Debates of Dec. 10th, 2002

Prebudget Consultations

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They announced a large $560 million reinvestment into our arts and cultural sectors. I would like to share with members what the Prime Minister stated at that time:

Canada is recognized around the world as a country with the greatest quality of life and the vitality of our culture and heritage is one of the strongest signs of our collective success...Cultural participation develops our creativity, enriches our citizenship and feeds the spirit--

I heard the member for Kings—Hants talk about ensuring that we have the most talented people available to us. Interestingly enough, let me note that on November 27 an article entitled “Art helps math skills, suggests study” appeared in the newspapers. A study found that students in grade six who were exposed to a strong arts component scored up to 11% higher on standardized math tests than students without a specialized arts program. These students who were part of the study had taken part in a program called “Learning through the Arts”, a program sponsored by the Royal Conservatory of Music. The program sends painters, musicians, actors and writers into classrooms in more than 170 schools across the country. In fact, I am glad to say that the federal government is a small partner in that project.

What I am trying to say is that art, not computers, makes our children creative. Empirical studies in the United States have found that children exposed to arts, culture and music in the early stages score higher in math and sciences than those who have never been exposed. The studies also found that those children tend to be better citizens and they volunteer more.

The role that the arts play is not just something frivolous. It goes to the quality of life of our children, our communities and individuals. When we look at the quality of life of communities and if we look at areas where industrial revitalization has occurred, we see that the arts have played a role in making those communities safer, because safe communities are also prosperous communities.

Too, I think that we as a government have an obligation to move forward based on the Speech from the Throne, in which we talked about the arts, about copyright and about the volunteer sector.

When the finance committee reported on recommendations with respect to the arts, it unfortunately put the arts under culture and tourism. I think we do the arts a disservice when we look at the value of the arts just in terms of the cultural sector. This is something that the Province of Ontario actually tried to do under the Canada-Ontario infrastructure program. It felt that the only place to invest was where it was tourism related. While no one can debate what the direct economic benefits of the arts are, the arts have a much more important benefit for the quality of life and for the quality of life of our children, to make our children creative.

In fact, the OECD once said that connecting computers is not enough, that we need to invest in creativity and innovation. Who in this world is better seized to be part of that innovation agenda but our artists, our creators? That is why we have to ensure that we also have a strong copyright law.

In conclusion, this prebudget consultation process continues. I am pleased to say that the Prime Minister has recently appointed me as chair of his task force on women entrepreneurs. We also will be conducting consultations in Toronto on December 17. We hope at that time to use women entrepreneurs as models, as a blueprint for all small and medium sized enterprises. I encourage all my colleagues in the House of Commons to have women entrepreneurs in their communities participate in our task force and, if at all possible, in the prebudget consultations later this month.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the presentations by the members of the Liberal government, this morning by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and now by this parliamentary secretary, but I think what we have heard repeats what we heard in the throne speech: a call for huge spending increases. Someone said that over the next eight years spending could go up by $37.5 billion if what was in the throne speech and what was mentioned just now by this member were actually implemented. This would be unprecedented. This is spending out of control.

I have heard words like responsibility, accountability and priorities, but then we can look at what was in some of the headlines we have seen over the last year: the HRDC scandal, the GST fraud and the billion dollars wasted on the firearms registry. The government has no credibility when it comes to managing the tax dollars that it collects now, and it is contemplating increasing its spending by this amount of money.

A poll that came out today shows that Canadian consumer confidence is down. Canadians are worried about what the future holds as far as the economy is concerned, and I do not think we have heard anything presented by the government in this prebudget debate that deals with any of these issues. I would like the member to comment on some of them.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance started the debate this morning, he talked about how budgets are about choices. It brought to mind what a constituent of mine wrote to me. She reminded me that the values of our society are reflected in the fiscal choices we make.

Interestingly enough, when the member speaks about the firearms registry, this side of the House sees the registry as one of the values of being a Canadian citizen. It is one of the tools that we use to ensure that the violence against women that occurred 13 years ago last Friday never occurs again. It has a very special place in my heart because my daughter happens to be at engineering school in Montreal this year. It really brought it home to me on Friday when I thought that 13 years ago it could have been my daughter there in that classroom because she dared to do something that was different, she dared to go to school and to become self-sufficient so that she could walk away from violence and abuse.

