Debates of Dec. 10th, 2002

Prebudget Consultations

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, whenever one talks about a budget, one is talking about probably the most significant policy document that a governing body can present, either to its people or to the members of that particular governing body. The policy document establishes priorities. It establishes priorities of gathering revenues, it establishes priorities of expenditures, and it reflects, probably more significantly and more directly than any other policy document of a government, what the government really thinks, where its value structure really lies and where its basic values and integrity lie.

It is in this context that I wish to address several comments to this consideration of the budget, particularly in the pre-consultation stage.

My hon. colleague from Lethbridge has demonstrated very clearly where we are coming from in terms of corporate tax, capital tax and things of this sort. I am not going to go there at this point because that has been covered amply.

I do want to go into the area of integrity, because when this government came into being, the Prime Minister indicated very clearly at the beginning of this Parliament that “We will demonstrate this time, as never before, that we are a government of integrity”. I remember sending him a note. I said to the Prime Minister, “Mr. Prime Minister, if what you are doing is turning the page, I can support you”. The record since that day has been very sketchy in terms of actually demonstrating integrity.

Let me indicate that there are many members on the government side of the House who agreed that integrity was the big issue. I want to refer in particular to one member, the member for London North Centre. On February 3, 2000, he said:

At the end of the day, a government's...integrity is the best political capital that you have. When you start losing it then obviously all kinds of things can go wrong.

How much has gone wrong? We have had the firearms $1 billion boondoggle. We have had the HRDC $1 billion boondoggle. We have had the GST $1 billion boondoggle. And now we have the Kyoto accord. We do not know whether that will be $1 billion, $2 billion or $40 billion. We do not know, but it is going to be a tremendous expenditure. One asks what kind of government is it that goes to its people and says, “Trust us to develop a sound plan to use your tax dollars in your best interests so that your interests can be managed well and that you can achieve the kinds of things for yourself, for your children and your grandchildren that we all want”, if in the first instance we can demonstrate that the very fact of integrity has come into question with the HRDC boondoggle.

Let me refresh our memories just briefly. What really did happen in that HRDC boondoggle? I want to refer to the Auditor General's comments. These are the things that we discovered. We discovered that while the minister was making statements in the House that everything was okay, she had on her desk a departmental audit, covering some 459 project files, which revealed the following: 72% of the projects reviewed had no cashflow forecast; 46% had no estimate of the number of participants; 25% had no description of the activities to be supported; 25% provided no description of the characteristics of the participants; 11% did not even have a budget proposal; 11% had no description of the expected results; and 15% did not have an application on file for the sponsor. Get a load of that one: 15% did not have an application on file yet they got the money. It continues: 8 out of 10 files reviewed did not show evidence of financial monitoring; 87% of project files reviewed showed no evidence of supervision; and 97% of the files reviewed showed no evidence that anyone had checked to see if the recipient already owed money to the government.

This is overwhelming evidence of gross mismanagement of taxpayers' money. However, the fact that the minister knew these things and continually repeated and reassured the House that all was well is an obvious violation of the minister's obligation to give accurate and truthful information to Parliament. Because the minister has repeatedly violated this principle, the House should express its lack of confidence in the minister by passing the motion that she should resign.

This is also an illustration of a complete breakdown of integrity. We are elected officials, and the people we represent trust us to manage their money, trust us to make good laws and trust us to do the things we said we would do. This kind of thing really bothers me. I take my position as an elected member seriously, and I will do the best I can to be a man of integrity and a person who does what I said I would do. Have I ever made a mistake? Yes, I have. Have I have I made mistakes since I came here? Yes, I have.

The issue, however, is to recognize the mistakes one makes, ask that those mistakes be forgiven and in fact go in the direction of what we know to be best and do so to the best of our ability. Our abilities are circumscribed, I agree, but to do so blatantly is not to be a person of integrity.

Some time ago, in fact not that long ago in reference to the HRDC boondoggle, I made a statement in the House. It indicated that two things had become crystal clear in question period on February 7, 2000. One was that “the Prime Minister does not care about credibility”.

On June 12, 1991, the Prime Minister said:

If there is any bungling in the department, nobody will be singled out. The minister will have to take the responsibility.

