Debates of Feb. 6th, 2002

Budget Implementation Act, 2001

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

Mr. Speaker, I was explaining to my colleague, the Bloc Quebecois critic for international affairs, how this budget had totally changed if one is to belive the statements made yesterday by the finance minister.

This is the first time I see a finance minister, eight weeks after tabling the budget, completely change his mind on some basic aspects of the government fiscal policy that was read here in the House, described in the budget documents and announced during several scrums after the budget speech. This gives us a peculiar image of this government, especially the finance minister, who does not seem to know where he is going. This does not make sense and I will give two rather obvious examples of what happened yesterday.

Eight weeks ago, we were told that during the current fiscal year, 2001-2002, the finance minister would not spend one dime on paying down the debt because of the downturn we are now experiencing and other priorities the government had, including investing in infrastructure to encourage economic growth and setting up a fund to help Africa, which is welcome news under the circumstances.

Yesterday, and I will borrow the phrase used by the Prime Minister during oral question period, the finance minister flip-flopped magically. He has now decided to apply any surplus accumulated at the end of fiscal 2001-2002, the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002, to the debt.

As for the foundation, it remains to be seen, we do not know yet. The infrastructure foundation has become the Strategic Infrastructure Foundation and we do not know the rules yet. We do not know how it will work. It would have been too simple to simply renew existing agreements, especially with the Quebec government, regarding the infrastructure program and allocate new money.

It is difficult to understand where the finance minister is going. Not only did he say yesterday that he would apply any surplus, which might be bigger than planned, to the debt, but today during oral question period he is saying surpluses are dwindling and might be insignificant.

How can we understand what the government is up to, in terms of management, when in just eight weeks, the finance minister changed his policy on the use of surpluses, in a few hours, modified his vision concerning the scope of these surpluses, and in a few minutes, went from the infrastructure fund to the infrastructure foundation, after we were told yesterday that the foundation no longer existed? The unbelievable confusion around this minister's management makes us think that he doesn't know where he is going.

How can we have confidence in the initiatives he has announced and which were in the budget tabled eight weeks ago? Since yesterday, he has put himself in a shameful contradiction in terms of the debt and the infrastructure fund.

Before getting into the bill and its various proposals for review and comment, I would like to recall certain elements of the financial framework designed to help assess these measures.

First, it is wrong to say—as the Minister of Finance did today while he said the opposite yesterday—that surpluses are not important.

We will end the current fiscal year with substantial surpluses, probably double what the Minister of Finance initially announced. Even taking into consideration the new initiatives totalling about $4 billion that were handed out eight weeks ago in the budget, the net surpluses after subtracting the cost of all these initiatives will probably exceed $6 billion.

Before the initiatives announced eight weeks ago, we had anticipated that surpluses between $10 and $12 billion. Even after factoring in the initiatives announced in the budget eight weeks ago, there will still be a 6 or $7 billion surplus. People must know that it is still possible to do things.

Second, this is rather astonishing, yet the Minister wonders why he is not being taken seriously and why he is regarded more like a stand-up comic than a real manager of public funds. Yesterday, I read the budget over, because I was not sure I had clearly understood the Minister of Finance and his statements regarding the debt and the foundation compared to the infrastructure fund.

In reviewing his estimates, I noticed that he overestimated his expenditures. There is a $11 billion year over year increase in expenditures, which is not supported by the facts.

Third, he underestimated his revenues. For example, if one looks at the employment insurance fund, one sees that, a few weeks after the actuary for the fund indicated that the surplus could exceed $7 billion, the Minister of Finance wrote in his budget that the surplus in the EI fund would be about $3.5 billion. That is half of the amount estimated by the chief actuary.

The government must quit taking people for fools. It must quit doing these kinds of flip flops on such important issues. What do people on the outside think of the Minister of Finance and this government when they see such flip flops eight weeks after the tabling of a budget? They do not take them seriously.

When I went to New York City last weekend, I met business people. I also met forecasters, serious people. And I can tell you that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are not taken seriously when they show up in New York City saying that everything is fine, that our fiscal house is in order, particularly since we have just learned, eight weeks after the tabling of a budget, that there has been a change in policy and that there will not be a debate on the issue of monetary instability and monetary integration for the Americas.

People must not be taken for fools. Those who take an interest in the evolution of the Canadian economy, in public finances, in the budgets and in the great debates on currency know full well that when the government steers the House away from this kind of debate, it is because it does not want to talk about these issues. And if it does not want to talk about them, it is because there is a problem.

And the Minister of Finance tells them “Perhaps we could advertise in the New York Times and in the Washington Post , to sell the Canadian dollar”. It is not smart at all to say such things. It creates doubt in the financial sector.

We say “If there is no problem, why advertise in the New York Times and in the Washington Post to promote the value of the Canadian dollar and say that it is not appreciated at its fair value?” By doing so, we are drawing attention to the problem.

The government may spend billions of dollars in advertising, but this will not enhance the competitiveness of Canadian businesses versus American ones, and that is the main reason why the value of the Canadian dollar has been decreasing over the past 30 years.

Moreover, this will not convince international speculators, who make billions of dollars on infinitesimal variations of secondary currencies such as the Canadian dollar, to stop making billions by speculating. This is totally ridiculous.

Fortunately, ridicule does not kill, otherwise a number of government members would no longer be around. It does not make sense to manage public funds the way the Minister of Finance has been doing, especially in the past 24 hours. That is unbelievable.

There are also dubious and questionable decisions in this budget—I am going back to the specific bill, Bill C-49—particularly the imposition of a tax on domestic air transportation.

Some sad events occurred on September 11 in the United States. If there is one sector that was directly hit, and in a catastrophic way, it was the air transportation industry. And, in his great wisdom and with surpluses that far exceed what he claims to have available for the current fiscal year, the Minister of Finance has decided to impose a new tax on air transportation.

What a nice way to help the airline industry. What a nice way to get the economy back on track, as we have been asking him to do since September, because we were already experiencing a slowdown, and September 11 just hastened things. What a nice way to help the airline industry, and regional development too.

It is ill-advised—and I am being polite when I say that—to impose a tax on air transportation services provided by small carriers, particularly those serving remote regions. They have enough problems as it is, but the government imposes a new tax on them. What a bright idea.

Moreover, some regional carriers are pulling out of some areas, because the routes are no longer financially viable. Because of this tax that is coming up, it will be even less worthwhile. Air travel will no longer be competitive. The people in the regions will be considered second class citizens. We have just learned that Air Alma has dropped its Alma-Montreal service, and recently Alma-Magdalen Islands as well. What sort of country will we end up with? Only someone who was not in his right mind would impose such measures. There are plenty of questions to be answered about this.

In the budget implementation bill, the airports where security is improved with the funds from this tax have been classified. It will be collected at 20 Quebec airports, for example, and the charge will range from $12 to $24 per ticket, as if the price of tickets were not already high enough. I will remind hon. members that the price of air travel has risen 9.2% since 1983 in Canada, overall, while there has been a drop of 43% in the United States over the same period. This is a fine way to improve our competitive edge.

Instead of making ridiculous statements, like saying they will bail out the Canadian dollar by putting ads in the New York Times or the Washington Post , they should show more intelligence, and take some measures that are not counterproductive, unlike the ones in the airline sector. The situation is totally ridiculous.

One might well wonder, in connection with the airports affected by these improvements to security, why there were 20 in Quebec out of the 90—all over the regions, as will be seen when I list them later, which is rather peculiar—whereas there are only 15 in Ontario. Why is a greater need being felt to improve security in airports in Quebec than in those in Ontario?

This means that there are more airports in Quebec where this tax will have to be paid, more airports in Quebec that will be affected, as will the air carriers themselves, by this new tax, which will be detrimental to their competitiveness. This means that there will probably be more residents in remote parts of Quebec whose areas will be served less frequently or certain routes will simply be eliminated altogether. May we have an explanation of why this is the case? This is the type of question that will be raised in committee. We will have a lot of questions to ask.

Here is the list of the affected airports throughout Quebec: Alma, Bagotville, Baie-Comeau, Chibougamau, Gaspé, Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Kuujjuaq, La Grande Rivière, La Grande-3, La Grande-4, Blanc-Sablon, Mont-Joli, Montreal, Quebec City, Roberval, Rouyn-Noranda, Sept-Îles and Val-d'Or. Virtually all regions are affected.

Do people really think terrorism will be an issue in Kuujjuaq, and that we should improve security there that much in case something unfortunate happens?

