Debates of Dec. 9th, 2004

Main Estimates, 2004-05

[An hon. member]

No.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Does it mirror what Canadians want?

[An hon. member]

No.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

As my colleagues are all saying, the answer is no, of course not. If they had been consulted, the government by now would have started to recognize that workers and families in this country deserve a break, not just the corporations and wealthy individuals who had the benefit of the $200 billion tax cuts over the last five years and over the money lost against the debt, even though it has hardly changed our debt to GDP ratio one iota.

On that point, it would only be helpful to the debate if a Liberal or maybe even a Conservative would stand and actually acknowledge the fact that we can achieve a 25% debt to GDP ratio at almost the same rate by putting that money into programs and having Canadians contribute to the economy and grow the economy, rather than putting all that money against the debt while Canadians continue to suffer in terms of poverty, unemployment, job insecurity and economic difficulties.

Have Canadians been consulted? Will they see their wishes mirrored in the next budget as a result of the consultation process we have just been through? If the past is any example, I would guess that probably Canadians will be disappointed. They will not see their concerns mirrored in the budget. I would say, based on what we heard from Canadians over the last several weeks, there does not seem to be any kind of acknowledgement of those feelings and those aspirations.

We are reading now in the newspapers about a government that seems to be still determined to go forward on tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy while Canadians continue to suffer. Is it not interesting that we heard from several hundred organizations in the course of a few weeks in terms of our budget consultations, most of whom wanted to see government start to invest in Canada and in Canadians, in housing, in the environment, in health care, in education, in a living wage for families.

They did not call for tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. They did not call for all of our surplus money to go against the debt. They know from personal experience that there is not much point in paying off one's house if the roof is going to leak. There is not much point in making sure there are no more payments on the car if the wheels fall off. They know that it is important to balance the needs of one's family with the requirement to pay down one's debts on a reasoned, rational basis without sacrificing the health and well-being of one's own loved ones.

The same situation applies when it comes to this budget, when it comes to this country. We have to acknowledge that we will have no country at the end of the day if we ignore the needs of Canadians, if we do not ensure that there is a comprehensive child care program where kids can get quality care in a non-profit setting. We have to acknowledge the fact that if our children cannot get an education without being hit with a debt for the rest of their lives, we are no further ahead in terms of using the talents of this nation to better this country and to grow the economy.

We have to understand that if people are homeless in our inner cities, then we are no further ahead in terms of ensuring that everyone can contribute to our society. We have to acknowledge that if farmers are struggling because the government will not recognize the difficulties the family farms are facing, we have nothing in terms of being able to feed our nation. We have to acknowledge that if half the nation is not reflected in this budget, the points of view of women who struggle and work daily to try to juggle family and work responsibilities, to care for their kids and make a contribution, if those contributions are not recognized, we are no further ahead.

The government has a terrible record for actually consulting Canadians and ensuring that their wishes are reflected in the budget. I fear for what the budget will bring, unless we can make the government wake up and see that it is imperative that the needs of Canadians are taken into account, and not those of the select few, those with the money interests in our society today having all the benefits.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is on the finance committee and I thought she had a better familiarity with the economic numbers of the government.

It is interesting that only the NDP would turn a good news story into a bad news story, where we have had seven years of surpluses which have contributed close to $50 billion to paying down the debt. This saves taxpayers every year about $4 billion, which is an annuity into the future. It is money that can be redeployed into social programs and economic programs.

I remember that the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot one day at the finance committee made the case that he could predict the numbers better on his laptop computer. He brought his laptop computer to the finance committee and tried to make the case that his laptop could produce better stats than eight of the leading economists in Canada. I found that amusing to say the least.

Here we have a situation where the government gets eight of Canada's leading economists and they produce an estimate based on the trends, the economic forecasts and they come up with a consensus view. Now can we improve the system? Perhaps we can, and that is why the government has agreed to look at it.

