Debates of Jan. 31st, 2005

Finance

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask for questions and comments.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness asking for a limited time of perhaps 10 minutes for questions and comments?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am asking for a 10 minute question and comment period with respect to this particular speech and then we could go back to the normal cycle. The member has raised some important questions that I feel many members would like to comment on.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Is there agreement to allow questions and comments for 10 minutes?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank you and the members of the House for this opportunity.

I listened intently to the speech of the member for Medicine Hat. There were some parts of it that I would agree with, but I think it would be useful to clarify some points he made.

I do not know how representative his sample was when he wandered around Medicine Hat and surrounding areas. I know that there have been some serious issues with respect to the cattle industry in that area, but if we look at it overall, the economy of Alberta in particular has been doing enormously well and in fact the economy of Canada has been doing enormously well. But we certainly can do better and that is what our government has committed to.

I think it is unfortunate that the member would misquote Don Drummond from TD Canada Trust. He knows Don Drummond and I know Don Drummond and I know that Don Drummond knows the difference between a tax and an investment.

Perhaps where the member gets confused is that there is an issue around take-home pay. I think we still have some work to do in terms of the disposable income of Canadians. I think we also have some work to do with respect to the productivity gap. I do not think there is any confusion around that on this side of the House.

The member talked about tax cuts and about Don Drummond mentioning the CPP going up. Of course the CPP affects one's take-home pay, but the CPP is an investment in one's retirement future. It is not a tax. It is not akin to a tax. It never was a tax. Don Drummond knows that. If the member for Medicine Hat were candid with this House he would recognize that as well.

The other point I would like to bring up is the $100 billion tax cut. As the member pointed out, I had the great opportunity and honour to work with the then minister of finance on the $100 billion tax cut, which actually was a $100 billion tax cut. The problem is that members of the Conservative Party were so astounded that the government would move so aggressively on tax cuts that they have tried for years and months since then to argue that it was not a tax cut.

Let me clarify two very important points. The first is the Canada child tax credit. The members of that party over there, the Conservative Party--I cannot remember if it was the Reform Party at the time or the Alliance--do not see the Canada child benefit as a tax cut. It is true that it is not going to big business and it is not going to high income Canadians, but it is true that it is reducing the taxes that otherwise would be payable by low income Canadians with families, and in a big way nowadays, even bigger now than back in budget 2000.

[An hon. member]

Ten billion dollars a year.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

If that does not qualify as a tax cut, I do not know what does.

The second point has to do with indexation. That party on the other side of the House argued for years and years that we should re-index the exemptions and the whole Income Tax Act. Let us guess what happened. We did that. We re-indexed the income tax system to the cost of inflation. Then those members said, “That's fine, but that's not a tax cut”.

Let me say this. What if we were going to be paying x plus 10% on our tax bill and the government were to say, “By the way, it is not going to be x plus 10% because we are going to reintroduce indexation.” What would we say? If that is not a tax cut, I do not know what is.

Let me say to the group on the other side that we have said we have not finished the government's business with respect to cutting taxes. I think the member raised a couple of important points in terms of disposable income and in terms of productivity, but to stand on that side of the House and say what they have been saying for years means that they have not come to grips with the fact that it was the largest tax cut in Canadian history.

I am wondering if the member would reconsider and recognize that it was the largest tax cut in Canadian history. There is more to be done, but as for saying that the Canada child tax benefit was not a tax cut or that reintroducing indexation was not a tax cut, I wonder if he recognizes the folly of his arguments.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have to say that the argument I have just heard from the member across the way is a completely ridiculous one.

The fact is that Don Drummond, in this report that I hold in my hand, criticized the government for the fact that it has not allowed Canadians to keep more of what they earn. He points out a 3.6% rise in incomes in 15 years. On the last page of his report, he states:

The tax burden on individuals must also be reduced. The top marginal federal-provincial personal income tax rates is over 45 per cent, which is nearly equivalent to sending half of a worker's earned income to the government, not to mention that it kicks in at relatively modest income levels.

He goes on to state:

And, more modest income levels get hit with the combination of taxes and claw backs in benefit payments that can raise the effective marginal tax rate to 80 per cent.

If this is that member's idea of a tax cut, I am afraid he has a lot to learn.

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

Madam Speaker, I would have a question for my learned colleague from the Conservative Party and member for Medicine Hat, with whom I always enjoy working.

This morning's La Presse had a piece by Joël-Denis Bellavance in which the leader of his party was reported as stating that the Conservatives would vote against the government without defeating the government. Could he tell me what that means? I hope it does not mean that the Conservatives are prepared to act contrary to their own convictions and that, to prevent an election or out of fear of an election being called, they figured that some of them might not show up to vote on the budget.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will not speak for my leader, but as I said during my speech, I am quite prepared to support the government if it takes the suggestions we have made in the letter we have sent to the finance minister and actually embraces them and implements them. If it does not, then we will fulfill the traditional role of the official opposition, which is to oppose the government's budget initiative.

I can tell members that I think the situation is much more fluid and much more dynamic than might have been suggested by the member's question. I would argue that we will know when we see the budget exactly how the official opposition will react. I certainly am quite prepared to suggest that we support the government if it has initiatives in the budget that are the kinds of initiatives we can support, but if not, we will vote in very large numbers against that budget.