Sometimes, a little bit of logic helps. Once again, why are there more airports in Quebec than in Ontario that are dealt this blow against the competitiveness of airlines? Will the prejudice caused by this charge be greater in Quebec than in Ontario? We need an answer.

Just like the general content of the budget did, Bill C-49 makes us wonder about the abilities of the Minister of Finance. And we are left to wonder even more, after what happened in the last 24 hours. We have to ask whether the minister should let somebody else take over. It is fortunate the Deputy Prime Minister is there to put a semblance of order in government business. Otherwise, the government and its management would really not look good.

The Bloc Quebecois has always strived to improve things. Right after the events on September 11, we urged the government and the Minister of Finance, who is forever doing flip-flops, to help the economy weather the storm, but the minister did not listen.

At the time, either late October or early November, we even presented a five-point emergency plan to help the businesses and workers who could be seriously affected by the economic downturn, not to say recession, then anticipated. We even put down suggestions in writing and sent them to the Minister of Finance, who has run out of new ideas and does not know where he is headed.

We said, “We will sit down at the drawing board. We will make some appropriate suggestions and we will give him a little help. He may have run out of ideas and have problems, but we have ideas on how to help people and companies”. We then made public our emergency plan, which included a real reform of employment insurance. Why? Because this government has slashed EI benefits and literally stolen from the pockets of unemployed workers and people who pay into the EI fund.

People should never forget that the federal government is no longer putting a red cent into the fund. Proportionately speaking, the premiums paid by employers, employees, SMBs and average wage earners account for the bulk of the fund. But, year after year, for the last five years in particular, this government has literally been stealing the surplus from the EI fund. This minister keeps telling us how well he is doing his job, but the real reason he has a surplus and can look so good is that he has been stealing other people's money.

Our emergency plan included provisions for improving the EI system so as to help support the economy in two ways. First, by helping those who make the economy run and who were in danger of being affected by the downturn. We have seen the increase in unemployment in recent months. Our plan was to help these people qualify for EI, because many of them could have been excluded by the stringent and inhumane requirements imposed by this government. Our plan contained provisions for helping current and future unemployed workers with a humane and decent system, which would not be governed by completely inhumane and vicious criteria, like those this government introduced a few years ago.

Second, our plan provided for the injection of new funds into the economy. Let us not forget that each time there is a flow of new money, it can help boost the economy. It can help the regions through the economic downturn. We were told no.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources Development made 17 recommendations. These were unanimous recommendations. Unanimity is not common here. All members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, including Liberal members, signed a report containing 17 recommendations designed to improve the employment insurance plan by making it more humane, more accessible and more universal. Right now, only 40% of Canadians are covered under the plan. Is it not stupid to have a plan that does not even cover the majority of the people it should help? It is absolutely ridiculous.

Despite such unanimity—and we know the proverbial courage of Liberal members, who may say many things in committee but later get their arms twisted and say nothing when it is time to vote because they all have the ambition of becoming ministers—they all voted in favour of the budget even though it contained only one measure out of the 17 recommendations. We do welcome this measure, which gives more flexibility to parents with children who are hospitalized for extended periods, because we, in the Bloc Quebecois, fought for it. It was part of the improvements we asked for so as not to exclude certain people, especially among the most disadvantaged.

My colleague, the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques fought for this. Before him, it was my colleague, the member for Mercier, who is now our party's critic for foreign affairs. All of the Bloc Quebecois fought for these types of improvements. We are being shown an improvement when there were 17 recommendations that would have used part of the $7 billion surplus from the employment insurance fund, not all of the surplus. The measure proposed involves spending some $50 million.

They must be joking when they say “We are helping the unemployed”. One would have to be a heartless millionaire to propose this kind of thing and then say “we are helping the unemployed”, while proposing measures as insignificant as these. Eventually something is going to have to happen, because it is ridiculous to manage taxpayers money like this and mislead Canadians every year with surplus forecasts that are way off.

We had also asked, as part of our emergency plan, to anticipate—because we, on this side of the House, are responsible—measures which are not costly but which could provide a leg up for business, particularly in times of crisis, after the events of September 11, to help them weather the economic turbulence that we experienced at that time, but also to help them get through the economic downturn, which had begun prior to that.

We proposed a measure that would cost the government virtually nothing. It was the deferral of corporate tax instalments. We know what businesses must pay periodically. We said, “Let us allow them to regroup. Let us allow them to assess the situation, take corrective measures, in terms of managing their business, strategic planning, and as a result of the events and the downturn. And in order to give them a real hand, it would be a good idea to defer their tax payments, their corporate instalments, by six months”.

Mme Marois, in Quebec City, did not wait until December. She proposed this measure right away, and was applauded by the business leaders. But no. Our Minister of Finance was thinking. He was not acting. And when he thinks, it is dangerous, because he changes his mind about four times in 24 hours.

We are pleased with this measure, because it is included. The Bloc Quebecois fought to have this measure included, to allow small and medium size businesses to defer tax instalments, so as to make it easier for them to make it through the economic downturn. It would have been so easy to announce and implement this measure at the end of October. It would have been a breath of fresh air for businesses. But no. The minister had to think. And since this idea was not his own, perhaps it was not such a good idea. There is a bit of narcissism in politics. The Minister of Finance is not immune to it.

We are also pleased about another measure. It would be difficult to feel differently, because we are the ones who proposed it. I am referring to the tax deduction for mechanics' tools. It was my colleague, the hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, our deputy whip, who made that suggestion through a bill he introduced in the House several months ago. We are not talking about last week. That was a number of months ago. He was a forerunner and his proposal is included in the December budget.

When my colleague presented this most beneficial bill—because tools now cost a mechanic or an apprentice a small fortune; there are incredible technological advances in this area and there is a need for this type of measure—our Minister of Finance, the stand-up comic, told his Liberal colleagues—we saw him, we were there—to oppose my colleague's bill, instead of supporting it, because he had not sponsored it. This minister is as proud as a peacock.

Mr. Speaker, we sometimes we get carried away by our emotions. But I refrained from saying certain things. It could have been worse.

We were pleased to see this measure included in the budget. But again, why wait almost a year before implementing such a measure, when it would have been so easy to announce it immediately? The minister thought this was a good idea since he used it. He thought the Bloc Quebecois had a good idea since he included it in his budget.

But why did he vote against the bill introduced by the hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans? This is called petty politics. To engage in petty politics is to put one's image, one's prestige first, it is to give the impression that we have ideas and to present them in a budget and get all the praise. One can either engage in petty politics or truly help people.

The Minister of Finance decided to turn the budget into a show, with surprise announcements at the end of the year about surpluses that were larger than expected, when one would have to be completely stupid to come up with the sort of forecasts he did, containing errors that gave him an extra $50 billion to play around with over six years.

This is called looking out for one's political career, one's political image, one's chances of winning the next leadership race. It is a cheap stunt, because the money we pay to this government does not belong to the Minister of Finance. It is not his to do with as he pleases. It belongs to taxpayers. Taxpayers expect their money to be used honestly and in a transparent manner, and they are tired of being fed ridiculous forecasts.

We came up with a good measure. The Minister of Finance waited, presented it himself, and it was passed by a majority. However, this measure only went part way. My colleague's bill was much more complete. It affected all mechanics, not just apprentices. Bravo, we are happy for apprentices, but it would have been a good idea to allow tax deductions for all those in this line of work, to make deductions universal, as with other professions. But no.

Sometimes we have trouble understanding the reasoning and the philosophy behind the decisions and the flip-flops of the Minister of Finance.

I am sorry that the Minister of Finance is not more clairvoyant and not more courageous in his ideas and measures. In the last budget, there could have been tremendous opportunities for improving the general wellbeing of society, of taxpayers, of unemployed workers and of companies. The Minister of Finance could have jumped at this chance to show us just once that he was capable of coming up with ideas, that he too had a vision for the future.

Taking Quebec—not that we want to imply that we are better than anyone else—just look at what has happened in the last two budgets. Quebec's minister of finance and deputy premier, Mme Marois, has succeeded, with the little funds available to her, to put in place some forward-looking meaningful measures. Do hon. members realize why we have so few measures in the Quebec government, by which I mean budget measures? It is because the federal government has deprived it of them. SInce 1995, the federal government has outrageously slashed transfer payments for health, education and income security. This leaves Quebec in a budget situation that is not characterized by the same huge surpluses that are enjoyed here by our minister, Mr. Flip-flop.

