Debates of Oct. 19th, 2006

Language Used in Oral Question

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain has some submissions on another point of order he wishes to make to the Chair. I will hear him now.

Citizenship Act--Bill C-14

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I, perhaps, have a somewhat tamer point of order which is in response to a previous point raised. I want to clarify the facts referred to in the comments made by the member for Burnaby—Douglas on Tuesday, October 17, when responding to the point of order I raised in respect to Bill C-14.

Before making a ruling, I believe it is important to note that the member was incorrect when he asserted that the denial of citizenship to an adopted child was a de facto denial of an immigration visa and permanent residence status. The member made this argument to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that there was no difference between citizenship and immigration matters so that you would conclude that the immigration appeal division of the Immigration and Refugee Board may hear citizenship matters.

The fact is that citizenship and permanent residency each have a very different status in law. Indeed, so substantial are the differences that each is defined in separate statutes, as are the procedures and applications relevant to them.

Mr. Speaker, the member would have you overlook the fact that there is nothing in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that provides the Immigration and Refugee Board with powers or a mandate to deal with citizenship. The procedures and process for citizenship are limited to the Citizenship Act. None of those procedures or processes refer to or relate to the IRB.

More fundamental to the argument by the member for Burnaby—Douglas is his incorrect assertion that one can look past the lack of a citizenship mandate of the IRB by finding that citizenship decisions have an impact on the applicant's visa or permanent residence status application. The member, simply put, was wrong.

The fact is that denial of citizenship has little impact on permanent residence status. It is certainly incorrect to say that a denial of citizenship is a de facto denial of permanent residence. Under the current law it is possible for a permanent resident to apply for citizenship and be denied with the denial having no effect on his or her permanent residence status.

The second significant error to the member's submission that I wish to clarify is his suggestion that the incompleteness of the amendments may be addressed by regulations to Bill C-14 by stating:

...that requirements as to its operation can be delineated in regulations developed to implement the act, and therefore the amendment meets all the tests of completeness.

The member made this argument hoping to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, to overlook the fact that the legislation that creates the Immigration and Refugee Board does not already recognize citizenship or a role for itself in dealing with citizenship matters.

The member's submission that a new role for the IRB can be delineated in regulations to Bill C-14 is incorrect. I gave my remarks on October 6 on the inadmissibility of an amendment that requires subsequent amendment of an act that was not before the committee. I do not propose to repeat those comments here but to simply respond to the member for Burnaby—Douglas' contention and clarify that there are no provisions in the Citizenship Act or the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that would permit the making of regulations that would change the existing mandate of the immigration appeal division.

If his submission is to be taken as being that the regulations to Bill C-14 can speak to the mandate and powers of the immigration appeal division and broaden them to allow the immigration appeal division to deal with a citizenship matter, then I would refer to my previous comments on October 6 only to add that regulations to an amendment of the statute may not amend another statute that was not before the committee.

In this instance, regulations to an amendment to the Citizenship Act may not amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act which creates the mandate and powers of the immigration appeal division.

With respect to the royal proclamation, the argument essentially was that since there would no longer be appeals under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, somehow these funds could be applied to appeals under the Citizenship Act, is somewhat circular in the sense that if there is no appeal provision in respect to the adoption provision in the Adoption Act, moneys would be saved and in order for the appeal to happen we would require additional funding which would require a royal proclamation. For that reason, also, it would not be acceptable.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit concerned. I have been following this exchange between the previous speaker and the member for Burnaby—Douglas and I have some sense that the previous speaker may have raised some additional new points. He was not just responding to the response that we had from the member for Burnaby—Douglas. I would like to reserve the opportunity for the member, who is not present to counter that argument, that he be given the opportunity at some point in the future.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am sure if it is necessary he will be given some opportunity. I am not in a position now to render a decision based on the submissions I have just heard. I will take them into consideration with the others I have heard on this case.

Law Commission of Canada--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on October 3, 2006, by the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh concerning funding cuts to the Law Commission of Canada.

I wish to thank the hon. member for raising this issue. I also wish to thank the hon. member for London West, the hon. government House leader and the hon. member for Vancouver East for their interventions.

In his question of privilege, the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh expressed concern about the government's announcement on September 25 that it would be eliminating funding to the Law Commission of Canada, thus effectively dissolving the organization. He questioned the authority of the government to do so without parliamentary approval, contending that the House of Commons first had to pass legislation to repeal the Law Commission of Canada Act. In support of this argument, he referred to a 1993 precedent when Bill C-63, an act to Dissolve or Terminate Certain Corporations, was passed. In conclusion, he asserted that the actions of the government breached the collective privileges of the House.

The hon. member for London West contributed arguments in support of the question of privilege. She gave a brief summary of the history and mandate of the Law Commission of Canada, citing several sections from the Law Commission of Canada Act. The hon. member for Vancouver East also spoke in support of the question of privilege.

For his part, the hon. government House leader contended that this was not a question of privilege. He stated:

...the President of the Treasury Board and the Government of Canada are not obligated to continue to spend money in areas which the government has decided it does not want to spend....

