Bill C-48 (Historical)

An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments

This enactment authorizes the Minister of Finance to make certain payments out of the annual surplus in excess of $2 billion in respect of the fiscal years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 for the purposes and in the aggregate amount specified. This enactment also provides that, for its purposes, the Governor in Council may authorize a minister to undertake a specified measure.

The Budget

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation makes very clear that the government is seeing access to funds in fiscal year 2005-06 and fiscal year 2006-07. The terms of that access are very clearly spelled out in Bill C-48, as well as the purposes of the money in terms of the broad categories.

It is now obviously up to the relevant government departments to develop the specific programs that will dedicate those funds to the purposes described in Bill C-48.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Too bad Gomery was not looking at Earnscliffe, Mr. Speaker.

We know the Prime Minister believes that post-secondary education, the environment and low incomes are all his number one priorities. He basically confirmed that earlier in question period. Yet his NDP deal, as reflected in Bill C-48, does not establish programs for any of those number one priorities. Funding if necessary, but not necessarily funding for his number one priorities.

Has the Prime Minister explained to the NDP that the money for all of his number one priorities will not flow until the fall of 2006, if it flows at all?

An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Absolutely, that is fantasyland.

The member should talk to the Manitoba Child Care Association, which has been leading this fight for more than 10 years, and probably for 20 years, trying to get a non-profit, publicly administered, quality child care system from one end of this country to the other.

Finally, let me calm down a bit to say that this is an important issue, just as education, housing and support for environmental projects are important to Canadians. All of this will be lost unless members over there can get their heads around supporting Bill C-48, which is the mechanism for accessing some surplus dollars to meet the priority needs of Canadians, and Bill C-43, which provides money for child care on a very sensible, reasonable basis that is clearly in tune with Canadian families.

All of that will be lost if those members decide to keep obstructing the House in the interests of their political ambition and their search for power as they turn their backs on the Canadians they claim to represent.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening since this morning to the comments of my colleagues on both sides of the House, including members of the government, the Conservative Party and the NDP, in their questions and comments. I think that one aspect of Bill C-48 is not clear enough. Over the next few minutes, I want to shed more light on the debate so that people can understand what the current situation is.

This is not about being left-wing or right-wing, or about supporting or opposing a social measure. The Bloc Québécois members are social democrats to the core. Naturally, we support positions that lean more to the left than to the right. Overall, we use common sense and a moderate approach. At present, we are not talking about that at all.

We are talking about the fact that this is a minority government. To start, when it tabled its first budget, it did not receive the support of the House. The opposition had identified priorities that correspond to what the public we represent wants or would have wanted to see in the budget. These priorities, this consensus, were totally ignored in the budget tabled a few months ago.

The Bloc Québécois has been consistent from the start. This budget was unacceptable when it was tabled and it is still unacceptable today, even with these new measures. We cannot support a budget or an amendment to the budget, as presented in Bill C-48, when, fundamentally, we have remained consistent. We have said that this budget did not satisfy the top priorities of Quebeckers. Supporting this budget would mean betraying who we are.

As for Bill C-48 itself, we must consider the current context. We have a minority government that has not met the public's needs or listened to the opposition parties. It has acted like a majority government and has completely ignored the consensus of Quebeckers and even, in several instances, of Canadians.

Suddenly, it feels it is on the ropes. It is mired in corruption up to its neck. Everyday we learn something new from the Gomery commission, and it all adds up to the fact that a parallel group is not responsible for the corruption that occurred in connection with the sponsorship scandal, as the Minister of Transport said, but rather that this goes to the very core of the Liberal Party of Canada and even involves current ministerial aides.

The government is on the ropes. It can see power slipping away. So now it is throwing out commitments everywhere that it will not be able to keep, because it is going to be defeated this evening, with the motion of non-confidence the Conservatives have presented. So it is trying to play all sides at once.

There is one thing we need to keep in mind, however. Every time a government that is suspect, one formed by a party that is even more suspect, distributes such commitments—we are talking $1.2 billion a day for the past 18 days—this just makes it even more suspect. This government should already be in police custody. It has done enough damage to the taxpayers' money and to democracy, by investing billions of dollars uselessly in order to influence the results of the last referendum in 1995, and the 1997, 2000 and 2004 elections. Enough is enough. It should not spend, or commit to spend, one cent more. It has already done enough harm with the taxpayers' money.

Now we see the Prime Minister making commitments just about everywhere. Yet only a few weeks ago he had no leeway. When the budget was presented, let us not forget, we were told that the government would have liked to have looked after more of its priorities, but that its main priority was a balanced budget.

That is our priority too, but we are well aware that, when the first budget was presented in February, there was still considerable leeway available. The government could have looked after more priorities, such as correcting the fiscal imbalance. It could have changed the employment insurance program, as it has been asked to do for years. After two elections and commitments from the Liberal Party to improve EI, the improvements have never happened.

We knew that there was money and that the government was twisted enough to not act on the public's priorities but rather to keep some manoeuvring room secretly for itself, as it has done since 1997-98. We have a minority government continually mired in corruption, according to the ever more astounding revelations at the Gomery commission. You can check in the blues and in our public speeches. We knew there was manoeuvring room and the Prime Minister would use it when the going got tough, as it has in recent days.

There is a reason behind the $1.2 billion in commitments daily. It is not to better serve the public. A few weeks ago, he could have included it in the budget per se. He could have acted on people's priorities, served this country's most disadvantaged. He did not. Why not? Because he thought he could get out of it and because the Conservatives did not reject the budget. A few weeks later, the NDP joined in to ally officially with a government that is suspect, I repeat. When you are suspect, when you are being held for questioning, you have to stop spending. You no longer have the moral authority to make commitments of several billions of dollars, as the government has done for the past 18 days.

“Do not touch taxpayers' money”, is the message heard throughout our ridings. “Stop making commitments. You are being held for questioning, you are under suspicion.” Arguments are added daily to the public's warnings.

They talk of the sponsorships. But there is more than that. Since 1993, since this government has been in office, there have been all sorts of stories, such that we should not let it have another cent, because it is spending all over the map.

