Debates of Feb. 24th, 2003

Supply

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General of Canada gives Canadians and members of Parliament objective information to help them examine the government's activities and hold it to account. The Liberal government believes the role of the Auditor General is vital. In fact, in 1994 we amended the Auditor General Act to increase the number of reports from a single annual report to four reports annually.

What does all that mean? I believe it means exactly this. In my other life I am an active farmer, a chicken farmer. Every year I sit down with my accountant to look at how my business is progressing, improvements that I should be making to my business and what taxes I am going to pay. It is efficient running of my business. Why? I am not an accountant. I trained as a millwright. Therefore I get someone to look at that for me and to make my business more efficient.

That is exactly what the Auditor General does for the Government of Canada. She looks at how the government runs and operates. She looks at whether the government is effectively spending the money the way it should and whether its programs are efficient or if there is a better way to make government work better.

In addition to strengthening the role of the Auditor General, this government has had a track record of responding in a timely, effective manner to her findings. When the media often focuses on the negative aspects of the Auditor General's report, there are also good news stories. In fact the Auditor General herself said in 2001 that examples of good management sometimes got lost in the glare of publicity that surrounded the bad examples.

The government does about $130 billion in business a year. That is a lot of money. Government is big business. It is in our best interest not only as a government but as the managers for Canada to ensure that we do it the best way possible.

The Auditor General recently praised Industry Canada for making significant improvements to the small business financing program.

Very simply, we look at what the Auditor General has to say about how we operate the government and the country. If she has made specific recommendations for improvements on how we operate, we have responded.

Here are some of the highlights in response to the 2002 report of the Auditor General. These are some things the government has done in response to her recommendations on how to make government operate better.

In her September 2002 report the Auditor General commented that the federal government provided only limited information on its intended total contribution to the provinces and the territories for the future funding of health care. In budget 2003 the federal government responded to this concern by announcing its intention to separate the Canada health and social transfer into the Canada health transfer and Canada social transfer. This will result in a clear accounting of the amount of funding the federal government provides the provinces to help them administer their public health insurance programs.

Quite frankly this has been an irritant for me as a member of Parliament from Ontario because we transfer cash to the provinces for health care but we also give the provinces tax points and we get absolutely no recognition for that at all. I do not feel that is fair. This is something that the provinces asked for back in, I believe, 1995. They said that it would be a more efficient accounting and would a better way of doing things. Now they are now using it against the federal government by not giving us any credit for those tax points. I have said many times in caucus that if they will not give us recognition for them, then we should take them back and give them a cash transfer. That way we will at least get recognition.

The other thing I want to see within the health care situation is better accountability. We know there were some examples last year where high tech money that was supposed to be spent on MRIs and CAT scans was spent on lawnmowers instead. I am a life member of the Association of Kinsmen. If hospitals need lawnmowers, I would tell them to go to the local service club and we will help raise money for that, but do not spend high tech money on low tech problems.

The second is the sponsorship program. In March 2002 the Auditor General was asked by the former minister of public works to review three contracts awarded between 1996 and 1999 to Groupaction. That report was immediately referred to the RCMP, and the cases are under investigation.

On May 26, 2002 the Minister of Public Works imposed a moratorium on the sponsorship program. We were responding. An interim sponsorship program was announced on June 3, 2002 which eliminated the use of external communications agencies.

Finally, on December 17, 2002, the minister announced a new sponsorship program for the 2003-04 fiscal year. That is guided by four key principles: value for money, with which I agree as we want to get the best value for the money spent; stewardship, with which I also agree; flexibility; and finally, transparency. Those I believe are four key pillars with which the opposition and every member in the House would have to agree.

Last but not least, as we have heard here today, is the Canadian firearms program. The government has taken immediate measures to address all the recommendations in the Auditor General's report on the firearms program. Specifically we have introduced Bill C-10A that would cut costs, improve program administration, streamline the process and increase ease of use.

Further on this, on February 21 the Minister of Justice introduced the government's action plan for changes to the management of Canada's gun control program. The plan is the government's blueprint for improving the program's services, transparency and accountability. Clearly we have responded to many of the concerns expressed by the Auditor General and the evidence is before us.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Tell that at home.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

In response to the member across the way, I have told that at home. The people are in favour of the registry program. When we look at gun control, or as I refer to it gun safety, there are four pillars. Three of the pillars the member' party, the Conservative Party, brought in: first, education; second, licensing; and third, safe storage. Finally, the fourth pillar is the registry.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

The member asked for more.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

That is right, the member asked for more and we gave it to him.