Nevertheless, we have successfully put in place programs to assist the regions, to attract investors to the remote regions, to improve the secondary and tertiary processing sectors in the resource regions, to attract foreign capital, to earn Montreal the reputation of an international financial capital, to make the regions more than just the source of workers for the major centres. We have put measures in place to allow young people in the regions to stay home, to enjoy a decent life, to earn a living and to prosper and thus improve regional prosperity.

While over here, nothing at all was happening, Mr. Landry's government was helping the Gaspé. With very little means, helpful measures were developed. It does not take billions of dollars to do so.

We have living proof. The Minister of Finance has billions of our dollars, taken in excess from our pockets, and he is still unable to come up with development policies and policies to help support the economy. He shows up late with his measures. They are pieced together and based on the most erroneous forecasts of the surplus.

And to top it all off, eight weeks later, he changes his mind. I do not know how he manages to maintain his credibility, but his is a pretty strange way of managing public finances.

I was saying that despite Ottawa robbing the provinces when it comes to transfers for health, education and revenue equalization, Quebec has managed, in its two most recent budgets, to come up with measures that help people, that help business and that help the regions that are in trouble, whereas here, we have not even been able to lift a finger to help the regions that are experiencing hard times, not even to improve the employment insurance program, even though we are experiencing a downturn, and unemployment has risen.

I find it somewhat indecent that Bill C-49 is being introduced and that we are being asked to support it because it contains good measures. If it does contain good measures, where did they come from? They come from suggestions made by the Bloc Quebecois. Because the pressure on the Minster of Finance was too great, he had to give in on certain small measures, otherwise he would not have survived.

If there is one thing the finance minister should be thinking about first and foremost, it is the well-being of our fellow citizens. First and foremost, he should serve taxpayers well and stop using his office as a platform for the upcoming leadership race. Every single one of his budgets, especially the 1996 one, was aimed at boosting his ratings, taking credit for unexpected surpluses, claiming to be a good manager who made all the right decisions, when in reality the provinces, especially Quebec, have fallen on hard times since he became finance minister. He ruthlessly cut health and education transfer payments that should have been maintained.

The Government of Canada invests respectively 8 cents and 13 cents for every dollar invested by Quebec in health and education. That is the contribution of this government. This is the lowest in history.

This government is sending us by mail documents—in Quebec this document is not the same as in the rest of Canada— which state on the first page that health is paramount and education is an investment. Oh yes? The Government of Canada contributes 8 cents out of every dollar invested in health and 13 cents for education. And health is of paramount importance and education is an investment?

One has to have a lot of gall to advertise how much the Canadian government invests in health and education, when in reality it hardly contributes any money any more to these areas. One has to have a lot of gall to say that the government actually contributes 50%, because it includes the tax points transferred in 1977 in the calculation of federal expenses regarding transfers to the provinces. One has to have a lot of gall to do that.

When you sell your house, Mr. Speaker, do you go and tell the new owner 20 years later that this house still belongs to you? Tax points were transferred and the tax system was rebalanced. In those days, we had ministers, and prime ministers too, who were intelligent enough to know that the tax powers of the various government levels were in need of rebalancing.

What we are asking for today with regard to correcting the tax imbalance is nothing new. History has seen two major conferences aimed at balancing the taxing powers of the provinces and the federal government, namely the Quebec City conference and the one that took place in 1977. That is when tax points were transferred. At that time, nobody used the kind of demagogic arguments and meaningless rhetoric used by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to lead us to believe that there is no tax imbalance. No. People had discussions and they believed that it was a good idea to do some kind of realignment, especially since the main functions of provincial governments and of the Government of Quebec are to provide essential services in areas such as health and education, and now manpower training as well.

For all these reasons, we, in the Bloc Quebecois, will continue to defend the people, to fight for the most effective use possible of the funds entrusted to this government and to see to it that the flip-flop minister quits changing his mind this way every 24 hours, quits promoting himself as a politician and starts putting the well-being of those people whom he purports to represent above everything else.

We will keep working for the major reforms we have been demanding for years, especially the reform of the employment insurance plan, so that we will have a fair and decent plan. We will keep fighting for the elimination of outrageous conventions between Canada and Barbados, for example, that allow tax avoidance with the complicity of the government and the Minister of Finance, who may have assets in Barbados. Actually, he does have some. The organization chart of his companies shows that he has some in Barbados.

We will continue our fight to help the Quebec government and other provincial governments to get a new fiscal balance in Canada. While the federal government puts up a big show, flip-flops, smiles broadly and boasts about the economic and financial performance, there are real decision makers and managers in the Quebec government and other provincial governments who look after the people, because their job is to manage health care, education and income security.

A time comes when some have it easier that others. In the coming months, the Bloc Quebecois will work eagerly to get a better balance in taxing powers to better serve the citizens, and not the ambitions of the Minister of Finance.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, Agriculture.

Starting with the next speaker, there will be a ten minute question and comment period.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-49 implements many details of the December budget. It was a budget of missed opportunities and failed to address many important problems facing Canadians.

The implementation bill contains five or six key aspects of the budget. A major change has been made in the last eight weeks in the way part of the budget is organized, namely the infrastructure program and the Africa fund.

Last week the budget went through the House and there was no whimper, no scuttlebutt, no talk whatsoever about making a major change in the administration of a major part of the budget. I speak about the infrastructure fund that was supposed to be administered at arm's length from the cabinet, from the federal government, from the politicians. It was to be run like an arm's length foundation.

I also have some concerns about the terms of accountability to parliament. The attitude of the government has changed 180 degrees. It has decided that the infrastructure fund will be under the responsibility of the Deputy Prime Minister.

There is a danger of it becoming a politically targeted infrastructure fund for the Liberal Party of Canada if it comes under political direction. The temptation is there, some $2 billion. There would be a real temptation to put some of that money into more politically sensitive projects than if the fund were administered totally at arm's length from the Government of Canada.

The other big change was the $500 million Africa fund. Again, the fund was to be administered at arm's length from the federal government but there was a change and it too is under the political responsibility of the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada.

I wonder whether or not the finance minister has lost a little tug of war within the cabinet. The Prime Minister seems to be favouring the Deputy Prime Minister as his successor as leader of the Liberal Party. He tried with Mr. Brian Tobin who was the Minister of Industry but that did not work out. That fizzled and failed. He has made the former foreign affairs minister the Deputy Prime Minister. He has given him a lot more responsibility and a lot of political clout in terms of doing favours for all kinds of government members. That is a real concern to me and many other members of the House of Commons.

The implementation bill, in addition to what I have already mentioned, brings in a number of other aspects of the budget. It establishes the new Canadian air transport security authority, because of what happened on September 11. The new authority will be responsible for security at the airports. It will have the full power of a crown corporation and will be run by 11 government appointees. I would bet dollars to donuts that most of those 11 government appointees will be people who are very active in the Liberal Party of Canada. Another 11 people will be put in patronage positions.

From the way the legislation is written and from the briefings we received, I do not think regular travellers will see much of a change at the airports as they go through security screening. I think the same or similar private sector contractors will be running airport security.

It is interesting to note that a public opinion poll was taken and 70% of Canadians wanted the security services at the airports to be under the authority of federal officials. Only 20% wanted to have private contractors responsible for screening at Canada's airports. I predict that the screening will continue to be provided by private contractors and I do not think that is the way the general public wants to go.

I am also concerned about the rights of workers who are already there. Many of them are members of the United Steelworkers of America union, which represents many of the people who work in airport security. I am concerned about what kinds of rights they will have as we go through this changeover and phasing out of the present system into the new.

The other thing we should be noting is that last year the Toronto airport authority gave the federal Liberal Party a contribution of $7,500, and I think that when we have this new crown agency its 11 government appointees will be looking at political considerations, not necessarily solely the safety considerations for the people of our country.

Second, I would like to mention something new in the bill, the implementation of the air traveller security charge as of April 1, 2002, to fund the air security enhancements at airports in the country. This will be a charge of $12 a flight, $24 per round trip, plus the GST. It does not matter in most cases how long the trip will be. Whether it is a long haul flight from Vancouver to Halifax or a short haul flight from Ottawa to Toronto or Regina to Winnipeg, there will be a charge of $24 plus GST. Meanwhile in the United States the equivalent fee that the Americans will be charging is $2.50 U.S. a flight. Let us say that is $4 Canadian a flight. Our government is charging $24 Canadian a flight, fully $20 Canadian more for a flight in this country than is being charged in the United States. According to some of the research that has been done, only about $2 of that new fee will go to fund the new agency, the Canadian air transport security agency, and $10 from that flight will go into general government revenues or coffers. In other words it is just a new tax grab. It is a fee. We get tax reductions on one side and fee increases on the other side and the ordinary person will pay through the nose once again.

