Debates of Feb. 7th, 2002

Budget Implementation Act, 2001

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on December 10, 2001.

Basically, it implements the measures announced in the budget; it is a stand alone bill. To explain to Quebecers and Canadians who are listening, it is stand alone legislation implementing the budget provisions.

I will use an example to explain to our listeners what the Liberal government is doing in the budget it brought down, in particular to air transportation.

This is an area of our economy that has been seriously affected by various factors, including the events of September 11. No other area has been so catastrophically hit in a single day in the whole history of Canada.

I will try to explain what the Liberal government has been doing to revive the airline industry, which definitely collapsed. This is the only way to describe what has been happening to this industry since September 11.

This industry has collapsed. Thousands of jobs have been lost across the board, not only in the airline industry, but also in the aircraft industry and in the parts industry. Workers in the airline and aircraft industries have been hard hit by the events of September 11.

What has the Liberal government done? Of course, it was quick to announce measures to compensate the industry for the losses incurred as a result of September 11, meaning losses suffered over the eight days the airspace was closed to air traffic. Every airline was compensated for its losses. It made sense. The federal government decided to do so.

Later, it put in place a system to compensate the industry for the increase in insurance premiums. Of course, an event such as September 11 results in very high costs for the insurance industry. The federal government paid for the increase in premiums.

Then, nothing, except for an aid package. The 105 major airlines needed help. Those who have followed the whole saga of the airline industry after September 11 will recall that a $160 million aid package in loan guarantees was offered to 50 major airlines.

Canada 3000, for which a $75 million loan guarantee had been announced, was to be the first one to get some help. It did not even have time to receive that help, because it had already closed down. As a result of that bankruptcy, thousands of jobs were lost in the airline industry.

That is what happened. For all those who were expecting some help for the airline industry in the budget, here is what we find today, and I quote:

1. (1) Every person who acquires from a designated air carrier all or part of an air transportation service that includes a chargeable emplanement shall pay to Her Majesty a charge as determined under this Act in respect of the service.

So, in order to help the airline industry, to make up for additional investments in security costs, the government has decided to make all the users pay a charge, that will be paid, and I quote:

—to Her Majesty—

Therefore, a $12 charge will have to be paid for each chargeable emplanement included in the service, to a maximum of $24. That is $12 for the outward journey and $12 for the return journey, to a maximum of $24, that will be paid by the users as compensation.

So much for help. All the workers in the land transportation sector who spoke to my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, as well as all the workers in the shipping industry who spoke to my colleagues in the Bloc,also suffered losses in the wake of the tragic events of September 11. The whole transportation sector felt the repercussions, except rail transportation, which benefited from the loss in the airline industry. The train had a new appeal.

For the rest, however, for freight, the economy collapsed. Thousands of jobs were lost in transportation, but all the Liberal government could come up with to help the airline industry was to provide for a new tax, to a maximum of $24, that is $12 for the outward journey and $12 for the return journey, payable to Her Majesty.

When the government wants to deter smokers from smoking, it increases taxes on tobacco. This is what will happen. The government wants to deter people from flying; therefore, it will impose a tax on air transportation.

That tax will not apply everywhere. The bill refers to chargeable emplanement. This is where the charge will be collected. What is a chargeable emplanement? I am quoting the bill:

“chargeable emplanement” means an embarkation by an individual at a listed airport on an aircraft—

This individual will have to pay that charge.

Which are the listed airports? I will read the list of designated airports for the Province of Quebec and not burden the House with the others. The designated airports are the following: Alma, Bagotville, Baie-Comeau, Chibougamau/Chapais, Gaspé, Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Kuujjuaq, Kuujjuarapik, La Grande Rivière, La Grande-3, La Grande-4, Lourdes-de-Blanc-Sablon, Mont-Joli, Montreal International (Dorval), Montreal International (Mirabel), Qubec City (Jean Lesage International), Roberval, Rouyn-Noranda, Sept-Îles and Val-d'Or. There are three international airports; the others are regional airports.

What the federal government is proposing will kill air transportation in the regions. I cannot overemphasize this: if we want to deter people from smoking, we increase taxes on tobacco. And if we want to deter people from flying, we do what the Government of Canada is doing: we create a tax on emplanement in regional airports. This is the harsh reality that will result from the measure proposed by the Liberal government.

In the history of Canada, this industry was the one that was hit hardest in a single day. All the other industries and the workers in all the other industries are asking my Bloc Quebecois colleagues to help them. Every week, workers are losing their job in the forestry industry, in the transportation industry and in every other industry. These people are asking us to help them. Considering what the Liberal government is doing to the women and men who work in the airline industry and who have worked all their lives for it, people in other Canadian industries can forget about getting help. This is what we have to explain to Quebecers.

