House of Commons Hansard #10 of the 37th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was federal.
Heritage Lighthouse Protection ActRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
The Chair is satisfied that this bill is in the same form as Bill S-7, an act to protect heritage lighthouses, as at the time of prorogation of the second session of the 37th Parliament.
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 86.2, the bill is deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
Elinor Caplan Liberal Thornhill, ON
Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the second report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.
Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Is there unanimous consent?
John Reynolds Canadian Alliance West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of constituents from my riding of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast who support the traditional definition of marriage. They ask that Parliament recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Jim Gouk Canadian Alliance Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC
Mr. Speaker, my constituents also petition Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Reed Elley Canadian Alliance Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions from constituents across the country.
The first petition is from a number of constituents in my riding. They are asking the federal government to be more proactive in terms of the results of fetal alcohol syndrome and the use of alcohol and that warning labels be affixed to containers of alcohol warning people of the dangers of it.
Reed Elley Canadian Alliance Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions containing hundreds of names asking that the government retain the definition of marriage as the traditional definition of the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Reed Elley Canadian Alliance Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, the last petition contains over 4,500 signatures from people in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan. They are asking that the Canada library book rate not be increased. In the negotiations between the Ministry of Canadian Heritage and Canada Post they ask that the library rate not be increased because of the undue hardship it would place upon rural people and others who count on the library book rate to be lowered to receive these kinds of materials through the mail.
Andy Burton Canadian Alliance Skeena, BC
Mr. Speaker, I too have several petitions today.
The first one requests that Parliament make the necessary changes to convert open net-cage salmon farms in order to make farm salmon a truly sustainable and healthy food choice.
Andy Burton Canadian Alliance Skeena, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions that ask Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Andy Burton Canadian Alliance Skeena, BC
Mr. Speaker, this petition also has several hundred names. The petitioners request that the Canadian government ensure that the Ministry of Canadian Heritage and Canada Post renegotiate the library book rate with no increase and that it be expanded to include all materials loaned by public libraries.
Jay Hill Canadian Alliance Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions that I am presenting on behalf of the constituents of Prince George--Peace River today, from hundreds of constituents from all over the Peace River side of my constituency, the cities of Dawson Creek and Fort St. John, and the smaller rural communities of Sunset Prairie, Rose Prairie, Taylor, Toms Lake, Farmington, Prespatou, Altona, Montney, Charlie Lake, Goodlow and Pouce Coupe.
I am very pleased to present these petitions that call upon Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
James Rajotte Canadian Alliance Edmonton Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is my honour today to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of people in Edmonton and area who call upon us in Parliament to pass legislation which will respect the traditional definition of marriage, that the institution is that of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Bob Mills Canadian Alliance Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions from my constituency of Red Deer. Individuals in the first petition, 312 of them, ask Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as that between one man and one woman.
Bob Mills Canadian Alliance Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, the second petition, signed by 37 constituents, calls upon the government to reconsider its decision to recognize the approved foreign award.
Bob Mills Canadian Alliance Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, the last petition, signed by 26 people, calls upon Parliament to provide Canadians with greater access to natural health products.
Mauril Bélanger LiberalDeputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Bras D'Or—Cape Breton, NS
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise and speak on Bill C-18 here today and to join in this debate.
As we know and as has been stated in the House, Bill C-18 really has two aspects that will be dealt with, one aspect being the continuation of the transfer payments from the federal government to the provinces. The second aspect of this bill will allow the federal government to move the $2 billion that has been identified through the meetings with the federal officials and the Prime Minister, through the premiers to the provinces as well, specifically for health care.
We will look first at the aspect of the legislation that deals with the transfer payments. As we are aware, money flows from the federal government through the provinces in any number of ways. Four main vehicles that the federal government uses to share money with the provinces are: the Canada health and social transfer, equalization, the territorial formula financing, and the health reform transfer. The legislation being put forth today deals with equalization and the CHST.