The matter raised by the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh is complex. The question on which I have been asked to rule is twofold. First, is the government's actions in conformity with existing legislative provisions respecting the Law Commission of Canada? Second, do the government's actions in eliminating the funding for the Law Commission breach the privileges of the House?

With respect to the first point, as my predecessors and I have pointed out in many rulings, where legal interpretation is an issue, it is not within the Speaker's authority to rule or decide points of law. Mr. Speaker Lamoureux's ruling, found at page 7740 of the Debates for September 13, 1971, deals with this question as follows:

Whether the government has an obligation under the terms of the existing law to make certain payments is not a question for the Chair to decide...This is a matter of judicial interpretation and is far beyond the jurisdiction and certainly far beyond the competence of the Chair.

Accordingly, if there is a legal problem, then the solution is to be found in the courts.

Now let me address the procedural issues that do lie within the Speaker's purview. The hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh argues that the collective privileges of the House have been breached.

Generally speaking, the collective privileges of the House are categorized as the power to discipline; the regulation of its own internal affairs; the authority to maintain the attendance and service of its members; the right to institute inquiries, call witnesses and demand papers; the right to administer oaths to witnesses; and the right to publish papers containing defamatory material. In this particular instance, it is evident that none of these collective rights have been breached.

That being said, House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, at page 52:

Any conduct which offends the authority or dignity of the House, even though no breach of a specific privilege may have been committed, is referred to as a contempt of the House. Contempt may be an act or an omission; it does not have to actually obstruct or impede the House or a Member, it merely has to have the tendency to produce such results.

In short, the Chair is being asked to judge whether this action by the government has challenged the perceived authority and dignity of Parliament. Let me review briefly the parameters of that authority as they relate to this case.

Through the estimates and ways and means processes, Parliament authorizes the amounts and destinations of all public expenditures. Once Parliament has allocated the moneys, it is the prerogative of the government to manage these funds. On page 697 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice it states:

As the Executive power, the Crown is responsible for managing all the revenue of the state, including all payments for the public service.

Although responsibility for financial management belongs to the government, the House retains an important oversight role. Members, through the standing committee system, have an opportunity to examine how the government has managed these funds through their review of the estimates, the annual departmental performance reports, the Public Accounts of Canada and the reports of the Auditor General.

At this time ministers may be invited to appear before standing committees to defend these expenditures and the committees may report back to the House. In addition, as part of its responsibility for oversight of government activities, a committee may invite a minister to appear at any time to discuss administrative decisions.

Following such inquiries, committees are empowered to report to the House concerning any comments or recommendations they may wish to make. The House then has the authority to take up the matter and deal with it as it sees fit.

Thus, the duty of oversight goes to the very reason for the existence of Parliament and this range of activities represents the normal operations of this place. In this way, members who disagree with the course taken by the government on any particular issue can pursue such questions in a variety of ways. Since the avenues remain open to the hon. member, the Chair cannot conclude that the government's action on the Law Commission is flouting the authority of the House.

While members may have deep concerns about the decision to no longer fund the Law Commission of Canada, this decision does not constitute a breach of privilege. While the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh may feel he has a grievance, I cannot find a prima facie case of privilege in this case.

I thank the hon. member, however, for bringing this important matter to the attention of the Chair.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion--Economic and Fiscal Position

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to debate the motion. I will be splitting my time with my esteemed colleague, the member for Mississauga South.

The motion accurately describes the present situation in which we find ourselves. The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government inherited the best economic and fiscal position of any incoming federal government and has not demonstrated the need, value or wisdom of its announced expenditure cuts which unfairly disadvantage the most vulnerable groups in Canadian society.

As I said, I completely agree with the motion. We have seen that almost every federal government department has felt the wrath of these meanspirited cuts. What is all the more confusing is that they have done this when we, as a nation, are enjoying one of the best fiscal periods ever.

Perhaps the Conservatives need a reminder of the financial record of our Liberal government. We posted eight consecutive budget surpluses, the longest string in our country's history, experienced record job growth, debt reduction and low interest rates. First home buyers were able to buy affordable homes under our mandate. We started the process of paying down the federal debt, some $55 billion, which saves $3 billion each and every year going forward. We also, though given that, were able to cut taxes for Canadians, the largest cut of taxes in Canada's history of $100 billion. At the same time, we were able to invest in health care, with the health care accord, some $41 billion to improve the health of Canadians.

The bold economic agenda set out by the Liberal government allowed Canadians to invest in our families and businesses. It allowed our government to invest in the social programs we as Canadians all value, such as health care, child care and education.

There is more. As I said, we had debt retirement, investments in research and training, job creation, low unemployment, low inflation and strong sustained economic growth.

I will talk about one thing we did not do. We did not take advantage of the poorest and most disadvantaged in our country. Programs such as literacy programs, the court challenges program and many others are very important to my constituents in Etobicoke North and, indeed, to Canadians across this land.

