Debates of Oct. 28th, 2004

Supply

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a great opportunity to congratulate the member on his first speech in the House, but that is as far as I will go.

Let us talk about what he just said. He talked about his government's propaganda record since 1993. Every time government members stand up, all they talk about are surpluses.

Where the hell do you think these surpluses came from?

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would just remind the member to address his comments through the Chair. I am having some trouble with that today.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, where does the member think the surpluses came from? The surpluses came from the backs of Canadians. He is a businessman. He knows taxes are high. The government has been robbing Canadians since 1993. It was only when Canadians started making noise that the government started talking about health care and about giving more to the provinces. However this situation was created by his government in 1993 and he should not be proud of that record.

[Wajid Khan, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the member that the largest tax cut given to Canadians at all levels was given by this very government.

The hon. member forgets the economic progress that has happened and the necessary changes that were required to bring the fiscal house of this country in order. That is why we are in this wonderful state today of being able to invest in programs.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I begin, please note that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

Since this is the first opportunity when I will have a longer time to speak here, I would also like to thank my constituents in Saint-Lambert, who have elected me to defend Quebec's interests on their behalf on Parliament Hill.

The fiscal imbalance, the financial pressures, the systematic retention of money by the federal Liberals for more than a decade—this has been told and retold and will be repeated and repeated over again because it is a big story—have a great impact. The human costs and harm done by the fiscal imbalance and the way it has shredded the entire social fabric of Quebec and the provinces are known to all.

Nevertheless, the federal Liberals, in their nihilistic approach and their stubborn denial that the fiscal imbalance exists, have inspired many of us to diagnose this as a behavioural problem rather like political autism. Everyone here, all the political parties represented here, recognizes the existence of the fiscal imbalance—except them. Everyone in Quebec, all political parties in the Quebec National Assembly, recognize the existence of the fiscal imbalance—except them. If that is not political autism, what is it?

As is the case in many areas hurt by the fiscal imbalance in Quebec and other provinces, the situation in the cultural area is critical. It is an emergency, because the fiscal imbalance creates a lot of precariousness and disarray in this field.

This fiscal retention deprives Quebec and other provincial governments of their ability to implement their choices, their specific short, medium and long term visions and their policies with peace of mind and a concern for fairness.

The federal government uses fiscal retention to increase its intrusions in areas that are not under its jurisdiction and that beyond its capability, thus weakening the Quebec nation and imposing on Quebec disembodied choices made in Ottawa. There can be no democracy under these conditions. Some will probably question the relevance of culture in the fiscal imbalance debate, along with other recurrent issues, like health, education, social housing and so on, which of great public concern.

I would say it is very relevant. Indeed, culture, far from diverting our attention from other files, can help us deal with them to their full extent and with every resource of our soul and mind. Quality of life necessarily includes culture, which is the dignity of life. When the financial means are lacking, culture is absent from the lives of our fellow citizens when it should rightly be part of it.

I remind this assembly that it would be absurd to envision culture without arts and letters, theatre, music, dance, literature, art crafts, and visual and media arts. Culture, arts and letters are the soul, the psyche of nations, the heart of every people.

For your information, in Quebec, the Mouvement pour les arts et les lettres, the MLA, which represents 15,000 professional artists, has been campaigning since the very beginning in favour of increased support for artists. It has been waiting for a long time. It too is very hopeful that the Liberal government will act with wisdom and foresight and will not be so tightfisted. Right now, the majority of those 15,000 professional artists are living below the poverty line. The money is here, the needs are there.

It might be that for the Liberal government culture is only a tool, an instrument of propaganda. Only the least enlightened dictatorships we know see it as such. This is not Quebec's view of culture. Life teaches us that to cultivate is to be born, work the land in the hope of reaping a harvest, it is to endure by conveying, it is to protect in order to receive.

Societies find their place in history and in the hearts of the people only through culture. However, in Quebec and the other provinces culture is jeopardized by fiscal imbalance.

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

Mr. Speaker, the quality of debate since this morning, not only by a number of my colleagues, but also by colleagues in other parties, is nothing short of amazing.

