Debates of Oct. 19th, 2006

Opposition Motion--Economic and Fiscal Position

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member speaks of so-called budget cuts and cuts to vital programs. The previous Liberal member, who was discussing the fiscal condition of Canada, referred to a relative of his, his grandmother. I would like to refer to some friends of mine who live in my community, most of the people who actually live in my community.

They are suffering from high taxes. They are suffering from skyrocketing prices of every commodity that they buy every day. I will tell members how they make ends meet. They go to the grocery store and they buy the can of peas that is cheaper yet provides the same kind of nourishment that they need for their families. They go to the grocery store and they buy the bread that is on special. They ensure they have saved a few cents, so that they can afford to pay their property taxes, provincial taxes and federal taxes.

It is up to the Government of Canada to show the same kind of responsibility with regard to its budget as the families that go to work every day, pay their taxes, and try to make ends meet. That is why the government is treating the finances of this country the same as average Canadians treat their finances, by finding savings here and there so that they can afford to do the things they have to do for their families. These families want to be responsible. They want to pay down their mortgages, so that near the end of their financial cycle they can afford to pay for their children's high school.

To the hon. member, that is what this government is doing. It is doing the same thing that families do every day, and that is balance their budgets and pay down their mortgages, so that they can afford to do the things that they have to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand my Conservative colleague's logic. He talked about—and I agree with him on this—the fact that when people go grocery shopping they make every penny count.

But that is precisely not what the Conservative government did. It did not look at how it could make cuts internally in order to trim government fat. It did not do that at all. It made only a 25% cut.

As I have already said, in a proportion of 75%, the Conservative government did more harm by not helping its citizens and by making ideological budget cuts.

Our colleague talked about cutbacks here and there. The public does not need those kind of cutbacks. It needs internal cutbacks to reduce the additional $7 billion in spending over 10 years within the federal government. This is major spending.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. I have often risen in this House to speak about the value of the arts. Investment in the arts and culture promotes excellence in all aspects of the creative process, encourages diversity in Canada, and helps us know who we are.

One of my constituents wrote me a letter, Cheryl A. Ewing, who coordinates eyeGO, an innovative program which enables students to go to the arts and provides access. When she heard of the government's cuts, she wrote that it was inconceivable to her that any government with a vision and an understanding of Canada could impose devastating cuts on a sector that is growing and continuing to grow and that has demonstrated much better fiscal management by making do with much less than a self-respecting businessman would.

I know my hon. colleague mentioned the reductions in the museum funding. Would she agree with this sentiment that cutting the arts is a devastating thing to do to the culture and the quality of life in Canada?

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

I want to thank my colleague for her question. She will not be surprised to learn that this issue affects me deeply and is important to me as a Quebecker, a member of Parliament, a member of the Bloc Québécois and as a citizen.

When we talk about culture, we are talking about our very identity, our quest for meaning, our opportunity to express ourselves and to convey our identity through our traditions.

This must not be lost. This must enrich not only our lives but the lives of everyone with whom we come in contact. Our lives in turn can be enriched through contact with their culture.

It is very serious when a government that is responsible for a society attacks its cultural programs, because by doing so it is attacking the identity of the very people it is responsible for. It is terrible.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member Laval—Les Îles.

As people are pretty well aware now, we have had a devastating attack on the most vulnerable that has raised a furor across the country. We have attacked the tourism industry, youth, women, museums, housing, aboriginal people, literacy and volunteerism.

There has been such an outcry across the country and in Parliament we are now on our second day of debate on the topic. This will not end if there is no relief for the most vulnerable in our society.

Member after member from every party in the House has attacked the government for making these senseless cuts on the most vulnerable in our society. I want to go beyond the House to make sure that the Conservative Party knows that it is not just all the members of the House of Commons and all the other parties and three members in the gallery, but this is spreading right across the country.

I am going to give evidence from the farthest constituency in the country of how far the disdain, astonishment and disgust with the cuts has gone. On the weekend I talked to the head of our arts centre, Chris Dray, and he explained how this has really motivated the arts centre that my colleague from Kitchener just talked about. It got them riled up. The members are just beginning to start their movement because they cannot believe this.

In a letter from Brent Slobodin of the Yukon Historical and Museums Association, he wrote:

The Yukon Historical & Museums Association is shocked and dismayed by the recent announcement of $4.6 million in cuts to the museums assistance program. Yukon museums are avid subscribers to the fund and have carried out much important work with assistance from the fund to preserve our collections, document our histories, and to promote our organizations both locally and through traveling exhibits nationally.

