House of Commons Hansard #46 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was finance.

Topics

Question No. 59Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Beauce Québec

Liberal

Claude Drouin LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Rural Communities)

Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Privy Council office, as follows:

a) Solicited, received, recorded, assessed

The rationale for the Canada Millennium Partnership Program was articulated in the 1997 Speech from the Throne with the statement that the government would help to build partnerships to mark the new millennium.

The Millennium Bureau's communications strategy included a web site on which the application guide for the program was available, the 1-800 Inquiries Canada toll-free telephone line, mail-out pamphlets, television advertisements in partnership with stations such as the Weather Network and a toll-free number at the Millennium Bureau (1-888-774-9999). In addition, information was delivered to MPs' offices to help them promote the Program within their constituencies. The application guide and promotional pamphlet were widely disseminated. Applications were recceived by the Millennium Bureau by mail, fax, courier, or otherwise hand-delivered.

Once received, the applications for funding were:

i) received by the bureau's registry, stamped and put in a project file,

ii) the post office stamp was verified to determine if the application was sent within the time frame. If not, a “late arrival” letter was prepared. If faxed, the date faxed was also verified, for the same reason,

iii) the application was input to the bureau's project management database designed specifically for managing a contribution program,

iv) an acknowledgement letter was sent, and

v) a number was assigned to each file for tracking and management purposes.

All applications were assessed based on theme and dispersed among project officers. Initial assessments were against basic eligibility criteria and either rejected or subjected to further assessment. Advice would be sought, for local projects, from the local Member of Parliament, federal/provincial/territorial/municipal governments and community leaders.

Proposals could be rejected for several reasons see Part B. Proposals not rejected were forwarded ultimately to the program committee, bureau executive committee, then the minister. Projects could be rejected at any of these stages.

If the project was deemed eligible, a project officer would submit a completed recommendation form for further review. An assessment team would then review to ensure eligibility with due consideration of regional balance, official languages, and potential environmental impacts. Projects under $25,000 could be approved by the director general, programs; those from $25,000 to $49,999 by the deputy minister. Projects over $50,000 must be approved by the minister. Following a decision, applicants were notified.

b) Assessment criteria

The first assessment was to filter out clearly-rejected procjects. Projects were rejected if:

i) the application was not received within deadline,

ii) the application was not an eligible organization

iii) the proposal suggested creation of a new infrastructure (or a purchase of land),

iv) proposals consisted of projects of a commercial nature,

v) the activities would occur in 1999 and not 2000,

xi) information about the project was lacking,

vii) the funds were for the creation of an organizational structure,

viii) the funds were for renovation of buildings, unless deemed an official heritage site by municipal, provincial, federal or another authorized body, and

ix) the funds were for a celebratory event, or an endowment/scholarship fund the funds were for acquisition of capital assets

If not rejected, the projects must meet one or more of the program's themes, as follows:

i) celebrate achievement so that Canadians are inspired to know and appreciate our past, and to welcome the challenges and opportunities of the future;

ii) encourage Canadians and other peoples of the world to explore our vast country and its natural and cultural diversity;

iii) exchange ideas and approaches that strengthen Canada and that reinforce our position in the world;

iv) support a sustainable environment and new ways of showing our respect for nature while we progress as a leading economy;

v) stimulate interest in communities large and small, and bring our youth together to support the evolution of these communities;

vi) advance Canadian innovation that will benefit individuals and communities, contributing to our collective well-being;

vii) demonstrate, through artistic and cultural expression, our heritage, our way of life, and our aspirations for the future;

viii) outline the acticvities to be preformed in pursuit of the objective of the Program;

ix) provide an estimate of expenditures to be incurred, including the share to be borne by partners;

x) describe the results to be achieved and how they would be measured;

xi) highlight the project's lasting benefits to the community. For projects that resulted in on-going activities, it was essential to demonstrate how these activities would be sustained and supoported;

xii) demonstrate that proponents had identified 2/3 finding from sources outside the federal government;

xiii) show how the project was consistent with the organization's aims and objectives;

xiv) demonstrate the degree of community involvement and support;

xv) if the project was eligible for other federal funding, how was Canada Millennium Partnership Program funding complementary to other sources of funds?

xvi) that the project would take place in or would be underway by Dec. 31, 2000; and

xvii) be non-commercial.

c) Number of applications received, by province. The last performance report of the Millennium Bureau indicated the following:

Total number of applications received, by region

Source: Millennium Bureau, Performance Report, 2000/2001.

