Debates of Jan. 31st, 2005

Finance

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague's comments on the budget debate. He talked a bit about the infrastructure in provinces and municipalities; I know his background is in that area provincially.

One of the issues that has been brought forward by this party and by others is how to help fund municipal and provincial infrastructure. The issue that keeps coming forward is the partial rebate on the gasoline tax or fuel tax, whatever the wording is today. We have seen very little come forward from the government. I would like the member to expand on what his thoughts are as to how that should be structured and how the money should flow back to the municipalities and the provinces that need it.

[Brian Pallister, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues from other regions may not be aware of the change in the Crow rate which used to subsidize the exporter transport of raw materials out of western Canada to processing facilities elsewhere, for example, in eastern Canada. I suppose an example of this would be the tie-in with the Canadian Wheat Board, which really is not the Canadian Wheat Board but is actually a western Canadian wheat marketing monopoly. There is a misunderstanding of the concept of those things which many colleagues in the House may still retain.

With the Crow rate demise, what happened is that shipping costs for agricultural families, farm producers, escalated considerably. This changed the cropping practices of much of the land base in western Canada. For example, Manitoba has just surpassed Prince Edward Island as the leading producer of potatoes in the country. There are two major potato processors within my riding, Simplot and McCain. This has resulted in expanded potato acreage.

Potatoes have to be hauled by heavy trucks. The use of our roads has changed dramatically. The wear and tear on our roads has changed dramatically, but the method of funding the construction, repair and maintenance of those roads has not changed significantly. What has happened is we have shifted an onerous burden onto our local governments and our provincial governments in this respect.

One example would be that the Trans-Canada Highway, the national highway system, through much of western Canada was designed to allow for overpasses to be built over the highways. The roads are brought together very closely in many locations. Those overpasses have never been built. What is happening now is the B-trains, the big long potato-hauling and grain-hauling trucks are pulling out into the intersections and blocking the Trans-Canada Highway to the detriment and danger of the people travelling down the highway and to the people doing the hauling.

We need an investment in a national highways program. We need that gas tax reinvested in the jurisdictions which need those investments to be made urgently in the interests of the safety of the citizens there and the citizens who travel across Canada.

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the senior environment critic it certainly is my privilege to stand in this prebudget debate to talk about what we would like to see in the budget regarding the environment.

My background is as a biologist. My involvement has gone a long way back with speeches in the 1970s on the conserver society and what we should do with landfill, rivers, streams, soil and all kinds of management issues.

When I tried to think of what I wanted to talk about on the government's upcoming budget, I thought I could turn it into somewhat of a fairy tale, but then I thought that might be making light of the issue too much. I could say that once upon a time in 1992 at the Rio accord when climate change was first identified and the present Prime Minister was there as the senior environment critic along with his cohort and white knight Maurice Strong, they basically signed on as they have signed on to some 100 other international agreements on the environment. The environment commissioner has told us that we have not lived up to very many of those. That is largely because we seldom if ever have a plan when we proceed on environmental issues.

In 1997 it was not much different. We met with the premiers in Regina and then rushed off to Kyoto. The whole purpose was to sign something and to look better than the Americans. The Americans said that they would agree to 5% below 1990 levels, so we went with 6%. There was no plan. There was no consideration that this is a very large country, that this is a very cold country, that we have few people relative to many other countries and that we have very little infrastructure for transportation that would allow us to make some of the savings that we might want to make. The U.S. obviously came to the same conclusions and made the decision that it could not live up to this, particularly without having countries like China, India, Mexico, Brazil and other developing countries as part of it. Again the government had no plan.

We went through the period of 1997 to 2002 and still the government had no plan. It is now 10 years since agreeing that climate change is a major issue. There were closed door consultations. The government talks about prebudget consultations. I hope they were not anything like the ones that went ahead on the Kyoto protocol. There were 14 meetings in 14 cities. There was an invited guest list. The media was not invited. Members of the opposition were not invited; we had to literally crash the meetings. No one was allowed to speak unless of course the person agreed with the government's position. If that is consultation in Liberal terms, I can see why there is no plan.

In Johannesburg in 2002 again our Prime Minister was present. I was there. I spoke to him prior to his making the announcement that we would ratify the protocol. I said, “Mr. Prime Minister, where is the plan?” He said, “It is going to come”. We are still waiting. It is now two weeks before the whole implementation and we understand that in this budget there may be up to $3 billion in more spending, but where is the plan? I think everyone can understand the degree of frustration for many of us who really would like to see something happen.

By 2004 we were 25% above where we were in 1990. The bureaucrats have announced that we will be 30% above our 1990 levels within the next two or three years. We are going the wrong way. We have committed $3.7 billion. In this budget we understand through leaked documents that we are about to commit another $3 billion. That will be a total of $6.7 billion. That makes it at least three times the gun registry. Do we have another such program being rolled out by the government in this budget that will end up like that?

On the plane last night I read Rex Murphy's comment about the one tonne challenge and the big advertising scheme that is going on right now by Rick Mercer. He said, “I'd say Rick has about as much credibility on the one tonne challenge as Céline Dion has selling us the virtues of Air Canada”. There is a lot to be learned from yesterday's article. That is where the government is at. It is interesting to note that a comedian was hired to promote what it is about to do.

We have known for a long time that the heavy emitters could not achieve 55 megatonnes. We understand it is going to be 37 megatonnes. If we all reduced our use of carbon it would only make up 20 megatonnes of the now 300 megatonne commitment. If the heavy emitters are down to 37 megatonnes and Canadians at a maximum are expected to account for 20 megatonnes, where is the rest going to come from? Obviously we hope to learn that from the budget, but I doubt very much that we are going to.

Instead we are going to see the government allocating more money, another $3 billion to a whole bunch of programs. That is exactly what we do not need. We need to commit directly to Canadians that we are going to give them the incentives to do something about the carbon that is being released. We do not need a bunch of programs. We do not need more bureaucracy. What has plagued Kyoto all along is program after program after program.

The Europeans are going through the same thing. We learned that in Buenos Aires in December. They are setting up programs. Their big scheme is carbon trading. If that is not one of the biggest hoaxes and biggest non-environmental ways to deal with the problem I do not know what is.

The government has no plan, but we have a plan. We have a long term plan, one that involves air and the sequestering of CO

2

. It involves the removal of sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxide, particulate matter, those things which cause real pollution. The Conservative Party has a plan that involves clean water, that involves mapping our aquifers and understanding the positive and negative charge of those aquifers. The Conservative Party has a plan for soil, for brownfields, for clean up, for all of the issues that affect every municipality throughout the whole country.

We have an energy plan based around conservation. There is much we could do there. The government has some good ideas, but its method of implementing them I do not believe will work.

We also want to talk about transitional fuels, about alternate energy, and about the many ways we could provide for the development of new technology. There is lots of new technology out there that could deal with our environmental problems.

There is no vision from the government. There is no plan from the government. The government simply wants to throw money at the problem and hope it will go away. That is not the way to deal with environmental issues. They are dealt with through cooperation with municipalities, through cooperation with the provinces, and by giving Canadians a vision of where we want to go regarding the environment.

We have to reward industry for the new technologies. We have to develop those new technologies so we can transfer them to other countries, so we can help India, China, and the developing world that is not part of the Kyoto plan.

We need to provide incentives to consumers. We need to provide incentives for wind energy, solar energy, tidal biomass, geothermal and all of those other things.

As the environment commissioner said, there is a lot of talk across there but very little action has been taken over the last 11 years of Liberal government. The Conservative Party will commit to doing that through a solid plan, not this make believe plan and this fairy tale that the Liberals have been living.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on the prebudgetary consultations. It is fair to say that we have heard a lot of comments in the House today, a lot of it rhetoric. At the end of the day what is the government's responsibility with respect to budgets? It is to ensure that we live within our means and that we do not spend more than what taxpayers give to us.

Some would believe that we just throw money at a lot of nice projects, that we spend on a wide variety of things, but no government can do that. If we were to do that, we would go back to the dark days when government spent more than it took in and, as a result, compromised the very social programs, the very economic stability and the bedrock of our nation.

When we look at those countries that have spent more than they take in, we see how that behaviour by a government erodes the fabric of its country and how it affects all members in that country, particularly those in the lowest socio-economic groups who are the most vulnerable.

What does that do? If we deficit spend and build up a debt, we take money out of the money received from taxpayers to pay the interest on the debt. It carves out and takes away the amount of money we would have to spend on social programs. It also puts a burden on the private sector because it often forces governments to raise taxes in the false belief that raising taxes somehow engenders more money in the short and long term to pay for what we ask.