The President of the Treasury Board and another member just today said it was just administrative conventions or something. It is not. It pertains to projects. Mr. Slobodin also wrote:

Between 2003 and 2005 six applications were approved through MAP in the Yukon. Projects range from First Nations oral history projects, cultural center planning, exhibit development, to collections preservation and access...All of these worthwhile projects would not otherwise take place without the Museums Assistance Program.

Let me go on to volunteers. It is inconceivable to Canadians that once again this was done without consultation and that has upset people almost as much as the cuts. It was a shock. People could not even adjust and find other funding. How could the government cut volunteers who are at the heart of Canadian society? I will quote from another letter:

On September 25th, the federal government eliminated its support for the Canada Volunteerism Initiative (CVI). We want to ensure that the federal government continues to invest in volunteerism. In 2004, 12 million Canadians volunteered with 161,000 non-profit organizations that provide critical services to citizens. The quality of life of every Canadian is better because of the work of volunteers across this country.

It goes on to say that it was eliminated because it was not a priority for Canadians. The government refused to accept that volunteerism is a priority of Canadians. Tracy Erman, executive director of Yukon Volunteer Bureau, wrote:

Volunteerism is certainly a high priority for those 12 million Canadians engaged in civil society and ultimately to all those who they serve. It is a priority for Canadians who depend on health services, who access social support systems, whose children are involved in sports, who have school age children or aging parents…the list goes on. It includes all of us. Federal investment in volunteering and volunteerism is a priority for Canadians.

The quotes that I am reading are from Canadians. They are not from members of Parliament opposite. Let me go on.

We have a government that professes that it would like to cut down on crime and yet it cut investments in cutting down on crime and the root causes. Cathrine Morginn, a project manager for crime prevention in Yukon, wrote:

Social order and disorder (crime) are DIRECTLY CORRELATED with how well people are able to care for their needs as a community group. The NGO sector is a significant force positioned to innovate, coordinate and deliver when the natural social connections aren't enough to keep everyone healthy. Non-profit efforts create a web of support and safety for all the different issues people face. Through learning that prison does NOTHING to prevent crime, I have learned that the web of myriad of non-profits DOES ALMOST EVERYTHING...Please help.

Let us go on to literacy. Citizens across the country are more shocked that any government in the modern world could cut literacy, the most needy in our society. Imagine trying to survive in society without literacy.

Priscilla Clarkin, a social worker in Whitehorse wrote: “Please support literacy and independence it brings to people”.

Helen Winton, an instructor at Dawson Campus, Yukon College, Dawson City wrote:

As an educator who has been working in the field of adult education for over 20 years, I am astounded by the recent decision to cut funding for literacy. This decision targets one of the neediest and least vocal sectors of our society. Please reconsider this funding cut which will seriously impair the ability of this segment of our population to play a rich and meaningful role in the growth and prosperity of Canada.

Prema Ladchumanopaskeran, Program Coordinator, Healthy Moms, Healthy Babies wrote, “Please reconsider the harsh decision that was made to the budget cuts this past week”.

Another letter, from Ken Agar, to the Prime Minister and the minister of the Treasury Board and the finance minister and the minister of HRSDC stated:

Literacy is significant issue in the North. The Yukon faces problems that stem from the extent of literal and functional literacy. It is my far better for our community, and less expensive, to develop literate citizens than jailing people because they cannot read or understand documents that are critical for their participation in our society.

If you review the literacy statistics for those who are incarcerated you will find that by far the most disadvantaged of the inmates have functional illiteracy and problems adjusting in our society.

Do Not Jail people because it is easy way out. Teach people how to contribute.

SUPPORT LITERACY AND THE PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

Let me go on to one of our leading literacy directors. This person spoke very eloquently when the finance committee was in Whitehorse a couple of weeks ago. When it was there, the government was criticized by witness after witness for these cuts. One of the witnesses, Sierra van der Meer, who subsequently followed Hansard, had the following to say:

We've been reading the Hansard and are flabbergasted by some of the commentary coming out of it.

First of all on October 16^th.

[Minister of HRDC]:

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that Canadians need to know how to read, write and do their number. That is quite simple. That is why we are investing over $80 million in literacy.