[Gary Carr, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Madam Speaker, would the member like to comment on a couple of jurisdictions that cut taxes and ended up with huge deficits? One is the United States, where George Bush has a $450 billion deficit because he cut taxes too much. As well, the member will know that I was a provincial member in Ontario when the government cut taxes. Ontario ended up with a $5.6 billion deficit as a result.

We need to be very careful when we are cutting taxes at a time when we are investing in health care and child care and also in cities. My friend, who was president of the Conservative Party at that time, will know that the legacy of that government is a $5.6 billion debt that was left to Ontario. I will say on putting money into health care that we could probably do it if we were not investing $41 billion over 10 years.

I would like to ask the member about this, in all honesty and not to be sarcastic. The couple of jurisdictions that have tried this have ended up with deficits, so we need to be very careful, and I would ask the member to please comment on that.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think that is a fair question, but our plan is simply and first of all to cut taxes within the fiscal framework that the government itself has acknowledged we have over the next six years: $61 billion. It is $73 billion if we include reallocation. Within that envelope, we would be proposing to do exactly the same as the government as doing, except that the government would use it mostly for spending and we would use it substantially for reducing taxes.

But I would also point out that there are many examples of governments reducing taxes only to see revenues go up, including, frankly, this government. Although in the speech I just gave I have lamented that the government did not cut taxes deeply enough, I also would point out that the government members were shocked when revenues actually went up, which is exactly what I would have predicted would happen. Because of course tax cuts mean that more money is left in the hands of the people who can do productive things with it, like business people who turn around and reinvest those moneys. The government then enjoys the revenues that come from more people working, from expansion. The government enjoys more revenues coming in as a result of businesses expanding. The result when the government cut taxes was that revenues actually went up.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the government for the opportunity it has given us to discuss our expectations for the next budget, especially since it is a minority government budget. It is more important than ever for the government to pay close attention to what the public wants to see in this budget.

I need not remind this House that during the last election, 72% of the members elected in Quebec were from the Bloc Québécois. That said, what we will present as our eight priorities—which were renewed last fall during a prebudget consultation in Quebec—are priorities Quebeckers believe in.

If there is one thing Quebeckers and Canadians agree on, it is the issue of fiscal imbalance. The National Assembly, the people of Quebec and the premiers of all the Canadian provinces all feel that the fiscal imbalance issue needs to be resolved and that tax fields need to be shared better between the federal and provincial governments in order to allow the provinces to fulfill their basic mandate as effectively as possible.

Ontario is running a deficit. Quebec is having financial difficulties. There is not enough funding for basic needs such as health, education and social assistance. Many of Canada's provinces are in a precarious situation and cannot offer their citizens as many front-line services as they should. If tax fields were shared better, the provinces would be better able to accomplish their mandates

I just came from a meeting with the Minister of Finance—at his invitation—and he asked me what my party expected from this budget. I was quite clear. As far as the fiscal imbalance is concerned, there needs to be a sense of political will on his part to ensure transfers of tax fields in the medium term. For now, the federal government absolutely must take concrete action in its next budget. In terms of actually doing something about the fiscal imbalance, it has to increase transfers for education and social assistance.

We know, under the health accord signed last September, that, in four years, the federal government's contribution will be approximately 25% of the cost of health care. When we look at education and income support for the most vulnerable members of our society, we realize that the federal government's contribution in these areas is still between 12% and 13%.

On behalf of my party, the Bloc Québécois, I was clear and I asked the Minister of Finance to include, in his next budget, an increase in transfer payments for education and social assistance. The same goes for equalization. Before the Liberal Party first came to power in 1993, equalization represented over $10 billion per year. However, this year, it is $9.6 billion. Even with increases, we are at $9.6 billion in transfer payments under the equalization program. If we had kept the same structure since 1994 and indexed the equalization payments in effect at that time, this amount would be approximately $16 billion. However, the government slashed it and ignored the fact that the equalization formula, among others, needed to be improved, namely, by using the ten-province standard and correct property tax data.

I stated numerous times that, in the next budget, the Minister of Finance must consider this demand, which has the unanimous support of those provinces receiving equalization payments.

As for employment insurance, all my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois from every region in Québec have been fighting for years to get the government to reinstate better provisions and overhaul the employment insurance system that it destroyed a few years ago by imposing eligibility conditions so restrictive that currently, barely 40% of all workers are able to from the employment insurance system, even if 100% of them are paying premiums.

Women are the main victims of the system. Only 33% of them can qualify for EI benefits, and only 20% of young workers. Young people, women and men all pay into EI, but cannot collect.

For the past seven years, the government has been helping itself to the $45 billion in the employment insurance coffers at the expense of the unemployed. Entire regions where most of the work is seasonal are affected by unemployment, yet workers there are being deprived of money they are entitled to, which has been contributed by employers and employees.

I have made it clear to the Minister of Finance that the employment insurance program needs to be reformed to broaden coverage. For one thing, the number of hours required for eligibility needs to be lowered to 360. There also needs to be a program for workers aged 55 and over who have been the victims of mass layoffs. Some workers have been hit by the abolition of tariff quotas on textiles and clothing, which has allowed products from developing countries to be brought in, and a number of those were age 55 or over. They need to be helped. EI coverage and accessibility need to be expanded.