Let me just cite one example. If the Minister of Finance, in predicting his revenues, is out by 1% and at the same time he is out by 1% on the expenditures, just a 1% error on the revenues and the expenditures would produce a differential in the surplus of about $3.8 billion. In other words, if the government predicted no surplus, it could be a $3.8 billion difference either way. So that is what we are talking about, these margins for error. A 1% difference in the expenditures and the revenues can produce a gap of $3.8 billion.

The member had some other numbers wrong as well. The member for Winnipeg North contended that we have not really achieved our fifty-fifty goal. That is not correct. I know it is absolutely true we have not made the fifty-fifty goal in terms of allocating between social and economic programs on one hand and tax cuts and paying down the debt on the other. The numbers are something like 45-55, but they are not even close to the numbers that the member for Winnipeg North threw out of 90% and 10%. I would love to see the math on that. I would love to see the numbers because they are patently wrong.

In fact if we look at the government expenditures in the last two or three years, about 80% of them have gone toward transfers to the provinces for health care and for social programs.

My question for the member for Winnipeg North is, what is the source of her numbers? Because they do not make any sense.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I had hoped we had at least accomplished the task of convincing the Liberal government that its numbers were out. I thought that was a given. Obviously, I have to start all over again.

Let me give--

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

They're slow.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

As my colleague from Elmwood--Transcona said, the Liberals are a little slow, so let me go over the numbers again.

Let us just go back to this current fiscal year when we heard the government had predicted $1.9 in surplus. It turned out to be $9.1 billion. He sort of reversed the numbers, but it was just a little change. For one year, one could excuse it and say that it was an oversight. However, let us go back over the last decade. I will give the following statistics to the member.

Over the last 10 fiscal years, the government has been in error an average of 203.9% a year. I do not think that is 1% or 2% but rather it is an over 200% error. Expressed as a percentage of the total budgetary projection, the Liberals have been off on their projections by 67% over the last 10 fiscal years.

The government has been out $86 billion. That money has been automatically put against the debt as opposed to being spent according to a formula on which Parliament agrees on and into which Canadians have had some input. That is exactly what we are asking for today, a chance to have a democratic participatory process around the money that is available, not to have the government play games and hide the money that belongs to Canadians.

The member claims that all the money went to important issues like health and education, et cetera. Why, for the first time since the 1950s, are workers taking home less than half of the economic pie they produce? That compares to a historical peak of 57% in 1976. “More than any other single indicator, this epochal decline in labour's share of GDP describes the cumulative impact of a quarter-century of neo-conservatism”. That comes from Jim Stanford, who by the way the Minister of Finance has acknowledged as someone quite credible when it comes to accurate forecasting. Jim Stanford, the CCPA and the alternative federal budget folks, have been the only group of economists who have been accurate in their forecasting. I would suggest that if the member wants to have more accurate forecasting, he should rely on the people who have been producing accurate numbers.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jean Augustine)]

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

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

Madam Speaker, you are very kind to recognize me, especially as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has attacked the credibility of the Bloc Québécois in regard to these forecasts.

It can be checked. Anyone can check it, even the hon. member for Winnipeg-North could do it, or even more so the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Every year since 1997, one year to the day before the next budget, the Bloc Québécois has published its forecasts of the surplus. We have done it in front of the press, television, journalists from the press, and year after year, we have come within 3%.

Contrary to what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness claims, we did not do it on my computer. We used a little $1.79 calculator. Watching the economic parameters move and with some intelligence and judgment, we are able to come within 3%.

I would like to ask a question of the hon. member for Winnipeg-North, who was very eloquent and always is, and who does a very good job on the Standing Committee on Finance. I have the good fortune of working with her on a daily basis. She knows the numbers and the situation better than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

How is it that the Liberals, with a phalanx of experts, managed to be out by 500% in their forecasts of the surplus, while we and the organization that she mentioned a little while ago were able to come within 3% of the actual figure.

Is this not a way of hiding from Quebec and Canadian taxpayers some of the funds that are available to help them with priorities such as health, education and fighting poverty? Is it not a denial of democracy to hide this money while telling us fibs and saying that the greatest economists have been consulted and these great economists say that there will not be a surplus. The forecasts of all these economists have never been published, we should point out in passing, except this year with the new minister of finance.

