Debates of Dec. 12th, 2002

Prebudget Consultations

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech of the hon. member opposite.

He talked about the federal government intruding on municipal governments and on the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec. Maybe he could give me an update, but at least last year or the year before, unlike the other provinces which supported municipalities with various programs and subsidies so that they could operate, the province of Quebec actually required the municipalities to pay money back to the province. If they did not have the same funding opportunities as municipalities in other provinces, obviously they would be looking elsewhere for funds. Maybe the member could give me an update on the present status of provincial support to municipalities in Quebec.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder, first, where my hon. colleague opposite obtained the information he just gave me? I have never heard that the Quebec government took steps to repatriate sums of money.

It is not difficult. The cuts that this government forced on the provinces have made life difficult for all Canadian and Quebec municipalities. This government continues to slash provincial transfer payments. The Canadian Constitution—I hope that the members are familiar with it, because it is their Constitution—states that municipalities come under provincial jurisdiction. That said, how are the provinces supposed to meet the needs and expectations of municipalities, when the federal government continues to slash provincial transfer payments?

This shows a clear lack of responsibility by this government, which says all the time that Canada is beautiful, that this is a great country. Perhaps this is how the media reports it when the Prime Minister or current ministers talk about it. But, in reality, all Canadian municipalities and Quebec municipalities are being penalized. There is also the infrastructure program, which it is hard to squeeze money out of, and there are constant squabbles where Quebec agrees and the other side, the bureaucracy, constantly puts up roadblocks.

If people expect that, under the leadership of this Liberal government, economic growth is going to happen in the municipalities, I think that we are not on the same page.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member is not aware of the funding arrangements of municipalities in Quebec, but perhaps he could find that out over Christmas. The UMQ, Union des municipalités du Québec could explain the provincial funding. It has actually been the provincial government that has made the major cuts to municipalities in Quebec and not the federal government.

My question relates to health care. Yesterday, one of the members from that party mentioned that unlike the other opposition parties, that party wanted no accountability for the increased health care funds that may be in a deal being negotiated presently between the provinces and the federal government. I want to make sure that the position of the member's party is that it wants no new accountability. Romanow suggested accountability as the sixth principle. Does the member's party want more funds without any more accountability?

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to respond with respect to the Union des municipalités du Québec. Its president is Francine Ruet-Jutras, the mayor of Drummondville and a recognized sovereignist. I would be surprised if she had said such a thing at the assembly of the UMQ. This proves once again that the hon. member for Yukon would do well to get away from Parliament Hill and pay a visit to Quebec to see how things are done.

As for his sixth principle, it is difficult enough to operate under the current Canada Health Act. Do not think for one moment that the Bloc Quebecois is going to promote this principle. In any event, health comes under provincial jurisdiction. This is Quebec's business. Ottawa needs to stop interfering because it is none of its business.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Bras D'Or—Cape Breton, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand and speak during the prebudget consultations and offer support for further investment in sport and physical activity. I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Kitchener Centre.

What we have in front of us is a great opportunity. Recent reports that have been published with regard to the state of our young people, with the great concern for their inactivity and youth obesity, have really woken up Canadians as a whole.

The numbers are alarming. Close to 60% of young people are inactive, to the point of endangering their health. Young Canadians aged 2 to 11 are estimated to spend an average of 19 hours per week watching television. That is not taking part in other activities that have become so popular with young people today, such as surfing the net and communicating on chat lines. There is a tremendous amount of non-active time right now with young people in Canada and it is causing great concerns.

Three-quarters of overweight teens will still be overweight when they reach adulthood. We cannot dismiss this because it will have a tremendous impact on our health care system. If we were to address this concern and get young people up and moving, we would save $2.5 billion annually through our health care system. If we were to get all Canadians active, it would be more like $5 billion. It is important to get people up and at it.

We are armed now. Canadians know the facts. They have had an opportunity to speak through the Kirby report and through the Romanow report. They have said loud and clear that they believe there should be an investment in physical activity and that we really have to address this problem.