Raising taxes and having an ever increasing tax rate actually puts a depressive effect on the private sector. In doing so, it chases private sector firms away from a country, reducing the number of jobs. Raising taxes and engaging in deficit spending hurts an economy and causes one's tax base to be contracted. It therefore leaves less money for the social programs that we need and want to help those who are most vulnerable in our society.

In short, our government has always held up to the notion, and has lived up to it for seven years, that we have to get our house in order. For seven years we have managed to reduce a trend of deficit spending which would have critically hurt our country and turned Canada into a basket case.

When I was first elected in 1993, it was a serious problem. It was one of the reasons why many of us ran so we could change that. Over the last seven years Canada has had a surplus budget, the only country in the G-7 to do so. If we look at all the G-7 countries, Canada has had the best economic performance of any of the G-7 nations.

Translated into what really counts, which is what Canadians care about at the dinner table, it means more jobs. As my colleague mentioned, we have three million more jobs in the country. It provides us with the resources to pay for health care, the number one issue on the minds of Canadians. It provides us with moneys for a wide area of social programs that will help those who are least advantaged in our society.

That is the balance we have tried to create and that has happened over the last seven years. It has been a balance between living within our means, making tough choices, but on the other hand providing the economic groundwork so the private sector can thrive and so we have the resources to invest in the social programs about which Canadians care.

It is important to understand and not minimize this feat. No other country in the G-7 has managed to accomplish that. Some people, particularly in certain opposition parties, would criticize us for the decisions that have been made. Being in government entails making tough decisions. It is very easy to sit down and simply criticize. It is a lot harder to make tough decisions and to provide solutions that are sound, effective, equitable and fiscally responsible. That is what we have tried to do, that is what we have done and that is what we will continue to do.

On the financial side, first, our objective with this budget is to continue with surplus budgets. Second is to provide research and development moneys, which we will engage in and partner with the private sector to accomplish. It is to provide the private sector with the investment that it needs in order to invest in new technologies, which will enable our companies to lead the world in their respective areas.

Also, we have tax relief. We have engaged in $100 billion in tax relief. We have managed to remove one million Canadians from the tax rolls, those in the lowest socio-economic areas. Is that enough? No. We can do better, and we will do better.

A personal issue I have been fighting for is to remove everybody who makes under $20,000 a year from tax rolls. If we can ultimately accomplish that and enable people to keep more money in their pockets, particularly in the lowest socio-economic areas, then we will have truly accomplished something. Rather than money going from the tax base into government and back to those who are in the low socio-economic grounds, why do we not enable those people to keep those moneys in their pockets? That would be a worthy effort.

On the social side, the government has invested money into early learning. Why is this important? I used to work in a jail. Let us look at an array of social problems, from youth crime, to challenges such as teen pregnancies and poverty. We find that in those populations a lot of the individuals, if we look back in their history, in their first early years were marred by environments that were likely less than acceptable. Many have been subjected to sexual abuse, violence, neglect, improper nutrition. In other words, they did not live in a secure, loving environment. They were subjected to poor parenting. Look at studies that have been done by a number of pediatricians. Then look at this population and ask, what can we do to change that kind of environment in order to have a positive effect on the future? That has happened.

My colleague from New Brunswick, with her husband, was a world leader in the head start program in the early 1970s. Programs like the Ypsilanti head start program in Ypsilanti, Michigan has been around for more than 25 years. What did those programs do? They tried to ensure that parents had the skills to be good parents and that children lived in a loving, caring, secure environment where their basic needs were met. This was not a function of income. This was something that went across the whole socio-economic domain. Some children in low socio-economic grounds did not have poor parenting and some children in families that had a lot of money did not have poor parenting. However, they teach parents to engage their children in a loving, secure environment. Reading to children is critically important. Spending quality time with them is important, not putting a child in front of a computer screen or in front of a television set. Engaging their minds intellectually is important. The first few years their brains are like sponges and at that time neuro connections take place that will set them on a certain road that will largely be irreversible.

What happens when the parent-child bonding is improved? We find is that the life can be quite different for that child. In fact, the head start program reduced youth crime by 50%, teen pregnancies by 80%, kept kids in school longer, less demand on social programs and a $7.00 to $8.00 saving for every dollar that was invested. I submit that was a superb investment.

That is what the minister is doing now. Our government has engaged and will engage with the provinces for an early learning program that will strengthen the parent-child bond and will have a profound impact upon those parameters that can determine the future of a child.

On the issue of accountability, our government has introduced a comptroller system that will improve the way in which we spend taxpayer money. It is critically important, and many of us have said this time and again, that one of our chief responsibilities is to ensure that taxpayer money is spent wisely, effectively and responsibly. That is why the Prime Minister started the process of introducing the comptroller system, which we hope will go a long way to ensuring that the moneys that the people of Canada give us to spend responsibly will be spent responsibly.

On the issue of Canada and the world, we are at a propitious moment. The world has a number of challenges that we could not possibly have envisioned 10 years ago. The world changed post-9/11, as we all know. What the world is looking for is true leadership to address those challenges we face.

Terrorism is a multi-headed monster. The military option must be used under certain circumstances, but it will require much more than that. I am very pleased to congratulate General Hillier who will be the chief of defence staff. He is an individual who gets it. He understands very clearly that we need to address these challenges, from the soft skills, which our Canadian military is good at, to the sharp, hard, killing skills, the lethal sharp pointy edge that we must have as a military. He understands that in today's challenges we must have an array of those capabilities, in which our Canadian Forces are superb and very effective.

The goal of the government is to give our Canadian Forces the tools to do the job, personnel, equipment and training. The Prime Minister has said that we will increase the number of personnel by 5,000 in the regular forces and by 3,000 in our reserves, and that is good news. Our Canadian Forces members have worked very hard. They have had a very high operational tempo. We need to give them and their families a break. By having extra personnel, we will be able to carry out our duties internationally. We will also be able to ensure that our personnel do not burn out. We need new resources to do that and the Minister of Finance is working with many of us to accomplish that.

In looking at the world, the challenges are vast. To achieve the political, economic and social emancipation of people, this must be done through education, trade and diplomacy. That is the route to peace. If we use the array of tools we have, we can begin to address the antecedents and underlying problems that exist. I will give an example.

It is wonderful, in fact truly outstanding, that Canadians from coast to coast have donated so much to the disaster in southeast Asia. However, let us also not forget other areas of the world. As an example, in the eastern Congo alone, 31,000 innocent civilians die every month as a result of conflict. In January I was in South Africa. Day in and day out the equivalent of two 747s fully loaded with people crash into the ground; 670 people die every day from HIV-AIDS. I have spoken about this before in the House. There is no threat to our species greater than that disease. While we have spent a lot of money internationally on this, the amount of money pales in comparison to the larger challenge with which we are faced.

However, is not only how much money we spend, but how we spend it. If we look at the continent of Africa, particularly sub-Saharan Africa where the majority of failed or failing states are, while the countries themselves are very poor, the people are impoverished. Sub-Saharan Africa has 40% of the world's natural resources: oil, gold, diamonds, minerals, semi-precious materials, timber, hydro power. The list is endless and yet curiously those countries that have the most number of resources have the greatest amount of poverty. The Sudan has vast oil wells, but two million people are dead and four million people homeless. People are being slaughtered right now. People live in abject poverty. I have been in refugee camps and it is a sight that is beyond belief.

A central theme in all of that is not in ignorance or in the lack of engagement on the part of the world in terms of aid. It is the lack of engagement on the part of the world in terms of leaders who are willing to abuse their positions, kill civilians and destroy decades of social development by their countries and the international community because they are corrupt, venal dictators. A case in point right now is Zimbabwe, a former breadbasket of the world that exported food to the world food program, which is now prepared to suffer the potential deaths of two million of its civilians by starvation. Why? Its leader, Robert Mugabe, is killing his people in order to retain power.

The point I am trying to make is that this is not an issue of a lack of aid money getting to countries. It is a lack of interest and engagement by the international community in holding these leaders to task.

The Prime Minister's new initiative, the L-20, is one that has hope for the world. By using these 20 leaders who represent the east, the west, the north and the south, we can develop and embrace a critical mass of leaders who are prepared to say no to the past, yes to the future and yes to breathing life into the multiple array of treaties that we have all signed on to, to save children, to prevent genocide, to stop torture and everything else in between.