In this budget, there is good news in the fact that apprentice vehicle mechanics will now be allowed to deduct the cost of their tools on their tax returns. This is not an issue that was put forward by the Liberals. It has been advocated by my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, particularly the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles and the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans. They are the ones who defended this issue in the House, and this is why the government thought of doing something about it. We will have to continue our work on this issue.

All workers who have to use tools and equipment in their jobs should have the right to deduct the cost of these tools and this equipment on their tax return. Members of the Bloc Quebecois will be leading this fight in the months and years to come.

In closing, I will say that I am sad for workers in the airline industry. I am sad for towns in the regions, the small towns that are listed in this bill. These towns have built Canada with their natural resources and will continue to support Canada. I find it very sad that the government has decided to abandon them again.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party to Bill C-49, an act to implement the budget that was presented to parliament on December 10, 2001.

In speaking to the bill, I want to respond to what was said by my colleague on the government side. He said that the budget and the bill were as a result of the government listening to Canadians. I think that has to be rephrased slightly. The government listened to some Canadians. It listened to its friends.

When people in my riding of Vancouver East, working people, low income Canadians, look at the provisions in the budget, they see nothing that will help them in terms of improving the quality of their lives.

One of the main features of the budget is to establish the Canadian air transport security authority, CATSA. As my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois said, this is nothing more than a tax grab. Why on earth would Canadians want to write a blank cheque for $2.2 billion to the federal government without knowing where that money was going?

We need to point out to Canadians that the establishment of this new air transport security authority is nothing more than a new agency of Liberal appointees and that it will have very little to do with providing security at airports. In reality, of the $24 that will be charged to people for a round trip, only about $2 per flight will actually go to fund the new agency and for security measures. When one looks at the bill there is something like 56 pages devoted to the administration of the new tax and not a word about how security will actually be improved.

It is an incredible situation that under the guise and illusion of providing security, something for which people are legitimately concerned when they are travelling, that a $2.2 billion cheque will be handed over to a new agency with no credibility or legitimacy, and without the assurance that security will actually be improved. We in the New Democratic Party have serious problems with that proposition and we will fight it tooth and nail all the way.

Another provision in the bill has to with the $2 billion infrastructure fund. Originally this was set up as a separate foundation. I think many of us had serious concerns about how a Liberal appointed foundation would operate and what accountability there would be. Now we have a situation where the Deputy Prime Minister will be in charge of the $2 billion fund.

I do want to say that setting up an infrastructure fund is something that is critically important. I come from a municipal background. Today members of the NDP caucus met with the president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Mr. Jack Layton, who laid out for us the serious situation facing municipalities where they are grappling with huge infrastructure costs around public transportation, bridges, roads, water plants, treatment plants and so on. The issue is very important because many of our municipalities, particularly in the larger urban centres, are at a critical point where they do not have the financial resources to meet the growing infrastructure demands.

Mr. Layton pointed out that the cost for municipal government was actually increasing through the property tax revenue. If we look at the European and American experiences, we see it is a much more direct relationship between the federal government and the municipalities in terms of a financial arrangement that provides direct infrastructure support to municipalities.

While $2 billion sounds like a lot of money, when it is put in the context of what is actually required by municipalities, it is actually a very minor amount in terms of what they actually need. While the NDP supports the idea of creating an infrastructure fund, we feel that the establishment of a $2 billion fund without a clear sense of how municipalities will be involved in a direct way, is of very serious concern to us.

I also want to comment on what the act fails to do. Yesterday, students in dozens of communities across the country took to the streets in the tens of thousands because they were fed up with higher and higher costs for education. Their student loans and debtloads were getting worse and worse, and they were basically graduating into poverty.

In my home province of British Columbia, where tuition fees have been frozen for four years and were actually rolled back by 5%, we are now facing the prospect of a massive tuition fee increase. Thousands of students demonstrated at Queen's Park, in Halifax, in Vancouver, in Victoria and even Carleton University students here in Ottawa protesting the fact that education was becoming less and less accessible.

Studies show that the chance of a young person from a low income family actually getting a post-secondary education is less than half of what it is for someone who comes from an affluent family. I point this out because I heard the hon. member say that the Liberal government was doing a wonderful job when it came to post-secondary education and that it had 2,000 research chairs. Although that may be well and good, when it comes to direct support to students who are struggling with high tuition, we have seen absolutely zip from the government.

What we need to see is a national grants program, not the millennium fund which my colleague mentions. The millennium fund helps less than 12% of students. In some provinces it is a slight decrease in the amount of assistance that they actually get. The millennium fund is not a grants program. The millennium fund does not improve or increase accessibility for students who want to go to post-secondary education.