The Kirby report calls for sharper government focus in areas of illness, disease and injury prevention. The report states that the standing committee was told repeatedly by those it consulted that governments should develop public policies and programs that address the non-medical detriments of health. It goes on to urge the Government of Canada to promote health and wellness.

One thing that we all drew from the Romanow report was the sense that Canadians are the major player in improving the overall health, not just of individuals but of our communities. It is an individual's own responsibility for the state of his or her health in many cases. The report acknowledged the alarming level of physical inactivity in Canada and called for a major investment in health promotion.

We recognize that it is not just dollars. It is quality of life issues. You know yourself, Mr. Speaker, that when you come back from a workout in the gym or get back from a brisk walk, whatever it might be, you feel better, you are sharper mentally, emotionally and physically. It is a major initiative that we have to pursue as a government through an investment in sport and physical activity. I certainly hope all members in the House can appreciate that.

Sport and physical activity goes far beyond that as well. We can look at instances in our justice system. We know that active kids are productive kids. We can take certain statistics like teen pregnancy rates. For young females who play an active role in sports, in particular competitive sports, there is almost a 70% decrease in the number of teen pregnancies.

It is incredible how teen smoking rates dissipate when teens are active in sports and have active physical lifestyles.

I had the great pleasure to coach at the elite levels. I had two experiences with the Canada games team out of Nova Scotia where I had the opportunity to deal with the best 16 and 17 year old male hockey players in the province. I always recall the reference to the dumb jock and the hockey players. I must say that the players I saw coming through this program and through elite programs were above average in their physical attributes and their physical fitness levels. They were straight A students, very respectful and mannerly. They had social skills and time management skills. They were very goal-oriented and community minded. They would come back and put something back into their communities. We could see the benefits of their involvement in sports through the Canada games program.

I think sometimes we dismiss the economic impact of sport as well. It is a major industry and it has a tremendous impact on all communities across our country. In my hometown of Glace Bay we host a major event, the Vince Ryan hockey tournament. The impact is incredible. The hotels are booked and the restaurants are full. About 135 to 140 teams take part in the tournament. For five or six days the town is just abuzz. It brings a tremendous amount of economic stimulation into our community. It throws something like $1.2 million into the economy over that period of time. That is a manageable hockey experience. Sometimes we dismiss the economic impact of sport and sport events.

In two weeks' time Nova Scotia will host the World Junior Hockey championships in Halifax and in Sydney. We are very proud to help with the sponsorship of that event. The event will draw the best 18 and 19 year old hockey players from around the world. Economically, it will have a tremendous impact, not just in Halifax and in Sydney, but throughout Nova Scotia.

We have our fingers crossed because on Monday, December 16, an announcement will be made for the host city for the Commonwealth Games. It is down to between two Canadian cities right now. We are really hoping that Halifax will have some success and luck there.

We are a country that takes a great deal of pride in our sports and in our athletes. It is imperative that we invest in our athletes. Our athletes are our heroes and our role models. We do not have to go too far to see a case for this. We only have to look at the recent performance in the Olympics in Salt Lake City of two great Canadian athletes, Catriona LeMay Doan and Marc Gagnon.

In 1988, Catriona LeMay Doan was 12 years old. In 1988, Marc Gagnon was eight years old. It is no coincidence that in 1988 Gaétan Boucher came back from the 1988 Olympics with a pocketful of medals and distinguished himself as one of the greatest speed skaters of all time. He was a role model. With impressionable, young Canadian kids he made an impact. It is important that we continue to support our athletes so that we can continue to pass down that legacy and inspire young Canadians to get involved in sport and lead active lives. I do not think it is a big sell.

With Romanow, with Kirby and with the recent statistics that we have seen about our youth, we can see the benefit in encouraging physically active lifestyles for our young people. We can see the benefit in investing in our lead athletes.

I call upon the House and my colleagues to support further investment in sport and physical activity in the upcoming budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I simply must take the opportunity to ask my hon. brother a question. I say my brother because it is Christmastime and we are getting in a much better mood.

