I wish to inform the House that because of the recorded divisions, government orders will be extended 24 minutes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-28, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 18, 2003, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Budget Implementation Act, 2003

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are now back to the main motion on Bill C-28. I have had an opportunity to speak to the bill so I do not intend to use my full time. However there is an aspect of the budget that I am very anxious to make mention of simply because budgets often contain numerous provisions which do not get the attention that they deserve.

About 20% of the constituents in my riding are aged Canadians. They require a great deal of care, not only by their families but by our health care system. The budget included a very important new provision, a new assist for families under the caption of compassionate care. I wanted to share this with the members because I am not sure how many members knew this item was there. I think it is important.

One of the most difficult times we can face is when a loved one needs palliative care and is dying or is at severe risk of dying. During these times Canadians often have to choose between caring for their loved one or staying at their job and hoping that somehow other arrangements can be made.

This is also a very important issue as it relates to women primarily because daughters are closer to their parents than sons would be.

A poll conducted in September 2002 revealed very strong support, some 81% for the Government of Canada providing some income support for working Canadians to take off work to care for a dying family member; 39% said that they had been in the situation of having to care for a gravely ill or dying family member; and 50% of Canadians who faced the situation said it conflicted with the demands of their job.

The 2003 first ministers' health accord included a commitment to introduce a compassionate care benefit to help support Canadians who required temporary absence from work when a loved one falls gravely ill.

I think this is a very important social initiative. We all will eventually face situations like this or we know someone close to us who is facing a situation like this. I think it is an initiative that is embraced by all members in this place.

Every year thousands of Canadians bear the stress of loss of income or possible job loss when they are forced to make a choice between a job and caring for a family member. We should never be forced to choose between caring for a loved one or our job. That is not the way it should be done. I am pleased the budget incorporated this new provision.

Compassionate care will be a new type of employment insurance benefit. It is estimated that 90% of individuals in paid employment, including those working part time, could potentially be eligible for this new benefit. I think that is significant. It is very important. It is estimated that 270,000 claimants will access the new benefit to care for 160,000 gravely ill family members each year, beginning in the year 2004.

On behalf of my constituents of Mississauga South, I want to acknowledge the budget provision with regard to compassionate care as an important provision for families right across Canada. It is a matter which I believe we should take to heart in terms of assessing all types of assists that we can give to ensure that families can discharge their responsibilities, not only to their employers but to their families, their children and those things that we value.

I believe this is probably a good time to move a motion. I move:

That the question be now put.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion is in order.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the recent federal budget and give the perspective of the people in my riding of Blackstrap on why it does not work for Canadians.

The riding I represent in Saskatchewan is predominantly rural. Agriculture is the mainstay of our economy. It is an industry that has been in crisis for several years.

According to figures from Statistics Canada, last year's growing season was the worst in decades for some of the province's major crops. Spring wheat production was down 40%, barley production dropped 34% and canola production fell to nearly half its 10 year average level.

Unfortunately, this situation has continued without the federal government assuming a leadership role in finding a solution to restore profitability and stability to the national agriculture sector.

In his 2003 budget, the hon. Minister of Finance committed millions of dollars to promoting linguistic duality, billions to unspecified Kyoto initiatives and not a dime of new money to the struggling prairie producers, the primary producers of this country, the people who literally feed this nation and the world.

I question whether the present government has the capacity to understand the significance of the crisis in agriculture, much less the capacity to address it.

The legacy budget of 2003 does not lead one to believe that the government can see the critical role agriculture plays in the economy of our country.

The agriculture sector is not the only one our federal government has let down with this budget. Yesterday I met with representatives from the real estate business community to hear their thoughts and the government's approach to savings and how it affects the economy.

Although there have been minor concessions made in the realm of retirement savings, RRSPs are the only savings venue open to many Canadians, particularly the nearly 2.4 million self-employed workers in this country. Yet the government has chosen not to make this a more viable and realistic option.

The increases are incremental. If the government seems to believe in the need for an increase in limits, why not make them now? Why wait until 2006 to receive the full benefit of an increased limit? Even raising the RRSP contribution limit still leaves much room for improvement in the area of helping Canadians plan and save for their futures. The American model allows contributed money to grow tax free in retirement savings plans. What a concept: leaving Canadians money to spend how they wish; and letting people decide what they want to do with their own money instead of committing it to this irresponsible legacy budget for which generations of Canadians will be forced to pay.

The spend and tax policies of the government are hurting Canadian businesses. As a member of the Standing Committee on Transport I witness firsthand the difficult times the airline sector is facing. Air Canada went into bankruptcy protection yesterday and while it has many problems to address and restructuring to complete, the impact the government's taxation policies are having on the industry overall cannot be understated.