We have heard details earlier in this debate of many of these cuts. I would like to focus on the cuts in natural resources. I do this because I am our party's critic for natural resources. Here we have seen a number of cuts that do not seem to make any sense whatsoever, programs such as the wind power production incentive program, the EnerGuide for houses retrofit program, funding to fight the mountain pine beetle program, programs for the development of new base metals, the leading edge long telescope system, or VLBI, are all gone. All these valuable programs are gone.

At a time when the country is experiencing unprecedented fiscal prosperity, the government has decided to attack and slash these important programs. At a time when we need to improve our energy efficiency, when we need to conserve energy and we need to encourage alternative energy sources, the government has shown a callous disregard for programs that we know are working and working very well.

In reference to the EnerGuide program, in spite of very clear advice from the departmental experts to keep these programs alive, the minister and the government decided to scrap this effective and popular program. The only reason we can deduce it did that is for ideological reasons, not for reasons of program efficiency and effectiveness.

However, this was a mistake that needs to be corrected. There is no shame in that. In this case, it is clear to everyone that a mistake was made.

Clifford Maynes, executive director of Green Communities Canada, asserted that the elimination of the EnerGuide program could set back the residential energy efficiency file by at least 10 years.

On average, this program was achieving about 30% energy savings for homeowners. The $75 million that was spent in the program, from October 2003 to March 2006, will yield $975 million in energy savings over the life of the retrofit investments. The government must recognize this error and reinstate the program.

We heard from the minister that 50¢ out of every dollar was for administration. We know this is not correct. The deputy minister clarified this at committee and indicated that 12¢ out of every dollar was for administration.

It is also very hard to believe that the wind power production incentive program has been frozen.

With the rapid development of the wind energy sector in Canada, which is proving to be one of the main contributors to the diversification of energy sources for the next 20 years, now is not the time to freeze or cancel such important programs.

The Liberal Party recognizes this fact, as did the Liberal government, which is why we committed to expanding the wind power production incentive in the 2005 budget, by quadrupling the previous program and by promising $200 million over five years.

The private sector's response was very positive, and so were industry comments on the program.

The recent report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has said that the wind power production incentive program has stimulated investment. It goes on to say that there is broad-based support for the program from provincial governments, companies and utilities.

In fact, we know that many provinces, like the province of Quebec, are planning a huge expansion in window power. Wind power has the potential to offer a very real alternative. It is not the complete solution nor is it the complete replacement for fossil fuels, but it has great promise. We need to encourage and provide the incentives necessary to keep that program moving forward.

The decision by the Minister of Natural Resources to freeze further funding for this program is imperiling this important industry and imperiling many jobs and investments. For example, every one megawatt of installed wind energy capacity in Canada generates $1.5 million in investment and creates 2.5 direct and 8 indirect person years of employment. If 5% of Canada's electricity were generated by wind energy in 2015, and I think we have the potential actually to move that benchmark up to 20% of our total energy needs in Canada, this development would produce $19.5 billion in investment and create 32,500 direct and 104,000 indirect person years of employment.

Therefore, given that this program was being used, that it was effective and that we all recognize wind energy is an important component in Canada's future power supply, we must immediately reinstate this program.

I could go on. There are other areas that have been cut and slashed from this important portfolio of natural resources. The government has hacked and slashed for crass political reasons and has done so at the cost of our environment. Some very important programs were working well for all Canadians. They were moving us closer to our objectives of reducing greenhouse gasses and creating a better environment for ourselves, our children and our children's children.

Axing these important programs is severely hurting Canada's ability to fight climate change and control pollution. The government must be held accountable, and we on this side will ensure that this happens.

[James Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

Mr. Speaker, with the budget cuts that we have announced, it is important to put everything in perspective. Some of the language we have heard from the Liberals, during the course of this debate and over the past couple of weeks, has been hyperbolic at best. We are talking about cutting less than one-half of 1% of the federal budget. That is it.

My colleague and some members of other parties in the House have mentioned programs. There is no question they are sincere in the concern about what these cuts will mean to some specific programs. However, to describe this as somehow meanspirited and draconian, as the Liberals describe, is insincere and wrong. This is a very small cut. We are cutting, for example, a number of programs where money was allocated but never spent. For example, $20 million was set aside for fish farms, polluting dirty fish farms, in Nova Scotia. That money was allocated but never spent. It is hardly draconian cutting spending that was never in fact done; it was just allocated.

The most important aspect of the Conservative fiscal plan is that we are paying down the debt by over $13 billion. When I was first elected to this place six years ago, I was 24 years of age. The big issue in that campaign, and it continues to be for young Canadians, is that the federal government has to pay down the federal debt so future generations of young Canadians are not hammered economically because of the broken and failed promises of politicians they have never met.

We have made the largest debt paydown in Canadian history, over $13 billion. It is to the benefit of young Canadians. We have done this with small cuts to programs, which are reasonable cuts. It is less than one-half of 1% of the federal budget. If we cannot do that, then the Liberals are saying there is no way we can possibly pay down the debt if we cannot even get that done.