I have been asked many times since I was elected how the weather is in Cape Breton. I keep wondering why people ask me this since I am from Edmonton. I think it is because I look very similar to the member from Cape Breton, so we have come to know each other as brothers and friends.

I appreciated the member's comments particularly with regard to sport. I know he has been very active in hockey. I want to ask him about the ParticipACTION program in which I participated. I thought it was a very good program in schools. I want to know whether he thinks that should be reinstated.

The second issue I want to ask him about concerns the mining sector, which I know is very important historically to Cape Breton.

Yesterday at the industry committee we had members of the Mining Association of Canada address the whole issue of the implementation of the Kyoto accord. They were very concerned about the ratification and the need for having a detailed implementation plan. They did not think the targets were achievable, but given that, they were trying to do what they could to work with Parliament to see what they could achieve.

The association put forward some very specific recommendations for the government to act on which would help its members deal with the emissions targets that are being imposed upon them. One of the things it recommended was the elimination of capital taxes. This was recommended in the November 2001 prebudget report. The government and the opposition agreed that capital taxes should be eliminated.

I want to ask the hon. member first about the ParticipACTION program and second, whether he believes that capital taxes should be eliminated in the upcoming budget.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Bras D'Or—Cape Breton, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my extremely handsome colleague for that particular question. If he would drop the i-n-g-s from most of his vocabulary then he might make it as a Cape Bretoner, because he is a pretty good guy.

First, with regard to ParticipACTION, the program had a tremendous impact on all Canadians. I think we sort of grew up with the whole ParticipACTION program and it did have an impact and got Canadians moving for a period of time.

There were concerns specifically with the program, how the program was being delivered and the costing. Therefore the difficult decision was made to step back from the program.

With the ammunition we have now with the Kirby and Romanow reports, I would hope a program with similar high principles, a program that would offer more than just advertisement and an awareness campaign and where there is actual funding support to create additional recreation and physical activity opportunities, maybe could be developed through that. I see a great deal of merit in a program like that. I appreciate the member's comment on it.

With regard to the tax credits under the Kyoto agreement, the purpose of the deliberations is for the finance minister. I appreciate the challenge that the finance minister and the Prime Minister will be under over the next number of months. For every dollar that is given in a tax credit there are 100 requests for that same dollar. Difficult decisions will have to be made.

We are very fortunate as a government that we are in a position to invest in some of these concerns and in some of the legislation that has come forward like Kyoto, the Romanow report and health care. We are very fortunate that because of the efforts of the government over the last number of years that we are poised financially to make those investments. I am sure that we will make wise decisions.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to clarify some information that was recently mentioned by the member for Lotbinière—L'Érable relating to some pension fund and student loans et cetera--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. This is not a point of order. We are getting into debate and that can be resolved at another time, but certainly not under the guise of a point of order.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House as this possibly may be the last time that I will be recognized as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment.

I will begin by talking about how important Kyoto is seen in my riding of Kitchener Centre, not only for the health of the people whom I represent, but truly for the health of all Canadians. The people I represent have recognized that.

Kitchener is in southern Ontario about 100 kilometres from Toronto and we are in the Montreal-Windsor corridor.

We experienced more bad air days last summer than in the history of recording of smog days by Environment Canada, as well as a record number of days over 30°C. People in my riding recognize that the climate is changing and because we are an urban centre they recognize the kind of solution that can be held out by urban transit and by better intensification of existing infrastructure.

This is why they are so supportive of the government's continued investment in infrastructure, not only because infrastructure is important in my riding of Kitchener Centre, and indeed to large urban centres right across Canada, but because one of the cornerstones of how the people in Kitchener and indeed in the Waterloo region operate is that of partnership. We were operating in partnerships long before it became the commonly used word and the approach that it is today.

In the past two budgets the government has funded four infrastructure initiatives: a $2 billion infrastructure program, a $6 million strategic highway infrastructure program, the $2 billion Canada strategic infrastructure fund, and the $6 million border infrastructure fund. All of these funds, I am proud to say, have been recognized as having value and indeed most of them have application in my riding of Kitchener Centre.