First, I would like to congratulate my assistant finance critic, the hon. member for Portneuf, and also the hon. member for Saint-Lambert on an excellent contribution. She takes us off the beaten path in discussions on financial and economic issues. The hon. member took us beyond the usual rhetoric.

In the House, we do not talk enough about culture and the fate of craftspersons and artists.

I would like to ask my colleague how the failure of the federal government to understand fiscal imbalance affects artists and craftspersons in the Quebec culture and the Canadian culture.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

Of course, given that money is held back, here in Ottawa, the Quebec government makes choices, and pushes ahead with a certain number of priorities. Generally, as he has noted himself, culture always seems to end up like the spare tire in the car. This is where cuts are the most frequent and the first to be made, on the spur of the moment.

This shows, and on this I shall not dwell much further, that once there is a shortfall of funding, culture is last in line in the Quebec government's priorities. As I said earlier, culture is a vector through which the psychological character of peoples and nations is built. We must convince ourselves that culture is at least as important as education, if not more so, given that it is more democratic.

If we do not properly care for culture, we run the risk, especially for our youth, of a copycat effect or mimetic response which can easily take on a life of its own, the tendency being in our case to copy the United States, overwhelmed as we are by television, radio and movies from that country. When models our young people can identify with and refer to are lacking because Quebeckers and Canadians generally are not providing them, they shift to those other models.

This is an important aspect to consider since we will soon be looking at the Convention on Cultural Diversity, which is now the subject of debate at UNESCO, in Paris. This convention will have a defining impact on culture in every country of the world. Given how little importance we accord to culture however, are we ready to confront the U.S. and Europe in this area?

Ready we shall be when there is funding for these artisans, these artists who create the memory and the markers through which national identities come alive.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of today's debate, we have come to realize that the fiscal imbalance is recognized by the whole society. We think of the current minister of finance, Mr. Yves Séguin, who in 2002 chaired the fiscal imbalance commission in Quebec—the report was made public on March 7, 2002—all political parties in Quebec and all Canadian provinces. The imbalance is thus recognized by all opposition parties in the House of Commons.

These last few years, the fiscal imbalance has been of such a magnitude that it is literally choking Quebec and the provinces. However, the federal government continues to deny that there is a problem. The Bloc Québécois must then continue to demand that the federal government recognizes this imbalance, but mostly that it solves it. The federal government collects revenues that widely exceed its responsibilities with regard to programs. It accumulates significant surpluses despite the reduction of the debt burden as a percentage of the domestic gross product. The provinces administer health programs and other social programs whose costs are very much on the rise and they have to deal with an increasing demand for services. In other words, as the member for Saint-Lambert and many others have said, it is Ottawa that has the money and the provinces that have the needs, and the gap between the two is widening.

The consequences are significant. This imbalance jeopardizes health and education systems. Service delivery is not as effective as it should be, due to a lack of funds. The decision-making and budgetary autonomy of Quebec and the provinces is compromised.

Every year, Quebeckers send tens of billions of dollars in taxes to Ottawa. They are entitled to demand that this money be managed properly. But, as was clearly demonstrated by the first part of the Léonard committee's report, this has not been the case over the last five years. This is the symptom of a much deeper ill. The federal government, we repeat, has too much money for its responsibilities.

In this whole issue of fiscal imbalance, I would like us to talk a lot about children, the impact on children, parents and seniors.

We know that social development requires, among other things, a stable financial situation and recurrent budgetary envelopes, so that all social stakeholders can work in a calm atmosphere and efforts can be targeted to the real needs of young families, of vulnerable people and of seniors. In a situation of budgetary instability, concerns may very well prevail over primary objectives.

I will mention three social measures that are either very popular or very much in demand in Quebec, because they are fulfilling an obvious wish of a good part of the population.

The Quebec affordable day care network, recently recognized in an OECD report, represents about 40% of the regulated child care spaces. Its experience will be very useful when Canada sets up a public and universal early childhood system.