The commission also needs to be made independent, because the government has acted irresponsibly as far as the EI fund is concerned. It needs to be administered by the employers and employees who contribute to that fund. I also raised that point with the Minister of Finance, and made it clear to him that, if these two points were not included in the budget, we would take appropriate action. These are most definitely fundamental components of the next budget.

As far as the environment is concerned, we are facing the same problem. This is the view of the population we represent. A large majority of Quebeckers, 72%, are concerned about application of the Kyoto protocol, and this is the case in the rest of Canada as well. We want to see it applied fairly, based on the polluter-pay principle, rather than the polluter-gets-paid principle the government has gotten us used to.

In the past 25 or 30 years, the federal government has invested over $60 billion in the oil and gas sector. The first thing we want it to do is to put an end to the variety of deductions and programs designed to encourage the use of these non-renewable and polluting resources.

Second, we are asking it to make massive investments in the energies of the future, such as wind energy, by increasing the amounts budgeted. Also, the government must keep an open mind when presented with proposals, such as we have made over the years, intended to create tax deductions for users of public transit. This is very beneficial for environmental protection.

In the next budget the government must return to two fundamental principles in enforcing environmental policies like the Kyoto protocol: fairness and polluter-pay.

Fourth, I want to repeat publicly here what I said behind closed doors with the Minister of Finance. The agricultural sector, particularly in Quebec, is living thorough the worst crisis in its history because of the mad cow issue. Since the dairy herds and dairy farmers are located primarily in Quebec, we are suffering more from the mad cow crisis than other areas, especially with respect to cull cattle. So far the federal government has not contributed significantly to solving this crisis. We ask it to do its part, and to do it now.

It is not normal that out of the federal government's agricultural spending of $6 billion last year, only 9% was allocated to Quebec producers. Now, Quebec's farmers are struggling through the worst crisis. The federal government says it has done enough. It is not the agricultural producers of Quebec who are putting a strain on the federal agriculture budget. In times of crisis the federal government should increase its contribution substantially. We are not asking for a great deal, just for a payment that would help to compensate for the losses incurred in the past two years because of the mad cow crisis. Future losses should also be compensated, since the U.S. border is not going to be 100% open to beef and cull from Quebec and from Canada.

The federal government also has to honour the commitment it has made to increase milk prices to a level that will allow milk producers to cover their production costs. This is a promise that the current finance minister made a few years ago, when he was responsible for agriculture.

The agricultural sector absolutely has to be taken into consideration. Funding also has to be made available to assist young farmers discouraged by the current situation; agriculture had not been hit by such a major crisis in over 25 years.

Assistance must also be provided to the cooperatives which have requested special tax treatment, which would not cost the federal government much but could help the cooperative sector self-finance in the future as well as to compete, with competition coming from all sides.

With respect to the faculty of veterinary medicine in Saint-Hyacinthe, the only French-speaking veterinary medicine faculty in the Americas, what the federal government has started needs to be seen through. Two years ago, $35 million was provided. Another $24 million is required to complete the upgrading of the faculty's equipment and buildings; otherwise, it will not be able to maintain its accreditation with the American Association of Veterinary Medicine, which is already only a partial accreditation, while the other three veterinary schools in Canada all have a full accreditation. Losing this accreditation would affect the value of diplomas as well as the quality of research in Saint-Hyacinthe. This could have an impact on the agricultural sector as a whole.

I also raised with the Minister of Finance how important it is that the Canadian government meet the international aid target of 0.7% of GDP by 2015. We have been talking about this for a long time, and Canada is one of the most ungenerous countries in the world, one which spends the least on international aid. So, the target of 0.7% of GDP was established many years ago by the United Nations and ought to be met as soon as possible. The finance minister's awareness of this issue was also raised by the Bloc Québécois this morning, during our meeting.

I reiterated to the Minister of Finance that with respect to child care, it is important for Quebec's jurisdictions to be respected and for Quebec to be able to opt out of the federal program with full compensation. We already have a program that works, that the other Canadian provinces want to have and that the federal government is using as a model. The government has to go even further. It has to respect Quebec's program and allow Quebec to opt out of the federal program with full compensation.

The federal government also has to keep the promises it made during the last election and provide the necessary funding to allow the Government of Quebec to implement its parental leave program as quickly as possible. In the meantime, an entire generation is suffering.

The leader of the Bloc Québécois reiterated last week that the federal government needs to help the municipalities through infrastructure programs and other federal transfers. However, the Bloc Québécois strongly opposes the idea of funds being transferred directly from the federal government to the municipalities. The municipalities come under provincial jurisdiction. What we want—and we advise the government to respect this—is for funds to be transferred through the Government of Quebec and for arrangements to be made between it and the municipalities to help them, especially when it comes to gasoline tax transfers.

Social housing is very important to us. We have been talking about this for a long time, debates have been held on the matter and promises from the other side of the House have been broken. The federal government absolutely must invest 1% of its entire program spending on building social or community housing.