I ask this question of the eminent hon. member, who knows the figures quite a bit better than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from my esteemed colleague, the finance critic for the Bloc. I am as mystified by this 10 year record of inaccurate forecasting as he is.

One would think that after a few years the government would get the hang of it and start to produce more accurate forecasting. It either has to be incompetence or deliberate mischievous low-balling in order to control where it wants the money to go. I think it is the latter.

The real question for us today is, what will happen in the next year or in the next couple of years? Already the Minister of Finance is downplaying the numbers available, trying to suggest that next year we will only have a $500 million with which surplus to work. According to the alternative federal budget folks, who have been accurate all these years, we are looking at about $24.1 billion over the next three years.

Will Canadians have a right to discuss what to do with that money? Will we as parliamentarians be able to make some meaningful suggestions that will be taken into consideration by the government? Will the government finally start to recognize that Canadians who suffered as a result of a decade of cutbacks ought to feel the benefits of this surplus? Will we see some spending to deal with the infrastructure deficit, early learning and child care, housing, post-secondary education, the Kyoto agreement obligations and aboriginal needs? Will the government finally address the real needs of Canadians and start to invest in this country?

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

The things I am hearing this evening, Madam Speaker.

From what I heard the Conservatives say, cuts are being made because cuts have to be made in just about every program. According to the Bloc Québécois, all the money should go to the provinces. As for the NDP, its position is that everything, or 90% of the budget, should go to social and other programs.

This may be commendable, but the funny thing is that the purpose of this debate, this evening, was to explain and justify to Canadians a $417,000 cut in the budget of the Governor General.

That is terrible. It is a disgrace. We are not even able to get an answer to the question, “What impact will this cut have on the organization in question?”

Still, members make political hay and enjoy making statements to the effect that the government does not known how to govern. Apparently, they could do better, but cannot even agree on the rationale for their actions.

I rise in support of the motion to fully reinstate the budget of the office of the Governor General as presented in the government's main estimates.

For the benefit of those listening, we should remind ourselves that this is not a debate on the relevance or pertinence of the function of Governor General.

In doing so, I would like to focus on the central question. How does the institution serve Canada, Canadians and Canadian public life? What makes it different today than at Confederation?

This is at the heart of any debate when making cuts and taking items out of budgets. One has to know what they are doing and why.

Obviously, the Governor General's role is largely symbolic. Many will agree with me on that. But that does not mean that this role should be considered as static.

Laugh as we may, the fact remains that I get many calls to my office from people asking for this or that from the Governor General. When she goes on tours and so on, we are very proud of our institution of Governor General.

The Governor General has a responsibility to bring Canadians together and to engage them in a non-partisan, dialogue qu'on ne retrouve pas ici, en cette Chambre, on issues of importance to them, to know what their preoccupations are, to know what their values are and to reflect those to other Canadians across the country.

We are talking about values such as citizenship, community, shared history, diversity, volunteerism and so on. Such are the values the Governor General takes it upon herself to communicate and spread from coast to coast to coast, as well as around the world.

It tells the modern story of Canada and how Canada can be a model in the world for the ways in which we live these values. Being free of partisan influence and uniquely positioned to see the country in its full spectrum, the Governor General holds up a mirror for all of us to see ourselves reflected in our social and cultural diversity and complexity.

The institution of Governor General is intrinsically tied to the Canadian way of life and heritage.

How is this done? Let me give the House some examples. It is done by articulating a vision of Canada that is very contemporary and future oriented and that comes to grips with the Canada we have become, not what we once were. That vision, however, does not dispense with Canada's past, but builds on it through emphasis on our enduring values as a society.

She has an in depth knowledge of the country and its people. She has a deep understanding of Canada from her knowledge of the land, its regions, its communities and the people who live there.

It is done by communicating a fundamental message to Canadians, which is that we share much in common in our daily lives that transcends local or regional differences. That is way beyond $417,000 just to make a point to the government. That is sad.