Yet the Prime Minister made a spectacle of defending the HRDC minister. All of us in the House know that this is exactly what happened.

Second, as I stated on February 8, 2000, “The Prime Minister has no regard for integrity”. I stated, as I have already illustrated, that:

His minister knew of the bungling of the transitional jobs fund. Yet he defended her when she told the House and Canadians that everything was all right. She now admits that was not true but what she says now is true. Can we believe her? We only know for certain what the auditors have shown us: mismanagement and ineptitude.

We have now had a demonstration of a billion dollar boondoggle. We have had the HRDC one and now we have the firearms one, the GST fraud and the virtual pig in a poke with the cost factors of the Kyoto accord. I believe it is now true to say that when the Liberals get our money, they misuse it and lose it. Those are very serious words. I do not like to say them, but we have ample demonstration that they are true.

We also have had a tremendously large number of people ask when taxes will be cut, because their tax burden is too high. And it is. My heart really goes out to our seniors. In a case I had last week, a lady came into the office crying. She asked me what she could do. She told me that her income was $11,200 and she had to pay income tax.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much it costs you to rent your apartment or to pay the taxes on your house, to buy the groceries and to clothe your family, but I do not think you would live too well on $11,000 a year. Here is this lady who is expected to live on $11,000 a year, minus an income tax bill. This lady is 72 years old. This has been going on for the last five years.

The government has increased taxes 37 times. The time has come for us to recognize that not only do we need to cut taxes and allow these seniors to be exempt from taxes, it goes beyond that. We also have these same seniors paying all kinds of other costs, like utility bills. With this Kyoto accord coming up, what will that bill be? We have ample indication that the cost is going to rise. We know that the costs of gasoline and other things have gone up already, without the Kyoto accord.

I would like to go on for another 10 minutes because there are so many other things. In fact, I would like to give some positives of what should happen and how we could build economic freedom and allow prosperity in Canada to flourish. It is possible for us to do that.

[Darrel Stinson, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech and I picked up on the word integrity throughout his speech. I have to question not only the word integrity but why we are here as members of Parliament.

We have seen the total waste, disregard and utter contempt the government has for taxpayer dollars. The hon. member mentioned the GST, the firearms registry and HRDC. We could go on and on. We could mention Shawinigate. We could mention the lack of payments to the hepatitis C victims. However there is a bigger problem.

We know now beyond a shadow of a doubt that the government withheld information from Parliament. We know it misled Parliament in this House. I do not trust what any of the government members say, ministers, backbenchers or anyone else. It is a proven fact that they misled the House of Commons, not just the taxpayers. Not only was there a total disregard for the taxpayers, but there also was a total disregard for this place.

How can the hon. member ever have confidence in anything any minister says on the other side?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Before I give the floor, please be careful with the use of the words misleading or mislead. The hon. member for Kelowna.

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we need to examine ourselves in the question of integrity. I believe there are those who demonstrated that they did not give the House the information that they were under obligation to provide.

Particularly we have the case of the GST fraud. For the first couple of years we were given the information, then all of a sudden it dried up. Why? We do not know for sure and I do not want to attribute motivation. Clearly, it raises the question that maybe it was so bad the government did not want anyone to know.

The firearms business is a much better example. The minister refused to give us information or somehow just did not allow it to take place. It is a very serious thing.

Are there any persons of integrity on that side of the House? Yes, all kinds of people. Do they make mistakes? It is deliberate mistakes I am pointing my finger at. It is not an accident when information the government is obligated to give to the House is withheld.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Please also be careful with the use of the word deliberate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the member raised a specific case with regard to a low income senior. The reality is in Canada we have many seniors who live on low income. However I think the member suggested that the senior of some 70-odd years of age, making about $11,000 a year, was paying income tax.

The member should be aware that the basic personal amount, which is a non-refundable tax credit, and the age amount, which is available to those who have reached the age of 65 or over, already wipe out any income tax that would otherwise be payable on that amount. Therefore they do not pay any income tax. In addition to that they would receive the GST credit of about $200 and the Ontario provincial credit of about $500.

That does not solve the problem but the representation of the member I believe was incorrect.