I think the assessment of any student in this country or an organization like the Canadian Federation of Students, would be that this budget has failed on that score.

I also want to touch briefly on the question of housing. A couple of days ago the National Council of Welfare, which is a federally appointed advisory body, produced a very excellent report called “The Cost of Poverty”. It received some attention but very little attention for the very significant and dramatic information contained in it.

The report showed us that neglecting our social policy, our social fabric and our social safety network has produced a growing inequality in incomes. The cost to our health care and judicial systems, and to our young kids who need to get a good start in life, to have equal opportunity and to have a future, has taken a terrible human toll as well as an economic and a social toll on society.

The budget and the act before us today is about a big tax grab. It is not about helping Canadians improve their quality of life. It is not about helping unemployed Canadians. It is also not about changing inequalities that exist in Canada.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, after the September 11 attacks in Washington, D.C., New York, and over the fields of Pennsylvania the transport committee wrote a report called “Building a Transportation Security Culture: Aviation as the Starting Point”. To date there is no indication whatsoever that the report has been read by even one cabinet minister. Frankly, if it had I would not be here opposing Bill C-49 on the basis of its transportation components.

Bill C-49 fundamentally violates the standing committee's recommendations. There are two parts of the bill I find particularly troubling. The first would establish a corporate body called the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority which the government would put in charge of air security in Canada while giving it the mandate to delegate its powers to airport authorities.

At first this seems reasonable. It would appear to let large airport authorities manage all security activities on their premises while offering a helping hand to smaller airports. However when one examines the bill more closely and compares it to both the standing committee's recommendations and the U.S. aviation security bill its failings become obvious.

The U.S. introduced Bill S. 1447 10 days after September 11. It was a study in clarity. It specified what should be done, by whom and when. Under the bill the secretary of transportation and the administrator of the FAA are both charged with specific responsibilities and required to report to congress.

The standing committee was inspired by the bill's clarity. It recommended that a transportation security authority be created and that its mandate, methods of operation and accountability be prescribed by law. The committee further recommended the regime be subject to a statutory review one year after the legislation came into force. The authority was to be headed by a secretary of state for transportation security who, as a member of the House, would be fully accountable to Canadians through the House.

The government instead created yet another stand-alone agency whose board members would be named by the Minister of Transport. Subclause 34( b ) would allow cabinet to compel the security authority to provide such information as the minister may require. However there is no real accountability mechanism. Subclause 32(1) would allow the minister to refuse to table any information if he felt its publication might be detrimental to airport security, air security or public security in general.

The Air Line Pilots Association issued a press release two days ago saying the government was “creating yet another bureaucratic layer, in which the airlines and the airports would each have two of the eleven patronage seats on the board of directors”.

Had clause 6 of Bill C-49, which spells out the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority's responsibilities, specified that the authority's mandate be handed over to Transport Canada in a regulatory capacity we might have seen some accountability. However accountability is not one of the hallmarks of Bill C-49.

It is not surprising the government would like to isolate the Minister of Transport, on whose watch seven Canadian air carriers have gone bankrupt, from further responsibility and spotlight. Only the lion in the Wizard of Oz would consider it brave to hide behind a stand-alone agency and pretend it was accountable.

The first part of Bill C-49 bears the fingerprints of a government that is afraid to take responsibility, look after things and be accountable for its actions. It leaves one thirsting for leadership and a little more aware of the arrogance of a government which feels it does not have to answer to Canadians on this important issue.

My second area of concern with the bill is even more troubling. It makes one feel as though one has been robbed. Once one reads it carefully one comes away with the knowledge that the government has used the tragic events of September 11 to reach deep into the pockets of Canadians and take a bit more of their hard earned cash.

The bill would enact a $24 round trip air traveller security charge. For most Canadians this may not seem like a lot of money. For most Canadians it is about the same amount it costs to get to and from an airport in a cab. The government is hoping we will not notice it is yet another tax grab. It is hoping we will believe its spin that members of the travelling public would pay the fee because they would be the true beneficiaries of the service.

As a general rule there is a big difference between a fee and a tax. A fee is associated with a tangible benefit. University students pay fees. Universities deliver classes in return. One pays a fee, one gets a service. Generally there is a relationship between what one pays and what one gets.

A tax, on the other hand, is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as:

A pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property to support the government, and is a payment exacted by legislative authority.

There is no connection to a specific benefit. The money extracted goes into a black hole and, depending on the integrity of the government, may be spent on things citizens want such as health care and roads.