We are concerned about this. It is something we will fight against in the committee. I am sure the Canadian people will be on our side in terms of mobilizing against this new airport tax, most of which will not be for airport security but will go into government revenues for other purposes.

There is one more point I would like to mention and it is one thing that I certainly agree with in the budget implementation bill, because we should not forget that a bill like this is an omnibus bill. It has the good, the bad and the ugly. The ugly is the airport tax. There are a lot of bad things in the bill but there are some good things as well.

One of the good things is the deferral of taxes for six months for the small business people of the country. The federal government will be deferring tax instalments for January, February and March of 2002 for up to six months to assist small businesses in their cashflow. This is $2 billion. It is not a tax writeoff. It is a tax deferral. Because of the slowdown in the economy, the recession or near recession in the economy, and because of what happened on September 11, there is a deferral of taxes for up to six months for small businesses that want to exercise that deferral right. We support that, because small businesses in the country employ about half the Canadian population and now create about 80% of the new jobs in Canada.

When I talk about small businesses, I mean really small business. In fact, 80% of small businesses in the country have sales of less than $1 million a year. Eighty per cent of the new jobs are in small business. Sales for 80% of those small businesses are less than $1 million a year. They employ from one to twenty people, maybe up to thirty or so. Many of these small businesses are single person operations. Many people operate these companies out of their own homes or have a small retail operation such as a hair salon. These businesses create about 80% of the new jobs in the country.

This is a sector we should be looking at in terms of creating jobs, creating wealth, helping Canadian people and putting Canadian people to work. This deferral is one small way of helping people who are employed by small business or who indeed are owners of small businesses. I remind the House that the majority of small business owners and those who work in small businesses in the country now are women, not men. This is an area that needs a lot more assistance in the future.

Another positive thing in the bill is a new provision to allow an apprentice vehicle mechanic to deduct a portion of the cost of new tools acquired after 2001. Mechanics, men and women, who bought tools for their businesses could not deduct them as an expense. They buy these tools to work. People in a business operation who have a legitimate business expense can deduct it on their taxes, people such as doctors, dentists and many other professionals, including consultants. Consultants who have home businesses can deduct a portion of home expenses on their taxes. They can claim 20% of their home expenses or whatever amount it is and telephone costs and a certain amount for utilities. They are deducted as legitimate expenses. Yet we had mechanics, young people in the country starting out, who were spending thousands of dollars on tools but could not deduct them as a legitimate expense.

In 1999, I introduced a private member's bill in the House, Bill C-338, calling for the deduction of costs of mechanics' tools from income tax. I did that after circulating a petition throughout my riding and parts of Saskatchewan, getting signatures from hundreds of mechanics who were saying they wanted fair treatment, justice and equality in the tax laws. I have raised this issue time and time again at the finance committee. The government has not gone as far in the budget as mechanics want it to go, but at least this is a start. It is going in the right direction and it will allow the deduction of some of the cost of purchasing tools. I will keep pushing to make sure that we get the full deduction of the cost of tools for mechanics in the years that lie ahead.

Another part of the budget in terms of the implementation is the change for companies that want to donate securities to public charities. In our country when people have capital gains they are taxed on 50% of the capital gains. The 1997 change to the law for companies making donations to charities was that instead of having 50% of that income taxable, the government put it down to 37.5%. This budget brings it down to only 25%.

In the United States and the United Kingdom there is no tax whatsoever when securities are contributed to charitable organizations. What we have done in this country is strike a note halfway between what happens in the U.K. and the United States and what we used to have here. I certainly support that provision as well. I support making it easier for companies to donate to charities. There has been a lot of lobbying on that in the finance committee over the last while. Indeed, many members of the finance committee would like to see the capital gains tax eliminated altogether for securities donated to charities by companies in our country. I have not gone that far and the Minister of Finance has not gone that far, but at least there is some progress in that direction.

There is another thing I wanted to mention again. I started to say at the outset of my remarks that a big thing that is happening is the $2 billion Canada infrastructure fund, which will provide assistance for infrastructure in the country. We need a massive infrastructure program in Canada. This is one of the ways to create jobs. It is one of the ways to build the country, to build the economy. We need a vision of building our country and our economy, a vision of building the roads, highways and water systems and cleaning up the environment. What we get in the budget is a $2 billion fund over six years.

In the United States over the equivalent period of time, the Americans have committed $217 billion in transportation infrastructure alone. In our country we have some $2 billion to cover all infrastructure over a period of six years. If we were to have an equivalent measure of investment into infrastructure, comparing our population to that of the United States, we would need at least $18 billion more than we are seeing in this budget implementation bill.

These are some parts of the bill that will be debated in committee. Some of them are negative, some of them are positive and some of them are really bad, like the airport tax that everybody will have to pay.

Another part of the bill is the African development fund to reduce poverty, provide education and set the African people on the path to a more sustainable development of their societies and their lives. This is a promise that was made by the Prime Minister to Nelson Mandela many years ago. It is $500 million over six years.

Despite this, we are now spending only .25% of our GDP on foreign aid. The goal for many years has been .7% of our GDP. We are spending just a bit over a third of what we should be spending to help countries in the third world. It is a sad commentary on our country. In Canada we should be strong advocates of a world economic development agency that has a vision of a new development plan, a modern day Marshall Plan that would develop places like Africa, Afghanistan and many other parts of the world. That should be one of the things that we advocate as a Canadian parliament and as a Canadian government.

We need to solve some of the problems of world poverty, world despair and world hunger. People are dying of starvation as we speak in the House of Commons today. Hundreds of people in the world are literally dying from a lack of food, yet we have the means in this country and in this world to produce a great deal of food. We have the means for international development in the world. If we do not solve some of these problems we will have more tragedies like those of September 11 and more calamities that will haunt us in the years that lie ahead. We have the means.

About three years ago, parliament passed a private member's motion I introduced, stating that we endorsed in principle the idea of the Tobin tax, a tax on the speculation in currency around the world. This is a tax that was suggested by an American professor named James Tobin whereby we would put a very small tax of about .1% or .2% on speculation in currency. In the world today over $1 trillion is traded in currency every single day, mostly by big banks. With this small tax we could raise hundreds of billions of dollars for international development and environmental cleanup. Much of it could be spent in countries around the world to develop social programs, to help eliminate poverty and to help reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. We have the means in the world to have these kinds of funds developed to help all Canadians and help all peoples of the world, whether is it a Tobin tax or some other means of funding some of these initiatives.

I conclude by saying that the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance was a budget of missed opportunities. It was a budget that did not tackle some of the real problems that we have today. It was a budget that failed to address the real issues of the economy and unemployment. Back in December the unemployment rate rose to 7.5%.

Today, the national unemployment rate if 8%. This is the highest rate in years. In the forecasts the finance minister issued two months ago, there was nothing regarding job creation for Canadians.

We have to create jobs and we do that by investing in infrastructure, by putting money into affordable housing, into cleaning up the environment and into water treatment facilities across the country.

We also do it by making sure that we have a fair deal for the farmers of Canada. The farmers of Canada are in a real crisis, largely because of massive government subsidies for farmers in the United States and Europe. There is now a bill before the American congress, supported already by the house of representatives, I think, and going to the senate. It was agreed to by the president of the United States. It will inject into the American economy over $170 billion American in additional money in terms of farm subsidies to support the farmers of the United States of America. We should think about the impact that will have on Canadian farmers. Yet the government brought down a budget with absolutely nothing in it for the farmers of our country. Canadian farmers need a fair shake and a fair deal. The foundation of the country is agriculture and when the farmers are better off we are all better off. There would be job creation in the towns and cities from coast to coast to coast. We need more assistance for our farmers. We have missed the opportunity. The Minister of Finance should be changing some of those things instead of the changes he made in terms of infrastructure and the African fund.

Since the government took power, the gap between the rich and the poor has widened. We have a part time, high unemployment, low wage society and that is what must be changed.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the finance critic for the NDP.