So if the firearms registry in one way is a tool and a value that we reflect and feel is important, then we should pursue it for our daughters, for our granddaughters and for all women.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have to take great exception to the comments that the member just made. I would like to point out for her information, since obviously she does not have this, that in fact homicides involving rifles and shotguns, which have been specifically targeted by the Liberal gun law, have accounted for the biggest share of the drop in firearms murders under the old law.

The number of murders committed with long guns actually dropped from 103 in 1991 to 46 in 2001. Handguns have been registered and controlled since the 1930s, for decades, and the number of handgun murders dropped from 135 in 1991 to 89 in 1999 but then increased over the next two years to 110 in 2001. In fact, the gun law that the member is so proud of, that should be such an embarrassment to the government, did not come into effect until those decreases had already taken place.

I would just like to ask the member if she is aware of that, and if she is not, to make herself aware and please make those comments in the context of being accurate.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise and accurately say that the constituents in my riding of Parkdale--High Park believe in gun control and believe in gun registration--

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Here we are debating the budget and I do not see enough members in Parliament. As a matter of fact, I see only two government members sitting here. I have concerns about whether we have quorum.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Obviously there are still not enough members in the House. The bell shall ring no more than 15 minutes.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

We have a quorum. Before the quorum was called, the hon. parliamentary secretary had one minute left.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again this is a prebudget discussion. I would like to address a couple of other issues that the opposition raised. When we look at the cost of certain programs, we also have to look at the benefits of those programs. We do ourselves a disservice if we do not look at the benefits of the programs we undertake and the investments we undertake. For every investment, there is a return on the investment.

With respect to the concern about taxes and how we are overtaxed, this government implemented the largest tax cuts that have ever been seen. Those continue to take effect. We have paid down the debt and we are working together because the government believes in a balanced approach. I hope the next budget will continue with that balanced approach.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak on this issue. I had the privilege and pleasure to sit on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. We underwent an extremely extensive consultation process. I believe we met with 429 different groups and organizations over the past number of months and we filed our report a week and a half ago. We listened to what the Canadian people were telling us, and that is contained in the report.

I consider the budget, which we all expect to be tabled in February, to be what I would classify as a threshold budget. It is a budget that I submit will set the stage for Canada and the government for the next 4, 5, 7 and 9 years out. It is up to us to lay out the path that we intend to travel.

However just as it is important to tell people where we will go, it is equally important to look back and see from where we came. I hate to go over this again, because the House has heard it so many times, but I will because we should never forget this. We rode our horses so close to the cliff in 1993 that I believe we came very close to going over that cliff.

The statistics are well known to every person in the House. The annual debt was $43 debt, interest rates were approximately 11%, unemployment was approximately 11% and the debt to GDP ratio was 71%. The last threshold budget was in 1995. Decisions were made, decisions that were very difficult and very necessary. The right policies were adopted, the right programs were put in place and we know the results.

Forty-seven billion dollars has been paid toward the debt in this country. We have had five consecutive years of surplus. Inflation is within the band of 1% to 3%. Interest rates are extremely low. Since January 1 of this year, we created almost 800,000 jobs, which is a tremendous record. GDP growth this year has been 3.4% and it leads the G-7. Projected GDP growth next year is expected to be 3.4%. These are tremendous results. The finance minister has implemented approximately $100 billion in tax cuts.

The correct monetary and fiscal policies, the stabilizers, are all there: low inflation, low interest rates and tax cuts and they are working. However at the same time there are pressures. People in my riding and right across the country have told us that there are issues that they want to see the government address, mainly in social spending.

These issues were with us last year but unfortunately we had the events of September 11. I suggest those issues were put off. Last year we had what I call a security budget. Some of the security and border issues were addressed by this country, but those pressures that were very much with us 15 months ago did not go away. They were merely deferred and they are very much with us at this point in time.

We have to make priorities when the Minister of Finance tables the budget in February of next year. I suggest and submit that the number one issue in the minds of all Canadians is health care. We have had the benefit of the Romanow report that was filed very recently and it is my suggestion to the Minister of Finance that the general guidelines of that report be followed.

Equally and just as important, any additional funding has to be conditional upon accountability and change. The public has told us that. If the accountability is not there and if the required changes are not agreed upon, then the public does not want any part of it.

The second issue is Kyoto and a lot of the environmental issues that face the country. The government in the next budget has to make a statement. It has to proceed boldly, with conviction and courage. It must make a clear statement that it has to seize the momentum and further resources have to be expended on this issue.