What we are doing is entirely fiscally responsible. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business says so. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce says so. My constituents are saying so. They applaud the fiscal measures. Just because the federal government has a surplus, it does not mean the money is being spent well. There is no better expenditure for young Canadians than to pay down the debt and give them a better future.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the expenditure cuts were made for reasons of efficiency and effectiveness, then I might have some sympathy. The members on this side know about cutting. When we came into power in 1993, we inherited a $42 billion debt. It was our government that started to realign the fiscal capacity of the government.

The member cannot really give us a lesson in paying down debt. We started the process. We paid down $55 billion in debt, but we did not focus only on one aspect. We invested $41 billion in health care. We reduced taxes. We invested in research, development and training. We had the orders and the priorities right. We did not cut for ideological purposes.

The member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam talks about some of these little nuances of money not allocated or money frozen. That is just smoke and mirrors. They may be calling these programs frozen, but that is just a way of saying they are in limbo, and maybe permanent limbo in fact. This is a tragedy for some of those programs where we have to diversify our energy alternatives. We have to fight greenhouse gases.

The member knows full well we can do, as a government, more things than just one and we do not need to cut programs for ideological purposes.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member opposite. It is time to invest in people and the environment.

The Liberal legacy has been a $13 billion surplus, amassed on the backs of ordinary Canadians, on cities, on provinces in which services were downloaded, More than that, it has resulted in 13 years of inaction over greenhouse gas emissions, of increasing disparity between the rich and poor in Canada.

Just a couple of weeks ago Madame Gélinas indicated a $6 billion waste of money for which there were no results and no monitoring.

My question is twofold. First, is that what the member considers fiscally responsible? Second, does he consider that the social deficit and the environmental deficit that has been created in amassing this huge surplus is being fiscally responsible?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always find it strangely amusing when we have this debate in the House that the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. They talk about budgetary surpluses as something that is bad and nasty and something we should avoid.

In fact, we went through just the opposite of that with the Conservatives in power. We inherited a $42 billion debt and that was eating into the fiscal capacity of the government to invest in social programs, in health care, in post-secondary education. Therefore, it is not a crime to create surpluses.

What I think is very unfortunate is cutting programs, for example, EnerGuide. Under access to information, I have the material that the minister was briefed on and the department recommended that the EnerGuide program be continued because it was working quite efficiently and quite effectively. Why would the government not heed that advice on a program that is working very effectively and very efficiently? No, I think our government--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I am sorry but the time has expired.

The hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the debate today. I suppose it would be easy to repeat many of the points again, but I thought I would change gears a little to see if we could maybe put this in terms my grandma would understand.

I think Canadians are aware of the history of the Liberal Party. They are aware of what it did during its term of office that ended last January. Canadians also will know that the financial year of the Government of Canada ends on March 31 and the Conservative government started to sit in April of this year.

When the Auditor General finally did her work and reported on the financial position of the Government of Canada for the 12 months ending March 31, 2006, which was just before the Conservative government called Parliament together, there was a $13.2 billion surplus. This is something that we as Canadians should celebrate.

A surplus is not a bad thing. In fact, it shows good fiscal responsibility. It means the debt can be paid down and the money spent on interest can be saved. Indeed, the interest savings are going to be approximately $600 million a year. That is a good thing because that is the real fiscal dividend.

I can remember our discussions in 1997. When we came in, we inherited the Brian Mulroney financial situation of the country, with a $42 billion deficit. It took three years after we were first elected to whittle that down to the first balanced budget, which occurred in 1997. The members might be interested to hear the question we were then posing, which was about getting to the point where we were actually going to balance the books. That is a good thing. Canadians want that. As a matter of fact, I believe that Canadians say it is unacceptable for any party in government to incur a deficit unless there are extraordinary circumstances clearly beyond its control. We are not going back into deficit. I do not think there is a party in this place, maybe other than the NDP, that would want to go back into a deficit.

Having said that, I will say we must understand that the Auditor General determined in September that, as of March 31, $13.2 billion was the number. Under the rules of accounting of the Government of Canada, the entire amount goes to pay down debt. No decision was taken by anybody. March 31 was over six months ago. The moneys already were applied against the debt. There was no decision to be taken.

Back in 1997 when we were talking about having our very first balanced budget and maybe a small surplus, people were saying, “What should we do with the surplus?” We then got into defining what the real fiscal dividend would be to Canadians. What was the benefit to Canadians of having a surplus? It is not the surplus in itself, which goes to pay down the debt; it is the interest savings on the financing of the debt. It is the interest savings year after year. A surplus only occurs in one year, but if the bank loan is paid down, that means interest for all the years thereafter will be lower than otherwise projected.

We passed on a healthy situation to the Conservative government. That is a good thing. We should celebrate that, but now, each and every year, each and every government, regardless of what party it is, has to be a responsible government.

The debate I have heard indicates that people are getting a little partisan about this. They are talking about somebody maybe doing things because they really do not have their eye on the ball of making “good laws and wise decisions”, as we pray each day. They are not looking at an integrated vision for Canada, an economic plan and a social plan and things that would work together to make our country even better than it is.