Since 1992, the federal government has not put one penny into social housing. It is only maintaining existing social housing units, nothing more. Investments must be made, because too many households are paying over 50% of their income on rent. When families pay more than 30% on rent, the situation becomes precarious.

Finally, as the leader of the Bloc Québécois mentioned during his meeting with the francophone and Acadian associations in Canada, it is absolutely essential—and we are committed to this—that the federal government double allocations to francophone and Acadian associations in Canada. It is a question of survival and assistance for the francophones and Acadians we have supported since we were first elected in 1993, even if we do not directly represent them in the House of Commons.

In closing, I want to send the government a clear message with regard to the coming budget. The Bloc Québécois was clear and, once again last week, its leader was too. The government must take action with regard to these priorities, as well as a number of others mentioned in our minority report included in the work on pre-budgetary consultations by the Standing Committee on Finance. There are eight sectors. The government's response to our demands must be substantial. If it does not respond to the very specific concerns of the public, which were tested again in the fall during a pre-budget consultation across Quebec as well as by the Standing Committee on Finance across Canada, we will not hesitate to vote against this budget and overturn the government if we have the power to do so and if we are also convinced that the government is not meeting our expectations. We will not hesitate to do so if the government goes against the interests of Quebec and even Canada and if it does not meet the expectations of the people and, specifically, the most vulnerable people in Quebec and Canada.

The responsibility lies with the Prime Minister. So, we hope that the Prime Minister will be as responsible as the Bloc Québécois in presenting his budget, which we will also analyze.

We are honourable people. We do what we say we will do and that is why we are making this commitment, unlike some people in this House and outside it. Our beliefs cannot be bought any more than those of Quebeckers can be. If we find that this budget has little substance in relation to the priorities we identified, I will not hesitate to recommend that my party vote against it.

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

Madam Speaker, as I did in the earlier debate, I wish my colleagues a happy new year, yourself included.

We are at the start of a very interesting time in the life of the Parliament of Canada. I know I speak for colleagues at this end of the House when I say that we come back to this place after a time to reflect and re-energize ourselves to do the work that Canadians expect us to do in this Parliament. Canadians expect us to work on their behalf to ensure that they are not taken for granted and that their concerns are not denied the kind of attention that they require.

I start off this debate on the pre-budget consultation process with a note about the significance of this moment in the life of our Parliament. We are at a time when many of the stars are lining up that point us in one direction, to act on behalf of Canadians, to once and for all address the priorities of Canadians and to stop denying them the programs and services they need to be productive members of our Canadian society and thereby help to grow our economy.

We have heard many conflicting visions in the debate today. The job of Parliament is to sort out the appropriate path for Canadians, to balance the competing demands and to ensure we have the recipe for redressing wrongs and for putting Canada back on a solid footing.

Based on some of the speeches to date, one would think that everything is great, our economy is growing, the situation is rosy, the government is on the right track and all we have to do in this Parliament is figure out how we can stay on that path.

I appreciated the presentation by the chair of the finance committee who outlined a document that was the end product of a considerable amount of time and effort on the part of the finance committee. I think all members on the finance committee want to congratulate the Canadians who took the time to come forward, and to thank all those organizations that ensured we heard their views on the budget situation in Canada. There were some 200 individuals and organizations that made an effort to come forward and speak their mind and give us advice.

The question today concerns whether that advice is reflected in the committee report. Will this advice, once and for all, be taken seriously by the government of the day and not be ignored, as has been the case over the past decade of Liberal budgets?

With all due respect to the chair of the finance committee, it is obvious that the report does not reflect the sum total of presentations before our committee, nor does it reflect the majority of views on that committee.

It is very interesting that we have attached to this report, not three dissenting opinions but four; a Liberal dissenting opinion included. This is almost unheard of. It is very seldom that Liberal members or members on the government side feel that they have to issue a minority report because they do not agree with the overall conclusions of the committee's process.

I think that says more about the lack of unity on the part of Liberal members than anything else. It also says that the committee reflected more of the Conservative agenda than it did the will of Canadians. The Liberals on the committee were clearly reacting in their minority report to an overemphasis on tax cuts and on competitive economic circumstance, vis-à-vis the United States, and on levelling the playing field without due regard for the needs and concerns of ordinary working Canadians.

Therefore by no means can we take for certain that the report tabled by the chair of the finance committee reflects the views of Canadians, which is precisely why the New Democratic Party chose to issue a dissenting opinion. We chose to reflect what we see as the dire and pressing concerns of Canadians from one end of the country to the other.

We start by taking umbrage with statements as enunciated in the report suggesting that all is fine with the Canadian economy; that the Canadian economy is strong and growing; that businesses are striving but in need of greater concessions on the part of the government; that the debt to GDP ratio as set out by the Liberal government of 25% in less than 10 years is appropriate; that we accept without debate a $3 billion contingency fund and another $1 billion prudence fund despite all the furor around the government's inaccurate budget forecasting resulting in billions of surplus dollars that were not forecasted and end up automatically going against the debt without any consideration for the priorities of Canadians and the will of Parliament.

We come before the House today to try to paint the picture of Canadians as we see them and as we hear on a day to day basis about their particular concerns and issues. Life is not all rosy in this country. We may be a wealthy nation and our economy today may be on stable footing but not all Canadians are benefiting from this supposed healthy economy.