After much careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that the $24 round trip air security fee is much more like a tax than a charge. There are four reasons to believe the charge would be a money maker for the government. First, in the first year of the new tax, 2002-03, clause 7 of Bill C-49 forecasts $340 million in expenses yet table 5.1 of the budget forecasts $430 million in revenues. That is a $90 million surplus in year one. In year five the budget forecasts a $139 million surplus.

Second, the fee is set at a level which exceeds the amount required to pay for the service. In Canada the charge would be $24 per round trip. That is two to three times the level of similar fees introduced in the United States post-September 11. The U.S. fee is $2.50 per flight to a maximum of $5.00 per round trip. That is respectively $4 and $8 Canadian. In the U.S. if one flies from Dallas to Houston round trip on the same day one pays $8 Canadian. If one flew from Edmonton to Calgary round trip on the same day one would pay $24 Canadian. That is three times as much.

Let us think about that. The U.S. was the country attacked by terrorists on September 11, yet our security fees would be triple those of the U.S.

Third, there is no relation between the cost of the service and the charge being collected. If one flew one way from Montreal to Vancouver one would pay a $12 air travel security fee. If one flew one way from Montreal to Mexico City one would pay a $24 air travel security fee. In both cases one would walk through the same security checkpoint and board the same airbus A-320 for a five and a half hour flight to a destination 2,300 miles away. However in one case the fee would be $12 and in the other it would be $24. It would be the same service for double the price. That is a tax grab.

David Eckmire, chair of the Saskatoon Air Services Group, says the security fee collected at Saskatoon airport would be $5 million annually. That would equal the entire operating budget of the airport in the fiscal year.

Fourth, the fee would target people who would not benefit from any of the services it proposes to offer. If one flew from Vancouver's south terminal to Victoria, Campbell River or Comox one would pay the $24 round trip air travel security charge even though one probably would not go through airport security anywhere during the trip.

The real reason to fight the charge is not that it is another tax grab by the Liberal government. It is that it serves as a strong disincentive against people flying again. We all remember the efforts President Bush made to convince Americans to fly again. In Canada our government is taking a contrary position.

In the House last week I raised the issue of taxation on air travel security. It should be of interest that in Ontario as of February, 1998, the last year for which I could get reliable statistics, 56.69% of the price of a carton of cigarettes consisted of taxes in one form or another. That is high but deliberately so. It is government policy. It is done out of principle to discourage people from smoking.

If the air travel security charge were applicable today the $119 Toronto-Detroit web saver fare Air Canada advertised yesterday would be $285.12 after Canadian and U.S. fees and taxes had been added in. Taxes and fees would comprise $166.12 of the total fare or 58.26% of the price. In other words, Canadian legislators believe a cigarette tax of 56.7% will stop people from smoking but an air ticket tax of 58.26% will not stop people from flying. Clearly that is ridiculous but it is Liberal logic in action.

In the same spirit that allowed seven air carriers to go bankrupt on his watch, the Minister of Transport quietly predicted airline passengers would not be deterred by the latest tax grab. He pointed out that the cigarette tax level is only reached when taxes and fees are taken as a percentage of transborder flights. However that is not true. The truth is even darker.

If we look at Air Canada's web saver fares for the coming weekend we find a $99 fare between Calgary and Kelowna, an $89 fare between Victoria and Vancouver and a $79 between Toronto and Sarnia. All three fares are highly competitive. Air Canada is making an effort to get more people flying.

Then the government gets involved. If we added the $24 round trip air traveller security fee to the other taxes and charges the Toronto-Sarnia $79 fare would become $163.10. We would pay twice the advertised price after all the taxes and fees were taken into account. Let us not forget that the government says a 57% tax on cigarettes is designed to discourage people from smoking.

With legislation like Bill C-49, fewer people will be flying and prices will go up. As always, quality will go down because there are fewer people holding air carriers to account for their products. Yet for some bizarre reason, the government is still surprised that seven carriers are dead on its watch. It should be ashamed.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has reminded me of so much that is lacking in the budget. We are seeing implementation coming about now and I think Canadians are starting to grasp with great disappointment the truth about what is actually delivered.

My colleague spoke about the airline industry. In the maritimes we know that we in particular are receiving real short shrift with respect to air travel.

[An hon. member]

In all of Atlantic Canada.

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

Yes, in all of Atlantic Canada, as my Newfoundland colleague reminds me. The airports there are having foisted upon them this additional charge, this tax grab that will result, in my opinion, in deterring more travel at a time when we want to encourage economic activity, when we want to see airports able to provide a safe service. This is simply an opportunistic tax grab, as we have seen so many times from the government.