On the other side of the House, the Liberals have a tendency to forget certain events. We all remember on this side—although memories on the other side are rather faulty—the scandal over Human Resources Development Canada, for which the minister responsible at the time is now the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the member for Papineau. A billion dollars disappeared under the stewardship of this minister and could never be found. Several years later—this scandal came to light some five years ago—the money still has never been found. Where is that billion dollars?

There is also the firearms scandal. We in the Bloc Québécois are in favour of firearms control, but not at any price. This program to manage and control firearms was supposed to cost $20 million. Now it is more than $1.5 billion. Where has that $1.5 billion gone?

There are also many problems with taxes and tax treaties. Why are these problems not fixed? Once again, the government is suspect. There is a treaty with the Barbados and regulations governing corporate taxes here that, when combined, make it possible for corporations to save money. Thus the Prime Minister's family business, Canada Steamship Lines, was able to save more than $120 million in federal taxes over the last five years.

With the Prime Minister setting this example and being a suspect in the sponsorship scandal—because more and more light is being shed thanks to the revelations of the Gomery Commission—could there be any doubt that the government is not only very lax but that this slackness is also very profitable for the Prime Minister and his cronies, the large corporations involved in international shipping.

I had an opportunity to work with Mr. Jacques Léonard, president of the Conseil du Trésor in Quebec City. Together with my honourable friend from Joliette, we were on a committee to review government management. There, too, not one more cent should be entrusted to this government in view of its poor management of the public purse. When the Prime Minister used to be Minister of Finance, he liked to boast that he was one of the best managers in the world. Well, we have made some fabulous discoveries.

I will name a few. Listen up if you want to know what this government does with taxpayer dollars. While cumulative inflation was set at 9.6% from 1998 to 2003, bureaucratic spending increased by 39% during that same period. In addition, the number of public servants increased by 46,000, and payroll by 41%. In the Department of Justice alone, payroll increased by 141%, while inflation was still 9.6% during that period. The cost of political polls, which really do the public and the poorest families a lot of good, increased by 334%.

This government is quite fond of lavish spending. The cost of office furniture increased by 215%. Also, some $1.5 billion went to the gun registry, which we cannot mention enough. Furthermore, the Governor General enjoyed an 82% increase in her budget, while the average salary increase for low-income and middle-income workers, under collective agreements, was roughly 2% a year, for a modest increase of 8% during that period. Yet, the Governor General gets an 82% increase. A lot of good that does the public, the unemployed, young people who are victims of an underfunded education system.

It is scandalous. Not just the sponsorships, but all the waste, the mismanagement, the hidden funds, like the billion dollars at HRDC, all of it is scandalous. This lavish spending shows that the government has not had the moral authority to govern for a long time now.

We have been all the more convinced of this since hearing all the revelations at the Gomery inquiry targeting the Liberal Party and the staff of certain ministers, and even some ministers themselves who said they never saw nor heard anything about this scandal.

Today, we are being asked to respect the government and its new annual commitments of $1.2 billion. We will never do this. If the new commitments set out in Bill C-48 were significant, perhaps we would. However, such a corrupt government should no longer be managing our money or making commitments, but rather respecting the verdict that will be rendered this evening, when we defeat it. It is time for this government to step aside and stop spending our money.

I want to examine each of these commitments in turn. Some $1.6 billion is being invested over two years in affordable housing. There was no money for social housing a few months ago, no more than has been since 1993. Suddenly, there is $1.6 billion over two years for this sector, which needs two and a half times that amount each year in order to meet the needs of the public, which have increased since 1993. At that time, when the Liberals came to power, 1.3 million households in Canada needed access to social housing. Up to 50% of their income was going toward housing. At 25% of income, people are poor enough to qualify for social housing.

Now, 1.7 million households need access to social housing. At least 1% of the annual federal budget should be allocated to this sector to make up for lost time, following devastating measures, in the fight against poverty, by the former finance minister and current Prime Minister. With regard to housing, poverty is also caused by measures such as the drastic cuts to EI and federal transfers to the provinces for social programs. At one time, federal contributions were at 25% and even 50%, 25 years ago. Currently, it contributes about 11.5%

The Liberals are responsible for poverty. They did not invest in social housing. Suddenly, for fear of being defeated or being shown the door, they have committed $1.2 billion in initiatives in the last 18 days.

They promised $1.5 billion for access to post-secondary education. For years now, since 1995, the Liberals have been pillaging educational systems everywhere in Canada, not just in Quebec.

In Quebec an investment of $1 billion was needed every year for the next ten years in order to remedy the chronic underfunding this government has caused. We have been presented with $1.5 billion for the next two years for post-secondary education. Do you know what that represents for Quebec? Approximately $188 million out of the expenditures of $12.2 billion. The potential is there, but the NDP was too quick to sell its birthrate for a mess of pottage to a corrupt government. We are talking $188 million for post-secondary education out of the $12.2 billion in education spending.

That is just mocking the public. It that is all it took to get the NDP to sell its soul to the corrupt Liberal Party, it is pretty insignificant.

As I have said, it is the same thing with social housing. They say there will be $1.6 billion over two years, but it would take $2 billion a year just to make up for lost time. And even that figure is based on previous needs, but the latest figures indicate that now there are 1.7 million households in need of social housing.

If the government had wanted to govern properly and had not got so mired in all the Gomery revelations—with all the distasteful and undemocratic details we have been treated to in the past few months—it would have had sufficient leeway to meet all the priorities mentioned to us at the time of a meeting between myself, the Minister of Finance and the Conservatives. It could have started to resolve the fiscal imbalance by greatly increasing education transfer payments. Now federal transfers account for 11.5% of education costs, everywhere in Canada.

It could also have corrected the equalization formula, as we asked, instead of signing piecemeal agreements. Moreover, in the budget implementation bill they want us to swallow the agreement with Newfoundland and Labrador, and with Nova Scotia. They want us to swallow an agreement that has just clouded the issue as far as fiscal imbalance is concerned, making it worse than before.

With this agreement, they have put huge pressure on the other provinces. They have created an imbalance, which may be called a horizontal imbalance, that is, they have increased the fiscal capacity of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia so much that it is now higher than that of Ontario. Ontario can well get angry and cry foul, like Quebec. The special agreements confuse matters rather than treat them comprehensively.

