Bill C-49 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2001

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on December 10, 2001

Budget Implementation Act

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-49 which will implement some of the measures in the budget of December 2001. It is always a pleasure to speak in the House of Commons to such a large and attentive audience. I rarely have an audience like this so it is a real pleasure.

I was speaking to our House leader's assistant, David Prest, earlier today who really put the government's financial record into perspective for me. David and his wife, Carolyne Campbell, had a baby girl on Wednesday at the Queensway Carleton Hospital. They named her Amelia Carolyne Victoria. I asked David who she looked like and he said that he could not quite tell yet, but that the baby reminded him of the Liberal government. I asked him what he meant by that. He said that it was because she has a ferocious appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.

The budget was a missed opportunity. It was an opportunity to address the security needs in our nation and to put us back on financial track but what does it actually do? If we look at what it does not do, we see that there were no new debt payments resulting from the budget. It is inexcusable, particularly to people in my generation but also the generations that follow, for the government not keep its fiscal house in order and pay down the debt so that we can have a future.

We see no new taxes in the budget. The government has been bragging a lot about the fact that it has held taxes to the same level since October 2000, just before the last election, and that it will not go back on its word, but that is inexcusable, especially considering that the finance committee's report recommended tax reductions, particularly on capital. Reducing the tax on capital would allow more investment in Canada and would help address the economic slowdown we currently are experiencing.

The fact is, the government actually raised taxes. As the previous speaker indicated, it has raised taxes in the bill for airport security: $24 for a return trip. It is inexcusable that the government is forcing passengers to pay such a high cost for airport security. We have to consider it in relation to all the other taxes that are charged currently.

The base cost of a return ticket between Edmonton and Calgary is currently $100. How much tax is added on to that $100 ticket? With this airport security charge, it will now be $86 in taxes on a $100 ticket. Then we wonder why people are flying less and less each year. It is not only because of the situation caused with the increased security and the concerns about what happened on September 11, it is because we are taxing airline travel too much and it is hurting our air industry. I believe seven or eight airlines have collapsed or merged since the Liberal government took over. That simply is unacceptable.

I had the opportunity of having lunch with someone from the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association who said that payroll taxes were severely hurting his businesses. Payroll taxes, employment insurance and Canada pension plan, which have been increased, have severely hurt middle and low income earners to work their way up through society and pay for their families.

The EI surplus now is approximately $36 billion, which is unacceptable. As the auditor general has pointed out, a $15 billion surplus is more than enough to pay for any foreseeable economic downturn, including the one we are in, even if it worsens.

There is no reduction in program spending in any area. It was interesting to hear the finance minister earlier on in the year indicate that he favoured some reductions in program spending and that he would target and not move spending from lower priority areas to higher priority areas, especially given the events of September 11 and the need for increased spending for the RCMP, CSIS and defence.

However there was not one dollar in reductions in spending at all. There are many areas that have come to light, especially recently, such as Technology Partnerships Canada through Industry Canada, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and a lot of the R and D investment. If times are good and we are sitting in a very high surplus position maybe we should consider investing in these areas.

However when times are tough, when the economy is in a downturn and spending is needed for other areas, surely that is the time when it is moved from these lower priority areas to higher priority areas.

If we look at other additional spending investments, at a time when our troops are overseas in Afghanistan we are spending more money on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Canadian television fund. That simply does not recognize the priorities that Canadians want the government to have. They want more accountability and transparency in how their taxpayer dollars are used.

An older gentleman and a good friend of mine named Keith Cumming from my riding refers to this point all the time. He says we need to look at taxpayer funds as funds in trust.

Often when ministers rise to speak about spending they will often say their departments are spending the government's money on this or that. The fact is that it is not the government's money. The fact is that it is taxpayers money.

We do not own this money. Parliament is supposed to oversee this money and disburse it according to the priorities given to us by Canadians, but it is not our money. It should be considered taxpayer funds in trust.

This is an opportunity to address what are obviously the two most serious issues: the economic downturn and the need for increased security spending. The government failed in that aspect.

There has been a lot of discussion recently about whether or not the opposition supports our troops. Of course we unequivocally support our troops. The fact is it is our duty to stand in the House to ask on behalf of them and all Canadians that they be properly equipped.

When we send them into a situation where the rules of engagement are that they could very well face serious fire or serious resistance, we have to ensure that they are properly equipped. We have a situation where the equipment they are using will become obsolete over a number of years and where billions of dollars will be required in investment. Those billions of dollars are not being invested now. The fact is that the government will not be investing properly in equipping our troops. That is unacceptable.

The first priority of a nation and of a government has to be national security not only in the external arena but in the internal arena as well. Frankly those are areas where the government is simply not fulfilling its mission.

New defence spending of $1.2 billion is simply not enough. The Conference of Defence Associations, the Canadian Alliance and others have said that at least $1 billion to $2 billion each year is needed to address the shortfall in defence spending.

It was interesting in 1994 that defence was hit the hardest in the government's first budget. We are feeling the repercussions now. The decisions made then are unfortunately reaping the dividends of not preparing our troops and of not updating their equipment enough. The fact that the Sea King helicopters have not been replaced and will likely not be replaced until at least 2005 or even 2015 is simply unacceptable.

The budget was an opportunity to address economic fundamentals. One of the concerns Canadians in my riding raise with me is the Canadian dollar. They find it absolutely unacceptable that we allow a 62 cent or 63 cent dollar to exist over a long term.

If we look at what the dollar has done under the Liberals we see that it has been on a steady decline. When the Prime Minister was in opposition he complained about the Conservative government at that time having an 80 cent dollar. An 80 cent dollar is much better for us because the dollar is a symptom of the country's overall economic health.

The dollar signifies that our economic fundamentals are wrong, our productivity is too low, our debt levels are too high, our program spending is too high, our taxes are too high and thus investment is not coming in. It was released this year that Canadians are investing more outside Canada than inside Canada. It is unacceptable for a first class world nation to be in that economic situation.

We are the most blessed nation in terms of our natural resources. Yet we have a situation where the government is so mismanaging the financial aspects that we are becoming a second tier economic power. That is simply unacceptable and that is why I urge all members of the House to oppose the bill.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-49. It is interesting that the bill is entitled an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on December 10. I think it is important to mention that in view of September 11 and everything that has happened as a result of September 11, the government has spoken numerous times about making sure airports were secure in Canada. Shortly after we got back in September, the transport committee began holding meetings on airport security and a lot of things were brought forward.

In the government's news release on the budget implementation bill the number one item listed was to establish the Canadian air transport security authority which would deliver improved security at Canadian airports and on board flights. The second item was to implement the air traveller's security charge as of April 1, 2002, to fund the air security enhancements.

I suggest that when we look at the budget implementation bill, which contains about 110 pages, there are over 70 pages relating to the airport security agency and the collecting of the fee.

Nowhere in the bill does it say for sure that we will have improved training for airport security workers or that RCMP officers will be on flights when necessary. It also does not ensure that training will be improved. We see a lot of innuendo. The government has the audacity to say that it will deliver improved security at Canadians airports and then dedicates over 70 pages to the security agency, which, without a doubt, will be made up of Liberal appointees getting paid a darn fine salary for sitting on that agency with a couple of appointees by the airport authorities, the airport authorities that have been appointed by a Liberal government. Quite frankly that is no change to what we have. That is the status quo in my view as of September 11.

The airlines looked after airport security workers prior to September 11 and the security was contracted out to the lowest bidder. I do not blame airport security workers for September 11, not for a second. They were working under a set of rules that were in place and, for the most part, did their job as best they could.

Through the numerous witnesses we heard in the transport committee meetings, everyone maintained that there had to be improved working conditions, improved wages and improved training for airport security services. Everyone also maintained that there had to be a cohesive security package involved.

We should not have the RCMP doing one section, provincial police doing another section, security agents doing another section and possibly in another area some other security group.