Last week was the 60th anniversary and commemoration of Auschwitz where the death of more than six million Jews and other minorities in western Europe took place. The world once again said that we would never again allow this to happen. However time and time again, day in and day out, year in and year out, genocides occur. Why? It is because we have not learned our lessons. We have not developed a multilateral framework to prevent these disasters, and they are eminently preventable. These are not acts of God. These are acts by a small number of venal, corrupt, ruthless, murderous individuals who have power in countries and who are prepared to exercise that power at the expense of their civilians and in a way that causes the mass deaths of innocent people.

The L-20 is a new way of working with the international community to develop, embrace and implement those solutions.

The other solution is Canada Corps, a brilliant suggestion by the Prime Minister and our government to send abroad the best that Canada has to offer. It is a work in progress but what will it look like? We have something called Canada Executive Services overseas which is a group that takes retired people to places where they can use their expertise abroad. What if we were to ask Canadians throughout the country who had a certain expertise, such as agronomists, hydrologists, engineers, physicians, nurses and teachers, if they wanted to go to a developing country? We would pay for them to go to those countries and teach people to teach themselves and to teach health care workers on the ground. We could help those countries rebuild their social and economic infrastructures by exporting the best that we have to those countries.

Imagine if Canada Corps were made up of individuals like that in our country who were prepared to serve, not only here but also abroad. What a wonderful legacy that would be and how practical that would be because many of these countries have incredibly talented people who need a bit of a hand up. If we engage them we can go far.

One part of that might be the element of good economics and a reasonable tax system. For a lot of developing countries, if they want to get their feet on the ground and they have a lot of resources, good governance and an appropriate tax structure that will enable the country to reap the value of those resources and help the people of their country, it would be an enormous benefit.

Our government has put forth a number of innovative solutions that will help Canadians from coast to coast to deal with things that people care about at the dinner table, such as putting food on the table, getting jobs, their health care and other social benefits. We aim to continue to do that under the umbrella of living responsibly and by economically putting forth a plan that involves surplus budgets in the future.

Sound economic management and responsible social development are the cornerstones of this government. We will continue to adopt that stance.

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last June, during the election campaign, the Bloc Québécois made a tour of Quebec promising Quebeckers a number of things. The Bloc Québécois is a party which, unlike the members opposite, intends to keep its promises. On June 28 the commitments of the Bloc Québécois were overwhelmingly endorsed by Quebeckers.

Since September, I have had the privilege of sitting on the Standing Committee on Finance. From September to December we heard from many people representing economic, social and community organizations. They told us what they thought should be done in the budget the Minister of Finance will soon be presenting.

After these consultations, the committee put its proposals on the record in the report of the Standing Committee on Finance. The Bloc Québécois issued a complementary dissenting report detailing the directions it wanted to see taken.

These directions have also been validated by the people of Quebec. My hon. friend from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and I travelled around Quebec specifically to meet representatives of groups and organizations in Quebec, in order to make certain that what we were going to propose to the Minister of Finance truly represented the best interests of Quebec.

Now, let us not fool ourselves; bringing down a budget is a very intense time for any legislature, especially with a minority government. Unlike the members opposite, we intend to vote in accordance with what we have promised to our constituents and not to make promises only to change them later. We made firm commitments during the last election campaign and there is no question that we will go back on our principles.

That said, if the upcoming budget does not contain a certain number of elements that satisfy the concerns of Quebeckers, we will be obliged to vote against it. The ball is now in the court of the governing party, and more specifically in the court of the finance minister.

How can the Minister of Finance ensure that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of his budget? There are certain elements to guide him in his considerations, and he knows them already because my colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, talked to him this morning about the subject. With your permission, I shall review the list of these subjects.

First, we are talking about an issue that has been well explained to Quebeckers in recent months, namely the fiscal imbalance. As recently as today, we were talking about a very hot and important issue, with spring just around the corner, and that is the employment insurance program. The environment and the Kyoto protocol are issues that will have to be settled, or regarding which concrete measures will have to be taken to move them forward.

Then there is agriculture. This is a critical sector for Quebec. We even used an opposition day to debate it. The Minister of Finance will have to take action in this area.

Unfortunately, during the holiday season, we were confronted with some very sad events, such as the tsunamis that hit some regions of the world. Canada's international aid will have to increase significantly.

All too often, the government's reflex is to infringe on the jurisdictions of the provinces and of Quebec. This budget will have to include concrete measures while respecting the Quebec government's jurisdictions.

As regards social housing, the situation is catastrophic. For the past ten years or so, the government has almost completely withdrawn from this sector. Again, the budget will have to include means to improve the plight of those who need social housing units. Of course, and the Bloc Québécois has raised this issue on a regular basis, additional support will have to be provided to francophone and Acadian communities.

We are open to discussions on all of these issues. However, I want to make it clear that on budget day all Bloc Québécois members will be present in the House.

We will not renege on our election promises; the people of Quebec would find it inexcusable.

Unless the government takes concrete action to correct the fiscal imbalance, improve the employment insurance program, establish an independent fund and support all the other measures I mentioned, we will be voting against the budget. Then, it will be up to the Prime Minister to explain to the public why he is not committed to the interests of his fellow citizens.

Moreover, this is a government which keeps piling up surpluses year after year while maintaining that these were unforeseen. We are talking about some $60 billion since 1997. I hope that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance will not try to have us believe that they cannot afford to help their fellow citizens.

The fiscal imbalance is a major issue for all provincial governments and for Quebec. The Liberal government half-heartedly admitted that Quebec and the provinces were facing financial pressures, of course. We are not afraid to call a spade a spade. We had a motion passed in the House of Commons, which was one more step toward identifying and presenting the federal government with practical solutions to deal with this fiscal imbalance. I am referring to the establishment of the Subcommittee on Fiscal Imbalance, on which I will be representing the Bloc Québécois. Incidentally, our report will be tabled in this House on June 2, 2005, at the latest.

In the meantime, concrete and meaningful action will have to be taken as part of budget 2005, in February. The fiscal imbalance has an impact on how other governments, and Quebec in particular, are managed. Quebec had no other choice but to increase funding in health, at the expense of its other mandates, including the one for education.

The conference held last September saw the federal government finally agree to contribute close to 25% of the costs assumed by the province. Bear in mind, however, that transfers specifically for education continued to drop during that time. We are now talking about a federal contribution representing some 12%, or $9 billion per year Canada-wide.

Such underfunding in education has many effects that may not be felt in the short term, but quite certainly have an impact in the medium and long terms. We will have a less qualified workforce that will be less able to meet the needs of an ever-changing market.

Another effect of the fiscal imbalance is in this government's management of equalization. Once again, the government has imposed its solution on the various provinces, which have had no other choice but to accept it. Yet, there are a number of ways to improve the equalization program. The Bloc has proposed many, such as taking into account the fiscal capacity of the ten provinces, not just the five, as at present. Furthermore, the floor and ceiling provisions need to be eliminated and the representative tax system approach needs to be fully respected. The measurement of fiscal capacity has to be based on reality, not on figures decided in advance.

More importantly for the governments and for Quebec, the equalization calculation must not be unilaterally changed by Ottawa. If a change needs to be made, it will be made following discussion and only over a five-year period, in order to ensure stability.

This government's management of the employment insurance system is scandalous. Rather than help people who truly need it, people who are less fortunate and whose families are in crisis, employment insurance has become an employment tax. It is a tax for employers who have to pay contributions and a tax for employees who have to finance this program with their own pay. It is only normal for them to finance the program if they receive the services they are paying for.

We have often talked in this House about the $46 billion taken from the premiums paid by these employers and employees. The government must repay these funds. This is scandalous.

In 2001, there was a unanimous report. In 2004, there was another unanimous report. An independent fund must be created, so that the government cannot just dip into it. Special measures need to be taken with regard to employment insurance for workers in the seasonal industry. Seasonal work is common in the regions but also in the major centres.

There is what we call a black hole. The government can deny it all it wants, but the reality is that this black hole does exist. In fact, all too often, claimants exhaust their benefits and find themselves, for a more or less lengthy period, without access to this type of income support. Since 35% of workers exhaust their benefits, special status must be given to workers in the seasonal industry and there must be a single eligibility threshold of 420 hours. The government must increase the maximum benefit period by five weeks, from 45 to 50 weeks.

This program, by its administration, has become discriminatory toward young people and women. Individuals making an initial application are often young or returning to the labour market and have not applied for EI benefits for two years. These people must accumulate 910 hours of employment in order to be eligible for benefits. This greatly penalizes young people and women. This is truly what could be considered a discriminatory measure.