The equalization program basically ensures that those provinces less able to provide the necessities and the essential services to its constituents are able to draw from the fund. It takes into account the revenues from the prosperous provinces. Everybody pays into equalization and then through the sharing formula it is determined which revenues are able to be taken out of this pot. It is a very complex and complicated five province formula that is applied. Through this formula, the lesser provinces, the provinces less apt to have revenues to provide basic services, are able to draw from that fund. I hold my seat in Bras d'Or--Cape Breton and the Province of Nova Scotia is one of those provinces that is a beneficiary of the equalization payments.
Some of the major inputs obviously come from the bigger provinces. When we look at a province like Ontario, we see that its revenue input is a significant amount of what we base our sharing outcomes on. Looking back and reflecting on the year that Ontario has just gone through, there is going to be somewhat of a change from past years because of the tough year Ontario experienced this year with SARS, the downturn in its tourism industry, and those struggles. This is all going to factor into the formula as well.
The original legislation was signed in 1999. As we know, the reason for the discussion, the debate and this legislation coming forward today is that it is set to lapse at the end of March. Hence, we find ourselves in a situation where the federal government wants to guarantee that the flow of cash to the provinces is not interrupted. We want to reaffirm that.
In effect, this legislation is almost like an insurance policy. Officials for the provinces and the federal government continue to negotiate and get into the nitty-gritty of the new legislation that will be put forward. What we will see, hopefully in the next short while, is that a new formula will be developed or a new agreement will be struck. At that time, legislation will be put forward which will supersede today's legislation. This is almost like interim legislation until the new deal is agreed upon between the federal government and the provinces.
The second aspect or component of this legislation is the transfer to the provinces of the very much needed health care dollars. In January, when the Prime Minister met with the premiers, and even before that, it was identified that if there were a surplus then an additional $2 billion would come from the federal coffers to be shared among the provinces.
I remember the great excitement among the premiers and some of the trepidation when we were not quite certain just what the surplus was going to be this year. We had hoped that we were going to be able to provide that $2 billion and now this legislation will make sure that the $2 billion is there and can be moved to the provinces so that they can apply it to their provincial health care systems.
Here is what we have seen in recent years. In September 2000 a reinvestment was made, with $21.5 billion reinvested in health care to the provinces. That agreement was struck between the federal government and the provinces. The federal government, because it finally got its financial house in order, was in a position where it could reinvest in those essentials that Canadians see as imperative. Obviously health care is something that Canadians take a great deal of interest in and recognize the importance of, and fortunately the federal government was able to reinvest in it in 2000. Subsequently, we have made additional investments in health care.
In my own province of Nova Scotia, when we did make the reinvestment in 2000, there was a particular envelope of money that was peeled out and identified specifically for the acquisition of hospital equipment. We can see that on the ground now back in my own constituency. I look at the Cape Breton regional health care facility, the Cape Breton Regional Hospital, and the recent acquisition of an MRI machine.
Before we made this investment in health care back in 2000, I think there were around 50 MRIs in the country. Right now we have almost 125 MRIs across Canada.
There was further investment in equipment. We have digital x-ray machines in Inverness County, in Richmond County at the Strait Richmond Hospital, and a bone densitometer in Sydney. Health care facilities were able to make these investments because the federal government put money in a specific envelope for the acquisition of health care equipment.
People who used to have to leave home and travel to Halifax for these particular treatments are now able to stay in their own communities and receive the treatments. We were very fortunate that we were able to apply the money there.
And really, what we are able to do through this legislation is provide an additional $2 billion that we will be able to transfer to the provinces for health care. It is entirely up to the provinces how they deal with the moneys through the CHST and through equalization.
We hope that the House will see the wisdom of supporting this legislation. We hope members recognize that when we look at equalization, this legislation offers itself as an insurance policy as we wait for the final agreement between the feds and the provinces. As well, we hope they see the merit in supporting this legislation because it will enable the federal government to get that $2 billion into the hands of the provinces so that we can make that reinvestment in our provincial health care programs.
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-18 on equalization. Even though people have a good grasp of the principle of equalization, I would still like to explain it briefly. It is the transfer of money from the federal government, which got that money from the have provinces that make a somewhat larger contribution to the coffers of the state, to the have not provinces.
However, because of the current fiscal imbalance, this equalization program has suffered many distortions. Programs and places are invented—I will name a few later on—where the money sent to Ottawa can be transferred. This means that the provinces are greatly penalized under the equalization program.