The committee also felt that having airport authorities take over security was not the best route to go. Airport authorities also operate on a bottom line. Anybody who would suggest that one airport authority is not competing against another just has to look at Toronto and Hamilton where they are competing for the business. It is because those people who are on those authorities are being paid a darn fine salary. It is another level of management that has been put there to give jobs to a good many Liberals, although I am sure there is one token person who is not a Liberal, but, quite frankly, I find it appalling.

Something that is as important as the security of our nation and so important to improving the stability and confidence in the airline industry, and the government's approach is to let the airport authorities look after it again. The airport authorities can subcontract it out or the agency can subcontract to the airport authority which can subcontract it out to the lowest bidder. There is no guarantee.

Why on earth do we have security under the auspices of Transport Canada? What is wrong with this picture? We have a justice department and we have a solicitor general's department. Are they not the specialists in security and justice? The solicitor general's department should be the security specialist and should be in charge of security at our airports, our ports and at all federal installations.

How do hon. members feel about the Minister of Natural Resources being in charge of our health care or the minister of agriculture being in charge of communications? Something is wrong with this picture. Why on earth do we not have security under the solicitor general's department? Why are we adding another level of management that will be taking huge pay and not doing any better in providing security at our airports?

I am extremely disappointed that the government, as far as I am concerned, has exploited September 11. There is not a doubt in my mind. The finance minister and the cabinet saw another way of getting a little bit more money into general revenue coffers so they put in a $12 security tax. I need to clarify that. It is $11.22 security tax and on top of that will be the GST, which makes it $12.

Certainly, on something as important as airport security, Canadians should not be charged the GST. That rates up there with certain health care products and certain educational needs. It is just one more way of getting more money. The government has gone beyond being a government for the people, of providing services to Canadians, of providing good social policy and a good plan for this country. All it is out for now is to make a buck wherever it can get it out of the pockets of Canadians.

I am tired of hearing how much money we are saving on income tax. People may be saving $27 or $100 on their income tax each year but they are spending $200 to $300 in additional charges on things like NavCan fees, fees on some toll roads, increased health costs because so much has been cut, and increased education costs because there is no longer any fairness or equal distribution of dollars among the provinces. The government has less and less responsibility to put money back into the provinces for the needs of Canadians.

It is being set up as a place where the government can employ a few more people and give them a good wage to make it look good. The government wants the finance minister to make it look good because it has all this money sitting there. Of course it has the money. It is taking it out of the pockets of Canadians every day and not giving them back any services. Then they have to pay for those services again.

How could the Liberal government not have money? It has cut EI benefits. The benefits are so insufficient now that only one-third of unemployed people can collect EI. Workers in northern communities, where the cost of living is tremendously greater than other areas, have the same maximum earnings limit for collecting EI as everybody else.

We have a situation where a mine is closing in Leaf Rapids. A good number of workers have spent 20 some years in the north. Now they will try to collect EI. They will get their severance pay and will not be able to collect EI during the time they collect severance pay. They have to pay income tax on their severance pay. At a time when one is down an out, that is kind of annoying. If they have worked part of the year they have already reached that maximum allocation of money they earned and then they cannot collect EI. They go for months with no money or they have to go on welfare. They want to be an active part of society and work, but they have to go on welfare after working for years. Just because of cuts by the government, they have to go on welfare.

Obviously there is not near enough time to comment on everything that is or is not in the budget implementation bill screening but I do I want to mention one other aspect regarding the screening.

The equipment that the Government of Canada purchased for the screening of people going through airports will be turned over to the new agency which will then lease it out to the airport authorities, that will then increase the cost of airport fees to offset the costs of increased rents and fees for security equipment. It sounds like an awful lot of loan sharking on behalf of the Liberal government.

Budget Implementation Act, 2001

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member who spoke before my colleague mentioned a couple of issues related to the budget. One was infrastructure and one was rural Canada becoming wired. I would like comment on a couple of those things.

The problem with the infrastructure programs that the Liberals have instituted in the past is that they have quite often ended up being boondoggles, handouts to friends and to special interest groups. They have not actually contributed to renewal of real infrastructure, like roads and bridges.

I do not disagree with the member that there is a need for some infrastructure investment, but not of the type that was done in the past in the $6 billion infrastructure programs that were introduced in 1994. Everyone knew that was a joke. They were handouts to all sorts of special interest groups. The degree to which I can support the member is; I would say yes, provided we really invest in real infrastructure.

As to rural Canada becoming wired, I think most people in the country would agree that that was a complete waste of money. The private sector was doing very well getting Canadians wired. Frankly, in areas where it was not economic to do so, people were coping by getting onto the Internet over the regular phone lines. This can be done on cell phones and satellite phones so I do not see any reason why taxpayers should have to pour huge amounts of money into that system. It is just ridiculous when the money could have been used in more worthwhile areas.

When I look at the budget as a whole, the finance minister has failed to put a stop to billions of dollars that flow out the door of the treasury every year by discretionary grants and contribution programs. Every year billions of dollars of taxpayer money is handed out by virtually every department of government in discretionary grants programs. It is fairly shocking when we look at where that money goes. I will give some examples of that in just a moment.

It is interesting to note that for three years now there have been generous federal surpluses, but instead of aggressively paying down our national debt, the Liberals use most of the surplus to significantly increase spending for their pet projects. As a result, it is still spending about 25% of the entire budget, $40 billion a year, on interest payments on the debt.

That is totally unacceptable because $40 billion a year could build 200 brand new Lion's Gate Bridges in Vancouver every year for what is being spent on interest payments on our debt. Instead of ramping up the spending to special interest groups, if the government had instead taken an aggressive approach to pay down of the debt, it would have freed up more money to spend on our important programs.

The problem is we have these terrible grants and contribution programs, and I want to give some examples.

The first example would be grants to political friends. The human resources development department has been atrociously handled over the past few years. We know that it wasted billions of dollars. It keeps sinking money into businesses that go bankrupt. The latest one is that more than $618,000 that was sunk into Celebrity Boats Corporation in the Prime Minister's riding before it went bankrupt.

Taxpayers have also backed loans to Air Wisconsin, Northwest Airlines, which is the fourth largest airline in the United States, to help them buy jets from Bombardier. Estimates of the cost of these loans to taxpayers exceed $1.6 billion. Frankly, the finance minister should be vetoing this corporate welfare and taking away the Prime Minister's credit card because it is just unacceptable to be blowing away this kind of money.

Then we have cultural nonsense. Quite apart from the almost $1 billion in subsidies to the CBC, there are numerous smaller amounts spent on questionable cultural grants that add up to hundreds of millions of dollars. For example, even though the previous foreign affairs minister skipped the world conference against racism in South Africa, his substitute, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism at the time, blew about $2 million on everything from child care expenses and bottled water to Starbucks coffee mugs, cookies and wall hangings.

Also, in this year's budget was around $25 million for provincial cultural events, 84% of which went to Quebec while the entire west, Atlantic Canada and Ontario received a paltry $3.8 million. The finance minister needs to put a stop to this sort of nonsensical and irrelevant spending.

The minister of heritage has a $2.2 billion Canadian heritage ministry. It has been identified by the auditor general as having no clear objectives, no criteria for measuring the success of its programs, yet the minister asked for a $26 million increase this year.

The example set by the minister herself leaves a lot to be desired. For the third year in a row, she topped the list for the most expensive travel budget in the Liberal cabinet. She racked up $159,000 in travel expenses last year, well above the travel budget for the previous minister of industry, Brian Tobin, who spent $105,438. Brian's bill though was for just six months of travel, so I would guess that if he was still here he would easily have toppled the heritage minister's record for the current year. It is time the finance minister called in their travel cards and cut them off as well.

What an example of misguided Liberal social engineering the gun registry has turned out to be. Just as predicted by Reform MPs back in 1994, the cost of the registry has spiraled completely out of control, yet the police commissioner to date has been completely unable to provide a single example of a crime either solved or prevented because of the registry.