Such administration has also excluded older workers. Until 1997, there was an adjustment program for older workers who, unfortunately, may have trouble finding another job after being laid off. We have a government where the current Prime Minister, when he was finance minister, dared to abolish this program despite its success. This program should recognize the new realities of the labour market. Some 30, 40 or 50 years ago, the phenomenon of self-employed workers was almost non-existent. Today, 16% of the workforce qualifies as self-employed. There should be a voluntary EI program so that these workers can receive some coverage.

The next budget is also an opportunity for this government to demonstrate that it really does have a political will and a plan in connection with the environment and implementation of the Kyoto protocol. This is a plan that ought to have a long term focus, but short term action. It ought not to exist solely to satisfy the oil and gas sector. This government must invest heavily in the wind energy sector. It absolutely must stress the importance of encouraging the development of wind-powered energy and step up its investment in the incentive program.

In the 2001 budget, the government announced the allocation of funds, but it needs to go far beyond that. We will not accept the government's going back on its promise and offering less than one billion dollars over 15 years.

As well—again in connection with the environment—certain new technologies must be encouraged, particularly the purchase of hybrid vehicles. Why not a tax credit for the purchase of hybrid vehicles, $4,000 per purchaser, for instance, provided a certain number of standards are met? These measures would affect the consumer immediately and would foster a healthier environment.

The way this government is managing agriculture is disastrous. Few countries have abandoned their agricultural sector to the extent that Canada has. Quebec agricultural producers in particular have been the victims of this government in this area of jurisdiction. We are referring to the non-reopening of the U.S. border, the questionable control over the ban on animal meal, the non-regionalization of health practices. With this budget, the government could put in place some measures to benefit this sector.

Furthermore, the Government of Quebec has to compensate for federal injustices. Federal subsidies for agriculture in 2003-04 were $6.7 billion. Of that total, Quebec farmers received only $600 million, or 9.8% of the total subsidy.

Federal government aid packages do not take into account the specific problem of cull cattle in Quebec. Again, the current government does not consider Quebec's claims. Unfortunately, I often feel like I am repeating myself on this. However, maybe one day the government will finally understand.

That is why the Bloc Québécois has many expectations of this budget. Why does the government not take advantage of this budget to help the Government of Quebec facilitate the implementation of a ceiling price of 42¢ a pound? That would provide transitional assistance representing roughly $11 million for the federal government. The federal government absolutely must reinvest in Quebec's agriculture, while respecting the various jurisdictions.

As for international assistance, the government has often promised to increase aid to 0.7% of GDP. It has said so many times, but has done very little. At the rate things are going, this target will be reached in 2032, which is a long time from now. The government absolutely must increase its international aid budget more quickly in order to reach the target by 2015.

The greatest difficulty this government has is in respecting provincial jurisdictions. During the Speech from the Throne we heard the Prime Minister and various members of his cabinet proudly announce that their priorities were the municipalities, health, child care and education.

Someone should tell the Prime Minister that he is in the wrong level of government and that he would be better off in a provincial legislature or even in Quebec. This government has a growing habit of extensively interfering in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. Unfortunately, it can get away with doing so because of the fiscal imbalance and the massive surpluses it hides from this Parliament.

Sometimes the government invests in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. Thus, it infringes on Quebec's jurisdiction, for example in the matter of parental leave. This dispute has been going on since 1996. In May 2004 we had the announcement, as if by chance, two days before the election campaign began, that there was an agreement in principle. Still, today, we have not yet seen the result of this agreement in principle.

The federal government has not withdrawn its appeal to the Supreme Court. What is it waiting for? Once again, Quebec is the loser. The Government of Quebec wants to establish a better system for Quebec parents, and the federal government refuses to hand over the funding it is owed to bring this about. The government must not take the parents of Quebec hostage, out of sheer partisanship. That is offensive.

If there is one program that is envied by many, it is the daycare program. Having been a member of the board of an early childhood centre in Quebec, I can say that it is an exemplary program. The provincial governments as well as the federal, should learn from it. Still, it is important for the federal level to transfer money to the provinces without imposing national standards that might run counter to what already exists. All the more so because, according to the latest OECD report, Quebec has the best day care system in Canada.

In conclusion, I wish to remind the Minister of Finance that we will support his budget if he listens to the demands of Quebeckers. If not, we will vote against it.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc did not mention the importance of the government's improvements to the EI program in the upcoming budget as being one of the areas the Bloc wished to see addressed. Certainly the New Democratic Party wants this area addressed within the budget.

I would like to emphasize that over the course of time the Liberal government has taken $46 billion out of the EI fund. The government has used it in general revenues and as part of the surplus. At the same time it has cut back on benefits to unemployed workers. The situation now is that roughly 40% of unemployed workers no longer qualify for EI.

It is much along the lines of setting up numerous programs to assist farmers when they were in the downside of the mad cow crisis and the numerous other programs for crop insurance. The government sets the programs up in such a way that no one is able to benefit from the programs. The government can hang onto that money and possibly fool around with it in a scandal of some sort.

Certainly to use the EI dollars for the surplus and other things rather than having it go to unemployed workers is rather unconscionable.

Is my colleague from the Bloc interested in commenting further on the issue of the government's use of the EI fund?

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. She will understand that 20 minutes is a rather short time to cover all the mismanagement by this government. I did refer to how the employment insurance program is managed, how poorly managed it is by the government. As we speak, the effect of the management of this program is that many EI recipients no longer qualify for benefits.

Everyone knows—it was stated repeatedly in this House—that $46 billion was taken out of the fund and put into the government's general revenue to finance various measures, including debt payment. As incredible as it may sound, the EI program has become a tax on employment. Every now and then, there is talk about lowering taxation for all Canadians and Quebeckers. Lowering those amounts would have been one way to achieve that.

The gap experienced in the seasonal industry is very real in our regions. Because the measures are not tailored to that reality, people are facing certain periods without any income.

As part of unanimous reports, we made very specific recommendations with respect to employment insurance, parental leave, accessibility for young people, women and seasonal workers, but the government turned a deaf ear. That is most unfortunate. The fact is that the proposals contained in proposals heard at the Standing Committee on Finance are along the same lines as the unanimous report tabled in May 2001 by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.

This government will have to make a point to listen to those from the cities and from the regions alike who, unfortunately, need employment insurance benefits from time to time.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for his very thorough overview of this government's shortcomings as far as taxation is concerned.

My colleague referred to the farmers. I can tell you that I have memories of my grandfather grumbling about the government because it did not know how to meet the needs of Quebec farmers. He was not a sovereignist. In those days there was no talk of sovereignty, no talk of Quebec independence.

In the past few weeks, I have met a lot of groups in my riding that are engaged in preparing documents calling upon this government to explain what it intends to do about social housing.

This morning I heard something about that on the news. In the Outaouais region there is an organization that is called Logemen'occupe, I believe, which has been speaking out about the unsuitable housing some of our fellow Quebecers are living in. I think this is mainly in the Hull sector. There has been no progress made in this situation.

I would like to ask my colleague to explain what this government is doing at the present time about social housing.

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this government's action in connection with social housing is easily stated: no action. It is as simple as that.

In the last federal election campaign, the government committed to between $1 billion and $1.5 billion annually for five years. However, this is totally ignoring the fact that the government pulled totally out of funding new social housing in Canada between 1993 and 2001. This withdrawal deprived those in substandard housing and the homeless of approximately 160,000 social housing units, more than 40,000 of those in Quebec.

At this time, Canada Mortgage and Housing has an accumulated surplus of $2.4 billion, and this should be up to $6 billion by 2008 if the trend continues. The main reason for this surplus is that, since 1998, almost all of the proceeds, and in some years all of them, from insurance activities were allocated to capitalization rather than the creation of new social housing.

In 2001, 17.6% of renters paid 50% of their income for housing. According to the popular action front FRAPRU, at the present time 111,000 Quebec households are allocating more than 80% of their income to housing. In spite of a surplus that for this past fiscal year alone added up to $9.1 billion, the government is doing nothing about social housing. That is the situation.

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the hon. member who referred to certain social housing units in the Outaouais region. I am nonetheless proud to announce that, just a week ago, I had the great honour of meeting with representatives of Logemen'occupe. We on the government side are very aware of the needs in terms of social housing. We are certainly trying to do something about it. In fact, the minister is encouraging consultations in Quebec on this issue.

One must not confuse the issue of substandard housing with that of social housing. That having been said, we members from the Outaouais region are very aware of the problems in that area. We are working very hard to ensure that these needs are addressed in the budget.