How do we build up immunity to big hits during a recession? How do we deal with high unemployment, should that occur? In one year, if we were to go into a deficit, we could have a $6 billion additional charge to the EI fund just because of the unemployment caused by a recession.

We talk here about billions of dollars, but ordinary Canadians are looking at their paycheques. Most Canadians who talk to us are saying that they have family responsibilities and bills to pay and they have to provide for their future. They say they work hard for every dollar they earn and they want, expect and deserve fiscal responsibility from the government.

So yes, there was a $13.2 billion surplus. It paid down debt. It is going to save us approximately $600 million a year. That is a good thing, but that $600 million a year is new dollars available to invest in the priorities of Canadians. It should be invested in things like health care, things for our youth and seniors, and for government efficiency, to continue to do things as we are able to, and for tax cuts as they are affordable.

Responsible government is about having a vision. I think the debate going on back and forth around the House is questioning whether or not, on a partisan basis, someone is doing things for partisan reasons. Perhaps rather than having their eye on a vision of Canada and how we are going to have responsible government in Canada, they are in fact looking at when the next election is going to be. Is it really going to be next spring after the budget comes down? The Bloc Québécois has already said it is voting against the budget because it is not concerned. The role of the official opposition is to oppose and we will be opposed to the budget, because we already know that the government made commitments in its last election platform and many of them have not been introduced into this place yet.

In the next fiscal period, there are significant undertakings. One of them, I am afraid to say, is going to be tremendously expensive, and that is the wait times guarantee. I am not going to get into that, but there was no money in the last budget. There will have to be a lot of money in the next budget if the government is going to make a serious commitment to achieving a platform objective.

All in all, what the economists have worked out is that in the next budget we have to trim something like $23 billion of what we spend today, in this fiscal year, so that we can pay for the $23 billion in additional promises that were made by the Conservatives in their last platform. That is not partisan. That just happens to be the fact. Those are the undertakings of the government of the day, so we know things are going to be happening.

When the government comes to this place and announces that there will be a billion dollars in cuts and another billion two years from now, it is inconsequential. I do not think they really have to do that, but some of those cuts touched a chord with ordinary Canadians like my grandma.

Seniors are affected by this and our youth are affected by this, as are the illiterate in our country. Members well know that illiteracy in Canada is way higher than most Canadians even realize. People are unable to read a simple instruction manual on how to operate machinery, equipment or any other technological item. That is the world we live in.

I think the President of the Treasury Board struck a nerve with a lot of Canadians when he said about literacy that the government is cutting adult literacy programs because those people are already adults, they cannot read and so nothing can be done about it. In fact, programs have shown that adult literacy programs are productive.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services was saying that the Conservatives only cut a half of 1% of the budget of the Government of Canada. That is a billion dollars. Let us talk about a billion dollars. Saying that it is only a half of 1% is not the way to look at it. It is a billion dollars, and there are some cuts there.

Canadians want to understand why Parliament does things and why we do things. I felt really bad to hear a minister of the Crown say that we are not going to do this any more in adult literacy because they are old people now and we cannot teach an old dog new tricks. That is just not the way it works. I think we have the responsibility, collectively in the House, but certainly with the lead of the government, to make sure that we do not leave anyone behind. All Canadians need hope.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have always appreciated the clarity with which that individual speaks. The member for Mississauga South used to be a member of the finance committee. As an accountant, he has a fairly good sense of the numbers. One thing I really like about him is that most of the time he is able to distinguish between deficit and debt, which some of the Liberal members over there have an inability to do, including the member for Kings—Hants.

I would like to point out to him, to his grandmother and to all of the other people who happen to be listening to this or will hear it in the future, that when it comes to economics, it is something like steering a ship. I read somewhere a long time ago that the captain of a large ocean liner has to begin his turn some 10 miles before he actually expects the direction of the ship to change, because of the inertia of it. The same thing is true economically.

I hasten to point out that the debt, which the Liberals claim they inherited in 1993 from the Conservatives of the day, was in fact nothing more than the Liberal debt from 1972 onward, with accumulated interest. That is really what it was. During its time of being in power, the Conservative government actually had a balanced budget on programs.

This is a long term thing. I think if the Liberals were honest they would have to admit that it was some of the programs like NAFTA, and even the GST, which they said they would cut, these things, that set in motion the ability of this ship to turn nine years down the road. If it had not have been for that, they would not have been able to do even what they did.

Beyond that, during their short time between 1999 and 2003, government spending went up 50% under those Liberals. Let us think of the amount of debt we could have paid down if there had been responsible spending practices on the part of the Liberal government.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all I do know is that when the Auditor General reported on each and every one of the nine years of the Brian Mulroney government, there were deficits added to the debt. In fact, the debt got as high as about $500 billion.

We are just a little bit below that today even though we have had balanced budgets since 1997, the reason being the deficit that had to be eaten away. In 1994, I believe the $42 billion deficit went down to something like $27 billion. It actually went up to $550 billion. Then we paid down about $60 billion worth of debt, so we are just a little better with the total federal debt than we were when we started. In fact, it is almost the same.

