Angela Vautour

[Fête Nationale Des Acadiens, March 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would underscore today this government's lack of respect for the country's Acadians.

It is an insult to find that, for the second consecutive year, the Fête nationale des Acadiens is not acknowledged on the Canadian Heritage 2000 calendar. And yet, in 1999, Acadie hosted the francophone summit, and the Acadian flag was flown everywhere.

The Prime Minister campaigned among these same Acadians, who gave him their support, and today he is refusing to recognize them.

While this government is trying to convince Quebecers to stay in our country, it continues to show a lack of respect for the Acadians of this country. That is unacceptable.

I demand that the Minister of Canadian Heritage recognize the Fête nationale des Acadiens of this country and that she make a public apology. This government forgets that the Acadians helped build this country.

August 15 is the date of the Fête nationale des Acadiens of this country.

[Gasoline Prices, February 25th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, high fuel prices are causing a crisis not only for trucking companies but for all Canadians. When will the government show leadership and reduce fuel taxes or will it continue to keep looking for excuses to justify doing absolutely nothing about this crisis?

[Fuel Taxes, February 25th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the people of Beauséjour—Petitcodiac who are irate at the high gas and fuel prices.

It would seem that the federal government is once again turning its back on hard-working Canadians.

Not only has the high fuel tax hurt the trucking industry, it has also hit low income families especially hard, many of whom cannot handle any extra heating costs.

In 1995 the Liberal government raised gas taxes by 1.5 cents per litre as a means to lower the federal deficit. The deficit is gone. Can the government explain why the fuel tax still remains? Because of such extra taxes the Department of Transport enjoys a surplus in excess of $6 billion per year, mostly due to fuel tax revenue increases.

Today I urge the Liberal government to take action immediately and lower fuel taxes to help all Canadians through this very difficult period.

[Employment Insurance, February 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, no action has yet been taken by the department of HRDC to help the growing crisis in Atlantic Canada among seasonal workers called gappers.

Since the last cuts to the EI program seasonal workers have been unable to make it from season to season without running out of benefits for weeks or even months.

Unfair economic zoning has also contributed to this growing crisis.

What is the government's plan of action to help these seasonal workers make it through these very difficult times?

The pain and suffering can no longer be ignored by the government. How can the government deny money to seasonal workers in need, and give millions of dollars to Wal-Mart and Vidéotron? Until the government fixes the problem it has created it must recognize the hardship these people are facing.

Again I ask what is the minister's plan of action, or does she simply not have one? The workers living in seasonal communities are waiting for answers and a solution to the problem they sadly face year after year.

[Housing, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate there are not enough members interested in the serious problem of homelessness in the country. In those of us who are here we certainly have quality, but it would be nice to have numbers. Usually numbers are what really count here.

The PC task force on poverty also studied direct ways of eliminating the causes of homelessness and made recommendations.

First, the federal government should work with provincial, territorial and municipal governments and the non-profit sector to develop and implement a national homelessness strategy. It would include a comprehensive range of measures aimed at preventing and alleviating homelessness in Canada.

Second, the federal government should present an annual report card on homelessness to Canadians to be tabled in parliament detailing federal measures undertaken to address homelessness and setting specific objectives for the following year. I am sure if we had had a report card under HRDC we might be able to find out where that money went.

Third, the federal government should work with the provincial and territorial governments to help them fund a series of measures to be delivered by organizations active in the mental health field and those working with homeless people, including the provision of mental health services, community support, addiction treatment, employment assistance and housing, to help homeless Canadians develop greater personal autonomy and facilitate their reintegration into society.

Finally, the federal government should make available at no charge the use of federally owned facilities which are not being used for other purposes to temporarily shelter homeless people in response to requests from local governments.

Such recommendations would help to eliminate in the short and long term the causes of homelessness and would get the homeless off Canada's streets, especially at this time of year.

All Canadians agree that the federal government needs to do more. The announcement made by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Public Works and Government Services in December to build more homeless shelters was a start. However with the use of over $300 million to conduct new studies on ways to administer such programs, all agree that the money could be better spent helping the homeless. We also need a national housing strategy that includes affordable housing.

The PC party supports the motion presented by my colleague the member for Vancouver East but we would argue that adequate financial resources need to be allocated in order to solve this growing problem.

[Housing, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand before the House today on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party and as the member of parliament for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac to debate Motion No. 123.

I believe that the lack of safe, secure, affordable housing is one of the most important factors contributing to poverty for many Canadians. I thank my colleague the member for Vancouver East for presenting this very important motion to the House and for giving us the opportunity to debate this growing problem.