Another issue that the government ought to have a look at is post-secondary education. It is a major issue. I do not view it as a cost as much as I do as an investment in the economic growth, economic security and social security of tomorrow.

There are many other issues which have to be looked at. Again, these are the priorities. On child poverty, I agree with the announcement made by our Prime Minister in the Speech from the Throne to increase the national child benefit. Also an increase in defence spending should be seriously looked at.

One other issue that may not be as much a monetary issue as a policy issue is the airport traffic security fee. That has to be very seriously restructured. It is having a detrimental effect on short haul rates and small regional airports. I have made that point a number of times previously.

There will be some funding issues. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance had it correct. It is a matter of making choices and setting priorities, but these are the issues which I think the Minister of Finance should look at as he prepares the budget for the 2003-04 fiscal year.

In closing, I look forward to the tabling of the budget and to being further involved in the consultative process in the days and weeks to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, although I appreciate the hon. member's comments when talking about priorities, he seems to forget some things.

When I came here in 1993, a top priority was to deal with the poverty among children. The government talked a lot about that. It has talked about it for the last 10 years. We still have over a million young people who are considered to be living in poverty. Nothing has happened. It is all talk. It is in the throne speeches and the budgets. Nothing ever happens, it only gets worse.

I am really disappointed that this member, as well as most Liberal members, have failed to acknowledge that probably the most important industry in the country is agriculture. Not one of them has mentioned the seriousness of the drought and the effect it is having on our food supply and on the ability of producers to make a good living.

When the drought was first announced and things began to happen, through generosity, the great people from Ontario and other parts of the country came to the aid of farmers, farmer to farmer. The government did absolutely nothing in terms of that disaster. Yet with other disasters, it rose to the occasion. It helped with the floods of Quebec. We know how well we did in responding to the ice storm. There has been no response at all to the drought and it looks like we are on our way to another year of serious drought, yet it is not being talked about.

The cost of energy versus the cost of raising produce and agriculture is so far apart, no wonder people object to the Kyoto accord because they are afraid of what the energy costs will be.

When talking about priorities, why does that member and the rest of the members of the government not start addressing them? I happen to think food is a very important one.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the questioner is not aware at all of the most recent information regarding children living in low income families. I do not for a minute want to downplay this issue. It is a very important issue. Any number of children living in poverty is too many, but the numbers have gone down by what I consider to be a very significant decrease, from approximately 19% to 15%.

I travelled all across the country with the Standing Committee on Finance and I cannot believe how out of touch that member's party is with the people of Canada. It wants to privatize health care. It does not want to have anything to do with Kyoto. It does not even acknowledge that there is a problem. It wants tax cuts.

I spoke to people in Vancouver, Calgary, Saskatoon and Winnipeg and that is not what they are telling us. I cannot understand how that party became so out of touch with the people of Canada.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the member can talk to the people out west. His conclusions remind me a little bit of the task force that the Liberal Party put together four or five years ago to travel out west to see why the Liberals were not wanted or loved out there. He perhaps will remember that task force. It concluded that there was no problem, that the Liberals were loved. It was just that the people did not understand how danged good they really were.

The member says that the people he has talked to do not care about tax cuts or lower taxes. I am not sure if he was in western Canada or on another planet. Of course people care about taxes and of course they feel they are taxed to the max. They are saying that they can barely make ends meet.

When people tally up their paycheques, after the increase in EI, the increase in CPP deductions and all those things, they can see what they get to take home. It bothers them. They want more. The government wastes too much and that is why Canadians cannot get a decent tax break.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of tax cuts was canvassed extensively when I toured the country with the Standing Committee on Finance. The question was put to many of the people; the groups, individuals and organizations that made presentations to the committee.

Yes, people are concerned about their taxes but, as the learned hon. member is aware, a year and a half ago the previous finance minister announced in the House tax cuts totalling $100 billion. That was the largest tax cut in the country.

When we talked about tax cuts I asked the individuals, groups and organizations if they were satisfied with the tax cuts that were made or if they wanted more on top of that. Invariably, almost to a person, they said that they were satisfied and pleased with the tax cuts announced by the previous finance minister.

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly am pleased to rise and speak in this prebudget debate. In beginning my presentation, I would like to talk a bit about the truth of the prebudget consultations, in which I was involved for the fourth time in my nine years in Parliament. The member for Hillsborough also was involved . In fact, I honestly think that a lot of people have a misconception about the prebudget consultations.

