House of Commons Hansard #67 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:25 p.m.

Hamilton East—Stoney Creek Ontario

Liberal

Tony Valeri LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I believe that you in fact just ruled on a point of order brought forward by the member of Parliament for Halifax with respect to ballistic missile defence.

I know that my hon. colleague did make reference to the amended paragraph in the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. For the benefit of everyone I would like too reread that. It states:

With respect to an agreement on ballistic missile defence, the assurance that Parliament will have an opportunity to consider all public information pertaining to the agreement and to vote prior to a government decision;

Mr. Speaker, the words I would like to draw to your attention are “with respect to an agreement”. In fact there was no agreement. The amendment to the reply to the Speech from the Throne specifically refers to an agreement on ballistic missile defence. Since there was no agreement, there was in fact nothing to debate and therefore nothing to vote on.

I should also say there is nothing that precludes Parliament from having a debate on this subject. We do not typically vote on things that we are not doing. We typically vote on things that we intend to do or propose to do and ask Parliament to pronounce in terms of whether they support the position that the government is taking or that a member is taking.

I would suggest that Parliament is here to do things, not to, to use a double negative, not do things.

I would also, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of your thinking on this particular issue, quote the Leader of the Opposition in question period on February 22 who said:

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

We are not part of missile defence and there is no agreement with respect to this particular issue.

Although I understand the hon. member across the way thinks I am splitting hairs, what I am doing is being quite factual in the information that I am providing to you, Mr. Speaker. I am hoping that you will separate the rhetoric from the facts and ultimately look at this issue from that perspective and then rule according to your best judgment.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the government House leader, I do believe that he is indeed, as his government has been trying to do ever since it made the decision not to participate in the ballistic missile defence agreement with the United States, trying to split hairs and is trying to make the agreement that we arrived at last October as vague as possible. At that time it was very clear that what we were talking about was any agreement.

Now I am assuming that there was some agreement among the cabinet and government members to not participate. However before they had made the agreement to do that the Prime Minister himself had made the commitment to put that before Parliament and to have a vote on it.

It is absolutely ridiculous that on an issue this important the government is trying to pretend that it can make an arbitrary decision not to participate and somehow that should not be debated but if it had come to the decision to participate, that would warrant a debate and a vote.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Tony Valeri Liberal Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would submit that was exactly the intention of the amendment to the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, that if there was an agreement to enter a ballistic missile defence then there would be a vote and a debate in the House. Now the hon. member is attempting to interpret that particular amended address in reply to the Speech from the Throne from a very convenient perspective.

Mr. Speaker, while I know it is sometimes very difficult to separate rhetoric from fact, I would hope that you focus on the facts.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:30 p.m.

The Speaker

I am not sure how much more I need to hear on this point. I will very briefly hear the member for Calgary—Nose Hill and then the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this is not even about missile defence. This is about whether a vote in the House means something.

The House voted on an amendment to the throne speech that clearly said there would be a debate and a vote before a position would be taken on a particular issue, which happened to be missile defence. The position was taken without that happening. Therefore the clearly expressed will of the House was completely ignored and completely violated. If we allow that to happen, we might as well all go home because what is the point of voting?

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

My comments exactly, Mr. Speaker.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:30 p.m.

The Speaker

I want to thank the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River for raising the issue, the hon. government House leader for the response he has given, the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill and the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore for their contribution to the debate. I will take the matter under advisement and return to the House with a decision on this matter in due course.

Business of the HouseOral Question Period

March 8th, 2005 / 3:35 p.m.

Beauséjour New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that you will find a very broad consensus, perhaps unlike the previous issue, around the following point.

There have been discussions among the parties and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That when the House begins proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 52 later this day, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be entertained by the Speaker.

Business of the HouseOral Question Period

3:35 p.m.

The Speaker

Does the hon. parliamentary have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

Business of the HouseOral Question Period

3:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Business of the HouseOral Question Period

3:35 p.m.