Surely one measures a healthy economy by the way we treat and help all citizens of this land without regard for region, sex or race. Surely the measure of any government budget is how it responds to the most vulnerable in our society, not by ignoring the reality of so many Canadians who struggle on a day to day basis, who have job insecurity, who may not be able to provide for their families as they would like and who subsist on a regular basis without the means to ensure good quality of family and community living. Surely it is our job as parliamentarians to reflect that reality and to then prescribe actions and recommendations to address those concerns and significant problems.

As I said at the outset, we have a golden opportunity in Parliament. We are in a situation where the government has finally publicly acknowledged a significant surplus, contrary to the last 10 years where there was an attempt to low ball the surplus and therefore not put it before Canadians and ensure that we addressed their priority concerns.

For once the government has stood up and acknowledged it had a problem, and has announced an $8 billion surplus for this year. We hear now that it is also a low estimate of the actual surplus. We are no doubt looking at something more in the neighbourhood of $10 billion, $11 billion or $12 billion. We have a huge surplus that gives us an opportunity to address the priorities of Canadians in an open and transparent way.

We also have a minority Parliament which gives us the opportunity to create a minority budget. I do not need to remind the House how frustrated we are in the House with Liberal majority budgets but one might have a sense of what Canadians feel about Liberal majority budgets, Canadians who are fed up, frustrated and angry about Liberal broken promises; Canadians who are fed up, frustrated and angry about a continued fetish and focus with artificial debt reduction targets and tax breaks for the corporate sector and wealthy in this country without due regard for the struggle that many Canadians face on a day to day basis.

We have a chance in this Parliament to create a budget that is in line with the needs of Canadians. We expect that a Liberal minority budget will be different from a Liberal majority budget. We expect a significant shift away from that absolute preoccupation with debt reduction and artificial targets without due regard for the human deficit that is being created by that kind of preoccupation. We have absolute views that there must be a shift away from a tax reduction agenda that benefits the wealthy and corporate interests in our society.

We want to see a budget that starts to close tax loopholes for the wealthy and for the corporate sector. We want to see an end to tax havens. We want to see the government crack down on the freebies and the giveaways to the corporate sector and ensure that the investment is channelled back into this country to create jobs and opportunities for Canadians.

We expect and will use every bit of power we have in this minority Parliament to help shape a budget that is in line with the interest of Canadians.

We will be standing from this day forward, until the moment the budget is introduced before Parliament and to all Canadians expected later this month, with one message: We will not let Liberals take Canadians for granted. We expect different. We will get better.

It was interesting listening to my counterpart in the Conservative Party earlier focusing again on tax cuts and on the suggestion that if we gave a little bit more money to families in Canada today they would have the disposable income to accomplish all their goals and objectives and ensure quality of life.

I am here to say that we have been there, done that, tried it and it is not working. It is not working because we have not ensured that tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy lead to investments here in this country. It has not produced an increase in productivity and therefore an increase in opportunities for Canadians. We know there is something wrong with corporate giveaways, handouts and tax breaks. We know the vast majority of Canadians realize that the little bit of money they will get through a tax break, as has happened in the past, will not buy a health care centre, nor will it create a space that is affordable for their children at university or build a day care. They know that investing in those areas will help them to create the opportunities whereby they and their children can contribute to the economy so that we can grow a great future for Canada.

Contrary to what the Conservatives have suggested to the House, Canadians believe that the government should be investing in programs, services and social policies that help ensure everyone in this country starts on a level playing field and finds the wherewithal to contribute according to their talents and abilities.

Canadians want the government to finally take action after years of neglect and the destruction and damage to the infrastructure of this country in terms of the health programs and the universality of those programs, the state of our universities and other post-secondary education, the level of damage and disrepair in our cities and municipalities across this country, keeping in mind, as members know, we are looking at about a $60 billion infrastructure deficit today as we speak.

Nowhere are the inappropriate allocation of resources and misguided set of priorities more apparent than in the newspaper on the weekend. We read that our own Pension Investment Board feels that it has to invest billions in infrastructure projects in Europe in order to get a good rate of return to ensure the security of our pensions, and that it cannot do the same in Canada because our markets, our system, our structure are not conducive to investing in this country.

Does that not say it all about what is wrong with the path we are on? Does that not point to a solution for the future? Does that not give us a recipe for how we could actually build this country? Those pension moneys belong to Canadians who have worked all their lives to ensure that they will have security in their old age. Surely if we cannot invest that money in projects that build the economy, that strengthen communities, that eradicate poverty, that create jobs, then there is something wrong. That is why this budget is so important. It is about changing priorities and starting to invest in Canada.

It is not, as my Conservative colleagues like to suggest in terms of the New Democrats' position, about willy-nilly spending, about more money for government so we can have more money for the sake of having more money and more programs for the sake of having more programs, heck no. It is about investing money in strategic areas so that we are able to grow as a country and to build a future for our young people.

How is it possible that we could ignore something as fundamental as inaccessible education in this document? It is referenced briefly. There is another set of recommendations for band-aids to put over the problem, but there is no comprehensive strategy to deal with a fundamental serious flaw in our society today, which is that many families, and they are growing every day, cannot afford to send their children to college or university because tuition is too high and student debt is too overwhelming.