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not an accountant but I know when someone is suffering. This lady had back taxes for which she was liable. They had accumulated over a time period, of which the hon. member is not aware. I do not want to go into that case any further here

However to suggest to me that I was wrong in my case is not true. I am correct. I may be incorrect about the particular amount that they have to pay right now but that is not the point here.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway. I would like to begin by acknowledging the member's response to that last question. Certainly there are difficult cases. It is one of the matters that I would like to talk about in my brief time to address this prebudget debate.

I have often thought that the measure of success of a country is really the measure of the health and well-being of its people. This is precisely the point the member made. We have to look at the condition of our people. We cannot be a successful country if we have those who cannot participate fully in our society with the dignity and the well-being that all Canadians deserve.

As a Liberal, I am fundamentally committed to protecting the rights and freedoms of the individual, but also to do what I can to promote the dignity, the health and the well-being of Canadians.

As we go through this process, we know that the finance committee has done extensive cross-Canada consultations with Canadians to see sector by sector, interest group by interest group, the kinds of things that they would like to see in an upcoming budget. Ordinary members do not often get a chance to address maybe things that they would like to bring to the attention to Canadians or those aspects which affect the dignity, the health and well-being of Canadians.

I will acknowledge that improving the funding of the health care system is an important priority. It will be in the budget and we will accept that. I also believe there is a responsibility to ensure the safety and security of Canada, of our sovereignty, et cetera, and that those must be protected. We will see those things in the budget.

There are a few things that we have to acknowledge. We live in a society which some say is an aging society and may have consequential impacts to an aging demographic.There is a concern that health care costs will increase. Pension costs will increase, the CPP and the OAS. We should look carefully at the things the Romanow and Kirby reports have raised with regard to health care and understand that we are in a transition period where the baby boomers are moving through the system and pressures will be coming up.

I have always thought, and I think I have suggested to people, that we should never stop asking our government what it has done for us lately. It is fine and well to suggest that we have had five or six balanced budgets or surpluses, paid down debt and saved interest, et cetera. Those are good things. We have a hold on the fiscal situation. However each new year brings with it a change in the fiscal conditions in which we operate. It brings other factors into play that might not have been in play in the prior year, for instance, the whole emphasis on responding to the impacts of September 11. Therefore we have to respond to those.

As we look at our budgeting process, it is not simply good enough to ask what our top priority is and then put all the resources there. It would be fatal if we were not to continue to sustain important programs, the services to Canadians which they require to live in dignity, health and well-being.

In the brief time I have I would like to raise a couple of suggestions that I hope will catch the attention of the Minister of Finance as he considers the budget, which is expected early in 2003.

One issue has to do with a subject called fetal alcohol syndrome. Fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects are the leading known causes of mental retardation in Canada. I could speak for a long time on this subject. However one fact is that 50% of the people in the prisons of Canada suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome or other alcohol related birth defects. This issue deserves the attention of the government. I look forward to seeing something in the budget to ensure that we address at least the public education aspect of informing Canadians of the risk of alcohol consumption during pregnancy on the lifelong health of a child.

The second issue I would like to suggest the finance minister consider is the creation of the position of physician general of Canada. The United States has the position of surgeon general. Members may wish to check the website of the surgeon general. They will find that individual in this position changes every four years.

The position is filled by an imminently qualified person, totally respected within their community, within their profession, et cetera. The surgeon general is separate from the health department. The individual makes pronouncements, produces information and answers questions in simple language for children, families, seniors, the disabled and for those who have a disease and want to know a little information and where to get more information. This is a public information service.

I hope we give serious consideration to this in view of the fact that in recent days we have had matters such as the relevance of breast self-examination and mammography and the controversy as to whether it makes any sense.

Another controversy is with regard to hormone replacement therapy and whether there are consequences which would be worse than doing nothing at all.

Those are the kinds of things a physician general could do. The issue of whether it be tainted blood or some other important health issue, including fetal alcohol syndrome, could be matters which the physician general of Canada addressed. The issues could be put in the form whereby Canadians could look at them, consult on them and, in lay terms, see the arguments and the facts. Maybe they could be given the information they needed to make good decisions for their health.