With all due respect to the chairman of the finance committee, who I believe is doing an admiral job and who really has her heart in it, and to many members of the finance committee who have travelled around the country trying to do their jobs, the sad fact is that, like so many other reports and so many other bits of input that committees give to cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister, the prebudget report is quite irrelevant. The dirty truth is that the government agenda has already been carved in stone before the prebudget committee hearings even get off the ground.

It is a sham on the part of the government. It sends members of Parliament across the country year after year, season after season, in this case prebudget after prebudget, to get input from the Canadian people, which is put in the form of a report, along with the minority reports, and the government has no intention of following up on anything that has been presented.

In the four years I have spent on the finance committee, and if I had about an hour, I could list all the things that the finance committee has recommended to the government as priority items and upon which the government still has not acted.

This budget could better be described as a fudge it considering how the government has been manipulating the taxpayers' dollars in the way it spends money, in the way it hides money, in the way it misrepresents its programs and in the sheer incompetence of some ministers and their departments as they are handling taxpayer money.

This party, since it came here and before it came here, believed that a government had the responsibility to regard taxpayer dollars as a sacred trust. The terms Liberal and sacred taxpayer dollars is certainly a conflict in terms.

When we talk about this budget, the promises of the government and the way it sometimes tugs at people's heartstrings when it talks about Canadian values and wanting to reflect what it is doing, Canadians are asking themselves the question, who in their right mind in this country, given the performance of the government since 1993, not even in particular to this last year where we have uncovered billions of dollars in mismanagement, waste and downright stupidity, can really trust the Liberal government?

Can we trust any more that it is telling us the truth? Can we trust that it will use our tax dollars in a prudent fashion? Can we trust that it will understand what the priorities of Canadians really are?

Can we trust it to follow its own agenda, notwithstanding what the Canadian people hold as priorities, and regard the priorities of Canadians as something that is foreign to an agenda that is already set and carved in stone? Yes, we can trust it to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton--Strathcona.

The member for Hillsborough just mentioned the finance minister. By the way, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the former finance minister lately. Is he still in the country? Oh, that is right, we are talking about Kyoto these days and this is a period of no commitment for the member for LaSalle--Émard.

The member for Hillsborough asked if anyone remembered the former finance minister's promise of $100 billion in tax cuts. The key word there is promise. We would have believed that statement if he had put it on the table the day he made the statement in the form of a cashable refund cheque to Canadians. One year between budget to budget is a lifetime for the Liberal government and things can change as the mood changes across the way. We have seen that often enough.

Let me say what the member for Hillsborough maybe should have said. Does anybody in the House remember the former finance minister promising $100 billion in tax cuts? The member should have carried on by saying “which followed six years of massive tax increases in over 60 areas of taxation, including bracket creep, CPP premium increases and withholding cuts that would have been responsible, such as in the EI program”.

When the member for Hillsborough and other Liberals talk about how great they were to balance the budget, we must not forget that they balanced the budget through increased taxation and through inflated EI premiums in which they built a surplus of some $35 billion or $40 billion. It would not take a rocket scientist, much less a Liberal, to balance a budget if they could simply pull a golden lever and have cash come out every time it was needed.

The government put the Canadian taxpayer in a vice and every time it needed money to balance its budget, it pulled a lever and squeezed the last drop of income out of the Canadian taxpayer.

Back in 1993 one parent from a single income family would stay at home to look after the kids because that was their choice. Through increased taxation, that choice was taken away from thousands upon thousands of Canadian families because of the insatiable appetite of the Liberal government to squeeze the last tax dollar out of Canadians.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, because you were here when it was debated time and again, from 1993 until 2000 disposable family income shrank dramatically and disposable income for single working Canadians shrank dramatically. What was the benefit of that? It did not benefit Canadians who wanted to provide the basics of life for their families, such as food, clothing, and maybe in a good year put a down payment on a new car or do some renovations. There was no benefit to the Canadian taxpayer.

The government benefited because it was able to wring the last tax dollar out of the Canadian taxpayer in order to satisfy, not only its sort of sneaky way of balancing its budget, but also to spend money yearly on new programs. The government had to get its money from someplace and it received it from the Canadian taxpayer. That is sad but true.

While we debate the prebudget report the prebudget committee consultations could at best be called “a dog and pony show” because the government's agenda for tax and spin had already been carved in stone. Yes, there would be a few crumbs thrown on the side to pacify some but the thing was a sham and the government knows it.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about taxes. We served on the same committee that went across Canada so I want to question him on this issue.