Our Liberal government values the virtue of accountability and transparency. Canadians expect us to use their hard earned tax dollars in an efficient, prudent manner. Budget 2003 recognized these expectations and committed our government to strengthen accountability and increase transparency. The budget was in part a concerted response to the constructive criticism of the Auditor General. She told us what was wrong. We listened and we fixed it.

Some of the initiatives in Budget 2003 that specifically respond to the concerns of the Auditor General include the following.

First, committing the federal government to begin consultations on a new EI rate setting regime for 2005 and beyond, based on the principles of transparency, and of balancing premier revenues with expected program costs.

Second is to make a number of changes to improve the accountability and governance arrangements of the arm's length foundations. This, in combination with clarifying the policy principles underlying the use of foundations, will ensure their continued effective use.

Third is to create a new Canada health transfer and a new Canada social transfer effective April 1, 2004. This will improve the transparency and the accountability of moneys transferred for health care. This complements the 2003 first ministers health care accord accountability framework, which includes a commitment to report regularly to Canadians on the effectiveness of these transfers.

Fourth is to reinforce accountability and transparency in public reporting. The government will continue to improve the relevance, timeliness and clarity of information it provides to a Parliament.

[An hon. member]

Like having a budget every year?

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

We have good budgets every year.

[An hon. member]

No, you don't. You haven't--

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

Sure we do, and Mr. Speaker, I am not ignoring you. I would never do that. I am just responding to the heckling of the member across the way, because I do not know what world he is on, but it is not this one.

In fact, if we take a look at the Government of Canada right now, at our country compared to the G-8, we are the only one with a balanced budget, with a surplus, paying down our debt. I do not know where the member is coming from.

Fifth is to implement a system of full accrual accounting, on the longstanding advice of the Auditor General, to improve the way that the federal government presents its financial statements. Quite frankly, one of the reasons we are able to get to accrual accounting this time is that our financial house is in such good order.

Last is to legislate the termination of the debt servicing and reduction account. We have not limited ourselves to responding only to the suggestions of the Auditor General to improve how we serve Canadians. Budget 2003 announced measures to review current spending to make government more accountable and a better manager of tax dollars. To this end, our government is committed to re-examining government programs to ensure that they are relevant, affordable and efficient.

To that point, when we go through this program review, as I have said before, we want to find the most efficient way of spending the tax dollars. So we can take a look at the programs now and I believe we should start classifying and categorizing them as to what are high priority programs and what are low priority programs. From that, I believe that we can have more efficient spending of tax dollars by targeting high priority programs first and then diminishing funding down to low priorities.

Being more accountable to Canadians also means looking carefully at reallocating government spending, as I have said, from lower to higher priority areas, from less efficient to more effective. In practical terms, this means that beginning in 2003-04 the federal government will reallocate $1 billion per year from existing spending, which will be used to fund those things that matter most to Canadians.

To wrap everything up, we have to take a look at where this country was back in 1993 and where we are today in 2003. By this October, this government will have been on this side of the House for 10 years. Quite frankly, when we came here we inherited a government that was overspending by $42.5 billion a year. We inherited a government that had its debt ratio, accumulated public debt versus GDP, up to almost 70%. We had a government that was actually spending between 14% to 16% of GDP.

[An hon. member]

Year after year.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

Year after year, and now where are we today? We are number one in the G-8. We have become a financial powerhouse on the international stage. We now have our government spending down to 12.2% of GDP. Our accumulated public debt, now sitting at around $536 billion, is now down to 44.5% of our GDP.

With the figures we are putting forward right now and the direction in which we are taking the country, I believe that this government has done a good job, but we always want to listen to the Auditor General. Because if there is any way that we can make the government and the country run more efficiently, I believe that we definitely have to listen to the Auditor General in her report.

I thank the Progressive Conservative Party for putting forward this motion today, although I have to say that I am a little confused. I thought on an opposition day the members might have wanted to talk about something specific, let us say, the environment, the Kyoto protocol, or we could have talked about Iraq. These are all fairly pertinent and very important issues of the day right now, but no, they chose to talk about this and I am more than happy to have been able to give my perspective to you, Mr. Speaker, on where this government is taking Canada into the 21st century.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a slight stretch in terms of the topic of the day, but I have a short question. The member was making it very clear that we have a balanced budget today and that the fiscal framework in the country is far more solid today than it was a decade ago. I think the hon. member would probably understand, in fact, that initiatives of great magnitude take a little time to actually take effect. They do not necessarily happen overnight.