The government takes $600 million annually from air travel consumers through airport grants, fuel surcharges and the air travellers security tax. That would be a good place to start looking to make some changes.

The government has a history of crippling the competitiveness of Canadian businesses with its burdensome taxation policies. One can promise all the new spending one wants but someone has to pay for it. Generations of Canadians are never going to see their way clear on the financial hole the government has dug for them.

When I was flying back to Ottawa on Sunday I sat next to Mr. Anthony Pollard, the president of the Hotel Association of Canada. Mr. Pollard told me that his industry generates $10.8 billion in revenue annually, employs 239,000 people and turns back more than $4 billion in taxes. He wrote a letter to the Prime Minister outlining his concerns about the impact the government's policies will have on his industry.

He wrote:

It is imperative that you take immediate action to restore confidence, friendship and mutual respect with the United States of America. The largest single customer base for the hotel industry outside of our country is the United States of America. Last year, 16,152,000 Americans came to Canada, stayed overnight and spent $8.5 billion. Clearly Canada enjoys a very special and mutually beneficial relationship with the United States, which had been severely called into question these past few weeks with the war in Iraq. Inappropriate and overtly damaging comments have severely tried this relationship.

We are already witnessing convention and room cancellations from our largest market. The chronic and sad fact is that we could be capitalizing on the United States visitor when they would typically wish to travel here as opposed to Europe and other overseas markets in times of and following global conflict. Instead it appears as if we will miss this opportunity completely

Mr. Prime Minister, it is never too late to build bridges and restore confidence with your best friend and ally. On behalf of the 239,000 Canadians working in the hotel industry we ask you to immediately reach out to the United States and demonstrate our support to our American friends. We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Anthony P. Pollard

I could give many more examples of how Canadians have been let down by this budget. I find them wherever I go, at home in my riding, at work in committee, travelling, and here in the House of Commons.

The Prime Minister may see this as his legacy budget, but for Canadians it is a legacy of burden we could all live without.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to take a few minutes to say that we are in no hurry to pass Bill C-28 on implementing the budget measures. Many questions raised by all the parties remain.

The Bloc Quebecois, for its part, has said before and is saying again today that, when this budget was announced, the minister chose to focus on the wrong priorities. In particular, he focused on areas of provincial jurisdiction. Respecting provincial jurisdiction has always been sacred for Quebec. Furthermore, yet again, this budget is hiding an enormous surplus.

For each of the past five budgets, the Bloc Quebecois has always accurately forecast the next surplus. Whether it is deliberate, unconscious or the result of incompetence, the Minister of Finance has always been off in his forecasts, resulting in much larger than anticipated surpluses. This gives him the discretion to create last-minute programs, pay down the debt with the unexpected windfall, and infringe, mainly in areas outside his jurisdiction.

Worse still is this refusal to acknowledge the fiscal imbalance. Yet, an independent commission, the Séguin commission, was created; important experts were consulted; the amounts going to Ottawa and no longer to the provinces due to federal cuts were tallied; an undeniable conclusion was reached. The numbers all add up, and the report was unanimously accepted by the three political parties in Quebec. And here, the government dares to tell us that this fiscal imbalance does not exist and refuses to discuss it.

Yet, during the first ministers' conference, Quebec presented this report to all the Canadian provinces, and all the provinces reached the same conclusion, that this fiscal imbalance is clearly laid out in the Séguin report, and that it is hurting the provinces, particularly in terms of health care and education.

Hon. members will recall that the federal government put in 50¢ of every dollar spent in the provinces. Now it is barely 13¢ or 14¢, which is unacceptable, yet the federal government continues to collect the same taxes.

If it wants to pull out of health, no problem, but let it transfer the tax points, the GST, the taxation field, to the provinces. The provinces will then have the funds required to deliver the necessary care to their populations. But no, the government has dug in its heels on this. It is putting money into a multitude of things that are inappropriate or into areas that fall under provincial jurisdiction and are off limits.

It has always been said, and particularly since 1995, that this government has set itself a single mission: to establish national standards for everything. This is seen in health, and in education, yet it is a known fact that every time the federal government goes charging into provincial jurisdictions, it creates nothing but a huge mess by most accounts. It should stick to its jurisdiction and let the provinces stick to theirs. And it should never forget that the provinces created the federal government, and not vice versa.

With these national standards, the federal government has but a single intent, particularly in Quebec: to make it into a province like the others. The hidden agenda ever since the referendum has been to provincialize Quebec, to reduce French to a mere element of folklore, as happened in Louisiana. That is the goal of the federal government.