I agree with him on the issue of capital taxes. That is an issue that the finance committee stated in its report as regressive and counterproductive for the productivity of our economy. We strongly recommended that the government eliminate or start the process of eliminating capital taxes.

However, our corporate taxes, after one year's time, would be competitive with all the northern states. There would be $100 billion in tax cuts that would go through the system. The committee heard from 149 groups and individuals. I put the question to a lot of them about taxes and tax cuts and I do not recall any one saying they wanted more tax cuts over and above the $100 billion. They were pleased with the progress that was made.

Does the hon. member recall any individuals who recommended more tax cuts above and beyond the $100 billion?

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, time and time again presenters came before our committee and talked about the tax regime, and how in many previous years it was onerous and burdensome.

Let us not forget that until the year 2000 when the former finance minister, who does not show up much, brought in those tax cuts we had six years of incredible tax burden placed on Canadians as individuals, as families, as small business, as medium and large corporations, to wring those tax dollars out of them.

This is a favourite Liberal trick. If individuals were starting across a desert with a full canteen of water and before they were a quarter of the way across someone would come along and take all the water. They would make it just about to the end, and before death someone would show up with a little bit of water and save them. That person would be thought a hero. That is the same trick the Liberals have been doing with taxation. They just about killed the economy with their tax burdens and now they are giving some back and they expect to be looked upon as heroes.

That trick is the oldest political trick in the book. The Liberals know it well. They have been doing it once again. If we do not stop them soon, they will do it again.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to comment on one of the features of the speech given by the member for Hillsborough. He indicated with such great pride the $100 billion tax cut that was announced.

We all know that it was for a five year period. When we deal with budgets we usually deal with annual budgets. What the Liberals have done is arbitrarily taken the $20 billion per year tax cut and called it $100 billion, by multiplying it by five. I wonder why they did not multiply it by ten and call it $200 billion?

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an old trick used by the Liberals as well. As a matter of fact one that they have become famous for.

Here is another thing they do. When they are talking about how much they put into a particular program, they will grab numbers from three and four years ago that have already been accounted for, add them into a pittance, and say they have recognized that this is an important program and that they are putting all this money into it. The fact is they have already put some into it previously.

The estimate is that government spending would increase by $37.5 billion over the next five years. The government still, since 1993, does not have its spending priorities right. It does not have its fiscal management right. It does not have its departmental operations right.

I ask the question again, who in Canada can trust the government with their money?

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise to speak in the House on prebudget consultations.

I must admit I share the same frustration as my colleague from Prince George--Bulkley Valley who spoke earlier. Every time we stand in the House to talk about prebudget consultations and try to advise the government on how it should be treating Canadian taxpayers' money, it seems to fall on deaf ears. My colleague has said so, especially since we have been through the committee prebudgetary consultations.

We have produced a report. We hope the government would listen to it and put some of it into place. We on this side of the House feel that the budget is written long before any of that consultation takes place, so nothing would really get implemented.

Some of the recommendations that my colleagues spoke about, and I too was present to hear some of those recommendations suggested by various groups in committee which were also put in the report, are recommendations that have been suggested in past reports. There has been no movement on some of these recommendations when it comes to increasing productivity, job security, investment, and trying to create a healthy economy. It seems that the government is set on doing things its own way, regardless of whether it is right or wrong, and fails to listen to the common sense of the people whom we hear in committee and the representations made in debates in the House.

I would like to address some of the issues. Things have not changed from the time that I last spoke in the House on prebudgetary consultations. It always comes down to the same issues. I look at some of the notes I have made over the years and some of the issues that are coming back to the forefront. We are still dealing with: government spending, taxes and the tax burdens that we are facing in this country, productivity and competitiveness concerns, how to get our economy going, and the debt burden.

Those are issues about which this side of the House has been talking for a number of years. Canadians, whether they be individuals paying taxes or whether they be in industry, have been wanting to see movement on a number of these fronts from the government, but unfortunately we have seen little when it comes to: getting government spending in order, reducing the burden of taxes, dealing with challenges in productivity, and dealing with problems like brain drain, and other problems which have resulted from mismanagement.

One of the biggest problems we have is the debt burden and the cost to Canadians when it comes to the amount of debt with which each man, woman and child is faced with and for which they are responsible for because of the mismanagement on that side of the House.