We agree with the principle of Bill C-18, which should be referred to a committee, where a new format for presenting legislation in the House could be discussed.
Of course, we also agree with the proposed health transfer of $2 billion to the provinces. We would go even further and ask that this $2 billion be paid to the provinces on a recurring annual basis. We do not want this $2 billion to necessarily be the set amount, but rather the guaranteed minimum payment.
A few minutes ago, we put the question to the Minister of Finance. Despite larger than anticipated surpluses, the minister refused to promise to pay or to make this $2 billion a recurring payment.
To simplify the equalization principle, I remember that the current Quebec finance minister, Mr. Séguin, used to say that it is like what Robin Hood did: take money from the rich and give it to the poor. Indeed, the equalization program can easily be explained by making a comparison with Robin Hood, who took money from the rich to give it to the poor.
When the time comes to negotiate a new transfer or a new equalization formula, it will be difficult to negotiate because the idea of taking money from the rich and giving it to the less well-off has been perverted by the Liberals, as they adapt and change it.
Their system of equalization is to take the taxpayers' money and give it to their friends. That is what the Auditor General has told us. For 18 months, for 2 years, they—from Jean Chrétien to the current Prime Minister—have been telling us, “We do not know if we will be giving you this $2 billion for health, because we do not know if we are going to have it”.
They did not know if they would have that $2 billion, but they knew they had wasted $1 billion on the firearms registry. They knew they had spent and wasted $250 million fraudulently on the sponsorship program. They knew that they had bought two jets in nine days—that is fast—for $100 million. So far, I am up to $1.35 billion that was not audited by the President of the Treasury Board, not audited by the Minister of Finance, not known to the Prime Minister. No one knew about it, but they held a sword of Damocles over the provinces and said, “We do not know if we will be giving it to you your $2 billion, because things are tight financially this year. You might not be getting anything at all”.
Things certainly are tight when the purse strings are loosened and all the money is wasted. That is where the equalization system breaks down in this government.
I will try to demonstrate that the equalization system works better—and this is what the Auditor General says—for those who have their Liberal Party membership cards and contribute to that party's fundraising campaign.
Here is an example of equalization where money is taken from taxpayers, sent to the federal government and given to party friends, who are told, “Give back 5% to 7% of it”. A public inquiry will allow us to shed light on this amount.
Here is one example. A representation of L'Information Essentielle, the noble Robert-Guy Scully, was involved in this little scam. One of the representatives of his company told us, “We solicited the executive director of Public Works for the Government of Canada to sponsor three different television series”, including one on Maurice Richard.
The executive director, Mr. Guité, agreed and verbally committed the government to funding, which included $7.5 million for a series on Maurice Richard.
I want to ask Fabienne Larouche, Pierre Falardeau, Quebec and even Canadian producers and artists if they ever called Mr. Guité to ask for $7 million for the film, television series or documentary they want to make and if Mr. Guité, or Alfonso Gagliano, called to tell them that there was no problem and the cheque was in the mail. No, it was a bit more complicated than that.
But everything was fine since, after all, it was Robert-Guy Scully. He calls Mr. Guité, who verbally promises him $7.5 million—so far, so good—plus $1.2 million for Le Canada du millénaire and additional funds for a series called Innovation . No less than $8.7 million was granted in one phone call, as part of a verbal agreement.
How does the money change hands? The Auditor General told us she would give us a demonstration in a briefing session in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, because what is in the report is just the tip of the iceberg. It is so bad, she would have had to write an encyclopedia, instead of a report, on the scandals.
They are taking the money of Public Works and Government Services Canada. This is pretty serious business. In March 2000,. a cheque is cut for $862,000, not to L'Information Essentielle—that would be too simple—but to Lafleur Communications. Lafleur pockets $112,000 of that cheque amount, and cuts another cheque for $750,000 to VIA Rail, which forwards it to L'Information Essentielle.
Why this way? Because when someone wants to do some money laundering, to do some crooked deal or other, cheques must not go from point A to point B. They have to go from A to B, from B to C, and then from C to D. That way they think they will not get found out. But they did, because of their little cut of $112,000.