Further research would be required to provide detail on applications received for the individual Atlantic provinces, prairie provinces, and territories.

d) What was: i. the number of applications approved (by province) ii. the dollar amount of each (by province)

(i) See attached chart.

(ii) The response provided in Q-58, parts a) to e), lists projects funded, not approved. A small number of projects were approved but not funded, due to their being withdrawn, to other sources of funding not being available, or to other circumstances which did not permit their meeting all the terms and conditions of the program.

The chart below provides some of the information requested, but further research would be required for specific total approvals for the Atlantic provinces, for the prairie provinces, and for the territories. As well, the bureau was organized along the geographic divisions below, not by individual province, so further research would be required to provide the dollar amount of approved applications, by province.

Total number of projects approved, by region

Source: Millennium Bureau, Performance Report, 2000/2001.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Beauséjour New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 6, 28, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 42, 52, 53 and 58 could be made orders for returns, these returns would also be tabled immediately.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Speaker

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Question No. 6Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

John Cummins Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC

With regard to the exclusive arrangement entered into by the Canadian Hydrographic Service and Nautical Data International (NDI) involving electronic nautical charts under Crown copyright and the reluctance by Navionics and C-Map to accept the new royalties and other fees now demanded by NDI: ( a ) when the exclusive relationship with NDI was renewed were competitive bids sought, and, if not, why not; ( b ) when the exclusive relationship was renewed, did the Canadian Hydrographic Service seek the approval of Canada’s competition watchdog, if not, why not, and, if yes, what was the response; ( c ) what is the nature of the exclusive relationship with NDI involving electronic nautical charts under Crown copyright; ( d ) does this exclusive arrangement authorize NDI to prohibit re-sellers of electronic charts under Crown copyright from disclosing or complaining about the royalty or other fees imposed by NDI; ( e ) in response to the new 50% royalty and various access fees and annual renewal fees recently imposed by NDI for electronic nautical charts, did the Canadian Hydrographic Service seek the approval of Canada’s competition watchdog, if not, why not, and, if yes, what was the response; ( f ) did the Canadian Hydrographic Service approve the 50% royalty now being demanded by NDI; ( g ) has the Canadian Hydrographic Service given over to NDI the complete and final authority to set the royalties and other fees charged for electronic nautical charts under Crown copyright; ( h ) what authority or role does the Canadian Hydrographic Service have in the setting of royalties and various fees charged for electronic nautical charts under Crown copyright; ( i ) what is the purpose and value of the annual “access fees” for re-sellers and the annual renewal fees for purchasers of electronic nautical charts under Crown copyright; ( j ) did the Canadian Hydrographic Service approve the “access fees” and annual renewal fees imposed on electronic nautical charts under Crown copyright; ( k ) has the Canadian Hydrographic Service given over to NDI the complete and final authority to set “access fees” and annual renewal fees charged for electronic nautical charts under Crown copyright; ( l ) what authority does the exclusive contract renewed in 2003 with NDI give the Canadian Hydrographic Service to ensure that boaters and fishermen have continued access to electronic nautical charts in a timely manner necessary to ensure that marine safety is not impaired; ( m ) what remuneration has the Canadian Hydrographic Service received from NDI in each of the following years: 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, and thus far in 2004; ( n ) what is the remuneration NDI has received under this exclusive arrangement in each year since 1993; ( o ) what grants, contributions or loans have been provided to NDI or other companies owned or controlled by Mohammed Al Zaidak since 1993, and what was the purpose and date of each; ( p ) what contracts have been entered into with NDI or other companies owned or controlled by Mohammed Al Zaidak since 1993, and what was the purpose and date of each; ( q ) what members of the staff of the Canadian Hydrographic Service have moved to NDI either as employees, officers, consultants or in some other capacity; ( r ) what unique value-added service, if any, does NDI provide in relation to the data used by Navionics and C-Map and similar electronic nautical chart re-sellers that could not be sourced elsewhere; and ( s ) has the Canadian Hydrographic Service undertaken comparisons with similar governmental agencies in the United States with regard to both its exclusive relationship with NDI and the royalties and other access fees charged for electronic nautical charts under Crown copyright and, if so, what were the findings?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 28Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Greg Thompson Conservative St. Croix—Belleisle, NB