I want to focus on mismanagement which is a common theme with the government. It is a common theme no matter what department we look at and no matter who is in charge of the department. We are scratching on the surface of some of the problems we have seen on that side of the House in light of some of the recent problems in various departments. However, mismanagement is something with which the government has defined itself. We have started to uncover a lot of it over these last few months.

The area that I have been dealing with, CCRA, has been no exception. We have had endless problems with management at our borders. Before and since September 11 we on this side of the House have been talking about how the government could try to manage our borders and security issues more effectively, and put resources in the right places to give our border agents the tools that they need to deal with the jobs with which they are faced as the frontline security for our nation. However, the government still has not moved on any of those particular problems that we have identified and even the Auditor General has identified. Money must be spent to make our borders more secure.

Our problems are still so significant that when we look at our friends to the south, and the way they deal with security and issues to protect their own citizens, they do not trust us and they do not trust the government when it comes to taking security seriously. This has been a direct result of the government not managing effectively the resources at the border in order to take security seriously and treat our customs agents with the respect they deserve to do their job.

Another area we are dealing with which is a constant problem is GST fraud. It has again come to the media's attention. In this particular department mismanagement has been a common theme where people are abusing the GST tax credit with fraudulent claims of hundreds of millions of dollars, as the Auditor General is suggesting. This common theme of mismanagement by the government is something that we plan to uncover.

Another area is the inability of the department to properly tax international business transactions. This is an area that I have been dealing with recently with the CCRA. We on this side of the House have argued that there would not be these sort of complications in the tax system, nor would there be people avoiding paying taxes, or moving their money offshore, or keeping a lot of the wealth creation outside of the country, if there were a competitive tax regime in this country that dealt with people fairly and if the tax system were simplified.

This is something we have argued on this side of the House from the beginning and it has fallen on deaf ears. We have these continuous problems where wealth is being created outside of the country and where companies are forced, because of the bottom line, to look at other jurisdictions that are more competitive to avoid paying taxes here at home.

If the government would face up to managing its departments properly and if CCRA would look at ways to reduce the overall corporate taxes for industry, we would not have these sort of problems where people were looking at other jurisdictions where the tax system was more competitive and less complicated compared with ours.

Instead of putting its fiscal house in order, the government, as my colleague indicated, in trying to squeeze the last tax dollar that it can from Canadians, has gone after some of the most vulnerable people in society, namely, the disabled and seniors. This is despicable. The government has changed the focus from the CCRA, by not looking at its own house and not managing its things more effectively, and instead is looking at ways to go after some of the last Canadians out there who are not able to defend themselves.

I have been dealing specifically with the disabled from across the country who have been writing to me. They are saying that they have been severely handicapped for as long as they have been paying taxes and they have to go through the process of continuously proving to the government that they have a disability. It is outrageous that people who rely on such a small tax credit, because of government mismanagement, must go through the process of proving that they are disabled year after year.

Seniors come to me on a daily basis, not only from my riding but also from across the country, with concerns about their pensions and their daily costs of living. Their pensions are not indexed when it comes to inflation and when we consider their rent and other costs, most of them have a difficult time making ends meet.

The government promised seniors that it would take care of them, that our CPP system would be able to take care of them. It also promised that it would take care of Canadians in the future. In fact this is not happening.

The government has gone after the most vulnerable groups in society to make up the differences when it comes to the way it spends and, unfortunately, mismanages taxpayers' money, not to mention many of the user fees that we have seen.

My colleague talked about taxes going up. We have seen the rise of taxes in many hidden ways. It has been said before that the former finance minister during his reign never met a tax he did not like because, clearly, there were many taxes when it came to the regulation side of the economy.

The government was able to slide in many increases in user fees within departments, whether to Canadians or industries. On so many different levels the government has tried to squeeze every last dollar out of the pockets of Canadians. Money that Canadians would use to either plan for their retirement, invest in a new business or just spend it on their own family.

Our party will encourage the government on a daily basis to build a fiscal strategy based on: legislated debt reduction; continuing tax relief, combined with fair and competitive taxation; controlling the growth of spending by continually redefining the role of government; ensuring program initiatives are warranted; and achieving positive public policy outcomes.

That is something Canadians expect from the government. We on this side of the House will be unrelentless in pursuing that. We will try to get some fiscal prudence from the other side of the House. We will not hold our breath, but we will be pushing as hard as we can on behalf of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on a very articulate and erudite speech wherein he laid out some of his own priorities and those which he feels are more in line with those of Canadians. I tend to agree with that.