We do know though of one murder which was apparently committed as a result of the so-called gun control legislation. A man in Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador, who was prohibited from owning firearms incidentally, went to the RCMP and picked up a rifle that had been held in storage for him. He has now been charged with killing a 15 year old boy, but it has been reported that the aboriginal exemptions and adaptations of Bill C-68 forced the RCMP to give this man his rifle.

When the former minister of justice introduced the gun control bill in 1994, he promised us in the House that it would not cost more than $85 million over five years, yet the registry has already consumed more than half a billion dollars. By 2003 it is expected to reach a billion dollars.

Are Canadians really getting value from the $750 million already spent and several hundred civil servants employed by the registry? The minister should abandon this waste of money and transfer the funding to the RCMP, CSIS and immigration enforcement budgets where we could start to get on top of the criminal refugee problem that we have in the country. That is what we should be spending the half billion dollars on, getting rid of the thieves and cheats who come here because of our inability to control our borders.

The millennium bureau is another example of waste. It is unbelievable and amazing that the Liberals are still pouring money into the millennium bureau almost two years after the celebrations. This year they want another $9.7 million. Are they planning for the next millennium? I hate to think what the size of the budget will be 98 years from now. It is time for the finance minister to sell off its furniture and close the office down.

One of my favourites is the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. More than $100 million disappears into this unaccountable pit of government waste every single year. I have tried for years to get someone, anyone, to provide me with a logical reason why this sinkhole for taxpayer money should even exist, but the entire organization seems to be shielded from scrutiny. It is about time the minister pulled the plug on this one and made a payment on our debt with the saved money.

I have pages of examples here, but I know that my time is running short so I think what I will do is change the tone of the debate for a moment.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following therefor: “Bill C-49, an Act to Implement Certain Provisions of the Budget, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time, this day, six months hence”.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak, not as tribute to the Minister of Finance, but to criticize Bill C-49.

In reacting to a budget, it is normal for each member to take advantage of the opportunity to address the matters of most interest to him or her. The budget is, after all, the basis from which we can see where the government's policies are headed. The budget also offers us a way of seeing whether we will be pleased or disappointed by what the government is doing. It is also normal for the opposition to point out the weak points in the budget. I must say that, on this score, we have a pretty easy job of it, because there are many of those.

I have been following the debate on Bill C-49 since the start. I have heard the discussions on EI and on the situation in the regions. Yesterday, it was transportation. We heard how unhelpful the budget is in this respect, how in fact it is harmful to regional development. Communications and transportation are vital to regional development. This budget hits the regions where it hurts, by adding a tax on air travel.

I have heard one of the hon. members on the other side indicating that he was somewhat scandalized by our reaction. He asked, “Have you listened to Canadians?” and told us that they had toured Canada before bringing down the budget, had asked Canadians' advice, and people were, according to him, in agreement.

I do not think we have been listening to the same Canadians. We are not on the same wavelength. My concern about the guaranteed income supplement is well known. I have spoken with a good number of Quebecers on this. I have visited some fifteen different regions of Quebec and consulted with people. I have attended many well packed meetings in those regions.

Not a single Canadian or Quebecer asked me to tell the government to take over the employment insurance fund, that it can have the fund. Not a single worker asked me to do so. There is not a single worker who is not deeply shocked at the $42 billion in the employment insurance fund—$42,000 million—that belongs to workers. This is a fund to which the government did not contribute one red penny. This fund is sustained by only a part of society. Not a single Canadian or Quebecer told me, “It is a good thing that the government is taking over this fund and is paying the debt that is owed by everyone, is solving the problem of the deficit that is owed by everyone on the backs of the most needy, of workers who contribute to the employment insurance fund”. I never heard that. If someone on the other side heard that, I think he or she did not hear well.

In working on the issue of guaranteed income supplement, I did not meet either a single elderly person who told me, “The government is right to take our money”. It has taken $3.2 billion in the last eight years, $400 million each year, that belongs to the most needy in society, to elderly people who are the most vulnerable. No effort is being made to go get this money.

I can tell you that I did not have any congratulations to extend to the Minister of National Revenue or the Minister of Finance. This is a scandal that must be condemned.

It makes no sense that in this country, which has a Minister of Human Resources Development precisely to humanize the government's actions, we cannot do more to locate these people to whom we owe money. On this issue, there is not one senior citizen who has asked me to congratulate the government.

As for developing countries, we have heard all world leaders talk of sharing wealth more fairly since September 11. In terms of security, we are told that the best insurance policy against terrorism is to share the wealth. Let us stop allowing the same people to accumulate the riches, thereby increasing poverty around the world.

I recall a speech given by the Prime Minister here in the House, and another given by President Bush. However, there is one speech in particular that struck me, that of Tony Blair when he stated that once and for all, developed countries must decide to share wealth.

Lester B. Pearson, when he was the Prime Minister of Canada, was the first to propose to the United Nations that the rich developed countries reserve seven tenths of one percent of their budgets to help developing countries. It was Mr. Pearson, who won the Nobel Peace Prize incidentally, who sold the UN on this idea.

But in this budget, Canada's great generosity is taking the form of an amount of $500 million for developing countries, provided there are surpluses. I can tell hon. members that some 30 years later, after the wish expressed and the work done by Mr. Pearson at the United Nations, we are not at seven tenths of 1% of the budget: we are barely at one quarter of 1%, or 0.25% of 1% for developing countries.

This comes after the government congratulated itself for its work. Not too long ago, in the fall, I attended a committee meeting where they discussed hunger in the world, food and a better sharing of the wealth. I heard public officials from that department say that, at the rate things were going and given our generosity, by the year 2015 there will only be 400 million people in the world who will die of hunger. This is nothing to boast about. It does not make any sense to accept such a situation.

With $500 million in this budget, it is obvious that we will never fulfill the wish of a former Prime Minister of Canada, who wanted us to earmark at least seven tenths of 1% for developing countries.

Those who congratulate themselves for this budget did not look very far and they cut corners. When we have to make representations as we are doing now so that, for example, the elderly get their due, when the idea is obviously to keep a low profile to avoid having people claim their due, when the mandate is obviously to take the workers' fund to pay off a debt that was incurred by everyone, I do not think the government deserves to be congratulated.

Someone said “We did lower the contribution rate to employment insurance”. What did they lower? They do not contribute one penny. They are simply telling workers “We have good news for you. Next year, we will take a little less from you”.

When the contribution rate to employment insurance is lowered, it is the rate paid by workers and employers, not by the government. In fact, the government increases the possibilities of taking workers' money. This is a scandal that will not be forgotten. It is a scandal that is marked in time.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-49.

I would like to deal with the parental leave under the employment insurance plan. I cannot deny I am happy with the impending chances, even if they are to be implemented over a two year period.

The government keeps repeating that the opposition is never able to give credit where credit is due. I am ready to do it today, even if I do not make a habit of it.

Fifteen weeks of sick leave, plus 15 weeks of maternity leave, and 35 weeks of parental leave add up to 65 weeks off. Last year, the maximum was just 50 weeks. The parental leave can be spread over two years.

I have a disagreement with the government however—after all, I cannot agree with everything all day—over the parental leave for adoptive parents.

The same conditions should apply to them. Under the bill, if a parent adopts a child, and the child is in hospital for three months, the parent will be entitled to EI benefits after these three months, and the benefits may be spread over a period of two years.

However, it seems unacceptable and discriminatory that during the three months the child will be in the hospital, the adoptive parents will not enjoy the same advantages the natural parents do. One can certainly imagine how adoptive parents who have often had to wait one or two years before adopting a child can feel when the child has to be admitted to the hospital.

The government can never do something completely right. It always seems to stop half way. It likes to compel us to challenge it. The government seems to like being spurred on by the opposition.

As the NDP whip, I will try to whip them into shape this morning. Once again, I think the government has gone against its obligation to eliminate this type of discrimination against people. We have fought long enough here in the House to say that there should be no discrimination against adoptive parents versus natural parents.