The Speaker

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Business of the HouseOral Question Period

3:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, and of the amendment.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, with the various matters going on, I failed to advise the Chair that I will be splitting my time with the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

I would like to conclude my speech by saying that I am very much in favour of the budget.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, if I may, since the hon. member is splitting his time with my colleague from Nova Scotia, maybe he would be honoured to answer the question.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

The Speaker

There will be five minutes for questions and comments at the end of the speech by the minister. If the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore can contain himself for the next 10 minutes, I am sure he will have an opportunity to ask the minister the question, which I am sure the minister would be glad to answer.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Kings—Hants Nova Scotia

Liberal

Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to be here today to discuss budget 2005 in my capacity as the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

I am also very proud to stand here as the member of Parliament for the riding of Kings—Hants. I want to take this opportunity to thank my constituents for their vote of confidence in the last election to be their member of Parliament. I feel very fortunate to represent such a beautiful and vibrant riding, one that has given birth to no less than three members of the current cabinet. The Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Fisheries and myself all come from Hants county, the great riding of Kings—Hants.

Today I want to talk about the underlying theme of the budget delivered by the Minister of Finance. The budget demonstrates clearly that the government and the Prime Minister deliver, that we have kept our promises to Canadians, which were established in the last election, and that promises made are promises kept.

The budget was an important milestone for the Department of Public Works and Government Services. It gives me an opportunity today to discuss some of the progress being made within the department and to report to the House some of the progress made within the department since a speech I gave in September in Toronto on the future vision of change for the Department of Public Works and Government Services.

In my speech I spoke of changing the way the Government of Canada did business, taking a more government-wide approach to procurement, better managing our office building portfolio and getting better value for taxpayers in doing so. I also spoke of further improvements to information technology systems of government. What really drives my work within the department and the work of our 14,000 member team nationally is to get better value for tax dollars and at the same time to deliver better services for Canadians.

On weekends, like many members here, I try to spend as much time as I can with constituents in constituency meetings in my office in Wolfville, Nova Scotia, and at various functions throughout my rural and small town Nova Scotia riding. I often meet families, with a couple of children, making $20,000 or $30,000. They make car and mortgage payments or pay rent for their housing. They are having difficulty just getting by.

When one considers how tough it is for those Canadian families, we have a responsibility as a government to make good decisions, such that we can try to make their decisions a little easier. My goal as Minister of Public Works and Government Services and the goal of the department is to deliver services more effectively at better value for taxpayers, including those low and middle income Canadian families.

The budget, in terms of its impact with the department, helps strengthen the mandate of the department within the Government of Canada to transform the culture of government and to remodel the way the whole of government does business and in the process spend less taxpayer money in providing the services we are responsible to provide.

I was very heartened to hear the Minister of Finance speak specifically of the progress within the Department of Public Works and Government Services. He said during his budget speech:

--allow me to single out the people in the Department of Public Works and Government Services for their expenditure review committee work. They rose to the challenge and made an exceptional contribution to the success of this exercise. I applaud their innovation and their professionalism

His statement meant a lot to our 14,000 member team across the country. I want to commend the team for its hard work, innovation and dedication to serving the Canadian people.

Public recognition is a sign that public works has in fact turned a corner. We are playing a leadership role within the Government of Canada, in fact changing the culture of government. The ambitious transformation that we are making will ripple across the government in a measured, structured and important way over the next five to eight years.

Public works intends to deliver about $3.4 billion in savings over the next five years, about one-third of the $11 billion identified by the expenditure review committee.

First, we will take a more government wide approach to procurement. This only makes sense.

We cannot have some 100 government agencies and departments operating independently.