Obviously the border infrastructure funds did not directly deal with businesses in Kitchener Centre except that by streamlining border access and ability to move goods and people across the border it made good business sense for Kitchener Centre.

Kyoto is something that the people of Kitchener recognize.

I have been told in no uncertain terms by many people, not the least of whom is the Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce, that they have no desire to see the government go back into deficit. I must agree with them and my colleague who spoke previously commented on the fact that it was the good fiscal management which we demonstrated over our tenure as government that enabled us to do the kind of investment we have done through the infrastructure fund.

We are committed to continue that kind of balance in our fiscal structure as a government. That is why we have restored the $3 billion contingency reserve and the economic prudence which has been the cornerstone of allowing us to wrestle down a $43 billion deficit which we inherited, and not only move from deficit but indeed to an era of surpluses.

We have worked with the chief economists of Canada's chartered banks and three lending forecasting firms to ensure that the average private sector forecast is reasonable when used for planning purposes. We would continue to make budget decisions on a rolling two year horizon so that we would not commit to spending resources we do not have.

The people I represent have good fiscal management in their homes and do not spend more money than they take in. They expect no less from the government and we remain committed to that.

I already mentioned the infrastructure program and what a great bonus it has been to the people of Kitchener Centre and Waterloo region. For years we have also invested in technology and research and that too has had an incredible benefit, not only for creating jobs in the Kitchener-Waterloo region and across Canada, but also in finding green solutions to technological and environmental questions.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to technology partnership grants which are offered through Industry Canada. I can think of four or five industries in my region that have been able to avail themselves of technology that was on the cutting edge, that needed to be developed, and was commercially viable.

We have seen great gains, whether it is ATS, GFI, IMS and many other companies. Those are a few that come to mind when I think of companies that have been on the cutting edge of great technology. They have kept bright minds in Canada and created jobs in our community.

Research and development is one of the key investment tools that we have used in our budgets in restoring fiscal balance in Canada. We have spent in 2001-02 an estimated $4.6 billion. This is the highest level ever. In addition, we have provided $1.5 billion in investment tax credits annually to Canadian businesses in order to perform their own research and development.

Nearly $3.5 billion since 1997 has gone into the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and Genome Canada. This is good news for Canadians. We used to often hear about the brain drain. It is this kind of investment which would keep those bright minds and that fantastic technology in Canada, working for Canadians, but also creating a market for export.

Over $1.4 billion annually has been invested in university based research through the federal granting councils supporting researchers and graduate students. We have seen this kind of benefit in my region where we have the University of Waterloo, Wilfrid Laurier University and one of the finest community colleges in Canada, Conestoga College. These are the kinds of investments that those sectors are telling me to continue because they provide funding for graduate students.

We have looked at providing some of the costs of the overhead of providing computers and the infrastructure costs that are necessary. We are looking at a deficit of university professors that is global within the next 10 years. We need to act now and by investing in research and development we can help address that. We can help keep the best and bright minds here. We can create new technology which leads to new jobs. We can bring forward our green agenda, which is so important to the people I represent, as well as Canadians right across this fine country.

We have invested $2 billion annually on research in federal laboratories, including about $6 million for the National Research Council to support the health and safety of Canadians, as well as strengthening the regional clusters of excellence. It is important to recognize that when we work at the federal level we need to come to these solutions with a pan-Canadian point of view.

I am a great fan of working in partnership and listening to ideas, whether they are at the regional, provincial or municipal level, that help lead to the kind of solutions that are necessary.

I must tell the House that homelessness is a huge issue. Members on this side of the House brought forward this issue to the government and continue to say that it is something we care about. We said it was a federal problem and if we did not want to own the whole solution we had to provide leadership. I am proud to stand here and tell the House that the supporting communities initiatives project invested money in my region. One of the reasons it was able to invest the money was because the social planning councils locally had done all the statistical backup to justify the fact that we had urgent needs for people who were homeless in Kitchener.