We are going to invest it in programs that deliver real results to Canadians. We are not going to invest that money in advocates and lobbyists who do not get any literacy results on the ground.

This comment infuriates me. We receive information that our funding is cut, of course we lobby and advocate for its reinstatement and then we are told that we will not receive that money because we are advocates and lobbyists. This is like the Salem Witch Trials—throw them in the water, if they sink, they are innocent—if they swim, then they are witches. Cut our funding, if we say nothing, we are slowly and silently eliminated, if we make noise, we are lobbyists and don't deserve funding. Our Coalition project had NO money allocated to advocating or lobbying. It had money to provide training for practitioners, promotion for the development of literacy skills, the establishment of a learner's network and more. Yet, our funding was eliminated. Of course we do some advocacy work, don't you think literacy is worth advocating for? We are speaking for hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are affected by the stigma of illiteracy. If [the minister] thinks the majority of Coalition funding is spent on advocacy and lobbying, she is sadly misinformed. But, if she thinks coalition workers won't stand up to defend and advocate for literacy, she is also wrong. Learners deserve to have a voice and shouldn't be punished for having one.

She goes on to say:

If the crime rate rises, do we fire the police? If the cancer rate rises, do we cut research funds?

She explains when the Prime Minister had said that literacy was going up:

If adult literacy rates went up, don't you think that signals a need for ADDITIONAL funding, not eliminating funding.

As I have one minute, I will quote Rock Brisson, a learner in the Yukon. He said:

If Prime Minister Harper cut literacy funding three years ago, I would likely be dead by now.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. member knows that he cannot talk about the Prime Minister by name either by himself or by quoting from letters that do the same.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Sorry, Mr. Speaker. He said:

If [the] Prime Minister...cut literacy funding three years ago, I would likely be dead by now. Battling over 50 years of literacy issues, learning disabilities and related health issues, over the last three years with the help of Yukon Learn Society and the other association, I have increased my reading from well below a grade three level to above a grade six, and I couldn't have done that without the assistance of Yukon Learn Society programming. Yukon Learn will loose much of this much-needed...community based funding, and this will seriously affect the Yukon as a whole. The literacy program offered to me saved my life...and...increase my family's quality of life. We need the funding to continue, because I know that I am only one of many Yukoners that have challenges surrounding literacy and we need help.

I don't think there's any question that this is not administrative--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I am sorry, but the member's time has expired. I might just say to the hon. member and through him to other members that I cannot give you a heads-up that your time is up if you never look at the Chair. That is one of the reasons why people are supposed to speak through and to the Chair so we can give you the appropriate signals.

The hon. member for Parkdale--High Park.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a previous member of the member's party made a comment about NDP finances. I draw something to the attention of the House. The Conservative government's finance department issued a report saying that the NDP had the best fiscal track record across all parties and all levels of government in 1984 and 2006. We did this by investing in programs for people.

I also want to remind the hon. member that his party made some of the largest cuts in Canada's history to our cherished social programs, which took our social spending back to 1949 levels. At the same time it gave the largest corporate tax breaks in Canadian history. Three-quarters of the personal income tax cuts went to the wealthiest 8% of Canadians. In that period we saw the deterioration of our health care system, an increase in child poverty of 60%, tuition fees more than doubled and workers' wages went down.

I agree with the hon. member. The cuts announced by the Conservative government are truly devastating for many vulnerable Canadians. I specifically want to affirm his comments about literacy. These cuts are particularly meanspirited. This is not just about people having conferences. It is about reaching out to the community, trying to help people who need these literacy programs the most.

The $1 billion the government wants to allegedly save could have been cut from the subsidies to the oil and gas sector, which were also in place under my colleague's government. Why does he think the Conservative government chose to continue subsidizing the oil and gas sector, but cut programs to some of the most vulnerable and needy people in our society?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question gives me a chance to talk about the surplus.

What made Canadians even more angry was the fact that the government announced the $1 billion cut in programs for the needy on the same day it announced a $13 billion surplus. This was an extension of a record of cuts to programs for the needy and other segments of our society that did not have to occur.

The $5 billion Kelowna accord was an historic agreement that could have brought a group of Canadians together, a group that is below average in all sorts of important segments in life such as health, learning, child birth and death. The Kelowna accord was cut, yet there is a $13 billion surplus.

Day care programs were cut. I still have single mothers writing me telling me they cannot go to work because they have no place for their children.