Basically the member said that “if only we had not raised the spending”, but I think he has to understand that the spending that occurred during that period of time was to help Canadians most in need. I think that is the difference between Liberals and Conservatives. Conservatives say they will cut to certain levels, regardless of what it is for, while Liberals say they will take care of our health care system and they will take care of the--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

We do have a few more people seeking the floor.

On questions and comments, the hon. member for Victoria.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I and my NDP colleagues very much respect every dollar that Canadians earn and pay in taxes, unlike the Liberals, who wasted billions of tax dollars on programs that have had absolutely no results, not to mention the sponsorship scandal, where millions of dollars disappeared, so I hope the member was not giving the NDP lessons.

Even the finance department agrees, asking how often provincial governments have balanced budgets since 1984. The NDP balanced the books 49% of the time, whereas the Liberal Party did so 23% of the time. I want to make that point.

What I was trying to say about the $13 billion surplus that the Liberal Party is boasting about is that it was amassed over the heads of ordinary Canadians and cities and provinces where services were downloaded. Canadians are now facing polluted waters, polluted air and crumbling infrastructure.

Does the member understand a triple bottom line, in that creating a surplus in one area does not balance off in creating an environmental deficit and a social deficit such as those we are facing today in Canada?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the member in some detail. We cannot do that now, but she should understand that the $13.2 billion deficit for the 12 months ending March 31, 2006 is for the entire government and all of its responsibilities on behalf of all Canadians.

It included the $42 billion of incremental health care spending, in which we established benchmark guarantees and transferred by far the greatest incremental transfers to the provinces for health care purposes. It also included the final installments and the impacts of about $130 billion of income tax cuts. Notwithstanding that, there was still a surplus.

The member should understand that there is only one taxpayer. We understand that. The federal government, yes, has to be responsible. Are all the programs perfect? No, and we should work together to ensure that all the programs receive the scrutiny that we should be giving them so that Canadians are well served.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to share the time available to me with my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

I rise to speak in the House of Commons for the first time since I was named as the Bloc Québécois Treasury Board critic. I will do everything in my power to honour the example of my late colleague, Benoît Sauvageau, and Odina Desrochers, another Bloc member who filled the same role.

Today, we are discussing a motion by the Liberal Party concerning the cuts of more than a billion dollars made by the Conservative government. These cuts will affect vulnerable groups, organizations and citizens in our society. People whose lives have been shattered by their economic situation will be very much affected by these cuts.

In my remarks today, I will try to deal with three subjects.

First, by cutting one billion dollars the government is not living up to a promise that it made to Quebec in the last election campaign to address the fiscal imbalance. There is no attempt to do that.

Second, we believe the government could have made cuts in its operating expenditures rather than in the programs that affect individual citizens.

Third, we believe that the Conservatives have made ideological cuts. Indeed, they are attacking the most needy, along with minority groups and programs that provide checks and balances on the government. They have refused to consider possible economies in the Department of National Defence. That is why we call these ideological cuts.

Let us agree on one fact. At the end of fiscal year 2005-2006, the federal debt was $481.5 billion, a drop of $81.4 billion from the peak of $562.9 billion in 1996-1997. Expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product, the federal debt is now at its lowest level in 24 years.

The point that I want to bring out in my remarks is that the Liberals and the Conservatives must stop attacking the needy members of our society with their budget cuts. They must start thinking about the people of Quebec and Canada, who suffer under this desire to reduce the debt at all costs, with no compassion for the most vulnerable groups in our society, groups who need help. We must help them in those areas where we show concern for people, for individuals, those who should receive help from the government to which they contribute every year through various forms of taxation.

We have a surplus of $13 billion, and indeed a little more. Whether the previous government or this government produced that surplus, the fact remains that it is all taxpayers’ money. This is not Liberal money or Conservative money. It is money from Quebeckers and Canadians.

Yes, we have to pay our debts. There is an old saying that a person who pays his debts increases his wealth. The fact remains that we could use part of that $13 billion to pay down the debt and also use part to help people.

Why not take part of it to help the taxpayers who need some help and not just pay off interest on an accumulated debt when people are suffering in our society?

When we are very rich, when we put our money in the bank and act like Ebenezer Scrooge, we are not showing compassion for people. We are only showing that we are closing our eyes to any realities that do not suit us. We are just trying to look good in an electoral platform, which is purely ideological and has nothing to do with human feelings, with the entreaties of society, whether from agencies or individuals who need help.

Here is an example. A few minutes ago I heard a representative of the cabinet, a parliamentary secretary, saying that they had just cut about 1% of the budget just to reduce expenditures. This $1 billion is 1% too much. Not only was $13 billion paid towards the debt, but a way was also found to cut into the money that had already been put in place. It had been spent, was about to be spent, or its spending had been delayed, but a cut was made nevertheless. It is as though $14 billion had been set aside.

I cannot imagine how the Conservative government can seriously tell us that it is just 1%. Go and tell that to the people who today are suffering from cuts among the first nations or among French-speaking people, people in Canada who no longer are even entitled to challenge governments that do not respect the Canadian Constitution. Go and explain this situation to the people who want to inspect our food to make sure that we do not end up with deaths caused by mad cow disease or food poisoning.