It is done by recognizing how the increasing diversity and pluralism of the country is good for Canada, culturally and not just in economic terms. It is done by interpreting Canada's unique ability to integrate newcomers, making the connection between citizenship and successful diversity by combining the Caring Canadian Award with citizenship ceremonies.

You have to see the look on people's faces when they receive this honour from the hands of the Governor General.

It is done by providing a continuing role model for those acquiring their citizenship.

I must not forget to say that I am sharing my time with the hon. Minister of National Defence. I swore I would not forget.

It is done by articulating the importance of the north in the Canadian psyche, its reality and its imaginative influence on us and by having a knowledge of aboriginal cultures, thus according the aboriginal peoples the respect and dignity they are due.

By describing Canada as a helpful and compassionate society.

It is done by speaking extensively of the need and place of reconciliation in our society, whether in the treatment of peoples of aboriginal or of other ethnic descent. It is done by understanding the motivations, ambitions and inner feelings of those who have been accorded Canada's honours, and thus articulate what makes these Canadians so special and so important to the rest of Canada.

That too is the Governor General. She promotes Canada, its values and its identity and receives various heads of state and visits other countries.

It is done by placing important social issues into historical context, showing how issues that affect almost every Canadian, for example, public education, have a fundamental importance in underpinning Canadian values and identity.

We must not just take the headlines from a newspaper and say we are going to cut the gun registry because it is not popular in a certain region of Canada the Governor General's activities because she upset us by going on a trip with so many people. It would be irresponsible to make cuts for those reasons.

It is done by connecting the Office of the Government General to the cultural and artistic achievements of individual Canadians and to the nation, thus making those achievements and works Canadian in every respect.

This is what is meant by saying that the Governor Generalship is “constitutionally conceived but culturally lived”.

Culture may not be important to some parties in this house, but it is extremely important to this government.

It comes to life through the activities of the Governor General and the intensity and vigour of these activities in helping to interpret Canadian values and Canadian identity, not only to the nation but also to the world.

Allow me to give this House a few examples of these activities.

The year 2002 was the 50th anniversary of Canadian Governors General, and the year of the Queen's Golden Jubilee and her visit to Canada.

The Governor General attended 800 events, traveled 150,000 km across the country, visited between 80 and 90 communities, big and small, not to mention three visits up north to Nahanni, the Northwest Passage and Nunavik.

It included a “walking home initiative”, where people in their various communities were invited to join the Governor General in walking, talking and enjoying each other's company in the natural local setting.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Some people might laugh at that, but the people who walked with the Governor General, if they laughed it was from happiness, not from contempt like we can hear sometimes in this room.

These walks were held in the Forillon National Park in Gaspé.

Along the seashore in Newfoundland, between Repulse Bay, Naujaat, and the Arctic Circle, and I could go on and on.

This gave the Governor General a chance to speak .

It permitted the Governor General to speak with Canadians and this is what we have to look into when we take such a decision.

I came into the House tonight and I was not even seated when I heard speeches about democracy from the other side. Believe me, I will not tell hon. members what effect it has on me, because democracy is coming here, having our say and being able to vote because we heard the arguments.

Believe me, tonight I heard no arguments for the other side. Members on the other side do not even know why they are cutting. If they know, they cut because they want to cut for different reasons. That is the opposition, ladies and gentlemen from Canada.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make some comments now based on what I have just heard, because I find it incredible. My hon. colleague from Medicine Hat earlier this evening used terms like “offensive” and “unconscionable” and let me say that those words are so appropriate for what I have just heard.

That member for Gatineau is standing in this assembly trying to tell Canadians that they have to overturn a decision made by a committee to slash only $400,000 from the Governor General's budget.

I want to say something. I would invite that member to my riding of Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre where farmers and cattle producers are losing their land and losing their jobs because of the government's failure to provide adequate safety net programs and have that member tell my cattle producers why the Governor General needs $400,000.