The government is introducing a new bill and this new bill too is discriminatory.

What will the adoptive mother or the adoptive father do while the child is in the hospital? What does the government have to say to the fact that the mother visiting her child in the hospital is receiving no money?

That was the whole idea behind the employment insurance system and Bill C-49, to allow parents to go the hospital, to take care of their child and extend the number of weeks.

Once again, this is why I say it is unfortunate the government missed the boat. It is unfortunate that the government does not take into account the global recommendations of the standing committee, which examined the issue of employment insurance. There is a $42 billion surplus, and all parties made unanimous recommendations to the government.

In the meantime, the government chose the bit by bit approach, and said, “We are nice. Every three or four months, we are nice”. They give a little bit here, a little bit there, a million here, a million there. They are like a bunch of people handing out peppermints every three months.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate today regarding Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled on December 10, 2001.

This wide ranging legislation includes measures to legislate in the following areas. It implements the Canadian air transport security authority which will deliver improved security at airports and on board flights. It implements the $24 round trip domestic air travellers security charge announced in the budget, which of course is discriminatory, toward short haul airlines and flyers two to three times higher than charged in the United States.

The act also amends the Employment Insurance Act and its regulations. These amendments provide increased flexibility to parents whose newborns are hospitalized for an extended period of time and clarify employment protection. There are no new benefits per se provided for in the bill. This issue addressed in these amendments affect approximately 7,000 women and 2,000 children, while the total cost of implementing these changes is estimated to be about $20 million to $25 million for next year.

The act also implements the income tax amendments. The purpose of the amendments is to push revenues into the following fiscal year when a budget deficit is more likely. The most visible amendment is the provision to defer certain income tax instalments for January, February and March for six months. This measure is accounting trickery and really has only marginal benefits for business, perhaps $50 million in total.

However that is not new.The government has been seriously criticized by the auditor general in the past for disregarding the generally accepted accounting principles to balance the books. It has front loaded and back loaded the expenses and revenues respectively to make it convenient for the government to balance the budget. For instance, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation was not even in existence but the funds for operations were included in the budget.

The act also provides for the new $500 million Africa fund to reduce poverty, provide primary education and set Africa on a sustainable path for a brighter future. This fund is without clear direction or a mandate nor does it have a control mechanism in place. Rather than logically putting it with CIDA, a government official was quoted as saying that the Prime Minister will make that decision.

Moreover, the act was also supposed to implement the $2 million strategic infrastructure fund which was intended to provide assistance to large infrastructure projects in co-operation with municipal and provincial governments, as well as the private sector. The government has flip-flopped on this particular issue. This fund will be under the control of politicians rather than under an arm's length board of directors. There is no policy statement or basis for approval of these funds. Thus it is the de facto Liberal leadership strategic slush fund. It will be distributed on a project by project basis.

The government's vision or, for that matter lack of vision, is supposed to be reflected through the Speech from the Throne. Any budgets, in turn, are supposed to fulfill the vision laid out in the government's throne speech. As is evident, the budget completely fails to do this. This is probably because the government has no clear vision to begin with.

The throne speech is supposed to be a statement of how the government plans to act and where it plans to commit taxpayer resources. Under this government the throne speech has become nothing more than an empty public relations exercise devoid of any true meaning.

I would like to look at some of the important differences between what the government said it would do in the throne speech versus what it actually did in the budget.

In the throne speech the government said it would focus on: creating opportunity by fostering an innovative economy; taking steps to make Canada one of the most innovative countries in the world; enhancing the skills and learning of our country, in part, by recognizing foreign credentials; strengthening our country's information infrastructure by expanding broadband access to remote areas; and fostering trade and investment by investing in areas such as skills, learning, connectivity and lower corporate tax levels.

Members will note that the throne speech ensured Canadians that every effort would be made to work co-operatively with the U.S. to ensure fair and open market access. Nothing has happened with the softwood lumber dispute. My province of British Columbia is suffering because of that.

The throne speech said the government would: help families by creating jobs and a stronger economy, especially for our native population; ensure health and quality of care for all Canadians by upholding the principles of the Canada Health Act; and work toward environmental preservation, including clean air, water and conservation of our national spaces. It stated that it would “safeguard Canadians from toxic substances and environmental contaminants”. I wish to mention that 8,600 tonnes of toxic waste will be coming to Richmond, British Columbia from the United States of America. I do not see how the government is creating a safe environment.

The throne speech also said that the government would: co-ordinate government programs and policies to support Canadian communities; ensure a vibrant Canadian culture and celebrate Canadian citizenship; and protect Canadians by fostering a more peaceful international climate.

From what I have seen in the budget and Bill C-49 the government has fallen short in every one of these areas. This means that it has failed Canadians by not implementing the priorities it outlined in its own throne speech.

Some people say the Liberals campaign from the left and govern from the right. However, I think they would say anything during the campaign to get votes and once in power would do only those things which fulfill their own agenda. We know about its promise to remove, eliminate, scrap and abolish the GST, but the GST is still here.

The Liberals said they would create opportunities for Canadians. Instead, we are falling behind in many areas such as: job creation, lowering taxes, paying the national debt, improving health care, improving the economy, and improving transportation and infrastructure. As far as job creation is concerned, although the figures indicate that the job creation figures for January are a little better, the situation in my own province of British Columbia it is still very bad.

Our standard of living and productivity continue to fall relative to that of the United States. This is made worse by the government's low dollar policy. The Liberals failed to significantly improve our economic competitiveness.

The Speech from the Throne and, consequently, the budget speech, fail to set the priorities right. It is the culture of the weak and arrogant Liberal government that needs to be changed. Wastage, mismanagement, patronage, corruption, cover-up, secrecy and favouritism are the benchmarks of the Liberal government. It plays politics with the important priorities of Canadians including the national sex offender registry, child pornography and victims' rights.

Over the last 10 years, the official opposition has come up with grassroots policies by listening to Canadians. These grassroots policies would set the right priorities for the federal government. The government criticizes us for our policies and tries to shut us up. In the end, it steals our policies.

There cannot be a band-aid solution to the national problems of governance, mismanagement, corruption and prioritizing the issues of national importance.

The official opposition has played a significant role in changing or improving the national agenda for the country. We have been carrying the flashlight and showing the dark side of the Liberals. We have been exposing their weaknesses and blind spots which they have left unattended. They have seen some light and stolen some of our policies. I wish they had stolen more policies. By stealing our policies they have managed to form three consecutive majority governments. Still they could not set the priorities right and improve the culture of the government to manage the issues that I have just listed.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Speaker, you are pronouncing the name of my riding well. I think you are beginning to get used to it and I am pleased about it. I do like to hear you say it.

Bill C-49 before us is entitled Budget Implementation Act, 2001. I do not know if taxpayers and listeners remember the date the budget was tabled. That was on December 10.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, after the September 11 attacks in Washington, D.C., New York, and over the fields of Pennsylvania the transport committee wrote a report called “Building a Transportation Security Culture: Aviation as the Starting Point”. To date there is no indication whatsoever that the report has been read by even one cabinet minister. Frankly, if it had I would not be here opposing Bill C-49 on the basis of its transportation components.

Bill C-49 fundamentally violates the standing committee's recommendations. There are two parts of the bill I find particularly troubling. The first would establish a corporate body called the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority which the government would put in charge of air security in Canada while giving it the mandate to delegate its powers to airport authorities.

At first this seems reasonable. It would appear to let large airport authorities manage all security activities on their premises while offering a helping hand to smaller airports. However when one examines the bill more closely and compares it to both the standing committee's recommendations and the U.S. aviation security bill its failings become obvious.

The U.S. introduced Bill S. 1447 10 days after September 11. It was a study in clarity. It specified what should be done, by whom and when. Under the bill the secretary of transportation and the administrator of the FAA are both charged with specific responsibilities and required to report to congress.