If we cannot ensure equitable access to post-secondary education, what does that say about who we are as a country? What does that say about civil society? Are we not supposed to be about ensuring some level of common access, some equality of condition, some floor through which no Canadians will fall because they do not have access to great wealth and do not have inheritances, who struggle on a day to day basis to eke out an existence? Surely the role of government and the purpose of a budget is to give a road map and create a vision to get us in that direction.

It is the same with respect to the environment. How could we in the year 2005 be so behind our commitments with respect to Kyoto? How could we be a society where we have wealth, ingenuity and great innovative solutions, and we have not been able to move our economy away from its dependence on fossil fuels and toward alternative energy programs that actually would lead to jobs, to a better quality of life, and to the sustainability of our planet?

How is it that with the latest reports in terms of progress on the environmental sustainability index Canada is now somewhere near the bottom, at 144 out of 146 countries? How is it that a country as wealthy as Canada cannot make progress on things as basic as clean air, clean water, a sustainable environment and the future for our planet?

Our job today is to make this minority Parliament work for Canadians. This means investing in those areas that will not only ensure quality of life and help rid our society of inherent inequalities, but also will actually create jobs and grow the economy and help bring down our debt.

I want to reiterate that we could achieve a 25% debt to GDP reduction if we simply invested strategically now and helped Canadians to help themselves. We could accomplish what every Canadian wants which is a future for themselves and their children.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I would like to wish a happy new year to everyone in the House today.

Unfortunately the tsunami tragedy started off the new year in a shocking way for all of us. It reminded all of us here and Canadians across the country in a cogent way that there are people who are in far more need than any of us. There are people in need around the world, not just in the areas affected by the tsunami but also in Africa.

I am going to call my speech today the economy of hope. I am going to explain how our budget will deal with people in need around the world and in Canada.

I want to set the background of the tremendous accomplishments made by our Prime Minister and the government during its first year. I do not think any member of the opposition or any member of the media has encountered a Prime Minister who has achieved so much in such a short period of time. I am going to outline some of those areas and how they will help the big agenda items of our nation and the world.

The government started out by dealing with the biggest problem in the nation identified by Canadians, health care. That historic deal followed another historic deal made by our government. Some $41.3 billion has been set aside for 10 years for health care. How many times in history has a prime minister in the first year in office been able to deal with the biggest problem brought forward by Canadians? On top of the regular deal there were additions for people in the north and for aboriginal people because of their special health care needs.

The second historic agreement related to equalization. A whole new structure was set up with $33 billion, and increases will start in 2006. If anything defines the nature of this country it is equalization, where provinces that are having a hard time are supported by wealthier provinces. It is the backbone of our nation.

In the Prime Minister's first year in office, equalization was renewed, extended and increased. The wealthier provinces will help to take care of other provinces in their times of need. To emphasize that point, a couple of days ago a new deal was finalized concerning the special requirements of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.

The health care and equalization deals are huge and historic. Part of the reason these deals could be made was the openness to understand the differences between provinces across Canada. Provinces are not always treated the same if they have special needs. That is the whole philosophy behind equalization. The provinces and territories came into Confederation with different deals. They are not identical. Canadians are open enough to understand that fact. A great strength in our federation is that different areas with different situations can come together in this great country of Canada.

The background includes the election platform of the Prime Minister and the government. Some five or six great initiatives were included in that platform. These were fundamental initiatives to deal with the needs of our nation. All of the promises that were made in the platform have been kept. They were translated from the election platform into the throne speech.

The first area is the historic demand by Canadians for a national child care and early childhood development program. Over the last few years we have been putting millions of dollars into that area. This was an even more comprehensive deal. I congratulate the federal minister and provincial ministers who came to an agreement on the basic philosophies of that program. They will meet shortly to finish the deal. When they finish that deal, Canada will be putting $5 billion toward that area.

In an economy of hope another group to help is the group of seniors. What people in society could be more needy and have less control over their destiny than senior citizens? The platform included the increase in the old age income supplement for low income seniors and the return of the new horizons program, which was very popular for seniors' activities.

In the environmental area, greenhouse gases were mentioned in a previous speech. There were requests from the Bloc for an increase in wind energy. As everyone knows, our platform is quadrupling the wind energy capacity in Canada with a huge investment. That is not the only energy initiative. There are all sorts of other ones related to ethanol as well as other renewable energies such as solar energy and atomic energy. We are investing in different areas to decrease greenhouse gases.

Canadians have always been very proud of their place in the world especially with respect to peacekeeping, defence and humanitarian aid. They will be proud that we are contributing 5,000 more troops and 3,000 more reserves to continue that role to help people in other parts of the world, as we have in a number of situations which I will mention later.

Another massive initiative in the platform and in the throne speech was the new deal for cities, some of which was acted on right away. The platform was to manage all the areas of challenge at the federal government level and around the world and then to add the interaction with another order of government, to tell the municipal and community level of government that the federal government would help out there too. Another remarkable achievement is that finances were managed in such a way that we could interact with a level of government with which we have not normally interacted.