To be able to continue its good work, the Quebec government must have the necessary resources. The federal government must grant Quebec an unconditional right to opt out with full financial compensation. Such compensation would certainly be appreciated particularly since the government has saved close to a billion dollars in tax credits not given to families benefiting from the Quebec program.

We have to understand that beyond the figures, a day care program can also have a tremendous impact on the quality of our children's development. In the medium and the long term, we will avoid very high social costs. Just think of the learning and delinquency problems that these children might avoid through quality attention in day care centres. This affordable day care network should thus be considered as a solution to many of our young families' social problems.

Let us now turn to home care for seniors. This is recognized as an effective measure because it reduces hospital costs and is more beneficial to many people who prefer to recover at home after an illness.

Here again, a more equitable distribution between the federal government and the provinces could help ensure that long-awaited progress is made. Home care is best, for the seniors as well as for the support workers, who are often overworked, and for the caregivers, who need respite. Whatever the case may be, it is well known that home care for seniors is much less expensive than hospital care.

In education, there are growing needs. They can no longer come after health needs. We must keep improving health services, but it is essential to help young people receive the best possible education so that they are able to meet the challenges of our time. The future of our society is at stake.

There is a crying need for special education teachers, books and computer equipment. It is indecent to be accumulating extravagant surpluses in Ottawa when school boards are struggling to trim already very lean budgets. It is unacceptable for there to be surpluses here in Ottawa when there is a shortage of books in our schools. The needs in the areas of health, education and community organizations are in the provinces. It is there that decision-makers who are closest to the needs of the people must be found.

We must have budgets that permit the priorities set to be carried out. There is currently an imbalance between Quebec's capacity and its legitimate aspirations. This has to stop.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the floor again. You are extremely generous today.

I am surprised, once again, by the quality of the speakers from my party. There are other ones in the other parties as well. These people are newcomers and most of them are making a great contribution to today's debate, with good arguments and with all the seriousness that an issue as important as the fiscal imbalance requires.

First, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Trois-Rivières and also ask her a question. She takes a keen interest in education and in the whole issue of daycare. I wonder if she could illustrate how the fiscal imbalance impacts on daycare programs or on education, and also on community groups? Perhaps she could give us examples of situations that she surely has encountered in her riding. I feel that, generally speaking, community groups are also adversely affected by the fiscal imbalance. So, I wonder if the hon. member could provide examples.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we could definitely say that when the $5 a day—now the $7 a day—day care program was implemented in Quebec, it became a solution for all families. Indeed, over 60% of women are now part of the labour force. So, this program is a useful solution in that regard.

We can see that, and this is particularly true for poor families, having access to daycare services allows people to go back to work, including welfare recipients, who can get adequate funds for that purpose. However, because the program is so popular, there is a shortage of funds.

It is very important to be able to create thousands of new child care spaces to meet the needs of families. Over the next few years, we should be in a position to speed up the creation of new child care spaces. Unfortunately, there is a shortage of funds in Quebec, because of the fiscal imbalance. This means that additional funds will be needed to solve this issue.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of my colleague and the one made by the hon. member for Saint-Lambert. I was not here earlier, I was at the Standing Committee on Health, but I took the time to listen to their speeches when I returned.

I too was impressed by the quality of the debates and the comments that were made. I know that my colleague talked about the elderly and people who are at risk. This matter is also a major concern of mine.

I know that, in Quebec, we have social economy programs to help the elderly. I know that these programs are in trouble because of cuts that were made in social and health services.

Could my colleague tell us how this has impacted these programs and if solving the fiscal imbalance could solve this problem?

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, social economy programs have certainly helped to set up organizations that will work differently. In this regard, we have seen organizations whose objective is not profits, but collective responsibility. As needs are expressed in communities, whether by the elderly, youth or families, social economy is an important system.

We know that the federal government has disengaged itself from social economy programs since 1994. It is getting involved again, but a little timidly. There would certainly be a need for more funds. Once again, these programs and these groups that want to create service organizations through social economy are waiting.

Home care for the elderly is another element of social economy. When our elderly can have access, through a social economy organization, to tailored home care, housekeeping services, food services and all that, they can then stay at home and incur less costs to society.