Finally, I would like to suggest that we consider making Canada pension plan benefits and participation in the Canada pension plan system available to stay at home caregivers. When people withdraw from the paid labour force to care for children, someone who is chronically ill, disabled or aged, they leave jobs. They no longer have earned income on which they would pay Canada pension, which means they lose the disability coverage that the pension plan provides. As well they lose years of earnings on which their future pension would be based.

Those who withdraw for pregnancy purposes have a provision known as the child rearing dropout which at least ensures that they are not penalized for withdrawing from the labour force. I believe we should recognize unpaid work, caring for those family members who need help, the aged, children, the disabled and the chronically ill. We should recognize the value they contribute to our society. They should not penalized or lose years of service that would allow them to have continuity of disability coverage and to earn a greater pension to which they would be entitled in their retirement years.

These are but a couple of items that we might want to consider. I know if I had the time, I would talk a bit about homelessness and what we could do there. There are many root causes. In fact children account for 28% of the homeless in Canada. These are children who have been alienated from their families. Of those, 70% have experienced physical or sexual abuse.

If we really care to address social problems such as homelessness and poverty, we have to look more carefully at the root causes of those. We have to understand that simply giving money will not be a lasting solution. It is like the old adage, if people are given fish to eat, they will enjoy one meal. If we teach people to fish, they will feed themselves for the rest of their lives.

Let us start looking at the fundamentals. I hope we will see some of these initiatives in the upcoming budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech. I understand where he is coming from on some of these issues and I consider them to be important. I found his comment regarding a physician general to be interesting. However, I am more concerned about some of the things that were not addressed by the government in past budgets. I want to talk about agriculture for a minute.

We have not heard a member from that side of the House speak on agricultural issues. We are entering probably into a fourth year where all indications are there that we will be in a serious situation regarding drought. It does not look like it will come about, yet it is not discussed. There do not seem to be any future plans in terms of budgetary items we can look for. I would like to see that as part of the discussion because it is extremely important.

I specifically want to ask a question of the member, who is the parliamentary secretary to the public works minister and minister responsible for the wheat board. He has indicated a number of times that the wheat board is farmer driven and operated by farmers. I know that his minister has indicated the same thing. Dairy farmers are operating the dairy board, there is no minister. The poultry board is being operated by the poultry producers, there is no minister. The government claims that the wheat board is operated by the farmers. Why in the world then do we need a Wheat Board minister? Why do we not close that office and shut it down?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have enough time to respond to those questions. I recognize the member's concern with regard to agriculture. The member knows that the comment with regard to the farmers having control of the Wheat Board is by virtue of the fact that they have two-thirds of the board of director positions and therefore they have the ability to set policy and strategic direction for the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to some of the constructive suggestions brought forward by my friend across the way. I know that he has consistently been a person of compassion and one who looks for answers.

I want to come back to the issue of priorities and integrity within the government. We have seen ample examples in recent days and months and we can go back to the very beginning with the many reversals in the red book on GST and free trade. One of the issues that continues to be a shortcoming of the government is its inadequate funding and attention for the military. We can talk about cuts to ports police and the Coast Guard, all of which contribute to the inability of the military to do its job at home and abroad.

Would the hon. member go out on a limb and tell us when we might expect to see the helicopter program, that his government cancelled, actually go forward? Will it take the retirement--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that there has been a need not fulfilled within defence for support, particularly as its mandate and historic role has modernized and changed. We are moving in that direction specifically with regard to the maritime helicopters.

This file has been going on far too long, I agree. The government has admitted that the program of splitting the contract has run into difficulty. I am aware that over 1,000 technical amendments were proposed by the industry to the request for proposal. It became unwieldy. The government has made the admission that at this time we are better off going with a supplier for both the frame and for the mission system to ensure that we get the helicopter at the right price at the right time. The member asked when? I understand that we expect to announce the results of the tender before the end of 2004.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, these are prebudget consultations, but no one is listening because the budget has already been written.

My question for the member is, rather than using public moneys to deal with the sharp edge of issues that would relieve suffering and improve people's ability to live, why does the government pursue more studies, more surveys, more inaction in the face of the pressing needs in this country, be it from health, defence, the environment and so on?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I tend to share the member's views when it comes to matters such as fetal alcohol syndrome and we can talk about that. I want action now and I believe that the member is right in his sentiment that we cannot wait for 100% information.