That is unconscionable. That is offensive. Canadians are angry and they have a right to be angry. How can that member stand in the House and say that with a $19.3 million annual budget, a reduction of $400,000 is going to negatively impact that?

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I will answer quite gladly, Mr. Speaker.

What rubs Canadians the wrong way is a comparison of things incomparable. Everyone knows that. Take health or education as examples. Harsh cuts are justified with some irrelevant statement. It is evidence of the lack of faith in what we are doing this evening. That is what gets my back up, and then they have the nerve to pretend to be outraged on behalf of their taxpayers.

[An hon. member]

Just come to my riding.

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Yes, I will go to the member's riding.

Anytime I will convince the people of Calgary that cattle ranchers have their say and they are important, but there are also other important matters in this country.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member who has just spoken about the reasons why we should maintain the amounts allocated to the Governor General has not really given the matter much thought.

When she speaks of the people who are so pleased to receive medals from the Governor General and to spend time in her presence, I can tell the hon. member that last year I received one of the most prestigious medals from the Governor General.

I would, however, have had no objection to eating ham sandwiches and drinking Seven-Up, instead of savouring wine and other things, if it meant the people of my riding could get enough to eat.

When we know that there are one million children who do not get enough to eat, that there are single parents without social housing, seniors not getting the guaranteed income supplement they are entitled to, I wonder how this member can think that $450,000 can make such a difference.

Will this mean the Governor General will not have a place to sleep? That she will not have enough to eat? That her aides will be able to travel only once instead of three times? No, every time the Governor General takes a trip, they get two or three, because they have to go there ahead of time to look into security matters.

The Governor General does not need that money. It can be put to better use, and I guarantee that, if the hon. member can look me straight in the eye and tell me that the people in her riding would rather see the Governor General have $450,000 more, rather than see it put into social housing, or—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the hon. member for Gatineau must have time in which to respond to the question.

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question. Once again, it is petty politics. That is no question—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. We must be able to hear the hon. member from Gatineau, who has the floor, give her answer.

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has missed the point. We will not compare, because, in this instance, we end up talking about spending in one place rather than another. That is not the issue. When we ask the committee members why they want to cut and if they are aware of the consequences, the answer is, “No, we did it like this, because we were not too satisfied with certain answers”. What effect will this have? When people make decisions that way, it worries me.

However, as for playing petty politics in saying, “I am going to tell the people in my riding that they will not be able to eat, because we gave the money to the Governor General”, I hope that no member in this House will go before their constituents and speak so unreasonably. There are a number of expenses with which I do not necessarily agree. But, if we cut them, we must know why.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell from hon. members opposite that they regret a great deal that we have to part from the plane of emotion we are on. Allow me to offer some personal comments on this debate. I would like to make three points with members of the House.

I think the proposition to cut the budget of the Governor General is unwise, I think it is unjustified and I think it is misdirected. It is first and foremost an attack on the institution of the Governor General and as such it is unwise. It is also a personal attack, as we have heard in the House tonight, on the present Governor General and as such it is unjustified. It will punish Canadians who otherwise would benefit from the programs that will have to be cancelled and as a result it is misdirected.

We rarely reflect on the role of the Crown in Canada and its importance to our Constitution and democracy. It is ironic, I suggest to colleagues, that we are called upon to do so in this debate.

Personally I consider the Governor General a uniquely Canadian institution, which, with Parliament and the judiciary, I consider to be a pillar of our democratic and constitutional system. We should not attack it lightly. Its roots are our roots, going back not just to British colonial times but even to Samuel de Champlain.

Since our first Canadian Governor General, Vincent Massey, it has evolved under the leadership of great men and women like General Vanier, who was a World War I and World War II hero, Roland Michener, a great parliamentarian and a Conservative, I remind my colleagues, Ed Schreyer, who represented the west, and others.

I believe that this institution is important to us. It is the symbol of what we are as a nation and it serves to differentiate us in important ways from our culturally powerful neighbour to the south and thus to craft our unique Canadian identity.