My question is for the hon. member who discussed gross generalities, as is typical of the Bloc Québécois, which is starting 2005 the same way it finished 2004. We are asked to come up with real measures, to move on the issue of agriculture, to substantially increase international aid. I am curious as what these concrete measures should be. When asked what ought to be included in the budget to make his members happy, the Bloc leader's answer is that it is not up to them but to the government.

It is easy to tell the government that it should include this, that or the other in the budget. I would like concrete answers as to what real environmental measures my hon. friends are proposing and what agricultural measures they encourage the Minister of Finance to include in his budget.

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member appears to lack ideas and solutions, we will offer her some.

In agriculture, we recently participated in a meeting with the UPA. One proposal was that the allowable capital gains deduction for agricultural property should be raised from $500,000 to $1,000,000, only for transactions where the farm would continue in operation. That is a first step.

We also propose that Ottawa extend the regulations regarding rollovers to all members of the immediate family under 40 years of age. That is another measure.

Yet another proposal is that an agricultural transfer savings plan be established to enable farmers to accumulate a tax-sheltered retirement fund. The government could also make a contribution, as it does for education savings plans. This contribution would be conditional on continued operation of the farm after the transfer. That is another step.

It has been proposed that the rules surrounding property ownership be made more flexible, in order to enable young farmers to obtain a larger share of a residence owned by a company, or to use their RRSPs to acquire a farm business. That is another measure.

We also propose that the federal government transfer a recurring amount to the Quebec government to encourage young people entering the agricultural sector. Those are some of the proposed measures.

This government is lacking in ideas. It does not know what to do with its money.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, Fisheries and Oceans; the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, Citizenship and Immigration.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this prebudget consultation. As all hon. members know, the finance committee has completed its annual exhaustive consultation with Canadians and has produced a report with some 33 recommendations, which I suspect have a costing of some $7 billion to $10 billion more than it is possible to spend.

It is an important point to make because we should not be looking at a budget in isolation. We should look at budgets as a series of budgets and find out where we have been, how we have performed, where we have to backfill and where we have to reshape or reformat some of the spending in certain areas and indeed respond to emerging matters.

But there has been some consistency in regard to the budget preparation since 1993. That consistency has to do with the principle that we need balanced budgets in Canada. Canadians want balanced budgets. We want to stay out of the deficit scenario.

I do not want to have to review the history, but we have been fortunate, through fiscal prudence and a balanced approach, in being able to balance the budget and continue to pay down debt, to support program spending as well as introduce new programs, and to keep those priorities in focus.

The other consistency in the budgets since 1993 has been our commitment to the health care system. It is very clear that it is the number one priority of Canadians and, I believe, of this House, so I am not going to talk very much about health care.

As well, we have a number of areas such as the cities agenda, the infrastructure et cetera, and those kinds of needs that our cities have. We have heard many stories of infrastructure deficits within our cities. This is going to take a concerted effort from all levels of government. The federal government is not solely responsible for roads, bridges and sewers at the municipal level, yet there has been since 1994 an infrastructure program each and every year for the benefit of our municipalities.

I will not talk very much about Kyoto or about our environmental portfolio. It is going to be in the budget. There is a commitment and the Prime Minister reaffirmed today our commitment to our Kyoto targets.

Children are also a part of the government's throne speech in its commitment to Canadians to continue to address the needs of children. In the past we have dealt with the Canada child tax benefit and the national child benefit. Now we are dealing with child care issues. There will be more child care spaces because we understand the need of families and particularly children to have quality child care.

I am pleased that we have been able to deal with equalization matters and that the issue with regard to offshore revenues has been resolved through negotiations between the federal and provincial governments. It is an important step that has been taken.

We had a debate in this place about fiscal imbalance and about some of the aspects of how the federal and provincial governments can in fact address their needs in terms of revenue requirements. It was clear from that debate that both levels of government have ample opportunity to raise tax revenue. They have the tools to do it.

But in some provinces, quite frankly, what has happened is that they have, through extensive tax cuts, reduced their revenues to the point where they cannot meet their obligations under their constitutional responsibilities, including health care specifically. Those provinces will not be cutting taxes very much in the near future. I am very sure of that.

I have a couple of other areas I would like to talk about if I had the time. I would like to talk about the underground economy and the principle that if we all paid our fair share of taxes we all would pay less. That is an area which requires substantial work. I hope that the government will initiate some action to ascertain how we can continue to address what I think is this major leak in the revenues of the Government of Canada, i.e., for the people of Canada.

What I do want to talk about, however, is the issue of poverty. Poverty is something that I have spent a great deal of my time on as a member of Parliament over the last 11 years, and more so on the nature of child poverty. I once wrote a monograph in which I described child poverty as a situation where one cannot live in one's own community without being noticed, which I think is a thought provoking way to put it.

Poverty is not just about food, clothing and shelter; poverty has to do with whether I can live in a community, participate in a community's activities and interact with people in my community without being noticed. It is like children wearing shoes with holes in them to school and being mocked by their fellow students because they do not have proper shoes to protect their feet.

That led me to think about and reflect on poverty as a national issue, but in a broader context. Child poverty is really family poverty. If children are living in poor conditions then obviously their families are unable to provide for them to the level we would like to see.

There are many things families can do. We know that family breakdown has a very significant impact on the probability of poverty. In fact, 15% of all families in Canada are one parent or lone parent families, but they account for some 54% of all children living in poverty. Thus, if we are going to address child poverty, we really have to start addressing the social breakdown of the Canadian family. It is really an important aspect. We simply cannot expect governments to take care of children. Everyone has a choice.

There is another aspect, which is that of high school dropouts, and it is a terrible situation in Canada. It took a long time to get people in the field of education to admit what the levels of high school dropouts were. I remember that as a member of the finance committee I once at a meeting described high school dropouts as those who choose to sit on the curb and watch the parade go by. They are Canada's poor in waiting. In the vast majority of cases we cannot have less than a high school education and expect to be able to sustain ourselves and become contributing members of society.

That is one of the reasons why in the past we have done things with post-secondary education. We have done things with the millennium scholarship fund. We have done things in terms of student debt in debt repayment, in repayment geared to income and in writing off debts.

The universities now are telling us that we have no shortage of students and that as a matter of fact we need to be able to take more students. I am also encouraged by the fact that 95% of students who have student loans pay them off on time. That is an important aspect.

But we can always do more. Can we do more in this budget? That remains to be seen.

Those are some elements of family poverty, but I want to focus the poverty discussion a little more on those who are probably the forgotten persons in the Canadian family, those in our society who have the least ability to help themselves. I am talking about Canadian seniors.

In fact, I want my speech to be reflective of my concern that we do not have an appropriate strategy for our seniors. We need a long term strategy for seniors that will enable them to address some of the pressures they have. We have all heard about the problems of living on a fixed income and being faced with higher than normal uninsured medical or drug costs. We have heard about the home care problem and the nursing home problem, the costs of these and the demands on the family

We have heard about people being forced to leave their jobs at age 65. If for some odd reason a person has been unable to prepare properly for retirement, suddenly that person's skills and knowledge are no longer available to that workplace and that person is now out on his or her own and has to find another job, which makes absolutely no sense.

I would like to outline for the House a few thoughts for its consideration and for the government's consideration, a few thoughts on poverty, particularly seniors' poverty. First of all, I think we have to establish provincial, territorial and regional poverty lines. We do not have poverty lines established in Canada.

It is time that Canadians asked themselves what level of poverty they are prepared to tolerate in Canada. It is an important question. We cannot raise all people up to some arbitrary level because it would probably cost hundreds of billions of dollars. There is a large group of people within our society, many of whom are seniors, who are living on such low levels of income that it is embarrassing. It should be embarrassing. It is a tragedy. We need to do something.

We should be prepared to establish a guaranteed annual income for seniors. Seniors ought to be respected for what they have contributed to Canada. They should be respected and given the dignity which they have earned. We hold them in high esteem. There are many seniors who are living on very low levels of income. I believe that seniors are entitled to a guaranteed annual income.

We have to take all steps necessary to eliminate mandatory retirement at age 65 across the entire country. The retirement age of 65 years came in during Bismarck's time. At that time people who were 65 years of age were referred to as the unnecessary eaters. Now people live much longer. People live more productive and happier lives if they are able to fulfill their own destinies, their own targets. It is time to eliminate that discrimination. We are talking a lot about the charter these days. Let us talk about the permitted discrimination against those who turn age 65. We must allow them to be contributing members of society for as long as they care to contribute.