We have seen in recent days and months where the government's focus has been. We are seeing the dismantling of the myth that the government is a good manager of people's money. The gun registry is a case in point. HRDC spending and what we have seen in Quebec advertising is another blatant example. The cancellation of the helicopter program is again very much out of sync with where Canadians feel their hard-earned money should be spent.

The government has boasted in recent days of the surplus. The Liberals also talk of the fact that the government is using that surplus in some cases to pay down debt, or in some cases to put it into more ill-managed programs and bureaucracy. The bureaucracy in Canada has actually risen in recent years.

I would ask my hon. colleague to talk about some of the areas he thinks the spending would be better focused. Health care is something that obviously comes to mind. There is the need to reduce the waiting times and the need to increase personnel and equipment. I am sure all of those areas are suffering in his province as a result of the government's mismanagement and the cuts that have been made.

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's question is very well placed given that there has been much concern about health care. Another area that he and his party are concerned about is defence spending.

The Canadian Alliance has been very careful when it comes to how to instruct the government on where to spend money. We have been vigilant about telling the Liberals that they should have a balanced approach when it comes to tax reduction and debt reduction. That clearly has to happen. It is something Canadians are still asking for across the country. We need very targeted spending.

My colleague asked about two areas in which Canadians are expecting big things from the government. I do not know whether they will get it, but Canadians are expecting big things from the government in the next budget in the areas of health care and defence. Those are two areas where the government has slashed spending over the time that it has been in power.

Unfortunately, we are seeing the repercussions in health care, namely in provinces that are being forced to restructure in radical ways because the funding is not there. The 50% relationship in funding between the provinces and the federal government has dropped down to a level where the contribution is 14% or 15%. This has left the provinces in dire situations when it comes to how to administer health care.

The other area is defence. We have seen our armed forces stretched to the max when it comes to the jobs that not only Canadians but many people around the world rely on them to do when it comes to peacekeeping and getting involved with our allies in various military actions. Our troops are some of the best in the world. Unfortunately, they have been undermined by the government's mismanagement.

Those are two areas that we encourage the government to take a little more seriously when it comes to the next budget.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave what I consider to be a very pessimistic speech. He talked about productivity issues, economic mismanagement and the failure to get the fiscal house in order. I am totally perplexed because the statistics in no way bear this out.

The hon. member knows the statistics. He knows that the GDP growth this year is 3.4%. He knows that the projected growth for next year is 3.4%. The hon. member knows that approximately 800,000 jobs have been created since January 1, 2002. He knows that interest rates are at an all-time low. He knows that $47 billion was paid on the debt over the last five years. He knows that we have had five consecutive surplus budgets. He knows that the debt to GDP ratio has decreased from 71% to 49%. He knows about the tax decreases.

If some of the comments of the learned member are correct, why is it the statistics would lead one to a totally opposite conclusion?

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what I find so amusing about members of the government is that they have very selective memories when it comes to what sort of information they like to provide to the House. We have seen that over and over again.

When it comes to the figures the member was expounding on and we look at them closely, how many jobs have been lost over the last number of years that the government has been in power? How much has our dollar slid when it comes to our ability to compete internationally?

There are so many factors that are hurting the standard of living of Canadians that the member and the government have failed to acknowledge. Unfortunately Canadians are far worse off today since the government has taken over than they ever have been in the history of the country. That is something the member should start to look at and really see what the effects of the Liberals' mismanagement have been.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my prebudget debate by acknowledging the work of the Standing Committee on Finance under the chairmanship of the member for London West.

Members of Parliament from all sides of the House went across the country and listened to Canadians. Ultimately the report, “Canada: People, Places and Priorities” is the work of Canadians. It contains one recommendation which I believe would get the unanimous support of everyone in the House. Everyone in the House would vote for Recommendation No. 4 on page 182 of the report. It is called “Parliamentary Control over Estimates”. This is a PC Party recommendation. It states:

The PC Party endorses a system, as it existed prior to the late 1960s, whereby a certain number of departments selected by the Opposition would have their Estimates scrutinized by Parliament, without a time limit. This would force Ministers to defend their departmental estimates in the House of Commons, improving parliamentary scrutiny of government spending, and strengthening the role of the individual Member of Parliament.

Is there anybody here who would vote against that?