In January 2000, a cheque for $400,000 was sent via Lafleur, which pocketed a $42,000 cut, x % of which went back to the Liberal Party. This yielded $4 million, not for the entire sponsorship program, but just for one item, the Maurice Richard series.
The Auditor General tells us that, in December 1999, Public Works and Government Services Canada signed a contract with Lafleur Communications for production services worth $862,000, but this contract was intended as reimbursement to VIA Rail. The contract stipulated that $862,000 was for work to be done between December 1999 and March 2000, but the contract was in very general terms and did not specify what work was to be done by Lafleur. Lafleur invoiced PWGSC for $750,000 plus $112,000 commission. Commission for what? For handing on a cheque.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you would like to be able to deliver cheques, at the rate of 2 or 3 a day, if someone paid you $112,000 to pick up a cheque at one point and deliver it to someone at another. I am sure you could do a lot of it, but you would not, because you are an honest man.
An internal investigation by PWGSC indicates that, when that contract was drafted , departmental staff was well aware of the true purpose, i.e. to reimburse a third party, VIA Rail, for part of the funds advanced. The auditor says that this was, in her opinion, a dummy contract awarded by the Liberal Party. Not a matter of taking from the rich to give to the poor, but of taking from the taxpayers to give to one's friends. That is what is happening in this government.
There are other examples in the Auditor General's report. The Old Port of Montreal needs a giant screen. To Public Works and Government Services Canada this is normal, legal and proper. A property procurement program is in place and they need $1.5 million. In theory, we would think the money would go from Public Works and Government Services Canada to the Old Port of Montréal Corporation Inc. Instead, it goes to Lafleur, which pockets the money and writes a cheque to Old Port of Montréal Corporation Inc. That is how it works everywhere.
How is the Liberal Party proposing to resolve the situation now? It is simply saying it will make sure this never happens again. That would be like our justice system deciding, in response to organized crime laundering $250 million, not to punishing the offender, but simply tighten the rules to create more of a deterrent.
What we want is for the guilty parties to be identified. The Prime Minister said that Quebec ministers were involved. We want to hear from them too. Then there would be a better sense of trust and the equalization system, since that is what we are talking about, would be fairer for everyone.
Rex Barnes Progressive Conservative Gander—Grand Falls, NL
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be here to speak on the equalization agreements and what the federal government is putting in, and that is the $2 billion for health care to the provinces, which have been delayed for some time. Now that these are finally reaching the provinces, they are very happy.
Section 36.2 of the Canadian Constitution commits this Parliament and the Government of Canada to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonable comparative levels of public services at reasonable comparative levels of taxation.
The current structure of the equalization program does not fulfil the constitutional commitment. Premiers and provincial finance ministers have called on the federal government over the past number of years to strengthen this program to ensure it adequately fulfills the commitment. Provinces have asked the federal government to move from the current five province standard to a ten province standard to ensure the program comprehensively includes all revenue sources, particularly user fees and to remove the ceiling.
To date, the only thing that the federal government has done is to remove the ceiling, but provinces have seen no financial benefit. Presently provinces are in discussion with the federal Department of Finance regarding the renewal of the equalization program for a five year period commencing April 1.
While the province of Newfoundland and Labrador has had high expectations regarding the outcome of the renewed discussions, it appears now that the renewal will not result in strengthening the program, and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador firmly believes that we could have a process that would weaken the program. We, as the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, cannot have that, and I know many others provinces in the Confederation of Canada have this concern.
Equalization payments comprise a very significant portion of the revenue for Newfoundland and Labrador. We rely on this funding so we can provide such services as health care, education and infrastructure such as roads and highways. Erosions of revenue because of arbitrary federal decisions put my province at a disadvantage compared to other provinces. Not only is it unable to provide comparable service, there can be absolutely no doubt that it does not have comparable taxes, particularly in the most visible and important tax, personal income tax.
The federal decision to maintain the inadequate five province standard results in $132 million less revenue for my province of Newfoundland and Labrador for the year 2003-04 than if a ten province standard was adopted. The province of Newfoundland and Labrador will endure a shortfall every year as a result of this decision. We need to have the 10 province standard adopted by this government.