The caregiver tax credit needs to be revisited. It is something that I am pleased to say was brought in as a consequence of Motion No. M-30 which I brought forward in this place back in 1997. It is a very modest amount. Seniors depend very heavily on their family caregivers, who more often than not are women within our society. Women are closer to their children, more so to daughters than sons. As a consequence many women have to exit the paid labour force to care for an aging parent. We want to ensure that proper care is available. We should help those family members who are prepared to make the sacrifice to withdraw from the paid labour force to care for a loved one.

Those caregivers should be eligible for EI benefits when they withdraw from the paid labour force. They are providing an important service. It is like unemployment because they will not receive a paycheque. They are giving up more than a paycheque. They are giving up a chance to earn pension credits for their own future.

The Canada Pension Plan Act contains a child rearing drop out provision, which is the ugliest term I have ever heard. When someone withdraws from the paid labour force to have a child, it is called dropping out. That is not dropping out. Really it is an adjustment that is made to the Canada pension plan computation so that the person is not penalized for having zero income in certain years while caring for children. Caregivers who withdraw from the paid labour force to care for a needy family member should not be penalized in their Canada pension plan computations if they have made that contribution to their families.

We are taking some steps on home care but we are not doing enough. Anybody who knows anything about home care knows that two hours a day for someone who is chronically ill, who has an urgent need, means that somebody still has to come in to fill in the gaps. Home care is going to be more and more in demand in Canada. The Government of Canada has to be a greater player in that regard.

With regard to pharmacare, we now spend as much on drugs as we do on doctors in terms of the health care spending of Canadians. I have ample examples of seniors who have life threatening illnesses that require certain medications that are not covered under public insurance plans. It differs from province to province. In the Maritimes I think people have to be on welfare before they can get any coverage whatsoever.

Why is it that when seniors are on a fixed income they are being asked to bear a higher cost of pharmacare spending which is natural because 75% of the health care costs are going to be incurred in the last year or two of a person's life? Pharmacare costs have become extraordinarily high. We need to help seniors with their pharmacare costs.

Affordable housing was discussed earlier. Any of the jurisdictions that are involved in the affordable housing area will say that half of those units are seniors units and the demand is twice that much again. In line with the whole theme of providing an opportunity for seniors to continue to live in dignity, the dignity which they have earned and are entitled to have, we need to do more on affordable housing.

Seniors represent the most vulnerable in our society. They probably are least able to understand and they are taken advantage of more often than not. This is not specifically a budget matter, but in terms of a strategic initiative we should consider amending the Criminal Code to provide stiffer sentences for those convicted of abusing a senior. Those are aggravating circumstances, taking advantage of the vulnerable, those who cannot take care of themselves. We could use stiffer penalties to reflect the concern we have about senior abuse.

One of the first things I had changed here was stiffer sentences in the Criminal Code for those convicted of spousal abuse. The same kind of action should be taken with regard to senior abuse.

We should also have stiffer sentences under the Criminal Code for those who take advantage financially of seniors, those who defraud seniors. This is rampant. People are stealing from seniors because seniors may not understand or may not have someone there to help them make those decisions.

It is important that we deal with these areas of abuse of seniors.

Part of the strategy should include the creation of the position of physician general of Canada. I know that we have a position already set up, but the position that was set up has to do more with emergency situations. I am talking about a physician general that would mirror the surgeon general in the U.S. There would be a website and resource materials for ordinary Canadians, including seniors, to help them understand better how to live healthier lives. Health Canada cannot do that job any more. Health Canada has become very politicized I am afraid to say. It is not helping seniors to get information and I am very concerned about that.

There should be a full time cabinet position for seniors, a minister for seniors. There should be someone at the decision making table to advocate on behalf of seniors. It is not enough to have it buried somewhere else. We need a minister responsible for seniors' issues.

We should establish a public education campaign to inform Canadians about the growing prevalence of discrimination on the basis of age. It is called ageism. Ageism is a problem which has slowly crept into the institutions in Canada. There have been cases where doctors have refused to take on new patients who are over 60 years of age because they take a little more time. This has to be a violation under the Canada Health Act.

We have to encourage the government to say that the concept of ageism is a reality now. It is very easy to say that we should cut back on that seniors stuff, but seniors paid taxes all their lives. Those taxes are what built this country. If we honestly believe that they should be living in dignity and respect, we should make absolutely sure that each and every interaction they have with the community is not against them with regard to their age.

We should establish a bill of rights for seniors. A bill of rights for seniors would not override the charter. It would be an articulation of the principles with which we cared to assess current programs as they related to seniors, and a filter through which we could assess the relevancy and effectiveness of new programs as they related to seniors.

I hope I have given members a few things to think about. Seniors, though the most vulnerable in our society, deserve to live in dignity and with respect. I suspect that most members in this place would agree.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the speech by my colleague from Mississauga South which is, I believe, a very industrial riding. His concern for poverty is honourable. Unfortunately, it is clear that his party has obviously not listened to him to date.

I want to talk about poverty. On numerous occasions, the Bloc Québécois has raised the issue of pensioners. Our colleague, representing the interests of pensioners, had asked this government to simply refund the amounts they were owed. He was not asking for an increase. He was asking that they get what they were owed. We are still waiting for this to happen.

When we talk about poverty, we are also talking about the unemployed and employment insurance. To this end, merchants in various regions are experiencing losses and shortfalls. There are losses of $66 million per year as a result of cuts to employment insurance. For example, a family does not have enough money for rent and must go into debt until the next pay period. The family income earner works just enough to repay the debt. That is poverty. That is poverty for a family. That is poverty for the children. That is poverty for those family members.

I have just returned from visiting Quebec's extreme north. Under an agreement, this government committed to building houses and sending them up there through Quebec. In the past four years, most of these villages have not received a single house. Sometimes, up to 14 people live in a single-family home. This is called promiscuity. And tuberculosis, among others, results. How much will it cost the government to treat these people later?

Since 1993, each throne speech has mentioned resolving the problem faced by aboriginals, the Inuit and the first nations. These are the conditions in which they live today. As a result, I am asking my colleague from Mississauga South just how much power he has to get his government to include this in its budget.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I sense that the member has shared value with regard to poverty generally and certainly with regard to seniors.

With regard to the overarching question about how do I influence the government, et cetera, I am pleased to announce that as a result of the consultation of our Liberal caucus and with votes at every stage, seniors issues were voted the number one priority of our caucus just last week.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, seniors are people who are looking for better direction from the government and, in my riding, so are young families. In particular I want to draw attention to the struggles of young families.

A typical profile in York--Simcoe is a husband and wife with kids. Both parents are working hard, trying to get ahead and make a better living for their family so their children can participate in hockey and other community activities, such as dance lessons or soccer in the summer, but they find it increasingly challenging to make that happen. One of the biggest reasons for that challenge is the punitive level of taxation that continues to apply to working families.

It is worth noting that in our province of Ontario in recent years hundreds of thousands of modest income families have been taken off the income tax rolls because the provincial Progressive Conservative government took them off the tax rolls so that working families would not have to pay taxes, but those hundreds of thousands of people are still paying federal income tax.

Therefore when I hear the Liberals talk about their concern for people who are facing economic challenges, it is quite clear that from the Liberal government's perspective they are far more willing to hit hard-working, low income families with taxes than we certainly have seen from the Conservative Party.

Seniors as well is another group that has been neglected. I think in particular of seniors who are on fixed incomes. In the past year or two, although they have had virtually no change in the benefits that they have received, notwithstanding years and generations of investment in this country, they have been hit with increases in hydro, in natural gas and in insurance, all of them fixed costs and costs they cannot escape but all of them making it tougher to survive and live with dignity and with the kind of life they deserve after years of contributing.

I want to see from the government, in the next budget, action for those working families and also for seniors. The one way I think we can see that is by seeing some action to address the incredible waste, mismanagement and growth in government. It has been growing at about 10% a year. I want to know if there is any willingness to get on top of that wasteful spending and get it under control, because I can tell members that most of those families that are struggling to get ahead are not seeing their budgets grow by 10% a year.

Will the government move ahead on tax relief for families that are working? Will it move ahead on the kind of support that seniors need? Will it get serious for once about pulling back on the increasing size of government and addressing the tremendous waste in management we see that is taking money away from those hard-working families and spending it on things that simply are not their priorities?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said when I began my speech, budgets cannot be looked at in isolation. It is not just one budget. It is a series of budgets and where we have been. There have been tax cuts of $100 billion which have been fully implemented now. There will be more tax cuts but not to the extent that we will risk putting ourselves back into deficit, putting ourselves in a position where we are not able to continue to pay down some amount of debt which Canadians have said, and not at the risk of taking away from other important priorities like our health care system, just to name one.