Our region has 450,000 people and perhaps that does not sound huge. However, we are the largest urban centre in the Waterloo region. We had many of the homeless gravitating to downtown Kitchener. SCPI funding helped us create shelters for homeless people throughout the region. It provided services for people in other urban centres, as well as the balance between rural and urban needs.

In many ways the area that I come from poignantly represents the kind of strengths as well as the stresses and challenges that Canada is going through as a nation. We have the urban and rural pulls, as well as the fact that we are moving from a manufacturing base to a high tech sector.

We need to continue to have an urban strategy that highlights the initiatives that are important to Kitchener. The infrastructure partnerships are critical, and we have mentioned those in the Speech from the Throne. This budget would continue along the commitments that the government has made and would further strengthen communities such as Kitchener Centre.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before we proceed to questions and comments, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised to night at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, Justice.

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni.

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we wish to acknowledge the member opposite for her hard work on this file as parliamentary secretary. She has taken it to heart, however we do have ideological differences on the issue of Kyoto.

I also know Kitchener having lived there for some 15 years. From Kitchener it is about a three hour drive down the road to Windsor and to Port Huron. We have a large and cold country. It is also very hot in the summer, as the member mentioned, and that means air conditioning. It is energy intensive if we want to live comfortably. We have huge transportation costs.

Kitchener has a large industrial base, with the auto parts industry, Lear Siegler, tire manufacturers and so on. Many of our businesses though are at least owned in part by the U.S. If we put the burden of Kyoto on our businesses on this side of the border, is the member not concerned that industry and jobs would flow south of the 49th? We have seen this happen in British Columbia. In consequence, the emissions from the industry moving south of the 49th would continue to blow across the border into our neck of the woods.

What will the government do to fence out emissions from south of the border? It seems to me that Kyoto is a good plan for developing the northern United States. Is the member not concerned about job losses in her own community?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the thoughtful context with which my hon. colleague has asked the question.

Kyoto could be a missed opportunity. Ratification of Kyoto is the first step. In addition to that, as a government, we must look at the tools at our disposal, and that may be regulatory, and it may be incentives that we build into our tax system.

The next piece of the Kyoto protocol and the implementation, which is probably the more interesting piece, would be found in the budget and in the regulatory regimes that we would bring forward which would impact industry.

However, I would point out to my hon. colleague that while Canada is inside Kyoto and the United States is outside Kyoto, smog and greenhouse gas emissions do not need a visa to cross the border. So his point is well taken. That is why the governors of the eastern states have formed an agreement with the maritime provinces and they are working on reaching the kind of targets that are maintained within the Kyoto protocol in reducing those greenhouse gas emissions.

I would also point out to my hon. colleague that there are international companies, like DuPont, that have brought down their greenhouse gas emissions by 85%. There are many large international corporations that voluntarily are recognizing that this is a regime that would be worldwide. As all industries that are successful, they want to be ahead of the pack and are already moving in that direction. As the government we need to continue to facilitate that in order to make jobs viable in Canada.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague opposite for being a parliamentary secretary. I do not know if her term is coming to an end.

[An hon. member]

It is.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

It is. So I would like to congratulate her and wish that she get another position.

She raised an important point and my colleague from Nanaimo reiterated the same point to which she responded. The government refuses to acknowledgte the crux of the matter pertaining to Kyoto, but she has today finally acknowledged it. It is an important point that must be re-emphasized, namely that Canada will be inside Kyoto, and the U.S.A. will be outside Kyoto.

Agreements have been signed between our countries and many states in the U.S.A. have set up targets to ensure that their environment is clean. At the end of the day there are more regulations coming out because companies are regulating themselves in the U.S.A. It is making Kyoto look like a second hand treaty because their targets are more important.