For the most part the government has coasted through good economic times in its almost 10 years in office, yet what it has done is purely benefit from previous governments' administrative policies. It has benefited from the policies that it ridiculed while in opposition, those very same policies that it promised repeatedly to change throughout election campaigns. I am talking, of course, of the infamous red book that promised to get rid of the GST. It was based upon that promise that much support was garnered. As well there was the free trade agreement, which the Prime Minister was going to renegotiate but has very much embraced, as did his previous Minister of Industry, saying that it was a good idea, that it was one that the Liberals probably should not have been so quick to judge.

What has happened in the wake of benefiting from policies that the Liberals once rejected and very much disparaged is that suddenly, after just holding the economic rudder steady on policies that they once were so dismissive of, they are now experiencing the realities of what happens in an economic downturn.

What we have seen in this budget is that there really is no plan. This is a government that has simply sleepwalked through its administration, through its time in office. Now we are seeing the unemployment figures in the country begin to rise as a result of its mismanagement. Certainly we are seeing, in important areas of the economy like agriculture, the government ignoring its responsibility and the previous commitments it made to ensure a level playing field in world economies.

The softwood lumber industry is perhaps one of the most acute failures of the government. In British Columbia alone, over 13,000 forestry workers have been laid off. It is expected that another 15,000 to 17,000 will join them on the unemployment rolls in the near future.

The airline industry has already been touched upon. Under the government's mismanagement we have seen no less than three to five airlines completely disappear. These airlines have completely disappeared under the government's tutelage.

What we have seen with agriculture, as I have mentioned, particularly in provinces like Saskatchewan and Manitoba, is farmers struggling, struggling against the elements but struggling against policies, or lack of policies is another way of putting it, that have not been implemented by the government. In the west, prairie producers are expected to produce up to 30% less wheat, canola and barley due to the weather conditions. In the grains and oilseeds sector we are hearing from industry analysts that those estimated losses in one year alone could exceed $2.2 billion.

What is the government doing about this? This year the new Canadian farm income program has budgeted only $435.5 million for the year, compared with the more than $600 million in disaster assistance that was delivered in the final year of the agriculture income disaster assistance program. As is often the case, we have to compare previous situations and previous programs that were put in place to address these crises to really get the full picture of what is going on. Time and time again what we are seeing is the absolute misinformation that can be spread by the government and the spin machine coming out of the PMO. The CFIP budget is expected to fall to $353 million for the coming year, according to the main estimates.

What can we say about the dollar? When the finance minister was in opposition, as we have seen with many members of the government, there were bold predictions about what they would do. The finance minister suggested that he would manage the decline of the dollar to somewhere into the range of 77¢, which would have been the natural place for it to be in his estimation. What he has done, however, is shrink the dollar now to the point where it is threatening to go below 60¢.

Imagine Canadians essentially taking a pay cut every time the dollar continues to tumble and the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and many of the cabinet simply shrug their shoulders. It is like the Quebec situation. Only when they are on the brink of a disaster, when the train is about to derail or hit the wall will the finance minister and the Prime Minister snap to attention. Even then, what has the result been? The dollar is still languishing in the low 60s.

Canadian imports in goods and services from the United States equal up to 30% of GDP. Since the Liberals came to power in 1993, the Canadian dollar lost more than 13¢ against the American dollar. That was 16% or 12¢ that came off the dollar. That was prior to September 11.

The drop in the dollar means that Canadian companies may be using a weak dollar to try to compete rather than to increase productivity in Canada. This reduces incentives to be innovative and stagnates the quality of living in the country.

This year the Canadian dollar has lost 4.6% against the U.S. dollar, only .4% of which happened after the September 11 disaster.

Government waste was something else that was completely ignored by the budget. The government has continually shown poor management of the government's finances. It includes $180,000 in the past year to renovate the RCMP commissioner's office. Over $200,000 was spent on a speech writer for the Minister of Finance. The government squandered almost $700 million by botching the ill-fated, ill-conceived gun registry, which is still in place and clicking along. Yet this week we bore sad witness to the government refusing to implement a national sex offender registry. In terms of government priorities what could be more important than implementing a national sex offender registry rather than implementing a registry that targets law abiding citizens in the country?

As far as any strategy for poverty and the increasing number of homeless people in the country, again I do not think we will find any solice or any comfort in the budget document that is before us.

[An hon. member]

What about the fisheries?

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

The fisheries, of course, did not even bear mentioning. What a slap in the face to Atlantic Canada yet again.

The lack of parliamentary control that we see is again something to be ashamed of and marvelled at, given the opportunity that the government had to address the problem.

With respect to the EI surplus, which itself should be the subject of a long and detailed debate, we know the surplus is in the range of $36 billion. We did not hear this not from opposition sources or those in the media or anyone else, but from the auditor general who surely can be relied upon to present accurate figures. That is a staggering figure, and the money is being used for a purpose for which it was not intended. That insurance policy is there to protect workers who lose their jobs or those in the unfortunate position of being seasonally employed. The auditor general has informed us that $36 billion is not necessary. It is nearly three times what would be necessary to sustain a huge unemployment rise, which we might expect in the coming year.