Has the government been approached to allow the passage of vessels carrying liquid natural gas through the waters of Head Harbour Passage, and if so: ( a ) when, and by what company or companies; and ( b ) what was the government’s response?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 33Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

James Rajotte Conservative Edmonton—Leduc, AB

Since March 1, 2004, what grants, contributions, contracts and/or loan guarantees have been made either through a crown corporation, department and/or agency of the government to Canada Steamship Lines and/or its holding companies, specifying the dollar amount, date made, reasons for funding/statement of work, and the present status of the grants, contributions, contracts and/or loan guarantees (whether repaid, partially repaid, or unpaid) or in the case of the contract, whether the contract was fulfilled and how it was tendered?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 34Routine Proceedings

January 31st, 2005 / 3:25 p.m.

Conservative

James Rajotte Conservative Edmonton—Leduc, AB

Since March 1, 2003, with regard to the regional economic development bodies (i.e. Western Economic Diversification, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Federal Economic Development Initiative in Northern Ontario and Canada Economic Development Agency for Quebec) and the Community Futures Program: ( a ) what was the annual budget for each body; ( b ) what portion of the annual budget--both in dollars and as a percentage of the total budget--was for grants, loans and contributions; ( c ) how were these distributed by province and territory; ( d ) what percentage of these grants, loans and contributions was repaid on an annual basis; ( e ) what percentage of the grants, loans and contributions was written off on an annual basis; and ( f ) what were the ten largest individual write-offs, listed in dollars, by agency/program for that time period?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 35Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

James Rajotte Conservative Edmonton—Leduc, AB

With regard to the Technology Partnerships Canada program since its inception: ( a ) how much money has been spent by the program on grants, contributions and investments, and how much has been spent on administering the program; ( b ) how many applications have been received and how many have been accepted for funding; ( c ) what companies, listed by year, have received funding; ( d ) how much, listed by year, has been repaid; ( e ) what was the forecast repayment for each year; and ( f ) how much has been repaid, in all, by each company?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 36Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Rona Ambrose Conservative Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB

Since April 1, 1999: ( a ) how much money has the government spent on early childhood education programs; ( b ) how are these programs delivered; ( c ) how much money has been spent on parental leave benefits; ( d ) how many Canadians received parental leave benefits during this time; ( e ) how many children were born during this time; and ( f ) how much money was spent on other programs and services for children?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 37Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Loyola Hearn Conservative St. John's South, NL

With regard to the inclusive quota catch of Northern shrimp: ( a ) what are the categories of allocation; ( b ) how much is allocated within each category; ( c ) do the Labrador Inuit receive a specific quota and, if so, what is the amount; ( d ) what criteria are used to allocate the quota to specific groups and individuals; ( e ) how does a group or an individual qualify for an allocation of the quota; and ( f ) who decides which groups and individuals receive a quota?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 40Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Anders Conservative Calgary West, AB

For each year since 1995: ( a ) how much funding was provided to the University of British Columbia's Liu Centre for the Study of Global Issues; ( b ) by which departments, agencies and Crown corporations was funding provided; ( c ) who requested the grants and signed on behalf of the Liu Centre; and ( d ) does Lloyd Axworthy's name appear on any of the grant or loan applications?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 42Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON

For each of the years from 1990 to the present, what has been the pass rate and the failure rate on the Second-Language Evaluation test at each level of competence (A, B, C) and for each type of language skill (reading, oral, written, interaction etc.) for those who received French-language training from Language Training Canada and for those who received English-language training from Language Training Canada for persons whose first language is a non-official language, and to what degree is the failure rate higher or lower than the failure rate for persons whose first language is an official language (in other words, whose first language is either English or French)?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 52Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Garry Breitkreuz Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