The budget did not include aspects concerning seniors and the disabled. As the federal Liberal government was bringing down the budget, the revenue department was sending out what I call the greatest insult to people with disabilities. A letter was received by 106,000 people. This new form stated that if a person could walk in an ordinate amount of time with a device on a flat surface, then that person would no longer able to collect the disability tax credit.

We held a press conference in my riding. One gentleman who is 60 years old has been missing a leg since he was 13. When he got this insult in the mail, he thanked the Liberals because only the Liberals could take away his disability. Unfortunately, when he looked down the leg was still missing.

If a person is missing a leg, would the hon. member consider that person to have a slight disability? If that is correct, why would the federal Liberal government take away the tax credit?

Most of these people get a tax credit from $200 to $800 a year to offset their additional costs for clothing, devices or whatever it is they require to have a semblance of a normal life. The government is trying to take it away from them. It is an insult to seniors and people with disabilities. Would my colleague care to comment on that?

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with the hon. member that if somebody is missing a leg, surely to goodness that is a disability. Why would the government take away a small disability pension or tax credit from someone in that situation?

This is the kind of issue that was not addressed by the government in the budget that came down in December. Instead, it is more content to keep its tax promise of $100 billion in tax cuts over five years. Much of that would be going to the wealthy and the large corporations. The government should be trying to do something for people on disability pensions who should be getting a disability tax credit.

This is one of the areas of social policy that the government has fallen down on year after year. My mother, who is no longer alive, suffered for many years from very severe rheumatoid arthritis. When I meet people in that kind of situation I realize that there is a big hole in the social safety net in terms of adequate help and support for people with disabilities, whether it is through a new social program, the taxation system or a combination of a federal-provincial program. It is a sad commentary on modern society.

We are a society that will spend all kinds of money on corporate welfare for large corporations. There is all kinds of money being wasted on all kinds of projects. There is $60 million a year on an unelected, unaccountable Senate across the way. We do all these kinds of things as a government and as a parliament, yet people with disabilities are struggling to put food on their table, to pay for decent housing or shelter, to pay for utilities and to help their children.

We have a warped vision of a just and fair society. We should be striving to help the common good, to create more equality in our society, to help people help themselves and to make sure that we give opportunities to those who need help. That is exactly what government should be for.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member for Regina--Qu'Appelle. He would probably agree that at best the budget is nothing more than status quo and keeping the Liberal record as dismal as it has been in the past.

I have been here for nine years and this is the eighth budget. We know what happened to the other one that should have been presented. The budget is always full of wonderful rhetoric about the wonderful things the government will do. The Liberals have a Minister of Finance who is excellent in presenting a budget to the television land people who think it is wonderful.

We all know the budget is empty because the Liberals do not produce what they say they will do. The red books have not been up to snuff in accomplishing what they are supposed to be accomplishing, for example, scrapping the GST all through the years.

We now have a budget of all the things the opposition knows the government is not doing but that it could be doing. We know of the shortages in the security areas and the absolute zero help for farmers. We know about all these things.

Then all of a sudden the department of revenue is spending $50 million to hire 960 individuals to collect more taxes. More auditors are being hired to go after struggling businessmen and farmers that are having a tough time paying their taxes. The hon. member, as much as anybody else in the House, has to deal with situations of individuals being pressured by Revenue Canada to pay up.

The government is hiring an army of people to do this. It will cost $50 million. I find it totally inexcusable. I know the NDP is not really ashamed of taxes. I would like to hear what the member from the NDP would have to say about that.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would start off by saying what I said to the previous member. A good example of people being harassed is people being harassed over the disability tax credit. They are being cut off when they should be getting a tax credit.

The government seems to be spending so much money on hiring so many people to harass ordinary citizens. It is going after a few dollars here and a few dollars there from people who are struggling. That is a wrong priority and the wrong way to go. The question raised about the fellow without a leg is a good example of that. An individual is being harassed for a few dollars a year.

Yet we have huge family trusts outside Canada that evade taxes. We have large corporations that do not pay their fair share. We have huge government expenditures every year in terms of tax expenditures to subsidize the huge multinational corporations. I am not talking about small businesses. I am talking about the really big companies.

If Canadians want a fair taxation system then everybody should be treated fairly and justly based on their ability to pay. The tax system in the last few years has become less fair and less progressive.

A number of years ago we had seven or eight different marginal tax brackets and a more progressive tax system. This has started to disappear as we flattened the tax system.

A reduction in income tax, as is the case in Ontario, and I do not know about the situation in Alberta but I suspect it is the same thing there, often leads to an increase in user fees. User fees in Ontario have gone up in many instances for ordinary people.

A user fee is a flat tax. Whether individuals are rich or poor they pay the same fee when entering a park. If individuals are wealthy or not they pay the same fee when paying a premium on health care as people do in the province of Alberta. That is not the way to go. The way to go is to make sure that we have a very progressive tax system based on the ability to pay. We do not have that in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, last July we were blessed with the Whitehorse accord dealing with agriculture. The agriculture minister came out with a five year plan. He did not tell us at the time that it would take five years to develop. When the ministers next meet we will be one year into that plan. We have no details and no agreement between the provinces. We have no new money for that plan.

It is interesting that while the federal government gave less than a billion dollars in aid to agriculture, it ran through a $2 billion slush fund without hardly saying a word. How do farmers get help from a government that is far more concerned about public relations than it is about actually helping farmers put substance into this plan?

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, that is a good question and a difficult one to answer. How do farmers get help from the government? We have been trying to answer that question for many years. We sent many articulate members of parliament from the prairies and rural Canada to the House of Commons. However, we have a government across the way that gets very few votes from farmers and very few seats represent farmers in the Liberal benches.

One thing we must do, and I say this in all sincerity, is take a real look at our electoral system. We should bring in an aspect of proportional representation, a mixed member proportional system so that we would have a fair electoral system. In a fair electoral system a vote in Kamsack, Saskatchewan would be worth the same as a vote in Toronto or Ottawa.

The government across the way will have to listen to every Canadian regardless of where they are. Right now the Liberals do not listen to farmers. They do not have any seats there so why should they make that a big priority in terms of spending. As long as they have an electoral system that distorts this place, that will continue.

I know some members of his party have looked at it. A system of proportional representation would mean that everybody's vote would be equal. There would be no structural discrimination built into the system against any people because everybody's vote would count. Today, there are no Liberal members from the rural part of the prairies. The rural part of the prairies tend to be ignored but with PR a vote would be worth as much as a vote in the city of Ottawa.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-49 regarding the budget, which was a great disappointment to many Canadians. On the day after he introduced the budget the finance minister stated during question period in the House:

--what is important in a budget is the way...it is received by the public.

We should all be disappointed by a finance minister who believes that public opinion and focus group economics is the way to govern a country when sometimes the most important and best decisions for the long term good of a country are not always the most popular decisions. I am speaking of decisions like free trade, the deregulation of financial services, transportation and energy, all of which were controversial and many of which were not popular. Even the replacement of the manufacturers sales tax, which was the euphemistic way of introducing the unpopular GST, was not popular but has proven to be the right policy down the road.

Canadians have paid a significant price for this type of government that focuses on polls and focus groups and does not have a vision or the wisdom and foresight to make the types of decisions which will improve the lives of Canadians well into this century.

Let us look at the budget from the perspective of the finance minister's statement, “what is important in a budget is the way it is received by the public”. The public includes Canadian farmers who have spoken out loud and clear on the budget. They were as disappointed as all Canadians and as they have been with every budget the finance minister has introduced by the fact that the minister and the government have failed to deal adequately with the crisis facing farmers across Canada.

There is a view in the federal department of agriculture that if something is not raised or grown in the west it is not agriculture. As the member of parliament for the riding of Kings--Hants where 50% of all the agricultural products of Nova Scotia are produced, with a larger output of agricultural product than the entire province of Prince Edward Island, I urge the department and the government to take seriously issues of agriculture which have not been dealt with properly by the government. It has failed to recognize the important contribution made by Canadian farmers to the lives of all Canadians.

The budget failed to deal with the crisis the Canadian military is facing. Even in a pre-September 11 context our Canadian military had been starved of resources. In the budget the government did not deal with the crisis that existed in military funding pre-September 11. If we add to this difficulty and the stretching of scarce resources the September 11 imperatives, the new security imperatives, and the increased levels of duty and tasks added to our Canadian armed forces, clearly the budget does not come close to addressing these needs. It was supposed to be a security budget and it did not even address those issues.