When I think of places like Canso, Nova Scotia and what they might find in this budget, I am left with the answer that there is really nothing to be found. In a community that faces massive layoffs which could devastate the entire town, there is little at all in the budget that would give these people comfort or hope.

For the people of Canso, we will look to the government to take a more active, innovative and hands-on approach to deal with situations like theirs. I hope that in the coming week the minister of fisheries, after he meets with stakeholders in Canso, will come with something in hand, with ideas, innovation and a spirit of openness to address the plight that they find themselves in.

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

Madam Speaker, you are pronouncing the name of my riding well. I think you are beginning to get used to it and I am pleased about it. I do like to hear you say it.

Bill C-49 before us is entitled Budget Implementation Act, 2001. I do not know if taxpayers and listeners remember the date the budget was tabled. That was on December 10.

[An hon. member]

That was my birthday.

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

It would appear that it was one of my colleagues' birthday. I was not aware of that. Allow me to wish him a belated happy birthday.

I do not think that any taxpayer remembers the date the budget was tabled: December 10. This budget is without a doubt one of the worst budgets ever brought down. It is a disaster budget the government felt compelled to introduce in response to the events of September 11.

The Minister of Finance, who was not going to introduce a budget at this time, decided to do so. He has invested—we will recall—$2.2 billion into security, or so it seems. I say or so it seems, because we will see over the next few years where the $2.2 billion earmarked for security will actually be spent.

This budget was brought down when none was expected. The Bloc Quebecois would have liked a budget ensuring an equitable distribution of the collective wealth. Apparently, we had a good economic performance, and despite the September 11 tragedy, this performance, although not as good, is still acceptable. Some distribution of the collective wealth was therefore to be expected.

There were big expectations in so-called remote regions, such as the Lower St. Lawrence, the Gaspé, and the Magdalen Islands. But the latest federal budget quite simply ignored the regions. It contains no real measure to help those in trouble or to support the economy of regions affected by the September 11 tragedy.

In short, this budget ignores the unemployed. My colleague from Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques has made that point very clearly earlier. Seasonal workers, whose status is often precarious, are left out. This budget has nothing at all for seasonal workers, nothing to help them out.

It is also a budget that completely abandons seniors. My colleague from Champlain, who sits next to me, has been touring Quebec these past few weeks. He has told this House that in the last eight years, this government has taken more than $1.2 billion away from seniors, the least well off members of our society. These are people who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. The government has been depriving them of that money for eight years, taking $1.2 billion away from them.

This is a budget that abandons seniors, the disadvantaged and the poor. It is also a budget that abandons the workers. My colleague from Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel referred to this earlier, when he spoke of those who lost their jobs following the events of September 11 and those who are loosing their jobs now because the economy has slowed down since these events. There is really nothing in there for the unemployed.

We must understand that these people are confronted to a difficult situation. It is not easy for them, particularly those in the airline industry, to find a new job.

It is also a budget that abandons the rural areas.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Matapédia—Matane, but the time is up. He will have five minutes to wrap up his presentation when the House resumes debate on this bill.

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from January 30, consideration of the motion that Bill S-14, an act respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day and Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day, be read the third time and passed.

Sir John A. Macdonald Day and Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day Act

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

Madam Speaker, I am extremely honoured to speak to this Senate bill. I want to commend the member who sponsored the bill, as well as the originator of the bill in the other place, Senator John Lynch-Staunton.

It is important to keep in mind that the bill is really about capitalizing on an opportunity to educate Canadians about some of our founders, to engage school children in particular in reveling in our history.

Ours is a great story. We have much to be proud of. Much was accomplished. A great deal of that is signified in the opportunity to recognize two great prime ministers of our country, Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The bill would draw attention to that important founding history, that important principle that has always played a great deal in weaving its way through the country's history.

We have many tools at our fingertips for communicating ideas. But what greater opportunity would there be than to have a day on which the focus and recognition would be on these two great men.

Sadly we find that history is sometimes lacking in the education system today. More than at any other time we have the ability to communicate through technology and the Internet. We must always reach out. We must always make the effort to recognize the means to communicate a very positive message. This is a very positive story, the one of these two great men.

We want all Canadians to clearly understand that the bill is not about creating another statutory holiday. The bill designates January 11 and November 20 as the days which would carry the respective names of Macdonald and Laurier. Those two days would give the Government of Canada and particularly the Department of Canadian Heritage, as well as schools, institutions and the media opportunities to speak of these great men. In so doing it would make better known some of the history of the nation.