The standing committee was inspired by the bill's clarity. It recommended that a transportation security authority be created and that its mandate, methods of operation and accountability be prescribed by law. The committee further recommended the regime be subject to a statutory review one year after the legislation came into force. The authority was to be headed by a secretary of state for transportation security who, as a member of the House, would be fully accountable to Canadians through the House.

The government instead created yet another stand-alone agency whose board members would be named by the Minister of Transport. Subclause 34( b ) would allow cabinet to compel the security authority to provide such information as the minister may require. However there is no real accountability mechanism. Subclause 32(1) would allow the minister to refuse to table any information if he felt its publication might be detrimental to airport security, air security or public security in general.

The Air Line Pilots Association issued a press release two days ago saying the government was “creating yet another bureaucratic layer, in which the airlines and the airports would each have two of the eleven patronage seats on the board of directors”.

Had clause 6 of Bill C-49, which spells out the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority's responsibilities, specified that the authority's mandate be handed over to Transport Canada in a regulatory capacity we might have seen some accountability. However accountability is not one of the hallmarks of Bill C-49.

It is not surprising the government would like to isolate the Minister of Transport, on whose watch seven Canadian air carriers have gone bankrupt, from further responsibility and spotlight. Only the lion in the Wizard of Oz would consider it brave to hide behind a stand-alone agency and pretend it was accountable.

The first part of Bill C-49 bears the fingerprints of a government that is afraid to take responsibility, look after things and be accountable for its actions. It leaves one thirsting for leadership and a little more aware of the arrogance of a government which feels it does not have to answer to Canadians on this important issue.

My second area of concern with the bill is even more troubling. It makes one feel as though one has been robbed. Once one reads it carefully one comes away with the knowledge that the government has used the tragic events of September 11 to reach deep into the pockets of Canadians and take a bit more of their hard earned cash.

The bill would enact a $24 round trip air traveller security charge. For most Canadians this may not seem like a lot of money. For most Canadians it is about the same amount it costs to get to and from an airport in a cab. The government is hoping we will not notice it is yet another tax grab. It is hoping we will believe its spin that members of the travelling public would pay the fee because they would be the true beneficiaries of the service.

As a general rule there is a big difference between a fee and a tax. A fee is associated with a tangible benefit. University students pay fees. Universities deliver classes in return. One pays a fee, one gets a service. Generally there is a relationship between what one pays and what one gets.

A tax, on the other hand, is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as:

A pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property to support the government, and is a payment exacted by legislative authority.

There is no connection to a specific benefit. The money extracted goes into a black hole and, depending on the integrity of the government, may be spent on things citizens want such as health care and roads.

After much careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that the $24 round trip air security fee is much more like a tax than a charge. There are four reasons to believe the charge would be a money maker for the government. First, in the first year of the new tax, 2002-03, clause 7 of Bill C-49 forecasts $340 million in expenses yet table 5.1 of the budget forecasts $430 million in revenues. That is a $90 million surplus in year one. In year five the budget forecasts a $139 million surplus.

Second, the fee is set at a level which exceeds the amount required to pay for the service. In Canada the charge would be $24 per round trip. That is two to three times the level of similar fees introduced in the United States post-September 11. The U.S. fee is $2.50 per flight to a maximum of $5.00 per round trip. That is respectively $4 and $8 Canadian. In the U.S. if one flies from Dallas to Houston round trip on the same day one pays $8 Canadian. If one flew from Edmonton to Calgary round trip on the same day one would pay $24 Canadian. That is three times as much.

Let us think about that. The U.S. was the country attacked by terrorists on September 11, yet our security fees would be triple those of the U.S.

Third, there is no relation between the cost of the service and the charge being collected. If one flew one way from Montreal to Vancouver one would pay a $12 air travel security fee. If one flew one way from Montreal to Mexico City one would pay a $24 air travel security fee. In both cases one would walk through the same security checkpoint and board the same airbus A-320 for a five and a half hour flight to a destination 2,300 miles away. However in one case the fee would be $12 and in the other it would be $24. It would be the same service for double the price. That is a tax grab.

David Eckmire, chair of the Saskatoon Air Services Group, says the security fee collected at Saskatoon airport would be $5 million annually. That would equal the entire operating budget of the airport in the fiscal year.

Fourth, the fee would target people who would not benefit from any of the services it proposes to offer. If one flew from Vancouver's south terminal to Victoria, Campbell River or Comox one would pay the $24 round trip air travel security charge even though one probably would not go through airport security anywhere during the trip.

The real reason to fight the charge is not that it is another tax grab by the Liberal government. It is that it serves as a strong disincentive against people flying again. We all remember the efforts President Bush made to convince Americans to fly again. In Canada our government is taking a contrary position.

In the House last week I raised the issue of taxation on air travel security. It should be of interest that in Ontario as of February, 1998, the last year for which I could get reliable statistics, 56.69% of the price of a carton of cigarettes consisted of taxes in one form or another. That is high but deliberately so. It is government policy. It is done out of principle to discourage people from smoking.

If the air travel security charge were applicable today the $119 Toronto-Detroit web saver fare Air Canada advertised yesterday would be $285.12 after Canadian and U.S. fees and taxes had been added in. Taxes and fees would comprise $166.12 of the total fare or 58.26% of the price. In other words, Canadian legislators believe a cigarette tax of 56.7% will stop people from smoking but an air ticket tax of 58.26% will not stop people from flying. Clearly that is ridiculous but it is Liberal logic in action.

In the same spirit that allowed seven air carriers to go bankrupt on his watch, the Minister of Transport quietly predicted airline passengers would not be deterred by the latest tax grab. He pointed out that the cigarette tax level is only reached when taxes and fees are taken as a percentage of transborder flights. However that is not true. The truth is even darker.

If we look at Air Canada's web saver fares for the coming weekend we find a $99 fare between Calgary and Kelowna, an $89 fare between Victoria and Vancouver and a $79 between Toronto and Sarnia. All three fares are highly competitive. Air Canada is making an effort to get more people flying.

Then the government gets involved. If we added the $24 round trip air traveller security fee to the other taxes and charges the Toronto-Sarnia $79 fare would become $163.10. We would pay twice the advertised price after all the taxes and fees were taken into account. Let us not forget that the government says a 57% tax on cigarettes is designed to discourage people from smoking.

With legislation like Bill C-49, fewer people will be flying and prices will go up. As always, quality will go down because there are fewer people holding air carriers to account for their products. Yet for some bizarre reason, the government is still surprised that seven carriers are dead on its watch. It should be ashamed.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party to Bill C-49, an act to implement the budget that was presented to parliament on December 10, 2001.

In speaking to the bill, I want to respond to what was said by my colleague on the government side. He said that the budget and the bill were as a result of the government listening to Canadians. I think that has to be rephrased slightly. The government listened to some Canadians. It listened to its friends.

When people in my riding of Vancouver East, working people, low income Canadians, look at the provisions in the budget, they see nothing that will help them in terms of improving the quality of their lives.

One of the main features of the budget is to establish the Canadian air transport security authority, CATSA. As my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois said, this is nothing more than a tax grab. Why on earth would Canadians want to write a blank cheque for $2.2 billion to the federal government without knowing where that money was going?

We need to point out to Canadians that the establishment of this new air transport security authority is nothing more than a new agency of Liberal appointees and that it will have very little to do with providing security at airports. In reality, of the $24 that will be charged to people for a round trip, only about $2 per flight will actually go to fund the new agency and for security measures. When one looks at the bill there is something like 56 pages devoted to the administration of the new tax and not a word about how security will actually be improved.

It is an incredible situation that under the guise and illusion of providing security, something for which people are legitimately concerned when they are travelling, that a $2.2 billion cheque will be handed over to a new agency with no credibility or legitimacy, and without the assurance that security will actually be improved. We in the New Democratic Party have serious problems with that proposition and we will fight it tooth and nail all the way.