Consequently, it is important to continue to invest in this and to maintain social economy elements.

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, St. Croix—Belleisle, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Bloc for bringing the motion to the floor of the House of Commons. It is very timely because the area of equalization is a hot topic in the country, particularly in Atlantic Canada.

So people in the listening audience can get their heads around the issue of equalization, it is a program that we developed in the country many years ago. It states that the wealth of the country should be shared by all provinces, rich and poor alike. It levels the playing field in terms of fairness and delivery of government programs and quality of life. That is the short explanation.

We depend on the generosity of those provinces that are doing better, and we congratulate them. There is a level of generosity in our country. That is what differentiates us from the United States of America. For example, if one is living in Mississippi, a poor state, one will always be poor. There is not the same level of generosity within that country as we have in Canada.

We recognize the importance of the equalization program. We want to see it continued, and our leader has stated that. During the last election is where the Prime Minister got himself in trouble. We are saying that revenues generated from the offshore oil and gas resources should be allowed to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. It should not be clawed back by the Government of Canada in the equalization formula. In other words, we do not want to keep those poorer provinces in poverty in perpetuity.

I will quote from a document my leader put out. It said, “One of the conditions the Prime Minister wants is that Newfoundland and Labrador would have to commit to a cap”. In other words, it only can have the money if it promises to remain a have not province. He asked what I think is a legitimate question, which really goes to the heart of the debate. He asked, “Why does this government want the Atlantic provinces to share in the poverty and never in the prosperity?”

This debate is all about that. The Liberals are in an absolute state of denial. We know they are in trouble politically because they have said so themselves.

I want to go through some of what the members from Newfoundland have said and what some of the editorials have said.These editorials are coming out of Atlantic Canada. I will quote from an article in yesterday's Western Star , of Corner Brook, Newfoundland. The first paragraph starts off by saying:

There has been some speculation that Liberal MPs can kiss their seats goodbye in the next election if the Atlantic accord renegotiation falls through.

It has fallen through. The Prime Minister in the last election knew full well that the bottom had fallen out of his campaign and that the Liberals were in big trouble politically. In the dying days of his campaign the Prime Minister of Canada went to Newfoundland and Labrador and promised it 100% of all the revenue from its offshore resources.

Now that the election is over, the Prime Minister made another Liberal empty promise, which he is used to doing. His objective was achieved. He is still the Prime Minister of Canada and still residing at 24 Sussex Drive. He got exactly what he wanted. He did that knowing full well that he would come back to the House and go back to the premiers and renege on that promise. This issue is all about that.

Yesterday in the House we heard the member for St. John's East refer to his colleague from Newfoundland, who happens to be the Minister of National Revenue, as the Benedict Arnold of Newfoundland.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is Benedict Arnold appropriate language in the House? The rhetoric coming from that side is one thing, but that is not proper parliamentary language. This man worked hard for Newfoundland.

[The Deputy Speaker]

For the most part it is a point of debate. I would encourage all members to be judicious with their use of examples.

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, St. Croix—Belleisle, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I could call him a typical Liberal two-faced politician because that is exactly what he is. He is just like the member for Kings--Hants who used to stand over here, point his finger at the Prime Minister and sum up what he was doing in “sponsorgate”. It appears that they bought him off. That is the last party that we have to take lessons from in terms of ethics and ethical behaviour.

I want to go through some of the things that those people ranted against in the past, but simply accepted when they came into office.

Remember the famous promise to eliminate the GST? Well, there are some big Liberal heavyweights in the front benches and backbenches who are here simply because they went door to door in 1993 on that promise to get rid of the hated GST, but they did not do that. Why? Because they love that cash cow that was created.

The revenues that they brag about in the House were brought about by the very policies they ran squarely against in every single election, including the free trade agreement. Remember that the leader at the time was going to tear that up.

The level of prosperity is a result of the initiatives taken by Conservative governments in the country and which the Conservatives spoke honestly about during elections for the benefit of all Canadians. When the Liberals talk about huge revenues and surpluses, they can thank the people on this side of the House who had the courage to do the right thing.