Tax cuts are dangerous. Once they are made, they are forever. We have not been in a recession since the early nineties. It will come eventually and when one considers that a deep recession could cost us $15 billion a year as a result of unemployment, that would clearly wipe out any amount of surpluses we have had in recent years.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to listen to my colleague from Mississauga South over the last number of years and I cannot help but wonder, with all the grandiose things that he thinks the government should be doing for seniors and people living in poverty, why they have not been done.

Since 1993 the government has taken $46 billion from the EI fund and put it into general revenue, so why has it not done all those wonderful things already, rather than using the money mostly to pay down the debt? It is not a bad thing to pay down the debt but I, like most Canadians, believe there has to be a balance. We do not take money from the most deprived people, those who have little money, and use those dollars to pay down the debt and then say that we have to make life better for them.

Of that $46 billion that the government took from the workers and the employers of this country, why did it not come up with that wonderful plan of his for those seniors?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to assume that the member is supportive of a seniors strategy, but she has raised the issue of EI a couple of times.

First, she has failed to acknowledge in the House that the inclusion of EI revenues in the pool of federal funds was as required by the Auditor General.

The other thing is that the notional surplus of some $46 billion is less than the debt that has been paid down. Therefore, if the member wants to colour code dollars, yes, of the $50-some-billion that has been paid down on the national debt one could say that $46 billion has been as a consequence of the EI surplus, but it is generating savings of some $3 billion a year which are permanent savings and savings available to invest in permanent programs which one cannot do until one gets one's debt under control. That has happened.

We do have legislation in our country that guides the EI fund. It says that the $46 billion sitting in there has to go back to Canadians in terms of reduced EI premiums, or increased program spending or to pay benefits under the EI plan. It is not lost. That obligation is still there.

The member should understand that it is not taking money and doing nothing with it. It is holding the money, using the money in the interim to pay down debt and save interest, and to have that security for Canadians should we hit a deep recession and high unemployment.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton—Spruce Grove.

It was a pleasure to listen to the member for Mississauga South who listed some of the real concerns in society when he talked about the need to address seniors' concerns, and about home care in particular.

Before I get into my own speech, I want to refer to one comment he made. He talked about family members being the ones best able to provide the home care or caregiving but that anyone but a family member can be hired to look after family members. He talked about how family members know how to do it and, undoubtedly, would do it with the most love and care. Even though there are great people in that field, no one can replace a family member, particularly when dealing with older members of a family. I think this whole area needs review.

He raised many other social issues. Others have talked about a wish list of needs.

I was reminded of what happened at home just recently when our premier came back with the news that he had finally beaten an agreement out of the federal government with the help of a lot of people on this side and the obstruction of some people on that side. However we did get a very good deal and the people of Newfoundland should be very proud of those who worked on their behalf. However when he came home and said that we had a good deal and that we would have $2 billion up front, everyone had a suggestion as to how to spend the money. Each sector of society wanted a piece of the action. However, we have to remember that if all we think about is spending money, once it is gone then we are worse off than ever.

I just heard the hon. member for Mississauga South talking about paying down the debt. Not only does the federal government have a debt, many of the provinces have huge debts. We sometimes use up to one-third of our total potential in paying down that debt. It is hard to move ahead. It is like having a credit card. Instead of being able to do what we want with our paycheques, we end up putting most of our money toward our credit cards or on bank loans. It just disappears and we get absolutely no good out of it. Whereas if we could pay down that debt, the saving each year would give us some cash flow and after a while we would have all our own money in our own pocket.

It is along those lines that I would like to spend my few minutes. In order to be able to spend money and address the needs of seniors, a crying need in society; in order to address older people in the workforce who should be able to retire, sit back and enjoy the few years they have left; in order to look after those who cannot look after themselves; in order to build our infrastructure, pave our roads, put in water and sewers; and in order to provide for the aboriginals in this country, we must concentrate on the dollars coming in because these things require money.

This past week a lot of attention has been paid to the negotiations between Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and the federal government. Despite the fact that the Prime Minister came to our provinces, despite the fact that he was behind the eight ball because of pressure from his people who did not think they could get re-elected and because of an example set over here when the commitment was made to these very provinces to allow them to keep, not all the revenues from offshore development, but their share of the revenues until they could get back on their feet and become contributing provinces, the Prime Minister finally relented and made the commitment. However when the election was over he tried to back out of it.

On TV the other night I saw the kissing match, all the handshaking and hugging and everyone giving everyone else credit. Let us call a spade a spade. The Prime Minister and his government delivered to Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia only because of the pressures from here. The way was paved by a commitment from our leader and the pressure in the House over the past few months, and the unrelenting pressure from Premiers Hamm and Williams and their teams. If not for that, we would never have had the deal that we have. To give credit to anyone on that side is ludicrous because all we saw was obstruction and toeing the party line all the way along, but I guess that is politics.

It is amazing to read in the paper that part of the agreement was that the premiers had to give credit to the local ministers so they could get re-elected. That is taking politics to a new low.

Having said all of that, Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia now receive a large percentage, their share actually, of offshore revenues and will for some time. This will enable those provinces to do some of the things that they have needed to do for quite some time.

Besides offshore development we also have another offshore resource. It is the fishery. Again the government has completely and utterly ignored the fishery. From the west coast of Vancouver Island to Cape Spear in Newfoundland and Labrador, everyone will agree this great resource has been completely and utterly mismanaged.

Let us hope when the budget comes down that we see some money in it for science so that we will know something about this great resource, so that we can start rebuilding it. It is a renewable resource. Some small groups on their own have concentrated on protecting their local resource. We have seen regeneration. We have seen increased employment. That is where our money comes from, the development of our resources.

This country has a major resource which is called the fishery. With some attention, with proper management and with the right enforcement both locally and in relation to foreign overfishing, we could protect our resource and see it grow again. Instead we see the government take people across the country and reduce them to fit the benefits of the resource. Fish plants have been closed, eliminating hundreds of jobs. Licences have been taken away, which takes people out of the fishery. The government has tried to buy people out, saying that there are too many people chasing too few fish. That is what the government has been doing. It has been managing people.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is not there to manage people. It is there to manage fish. If it had concentrated on managing the fishery, we would not be in that boat today. If we had only been able to hold on to what we had 30 years ago, the ground fishery alone in Newfoundland and Labrador which is worth a minuscule amount today would be worth $3.6 billion. The $2 billion we got over eight years from the offshore oil development would pale in the shadow of what the fishery is worth.

Let us hope we see mechanisms put in place in the budget that will enable people to develop resources, our tourism resource, our fishery resource, our oil resources, our mineral resources. Let us hope we see an encouragement for companies and people to develop these resources because therein we create the wealth that will enable us to do the things that everyone else wants us to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the comments made by my colleague from Newfoundland in this prebudget debate.

It struck me that well past the eleventh hour and we might say that at midnight the clock struck and the Prime Minister decided to quit dithering for a moment, sit down with the premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia and actually work through a deal. Now he wants to be applauded and credited with driving home this bargain deal that he wants to talk about.

It strikes me, and I think my colleague was referring to this, that two things are abundantly clear. One is that a near crisis could have been averted if last fall the Prime Minister had simply honoured the commitment he made last June and said, “I made a commitment to Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia and I am going to honour that and proceed on that basis”, but he did not. The second thing I want to make clear is that if it was not for a minority government, I do not think we would have seen the Prime Minister actually held accountable for the promise that he made.

Has my colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador heard similar sentiments expressed by the people of that great province? Do they recognize that it was through his efforts as well as those of many other colleagues and our leader that really held the government's feet to the fire and made the Prime Minister own up to his commitment and finally put his money where his mouth is?

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is dead on in what he has said. As we approached the reopening of the House we could see a scurry of activity. The last thing the Prime Minister wanted was to come into the House today without an agreement because he knew what he would be facing. He was already in trouble in Atlantic Canada. The way he was treating provinces, forget which ones, was being looked upon right across the country in complete and utter disdain.

If the Prime Minister had not delivered a deal on Friday, as my colleague mentioned, at the eleventh hour, because a byelection is coming up in Labrador, because of the relentless pressure from here and knowing that the House would open, he would not win a seat in Atlantic Canada. I would say it would have damaged him tremendously right across the country.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from St. John's South—Mount Pearl for the incredible work that he has done on behalf of his constituents and the entire province.

I very much agree with the sentiments expressed by my friend from Prince George—Peace River about how the Prime Minister was dragged kicking and screaming to the realization he was going to be held to account not only on the offshore issue in Atlantic Canada, but on other issues. We saw similar revelations today where there was going to be some difficulty for him on the failure of his government to disclose documents to the Gomery commission. Then lo and behold, yet again on the first day of Parliament there was an agreement, an eleventh hour capitulation to provide those documents. It is a bit like an arsonist returning to the scene of the crime and asking if he can join the fire department to help put out the flames.