The federal decision to exclude 50% of the user fees from the equalization formula costs my province of Newfoundland and Labrador approximately $45 million annually. The small province of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is struggling beyond its means, cannot afford to have this revenue taken from it. The federal government will have to do something for our province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the others provinces within Confederation which have the same problems.
In total, the negative impact on Newfoundland and Labrador of federal decisions which limit the payout under the constitutionally enshrined equalization program could be in excess of $200 million annually. There are concerns that the federal government decision related to the 2004 renewal will further erode the program. This will have a significant impact on our ability to fund programs and offer residents of my province a fair and competitive tax regime.
We all hope that when the federal government sits down and negotiates with the provinces, it will keep in mind the concerns that Newfoundland and Labrador have so we can make the program stronger, not weaker. The $2 billion in health care is a great start, but we have a long distance to go, and I hope the finance minister and health minister are listening to the concerns of all provinces.
The Canada health and social transfer is the federal transfer program which is intended by the Government of Canada to contribute to health, post-secondary education and social services. The province of Newfoundland and Labrador has seen its share of funding under this program substantially reduced over the past number of years, primarily because of the federal government's restraints imposed on the program starting in 1996-97 and because of the province's declining population.
Due to this pressure, the federal government has recently started to put more money back into this program. However this has not been sufficient to offset the rising costs of programs it was intended to support, particularly health care.
Every time we turn on the news we hear the premiers saying that they do not have enough money for health care or for education and not enough money overall to do the required infrastructure. I hope the government will listen to the concerns of the provinces.
In 1994-95, Newfoundland and Labrador received $425 million from the Canada health and social transfer. In 2003-04, the province's cash entitlement is expected to be $367 million. Over the same period, the province's spending on health, education and social services has increased from about $2 billion in 1994-95 to almost $2.7 in 2003-04.
What people have to realize is that our population is getting older and more services are needed. The provinces have to deliver those services. We need the federal government to be more open with its books to ensure that the provinces get the money they require to provide services for the citizens they represent.
It is clear that the federal contribution has not kept pace with provincial spending requirements. It is imperative that the overall level of federal funding for social programs be increased from the current levels. Provinces have called on the federal government to increase the level of funding over time until the share of federal funding is 25% of provincial-territorial health and social expenditures.
I congratulate all the premiers who attended the 2003 first minister's health accord. It was good that they decided to come out united because it opened the doors to co-operation. They can now sit down and talk about the problems and, as a good start, they will receive $2 billion.
However if all the federal government is going to do is sit down and talk and not give the provinces what they rightly deserve, then we will have confrontation. I think we get more by sitting down and talking rather than having confrontations. It is important that the premiers are starting in the right direction. It is now time for the Prime Minister to make sure that he delivers to the provinces what they are rightly due under our Constitution.
Newfoundland and Labrador's share of the $2 billion for health care this year is estimated to be approximately $33 million. That sounds like a lot of money but when we look at the big picture of trying to provide services, it is not very much. We need more and I hope the federal government is listening.
The 2001 census: the population is a big determinant of equalization and CHST. In 2003, revised population data was released which reflected the 2001 census. Those results indicated that previous federal estimates of provincial population had been overstated for the years 2001-02 and 2003-04. This revised population data has resulted in an overpayment to provinces over that period of about $700 million. The impact for Newfoundland and Labrador of this overpayment was approximately $168 million. We need that money. We cannot afford to have the federal government take it back.
The federal government has indicated that it intends to recover this overpayment from provinces. The amount related to 2003-04, $52 million for Newfoundland and Labrador, will be recovered this fiscal year, while amounts related to the previous years, $116 million for Newfoundland and Labrador, will be recovered over the next five years.
It is very important that the federal government listen. It should forgive the money for the provinces because they need it. It is important that they ask where the money is being spent. I think the provinces will return and tell the federal government that the money was spent in the right direction.
Previous administrations over the years in Newfoundland and Labrador have not spent the money properly and as a result the hon. premier, Danny Williams, is in a difficult situation. We need the federal government to come on board, to assist Newfoundland and Labrador, like it has never assisted it before, not for political reasons but to do the right thing.