We have national standards in education, health and even agriculture. The Minister for International Trade now wants to be able to go to the WTO negotiating table and say “At last I no longer have those shackles around my legs, that ball and chain of the provinces with their flexibility in certain areas such as agriculture for the west, for Quebec, or the east.

No, as part of this strategic framework, the government wants to establish national standards. With these standards, it can go to the negotiating table, put supply management on the table, in part if necessary, and do whatever it likes in international negotiations, without having to consult the provinces. That is what it has in mind. That is the danger for the provinces. That is the danger when it comes to education, agriculture and health.

The government does not want to admit it, but this is the hidden trump card. We see it in every area. “National standards” is the new watchword. In the name of national standards, all provincial jurisdictions are being eliminated and the provinces turned into nothing more than villages with little village councils. That is the plan.

We see it as well in the creation of the Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment; in the allocation of additional funding to the Canada Student Loan Program; in the creation of the Canadian Learning Institute. What it is is interference in provincial jurisdictions, especially in Quebec in the field of education, and it is extremely serious. Back as far as Duplessis, no prime minister, no matter what his political allegiance, has ever allowed intrusion into this sector. It is sacred and off limits. Still today, even though they are in the middle of an election campaign, Quebec's three political parties condemn this state of affairs. They recognize the fiscal imbalance and are asking Ottawa to act accordingly, and not to infringe on provincial jurisdictions, especially in education.

I could go on. Speaking of fiscal imbalance, there is the issue of tax on capital. This budget also fails to create an independent employment insurance fund. In addition to interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction, the government is collecting an indirect tax from workers and small businesses. The EI surplus should be given back to those who pay the premiums: businesses and employees. However, the government has shrewdly siphoned this money away into the consolidated revenue fund. As a result, workers and small businesses are paying an indirect tax. This money should be accounted for separately. When EI runs a surplus, the premiums should be lowered, or the benefits period should be extended, or else programs should be set up to help unemployed people who are having problems. When the fund has less money, the premiums should be increased.

An inverse relationship should be applied to the EI fund, and it should have a separate account. But no, the government is robbing the money from the EI fund, and employers are being taxed twice. This is an indirect tax and it is not acceptable.

I could also raise the issue of infrastructure programs. Quebec and the provinces have been calling for these programs, but the budget contains nothing but a few scraps. Why did the government not respond to the provinces' request in this area? Jobs could have been created and the economies of many regions experiencing hard times could have been jump started. But no, the government did not.

There is also the issue of the Kyoto protocol. The budget mentions Kyoto, mentions reinvestments and allocations, but Bill C-28, the Budget Implementation Act, goes against what Quebec and the provinces wanted. The government would have been more successful if it had listened to the provinces, if it had understood that it can look after federal jurisdictions, but that it has to respect areas of provincial jurisdiction, particularly education, health and agriculture. Quebeckers and Canadians would be much better off.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-28, the budget implementation act.

It is interesting to note that every year the government tells Canadians how it is going to spend their hard earned dollars. I think Canadians are getting very concerned that the government seems to think money grows on trees. I think that Canadians have a general concern that the government, instead of reducing its spending and reducing its size, continues to grow beyond all necessity.

One of these interesting things was revealed just this week: that the executive branch of government, through the bilingual program, has grown by 20%. We are not talking about the entire workforce. We are talking about the executive branch or the bureaucracy. It is 20% more than it was two years ago. Canadians are concerned that the government, rather than reducing its spending, keeps increasing it.

The last budget that was tabled in the House calls for $14 billion of new spending. Canadians do not mind that 40% of that spending is for health care, but they are concerned that new money is always being added instead of the money that has already been paid into the pot being redirected. Particularly now, with the war going on in Iraq, Canadians are also concerned that the budget for the Canadian armed forces was not substantially increased.

It is not a question of new money going into necessary programs, but a question of the government's priorities and of the government reducing spending rather than always increasing it. Both can happen at the same time.

There is one other issue I would like to bring up and that is the issue of the national debt. The government seems to think that the debt will go away on its own, but it will not. Last year in the budget, the government predicted surpluses of $6.4 billion this year and up to $10.7 billion in 2005. To give the government credit, it has paid down the debt by $17 billion over the last six years, but the interest payment this year on the existing debt is $37 billion. That money could go somewhere else.

This is really of question of where we think our responsibility lies. Is it our responsibility to ensure that our children and our grandchildren are not going to continually fight this huge debt? Or should this money go into new pet projects that the federal Liberal government has on the table?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton West, AB]

Oh, health care is a pet project?