The question is this. Could the economic strength that our country has today ever have occurred if we had not had the free trade agreement of 1988, which moved our two way trade from about $90 billion in 1988 to about $760 billion each and every day now? Would that economic strength have occurred place if it had not been for free trade and NAFTA? Was the Liberal Party dead wrong when it opposed free trade and NAFTA?

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my position as parliamentary secretary for international trade I want to compliment the Minister for International Trade for the shrewd bargaining and negotiating that he is doing right now with the United States. He is just back from Tokyo on our agricultural issues and so on.

When the member across the way says these things about trade and everything else, yes, that has benefited Canada, but we have been in there renegotiating these deals to put it in the right perspective. In some of the cases that the member across the way mentioned, when the Conservatives made these deals, quite frankly in some of them they were signing a blank cheque. That has not been the direction of this government.

Finally I have to ask the member across the way, if the Conservatives are so fiscally prudent how many years would it have taken them? They were the ones who were overspending by $42.5 billion a year. How long would it have taken them to get the books back in order? Quite frankly, I think they would be very hard pressed to meet the standards we have set.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member said at the end of his speech that he wanted to hear about something specific. I would like to ask him a specific question. The Auditor General has called the spending on the gun registry astronomical. This year $113 million is budgeted to go toward the gun registry. The government came back and asked for $73 million more in supplemental funding. Now the minister tells us that was actually part of the $113 million. He said that in his best case scenario costs will go up for the next two years on the gun registry and then begin to come down. It is going to come down to spending, at least in his estimation, which hopefully is not out as much as it was the last time, $600 million more for the gun registry before it is completed. That is also with no review of the program until 2005.

Therefore, specifically, does the member think that this is a good use of taxpayers' money over the next six years?

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have already heard the Minister of Justice put forward statistics on the murder rate within Canada, which is down, and on the crime rate in Canada, which is down.

I have heard the members across the way say, for instance, that criminals would not register their guns. This is absolutely true, but let me say that when RCMP officers happen to pull somebody off to the side of the road, we have given them an extra tool. They can now ask the individual for licence and registration, please, and if the gun is stolen it is obviously not registered. If is not registered, the RCMP has a criminal at the side of the road and is asking that individual where he or she obtained that firearm. They got the firearm through the black market, the underground. That is how we can, first, access the criminal activity of smuggling illegal firearms into Canada and, second, we can go after the people who are doing it. It is one more tool.

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

Mr. Speaker, the justice minister always discusses this issue of the gun registry through the prism of public safety, so let us talk about it that way. There is something called “opportunity costs”, as the member knows, where money is taken from one place and is put into another, and we had better make sure we are getting a better bang for our buck in one place rather than the other.

When we look at the statistics of homicide rates in Canada, the fact of the matter is that of all the homicides one-third are due to firearms, and a very small number of them are due to registered firearms. The fact of the matter is that over 90% of homicides due to firearms are due to unregistered firearms, as he quite correctly mentioned.

Putting it in the context of opportunity costs, the question is this: Is it worth spending $1 billion to really save the lives of a handful of people when what it is actually doing is removing that $1 billion from something else where we could save thousands of lives, for example in health care?

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to get my mind around the question as put forward. In essence what the member is asking is how much a life is worth. That is awful. That is absolutely awful. As far as I am concerned, what we have done with this registry is give the law enforcement people extra tools that they can work with. They have already thanked us, because this system is being accessed over 2,000 times a day. Quite frankly, when a statement like that is made, I just have to really wonder where the hon. member is coming from. I would like to talk to him about this after the debate here today, but as far as I am concerned, if this program saves even one life, it is worth the money.

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

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the member who just talked about not getting one's mind around it, does he actually believe that criminals with an intent to commit a firearms crime, and by the way, for that member, it is the criminals who do it, it is not the law-abiding Canadians, will ever contemplate making sure that they have a registered firearm to do it? Or would he just automatically assume that a criminal is going to use a gun that is stolen, unregistered, something that we would have a very difficult time tracing?