Another provision in the bill has to with the $2 billion infrastructure fund. Originally this was set up as a separate foundation. I think many of us had serious concerns about how a Liberal appointed foundation would operate and what accountability there would be. Now we have a situation where the Deputy Prime Minister will be in charge of the $2 billion fund.

I do want to say that setting up an infrastructure fund is something that is critically important. I come from a municipal background. Today members of the NDP caucus met with the president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Mr. Jack Layton, who laid out for us the serious situation facing municipalities where they are grappling with huge infrastructure costs around public transportation, bridges, roads, water plants, treatment plants and so on. The issue is very important because many of our municipalities, particularly in the larger urban centres, are at a critical point where they do not have the financial resources to meet the growing infrastructure demands.

Mr. Layton pointed out that the cost for municipal government was actually increasing through the property tax revenue. If we look at the European and American experiences, we see it is a much more direct relationship between the federal government and the municipalities in terms of a financial arrangement that provides direct infrastructure support to municipalities.

While $2 billion sounds like a lot of money, when it is put in the context of what is actually required by municipalities, it is actually a very minor amount in terms of what they actually need. While the NDP supports the idea of creating an infrastructure fund, we feel that the establishment of a $2 billion fund without a clear sense of how municipalities will be involved in a direct way, is of very serious concern to us.

I also want to comment on what the act fails to do. Yesterday, students in dozens of communities across the country took to the streets in the tens of thousands because they were fed up with higher and higher costs for education. Their student loans and debtloads were getting worse and worse, and they were basically graduating into poverty.

In my home province of British Columbia, where tuition fees have been frozen for four years and were actually rolled back by 5%, we are now facing the prospect of a massive tuition fee increase. Thousands of students demonstrated at Queen's Park, in Halifax, in Vancouver, in Victoria and even Carleton University students here in Ottawa protesting the fact that education was becoming less and less accessible.

Studies show that the chance of a young person from a low income family actually getting a post-secondary education is less than half of what it is for someone who comes from an affluent family. I point this out because I heard the hon. member say that the Liberal government was doing a wonderful job when it came to post-secondary education and that it had 2,000 research chairs. Although that may be well and good, when it comes to direct support to students who are struggling with high tuition, we have seen absolutely zip from the government.

What we need to see is a national grants program, not the millennium fund which my colleague mentions. The millennium fund helps less than 12% of students. In some provinces it is a slight decrease in the amount of assistance that they actually get. The millennium fund is not a grants program. The millennium fund does not improve or increase accessibility for students who want to go to post-secondary education.

I think the assessment of any student in this country or an organization like the Canadian Federation of Students, would be that this budget has failed on that score.

I also want to touch briefly on the question of housing. A couple of days ago the National Council of Welfare, which is a federally appointed advisory body, produced a very excellent report called “The Cost of Poverty”. It received some attention but very little attention for the very significant and dramatic information contained in it.

The report showed us that neglecting our social policy, our social fabric and our social safety network has produced a growing inequality in incomes. The cost to our health care and judicial systems, and to our young kids who need to get a good start in life, to have equal opportunity and to have a future, has taken a terrible human toll as well as an economic and a social toll on society.

The budget and the act before us today is about a big tax grab. It is not about helping Canadians improve their quality of life. It is not about helping unemployed Canadians. It is also not about changing inequalities that exist in Canada.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on December 10, 2001.

Basically, it implements the measures announced in the budget; it is a stand alone bill. To explain to Quebecers and Canadians who are listening, it is stand alone legislation implementing the budget provisions.

I will use an example to explain to our listeners what the Liberal government is doing in the budget it brought down, in particular to air transportation.

This is an area of our economy that has been seriously affected by various factors, including the events of September 11. No other area has been so catastrophically hit in a single day in the whole history of Canada.

I will try to explain what the Liberal government has been doing to revive the airline industry, which definitely collapsed. This is the only way to describe what has been happening to this industry since September 11.

This industry has collapsed. Thousands of jobs have been lost across the board, not only in the airline industry, but also in the aircraft industry and in the parts industry. Workers in the airline and aircraft industries have been hard hit by the events of September 11.

What has the Liberal government done? Of course, it was quick to announce measures to compensate the industry for the losses incurred as a result of September 11, meaning losses suffered over the eight days the airspace was closed to air traffic. Every airline was compensated for its losses. It made sense. The federal government decided to do so.

Later, it put in place a system to compensate the industry for the increase in insurance premiums. Of course, an event such as September 11 results in very high costs for the insurance industry. The federal government paid for the increase in premiums.

Then, nothing, except for an aid package. The 105 major airlines needed help. Those who have followed the whole saga of the airline industry after September 11 will recall that a $160 million aid package in loan guarantees was offered to 50 major airlines.

Canada 3000, for which a $75 million loan guarantee had been announced, was to be the first one to get some help. It did not even have time to receive that help, because it had already closed down. As a result of that bankruptcy, thousands of jobs were lost in the airline industry.

That is what happened. For all those who were expecting some help for the airline industry in the budget, here is what we find today, and I quote:

1. (1) Every person who acquires from a designated air carrier all or part of an air transportation service that includes a chargeable emplanement shall pay to Her Majesty a charge as determined under this Act in respect of the service.

So, in order to help the airline industry, to make up for additional investments in security costs, the government has decided to make all the users pay a charge, that will be paid, and I quote:

—to Her Majesty—

Therefore, a $12 charge will have to be paid for each chargeable emplanement included in the service, to a maximum of $24. That is $12 for the outward journey and $12 for the return journey, to a maximum of $24, that will be paid by the users as compensation.

So much for help. All the workers in the land transportation sector who spoke to my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, as well as all the workers in the shipping industry who spoke to my colleagues in the Bloc,also suffered losses in the wake of the tragic events of September 11. The whole transportation sector felt the repercussions, except rail transportation, which benefited from the loss in the airline industry. The train had a new appeal.

For the rest, however, for freight, the economy collapsed. Thousands of jobs were lost in transportation, but all the Liberal government could come up with to help the airline industry was to provide for a new tax, to a maximum of $24, that is $12 for the outward journey and $12 for the return journey, payable to Her Majesty.

When the government wants to deter smokers from smoking, it increases taxes on tobacco. This is what will happen. The government wants to deter people from flying; therefore, it will impose a tax on air transportation.

That tax will not apply everywhere. The bill refers to chargeable emplanement. This is where the charge will be collected. What is a chargeable emplanement? I am quoting the bill:

“chargeable emplanement” means an embarkation by an individual at a listed airport on an aircraft—

This individual will have to pay that charge.

Which are the listed airports? I will read the list of designated airports for the Province of Quebec and not burden the House with the others. The designated airports are the following: Alma, Bagotville, Baie-Comeau, Chibougamau/Chapais, Gaspé, Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Kuujjuaq, Kuujjuarapik, La Grande Rivière, La Grande-3, La Grande-4, Lourdes-de-Blanc-Sablon, Mont-Joli, Montreal International (Dorval), Montreal International (Mirabel), Qubec City (Jean Lesage International), Roberval, Rouyn-Noranda, Sept-Îles and Val-d'Or. There are three international airports; the others are regional airports.

What the federal government is proposing will kill air transportation in the regions. I cannot overemphasize this: if we want to deter people from smoking, we increase taxes on tobacco. And if we want to deter people from flying, we do what the Government of Canada is doing: we create a tax on emplanement in regional airports. This is the harsh reality that will result from the measure proposed by the Liberal government.

In the history of Canada, this industry was the one that was hit hardest in a single day. All the other industries and the workers in all the other industries are asking my Bloc Quebecois colleagues to help them. Every week, workers are losing their job in the forestry industry, in the transportation industry and in every other industry. These people are asking us to help them. Considering what the Liberal government is doing to the women and men who work in the airline industry and who have worked all their lives for it, people in other Canadian industries can forget about getting help. This is what we have to explain to Quebecers.