With regard to Firearms Act cases, Criminal Code cases related to firearms, and court and Charter challenges of firearms legislation and regulations, each as a category of litigation, and for each province and territory since December 1, 1995: ( a ) in how many litigation cases has the Deparment of Justice been involved; ( b ) in how many litigation cases is the department currently involved; ( c ) are any of these cases considered “high impact legislation” cases and if so, how many and what impact are they likely to have on government expenditures and legislation; and ( d ) how much time and money has the government expended on the litigation of these cases?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 53Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Garry Breitkreuz Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

With regard to the DNA cases in process at the RCMP forensic laboratories and the DNA data bank, for each of the last three years: ( a ) how many urgent and routine DNA cases were received; ( b ) how many urgent and routine DNA cases were processed; ( c ) how many urgent and routine DNA cases were left unprocessed at the end of each year; ( d ) what was the average time to process urgent and routine DNA cases; ( e ) based on the success rate of matching DNA cases to offenders in the DNA Data Bank, for urgent and routine cases what was the average number of repeat offenders that were on the loose and the average time they remained on the loose waiting for DNA cases to be processed; and ( f ) how does the performance of our DNA analysis compare with other countries in areas such as case backlogs, average processing time for urgent and routine DNA cases, differences in definition of urgent and routine, and success rates for matches with repeat offenders in their DNA data banks?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 58Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

With regard to every project funded by the Millennium Bureau of Canada and Canada Millennium Partnership Program (CMPP) during its existence, in each case: ( a ) what was the name of the project being funded; ( b ) what was the name of the recipient organization; ( c ) where was the location of the recipient organization and project being funded; ( d ) what was the date of the project approval and in what fiscal year was the project funded; ( e ) what was the total amount of the grant or contribution for each project; ( f ) for which projects did the grant or contribution go directly from the Bureau or CMPP to the recipient organization; ( g ) for which projects was the grant or contribution channeled through a third party; ( h ) has there ever been internal audit(s) or assessment(s) conducted on any aspect of the work of the Bureau and CMPP; and ( i ) if so, what was the name of each audit or assessment, who conducted each audit or assessment, in what year was each conducted, and how much did each cost?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 58Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Question No. 58Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Speaker

Is that agreed?

Question No. 58Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Question No. 58Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Speaker

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), to inform the House that the matter of the failure of the ministry to respond to question No. 39, standing in the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

FinanceGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Yukon Yukon

Liberal

Larry Bagnell LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, just before question period I outlined a remarkable list of items that the Prime Minister had achieved in his first term. I talked about the historic health care deal and the historic equalization deal; the support for child care, seniors and 5,000 more peacekeepers; the new deal for cities; the $1 billion for new environmental technologies; the brand new Canada Corps; our work in Darfur; our peacekeeping aid to Haiti, Afghanistan and Africa; the Canada-Mexico agreement; our work toward solving AIDS, malaria, TB and polio; the Prime Minister's remarkable international movement to protect those citizens who were under attack by their own governments; his work on getting the G-20 together to help solve international problems; the learning bond; the increase in the ceiling on student loans; the historic new relationship with aboriginal peoples and the historic Canada aboriginal peoples round table and the signing of new land claims and the encouragement of more.

I was also telling the finance minister how important it was to not only fund and sign new land claims but to make sure sufficient funds were available to implement existing land claims in Yukon and elsewhere.

This is already an unprecedented list for the first year of any Prime Minister but I want to go on and talk about the Prime Minister's democratic reform. It is amazing how the House has been reformed since the new Prime Minister has allowed free votes in the House on the government side on most items. For members who were here in the last Parliament they will remember that everyone was talking about reform and now we are not talking about it at all.

Ottawa society has to get used to the fact that it does not matter if the government loses votes because that is democracy. The members on the government side now have free votes. It is a whole new atmosphere of democracy here.

Another exciting historic initiative which perhaps sets our government aside from all others is the new northern economic development plan and the new northern strategy that was announced just before Christmas with many cabinet ministers outlining a new look at the north and its place in Canada.

While there are all these expenditures to help those in need and to give hope to millions of Canadians, we still have sufficient fiscal control and organization to give the largest tax cut in history of $100 billion. This is especially important for low income people because a lot of the tax cuts were aimed at low income people.