Sometimes we must make decisions based upon our best instincts and the information at hand because we may be able to mitigate the downside or improve the opportunities for a better wellness situation. I do not disagree philosophically that we need to provide the resources and do the kinds of things he is talking about.

[Sophia Leung, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this prebudget debate. As a member of the finance prebudget consultation committee I travelled across Canada. I listened to many Canadians, groups and institutions. I wish to talk about education, innovation, capital tax reduction, and health care.

We all know that education is extremely important as the foundation of a healthy society. The government has made lifelong learning and skills development a top priority of our social agenda. Literacy is critically important for an individual's success in society. The Movement for Canadian Literacy, citing data from Statistics Canada, told the committee that the needs were very pressing.

Student loans are another area of concern. An increasing number of students are facing tremendous debt loads upon their graduation from universities. This has been driven by increases in both tuition fees and the cost of living. There is a pressing need to re-evaluate existing student loan programs with the intention of providing a greater level of financial support for youth.

Canada is facing a shortage in skilled labour in many trades. Part of our strategy to address the skills shortage is to target immigration policies to attract skilled workers to Canada. However, many of those workers we have targeted are having problems with gaining accreditation to practise their trade in Canada. The prebudget consultations recommended that we work with provincial governments and professional associations to find ways to make it easier for skilled new immigrants to be able to work in their field of expertise.

The committee received testimony from the Getting Landed Project, a group advocating the extension of the Canada student loan program to refugees. They said:

Yet under current Canada student loans legislation only Canadian citizens and permanent residents, what we used to call landed immigrants, qualify for student loans. Recognized refugees, now known as protected persons under the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, are currently excluded. This exclusion is bad for recognized refugees and bad for Canada as well.

However, as a national government we play a strong role in providing billions of dollars of funding to these provincial institutions. What Canadians are demanding is greater accountability by provincial governments so that they know that the money the federal government is providing for education is being used for that purpose.

Another important area that the government must focus its attention in order to build the Canadian economy is the innovation agenda. The current innovation strategy of the federal government undertakes a commitment for Canada to: rank among the top five countries worldwide in terms of R and D performance, at least double the federal government's current investments in R and D, rank among world leaders in the share of private sector sales attributable to new innovations, and raise venture capital investments per capita to prevailing U.S. levels.

This is a good start, however we would need to do more to support the climate of innovation. Along this line the finance committee recommended that:

The federal government increase funds for the federal granting councils and, in so doing, ensure that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada receives an appropriate share of the allocation. Moreover, the federal granting councils and the Canada Foundation for Innovation should consider the concerns of smaller universities and colleges when disbursing funds, and should ensure that they do not face discrimination.

The federal government, in the next budget, provide a permanent program for financing the indirect costs of federally funded research.

A permanent program financing 40% of the indirect costs of federally funded research be implemented in the next budget.

The federal government simplify the process by which firms access the scientific research and experimental development investment tax credit.

The federal government create a commercialization office within Industry Canada. The mandate of this office would be efforts leading to the commercialization of research undertaken in Canada.

The federal government ensure that the rights embodied in patent and copyright protections are vigorously defended.

With those initiatives and an emphasis of lifelong learning and education, Canada would be able to confront the economic challenges of the 21st century. The innovation agenda remains a key link to Canada's future prosperity and the government should implement the committee's recommendations.

We heard from many groups who raised concerns that we must lower capital taxes or even get rid of capital taxes. The committee received testimony from at least 20 groups and individuals. Some of the witnesses said:

As many witnesses noted, the capital tax is largely profit insensitive. In the event of an economic slowdown, some companies could be required to borrow cash to meet their tax obligations, even if they are losing money.

The Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce recommended that the committee eliminate the capital tax, since it was introduced as a deficit elimination measure, and the deficit is now gone. Capital taxes are also not linked to ability to pay; their elimination would lead to increased investment in capital intensive operations, enhance productivity and lead to increased economic activities.

I would urge the Minister of Finance to reduce or eliminate the capital tax in Canada. I believe, along with many others in this chamber, that it is harmful to the investment and economic development of Canada.