In this budget, there is good news in the fact that apprentice vehicle mechanics will now be allowed to deduct the cost of their tools on their tax returns. This is not an issue that was put forward by the Liberals. It has been advocated by my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, particularly the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles and the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans. They are the ones who defended this issue in the House, and this is why the government thought of doing something about it. We will have to continue our work on this issue.

All workers who have to use tools and equipment in their jobs should have the right to deduct the cost of these tools and this equipment on their tax return. Members of the Bloc Quebecois will be leading this fight in the months and years to come.

In closing, I will say that I am sad for workers in the airline industry. I am sad for towns in the regions, the small towns that are listed in this bill. These towns have built Canada with their natural resources and will continue to support Canada. I find it very sad that the government has decided to abandon them again.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-49. I would like to welcome the three Liberal members of this huge majority government to the sitting today. It is too bad we do not have more.

I promise those members who showed up that I will not try and bore them by talking about the budget with which they are very familiar. I will talk a little more about what is not in the budget, what is missing, what is wrong, and how it could be improved.

I know that the government goes through the motions. The government likes to take tours throughout the country and do a lot of consulting and visit with Canadians, so that Canadians can have input as to what should occur in this land.

Canadians are often asked what their priorities are. We all do that in our ridings. There is not a great deal of difference between Canadians from province to province and riding to riding. We are all on the same government structure. We pay the same taxes. Many Canadians pack their lunch, go to work, head down, elbows out, tail up and try to make a living and have a good standard of living to bring their families up and enjoy themselves. The priorities of Canadians are very similar in respect to what they would like to see.

The finance minister puts on a phenomenal speech every time he presents a budget. He is overwhelming in attracting the attention of the public with the way he puts it forward. Members would think that this status quo budget was the greatest and newest idea to have hit Canada in years, yet it has absolutely changed nothing.

Let us take a look at the list of priorities. They are not in any particular order, but they are the priorities I heard. The three members of the Liberal government majority here today would hear the same things in their ridings. They would hear that health care is important. Let us take a look at health care. When we were first elected in 1993 there was a deficit thanks to the Conservative government prior to the Liberals. The Conservatives kept the deficit going instead of reducing it as they said they would.

There was a commitment to reduce the deficit. How do we do that? Do we take care of wasteful spending, money that should not be spent in areas that might be considered nice to do, but certainly not spending money on areas that are totally unnecessary.

No, we did not do that. We kept the spending going. This particular budget has even got more money for what I call the flowery spending, the unnecessary stuff. There is a little here and there for some of the things that are necessary, but nothing for health. There is absolutely zero for health.

The government began reducing transfer payments to the provinces in 1993 and after a few years it finally got the House to balance the budget. There was no deficit for a year. It was done on the backs of transfer payments to provinces as well as increasing taxes at every opportunity.

We have had some good years now and a real economic boost. The government is showing huge surpluses and is bragging about that. It can brag but it must not forget that because of what it did to the provinces earlier on put a huge strain on them to be able to deliver health care. The provinces were unable to do it in the same manner that they could because of the severe cutbacks. We begin to ask that some of the surpluses be put back into health care to bring the levels back to the 1994 levels.

It is now 2002 and we still have not come anywhere close to the 1994 levels. By this time of course it is all the fault of the provinces. We have to blame the Ralph Kleins and the Mike Harrises and the likes throughout the provinces who have done their best to try and change the system so they can deliver and bring better service to Canadians. These cutbacks have produced huge lineups, days of waiting for operations, hip replacements, et cetera.

The government now has an opportunity to move once again. It did not bother presenting a budget last year, which is very unusual. I believe it is the first time in history.

We have had some good years. We have some surpluses. Let us put some money back into the transfer payments so the provinces can indeed do something more than they are able to do now.

When the health care system came into being, it was supposed to be 50:50 proposition; 50% funding by the feds, 50% funding by the provinces. Thanks to the government, we are now at 88% province and 12% federal, with no notion that the spread will narrow in any way. Certainly not in this budget. There is a zero increase for the spending in health care. I apologize. There were a few additional dollars for research. I agree with the necessity of good research.

In the meantime, we have huge lineups all across Canada. Every member in the House knows they have these problems in their ridings and in their provinces, yet nothing is done.

The next priority is education. We do not deliver a lot for education, but we do assist in every way that we can with post-secondary work. The revenue department has a lot of people working overtime as it passes over the student loan indebtedness that it created by giving out big loans to various students. It is now trying to collect them all back and is having a tough time doing that. It will have to get more help with that.

There is nothing of any significance in the budget to enhance post-secondary education programs, while at the same time, the cost of tuition for attending university and getting trained goes up and families struggle more and more to try to cope with the situation. There is nothing in the budget to address another priority of Canadians: good education.

Let us talk about taxes. We are the highest taxed nation among developed countries. If we are not the highest we are right on the doorstep of being the highest.

Canadians are looking for tax relief. They agreed to higher taxes in the beginning to reduce debt and control deficits. The deficit is taken care of. We have a balanced budget. Where is the tax relief? The finance minister announced huge tax relief. However, it is a strange thing. A phenomenon is going on.

I challenge everyone in this House and every Canadian across the land to take a close look at their pay stubs and compare them to a year ago. Everyone will find that there is a lot less money coming home than there was a year ago. This is all across the country. Some have done better thanks to different promotions or whatever. However in the majority they are getting less. Our standard of living is going down.

What is the answer? We have a great solution from the department of revenue. One of my favourite departments and everyone's favourite department.

We cannot hire more police for better security, we cannot hire more guards on the borders for better security, and we are running short of personnel in so many vital areas that they keep crying for more help. Yet the department of revenue has hired 9,600 new employees specifically to collect outstanding taxes and do further audits. Is that not wonderful?

There are young families across the country whose kids suddenly have a $3,000 dental bill that there is nothing they can do about. In order to pay the dental bill they become delinquent in their taxes. Yet the compassionate and caring Liberal government has hired more tax collectors and auditors. They will go after those delinquent taxes and make these families pay up. These are the families that visit our offices and come April 30 there will be a whole lot more visiting our offices. They will want to know what they can do because they cannot pay their taxes and they are being harassed daily.

Well, there is good news. Our compassionate and caring government has hired 9,600 high paid employees to collect this money. Those people who have a few dollars in their bank accounts should not be too sure that it will be there tomorrow because the revenue department can go in and take it whether people know about it or not. This is great, wonderful and free Canada. It is the land of pride and freedom. Yet people can lose their bank accounts just like that if the revenue department decides that is what should happen.

However, it goes beyond that. Members will recall the teddy bears that were taken out of a family's home. This young family could not pay its back taxes and was suffering. The government went in and took their furniture, their vehicles and even the kids' toys. It was talked about in the House for quite some time. That was a shame and a disgrace. Yet the caring and compassionate government allows these things to go on. In fact it encourages it by hiring another 9,600 employees.

I wonder how much longer Canadians will put up with the kind of attitude that comes from the other side of the House. I wish I could convince people not to put their x next to a Liberal name because it means disaster. It has been that way for years and it is getting worse.

It is tough for older couples who have been living in the same home for most of their lives to live on a fixed income and collect an old age pension. A fellow may want to do some work on a golf course by cutting the grass to make some extra money so he and his wife can enjoy retirement a bit more.

Lo and behold, the compassionate and caring government has news about a little extra income coming into fixed income families. The government has to make sure it gets its share. These people end up toddling into my office asking for help. They say they do not know how they can meet these commitments. They do not know what to do. I know what they can do. They can go on time payments. The government will set them up and they can pay it every month.

Then along comes the young family asking what they can do, saying they have three kids who all need serious dental work and they do not have a dental plan. The income tax people are down their necks day in and day out, constantly phoning.

When is this going to end? When will we get some tax relief? Why is it continually going up?

Members opposite say we have a tax break and ask whether we did not hear it in the speech. Look at the pay stubs, folks. It is not there. Why? Because for every dollar that was taken off income tax another $1.50 was added on the payroll taxes. CPP is going up. All of a sudden there is a big wake up call.