I want to turn to another issue with respect to the prebudget consultation, and that is the need to enhance our coastal security. My colleague has long been a defender of the need to bolster the Canadian Coast Guard, which has been cut to ribbons by the current Liberal government. It has been left totally emasculated in the government's efforts to try to enforce NAFTA rules and Canadian sovereignty in fact over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. We have seen the decimation of the cod stocks and other species in our waters inside and outside the 200 mile limit.

Would my colleague care to comment and give some of his expertise, so to speak? Would he share with the House how the prebudget consultations could lead to greater resources for the Canadian Coast Guard and for greater security along our coastal shores? This is something that was alluded to by the Deputy Prime Minister, that there was an actual need, but again the question will be, is the government prepared to back up those commitments with the money?

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South, NL]

Mr. Speaker, like all of us, my colleague has worked tirelessly for his province especially in relation to offshore resources. It was a team effort. People from Nova Scotia worked with us but we were solidly backed up by our colleagues right across the country unanimously. The support from other parties, the NDP in particular, helped us push through that agreement. There are other things and certainly security is a big issue.

About a year ago the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans tabled a solid universally accepted report. When I say universally accepted, I mean it was universally accepted by the people directly involved with the Coast Guard, the employees and management and by those in the hierarchy. The government should listen to the recommendations made in that report and start concentrating on rebuilding the Coast Guard given its name and stature in Canadian history.

We have a tremendous asset here. Instead of the duplication we see happening now, let us start concentrating on building a solid agency that will make sure that our coasts are secure, whether it be in relation to the transfer of oil along our coasts, whether it be in relation to people landing illegally, or drugs or whatever the case might be, or whether it is in relation to protecting our people who ply the seas.

If the government would listen to those who make recommendations, and in this case a unanimous report from a standing committee, then we might see some of the things that we aspire to see happening.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, I have had the opportunity and privilege over the last few months to hear from many well-informed Canadians representing various organizations, associations, groups and individuals during the prebudgetary hearings. I am pleased to reflect in my comments some of the important issues that these presenters were able to bring to our attention.

I feel fortunate to have had the opportunity to also give voice to other Canadians who may not have had the same type of access to the finance committee as our presenters, yet who have contacted my office regarding the budgetary priorities they believe should be front and centre in budget 2005.

I doubt that there has ever been a time when every party, including the government, has agreed with the finance committee's final report. The budget report process is important for this very reason. It allows each party to take the opportunity to bring their issues to the budget debate, representing different viewpoints. The hope is that each will be listened to carefully by the finance minister.

The response to this report and its supplementary and dissenting opinions will also say a lot about this government and, in particular, the finance minister and the Prime Minister. Will they take the opportunity to gather the valuable ideas presented and table a budget that is reflective of what Canadians want and in so doing harness the potential of our country?

My hope is that the government will listen to Canadians like those who appeared in front of our finance committee, who work in the public health care system and for advocacy groups and who have completed years of research on taxation and its impacts on all areas of public policy.

Will the government ignore these great ideas brought forward by great Canadians and table a budget that is hijacked by polling results and directed by politics instead of policy? Ultimately it is the actions of the finance minister which will direct the economic and social interests of our country.

As a younger Canadian, I can think of no greater gift that this minority Parliament can give to the next generation than a budget that supports them as they prepare to compete in the global marketplace and build strong families and communities here at home.

As previous speakers from the official opposition have said, it is time to leave mediocrity behind. It is time to discard the adherence to a political mythology that results in short term electoral gain but dismisses the long term needs of Canadians. It is time to present a budget that showcases Canada to the world, a budget that shows we are finally serious about economic strength and fiscal responsibility.

Many of my colleagues have spoken about what such a Canada would look like, with a focus on innovation, productivity, quality of life, lower taxes, an improved pan-Canadian economic picture, sound environmental policies, and what improved fiscal relations would mean for rural Canadians and for people in Newfoundland and Labrador as well as Nova Scotia.

These ideas are all found within the Conservative Party supplemental report. I hope that the finance minister takes the time to reflect on our suggestions and consider them carefully.

Today I am going to limit my comments to two issues: a move toward rectifying the fiscal imbalance and finding a spending balance that recognizes the federal government's actual priorities and a sincere move toward measured debt repayment.

Recommendation 6 of the committee's report affirms a commitment to continue ongoing discussions toward rectifying the fiscal imbalance. This is a compromise position, but ongoing discussions have done nothing to solve the fiscal imbalance. In fact, these discussions have exacerbated the problem by suggesting that it does not exist.

Provinces unanimously recognize that the federal government takes up too much tax room and collects more taxes than it needs to fulfill its constitutional obligations. It uses the excess moneys it collects to intervene in provincial jurisdiction and set provincial policy priorities.

This problem is confirmed by the fact that governments in Alberta and Newfoundland, as well as the Quebec Liberal Party, have each written reports for their own provinces on a way to see greater autonomy within Confederation and a better rebalancing of the federation based on their concerns over loss of provincial fiscal and constitutional power.

The fiscal imbalance is the very reason that the premiers have set up the Council of the Federation and it is the reason they joined together and derailed the Prime Minister's agenda at the September health conference and the conference on equalization.

While the Liberal government fails to recognize the fiscal imbalance, ironically it is the Liberal members of the finance committee who have indirectly recognized it through their recommendations in their dissenting report.

For example, let us look at the Liberals' push for a national day care program. The members suggest that we need to start this system to stop child poverty.

Everyone in the House knows that a national day care program will not solve child poverty. As long as productivity is low, as long as unemployment is high, as long as taxes are high and as long as there is a shortage of affordable housing, there will be child poverty in this country.

Next we see that the Liberal members would like to see increased funding for emergency shelters for women and children who have experienced domestic violence.

Everyone in the House would like to see this sort of funding, but then again, everyone in the House would like to have seen this funding since 1995, when the Prime Minister gutted social transfers to the provinces, which then had to cut funding to programs such as this or download this funding to municipalities.

As someone who has spent a great deal of time supporting victims of domestic abuse either through volunteer efforts or through fundraising, I can tell members that women's shelters are in desperate need of funding.

But few people in this House trust this government or this Prime Minister to follow through on these priorities. After the Prime Minister's transfer cuts it was these very sorts of programs that suffered, so it must be somewhat difficult for the Prime Minister to have his own finance committee members repudiating his efforts of a decade ago.

So yes, there is a fiscal imbalance, and the Liberal Party recognizes it every time it attempts to correct the Prime Minister's financial record with the provinces by intervening in their jurisdiction with new programs to solve old problems.

I would also like to talk a little about debt reduction. As a younger Canadian I think I approach this issue differently than some others in the House. We know the debt is too large. We know that we have to get rid of it. Ultimately, having a large debt does not just inhibit our generation's ability to provide tax relief, social programs, a robust military and, most important, a trustworthy trade and investment climate; it also inhibits the ability of future generations.

I have received letters from many young Canadians, as I know the Prime Minister has, regarding the size of Canada's debt and the problems it poses for those 40 and under. We are currently paying for deficits and interest from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Without a significant move to rid ourselves of debt today and over the next 10 to 20 years, we will continue to pay that interest, alongside the acknowledged increase in social spending and a reduced income tax base when baby boomers retire.

That said, we still do not have a plan for putting our fiscal house in order. We need a systematic, measured method for repaying debt. Instead, what we have seen is an on-again, off-again inclination toward reducing the debt when it suits the government's political interests.

The government reports inaccurate surplus forecasts, every year coming in with a surplus that is far beyond the predicted one, as a result of overtaxing Canadians. Last year it was a $9.1 billion surplus and this year it will likely be upwards of $11 billion. This is unacceptable and imposes insurmountable challenges for provinces in their attempts to set their own budgets and make long term plans.

I started this parliamentary session by noting that this was a government with no vision for tapping into the economic and social potential that the country holds. In the last four months I have had the privilege of hearing from Canadians across the country in prebudgetary hearings, and I have had the opportunity to work alongside my learned colleagues on the finance committee, who bring vast experience to this debate.

This minority Parliament has a choice. We can provide Canadians with a budget that sets into motion a focused and exciting plan for our country and focuses on policy as opposed to politics. Canada can do better. Canadians deserve better. I urge the government and the finance minister to consider carefully and implement the suggestions of Canadians from across the country as submitted by the Conservative Party.