I wish to touch on health care. In light of the strong support of the universal medicare system, the finance committee recommended the following:

The federal government work with provincial and territorial governments, and other stakeholders, to ensure that the Canadian healthcare system of the future respects the following principles:

(a) public funding at an appropriate level;

(b) an approach to service delivery that recognizes the role of prevention, pharmacare and homecare, and that is sensitive to the needs of Canadians experiencing a wide range of illnesses;

(c) mechanisms to ensure accountability and transparency at every level of spending; and

(d) continued support and increased funding for the Canadian Institutes of Health--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Order. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, these are prebudget consultations, yet no one who will be making up the budget will be listening to a word that is said in the House. The fact of the matter is that those who make the decisions have already done the work. What happens in the House is largely irrelevant to what happens at the decision making level on policies in Canada.

The government often equates the amount of money it is throwing at something with the effect. If we ask what the government is doing about fetal alcohol syndrome or what it is doing about defence, it will say that it has put x millions of dollars toward the issue. That does not answer the question.

With respect to her innovation agenda, would my colleague support a lowering of taxes, a lowering of rules and regulations, and an investment in education, the three best things that could be done for innovation in Canada?

[Sophia Leung, Liberal, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, each year we listen to individual Canadians, groups and institutions. That is why we call it public consultation.

We never put a number on the dollars before carefully assessing all the information. Then we make a very comprehensive report with recommendations to the Minister of Finance.

As I indicated, education is very important. It is the basic foundation of our society and our nation. Of course, I will definitely support the focus on that. I also mentioned my concern for student loans and also the upgrade of skills for workers and new immigrants. There are many different areas. Yes, education is definitely very important for me and the country. R and D is very important as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member is very sincere about representing the people in her riding. She puts her whole heart into her job and certainly believes in what she is doing, and that is good.

Unfortunately, after nine years of being here what I see are recommendations coming from committees which are never listened to and never implemented. There are recommendations that come from committees that travel around the country to consult. It does not seem to make any difference.

I would like to suggest to the member that the Prime Minister, the finance minister and a few of the government's cronies already know what will be in the budget. The debate is a nice exercise but it is futile. They already know what will happen.

I would suggest to the member to enjoy her consulting tour across Canada. She deserves a nice trip and she will meet some nice people. But it does not make any difference to the frontbench what happens in these consulting tours. I have seen that time after time in nine years and it will not make any difference in the next budget. It has already been decided.

[Sophia Leung, Liberal, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact my experience is quite different because we spend a lot of time and effort. It is not just to have a trip. Actually we spend very intense and long days listening to Canadians.

The beauty of democracy is that we listen to the people we serve. Then we make the recommendations. There are over 40 recommendations. Then we present them to the Minister of Finance. He not only reviews them but in the past the former finance minister probably adopted 95% of the recommendations.

This is very important. We are doing a very demanding and difficult job because we respect and wish to listen to Canadians. In the meantime I encourage my colleague to believe in our democracy, to believe in what is best for Canadians. That is what we are doing here.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the prebudget debate.

Much of the debate this afternoon has been laced with a great deal of cynicism and there is a reason for that. My colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and my colleague from Wild Rose gave voice to the frustration that is felt not only by members of the opposition but by many Canadians, given the government's record of spending, mismanagement and corruption. It comes down to something more fundamental than that. It comes down to the priorities the government has set for itself and by virtue of that, what it has set for the Canadian public.

With regard to the use of taxpayers' money, and it cannot be understated that it is taxpayers' money, there is but one source for government spending and for government programming. It comes from the hard work and sacrifices of Canadians. There is a huge budget that is spent every year to buttress and to bring forward social programs.

Of course, the biggest expense associated with any social spending in the country is health care. Canadians have to ask themselves two very simple questions. Has their health care improved in the past 10 years under the government's management? Have their taxes gone down? Those are two very fundamental questions that have to be contemplated in the context of any budget or prebudget consultation.