If the Prime Minister were really concerned about correcting the fiscal imbalance, he would not operate on a piecemeal basis as he did with Ontario, and as he does with the $1.2 billion commitments he has made a day over the past 18 days. He would not be concerned about sprinkling commitments here and there in order to save his skin. He would have worked responsibly during the past 10 months and presented a budget taking steps to resolve the fiscal imbalance. He would have had the support of the Bloc Québécois and probably all of the parties.

The provinces have to deal with unavoidable expenses in health care, education and support to the most disadvantaged families. They do not have enough resources. These resources are in Ottawa. The possibilities of deficit are very real.

Last year, for example, Ontario had a $10 billion deficit. This year, its deficit is $6 billion, and on it goes. Quebec faces huge pressure over taxation and a balanced budget. This could be remedied, but, for 18 days, the Prime Minister has not been concerned with correcting this fiscal imbalance any more than with remedying the employment insurance plan.

I can hardly wait to see the NDP members in the next election, which will probably be called this evening. They will go to their riding and say that they joined with a government that did not deign to do anything of any significance to resolve the EI problem. They were the defenders and attacked the government in order to have EI reformed and 60% of the population not excluded from it.

Now, they join with the Liberals, who have forced hundreds of families into the street each year since the EI reform. They have kept them on social assistance and in a state of poverty.

In closing, I congratulate the NDP on its social and moral conscience.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

It was a stand-alone deal, but suddenly we find that this deal is included in a very large omnibus bill and we will have to vote for all the other things in order to get this bill through. This is not the budget of February 2005 that the government brought in, so how on earth can we support it?

This government is guilty of nothing less than reckless spending, deceptive practices and misrepresentation of surpluses it projected for the coming years. Worst of all, the government is in violation of the principles of running a good and honest government, because what the Liberals are doing with Bill C-48 is nothing less than making a deal that is costing billions of dollars of unscheduled spending. The government is on the road spending $1.3 billion or so a day in unscheduled spending for no reason other than that of trying to save the Liberals' sorry butts from going down as they become known as the worst and most corrupt government in the history of Canadian politics. That will be their legacy.

Claim what they may about past governments, the Liberals are part of the worst and most corrupt government in the history of Canadian politics. They think nothing of spending billions and billions of dollars of taxpayers' money in order to somehow salvage their fortunes. Canadians will not be blackmailed. Canadians will not be extorted. Canadians will not have any part of the corruption of this government and they will bring it down in the next election when it happens. We will listen to Canadians on this one.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-48.

There is one thing that Canadians need to know, which the Liberals have not answered yet. They put forward their budget in February of this year. It was a budget that we in the Conservative Party could support. We could support it, but what we have now is a budget that is totally different from the one they put forward in February. This is a budget that was created by the NDP. The only reason these items are in this budget is that the Liberal government has chosen to climb into bed with the NDP.

Let me say that I do not fault the NDP members. They have the principles and the things they believe on how money should be spent. Good for them. We do disagree on how we get to certain goals, but that is fine. We have different philosophies.

What is really shameful about the Liberal government is that prior to making the deal with the NDP, it did not think those things were important. Suddenly, now that the Liberal government is falling quickly and the Liberals are drowning in their own cesspool of corruption, they find a lifesaver with the NDP. They say to the NDP, “Bring on those spending proposals and we will support them because we can make people think they are important to us now”.

In fact, if these proposals were as important to the Liberals in February 2005, why on earth were they not in the budget back then instead of us seeing the Liberals wait until they are drowning in their own corruption to climb into bed with the NDP? What we have here is a pirate ship that is sinking fast. The Liberal members, the Prime Minister and the government are spending like drunken sailors to try to keep that pirate ship afloat.

Let us be clear about where this money is coming from. There is only one source of revenue for the government and that is the Canadian taxpayer. This government over the last 12 years has plundered the hard-working Canadian taxpayer through tax increases, through government fee increases and through the pillaging of the $40 billion-plus EI surplus. I do not see anywhere in this budget that the Liberals are going to put any of that money back.

As my colleague from Peace River pointed out earlier, this is the third budget revision since February. We now know that the government is doling out $1.2 billion or $1.3 billion a day in new spending announcements since the budget came out. This is money that was not accounted for in the budget. It was not accounted for in February. It was not accounted for a couple of weeks ago, but suddenly the government has all kinds of money.

What the Liberals are saying is that they found unplanned surpluses, but really what they are not saying is that they are going to use the money that they purposely did not make public, on the surpluses that are coming.

Which word is best to use here, Mr. Speaker, fibbing or fudging? This is like fudging the budget in saying that we are going to get so much money less than what the reality of the income is going to be, and then standing up and spending like drunken sailors because suddenly they found a big bag of extra money.

They ask why we do not support this budget. We cannot because it is not the same budget that the Liberals presented in February. Since then, as my colleague pointed out, they have added Kyoto to the budget in an effort to try to plant the seed so they could have a lever to somehow begin taxing fossil fuels when they decide they want to pull the cash lever a little more. We cannot support that; we all know about the Liberals' national energy program that devastated the west some years ago.

One of the members mentioned the $100 million for pine beetles. On this $100 million that the government promised to B.C. for pine beetles, let us be truthful: this represents only 10% of what the province asked the federal government for. It represents only one year of the commitment that the province asked the government for. The province asked for a commitment of 10 to 15 years. The government would not commit past one year. The government gave the province less than 10% of what was asked for.

While we in B.C. are certainly happy to get the $100 million, the government and this parliamentary secretary know that the provinces cannot operate on short term planning, especially when they have a crisis in their lifeblood industries. The Liberals know that.

We cannot support the budget or this bill. We understood from the government that in 2005 a deal had been made with the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador on the offshore oil resources. That was debated in the House. Everyone had the understanding, including the provinces, that this was a stand-alone deal cut with the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and the government of Nova Scotia. We were happy with that. Our colleagues who represent ridings in those parts of the country were happy with that.

[Charlie Penson, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George.

This is a very dismal performance by the government. We are debating Bill C-48 but one has to wonder why. This seems to be the third Liberal budget since the February 2005 budget was introduced. Many people call it the NDP budget because, quite frankly, the two parties together do not have a majority in the House. I say that it is an illegitimate budget.