Although we support this motion, I must add that we have some concern regarding the requirement to spend exactly 1% of the federal budget on housing needs. We believe that allocating an exact amount without knowing what is needed is a problem when indeed that amount may not even be sufficient to solve this growing problem.

It is unfortunate this is not a votable motion.

To address this growing problem we need first and foremost a national strategy to deal with homelessness. That strategy must provide affordable housing and address the problem of growing poverty. We need a plan to reduce homelessness with targets for reducing poverty and an increase in the amount of affordable housing available to Canadians.

Will that plan include the commitment of new finances? Of course. We may need more than 1% of the federal budget or we may need less. New money has to be part of an overall strategy to wrestle this problem to the ground but it is not the answer in itself.

Recognizing that there is a key link between economic policy and social policy and that good social policy is good economic policy, the PC Party of Canada has a long history of concern with poverty and its consequences. For that reason on March 3, 1999 the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada announced the creation of the PC national caucus task force on poverty.

Many members of our party caucus from both houses of parliament held meetings across the country during the spring and summer of last year to listen and learn from a wide variety of witnesses. We were shocked by the conditions under which so many Canadians are forced to live. However, we were inspired by their courage and by their refusal to relinquish hope. We were awed by the hard work and dedication of the many groups and individuals who are striving for positive change.

The task force acknowledged that no single strategy, no matter how well designed, could be expected to address all aspects of what is an extremely complex, multifaceted and challenging problem. It is also recognized that such an objective cannot be accomplished overnight. Therefore the recommended initiatives target the near, medium and longer term.

Flexibility is also required as is a mechanism by which to judge the success of the strategy in reducing and eliminating poverty in order that various components can be modified as necessary and new ones added.

The key to the success of any attempt to address the causes and consequences of poverty and homelessness in Canada is by developing partnerships among the federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments, people living in poverty, organizations representing them, and the business community.

While the task force's recommendations made it clear that it does not have any desire to intrude on areas of provincial responsibility, the federal government must play a facilitating and leadership role with the support and co-operation of other governments in Canada as well as the non-profit and business sectors.

During these meetings witnesses made it abundantly clear that a lack of safe, secure, affordable housing is one of the most important factors contributing to and compounding the poverty of many Canadians, and that action is desperately needed to ensure that such housing is available to the thousands of Canadians who are inadequately housed and homeless.

An income deficiency rather than a housing deficiency is at the heart of inadequate housing and homelessness. People in poverty have a housing problem not because there are not enough homes but because there are not enough safe, secure affordable homes relative to their level of income.

In our report several recommendations were made in regard to support for children living in poor families, employment, income support and taxation, housing and homelessness, special assistance for vulnerable populations, support for the voluntary non-profit sector, and accountability for results.

Among the recommendations dealing with affordable housing, our party's task force recommended that the federal government in partnership with provincial, territorial and municipal governments develop a national housing policy which acknowledges the need for the federal government to be an active partner in the provision of funding and leadership in the area of social housing and commits Ottawa to provide the provinces and territories with significantly increased funding to implement programs designed to meet specific objectives in support of this national housing policy.

A portion of this federal funding should be directed to new co-operative housing supply programs and housing trusts. The money that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is now required as a result of the passage of Bill C-66 to pay the government as compensation for the crown guarantee of its mortgage insurance program should be reinvested instead in affordable housing.

Such recommendations would ensure that a long term solution be found for the growing shortage of affordable housing. By undertaking a well managed affordable housing program, valuable government moneys could well be spent to stem the chronic shortage.

[Human Resources Development, February 11th, 2000]

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the only losers in this scandal are the people living in high unemployment regions.

I believe that this program can work if we take the political influence out of it. I myself learned through the media that the regional minister at the time had approved and announced $80,000 in TJ funds against my own recommendation. That company has since then closed and no jobs were created.

We need job creation programs, but we do not need the abuse of the government. What will the minister do to make sure the abuse stops?

[Human Resources Development, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, can the minister of HRD tell the House how many TJF projects were publicly announced by regional ministers without the recommendation in support of the projects from the elected member of parliament from that riding?

[Municipal Grants Act, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the first group of proposed amendments to Bill C-10.

Although I believe that the bill still does not go far enough to ensure that municipalities get their fair share of property taxes from federally owned property, I believe that it is an improvement to the original Municipal Grants Act.

When the bill went to committee, my colleague, the member for Tobique—Mactaquac, was successful in having his amendments adopted by the Commons committee. One of the provisions of the bill would create a new advisory panel to resolve disputes between the government and municipalities over evaluation of federally owned property and payments owed to municipalities.