We have to go farther than the bank or the institution that lent us some money. These are mechanisms that will not vanish tomorrow morning. Yes, the mistakes of the past must be corrected. There are deficits in the federal government that have been accumulating since the years of the Trudeau regime. Nevertheless we must not put all our eggs in one basket.

There are human beings in Quebec and Canada and this must be understood at some point. I have heard such ugly things from people on the right as, “Anyway, poor people do not vote.” What a fine social conscience!

We have to help the most vulnerable. We are leaders in this society. That is why we have to help people who have needs and who, all too often, no longer believe in the system. They might stop voting. The participation rate is low. When we see tangible evidence that the most vulnerable people do not come to the system that is supposed to help them, we must ask ourselves whether it might be our responsibility to reach out to them. That one magic word, “humanitarian”, indicates that it is our responsibility to help those who need it most.

We have a $13 billion surplus. Do not make more cuts. That makes no sense. The Liberals can crow about it being their surplus all they want, and the Conservatives can say it is thanks to them, but that is all garbage, because reality is flesh and bone: these are people with a soul, with spirituality, and we have to do whatever we can to help them.

The fiscal imbalance means that the federal government has more money than it needs to tend to its constitutional responsibilities, while the provinces do not have enough for health care, education, income assistance, social services, assistance to municipalities and culture. The fiscal imbalance absolutely must be corrected. What does that mean? It means that the federal government must give Quebec and the other provinces what they have a right to for areas that fall under their constitutional responsibility.

The Conservative government must correct the fiscal imbalance. That is what they promised to do during the last federal election. I hope they will fix it. If they do not, another election may happen sooner than expected.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the risk of being yelled at, I would like to remind the member of a couple of different things. Ultimately, what this government is intending on doing, and I think it is reasonable to expect of any government, just like any business, is to periodically review the massive expenditures that it goes through.

The previous Liberal government had an opportunity to pay down $40 billion more on the deficit, which would have left us with $5 billion to $8 billion extra to provide for services.

Unlike the previous government that was attempting to be everything to all people, this government is taking a reasonable approach. We need to provide money to those programs that actually work.

We are asking that of our health care community. We ask that of our educational institutes. We look for areas where there is wasted money. Indeed, most of the programs that the gentleman is referring to were not cut at all.

No matter how loud we want to get in the House of Commons does not make it accurate. The fact is that in 1999 government spending was $119 billion. In 2003 government spending had risen to $178 billion. That is so far above any standard in this country. It was out of control.

We have not cut programs dealing with literacy. We do not need to pay folks to fly around the country and do more studies to tell us that literacy rates in 1994 compared to 2004 have not changed.

Canadian taxpayers expect value for their dollar. This government is committed to putting $80 million into literacy programs to help Canadians in programs that will work, not just spend money for the sake of spending money. The member should know that.

I appreciate that it is his first time rising as the critic for financial stuff, but my goodness--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. member for Gatineau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my Conservative colleague. If that is the Conservatives' intention, they will have to prove it.

They could eliminate tax havens. This would help more than cutting funding to groups who need it.

They could stop looting the employment insurance fund like their predecessors did. Since they have been in power, the Conservatives have taken $2 billion from the employment insurance fund. This money comes from employee and employer contributions and the government used it to pay down part of the debt.

By adopting this new attitude they would get to the heart of the problem. They would be taking money and giving it to those who deserve it.

By eliminating tax havens—it was even a campaign issue in the last two federal elections—they would not have to cut assistance to those who need it. Instead they would be taking money from those who do not deserve it.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the remarks by the member for the Bloc were most pertinent. Would the member please comment on this whole idea of paying down debt versus investment?

We know that the member for LaSalle—Émard congratulated the NDP in June 2005 with regard to the fact that we had $4.6 billion in that June budget taken away from tax cuts to corporations and reinvested in communities. At that time the member for LaSalle—Émard said that was a balanced and fair approach. So we can indeed invest, balance budgets, and still pay down debt.

I would ask my colleague to comment on the fact that despite Canada having all of this money, we still do not have a pharmacare program and we still do not have a national child care policy. We have students, young people, the youth that our government seems to be so concerned about, swimming in debt. The debt is so much that access to post-secondary institutions is denied. That is not how to invest in our youth.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the NDP.

Indeed, we have to pay off some of the debt, but we should not put all our eggs in one basket, as I was saying earlier.

We absolutely must help Canadians and Quebeckers who are struggling, whether economically or socially. The social fabric of a society is of paramount importance.

Programs that help citizens have to be introduced, but we should not neglect the debt. However, we must not pay down the debt at the expense of our fellow human beings.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Gatineau for sharing his time with me.

I rise today on the subject of the expenditure cuts announced by the Conservative government last September 25 because it is important for the people listening to us to have the benefit of some factual, critical information about these $1 billion in cuts over two years.

I also had the pleasure of introducing a motion on behalf of the Bloc Québécois before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to allow the committee members to study these cuts, discover their real objectives and question witnesses—including the president of Treasury Board and senior officials from various departments and federal agencies.