The point I am making is that criminals do not give a darn about the firearms registry. They are not going to use registered firearms. They are going to use those that are not registered and that are going to come in through the black market. This has nothing to do with law-abiding citizens in this country, who are being penalized through this gun registration program. The government uses that poll, but it misled the people in the polling question. The question asked was, “Would you support a firearms registry or gun control program that would cut the incidence of crime in this country?” It is a no-brainer. Everyone would answer yes, but in fact this program does not do it. I believe that this member has been misled by his own party as to the effectiveness of the firearms program.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member's question as to whether criminals would register their firearms, the answer is no, of course not.

I have firearms in my home right now. Let us say that somebody breaks into my house, steals my shotgun and ends up in Manitoba. An RCMP officer pulls that person off to the side of the road, for whatever reason. The shotgun is properly stored in the thief's truck. The officer will ask one question: “Is that your shotgun?” The guy will say “yes”.

Under the new system, when it is fully implemented, the officer will ask that individual to see the licence and registration. It is a stolen shotgun. It is not registered. The RCMP would now have a criminal at the side of the road and the person would have to explain where he got the shotgun from. I would get my shotgun back.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in the debate this evening and to perhaps wind up the debate and bring some perspective to the issue we are debating.

The role of the Auditor General is to be a watchdog. The Auditor General must be able to make an independent analysis about where the Government of Canada is not delivering high quality service or not spending taxpayer dollars in a responsible way and to the degree that Canadians rightfully deserve.

I want to begin with the fact that members of Parliament have been kept in the dark with respect to this Auditor General's report. I will speak to that aspect shortly. In general, our principal role here is to ensure that parliamentarians, the representatives of the people of Canada, have a hand on the tiller and are the protectors of the public purse. That, above all, is our responsibility to the taxpayer.

We look at the fact that the principal time where we have an opportunity to review the public purse is through the process of developing a budget and the main estimates themselves. I find it completely unacceptable and I believe essentially unprecedented for a modern democracy not to actually undergo the process of an annual budget.

Members are aware that we have had only two budgets over the period of four years. We all know that parliamentarians ratchet up their level of scrutiny come budget time when we review the estimates.

The fact that the former finance minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, chose not to bring forth an annual budget in the normal fashion, which was each February, is the principal cause for the degree of runaway spending that has gone unchecked and where Parliament has been left in the dark.

We know we had an election in November 2000. We also know that in the spring of 2000 the Government of Canada asked for an extension to the long gun registry and spending through supplementary estimates. This was probably the same period of time when we should have had a budget but instead it was done through supplementary estimates.

If that request had been done under the full lens of a budget, I believe parliamentarians would have had a chance to scrutinize this unbelievable request for an expenditure where the Department of Justice asked for nearly $400 million in supplementary spending.

I will now touch on a few issues. First, I think parliamentarians have a right, an obligation and a moral responsibility to review spending on an annual basis. It was reckless and shameful for the former finance minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, not to have performed his duty by bringing forth a budget for us to scrutinize in an appropriate way.

The following are the reasons that we are reviewing this particular issue. The Auditor General was concerned that with Parliament not informed, government wide management reforms risked losing momentum. She highlighted the issue of the long gun registry. She noted that Parliament had no opportunity to scrutinize the program costs, now estimated by the Department of Justice at more than $1 billion by the year 2004-05. This was because the department's performance report made no mention of increased costs and the additional spending was approved largely through supplementary estimates, rather than through main appropriations.

As she said in her press release, the issue was not gun control and not even the astronomical cost overruns. She said that although those were serious what was really inexcusable was that Parliament was left in the dark.

When we review our estimates we do not, by any means, do it at the same level of scrutiny as they do in provincial legislatures and not how we used to do it in this place. We approved government spending of $180 billion with one vote on a June evening without having a line by line review of the estimates done in this place, which is what Canadians expect us to do each and every year. That has really resulted in the misspending in programs.

Let us talk about the long gun registry. All Canadians believe in gun control. The Progressive Conservative Party believes in gun control. As a point of fact, we have registered handguns since the 1930s. We understand that safety provisions need to be in place. Firearms need to be stored separate from the ammunition and we need to have safe handling of firearms and ammunition.

Let us pretend for a moment that the registration of long guns was the right thing to do. It might have been the right thing to do at $2 million of estimated spending but it certainly is not at $1 billion. I find it shocking that government members have not even apologized or been remorseful of the fact that a program that was estimated to be $2 million has ballooned to $1 billion.