Why is it necessary for us to sign Kyoto and have impacts on our regions? There may not be any impact on her specific region in Kitchener, but there are impacts on other regions. Why do we want to sign a flawed treaty while we can do the same thing the U.S. is doing, setting targets that can achieve what we are all trying to achieve, a safer greener world?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again I appreciate the good wishes of my colleague opposite.

There are specific advantages to being inside the Kyoto protocol because 168 countries have negotiated this. Despite the fact that the United States has not been party to the ratification of Kyoto, it continues to send people to be part of the negotiations. Therefore there are advantages for Canada being part of the Kyoto protocol.

Again I would stress that in the United States, 42 of its states have regulatory regimes which are very much in line with greenhouse gas emissions. President Bush made two major announcements; one was $4.8 billion and the other was $4.6 billion. The United States is doing something.

I would draw to the attention of my hon. colleague to the fact that the premier of Ontario, my province, stood beside Mr. Klein and vilified ratification of Kyoto until we had the hydro problems. The environment minister from Ontario could have stood right beside our Minister of the Environment because all of a sudden being green to them made economic sense. It makes economic sense across Canada and for Canadians. It will be part of the government's responsibility to ensure we implement that.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting comment. I will respond to that in due course, which will give her the opportunity and members on the other side to ask me questions on Kyoto.

Before I start, Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish you and your family a merry Christmas and to all my colleagues in the House on all sides, a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

It is a pleasure for me to speak in the prebudget debate as the year comes to an end and we reflect back. At this juncture I would like to thank all my colleagues who sent me best wishes this year when I was going through some health difficulties.

I have stood back and looked at the government's record. Government members have stated time after time that they have tackled the issue of the finances of the country and that they are excellent money managers. They want to leave the legacy that they were excellent money managers and because of that we had surpluses.

Before I carry on, Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Calgary Southeast.

Earlier this week the Prime Minister stood up and said that the Liberals had five years of surpluses and therefore they were great, despite the fact there is evidence to the contrary.

We have a very excellent Auditor General who has taken the government to task and is not afraid to speak her mind about the finances of the country and about the mismanagement of the government on that aspect. Canadians have a high degree of respect for the Auditor General. If it was not for her, we would not have known that the government was mismanaging our money.

For the Prime Minister to say that the record of the Liberals in managing Canadian taxpayer dollars over the years has been good and that is why we have a surplus is a fallacy. The former finance minister is also going to stand on that record in his run for leadership. Over the course of time, we in the opposition and, I hope, the Auditor General will show that to be the contrary.

Let us look at this. It all started with the HRDC boondoggle, which we must not forget. We must not brush these things under the table. What happened with that? Nothing much. No minister took responsibility for that.

The right hon. member for Calgary Centre, who has held numerous positions in the government, today mentioned it was important for ministers holding those positions to show accountability. Yet on that side, nobody took responsibility for the HRDC $1 billion boondoggle.

Then lo and behold we had the advertising fiasco for the unity issue and the wastage of money that went to Groupaction. We eagerly await the Auditor General's report on that. When that report comes out, I do not know who will take responsibility, because the person who could be held responsible for that fiasco was sent on a patronage appointment to Denmark. That is second boondoggle and no one has accepted responsibility for it.

Now of course we have the third boondoggle, which is the gun registry. Who is taking responsibility for that fiasco? Nobody. The Prime Minister likes to say “What's a billion dollars here or there?. It is loose change for him. However, for Canadians it is a lot of tax money. This is a lot of money to those single parents, or those students whose debts are increasing, or to those families who are working hard. If they had that money in their pockets, they could do well for their children, for themselves and overall for the economy.

Now we have the Kyoto issue. The government has forced this and will implement the treaty but we do not know the real cost. We do not know how it will affect jobs or whether this will be another boondoggle. Nobody seems to know. We are grasping in the dark.