Since 1994 we have put $12 billion toward infrastructure in communities across Canada. Since then roads, bridges and water systems have been built. It has helped create jobs across the country and has helped improve the quality of life in our communities. In the new deal there was $7 billion provided almost immediately from GST rebates. The communities in my area were absolutely delighted with this extra money with which they could build the basic infrastructure for their citizens.

There was the rural infrastructure program to help the rural parts of Canada over 10 years. We have accelerated that down to five years. There will be twice as much expenditure per year. The final negotiations are going on now related to the gas tax.

These are tremendous investments and new initiatives in the first year in office of a new Prime Minister.

The new deal for cities is more than just that. The new deal as we see it evolve will lead to an entire new relationship of how we envision the communities, from the very small to the very large, will fit into the type of vision that we see for Canada and how the Government of Canada can help achieve that vision.

As I said earlier, there is the strengthening of Canada's place in the world. In his first year in office, the Prime Minister has made a great mark around the world in a number of unprecedented initiatives.

One of my proudest moments over Christmas was at a rotary club meeting when a club member stood, as I think happened in rotaries across the country, and commended the Government of Canada, the finance minister and the Minister of International Cooperation for the $42 million that was put toward polio, saving a campaign that was having a great deal of difficulty this year, the United Nations campaign in Africa. There is also the creation of another historic initiative, the Canada Corps, to help Canadians spread the values of good governance and living by the rule of law around the world. There is the $20 million that we put toward helping the African union and people in Darfur.

Who in the world could be more in need of our economy of hope than those suffering tragedy and murder in Darfur? No Canadian approached me over the Christmas season to say that we should give this money back to Canadians, that we should not invest in Darfur or in people affected by the tsunami.

We put $100 million into AIDS drugs, and a $70 million increase in our AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria programs. At the same time we put peacekeepers or money in Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq and Africa. We have also signed a Canada-Mexico partnership. It is a huge agenda for the first year of a government.

On the world scene, we have made a change in how we help countries and peoples in trouble such as Darfur. It is almost unprecedented that a new Prime Minister would have such an effect on the world scene in his first year. He has the respect of the world to make such a change, starting with the whole concept of the responsibility to protect and spreading this especially around a group of G-20 nations that can help instill this new philosophy to help prevent situations like Rwanda and Darfur. The world sees a responsibility to protect these citizens. This is a remarkable achievement by our new Prime Minister.

It also includes helping Canada and Canadians fit into the new economy. We have the new learning bond for those in lower income families. This falls on the heels of the largest scholarship in Canadian history, the millennium fund. We also have an increase in ceilings on student loans.

Following on the $3.5 billion, the largest environmental program in history, we have added another $1 billion to the new environmental technologies from the sale of Petro-Canada. We have $100 million for the auto industry.

Another historic achievement in the first year was the Canada aboriginal peoples round table. There is a whole new era of cooperation and interaction with first nation peoples: a new adviser in the Prime Minister's Office; a new secretariat in the Privy Council Office; and now round tables in various areas identified in that original historic meeting. On top of that is the business of carrying on modernizing governance of first nations with the Tlicho and the Westbank land claims. Of course I encourage the government to ensure that over and above the new deals for land claims that we continue to ensure we fund the implementation sufficiently in ones that have already been signed, such as in my area.

Lawrence O'Brien

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, December 16, 2004, Labrador lost a devoted son. Lawrence O'Brien, our friend and colleague, passed away after a courageous six year battle with cancer.

First elected to the House of Commons in a byelection in March 1996, Lawrence went on to win three more elections. Lawrence was a true Labradorian, born in the small fishing village of L'Anse-au-Loup, on Labrador's south coast.

Lawrence O'Brien loved Labrador and was devoted to its progress and development. An editorial in The Telegram said it best, “What he valued, along with...his family, was Labrador, the Big Land at the centre of his soul”. Clearly, Labrador returned that love. Over 1,200 mourners filled the town's largest church, while another 500 watched a simulcast from Lawrence's own church.

I ask all members in the House to join me in extending our deepest sympathies to Lawrence's beloved wife Alice and their children Michael and Amanda.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Jeremy Harrison, Conservative, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is out of control, not where we might expect, but in Saskatchewan of all places.

Why the oceans department is in my province is a question I will leave for another day, but the fact is DFO is causing tremendous problems for rural municipalities, industry and provincial departments right across Saskatchewan.

Now we find out that DFO has new plans to make life miserable for the outfitting industry in northern Saskatchewan. The Liberals are demanding that even highly experienced guides earn their Captain's licence, available only in Vancouver or Halifax, before being able to pilot any small vessel. Not only that, the Liberals are demanding that northerners now must register their canoes with the government.

If Canadians thought the gun registry was a waste of money, hold on to their hats because here comes the Liberal canoe registry. It is time for the Liberals to come to their senses and stop the Saskatchewan DFO madness before any more jobs and money are lost.

Hon. Louis J. Robichaud

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, almost three weeks ago, New Brunswick and Canada bid farewell to the Hon. Louis J. Robichaud.

The people of New Brunswick were deeply moved by his passing. P'tit Louis, as he was affectionately called, represented the riding of Kent in the legislative assembly, and I have the honour of representing that region in this House. Louis Robichaud spent his life as a lawyer, premier and senator fighting for social and economic justice and very successfully too.