Last night I, along with a number of parliamentarians, attended the play Danny, King of the Basement . I commend the actors, the writers and the National Anti-Poverty Organization for putting the play on and for bringing forward the problem of child poverty in Canada, which we must work toward eliminating.

These tax cuts reduce the taxes for families with children in Canada by 27%, which is another way to help bring many of those children out of the poverty cycle.

The government has also created one of the most important social programs in history since medicare and that is the national child benefit. The government is constantly increasing that so that by 2007 it will be up to $10 billion. There are all sorts of other initiatives in this economy of hope for people in need: initiatives for people with disabilities, $1 billion for affordable housing, the new horizon program for seniors and the enhancement of our programs for the homeless. We have made these expenditures to help millions of people in all segments of Canadian society with the issues of the day.

Have we been able to still keep the country in fiscal balance and be responsible for the economy without bankrupting the country? The answer of course is yes, through prudent fiscal management. Granted, it does not leave a lot of room to manoeuvre to provide extra tax cuts or other expenditures but it certainly is done within a very solid and responsible fiscal framework.

Approaching and including the time of the Prime Minister's great new economy of hope, we have created three million more jobs in Canada in the last 10 years. Since 1997 we have led all the G-7 countries in growth of living standards. Low interest rates in Canada have led to a housing boom. We have not and we will not go into deficit.

We have had seven consecutive budget surpluses. Canada is the envy of the prosperous countries in the world. I do not think anyone in the opposition or in the media could deny this unprecedented agenda and these accomplishments in only one year of a new Prime Minister's time in office.

However because of the limited room to manoeuvre we cannot provide large tax cuts. There is no huge surplus to do what people would suggest. We must remember that we have a large national debt in the order of just under $500 billion and we need to contribute toward that. That is what has led to the success of all these programs. Because of cutting down the interest rates we have billions to spend on Canadians in need.

I will finish my speech where I began it, which is that we awoke one morning to the news of a tragic tsunami. All Canadians reaffirmed and recognized that others were in much more need. That is the economy of hope. It is a program designed to help people around the world and in Canada who have need of it.

I am proud to be a Liberal because our philosophy is to have a strong economy so that we can help those in need. I am proud of the Prime Minister and the government which created this incredible success in the first year of our mandate.

FinanceGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Pallister Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my comments to the prebudget debate today.

I learned the other day that goldfish apparently cannot create new memories, which is interesting. I guess that every time they swim around their bowl that little plastic castle is a brand new thing to them, an exciting new event.

This may be humorous when it comes to goldfish, but it is not an appealing quality in a government. It is not an appealing quality for a government to be unable to learn from its mistakes or to learn from the past. Unfortunately that is what we have in this country.

Canadians deserve better. Unfortunately, I do not believe they are going to get this old dog of a government to learn any new tricks after a dozen years. The old tricks may have helped the government retain power but they have diminished Canada's image at home and abroad.

In recent months, Canadians are learning the sad degree to which power corrupts for this group: the adage seems to be that if it is good for the Liberal Party, it is good for Canada. There are many examples--too many--and they include: abusive and overt political manipulation of the immigration system; rampant patronage in senior levels of government departments and crown corporations; political favouritism in the awarding of government contracts, including direct involvement by the Prime Minister's Office; and the laundering of millions of dollars of payments to Liberal-friendly firms through the sponsorship program in exchange for doing little or no work, at least for the taxpayers of Canada, that is.

This is a tired government and a self-serving government. It is unwilling to admit its own failings. It is a goldfish government. It is unwilling to learn from its mistakes. It is led by a dithering leader whose international road show is simply a pathetic public relations exercise but also a tacit consequence of the absence of a domestic agenda, all thumb-twiddling and reaction but not a plan.

After all those years of wanting power the Prime Minister does not seem to know what to do when he gets it. There is reaction. There is reaction to the Auditor General's report by attacking the Auditor General. There is reaction to the Gomery commission by delaying and then partially disclosing information, or worse, by attacking the judge himself. There is reaction to questions regarding the stripper-pizza fiasco by attacking the opposition or making blanket assertions, wrong and false of course, about the opposition's immigration policies.