Numerous presentations were made to the House of Commons finance committee by the non-profit sector urging a permanent elimination of the capital gains tax on gifts of publicly listed securities. In the budget the government made permanent a reduction to the capital gains tax on publicly listed securities, but that was a baby step in the right direction. The Canadian philanthropic sector, Canadian charities whether a university foundation, the United Way or a hospital foundation, is at a competitive disadvantage when competing with funds currently being drawn to places in the U.S. and the U.K.

The government has not worked with the non-profit sector to make it easier for Canadian institutions, the non-profit sector, universities, hospitals, foundations and charities to raise money that is necessary, particularly during a period of decreased federal and provincial funding.

Even with the minister's view that we should judge budgets based on public opinion the budget was a gross failure. Probably the most damning gauge by which to evaluate the budget is what the international markets have said about it and about the performance of the government.

Under the government the Canadian dollar has lost 20% of its value against the U.S. dollar. The Prime Minister's response is typically that this is not really a problem and a low dollar is good for exports. If we think about the logical corollary of the Prime Minister's arguments and follow his flawed logic, by reducing the Canadian dollar to zero Canada could be the greatest export nation in the world.

Another argument that the Prime Minister makes about the Canadian dollar is that although we are doing badly against the U.S. dollar we are doing well against other currencies. He is right. Our dollar is doing better than the ruble at this time. All we have to do is wait, because we have lost 15% against the British pound and we have lost significantly against the Mexican peso.

A 20% drop in the value of the Canadian dollar represents a pay cut to every Canadian, a drop in our standard of living and a reflection of the fact that Canadians are getting poorer as Americans are getting richer under the watch of the government.

Last week the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance went to New York for a couple of days. During the period of time they were out of the country the dollar improved marginally. Since they have returned, however, the dollar has dropped again.

I would suggest that the government seriously consider sending the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance out of the country for about 30 days. Based on that performance, if they stayed out of the country for 30 days the Canadian dollar might ascend to the level at which it rested prior to the government taking power in 1993. Maybe the answer is to get the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister out of the country.

If they are not here they certainly will not be able to direct funding to departments and misguided spending programs where it ought not to be going. They will not be able to spend money in one of the sixteen departments the auditor general described as having out of control spending.

When the finance minister was given an opportunity to reduce spending in some key areas he did not take that opportunity at all. He did not cut one area in a $130 billion budget. No one is saying that the finance minister should be cutting in health care, the military or agriculture, the prime areas he ought to be investing more in.

However there are areas of government waste. There is no member on either side of the House who does not realize in his or her heart there are areas of government spending which do not reflect the priorities, the needs, the values and the long term interests of Canadians.

This is not an esoteric debate we are making as people with so much money that we do not have to worry about how we balance the budget. Based on U.K., U.S. and German accounting standards the fact is that Canada is in a deficit right now.

Based on our own accounting standards Canada is sliding toward a deficit position next year. This year the government provided not a tax break but a deferred corporate tax benefit to next year. Why did it do that? Did it do that to be nice to people? Did the government do it to try to help corporate Canada? If it were interested in doing that it probably would have applied it in some way that would have benefited mom and pop operations and would have been more broadly based.

The government did it for one reason and that was to avoid the stark reality of being in a deficit next year. The only thing that is keeping Canada out of a deficit position right now is Liberal leadership politics. A stark fear exists on government benches that because of its lax spending and the fact that it has not monitored spending it will slide back into a deficit. It wants to avoid that reality.

In terms of health care there is a health care crisis in every province in Canada. We cannot blame provincial governments for the health care crisis in Canada.

The blame belongs squarely on the desk of the Prime Minister and on the desk of the Minister of Finance who have cut transfers to the provinces. In an unprecedented cruel way they have put provinces in a position where they have not had the resources to meet their basic needs. The provinces are now paying 85% to 88% of health care costs. When medicare was first introduced the federal government was actually paying 50%. Now it is down to 10%, 12% or 15% depending on the province, to a point where a province like Nova Scotia is now facing a health care crisis, a province that does not have the tax base of Alberta or Ontario. A province like Nova Scotia is hit disproportionately hard by these types of cutbacks.

That is why provincial governments are in such a difficult position trying to keep clinics and hospitals open. The waiting lists for surgery and treatment have grown well beyond what anyone considers acceptable. The blame belongs squarely on the government which has not only failed to respond in every budget prior to this one but has disappointed all Canadians concerned about health care in the latest budget.

If the government were serious about addressing some of the real challenges facing Canada in this century, a century during which Canadians will face an even greater rate of change and challenge than they have faced in the last century, I would posit that the government would have used the budget to strengthen our health care system, to strengthen our commitment to agriculture, to rationalize spending in other departments, to find areas of government waste where it could have reduced some of that spending and to address the fundamental issue plaguing Canadians, the Canadian dollar.

The Canadian dollar should be a source of pride for Canadians, not a source of embarrassment. The Canadian dollar should not be a joke. It is really terrible when our friends and family in the U.S. talk to us about how they are being paid in American dollars and laugh at us. The Canadian dollar is more than just a bread and butter or nuts and bolts issue. It is a symbol of Canada.

Earlier today we were speaking in the House in honour of Queen Elizabeth whose face graces our Canadian dollar. What an embarrassment that we honour Queen Elizabeth in the House yet we embarrass her by failing to introduce the types of economic policies that would strengthen the dollar bill upon which her face is placed.

If we are serious about honouring Queen Elizabeth and the Canadian dollar, we ought to introduce a productivity agenda. That means tax reform focused on productivity. That means regulatory reform focused on productivity. That means the rationalization of spending focused on the types of initiatives that would lead to the long term success and prosperity of Canadians.

I recognize education for very important reasons is under provincial jurisdiction in Canada, but by restoring transfers to the provinces to the levels at which they ought to be the federal government could help significantly in terms of ensuring that all Canadians have the opportunity to obtain an adequate education. Not only has health care been devastated by the cuts of the federal government but our education system has as well.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I apologize to the hon. member but time has run out. The hon. member will have five minutes and 54 seconds the next time the bill is before the House.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would be as interested in putting some questions to my colleague as I think other members in the House would be. Would you seek unanimous consent of the House to do that?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I am the servant of the House. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

Criminal Code

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

moved that Bill C-408, an act to amend the criminal code and the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the very capable member for Kitchener Centre.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I am sorry but members cannot split their time on private members' business. However she can stand and the Chair will recognize her.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was planning to go with a long speech on this important subject, but since the bill has been on the order paper I have been given every necessary assurance by the government to move forward with the content of the bill.

The government is known, not only here in North America but around the world, as a leader for its progressive agenda on the issue of children. As a signator to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child the government has taken a tremendous amount of action to fulfill its commitment.

Bill C-408 falls within the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. There is legislation before the other House, Bill C-15A, which will be dealt with tomorrow on a clause by clause basis. Under the leadership of the government the legislation would remove all references to the word illegitimate when it comes to children. This would be a victory not only for the House but for all children across the country.

A second component of the bill would affect native children. I have been given assurances that the government is in the process of negotiating with the native community. I am confident that at the end of negotiations the second part of the bill will be dealt with positively and expeditiously.

I am delighted with the government's leadership. It has not only listened but taken action. It cares about the children of Canada and of the world.

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and speak to Bill C-408. The bill would remove the word illegitimate from the definition of child in two federal statutes and replace it with the phrase “child born of persons who were not married to each other at the time of the birth”.

This is not merely a cosmetic change to make people feel better. Words are important. They have profound meaning. Words are concepts that reflect our most deeply held beliefs. They guide the direction of public policy. The word legitimacy in this context lies at the heart of the difference between conservatism and liberalism.

The issue is the negative nature of the word illegitimate. There is an element of fairness to it. A child can be born and raised with a label that stigmatizes him or her as something less than a legitimate person because of the circumstances of his or her birth. The circumstances into which children are born are something over which they have no influence whatsoever, yet children are marked for life with the negative word illegitimate. This is truly unfair. A child should not be forced to suffer because of something his or her parents did.

There are many ways children can suffer because of the actions of their parents. Let us take the problem of fetal alcohol syndrome. A pregnant woman with a drinking problem may be condemning her child to a life of great personal difficulty. This too is unfair.

Parents with substance abuse problems, chronic gambling addictions and diseases brought on by their own actions pass them along to their children on a daily basis. Patterns of verbal and physical abuse are unconsciously transmitted to children by their parents. It is a rule of life that we all echo both the greatness and failings of our ancestors. This is reality but it is not fair.