I am asking those people over there to do the right thing and give Atlantic Canada its fair share of wealth. Do not take it back to Ottawa, do not claw it back. They are famous for doing that.

Basically it boils down to typical Liberal behaviour. The Liberals say one thing during an election and forget about the promises and commitments that they made once they are back in power. Power is everything to the Liberals. Honouring one's word means absolutely nothing. There is example after example in the House where they have done that.

Talk about negative advertising in the United States, the Prime Minister did not have to take lessons from anyone. That was the most negative advertising campaign in the history of Canada. The Prime Minister of Canada carried out a negative campaign to get into office and then reneged on the very promises that Canadians thought he would keep. That would be the minimum.

I see that Benedict Arnold has arrived back in the chamber. He may want to have a word or two on this.

[R. John Efford, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

No member can refer to any member in the House by the name of Benedict Arnold or any other such name.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I do not think that the name of Benedict Arnold is prohibited in debate. It is all a matter of context. I do remind the member from New Brunswick not to draw attention to the presence or non-presence of anyone in the House.

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, St. Croix—Belleisle, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking of Benedict Arnold and I guess if the shoe fits, he had better wear it. I think he is wearing that title very nicely. However, I was not referring to a particular member. I was using literary licence to reinforce the point the member for St. John's East made yesterday that Liberal Newfoundlanders sold out their own premier and their own province at the expense of the very people they represent in the House. That is why we refer to Benedict Arnold.

I think that is a sensitive issue with that particular member because he is practising exactly the history of that particular gentleman. Benedict Arnold was a traitor. The member is a traitor in terms of how he is treating his constituents.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. I would ask the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest to withdraw that comment, please.

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, St. Croix—Belleisle, NB]

Mr. Speaker, when I use the word “traitor” I have to be careful. I do agree with you, that is out of order. I do apologize, but the Benedict Arnold reference still remains.

[The Deputy Speaker]

After question period there will be time for questions and comments of the member.

Equalization Payments

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, we achieved a major victory in equalization this week.

The Prime Minister met with provincial premiers and after that meeting he announced that the federal government would move ahead with a new framework for the equalization program that will see payments to provinces rise by $28 billion over the next 10 years. Over the first five years of this new deal alone, equalization payments to support Canada's eight equalization receiving provinces will grow by 42%.

By providing predictability, stability and increased funding, the new framework will play an essential role in ensuring that all Canadians, no matter where they live, have access to comparable public services.

This increased funding will assist Canada's less prosperous provinces in meeting their commitments over the 10 year plan to strengthen health care, another landmark deal with the provinces reached by this Liberal government, as well as funding other important social and economic developments.

Justice

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, due to our lax laws, break and enter appears to have become a booming profitable and legitimate profession in Canada. In my riding so far this year, the city of Dawson Creek alone has recorded 241 break and enters compared to 167 at this time last year.

Many residents attribute this dramatic increase to the lack of consequences for those convicted. Homeowners and businesses in Prince George—Peace River are increasingly frustrated that these thieves repeatedly ply their trade because they receive little more than a slap on the wrist when they are caught.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act, our weak and abused parole system, and conditional sentencing provisions actually ensure that these criminals have no respect for our laws, authority or other citizens' safety and property.

My colleague in the B.C. legislature, Blair Lekstrom, the MLA for Peace River South, and I are calling on both levels of government to strengthen legislation and enforcement to send a message to criminals that they will be held accountable for their crimes.

Jazzercise Dance of Hope

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it brings me great pleasure to rise in the House today to bring news of a wonderful event which I attended this past weekend.

In my riding on Sunday more than 200 people participated in a jazzercise benefit class to raise funds for the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. Over the last decade, Jazzercise Dance of Hope has donated over $350,000 to the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation.

The event was organized and led by Marlene Gardiner, a true warrior in the fight against cancer. She has been unwavering in her efforts over the last 10 years. The importance of these efforts cannot be overstated to breast cancer survivors such as myself and our families. They provide us with what is most important, hope.