It is very difficult not to be cynical when one knows this is a government that has wasted billions of dollars on a failed gun registry in order to play to the post-Montreal massacre polls, a government that mismanaged away millions of dollars in the HRDC boondoggle and then broke the department in two just to get rid of the acronym, a government that deliberately keeps employment insurance premiums elevated and overtaxes working Canadians but claims to have compassion for low income people, who are disproportionately punished by high employment insurance premiums.

We have seen overpayments of $45 billion and counting. That is $6,000 per household. That is money that working people should have had in their hands so they could decide what to do with it. Most damaging of all to the low income workers of this country is the fact that this money is not in a reserve somewhere. It has been spent and it is never coming back.

This is a government that continues to allow the diversion of profits from this country to tax havens abroad by the creation of debt-reducing tactics allowed here, such as leveraging on Canadian assets and borrowing money to invest offshore, which results in the shifting of profit and the reduction of tax obligations for Canadian corporations so located, such as Canada Steamship Lines International.

Most of all, it is hard to believe that this debate and the hundreds of hours of prebudget consultation with Canadians are anything more than a cynical shell game when one recognizes that apparently the government has no accurate ability to conceive or develop its own budget numbers.

Last year $1.9 billion was the projected surplus and the finance minister went to great lengths during the election campaign to dispute any notion of the Conservative Party's proposed expenditures in a number of areas, saying they would drive us into deficit. Then we found out just weeks later that the actual surplus was not $1.9 billion but $9.1 billion, or off by $7 billion. Previous years have been almost as bad.

The inaccuracy, combined with the employment insurance overcharge, has accelerated debt paydown by default, but it has come at the price of transparency and in the absence of a fulsome discussion of what our priority investments as a nation actually ought to be.

The Liberal approach does a disservice to the budget process. More important, it discredits the budget process.

From our perspective, the Conservative Party believes in an elimination of wasteful spending. We believe in lower taxes, including lower EI charges, in increased basic exemptions and in reduced marginal rates.

I would particularly like to emphasize today the need to raise the lifetime capital gains exemption for small businesses and farmers. This level has not been increased since 1987.

I would also emphasize the need, particularly as a consequence of the BSE crisis in this country, for us to move on income averaging for farm families.

As well, because of the consequences of the elimination of the Crow rate by this government, road use has changed dramatically, particularly and nowhere more so than in rural western Canada. As a consequence, secondary roads are deteriorating rapidly under the use of heavy truck traffic that was not anticipated in the years gone by when those roads were designed.

This shifts an incredible burden of billions of dollars of investment onto provincial and municipal governments. We need a plan, an infrastructure strategy for road renewal in this country, and we need it urgently.

As well, when one considers all aspects of our corporate tax system, not just the corporate tax rate but depreciation, sales tax on capital inputs, inventory deductions and others, Canada has one of the highest tax rates on capital in the world, which is why tax havens in Barbados are so popular.

Unlike Barbados, however, we are not an island. We must be competitive. We export 80% of what we produce. We cannot allow uncompetitive tax structures to diminish our productivity and we must never be complacent about job creation.

There is another area I would like to address: aboriginal policy. As a member of Parliament for Manitoba I think this is particularly important, although I believe it to be a national issue. In Manitoba we have the highest percentage of aboriginal people within a province. It is currently at 13% and it will rise.

We have seen the social malaise that has too often characterized both the life on aboriginal reserves and the life for aboriginal people off reserve, but as with so many other subjects, the Prime Minister seems unable to address the issues around Canada's aboriginal people, apart from the “we feel your pain” rhetoric, perhaps.

I came across a quote the other day. These are the words of Frank Scott concerning a former prime minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King. He stated:

He seemed to be in the centreBecause we had no centre,No visionTo pierce the smoke-screen of his politics.We had no shapeBecause he never took sides,And no sidesBecause he never allowed them to take shape.

These words could describe our current leader. Or current Prime Minister; I hesitate to use the word leader.

He squashed the previous government's accountability initiatives for aboriginal governance and he promised change, but nothing has happened in the years since. He was sworn in with a sweetgrass smudging ceremony conducted by an aboriginal elder from my province, but it was all about optics. Since then there has been no substance. So far the only thing the Prime Minister has raised is false hopes. While he dithers, people suffer and billions of dollars are thrown at a problem, with no end in sight. As a country we need to develop a plan.