Yes, consultation takes place, but whether it matters becomes the subject given what has occurred over a prolonged period of time, particularly under the tenure of the former finance minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard. He sat at the table and made very important decisions that had a profound and very negative effect on Canadians, in particular the cutting and the gutting of billions of dollars out of the Canada health and social transfer. That decision that was taken by the government has had a life altering effect and I dare say without being too overly dramatic, a life ending effect for many because of failed health care services.

I represent largely a rural constituency in the province of Nova Scotia. The Guysborough Hospital has been forced to make do with antiquated equipment and with insufficient personnel. St. Martha's Regional Hospital in Antigonish is facing the same challenges, as is the Aberdeen Hospital in New Glasgow. Without adequately addressing health care in the budget, those problems will continue.

Having said that, we all know there are many other areas that need to be addressed. One is the military. I would be negligent if I did not raise the issue of the very partisan decision that was taken by the government in 1993 to cancel the helicopter program not at a cost of millions of dollars, but of billions of dollars. The cost of the contract cancellation itself was in the ballpark of $500 million, but there were spinoff costs that went into this partisan, very biased exercise of drafting and redrafting the procurement process in order to save face for the Prime Minister rather than saving lives for the military. That is very indicative of the level of corruption within the system.

That helicopter procurement process is now bumping along. It is into its 10th year since the cancellation. Most projections are that it may in fact be another 10 years before we actually take delivery of the helicopters. The government relented and finally bought some, but it took delivery of them in Nunavut out of the glare of the media and to avoid any kind of scrutiny. That again is indicative of this process of posturing, this constant process of avoiding accountability and doing everything for show rather than for effect.

There is a long record of that going back to the very beginning of when the government and its administration came to power. There was the blatant promise that it would get rid of the GST, the hated tax that was brought in that was intended to address the deficit, which it did. What did the former finance minister do? What did he write about in the red book, that now infamous document, that red faced, red book reversal document? He was going to get rid of it. The Prime Minister spoke of it at length during campaigns but it did not happen, of course.

The government reaped the rewards of that. It reaped the surplus that was created. At the same time the government continued about this very hypocritical process of telling Canadians one thing and doing another.

Another example was free trade, which again was condemned. Liberal members opposite campaigned adamantly against it. All sorts of misinformation was spread. Then lo and behold, after the election the Liberals embraced it and called it their own. The hypocrisy knows no end in the government.

The health care issue is the one impediment in the budget and all subsequent budgets that will prevent any substantive spending in other areas. This is the issue that has to be addressed. Clearly, until we have the health care issue in hand, we will not be able to adequately address some of the other deficits that have been created by the government.

Make no mistake about it, the deficit is not gone. The former finance minister of the Liberal government did not eliminate the deficit. It was transferred. It was transferred to the provinces. The government created a deficit for students in their incredible mounting debt. It created a deficit for the military. It created a deficit for our international reputation, which has suffered egregious harm under this particular government because of the very provocative attitude that has been expressed in particular toward the Americans and in particular because of its inadequate funding for the military and our inability to live up to our international commitments.

The legacy the Prime Minister is desperately seeking is really one of mismanagement of public money. It is one of corruption and deceit. The Liberal legacy goes like this: $1 billion on a faulty firearms registry; $1 billion on an HRDC boondoggle; hundreds of millions of dollars in shady advertising contracts; billions of dollars as a result of the cancellation of the helicopter program; patronage; pork-barrelling; corruption; cover-ups; arrogance; hypocrisy; offending the Americans; demoralizing the military; transferring deficits to the provinces; creating crushing student debt; ignoring the environment; soft on crime; and hard on taxpayers.

Why should Canadians think for a moment that the government is to be trusted? Why, after that 10 year record, would Canadians for a moment think that the government should be trusted on this budget or any other budget?

We have seen the Janus faced positions taken by the former finance minister and the Olympian backflips he has done on all kinds of issues. He truly is one of Canada's most talented contortionists that we have ever seen in the history of Parliament. He has done all sorts of backflips on issues since stepping out of the cabinet. I forget now, was he fired or did he step out? They could not even get that right.

If truth be told, he should have been fired for the job he did as finance minister. On his watch we saw the Canadian dollar fall to its lowest point in Canadian history. It is now hovering down around 62¢. That is an absolutely crushing problem for productivity, creativity and innovation in the country. The low dollar policy of the government has been crippling for the Canadian economy. It has been going along in spite of the government's management, or mismanagement.