I do not think most Canadians will be amused with what the Liberals have been doing. They have been boycotting and filibustering their own legislation to not allow these bills to be debated and voted on in the House of Commons because they have become so desperate to hang on to power. They are hanging by their fingernails. This is a pathetic performance by a dying regime. We saw it in eastern Europe.

I have been in the House almost 12 years, like some of my colleagues, and this is the worst performance I have ever seen. I see desperate people making illegitimate agreements just to hang on to power. They are not respecting the parliamentary democracy we have in this country that at some time, and the Liberals do not seem to get this, maybe they will not be in power. They cannot conceive of that idea somehow so they will cut any deal and sign anything to hang on to power.

The budget was delivered on February 23 in which the Liberals announced $42 billion in new spending. They went back and brought the numbers up for the 2004-05 fiscal year. They said that the surplus would be $3 billion. Of course we snookered them by hiring our own fiscal forecasters at the finance committee who, just six weeks later, said that the Liberals were off and that the surplus was double that. It was $6 billion. For this fiscal year 2005-06 the Liberals have estimated a $4 billion surplus. The fiscal forecasters say that it will be $8 billion, only six weeks later.

The unplanned surplus that the parliamentary secretary talked about, I do not think so. We have seen this crass practice in the last seven years of lowballing surpluses to build up huge funds that they can use in election campaigns. That is really what this is.

Next came Bill C-43, the budget implementation bill. What did the Liberals do? They snuck in a couple of amendments. One was the Kyoto amendment, which all of a sudden was tagged on to the budget. Just a few weeks earlier it was not there but they snuck it in to put greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide in particular, in the noxious gas category to allow them to tax it heavily. Of course we cannot support that. We want to see it hived off and we will try to do that in committee, if we ever get there.

Then of course today there is the NDP budget, which is Bill C-48. What has happened since budget day itself? There has been an almost $8 billion turnaround. New spending plus the cuts in the taxes that were proposed under personal tax cuts and the corporate tax side has meant that essentially there is an $8 billion difference.

What do we have here? We have a desperate government trying to buy itself another election. It is in a massive spending spree. It is trying to bury Gomery by taking away people's attention from Gomery with this budget.

Let us look at what today's newspapers are saying. The headline in the Globe and Mail on page A4 states, “Liberal spending blitz hits $19.5-billion” . Steven Chase says:

--Ottawa's minority Liberal government has grown so big it now amounts to nearly half the spending unveiled in the February budget.

It goes on to say, “the 2005 budget was only two months old when the government began piling on extra spending”.

A headline in the National Post today reads,“Spending spree continues”.

Another article reads:

Federal government spending announcements have hit $22.3 [billion] since [the Prime Minister] went on television on April 21 to apologize for the Liberal sponsorship scandal.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Possibly not matters of fact, rather than matters of legend, but that is another issue.

Canada's fiscal turnaround was nothing short of remarkable and has certainly not gone unnoticed by other countries that are looking to us as an example of what to do. It was thanks to these sacrifices made by Canadians that consumer and business confidence grew. In turn that led to stronger economic growth and job creation.

Once the fiscal situation turned around, the government put more money in the pockets of individuals and families by reducing taxes more than any other federal government in history. It also invested significantly in the priorities of Canadians, such as health care, education, infrastructure, research and innovation, national security and the environment.

The bill before us today brings those investments in a number of key priorities for Canadians, priorities that the government shares. Specifically, Bill C-48 provides the framework for further investments in important areas, such as affordable housing, post-secondary education, the environment and foreign aid.

Let me assure the House that this in no way will put us in danger of going back into the bad old days of deficits. I emphasize that this will not put this government into deficit.

The government is committed to spending $4.6 billion for these investments. These investments will be financed from fiscal resources that are in excess of $2 billion in the fiscal year 2005-06 and $2 billion in the fiscal year 2006-07. Estimates show that we will still have sufficient resources to continue to pay down the debt as well. I want to again emphasize the point that these investments will only be made in the event there are resources available above the $2 billion in each of those fiscal years.

I would like to outline the details of these proposed investments for our future.

First, with respect to affordable housing, the government recognizes that Canada's communities are the social and economic foundation of the country. Whether large metropolitan areas, cities or rural hamlets, the communities Canadians choose to live in have significant bearing on the quality of their life and social and economic opportunities open to them. However, the harsh reality is that in downtown cores and poorer neighbourhoods of many cities urban poverty problems have led to increased demand for affordable housing.

In recent years the government has made a number of investments totalling $2 billion in the area of affordable housing and homelessness. These programs are still being rolled out and in most cases the funding will continue to ramp up over the next year.

We have done the following.

In 1999 the government launched a three year national homelessness initiative. A key element of that was the supporting communities partnership initiative known by most of the people in this area as SCPI, which provided $305 million for local community groups to offer supportive services and facilities for the homeless.

This initiative was of great importance to the community from which I come as we were housing something in the order of 1,400 homeless people in the riding every night. I am pleased to say that over the years, with the assistance of SCPI and other programs, the number has declined precipitously to the point where we are now somewhere in the order of 200 to 300 people per night. I would like to think the Liberal caucus in particular had a lot to do with that initiative.

Budget 2003 provided a further three year extension to the SCPI initiative at $135 million per year. Furthermore, budget 2001 announced $680 million over five years for the affordable housing initiative to help stimulate the creation of more affordable housing. Bilateral cost sharing agreements were subsequently signed with all 13 jurisdictions in Canada. On top of that, $320 million over five years was announced in budget 2003, bringing total investments in affordable housing to $1 billion over six years.

The government continued to do more in budget 2003 when it announced a three year renewal of the government's housing renovation programs at a cost of $128 million per year. These programs support the renovation and the renewal of the existing stock of affordable housing and help low income persons with critical housing repair needs. In addition, the government currently spends $1.9 billion per year in support of existing social housing units.

The legislation builds on those previous initiatives by proposing a further $1.6 billion for further affordable housing construction. It is important to emphasize that the funding is not tied to matching funds from the provinces.

In recognition of the critical shortage of adequate housing for our first nations reserves the new funding will also include aboriginal housing. That is $1.6 billion of the $4.6 billion initiative.