On September 25, 2006, the finance minister and the president of Treasury Board announced, first, that their government would eliminate a large number of programs, second, that it would reduce government expenditures by a tiny bit, and third, that it would put the $13 billion in surpluses toward paying down the debt.

These three parts of the Conservative plan must be kept in mind in order to understand the ideological approach of this minority Conservative government. I will therefore focus on these three parts, one at a time.

Let us speak, first, about debt reduction. My hon. colleague just said it, but I want to say it again: the federal debt is at its lowest level in 24 years. The Conservative government has chosen to put the $13 billion surplus toward paying down the debt. To do this, it has deliberately chosen to penalize an important segment of the public, the most vulnerable people, and it has even announced in advance that it will continue doing so as long as it is in power.

This government is no more interested than the previous one in the legitimate and necessary redistribution of wealth around communities. Some of these surpluses could have been well used, among other things, to assist the regions, the unemployed and our older workers who are experiencing on all sides a major crisis in the forest industry. These surpluses could have been used to deal at least partially with the fiscal imbalance. But no, this is not one of the Conservative government’s priorities. The real needs of people are simply not a priority for it.

The second part of the Conservative plan has to do with what I will call “internal” cuts. These are minimal cuts to the government's operating expenses. I say “minimal” because they represent only a quarter of the total cuts of $1 billion. Cuts to the machinery of government represent only a quarter of the total. Once again, the Conservative government has deliberately chosen not to significantly reduce government operating expenses. Instead, it has chosen to slash spending that affects the public. Seen another way, this spending represents investments in people. The government would even have us believe that these internal cuts are due in part to efficiency gains. These gains are so efficient that, for Health Canada, $28 million has been targeted—I do not know whether it is by the finance department or the Treasury Board—yet Health Canada does not even know the details. This is a great way of doing things. What is more, the government has the audacity to present the decision to cut unspent funds as inconsequential, without showing any concern about the negative effects of not using this money.

Let us look at a few examples: at Natural Resources Canada, the government is cutting the mountain pine beetle initiative, which essentially helps companies in British Columbia that are hard hit by the softwood lumber crisis; at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the government is cutting funds for the salmon ranching industry, which benefit New Brunswick; at the Economic Development Agency of Canada, the government is cutting uncommitted funds earmarked for the social economy, which will cost Quebec $5 million, because this money will not be invested in the social economy; for the rest of Canada, the government is cutting $34 million.

How can the government explain the fact that it could not spend $25 million for the textile and garment industry which needs it so badly, $50 million for the Northwest Territories, $20 million for the Fisheries and Oceans Canada programs I mentioned earlier, or $14 million for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, when we know that we are threatened by potato blight, bird flu and mad cow disease?

Those are only a few examples, but I think they speak volumes. We are entitled to wonder about these cuts, in the form of cancellation of the funds that should be been used, that should have made a genuine contribution to focussed, useful assistance objectives. The government has chosen to end that funding in order to meet its objective of a mathematically calculated cut of $1 billion over two years. This is irresponsible.

The third point relates to the cancelled programs. The real reductions, the real cuts, are being made in programs and initiatives that affect the most vulnerable people, as I said earlier. Once again, because of the short time available to me, I will name only a few of the programs affected.

At the Canada Revenue Agency, the elimination of advisory committees amounts to $1.4 million. Heritage Canada has been handed a 50% cut because of a reduction in assistance to museums, amounting to $4.6 million. Cancellation of the court challenges program amounts to $5.6 million. For the justice system, with the cancellation of another legal program, the Law Commission of Canada, the government is saving $4 million. At Human Resources and Social Development Canada, there will be a $13 million reduction in grants and contributions to the social development partnerships program. Learning and literacy programs are being cut by $17.7 million. At Industry, we have a reduction in support program funding, including Technology Partnerships Canada, in the amount of $42 million. At Health Canada, $10 million earmarked for smoking cessation programs for the First Nations and Inuit people is being cut.

Although this is not an exhaustive list—that was my point—it is enough to show how the Conservative government’s cuts are affecting services to vulnerable people and businesses. In addition, by attacking programs that allow minorities to make their voices heard, or that provide the most disadvantaged people with ways of defending their interests, the Conservative government is making ideological choices—what am I saying?—is imposing its ideology and is doing a serious disservice to a segment of the public that it should be helping and supporting.

I urge everyone with access to the Internet to visit the Department of Finance site to see with their own eyes—because it really is almost unbelievable, to read for and by themselves just how sympathetic this government is when it describes the programs I have just listed as wasteful, when it explains that it has cut the fat, when it congratulates itself for saving $15 million in lawyers’ fees because it made an agreement—as we well know—that left $1 billion behind for the United States, and thus deprived our forestry companies of $1 billion. And for this it congratulates itself.

I will conclude by pointing out that the federal government has more money than it needs to look after everything under its jurisdiction, with a $13 billion surplus and a $7 billion increase in its operating expenses over the last 10 years. It also has all the resources it needs to solve the fiscal imbalance.