When I hear the words of the member for LaSalle—Émard, the former finance minister, it reminds me of a cow on roller skates on a frozen pond; it goes off in all kinds of shaky, shifty different directions. It is really not something that conjures up a great feeling of trust or security when one thinks of future leadership under that particular member of Parliament.

I want to turn back to the issue of consultation with Parliament and the process itself which should be useful in helping the government to identify the priorities of Canadians. In fact, what we have found again is an attitude which is very arrogant and dismissive of the provinces. We saw that with respect to Kyoto. We saw it with respect to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. We have seen it on numerous occasions wherein the provinces have been left holding the bag for administering government programs, for the costs associated with the shortfall because of cuts to the CHST, the costs associated with the creation of new administration.

While on that issue, there is the ballooning of bureaucracy under the government which, I hasten to add, is another broken promise. I understand that we have in the past three to four years expanded the Canadian federal bureaucracy by over 30,000 people. That is more people than in four small towns in Pictou County combined. That has not resulted in a more efficient or streamlined public service. Service delivery has not improved. We know that taxes continue to be a huge problem for the average Canadian. It is a huge issue when one considers that payroll taxes are still far too high and capital taxes continue to curtail business, expansion, innovation and productivity.

There are all sorts of other areas in which Canadians are basically carrying the can for the government and making sacrifices. If we put it into very simple terms, what would the result be if average Canadians in their places of employment were faced with the fact that hundreds of dollars had gone missing?

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party a question with regard to his comment about the misuse of public funds.

There is an endemic disease in our Parliament called study-itis. It has become an epidemic. When we have a problem, do we deal with the problem? No. We study it, survey it and consult on it. Once we have done that, what do we do next? Do we act on it? No. We study the studies. This is study-itis. It is rampant, it is epidemic and it is an enormous waste of taxpayer money.

My colleague mentioned a vast array of problems. Does he feel the reason for study-itis is because Parliament has become irrelevant to the decision making process in Canada, that Parliament is no longer the real legislative body and that legislation is controlled by the Prime Minister's Office which tells cabinet what to do?

The government is using hard earned taxpayer money to buy votes and is giving the illusion that it is dealing with the problems about which people are concerned. In effect the government is pulling the wool over the eyes of people and is using taxpayer money to buy votes and create more studies rather than fessing up to the problems which Canadians care about and acting on constructive solutions to deal with them.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague from Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca is a medical practitioner and knows a great deal about the practical side of health care and its application.

He talked about the diagnostic role of government and mentioned the illusion of government being effective. I would agree that this government and this Prime Minister rival the man they call Reveen when it comes to presenting something as being good for Canadians, when we know in reality it is costing them hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars.

The member also talked about study-itis and reports. He is absolutely right. There are very recent examples of that. The report “For the Sake of the Children” is a perfect example of the tremendous effort by both Houses to produce a report that would have resulted in some very practical changes to our law. What we saw today was a half-hearted effort on the part of the Minister of Justice to please everyone. The result is no one is satisfied and problems remain unsolved.

The member has certainly experienced the same frustration that I and other opposition members of Parliament have where the government calls upon the use of a study and the use of reports as a delaying tactic. If I could use a legal maxim to my friend who is a medical practitioner; delay is the deadliest form of denial. The government is best at delaying and denying that problems exist. When problems hit it square in the face, it blames somebody else. That is a sad legacy.

The member and I both believe that Canadians deserve better. We believe there is a more constructive way to approach governing this country. We on this side of the House have to be diligent, as I know my friend has been in his work, in coming up with new policies and ways to approach government and the very significant problems of which there are many. Canada is slipping. Our place in the world is in decline and under threat under this government.

I would very much encourage him to work with members of the Progressive Conservative Party to look for creative solutions and ways to present to Canadians an alternative that will result in restoring and re-establishing Canada's place in the world and improving the quality of life for Canadians.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from the Conservative Party for his eloquent suggestions.

I want to close by asking him one other question. As a lawyer, does the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough think the government's misrepresentation of the gun registry is a criminal abuse of power and a criminal misuse of the Canadian taxpayer money?