For this reason I agree that the word illegitimate in referring to children should be removed. Every child is a legitimate person and the laws of Canada should reflect it.

Research literature universally attests to the fact that it is in the best interests of children to grow up in a stable home where the parents are married. A professor at the University of Chicago examined numerous statistical studies across America and had this to say in her recent book, The Case for Marriage :

Why does it matter to kids whether or not their parents are married? A short answer is this: Marriage shapes children's lives first and foremost by directing the time, energy and resources of two adults toward them...it is marriage that creates the conditions under which warm, affectionate, consistent parenting is most likely to take place.

There is much evidence from Canada as well. In its massive National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, Statistics Canada found that:

--children from single-mother families had higher rates of difficulties than children from two-parent families for all of the emotional and behavioural problems and academic and social difficulties examined, and the differences in these rates were all statistically significant...The average household income of a single-mother family was...less than half that of a two-parent family.

The value of marriage is confirmed by Canadian social commentators such as Professor John Richards, a former NDP member of the Saskatchewan legislature. He said “At this point, I want to be blunt: family structure matters, and two parents are preferable to one for successful child raising”.

The state of lawful union is designed to be a protection for children. The law recognizes that if a couple is committed to join their lives together and form a permanent home their union forms a stable, healthy cradle in which to grow a happy and healthy child. It would be ideal for every child to enjoy an environment like this. It is therefore less than ideal for a man and woman to have a child when they are not committed to each other, not committed to the child and without any intention of imparting to their child the benefits of their collective support.

If it is in the best interests of children to be born to parents who are lawfully wedded it is in the interests of the state, even the state's responsibility, to encourage that behaviour. John Richards says:

In general, two-parent families, comprising a mother and a father, raise children more successfully than do other family structures...Accordingly, social policy should discriminate fiscally on behalf of such families (and)...it makes sense to discriminate fiscally against divorce--

As a society we need to reaffirm that sex is not just a lark or a thrill. It is a serious act of tremendous gravity and importance. It is the most profound of any physical union and bears the potential to produce another human being worthy of dignity, respect and a lifetime of caring and love.

The recognition of the tremendous value of every child lies at the foundation of the institution of marriage. To reduce its position of privilege and honour by legitimizing arrangements that are not in the child's best interests is to reduce the protection we can afford the weakest members of our society: our children.

The state has the right and the responsibility to help single parents and their children in the difficult situations in which they find themselves, and to encourage marriage and dual parenting in the future by using the instruments of public policy and the institutions of government.

The question marks a great difference between the world view of the liberal and that of the conservative. The liberal believes in the granting of more individual freedom. Unfortunately this too often happens at the expense of others. The conservative believes the state should require more individual responsibility and cause its citizens to exercise more caution and care toward others.

While the dictionary definition of illegitimate is “not lawful”, the word has a more negative connotation. Children should be given every opportunity to enter the world as free of obstacles as possible. The psychological implications of labelling children illegitimate are a barrier to a healthy childhood.

In closing, I reiterate my belief that no child should be labelled with such a negative term as illegitimate. From birth every child is a legitimate being and should be validated as such.

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

Madam Speaker, before I start I would like to say that we will obviously support this bill. We find it interesting because it would eliminate the adjective illegitimate when referring to a child.

I also want to congratulate my colleague from Ottawa Centre for his insight and for introducing Bill C-408.

I will not use up my ten minutes as it would appear that we will have to consider another bill later. We will debate this at a later date.

I would simply like to state a very definite opinion regarding the bill. In Quebec, theses words have been removed from the civil code since 1994. In recent history, being called illegitimate meant a lot of things for children in their daily life.

Recently, I was listening to a program coming from the United States. I listened to children who had been labelled illegitimate, children who had been put up for adoption or institutionalized. They were telling their story. Today, they are between 40 and 45 years old or even less. They were talking about how they were treated when they were young and how the fact that they were branded illegitimate marked them for life.

Right here, in Canada, we have had the same kind of problems, including the Duplessis orphans. We have seen the way orphans were treated in orphanages in Newfoundland and nearby in Ontario. We have just seen what it was like to be considered illegitimate in our societies that are supposed to be free and respectful of individual rights.

We had yet another example in the debate just concluded in Ireland. In case my colleagues did not know, this debate has lasted for years in Ireland, and it has just concluded now. Our societies change. It is important, at least that is what the Bloc Quebecois thinks, that we take that word out of the criminal code. A child cannot be illegitimate. A child is the son or daughter of a mother and father. Being born cannot be illegitimate. Legally, a child cannot be illegitimate.

That is the gist of my argument. I want to see us go a little further. I have not yet seen the new bill the government intends to introduce, but I hope it goes a little further still. I hope that the Canadian government will look at what has been done with the revision of the Quebec civil code, and that it will at the very least draw upon what has been done, and well done, therein.

Certain words have been taken out. As far as is possible, I would like to see the entire Criminal Code looked at, not just the parts relating to children, as have been proposed by my colleague for Ottawa Centre—whom I again congratulate and thank—but a complete review of the criminal code in order to seek out everything that, in my opinion, does not do justice to people and still hangs on to what I would call stuff from the past. We are still dragging along baggage from the past, tradition that is, to my way of thinking, unhealthy, and this is particularly the case with the matter of concern to us at present.

Since we shall have to get back to the debate raised by my colleague, as I have said, I merely wanted him to know that we were in agreement with his bill. We hope that the one to be introduced by the government will go a little further still.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, the coalition supports the amendments that the bill would bring to the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act. We feel it is important enough that it should be voted on. We should have more than just an hour of debate on a bill of this importance. It should be votable and it should be moved on.

We are against any form of discrimination. We find that words used in the act are discriminatory against children who were born outside of marriage. The legislation has very objectionable language in it and this private member's bill, Bill C-408, would deal with that.

Section 241 says that “child” includes an adopted child and an illegitimate child. Bill C-408 would change that wording, which is very important. From personal experience, I know children sometimes carry burdens because of things outside their control. The least we can do in the House is try to undo the damage that words can place on a child.

In today's modern society to treat children who through no fault of their own find themselves born in an unmarried relationship is just a sign of the times. We can lay judgment on whether it is right or wrong. We can lay judgment on whether or not the state should support it. However to lay judgment on children who have had no opportunity to change the circumstances is not fair and not right. Whether we like it or not, we have many different forms of families. Not all families have a father and not all families have a mother. That we in this House would discriminate against children who find themselves in a family that does not meet the tradition is not appropriate.

We will be supporting the bill and hope that it actually finds its way into changing legislation, albeit it will not be voted on in the House. Young people have a hard enough time in today's world without the stigma that words can impose upon them. We would just hope that this private member's bill does not stop at this point. The intent of the bill should carry the weight of government and the government should be sensitive.

There are many bills that in Canadian tradition have words that are inappropriate in today's modern society. This is one instance where we need to be considerate of the changes and ensure that the language in today's legislation is appropriate and reflects the changes we see around us.

The coalition is very supportive. We wish the member well in taking this through the system. We hope the government uncharacteristically takes note of the debate and the support this has and puts some meaningful change in.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-408 and to congratulate the hon. member who brought it forward. I apologize for not hearing the earlier debate, but unfortunately I was in a committee and could not get over here fast enough.

The bill is very remarkable in its simplicity. It is an issue that has a lot of history and a lot of weight. The principle being put forward here, which is very important, is to ensure that children are not being discriminated against by the use of really archaic language and labels.

While the implementation of something like this to ensure that the definition of child and the use of the words illegitimate child are removed from all legislation may be a fairly logistically complex thing to do, we should not lose sight of the principle contained in this private member's bill.

The New Democratic Party supports the bill and its principle. Being a signatory to the international convention on the rights of the child, it is very important that the Government of Canada upholds that convention and ensures that its legislation, public policies and program development do not discriminate against children.

From that point of view, I would say most strongly that it is very important that not only do we move forward in addressing programs and policies to uphold the rights of children in Canada, but we also look at our history and the legislation on the books. We have to recognize that sometimes we have to go back and update, change language and modernize.

There have been various instances where that has taken place in the House of Commons through government initiatives and maybe through private members’ initiatives. We have had that in legislation pertaining to same sex relationships and the modernization of benefits and responsibilities. We have had that in legislation that pertains to the equality of women and the use of more gender neutral language. All those things are very important.