Its present incumbent--and here is where I say this is a personal attack--incarnates, in my view, the modern Canadian experience, as the member for Gatineau so well expressed tonight: integrating newcomers. The present incumbent came here as a refugee from China. She came here as a refugee during the war in Hong Kong, and I am proud when I go to Asia representing our country to be able to say we are one of the rare institutions in the world that has chosen as our head of state someone who is an immigrant and has come to our shores as a refugee. We should be proud of that.

She made her way to the top of what Canada is about by personal qualities, by drive, determination and professionalism. She takes her role personally and seriously. She works hard and has brought increased respect to the institution. We are lucky to have her husband, an internationally recognized author and scholar, who brings his contribution to our national life.

I would like to tell the House tonight about my experience as its defence minister.

The Governor General is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces. As such, she plays a significant role, by recognizing the contribution of our military and by providing a great deal of moral support to our troops in active service.

The Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada provides support to the Canadian Forces by playing a ceremonial and symbolic role. She encourages excellence and dedication from our forces. She visits our military bases throughout Canada. She attends the funerals of soldiers who have fallen in combat. She welcomes our troops upon their return home and upholds the morale of those who serve to maintain peace and security around the world.

The Governor General, as commander in chief, has travelled extensively to visit Canadian troops throughout her mandate, ensuring an unprecedented presence on behalf of all Canadians.

Let the record show that the members opposite are making a mockery of this statement.

Let the members opposite speak to our troops and ask them what they think about the Governor General when she visited them in Kosovo in 2002, in Bosnia in 2001, spending her Christmas aboard our naval ships in the gulf in 2002, and in Kabul, Afghanistan, for New Year's in 2003. No doubt the opposition would like to cut her trip to Kabul this year.

This is an attack on the Governor General. This is an attack on the commander in chief of our forces, who is very much appreciated by our troops. It is an attack on the ability of our troops to be able to benefit from the presence of our Governor General.

I totally agree with her. She has comforted the wounded around the world and the families of deceased soldiers killed in active duty and I have been there to see it. She has paid tribute on countless occasions to our veterans and those who have died in defence of Canada, Canadian values and freedom and justice.

I was proud the other day to attend an awards ceremony of medals at Rideau Hall. I saw the Governor General personally comforting widows of those who had served for our country, people who had died.

I ask the opposition to ask those widows, ask those members of our forces who received decorations from the Governor General. They appreciate it. They appreciate her service. They appreciated her when she went to Juno Beach, when she attended in June 2004 for D-day. They appreciated it when she returned subsequently on their behalf to Italy to celebrate the sacrifices they had made.

Since the hon. members do not wish to accept my words, let them listen to the words of Cliff Chatterton, who has not necessarily been a great friend of the government, but he is a prominent advocate for Canada's veterans. He said of the current Governor General that:

She takes her role as commander in chief of the armed forces very seriously. I have been dealing with governors-general going back to 1945 and in my estimation she is the first one who has decided that is a real role.

That is the role that the troops of our country have for her. All I ask of the opposition is to ask our troops. I have asked them and they stand behind their Governor General and their commander in chief.

A lot of the origins of this motion result from trips that the Governor General has organized on behalf of Canada. Let us recognize that the Governor General, when she travels on state visits at the formal request of the Government of Canada through the Prime Minister and on the advice of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada, is acting on behalf of Canadians.

I had the privilege, as did some members of the opposition some time ago, when I was chair of the foreign affairs committee, to go with her on a trip to Argentina. With her she took a general. She took aboriginal leaders. She took politicians. She took cultural and university leaders and she took representatives of industry.

This unprecedented team Canada approach at diplomacy has been an unqualified success for Canada. It has given us a new image of ourselves. She has adopted that approach on other trips, garnering enormous attention for Canada. In the media of foreign countries and countries she visits, that attention is of direct benefit to us and our profile and our commercial prospects in those countries.

These cuts will not punish the Governor General. They will punish Canadians, ordinary Canadians who look forward to participating in activities that will now have to be cancelled, and whereby their contributions to their country will not be able to be recognized. That is the object of this resolution.