Making Public Works and Government Services the procurement arm of government will mean better services at reduced cost. For example, instead of one-offs, we intend to harness the massive buying power of the government. As a government, we buy about $13 billion worth of goods and services every year and get the best possible prices. We will be more capable of enforcing standing offers and using electronic tools to streamline the procurement process, while working with suppliers on a commodity by commodity basis to ensure value for money. By doing this, we intend to save on the procurement side $2.4 billion over the next five years. At the same time, we will reduce the time it takes for departments and agencies to procure the goods and services they need by about half. It all adds up to better services at reduced cost to taxpayers.

I will give a couple of examples. In buying furniture, volume discounts have resulted in recent months in a 16% savings over previous prices. We have also saved $80 million in negotiating new software contracts for defence and human resources departments alone. We also want to make it less cumbersome and expensive to do business with the Government of Canada. We intend to streamline and remove a lot of the complexity and the hassles of our system, particularly for small and medium enterprises across Canada.

As has been noted in the House, I started my first small business when I was 19 years old renting compact refrigerators to students, so I have some empathy for small business. My family and my parents lived in the house attached to the grocery store they owned for 23 years. Generationally, our family is a family of small business, so I have great empathy and understanding for the issues of small business.

We as a government will make it easier for small and medium enterprises across Canada to do business with the Government of Canada. That is why we are setting up the office for small business within our department which will help streamline, simplify and improve access to government procurement for smaller companies.

Furthermore, as of April 1, we will eliminate all fees for any business or individual who wants to use the government's electronic tendering system, MERX. We are also moving ahead with Government of Canada marketplace, an innovative e-procurement portal that we are developing currently with IBM.

I would like to take a moment to pay a special tribute to our parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for St. Catharines, for his exceptional work on procurement reform. He has developed a number of extremely innovative proposals for reforming procurement and he has held consultations across Canada with small and medium enterprises, with the IT sector, with the supplier communities and with our own people within public works. He deserves tremendous credit for his dedication, commitment and hard work on behalf of Canadians in this responsibility.

What we are doing effectively with government procurement is what many companies in the private sector did within the last 20 years. I think this makes a great deal of sense to Canadians and to the vendors we have worked with, not just as suppliers to the Government of Canada but in their role as taxpayers.

We will also achieve significant savings over the next five years in our real estate portfolio. We now spend about $3 billion annually to house public servants across Canada. Our goal is to trim this by about $1 billion over the next five years. We manage as a department about 6.7 million square metres of office space across Canada. We are making changes currently in our operations to achieve that. We recently renegotiated a building maintenance contract with a vendor for all our buildings in Canada. In that capacity we are able to save about $50 million every year for the taxpayer. That $50 million a year on a building maintenance contract is real savings for the Canadian taxpayer and real value for Canadians.

We also are moving ahead to innovate in terms of our information technology system and we are modernizing that. We are playing a leadership role with the government secure channel program. This is a world-class secure network to ensure that whether in rural Nova Scotia or in downtown Toronto, all Canadians can use their home computers to conveniently do business with the government online 24/7.

Furthermore, and I hope during the comment and question period after this, we have an opportunity to talk about some of the work we are doing on the green procurement and the greening of government work our department is doing both in the design of our buildings on a go forward basis and on a green procurement basis. We as a government have a responsibility to play a leadership role by not only working with Canadians but also demonstrating to Canadians, both individuals and private sector corporations, that we get it, that we understand the importance of global warming and sustainable economic and environmental behaviour and that we are playing a leadership role in that. I am proud to say we are.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech from the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

I noted in the budget that there is an estimated $12 billion for our armed forces over the coming few years, which does not replace the money that the Liberals cut from the budget. I know the Minister of Public Works and Government Services was probably the most adamant supporter of the war in Iraq in the entire House of Commons. I am sure he will be a little heartened by that.

I have two specific questions, one with regard to the national missile defence program and one with regard to the Kyoto protocol. I would like to know what the minister's response is on these two issues.