When it comes to the rights of children and how we portray them, not only legally but in language that is used in the media or in our local communities, it is important to ensure that we use language and make references that are not judgmental and do not reinforce stereotypes that serve to harm the well-being of children in our society.

I wholeheartedly support this effort. I would hope that all members of the House would support it. It is something that is pretty straightforward. Even though logistically it may be very difficult to accomplish, in going through goodness knows how many hundreds of pieces of legislation to make changes, it should be done.

I hope there is a will in this place and a commitment from members on all sides of the House to ensure that we adopt the bill and encourage the government to begin the process of making these changes to ensure that the rights of children are upheld. It is important that we refer to children in a way that is appropriate, that reflects our modern day society and that is respectful of different kinds of relationships. Most important, we must be respectful of the rights of children.

I am very happy to support the bill and thank the hon. member for having the courage to bring it forward. I hope it will gain acceptance from all members and that we will be able to accomplish this.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-408 addresses an important issue for many Canadians. It proposes to eliminate the term “illegitimate” in two federal statutes, the criminal code and the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

Before I turn to an examination of the bill, I would first like to commend the hon. member for his dedication and his commitment to the eradication of this antiquated concept and language from federal law. He has continued to bring this important issue before the House in a number of private member's bills over the passage of several years. His hard work and his personal commitment to the belief that all Canadian children deserve the same protection under law and to be treated with the same dignity by the law is very much appreciated by Canadians.

I know I share the view of many in the House in thanking him for his role and his contribution. Children should be included in and protected by our laws without regard to the relationship of their parents. It is the responsibility of government to ensure that the concept of illegitimacy no longer exists in any federal law.

The issue is not new to the House. The Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, that was enacted by parliament in June 2000, accomplished several goals, one of which was removing the last remaining references to illegitimacy in seven federal statutes, including the second statute proposed for amendment in Bill C-408. These amendments specifically address the concerns of the hon. member and that he had previously brought before the House.

Let me point out that these amendments in the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act to remove references to illegitimacy do not actually change the substance of the law. The seven statutes included all children. The references to illegitimate children that have now been removed were actually the earlier attempts of the House to ensure that children born to unmarried parents were included in eligibility for benefits.

Until recently, if a specific statute referred to the child of a person, some doubt existed in law about whether this referred only to children born to married parents. In order to make it clear that the law was intended to include all children, the acts were amended many years ago to specify that a child meant both legitimate and illegitimate children but this was in an effort to be inclusive in providing benefits.

More recently, with new international commitments and changes in our law, these specific references are no longer legally necessary. It is now clear in law that a reference to a child of a person would include any child, whether the parents were married or unmarried. Clearly the goal of this government is similar to that of governments that passed those earlier amendments; that is, all children, regardless of the relationship of their parents, deserve the same protection and treatment under the law. I have no doubt that all members support this worthy goal.

With more modern law, we can now remove the references in our statutes to the concept of illegitimacy without risking some children being left out of legal protections. Removing these references will help in turn to eradicating any discrimination or differentiation in the treatment for children.

The Government of Canada continues to emphasize the importance of families and of supporting families as set out in the Speech from the Throne last year. The government means that all families with children are important--married couples, common law couples and lone parents--so that no Canadian children will be stigmatized by something so clearly not within their control.

Bill C-408 supports the work accomplished in the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act. The first provision of the bill proposes an amendment to the criminal code to change the definition of child to remove the reference to an illegitimate child. This amendment addresses a definition which was repealed by Bill C-15A and was passed by the House last fall.

The second provision of Bill C-408 would bring the amendment made in the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act into force as of December 31, 2001. The reference in the statute to legitimate and illegitimate descendants in the definition of the “Inuk of Fort George” or the “Inuit of Fort George” was removed.

It is true that it has not yet been brought into force. However this is for a good reason. The Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act is a federal statute based on negotiated agreements: the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement and the northeastern Quebec agreement. Therefore the amendments to this act must be discussed with the Cree, the Naskapi and the Inuit prior to being brought into force. These discussions were raised at both the House standing committee and the committee of the Senate during the passage of the modernization act.

I understand from officials of my colleague, the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, that consultations with the Inuit are underway. It is hoped that some agreement is possible through that process, following which the amendment would be brought into force. However it is clear I am sure to members of the House that bringing this provision into force at this time might jeopardize that ongoing process.

Although the reference to legitimate and illegitimate may unfortunately remain in one statute for a short while longer, the effect on the children covered by the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act would not change; that is, they would continue to be included.

In closing let me emphasize that the government believes that there is no longer any place in federal legislation for the use of language such as “illegitimate” or “children born out of wedlock”, with two small exceptions, one of which is currently under consideration by the Senate in Bill C-15A, federal law no longer distinguishes between children on that basis, and this last remaining stigma of another era will finally be gone.

The intention of this bill is laudable and the government will be acting to implement its intent.

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

Madam Speaker, I could not resist the temptation to rise and add my expression of support for the bill. I profoundly disagree with a lot the member does, and I have made some snide remarks, even in the last few days, about his being the sponsor of a bill to legalize prostitution, but it is quite a contradiction in the personality of the member to now come up with such a very fine bill.

Having done the negative on previous occasions, I felt it was important for me to now stand up and positively support what he is doing.

Most members in the House and certainly our pages have no idea how things were many years ago. I love to take my grandchildren on my knee and read them storybooks. I am at the age now where I do that sometimes.

While the speeches were taking place, I was thinking about when I was a youngster. I recalled that at about seven or eight years old, I, for some reason, became convinced that I was not the biological child of my parents. Thinking in that way caused me considerable personal distress. In those days, a long time ago, there was indeed a considerable social stigma attached to being a child without recognizable parents. The word illegitimate was used and I felt that I was illegitimate. This feeling caused me a lot of what they now call a lack of self-esteem.

I found out later on that it was not true. However I was so afraid that it may be true that I could not bring myself to ask my parents. I remember one day when I was rummaging through my mother's pictures and other paraphernalia that she had and in there I found a little newspaper clipping. The newspaper clipping said “born to C.K. and Mary Epp on May 11, a son”. That was in our local newspaper way back in 1939. Members have no idea what a relief that gave to me. I was indeed my mom and dad's son. It was very important to me and the stigma was gone.

Today we know that stigma has, through societal changes, been substantially removed and today's bill will help to further that.

As my wife and I were raising our children and as I now look at our kids raising the next generation of four grandchildren, I look at it over and over and realize what a marvellous design it is that requires two people, a male and a female, to produce a child. It is a marvellous design because when I see our children raising their children it's a full time job.

I was on a bus in Ottawa not long ago and a young lady was there with a child. I did not inquire as to whether she was a single mom or what, but I felt genuinely sorry for her. Her child was totally out of control and she was so frustrated. I was thinking in my mind that the child needed a firm hand, as I did on occasion, of a father's grasp on the shoulder, the back of the neck or the leg which meant settle down. It is the team work that is needed. I would like to give some encouragement to everybody who happens to notice this. As adults let us make choices that are good for children. Let us make choices that give those children a stable home in which to grow up.

I grieve for the many children who go through life from broken homes because of divorce. Children suffer immensely in those situations. I do not think there is a law that we could pass that would change that. I would certainly encourage the ideal, the best situation, a mom and a dad with a lifetime commitment to each other who provide a stable, secure home for the children as they grow up.

I support this bill. It is a very important step in taking the stigma away from those children who had zero to do with the situation. It was not their choice. Let us do the very best we can for all children, regardless of their circumstances.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the House for their tremendous support and their very eloquent interventions as well as for the unanimity that this bill received from the House.

This is a victory for children across Canada, regardless of the circumstances under which they were born. It is a victory for the people of Canada because the Government of Canada will take a leadership role on this issue to clean up the remaining legislation on the books. The government will proactively work with its partners, the provinces, to clean up their acts. In excess of 22 different acts at the provincial level attach this terrible stigma to children, and to men and women, many of whom are in their late sixties and seventies. It is my hope the provincial governments will take note of this debate and the unanimity that exists here.

I thank the Minister of Justice and the member from Kitchener who spoke so eloquently when delivering the government's position on this matter. I take this to heart. I am confident this commitment will be fulfilled. I will be on the lookout.

While this item was not deemed to be votable by the committee that looks at private members' legislation, I can assure the House that with the unanimity here, it will be back on the floor of the Chamber in one way, shape or form should action not be taken as quickly as possible. However I am very confident that action will be taken.