The second part of the initiative is in the area of post-secondary education, which is and continues to be a priority of the Government of Canada. We need to provide students with a solid foundation that will serve them well in Canada in the future.

Since balancing the budget, the government has provided significant new funding in support of post-secondary education through increased transfer and support to provinces and territories and increased direct support to students and universities.

For example, federal transfer support for post-secondary education is provided through the Canada social transfer, a block transfer to provinces and territories which are each responsible for allocating federal support according to their respective priorities regarding post-secondary education and other social programs.

Overall, the Canada social transfer will provide $15.5 billion in the fiscal year 2005-06, including more than $8 billion in legislated cash levels and $7 billion in tax points. This will continue to grow on an annual basis as the economy grows.

In addition to the Canada social transfer, the Government of Canada provides about $5 billion annually in direct support for post-secondary education. That, among other things, helps families save for their children's education.

The bill provides additional funding to complement the initiatives already taken by the government. Specifically, it provides $1.5 billion to increase accessibility to post-secondary education with a substantial portion to support students from low income families as well as training money to support labour market agreements. That is building on the $1.6 billion for affordable housing. We add a further $1.5 billion for initiatives in education and labour market training.

The third initiative is on the environment. As we know, the government is very much aware that a sustainable economy depends on a sound environment and healthy communities. To that end, we have made significant investments in the environment and in sustainable infrastructure in Canadian communities. Bill C-48 builds on those initiatives, proposing $900 million for environmental investment.

The objective of the government's issues is to have the most impact where it matters most, in places where Canadians live, work and play. Canada depends upon the cities and communities to attract the best talent and compete for investment as vibrant centres of commerce, learning and culture.

That is why, building on the current financial support for infrastructure programs and the full rebate of the GST, the government has delivered on its commitment to share a portion of the revenues from the federal gas tax with municipalities to assist with their sustainable infrastructure needs, such as public transit, water, waste water treatment and community energy systems.

I might mention that for my city of Toronto, the GST rebate is in the order of about $50 million annually and that continues year after year. Again, it is a significant sum of money.

This is a perfect example of different levels of government working together to achieve a common goal. Bill C-48 enhances the government's commitment, focusing primarily on public transit.

As members know, individual Canadians produce greenhouse gases through day to day activities, such as driving vehicles and heating or cooling homes, anything that involves energy use. Certainly, there are things that all citizens can do to play a key role in addressing climate change, particularly in their homes. That is why the bill also proposes to provide funding for low income energy refit programs.

Having talked to others in the corridors and around Parliament Hill, I know this is a particular aspect that has gained a lot of attention among certain members of the community.

Even before introducing the bill, the government had promoted actions by Canadians to reduce greenhouse gases through a range of information and incentive programs, such as the EnerGuide for houses retrofit Incentive program. This evaluation service provides homeowners with independent expert advice on the different systems of a home and information on energy efficient improvements that can increase comfort and reduce energy bills.

The government's goal is to quadruple the number of houses retrofitted under the EnerGuide for houses retrofit incentive program over the next five years. Indeed the proposal in the bill complements this plan.

I must say it is more than mildly curious that members opposite at one level oppose these initiatives and then say in the next breath that if they form the government, they will of course adopt these initiatives.

The next initiative is in the area of foreign aid. As a nation composed of people from every part of the globe, Canadians have a keen sense of the world beyond their borders. Indeed Canada as a G-7 member has a responsibility to contribute to making the world safer and protecting the vulnerable in times of strife.

If members want to see the new face of Canada, I would invite them to my riding. I do not think there is a racial, ethnic or religious group that is not represented in the riding. They are Canada's future.

Canada's recently released international policy statement sets out a vision for Canada and its role in the world. The new international policy framework delivers on the government's commitment to invest in our international role. We have made substantial progress in delivering on Canada's 2002 pledge at Monterrey to double international assistance by 2010-11. In addition, Canada will strengthen the partnership with Africa through debt relief and aid to foster private sector development and key investments to address the serious health issues afflicting that continent.

Bill C-48 forms an integral part of the government's foreign policy by proposing an additional $500 million in international assistance. That new funding, combined with our proposed new approach for foreign aid, will better ensure that money goes to where it is most effective and do the most good.

Those who have been following this debate will notice that adds up to $4.5 billion over the next two years. There is a minor discrepancy between the $4.5 billion in the bill and the $4.6 billion that has been committed to this initiative. The final initiative has to do with an agreement to invest a further $100 million from within the fiscal framework to assist in the protection of workers' earnings in the event of employer bankruptcy.

That is in sum the $4.6 billion committed over the next two years. I would like to reiterate that the proposals contained in the bill are merely a natural extension of everything the government stands for. We are proud of the contribution we have made in securing Canada's social foundations. We are proud of the contribution we have made to the securing of our fiscal foundations. We believe that Canadians are proud of what we have worked so hard to accomplish together.

I would urge all members to support the bill.

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-48 is a bill that proposes further investments from unplanned surplus funds.

Canada's social foundations are a key to our social identity. In past budgets, the Government of Canada has made significant investments in these social priorities and this bill is merely a natural extension of those priorities. It already builds upon government initiatives taken over the past number of years and budgets.

Before outlining the measures contained in this bill, however, I would like to take a moment and talk about how the government is able to make these investments, or how we got from there to here.

As members know, Canada will record its eighth consecutive surplus in the budget year 2004-05, a record unmatched since Confederation. Indeed, Canada will be the only G-7 country to post a total government surplus in that fiscal year. Canada's much improved fiscal situation has allowed the government to make significant investments in the priorities of Canadians.

Our fiscal outlook, however, has not always been so rosy. When we took over the government from the members of the party opposite here, we were faced with a budgetary deficit in excess of $40 billion. On top of that, the unemployment rate was in the order of 11%. There was weak economic growth and weak consumer confidence, all brought on by the management so-called of the previous administration.

We recognized that something had to be done if we were to ensure a future for our generations to come. That is exactly what we did.