When the minister was in the House but not on that side of the House collecting an extra $48,000 a year as a cabinet minister, he voted against the Kyoto protocol because he said “it was cost jobs in every region of Canada”. Now that we know there is no plan for the Kyoto protocol, is he still opposed to the Kyoto protocol? He voted against it before. The case against it is mounting day by day. That is question one.

My second question two is this. Given the fumbling and bumbling of the government's approach on national missile defence and given that the minister voted in favour of national missile defence, could he comment on what the consequences of us being outside of that and the poor diplomacy that will have on Canadian jobs?

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, the questions the hon. member, whom I believe is critic for public works, have absolutely nothing to do with public works. I guess we must be doing our job in public works and making a real difference, otherwise the opposition would be deriving some fodder from this. I guess we are doing just too good a job in identifying $3.4 billion of savings over the next five years and making a real difference.

First, I addressed the Kyoto issue in front of the environment committee recently. One of the differences between the former Progressive Conservative Party and the former Alliance Party was that Progressive Conservatives, under the leadership of people like Joe Clark, believed and understood the importance of climate change. They supported and recognized the validity of the science behind climate change. In fact that hon. member and his colleagues used to refer to Joe Clark as Kyoto Joe.

There was a decision made by the Progressive Conservative caucus to vote against ratification at that time only because there was a desire to see more consultation with the provinces.

Let me be very clear. I am glad that the government ratified Kyoto. I think Canadians want their government to be playing a leadership role multilaterally and internationally on greenhouse gas emissions.

I was wrong then, and I am proud to be part of a government that was right then in making the right decision to ratify Kyoto and play a leadership internationally. We can do more and we are doing more.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I come from the same province. He talked about the families he has met who earn $20,000 to $30,000 and the day to day difficulties in which they find themselves. However, I noticed the minister did not talk much about the budget about which this debate is.

Therefore, I want to ask him two questions.

First, the corporate sector of the country reported an 18.8% profit under the current tax system this year. The insurance companies and the banks are reporting record profits, profits on the backs of the people about whom he so eloquently talked. Where did the tax breaks go? Generally to those big corporations at 2% over the years, a $4.2 billion tax break.

We have asked on this side of the House for many years to remove the GST on home heating essentials to give an equitable tax break to those hard-working families.

My second question for him is as the minister in charge of procurement. I could not believe the lob ball question by the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans about whether the new Coast Guard vessels would be built in Canada. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans could not even answer a simple lobbed question from his own backbencher.

Let me ask this of the minister who will eventually end up signing the cheque on these new ships whenever they come. We in Halifax and in shipyards across the country have asked this very clearly. In the new procurement process for Coast Guard and military vessels, will these vessels be built in Canada using taxpayer dollars.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong when he says that I have not spoke about the budget. I have been speaking about a department that will contribute $2.4 billion of savings to the budget through the ERC process over the next five years. That contribution enables the government to invest in child care, in health care, in the Canadian military and to reduce taxes for low and middle income Canadians. At the same time it keeps the government in a surplus position and to pay down debt.

I am proud of the role that Public Works and Government Services Canada is playing in enabling us to address the priorities of Canadians in a fiscally responsible and sustainable way.

The member speaks about those low income Canadians and what can we do to help them. Eight hundred thousand low income Canadians were taken off the tax rolls completely because of our decision. The decision of the Minister of Finance to raise the basic personal exemption to $10,000 is good public policy and good economic policy. It helps all Canadian taxpayers, but particularly low and middle income ones.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Loyola Hearn Conservative St. John's South, NL

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you know, the member who shared his time with the hon. minister could not stay for questions and answers, so we saved five minutes. I am wondering if that five minutes could be added to the minister's time, so we would have more time to ask questions?

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

There is not a quid pro quo on the five minutes that are unused. It does pass on into history. However, if there is unanimous consent of the House we could--

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

The questions are much better here than in question period.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is there unanimous consent of the House to extend the period of questions and answers for the minister for a further five minutes?