Originally Bill C-10 proposed that the Minister of Public Works and Government Services appoint all the panel members, pay them, choose the chairperson, and he would be able to fire them at any time if he disagreed with any of the panel's decisions. This was a problem because public works is involved in most of the disputes.

One of my colleague's amendments would give the panel members more independence by having them appointed and paid by the cabinet instead of the minister. This would ensure more balance and fairness within the panel, although I personally would have preferred a much more independent structure.

It is very clear that municipalities are not being treated fairly with the system that is now in place. I met with the people of the municipality of Alma last week and they have very good reason to be upset with the government. This is what the citizens of the municipality of Alma had to say about this matter:

We are very concerned with this government's cuts in federal payments in lieu of taxes that our municipality has been recently experiencing. We are the Service Centre to Fundy National Park, which is located in the Alma Parish. We have federal buildings inside the municipality as well, those being the Alma Post Office and housing owned by Fundy National Park.

Also they obtain money from the provincial government to help cover fire protection for the local service district, which includes the national park.

They go on to say that the assessments for the outlying areas were cut by $2.5 million, which was reflected in a decrease to the municipality over $3,000. They also lost $34,166 in federal assessments, which cost them a decrease of another $3,921 in revenue.

A small community with a population of approximately 312 residents cannot afford these cuts, as it cripples a community such as Alma.

I agree with the people of Alma and I must add that the citizens of the community of Dorchester in my riding are finding themselves in the same situation because they have in their community a federal correctional building.

I sometimes wonder if this is part of the government's long term plan in closing rural communities.

Let us face it, first we took away employment insurance benefits, which directly affected small rural communities. That forced people to leave their communities, which forced schools to close, meaning less families building in communities. If that is not enough to shut down the community, the government cut federal payments in lieu of taxes to make sure these municipalities could not survive. That is the Liberal way.

Unfortunately the amendments we are debating today will not fix all of the problems within the Municipal Grants Act and I will explain why. One of the amendments proposed today is that we change the language of the legislation so that the federal government is compelled to pay its tax bills just like every other municipal taxpayer. I certainly agree with the intent of this amendment, but unfortunately municipalities are not recognized as a level of government in the constitution or by the federal government. They are entirely a creation of the provincial government. It is understandable that my friend would come up with a simple solution, which, on the face of it, would appear to make sense. Why not treat the federal government like any other taxpayer?

The problem is that we have a constitution that we have to live with today. Although I am sure that we all have things we would like to see changed in the constitution, none of that will happen today. According to our constitution, as it is now, municipalities do not exist, they have no jurisdiction in law and they do not have any official relationship with the federal government or the crown. Therefore, the federal government cannot be bound by any decisions made by a municipality. It can only undertake to voluntarily follow a decision or a bylaw passed by a municipal government.

These amendments, although well meaning, would have the effect of changing the constitution without going through the constitutional amendment process. Nevertheless, I congratulate the member for having brought forward this point for debate. This is a subject which merits further discussion.

With respect to Motion Nos. 8, 9, 11 and 12, the member for Kelowna is attempting to address the outstanding issue concerning business occupancy taxes and certain crown corporations. Specifically these amendments would require Canada Post, the Royal Canadian Mint, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and similar crown corporations to pay business occupancy taxes.

Certainly the mandate of these crown corporations has changed over the years since the Municipal Grants Act was last updated. It used to be that these crown corporations served a purely public policy purpose and in the unlikely event they every made a profit it was more by accident than by design. Now these corporations serve two purposes. Not only do they continue to serve an important public policy role, but they also have the mandate to earn a profit in order to recover costs and to lessen the burden on taxpayers.

I agree with the hon. member for Kelowna that if these crown corporations are conducting business and earning a profit they should be paying business taxes. The question is how much. After the discussions our party had with representatives from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and after having questioned witnesses from the FCM at the public works committee, we are convinced that this is a problem that will soon be solved.

Municipalities and the federal government are continuing to negotiate over what portion of each crown corporation is devoted to purely profit making activities. That discussion is not yet finished. Municipalities have asked us not to hold up this bill while those negotiations are ongoing as there will be an opportunity to fix that issue in the very near future.

[Fisheries Infrastructure, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the government's abdication of responsibilities with respect to the fishing wharves resulted in serious problems, which persist today. It must be not be forgotten that an unsafe wharf is a danger for fishers, for tourists, for the general population who use it.

The port authority committees are calling for repairs to be made as well as for an action plan to be put in place immediately so that their fisheries infrastructure will be operational and ready for the opening of the spring fisheries.