We could have done something. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment just said, the United States of America is working hard without the burden of Kyoto to achieve targets that are even better than Kyoto. It is a fallacy for the Liberals to say that they are a special kind of green people and that we are not because we are opposed to Kyoto. That is absolute nonsense. We believe in greenery too. We have children too. We want to live in an environment that is safe and sound for our future generations. Because we are opposed to Kyoto does not mean that we are not in favour of the environment. We are opposed to Kyoto because we see danger.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment talked about her region. It is excellent that her region is doing well. I come from Calgary, Alberta, which is going to face severe economic consequences from this. Naturally I have to look at this. Those who live in Alberta are Canadians too. They also have the right to let their points of view be known, but the government will not listen to them. It ignored the plea to work cooperatively with all provinces so they could come up with an agreement that would enable us to fulfill our requirements to meet environmental sensitivities. However at the same time we are not going to sign a cheque. That would be devastating to the province's economy.

We have had the HRDC boondoggle and the gun registry. We do not know where the gun registry will go or how much money it will cost at the end of the day. Our party has asked questions all week about the cost of the gun registry but the Minister of Justice has refused to answer that simple, straightforward question. Canadians also are asking that question.

Now we have the question of GST fraud. The government is cooking the books, as it is called in accounting terms, and has created a scenario where Canadians no longer have confidence. The government does not know where the GST money has gone. The Minister of National Revenue, when answering questions from this side, has not allayed the fears that the GST money has been lost in fraud.

I would like to conclude by saying that the legacy the government wanted to leave of sound management of Canadian tax dollars lies in tatters. When the budget is brought down, we will look at it and raise these points again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his remarks and I share many of his concerns, particularly with the commentary on government mismanagement and waste of taxpayer money. Two of the emerging themes in the debate over prebudget consultations seem to focus in on the need for money, obviously for health care and our Canadian military. We can discuss at length helicopters, submarines and personnel and the need to give them the support they need.

Clearly health care has been the dominant debate in the country but I have an issue with respect to something that spans both those important programs, and that is support for veterans and, in particular, support for gulf war veterans who are suffering from, in many instances unknown and as yet undiagnosed ailments which seem to be associated with their time spent in the Persian Gulf. Many of them are suffering symptoms akin to multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, a severe ailments which seem to be associated with uranium poisoning. They are not receiving the government's support that they need and in many instances the medical help that they require for their quality of life.

Does my colleague have any suggestions or any constituents who might be similarly affected and does he agree that this is an obligation on the government to address this very important syndrome, gulf war syndrome, that is prevalent in the United States as well?

My constituent, Perry Holloway, and his family are terribly affected. Sue Riordon from West Nova in Nova Scotia has been championing the cause for these gulf war veterans. I met with some people on the Hill just this week. They are severely concerned about the lack of attention that this government has afforded them.

Does my colleague have any comments on that?

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has raised some good points. The moneys wasted by the mismanagement and the boondoggles could very well have been utilized effectively for health care and for the military. Canadians recognize the military is starved of funding. The government's direction has made our military more like the Boy Scouts. If it is carried on, we will have a military hardly worthwhile calling a Canadian force.

We have had a couple of reports on health care because there has been a major concern over the state of health care. The moneys that were wasted in these boondoggles could have effectively been used to provide the services that Canadians want.

In reference to the gulf syndrome, I am aware of it. I have read about it. I know this has surfaced recently and that our soldiers are facing some health problems. Absolutely it is our responsibility that when our soldiers go to fight for our flag we must ensure their health and well-being. Naturally, it is extremely important that we address this issue. There is an obligation on the part of the Government of Canada to address that issue.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed certain bills, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Prebudget Consultations

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this prebudget debate. I regret that, as has become the new convention in the House under this government , these debates are essentially meaningless time set aside for members to keep themselves busy while the government has no legislative agenda.

I have commented before on the convention at the Westminster mother parliament where, in an honest take note debate of this nature, one will find ministers of the crown or their senior designates sitting in the chamber to take note. It has some meaning there. Regrettably that is not the case here as usual.

Let me say though--

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A member is not allowed to comment on whether or not members are present in the House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

If I was listening as attentively as I thought I was, I do not recall the hon. member naming any one individual on either side of the House. Possibly he was referring to a larger group. I will take the member's words as words of caution.