Earlier this month the Globe and Mail did a wonderful and innovative thing. It invited former prime ministers to submit articles about past prime ministers.

The right hon. member for Calgary Centre wrote a compelling piece about a man he knew, respected and drew great inspiration from during their time together in the House of Commons. I am speaking about the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker. This insight was very novel, given the fact that there was a personal relationship.

Other former prime ministers have written articles as well. The Right Hon. Brian Mulroney wrote about Robert Borden who was a native of Nova Scotia. John Thompson came from Nova Scotia as well.

Former Prime Minister John Turner wrote an article about Sir John A. Macdonald. In that January 12 article the central theme was that we should do more to commemorate this great man, this founding father, who against all odds and through his sheer force of will and ability to seek compromise was able to bring the country together.

In writing his article, the Right Hon. John Turner made many references to support this cause, to support making January 11 as a day to celebrate and commemorate Sir John A. Macdonald as a national hero. In support of his thesis he quoted the many speeches that were given about Sir John A. upon his death. He referenced one in particular by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I urge hon. members to read the article by John Turner which was published in the Globe and Mail . Mr. Turner enlisted the testimony of many others on the subject.

I would suggest that Sir Wilfrid Laurier would certainly be supportive of the case for Sir John A. Macdonald, as would Sir John A. in return. Here is part of what Sir Wilfrid Laurier had to say in the House of Commons upon the death of Sir John A. Macdonald:

As to his statesmanship, it is written in the history of Canada. It may be said without any exaggeration whatever, that the life of Sir John A. Macdonald, from the time he entered Parliament, is the history of Canada.

Those are very proud and powerful words.

That was Laurier on Macdonald, but I want to turn now to the words of the Right Hon. John Turner on Sir John A. Macdonald. He stated:

Britain will never forget her Cromwell, her Pitt and her Disraeli. The hero whose name we add to our...immortals, John Alexander Macdonald, had much of the force of an Oliver Cromwell, some of the compacting and conciliating tact of a William Pitt, the sagacity of a William Gladstone, and some of the shrewdness of a Benjamin Disraeli. To read the biography of John Alexander Macdonald is, essentially, to read a “New World Biography”.

This is an opportunity for us to look into the lives of these great men and to pause and reflect upon their huge, incalculable contributions to Canada.

In the House of Commons Sir Wilfrid Laurier eloquently reminded us daily of the nature of our country as we look out on the majestic waters of the Ottawa River from this hallowed building. I would suggest that a great deal of inspiration can still be found in the words of these men.

Canadian history is more than the legends of politics or the accomplishments of government. It is often a time to reflect and look into the personal sacrifices these men made and the contributions their families and their parties made. It very much chronicles the history of the country at that stage of our development. At that moment in time those men came forward to serve their country in a significant way, in a way we all admire, hope to emulate and look back on with hope for the future. We hope to draw some wisdom and inspiration from their actions and their words.

We are always challenged to find ways to draw people into this political process, to engage them again, to make it relevant to their lives. I would suggest that having a day which celebrates the accomplishments of these two founding fathers is a ticket to ride. That is a way in which we can very much encourage people to look at the accomplishments of these men and think of the accomplishments others can make in the future.

By marking the anniversaries of Macdonald and Laurier we can not only highlight the past but give Canadians a rallying point, a reason to draw together to speak positively about what the country has accomplished in the past and what we can do in the days and years to come.

I would ask all members to support the bill. I understand that there is a willingness to let the bill proceed to the next stage so we can bring this matter into being.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, every question necessary to dispose of Bill S-14 at third reading is deemed to have been put, and the recorded division is deemed to have been demanded and deferred until Tuesday, February 19, 2002, at the end of government orders.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

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

Madam Speaker, the matter which is before the House results from a question that was put to the minister. It is very much an issue that is in line with what we have seen happen on numerous occasions where the minister made an attempt to avoid giving any substantive answer.

The government continues to be out of touch in many ways with the country by virtue of avoiding straight questions and clouding its responses in secrecy. It does little to encourage, as I mentioned earlier, the relevance of parliament.

On October 23, 2001, I rose to ask a question of the Minister of Justice and spoke of the new Bill C-36, which was in response to the terrible events of September 11. I raised the issue with respect to Canada's watchdogs who had clearly indicated that the new anti-terrorism bill went too far in denying disclosure of information to Canadians. As a result, I suggested that this was open to abuse.

The legislation, as the Chair will recall, gives the government an opportunity to withhold information by denying access to information by virtue of the minister having at his or her disposal the issuance of certificates which essentially blanket the government's actions. Amendments to Bill C-36 will allow the Privacy Act and the Information Act to be subverted. The government overreacted in including this particular provision and this ability within the act.