I have a six point plan for him, developed with the input of aboriginal people across Canada and supported by the Conservative Party. None of these proposals will be expensive. Certainly they will all pay for themselves in very short order, unlike the perverse outcome of the $2 billion a year in welfare payments which will be distributed to aboriginal people this year. That money, most of it given to perfectly healthy young people, has become a welfare addiction, according to the Manitoba chiefs, and a rite of passage for 18 year old aboriginal young people.

These proposals, on the other hand, will not cater to power hungry chiefs but will enhance the power of their constituents.

First of all, we need to extend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect reserve residents, the only Canadians who are not so protected.

Second, we need to eliminate the Indian Act provision which prohibits the repossession of chattels sold on reserve. This is an unnecessary obstacle to aboriginal people who wish to obtain credit.

Third, we need to establish home ownership programs, as has been done on several dozen reserves already, so aboriginal families will share the same property rights and responsibilities the rest of us take for granted. This will remove the power of chiefs and councils to evict families from their homes.

Fourth, we need to introduce schools of choice programs so families can exercise influence over education, which has been restricted by some chiefs and historically by non-aboriginal governments.

Fifth, we need to reform welfare delivery so that it enhances skills development and self-esteem rather than diminishing both.

Sixth, we need to establish matrimonial property laws consistent with provincial legislation so that aboriginal women are no longer forced to stay in abusive relationships.

These changes will address the root causes of much social malaise for aboriginal people. They are not a panacea, but they are far better than funnelling $10 billion through 20 different government departments.

These changes and others will build accountability from within far better than 5,000 federal bureaucrats can do from without.

Alas, my bet is that the Liberal government will do a poll and find out that playing to the status quo is easier. People do not like change. Any poll will show us that. It is especially so for those in power. They just hang on to power. That is all this government seems capable of or interested in doing.

We can provide more efficient government, more honest and transparent management, lower and fairer taxes and a better future for low income Canadians and aboriginal people.

That is precisely what this opposition party is proposing to do.

FinanceGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Christian Simard Bloc Beauport, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the hon. Conservative member's speech. The budget is being discussed seriously after hours and hours of budget consultations. The budget speech is perhaps the most important of a government's speeches, because this is where its true principles are, or are not, recorded. Anything else is rhetoric. I felt there was a good deal of rhetoric in the Conservative speech. As for the budget speech or the budget preparations—the stage we are at—I would like to know the basis of the negotiations, or the minimum the Conservatives require in order to support, or not support, the budget to be presented.

It is important to know precisely what the Conservatives propose as far as reduction of the fiscal imbalance is concerned. What sort of tax cut are they calling for? It is their program.

There are a great many other points. For instance what will have to be in the budget for them to support it? It is very important that people say what they will do and do what they say.

So I would like to have a very precise idea of the basis for this party's negotiations as far as reducing the fiscal imbalance is concerned, and as far as some other points in the member's speech are concerned. What must there be as a minimum for this party to oppose the budget, or not to oppose it, and to speak clearly to the public?

FinanceGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Pallister Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Speaker, while I thank the member for his rhetorical interventions, I invite him to read the minority recommendations that the Conservative Party has prepared and has forwarded to the finance minister. They outline in great detail some of the questions that he has raised just now.

I also want him to be aware in his references to the fiscal imbalance. Unlike the government opposite, we do not deny that such an imbalance exists. The fact is, of course, that with the support of the Conservative Party the Bloc finance critic was able to succeed in his attempt to have a resolution brought forward which established a subcommittee precisely to look into that issue.

I alluded in my comments to a couple of specific examples from my area which relate to that imbalance. I think in part that the infrastructure references I made, and the aboriginal policy references with specific interventions and specific ideas for a policy initiative, were two examples of where we believe the government's lack of policy, lack of direction and fuzziness around those and other categories of policy development are creating a major concern and a major and growing problem across Canada.

That being said, I again invite the member to consult his own colleagues and become more aware of the specifics of the issue, using the resources that are available to him.