We have a moral responsibility to protect lives from a justice perspective, to make sure we actually invest our precious resources into fighting crime and into saving lives. I am more worried about biker gangs and organized crime than I am about registering the long guns of innocent deer hunters, duck hunters and farmers. Looking through that lens, I think most members of Parliament would concur.

The process essentially comes down to accountability. The fact is that we have not had an appropriate process to scrutinize expenditures. The Liberal Party of Canada is now on the verge of entering a sort of flashback to the 1970s. I would have hoped that the Prime Minister would have advised the new finance minister not to do what he did when he was finance minister, and that was not to have out of control spending.

Beyond health care, education and defence spending, program spending went up 7% across the board on issues that were not necessarily of immense priority with Canadians, beyond protecting human health and the environment. We now know that the government will actually balloon spending with a 25% increase in spending by the year 2008. This type of approach is simply not sustainable.

The only reason we are in fiscal health at the moment is largely due to the economic reforms brought forth in the later part of the 1980s and early 1990s by the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, the government from 1984 to 1993, those principally being free trade where we moved our trade from about $90 billion to about $760 billion each and every year in two-way trade. That was an initiative by the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

The Liberal Party of Canada fought those initiatives and actually risked the financial well-being of our country through the positions it took in 1988 and again in 1993 on both of those trade initiatives. It fought us tooth and nail on initiatives such as privatization, deregulation, monetary policy and winning the war on inflation, all structural initiatives that were brought forth to strengthen our economy.

The result was that it was able to harvest the fruit of the labours of a government under the leadership of Brian Mulroney between 1984 and 1993.

The financial leadership in the country right now is non-existent. It is rudderless. There is free spending again. I have trepidation over the fact that we are not focusing our energies where we should be. First is to ensure that we have a health care system where the size of one's wallet does not determine the quality of health care that one receives. Second, we are not investing in post-secondary education where our best and brightest can seek higher learning and use that intellectual capital to drive our economy. Third, we do not have initiatives to strengthen our economy: we are not lowering taxes, paying down debt or getting our economic fundamentals in order.

The aimless budget, which was tabled just over a week ago, is testament of the fact that the Auditor General is very concerned about the fiscal management of the country. She rightfully has reason to be concerned, especially when this reckless budget was tabled on the heels of her report which questioned the government's financial management regime.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I was curious about the remarks from my learned friend. He talked about the Mulroney government and how great things were. He sort of went through a period of selective revisionism.

I want to remind the member that in 1993 unemployment was between 11% and 12%. That now has been reduced to around 7%. Interest rates were around 12%. That now has been reduced to around 6%. Debt to GDP was around 71%. That now has been reduced to 46.5%. The deficit was $42 billion. Now we have had six straight years of surplus. When he talked about the programs and policies that were enacted then, I do not believe what he said.

First, how can we assure all members of the House and, through this House, all Canadians that these same policies and programs will never be visited on them? Second, how can we assure the House and all Canadians that the people, who were affiliated with those policies and programs, will never be near the levers of power again?

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, to start that is quite a sanctimonious question. The member is essentially on the attack on fiscal management, when his government has currently turned a $2 million program into a billion dollar expenditure. There is not a lot of currency there to put forth an articulate debate.

From an historical perspective, the hon. member may be aware that a worldwide recession took place at the front end of the 1990s. The fiscal health of Canada was stronger even in that very tough economic time than it was among most G-8 nations. Our fiscal deficit, on a proportional basis, was stronger than most G-8 nations, including the U.K. and our neighbours to the south.

I am very concerned that the member for Hillsborough would not want us to have initiatives such as the free trade agreement, which moved our trade from $90 billion to over $760 billion in two way trade. I know there are a number of island exporters. One company, Diversified Metal Engineering, which I had a relationship with in my previous work, exports en masse. It created numerous jobs in the West Royalty Industrial Park, compliments of the free trade agreements. I do not think the hon. member wants to walk onto that shop floor and say that he would tear up the free trade agreement in a heartbeat, if that is what the hon. member is saying.

I am proud of the structural initiatives that took place in terms of tax reform, deregulation, privatization, winning the war on inflation, the monetary program and free trade agreement as well. It was that kind of leadership which brought forward other initiatives, such as our influence with the Americans wherein we were able to develop an acid rain protocol that reduced SO

2

emissions in power generating plants by over 50%. Those are programs of which to be proud.