At his funeral, Robert Pichette spoke for all Canadians when he said that Louis Robichaud exemplified vision, passion and courage throughout his life. I could not agree more.

I know all members join me in expressing our deepest sympathies to his wife Jacqueline and to all the members of his wonderful family.

International Aid

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister was discovering the scope of the tsunami devastation for himself, the report “Investing in Development” was laying the blame for world poverty on the rich countries that have not achieved the promised objective of 0.7% of GDP.

Canada is one of those countries, and the present Prime Minister was mainly responsible for the drastic cuts to Canada's international aid when he was Minister of Finance.

Unlike a number of other countries, Canada is still a long way from that 0.7% target. So here we are with a Prime Minister who has been trying, since the tsunami, to show Canada's sense of responsibility for the affected populations, after constantly refusing to make any clear commitments to achieving the millennium objectives.

This being International Development Week, Canada should indicate its intention to respect its commitment to the millennium objectives and endorse Jacques Chirac's proposal to levy a tax on international financial transactions.

Tsunami Relief

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the aftermath of the tsunami, Canadians showed their true character and tremendous compassion in coming together and giving in a historic way.

I want to say that in the Durham region, the region which I am from, I had the honour, along with the members for Whitby—Ajax and Pickering—Scarborough East, to get together with members from across the community in a truly historic fundraising effort. I want to recognize all their work.

Over $200,000 was raised on the weekend. Over $700,000 was raised overall in just about a three week period. To the chairs, both Maurice Brenner and Bill McLean who are councillors and former colleagues, I congratulate them. I also want to recognize Tony Doyle who was instrumental with the Metroland paper, the Durham Tamil Association and the Pickering Islamic Centre.

As the spotlight turns away, as the media focus turns away from southeast Asia, it is imperative that we keep up the effort. I commend the government's move to give $160 million over the next five years and $425 million in total.

Hon. Lois Hole

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on January 6 the people of St. Albert, Albertans and indeed all Canadians lost a dear friend in the Hon. Lois Hole, the 15th Lieutenant-Governor of the province of Alberta.

Lois Hole represented the best of St. Albert to Alberta, Canada and to the world. Her legendary abilities to touch so many will be remembered with fondness, especially in her roles as a successful businesswoman, an accomplished author, a passionate advocate for libraries and literacy, and a dedicated supporter of the arts.

As we pay tribute to Lois Hole, we also welcome Norman Kwong to the office of Lieutenant-Governor. The “China Clipper” distinguished himself as the first Chinese Canadian to play in the Canadian Football League and had an outstanding football career. After his days in sport, he continued to set himself apart with a remarkable career in business and in the community.

He will be well suited to fill the role as Her Majesty the Queen's representative in Alberta.

Raymond Klibansky Prize

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Steven High, a history professor at Nipissing University in my riding, was recently awarded the Raymond Klibansky Prize. This award is presented annually by the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences.

Professor High's book Industrial Sunset: The Making of North America's Rust Belt, 1969 to 1984 was deemed to be the best English language book in the humanities. This is the third prize that High has won for his book. Industrial Sunset explores national differences and how workers, unions, communities respond to plant closings in the mid-western region of the United States and in southern Ontario. Professor High examines the social, economic and political issues surrounding de-industrialization and compares labour and community responses using several sources.

On behalf of the people of Nipissing and all hon. members I would like to congratulate Steven High on his recent accomplishment and wish him continued success.

Auschwitz

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the whole world commemorated the Shoah, one of the darkest episodes in the history of humankind. For the first time, at last, after 60 years, the UN held an extraordinary session to remind the world of the horror and barbarism that man is capable of, and what hatred and intolerance can lead to.

On January 27, 1945, the Red Army liberated the prisoners of the Auschwitz extermination camp, where the Nazis and their collaborators had implemented the “final solution” to what they referred to as the “Jewish Problem”.

Today, can we claim that the lessons of the past have been learned? Unfortunately, no. The world idly stood by during the massacres in Cambodia, the genocide in Rwanda and, today, in Darfur. Moreover, anti-Semitism is very much on the rise again worldwide.

Canada too should look in the mirror. At one time, under the government of Mackenzie King, it closed its doors to thousands of Jewish refugees seeking asylum here. This is a period of which Canada has no reason to be proud.

In light of these disturbing facts, there are two duties that should be fulfilled, namely to remember and to act.

The Holocaust

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to pay homage to the Holocaust survivors across Canada.

A week ago we marked the 60th anniversary of Auschwitz-Birkenau's liberation, where more than two million Jews perished.

Last week's commemoration at the UN was a historic first and Canada helped make it a reality. I would like to thank the Minister of Foreign Affairs for representing Canada at this important event.

I also want to highlight the Raoul Wallenberg Day, powerfully marked in Winnipeg on January 17. Named after a Swedish diplomat who rescued 100,000 Jews from extermination, it shows us the difference that a single person can make, even in a world gone mad.

If Auschwitz was a testament to the evils that mankind can conceive, Raoul Wallenberg's example is the selfless counterstroke to that hatred.

It is important that we follow in Wallenberg's footsteps and ensure that the words “Never Again” shape our present, not merely observe our past.