Our government undertook a series of measures to reduce spending and put our fiscal house in order. By 1997-98 we were able to eliminate the deficit.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are a bit of an athlete in your own right and without any pain there is no gain. Canadians clearly made sacrifices in support of a goal of improving our fiscal situation. However, in this case, and I know your athletic endeavours are matters of legend, the pain has paid off big time.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, for the Minister of Finance]

moved that Bill C-48, an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

The Budget

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman is at a loss to understand what the money is for, let me refer him to Bill C-48.

It is for the environment, including for public transit and an energy efficient retrofit program. It is for training programs and enhancing access to post-secondary education, including for aboriginal people. It is for affordable housing across Canada, including for aboriginal people. It is for foreign aid.

Which of those things does the official opposition disagree with?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I should remind the hon. gentleman that the simple repetition of a falsehood does not make it true.

The fact of the matter is that the arrangements that we arrived at in Bill C-48 have ensured that there will be no deficit. They have ensured that the debt repayment plan will continue. They have ensured that any new investments are consistent with previously existing Government of Canada policies. They have ensured indeed that the tax program of the government will continue.

An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-48, An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments.

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

Supply

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the opposition motion of the New Democratic Party. I will take the time to read it first so that I can then comment on it more easily.

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should recognize the public health impacts of smog and the failure of voluntary emission standards by legislating mandatory improvements to vehicle efficiency in all classes of light duty vehicles sold in Canada

For starters, I should say that my party intends to support the opposition motion put forward today by the NDP. However, I do have some criticism of it. In our view, it must be said that this motion is vague and inadequate. Why is it vague? Because it fails unfortunately to specify the extent to which we expect the automobile industry to improve the efficiency of light duty vehicles. Is the standard 25% or 10%? No one knows.

Of course we must take a regulatory approach. That is what we think on this side of the House. However, we must never forget that our regulations must be consistent, not with the American government standards—as is currently the case in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the regulations under it—but rather with the practices and regulations recently adopted in California. It is important to remember that.

Smog has been a reality in Canada for a number of years now. However, Quebec was alerted to it more than ever recently during several days in early February when Montreal and the Outaouais were hit by a smog alert. This was quite unusual. How could Montrealers and the people of the Outaouais possibly expect a smog alert in February? This points to a major problem which reminds us that we must change our ways of doing things and our consumption patterns.

Before I go on to the automobile industry and its impact, we must remember, first and foremost, that it is not just vehicle exhaust that causes this smog. Wood stoves and wood heating are also responsible for smog. As recently as between 1987 and 2000, there was a 60% increase in wood heating in Canada compared to only a 20% increase in rental housing. This means that the number of people who decided to heat their homes with wood more than doubled in 15 years. Naturally, that has a major impact on air quality, especially in urban areas like Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, which I represent in this House.

There is a mandatory five-year review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. At present, wood stove manufacturing standards have been harmonized with EPA standards. It may be time to consider, during our examination of the relevant sections of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, if stricter standards on wood stove manufacturing could not be implemented.

The crux of the problem is the transportation sector as a whole. We must remember that this sector is responsible for 25% of all greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

So, this is not an inconsequential sector. Just before I started my intervention, I was looking at the figures, and the oil and gas sectors are responsible for 18% of these emissions. So, the transportation sector is the primary emitter of greenhouse gas in Canada, with 25%. It is even expected that by 2010, there will be a 32% increase in greenhouse emissions in the transportation sector compared to the 1990 levels, if nothing is done, and I want to emphasize that point.

This means that we have to make some choices. If Canada decides to maintain the status quo and not implement any measures, greenhouse emissions will have increased by 32% compared to 1990 levels. So we are forced to take action.

Until now, the government has chosen to take a voluntary approach with the auto industry, among others. Ultimately, this approach means that the auto industry is being trusted to improve vehicle fuel efficiency.

But that begs a fundamental question. Since there are quite a number of sectors in Canada—I am thinking of manufacturing, pulp and paper, steel—how come the federal government has decided to exclude the auto industry from the large industrial emitters?

When 25% of emissions are generated by the transportation sector—and there is a major correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and motor vehicle use—why was it decided to exclude the automotive sector from the large industrial emitters?

If the government, through its Minister of the Environment or Minister of Natural Resources, had announced to us today that the automotive industry was excluded from the large industrial emitters because the technology did not exist, I might almost understand. That is the case in certain industry sectors, such as cement manufacturing, for example. There we have substantial greenhouse gas emissions, and the technology to improve the energy balance of that industrial sector unfortunately does not exist. If that were the case for the automotive sector, I might almost understand.

But no. The technology to improve the energy efficiency of vehicles is available. So why are we not forcing the automobile industry to make better vehicles? When the technology exists, why do we continue to apply a voluntary approach which in recent years has produced no results? Some will say it is for economic reasons. I was listening to the hon. members from the Conservative Party telling us earlier that we had to understand that the vehicles produced in Canada were being exported.

It is as if to say that what has been done in California, which has a population of over 25 million and a market comparable to Canada's—so it has similar economic conditions—is good for California but not for Canada.

The economic argument does not wash, because the Canadian market is comparable to the California market. So what can be done in California can most certainly be done in Canada.

I look, among other things, at the action plan on climate change that was tabled in November 2002. The section on energy efficiency states that the automotive sector would be required to make an effort to reduce greenhouse gases by 5.2 megatonnes and improve automobile efficiency by 25%. The plan is that specific.

Unfortunately, the New Democratic Party motion does not contain this level of effort that we are demanding of the automobile industry. We would have liked to see that 25% threshold in this motion. What the automobile industry has been telling us lately is that it is not interested in any norm for improving vehicle efficiency by 25%.

That industry tells us that it is certainly prepared to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 megatonnes, but it does not want to have a standard comparable to California's. It prefers the status quo. The status quo, what we have at the moment, is a harmonization of the vehicle manufacturing standards with those of the federal government, the EPA.

There is a flagrant injustice being imposed on the various industrial sectors at this time. For example, the manufacturing sector—not the Quebec manufacturing sector, but the sector as a whole—has made a 7% reduction in its greenhouse gas emissions and the reduction imposed on it is 15%. How can anyone claim that what is being negotiated at this time is fair?