There is a $36 billion surplus in unemployment insurance or EI I guess we call it now. That is good news. Does that $36 billion not belong to the employees and the employers of the country? No, it does not, it belongs in the government's coffers. The person who truly deserves some employment insurance is having a terrible time getting help, while the government flounders away and wastes more money doing its little pet projects which support friends in the Liberal Party.

People are crying for better law and order and better services. Put the victims first and not the criminals. Stop protecting criminals so much. Porno movies and pizza are provided to penitentiaries in order to stop the inmates from rioting. That is what has to be done in Canada to keep control in a prison, bring in porno movies and pizza, have a new year's eve party so there will not be a riot.

A sex offender registry was a good idea a year ago but just the other night the government said it was not necessary. The wonderful, compassionate government killed that idea but it wants to keep the gun registry going. And it is so effective the criminals must be lined up by the hundreds waiting to register their guns. The government spent $700 million on registering guns. Is that not amazing.

We talk about security. We are worried that there are not enough guards at the border, not enough police. The G-8 summit is coming up. There are all these things to care about so $200 million extra was put in the budget to take care of the military, to take care of CSIS, to take care of the RCMP and to fight terrorists. But $700 million was spent to register duck hunters, farmers and trap shooters. There is $700 million to go after duck hunters and farmers and $200 million to go after terrorists. I do not think Canadians like that priority one bit.

It continues with the wonderful, caring, compassionate Liberal government which has about as much compassion as a coral snake. It should just pay attention to what is going on. People across the country are suffering. How many times have I brought to the attention of the House and how many times has the United Nations brought to the attention of the House, that there are third world conditions on the native reserves?

We have been fighting for years to get an ombudsman, someone to help the grassroots people on the reserves. They are truly suffering because of the corruption and mismanagement. If they have received any training from the government, then they have had real good training in mismanagement and corruption.

One of the Liberals recently said that if the member for Wild Rose had his way he would form a posse, jump on a horse and go after all these guys. I might do that, but the first thing the posse and I would go after would be the corruption right there on that front bench.

Maybe we need a posse to go after Mr. Gagliano. Maybe we should bring him back and make him accountable, but no, the government will not do that. When someone does something bad, it is time to move on. He was made the ambassador to Denmark. If something is done that is not quite so bad, the person can get a nice cozy seat in the bedroom down the hall called the Senate. The government will find some caring, compassionate, patriotic position.

When are Canadians going to stop allowing these things to go on? I have seven grandchildren. They are not very big yet but I hope before I go to my grave that Canadians will wake up and realize what kind of government has been ruling this land. I say ruling because the Liberals are rulers, not servants. The Liberals had better start learning whom they are working for. They are not working for themselves. They are not working for the bureaucrats. They are working for Canadians and they had better start reflecting that in what they accomplish.

Someone said that the budget was written by the Prime Minister, not the Minister of Finance. What difference does it make whether it was Tweedledum or Tweedledee? The whole notion of what is going on and how money is spent was pointed out quite clearly by the auditor general. She said that the government is wasteful and to stop it, that it is absolutely the worst managing government she has seen in a long time and to stop it, but no, it keeps on going.

I have had just about enough of it. I sure hope that 30 million Canadians are with me on that one.

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the latter part of the hon. gentleman's remarks tend to go a bit beyond the normal Thursday question. Far be it from me to try to fathom the conservative mind. I would have to leave that to those opposite at either end of the House.

We will continue this afternoon and again tomorrow with consideration of Bill C-49, the budget implementation bill. As noted in the House earlier today there is agreement among all parties that the debate on second reading stage of Bill C-49 will be concluded before the end of the day tomorrow. If time permits tomorrow, we will then turn to Bill C-50, the WTO legislation pertaining to China.

Our intention when we return on February 18 is to commence report stage of Bill C-5, the species at risk legislation. Tuesday, February 19, shall be an allotted day.

Airline Industry

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-49 ensures it gives the Minister of Finance more tax dollars for his general revenue fund but does nothing to ensure security at airports.

The new airport security agency can contract security to airport authorities who can subcontract to the lowest bidder, the same system that was in place September 11. Dollars from the $12 GST, the greedy security tax, are going into the hands of Liberal appointed airport authorities, the same authorities that made donations to the Liberal Party in the last election.

My question is for the minister responsible. Will the government change the Elections Act to ban political donations by airport authorities or will it continue to accept money from them so that a portion of that $12--

Budget Implementation Act, 2001

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Nanaimo--Cowichan.

I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-49, another piece of legislation by the government that seems a little disastrous and roughly drafted. I was going through the bill a minute ago. The first thing I draw to the House's attention is on page 3 of the bill. Clause 5, Establishment and Mandate of the Authority, says:

(2) The Authority is for all purposes an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada.

It says for all purposes.

Clause 28 on page 9 says:

(1) The Authority may enter into contracts, agreements or other arrangements with Her Majesty as if it were not an agent of Her Majesty.

We can have it one way or the other way but we cannot have it both ways. This is the attitude of the government. It wants everything its way. Will the agency be an agent for the Queen in all ways as subclause 5(2) says?

The hon. member for Nanaimo--Cowichan has reminded me he would like to say a few words. They will be important words because he will bash the government as much as I am doing.

The point is it will either be an agent of the Queen at all times or it will not. Let us be specific and get these things clarified. This type of drafting of legislation should never get this far.

In a typical Canadian way we have had the private sector running airport security. There has been a big debate in the United States about whether it should be private or public. The United States decided it would be public. In a true Canadian way we said we would create an agency that was neither private nor public but somewhere in between. It is rather strange. The government still does not know whether it will tax the Canadian travelling public or charge it a fee.

We had a briefing yesterday at the finance department. The department told us it will charge $12 per ticket. Of that, 78 cents will be GST and $11.22 will be a fee. The money will be taken from people with no debate and no chance to object. It will be spent not only on the travelling public but on the entire airline industry.

It is a tax. The government did not get rid of the GST. It now wants to charge GST on a tax it will impose. Not only that, it will not put it into the consolidated revenue fund. It will give it all to the new agency.

The government does not know what it is talking about. I wish it did because the Canadian travelling public's safety is at stake. The bill seems like something thrown together by the government on a whim at the last minute when it realized it had no real objectives.

My colleague pressured the minister into getting air marshals on planes. After months of stalling and saying there was no way we would have air marshals in Canada the minister said yes, we would have them. This happened courtesy of our member. It is more of the same.

I am concerned less about the bill's security provisions than about its secrecy. I know the auditor general would be the auditor because the bill tells us that in clause 31. However Clause 32 says no information could be made public without the authorization of the minister. On the next page it goes even further. Subclause 32(2) says:

The Authority, authorized aerodrome operators and screening contractors must keep confidential any information the publication of which, in the opinion of the Minister, would be detrimental to air transport security or public security, including financial and other data that might reveal such information.

Not only is the government saying it would not tell us what it was doing. It would muzzle private industry subcontractors who work in the airline security. We would not know what was going on. If I read the act properly I am not sure the auditor general would be able to make public her analysis and audit of the institution.

We need to seriously examine this piece of legislation. I hope to have much more to say when we resume after question period.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows that I will never join the Bloc Quebecois. I understand that even though we may be friends outside the House of Commons, we are adversaries here.

I will mention what is important in this bill. There are some good things. I mentioned to members one aspect of the bill that is penalizing people. I believe the government can make changes. We have a good finance minister. If he understands what is happening, he can move some amendments.

It is important to find solutions. As the Liberal member for Stoney Creek was saying earlier, there could be changes over the next year. However, I would like these changes to be made immediately and to see airport taxes abolished. We will keep on fighting.

But that does not mean that I am ready to vote against my government. I will not vote against my government because we are working very hard. However, I am certainly allowed to speak to Bill C-49 and to state my opinion publicly with regard to this bill. That is what is important.