I asked the government why it was using the security threat to justify a clampdown on the free flow of information. The response, as flippant as it was, was that the government was not involved in any kind of a clampdown. I suggest that there is ample evidence to the contrary, both at the time that the question was raised back in October and subsequent to that.

The Treasury Board ruling is a recent example of that. Expense reports and other documents relating to cabinet ministers and staff will not be released under access to information. This runs directly contrary to privacy laws. The Treasury Board president has said that the decision by her department to keep the ministerial expenses secret was an appropriate balance of the public right to know with privacy concerns.

That is simply not the case. It is a misinterpretation of the supreme court. The minister seems to be relying very much on the dissenting opinion of the court as opposed to the majority ruling.

We have expressed this frustration time and time again. I know the member for New Brunswick Southwest has a question on the order paper regarding the Lancaster Aviation cover-up and scandal. What Canadians are hoping, through their members of parliament and opposition, is that the government would reveal itself and keep those promises of transparency and openness that were so prevalent in prior election campaigns, literature and pamphlets. The government is letting down the country with respect to being open and revealing itself through information.

What comes from all of this is the suggestion that the country deserves better. The country should expect more. The government has not kept its word with respect to being open to Canadians. I hope that in the future we would see the government reveal itself more as to not only its past but its present intentions by addressing Canadians directly through the House of Commons.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to talk about the points raised by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough regarding Bill C-36 and the issuance of certificates by the attorney general, even if the member did not expressly mention it.

I would like to explain exactly how the new subsection 38(13) resulting from the coming into force of Bill C-36 works. The Attorney General of Canada has the power to issue a certificate that would prohibit the disclosure of information in connection with a proceeding for the purpose of protecting information obtained in confidence from or in relation to a foreign entity as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Security of Information Act or for the purpose of protecting national defence or national security.

The hon. member's question would seem to imply that the certificate could be used to deny the disclosure of all types of information held by the government, but this is simply not the case. Freedom of information remains the rule for the government rather than the exception. Full public access to the vast majority of government information will not be affected by the legislation.

The attorney general's certificate process is intended to apply in exceptional cases only as the ultimate guarantee that it ensures the protection of very sensitive information that is held by the Government of Canada.

I would like to add that there are a number of safeguards. I will mention only two, given the time limit. First, the certificate can only be personally issued by the Attorney General of Canada. Second, it can only be issued after an order or a decision for disclosure of that information has been made under the Canada Evidence Act or any other act of parliament that would result in a disclosure of the information.

Unfortunately time is short, but I would refer the hon. member to the subsections I just mentioned in my reply where he will find the exact information that develops my answer to him even more.

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

Madam Speaker, that was a nice canned response. I did very much refer to the issuance of certificates. What the parliamentary secretary has put before us confirms that a very vague and broad definition can be given to the issuance of certificates. National defence and national security are certainly wide parameters.

We are seeing the government backing away from the same type of broad and unchecked powers that will be issued through Bill C-42, but as far as this remaining the rule of law and this being the rule rather than the exception is concerned, I have already referred to a recent case where the government has done the complete opposite. It has actually clawed back the ability of the public to access information about the records of ministers, the expense accounts of ministers and those of their senior bureaucrats.

The Prime Minister's golf diaries and greens fees are also still not available to Canadians. I do not suppose we will ever see them. Thankfully for the Prime Minister, he has individuals like Jean Carle and others in the PMO who have been very effective in covering his tracks.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. member is getting everything mixed up.

I remind the member that in the aftermath of the tragedy of September 11 all Canadians, no matter what party they belonged to, recognized that new measures were required to ensure our common security. These steps need to be taken in co-operation with our international partners to strengthen our defences against terrorist attacks.

One such step is the protection of highly sensitive information, which is the point of the bill. The fight against terrorism depends largely on our ability to gather sensitive intelligence relating to terrorist activities. It is imperative that we be able to protect not only the substance of our intelligence but also its source.

As a final note, Bill C-36, which is the bill we are discussing here and not any other so-called misdemeanour the member of parliament could raise, provides for a comprehensive parliamentary review of the provisions and the operation of the act within three years after the act receives royal assent. I think we have proven very well that there is--

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to indicate to you and to those who may be watching our debates at this time that, if I cannot do anything else, I still want to express my concern, not to say my dissatisfaction, with what happened earlier, which is an imbroglio—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I am sorry, but there can be no point of order at this time in the House. I already explained to the member that I said “resuming debate” three times and that nobody rose. I am just following the standing orders of the House.

It being 5.49 p.m. the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 5.49 p.m.)