An industrial sector that has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 7% gets a 15% reduction imposed upon it, while an industrial sector like the auto industry, which has the technology, would not be included among the major emitters. There is something inequitable here; the government's proposed approach is unfair. A few months ago, the government announced a multi-million aid package for Ford. No problem, if they want to help that sector, and that particular company, that is fine with me. But, how can that company use the taxpayers' money without being prepared to apply more stringent energy efficiency standards? Ought this assistance to Ford not to have been conditional on improved manufacturing so as to produce more energy-efficient vehicles?

When the Commissioner of the Environment speaks of strategic environmental assessments, that is exactly what she is referring to. What does she say about this? That tax measures, financial assistance, is being provided to certain companies without due consideration of sustainable development and environmental protection.

Take Bill C-48. This is a bill that gives some $250 million a year in tax incentives to the hydrocarbon industry. Fine. The industry gets tax incentives and financial assistance and what do we get in return from these sectors that do not even have to sign a voluntary agreement with the federal government to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 15%? What do these sectors have to say about this?

I was reading the steel industry agreement. It is worth a read. Two agreements were signed by the federal government: one with the pulp and paper industry and the other with the steel industry. If you take the time to read the agreement, you will see that it says that the industry will enforce a 15% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions provided the competitiveness of the industry is not affected. This is based on industry studies.

So, the industry is prepared to accept federal assistance—that is the case with Ford—but it is not prepared to enforce stricter standards to improve vehicle efficiency by 25%.

What should be our direction in the coming years? In my opinion there are two approaches. It takes a fiscal and budgetary approach together with a regulatory approach. Let us develop a regulatory approach to make—and this is the case in the automobile industry—existing technologies more energy efficient.

We are not talking about research and development in this economic sector. We are talking about technologies that already exist. The government has a responsibility when faced with an industry that refuses to make the manufacture of vehicles more efficient.

Let us implement regulations that harmonize with California's, a regulatory approach, as the New Democratic Party proposes, so that, at the end of the day, new vehicles that come on the market will be more energy efficient and thus will help reduce smog. That is not enough: this regulatory approach must be accompanied by a tax-based approach to assist the public choosing to use sustainable transportation.

Sustainable transportation is help for public transit. How can the government not have included the very simple measure of making the cost of a public transit pass tax-deductible in its budget?

On February 23, let us hope that the Minister of Finance, who has been described as green by the Minister of the Environment—I have faith in what the Minister of the Environment says about the Minister of Finance—but if he is serious, he will announce on February 23 that the cost of a public transit pass will be deductible. That is the first step.

As a second step, there must be a tax incentive for people who decide to use a hybrid vehicle. A few months ago I bought a hybrid vehicle, which cost me $10,000 more than a conventional vehicle of the same make with the same options.

While the federal government is giving tax incentives to the oil industry, through Bill C-48, a responsible individual must spend an additional $10,000 to buy a more ecological vehicle. That makes no sense.

In this budget there must be a tax incentive for the citizen making a decision. What is $10,000 for a person who decides to live a cleaner life, when $250 million per year is given, with one stroke, to the oil industry? There must at least be some balance in tax policy between the aid given to these polluting industries and the aid given to the environmental industry in Canada. That must be our approach.

Canada could decide to adopt this strategic environmental assessment. As we know, in 1994 there was a directive from Cabinet—not the members of the House of Commons—to the effect that all departments ought to apply strategic environmental assessments to measures they were deciding upon. Plans, policies and programs should all be subjected to that test.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. If the government decided to enact legislation here in this Parliament to force all departments—among them Transport Canada and Finance in particular—and the commissioner was not very kind toward the latter, indicating that it was dragging its feet—to apply strategic environmental assessment to departmental plans, policies and programs, we would likely not be where we are today. It would be very likely that Canada could be presenting the Montreal conference in September with a better record as far as energy and greenhouse gas emissions are concerned than the one we have at present.

I will again point out that my party will be supporting the NDP motion.

Canadian Heritage Act

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-7, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and the Parks Canada Agency Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.

I remind the House that this bill was introduced and read the first time on October 8, 2004. The purpose of this admittedly technical bill is to transfer responsibility for the ParksCanada Agency from the Department ofCanadian Heritage to Environment Canada. It is rather technical but we think it is probably time that some changes occur within the federal government in terms of responsibilities.

The people responsible for Canadian parks and their resources must strive to maintain the ecological integrity of those resources and protect our ecosystems. We have our doubts about leaving responsibility for ecosystems, which come under Parks Canada, with Canadian Heritage. Who better than the Department of the Environment to protect the ecological integrity of our resources and our parks, since its mandate is to protect and promote the ecosystems and to make the various ecological aspects of this environmental heritage more accessible to the public?

On December 12, 2003, pursuant to an order, control and supervision of the Parks Canada Agency were transferred from Canadian Heritage to the Department of the Environment. On July 20, 2004, another order concerning the heritage responsibilities had to be made to clarify the previous one. Following those two orders, the legislation had to be amended, which explains the introduction of Bill C-7 to bring about the required amendments.

Of course, the bill is technical in nature. It contains—let us be honest—no substantive provision, even though it will affect several other acts. I emphasize this, because it will be examined in committee. We agree in principle with the introduction of the bill. However, when a bill has the effect of making amendments to the Canada National Parks Act, to the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, and—note this third act—to the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park Act, to the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, to the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act, to the Canada Shipping Act and to the Species at Risk Act, there is good reason to ask ourselves a number of questions. Indeed, this bill changes a number of acts, and this is quite important.

What we were told, and I certainly want to believe the government, is that these changes will have no organizational impact for the Parks Canada Agency, and that the organizational integrity of Parks Canada will be maintained.

Unions seemed totally in favour of these amendments in principle. However, in committee, we will have to question officials to see if, in light of the various disputes that occurred in recent weeks, among others with Parks Canada, the government will actually be able to guarantee this organizational integrity. Even though we agree in principle, it is our intention, on this side of the House, to meet with unions and to ask them if these changes meet their expectations and if they do not have concerns on the organizational level.

The state of parks in Canada is a pretty major concern. There are two visions, which may not necessarily be competing but rather complementary. According to the first one, we should start by consolidating the network of parks across Canada which, in many cases, are in a pitiful state because of severe lack of funding in recent years. Even customer services have been greatly affected and, in some instances, resource preservation may be in danger. So, there is this school of thought which recommends that we start by consolidating the existing network.