Instead, we have a government that really has not had an initiative of any nature over the 10 years it has been in power. That is why the Prime Minister is desperately seeking a legacy.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 6.30 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that the debate on the motion is over.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. Speaker and the House for the opportunity to again speak on a private member's bill that we brought forth back in 1998 and have reintroduced four different times, Bill C-206. Before I begin, I wish to thank the government very much for the recent budget in that it actually mentioned compassionate care leave. What it has announced is compassionate care leave of six weeks, starting on January 4, 2004. Although that is a great start, it is simply nowhere near enough to meet the needs of Canadians.

We all know that Bill C-206, if enacted, would allow people who leave work to care for a dying relative or a relative under severe rehabilitation the opportunity to leave their place of employment and collect employment insurance; it is the exact same benefits as if they were to have a baby. We have programs for maternity leave and paternity leave at the beginning of someone's life, but we have no program at the end of someone's life. Although the government did announce a program for six weeks, the unfortunate part is that it is simply not enough, not even close.

We have proven this. The provinces have proven it. As well, the Canadian Caregiver Coalition, which is across the country, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Alzheimer Society of Canada, the AIDS coalitions and many other groups, including CARP, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, with 4,000 members, all have proven that for every dollar spent on employment insurance, thus offsetting someone's salary, we would save $4 to $6 on the health care system. The winner would be the provinces in terms of financial costs, because it is the provinces that have the responsibility to deliver health care.

This is a program that we know the government is working on. We know that the hon. Minister of Human Resources and the hon. Leader in the Senate, Sharon Carstairs, have mentioned it on many occasions. We are appreciative of that effort, Mr. Speaker, do not get me wrong. We are not condemning the government for it. We appreciate the fact that the government has taken on the issue and started to move with it, but my bill would actually move it a little more quickly.

What we are hoping for is that after March 19, after third reading, of course, the government and other opposition members actually will vote to move the bill to committee. Thousands and thousands of e-mails, petitions and letters have been sent from across the country, from coast to coast to coast, in support of the bill. In a recent CTV poll for Canada AM , with over 2,000 people polled over 24 hours, the number one concern was home care.

I just want to say to all Canadians and all parliamentarians that this is not a question of if someone will become a caregiver but of when someone will become a caregiver. Those who are passing on have a right to die in the surroundings of their choice, to be surrounded by their loved ones and also to be free of pain.

I believe that this bill deserves a lot of support. It is a non-political bill and we believe it should move forward.

[Diane St-Jacques, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore for giving me the opportunity to speak about this initiative that was announced in the 2003 budget and that the government and I feel very strongly about.

The Government of Canada is committed to improving the support provided to those who need to take time away from their work to take care of a child, a parent or a spouse who is seriously ill. This budget sets out new employment insurance benefits for natural caregivers who take leave from work to provide care for a seriously ill or dying child or parent.

This government has the best interests of Canadians at heart, and improving the life of our fellow citizens is our priority. The commitment that we have made basically increases the support available to workers so that they do not have to choose between keeping their job and taking care of a seriously ill member of their family.

The welfare of the family has always been and will remain one of the cornerstones of our social policies, as evidenced by the fact that we have also introduced the extended parental leave as well as the national child benefit.

As we know, Canadian workers' jobs and the financial security of their families can be put at risk by the need to take care of a seriously ill family member, not to mention the intense stress on family life.

I would point out to hon. members that 77% of Canadians taking care of a seriously ill family member take time off work, and 56% of those take unpaid leave.

Another major priority for this government is to help Canadians strike a balance between work and family life. Employers are equally aware of that reality, let me tell you. According to a recent survey, 60% of business executives support the government's intention to provide income support to employees who need to take time off work to look after a seriously ill family member.

Our government is therefore continuing its efforts to meet the commitment made in the throne speech, so that Canadian workers who are already stressed by the serious illness of a family member do not have to cope with any more stress.

We want Canadians able to be able to keep their jobs and count on a decent income so that they may devote all their energies to their loved one. The hon. member felt that six weeks was not very much, but it is a start. The Kirby report spoke of six weeks for looking after a sick person. I believe we need to wait until this program is put into place before looking at how it might be made easier or better. For the moment, however, I think the important thing is to start putting it in place.

There seems to be general all-party support for such an initiative. I trust that I will be able to count on the support of the hon. member, as well as all other members of this House, in getting this fine initiative started.