There is another one, according to which we should increase the number of parks in Canada. There are not enough parks; there should be more. What does that mean for Quebec? This means creating more Canadian zones, more federal lands. We must never forget that these places managed by Parks Canada inevitably come under federal jurisdiction. That means that federal law, including the Species at Risk Act, automatically applies. We never objected to such legislation applying to federal lands or crown lands.

Increasing the number of lands under the authority of Parks Canada inevitably increases the federal presence in Quebec. But in Quebec, we have a similar structure, called Parcs Québec, which allows us to create our own network of parks and wildlife reserves.

In the coming years, strategic choices will have to made. Should we consolidate, strengthen the existing networks of parks, invest public funds in greater amounts to preserve the ecological integrity of existing parks, or should we develop and increase the number of parks across Canada instead?

I think the ecological integrity of these lands ought to be preserved. I travel across Quebec; I am one of those who, each year, during tourist season, visit many parks that come under the jurisdiction of the federal government. I observe how rundown these parks are. Personally, I think we should reinvest in the parks, but in existing ones.

As indicated earlier, we must not forget that Parks Canada comes under the Department of Canadian Heritage. We must remember what the mission of these parks is. The Canada National Parks Act, 1988, states:

The national parks of Canada are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment, subject to this Act and the regulations, and the parks shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

We cannot but be pleased with this. In recent years we have seen Canadian Heritage's propaganda strategies at work throughout Canada. This was grounds for concern. So what could be more normal than for the parks, which used to come under Parks Canada, to move to Environment? Perhaps this will enable us to ensure that the primary role that parks in Canada ought to play will be played, namely maintaining ecological integrity.

This is, in fact, precisely what is lacking in Canada at present. This morning Johanne Gélinas, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, tabled a highly interesting report on the state of our environment. I would invite hon. members to pay particular attention to one chapter of that report, the one on strategic environmental assessment.

The majority of departments refuse to integrate strategic environmental assessment, not just into their policies but into their plans and programs as well. If they did, we would at last be able to apply a directive that has been around for 14 years now, yet is very often not applied by the departments.

The Minister of Natural Resources over there must know what I am referring to. I would invite him to read the commissioner's report, as well as Bill C-48. The commissioner considers this no more or less than an unacceptable legislative initiative that does not promote sustainable development. When major oil companies are given tax incentives through Bill C-48, is this a policy promoting a sustainable development strategy for Canada? The answer to that is no, and that answer comes, not from the opposition, but from the commissioner of the environment, a person whose very mandate is to analyze this government's policies, plans and programs.

We have every right to be concerned about the way federal departments maintain the ecological integrity of the various areas for which they are responsible. To transfer Parks Canada from Canadian Heritage to Environment Canada is quite normal. Why is it normal? Because we now have a direct link to the Department of the Environment, which is responsible for protecting endangered species for instance. What can be more natural than to enforce this legislation in our parks? Maybe we could ensure that the environmental impact assessments in Canada, which come under the Department of the Environment, are applied to our parks as well as to everything Environment Canada does.

We have demonstrated again this morning that the strategic environmental assessment is applied in very few departments. A lot of departments are dragging their feet. Therefore, it is a good thing that our parks come under Environment Canada. The Environmental Assessment Act might finally be applied to crown lands. What could be more basic than to have federal legislation applied to crown land? What could be more normal than to ensure that the species at risk legislation in Canada is enforced on the crown lands that make up our Canadian parks?

It is quite normal. If the government carried out environmental assessments, a process triggered by the Department of Finance in the first place, we might not be in the situation we are right now as far as the state of the environment is concerned. As early as 1993 the Auditor General of Canada pointed out some administrative problems, as well as a lack of reinvestment dating back to 1996. There has been no reinvestment for eight years. The Auditor General said eight years ago that planning did not always provide a clear link between ecological integrity objectives and initiatives.

He is one of her recommendations: “Parks Canada should ensure that park management plans are updated in accordance with the requirements of the National Parks Act and policy, and business plans should be clearly linked to those management plans. Parks Canada should also introduce a formal process for monitoring the implementation of management plans”. The Auditor General also said in 1996: “Parks Canada lacks key information necessary for park management”.

The number of visitors increased by 25% between 1988 and 1989, and also between 1994 and 1995. Canadian parks are getting busier all the time, but investment is down. Moreover, ecological integrity, which should be the main concern of the government, leaves a lot to be desired.

This transfer of responsibility from Canadian Heritage to Environment Canada will not ensure that those goals will be met, which was harshly criticized by the Office of the Auditor General as early as 1996. Why I am saying that? Because since I have been here, I have seen an increase in the number of legislative measures affecting the environment, be it the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act or the Species at Risk Act.

Therefore, it is not because there have been legislative initiatives that the federal government has necessarily enforced the appropriate laws which it enacted itself. It is not because there is an endangered species act in Canada that the federal government has enforced that act on the lands within federal jurisdiction, such as those managed by Parks Canada. It is not because there is an environmental assessment act in Canada that this government has necessarily enforced its own law on its own lands. Of course, this transfer from Canadian Heritage to Environment Canada is, I think, a real test for the federal government.

We shall see whether the intentions and actions behind the introduction of this bill on October 8 translate into tangible activities to preserve ecological integrity on the lands belonging to the federal government. I am skeptical. We are ready, in principle, to give the federal government a chance. We are ready to do whatever we can to help this government enforce its own laws.

I believe that this restructuring, while technical, shows the essence and spirit of this desire. But I shall remain skeptical. We must ensure that in coming years we can put all possible means at the disposal of public servants and all who wish to maintain this ecological integrity and protect and increase accessibility. Naturally, this involves a transfer of responsibilities. It also involves reinvestment in actual, existing parks, and not necessarily scattering zones that would be more protected by Parks Canada.

Let us begin by consolidating our network of parks in Canada which, as I have often said, is in a precarious state. We must put our resources where they are needed. We can begin a process of organizational change, which is desirable, and transfer this responsibility away from a department, namely Canadian Heritage, whose purpose in recent years has been political propaganda to a department that, finally, must shoulder its responsibilities to protect resources, endangered species and ecological integrity on the lands for which the federal government is responsible.