Historic agreements signed with provinces all across the country have been cut.

Our greenhouse gas programs, which would have cut thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gases, were cut. The EnerGuide program, the one tonne challenge and various other renewable energy programs were cut. Some were allowed to expire. All of those programs could have been funded out of that $13 billion surplus. There was no need to make these cuts at this time when we left such a wealthy fiscal inheritance for the government.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I find odd, when I hear members of the opposition talk about the cuts of $1 billion to Canada's most vulnerable. The first question that springs to mind is that out of that $1 billion in cuts were $47 million we saved by reducing the size of cabinet. I am wondering if the member is considering members of the former Liberal cabinet to be among Canada's most vulnerable and we should have perhaps extended that. I think not.

In addition, I want to make just a couple of comments about the literacy funding itself. For the member's benefit, in all seriousness, I have been involved in my home province of Saskatchewan in literacy programs and campaigns for many years. In fact, I was the head of the Peter Gzowski fundraiser for literacy, a major fundraising campaign that Peter Gzowski established with no government assistance for three years.

Mr. Gzowski's commitment to the then Governor General of Canada was to raise over $2 million for literacy. He established this program across Canada. I ran it in Saskatchewan. We were very successful and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars without one nickel of government money. To suggest that all Conservative members are meanspirited and do not care about literacy is not only a falsehood but insults and offends me.

I will say this about the cuts about which my hon. colleague talked. A recent article in the Winnipeg Sun talked about the cuts to what I believe was called the Literacy Partners of Manitoba. This article indicated that the particular foundation in question did not deliver one nickel toward literacy programming. It was merely an advocacy program. The closest it came to delivering direct money for direct programs in literacy was a 1-800 number that was utilized on average less than once a day. When people phoned the 1-800 number, they were directed to a government department that directed money to programming for literacy.

It is important for Canadians to know that not one existing agreement in place, not one program has been cut. Most of the literacy programs are provincially directed. It is in the provincial jurisdiction. We are putting over $80 million into fundraising for the programs that will help Canadians directly learn how to read and write and that is a record of which to be proud.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, that was very embarrassing. He talks about Peter Gzowski. It was run across the country. I have been involved with volunteers and money to literacy. Exactly what the government has cut is the basis for that.

If he is asking if it is a good suggestion that we cut Conservative cabinet ministers, it is a very good one. When I ran into the Minister of the Environment at the back door following question period, I told her there were reporters outside and she said “no thanks”. If the Conservatives are not going to answer to their programs, then it is a good job we cut Conservative cabinet ministers.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague the member for Yukon for sharing his time with me. I rise today in the House of Commons to give my support to the motion presented by my colleague, the member for Markham—Unionville.

I am sorry that the people on the other side of the House who speak English are now leaving. I believe when someone speaks in French in this House it is just as interesting as when someone speaks in English, especially since we have simultaneous translation.

Canada’s history did not begin yesterday. It was built brick by brick by women and men from every part of the country who fought for the right to equality. Yet, with one stroke of the pen this new Conservative government has wiped out all the gains made as a result of those hard struggles for equality.

The irony in all this is that the government opposite is using women to do this dirty work. The women sign and the men give the orders. Here we are at least 100 years later and women still have to fight for equality in the shadow of the men who continue to exercise the power.

Yesterday, Persons Day was celebrated on Parliament Hill. The reception took place here in the Parliament buildings. The event took the form of an exhibition highlighting women, some better known than others. All those women had their heads severed above the neck, the mouth or the forehead. The message was powerful: women still feel cut off from society. This is what comes of the cuts by this government because as of now, from what we have heard, they are going to do away with recognition of women by the UN, by Canada, and they are going to cut strengthening of equality under the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms.

Here is one example among many others: the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women is a national institute that focuses on research and promotion of equality for women, and that, no doubt, will lose all of its funding of nearly $300,000 because this institute falls into the category of organizations that will no longer be funded by the government, since its mandate includes research and promotion of equality for all women.

Could it be that an $18 million cut from the literacy skills program is considered fat trimming by the government? That is a lot of fat in administrative surplus. Why is it we do not yet have the details of these cuts? Let us be transparent. That is what the opposition had asked us. Is the government afraid Canadians will find out the true ideological agenda of the Conservative government?

While the Conservative government talks about working with businesses to support the integration of newcomers, shortly after it took office in January it put on hold the entire $3.5 billion in funding that the former Liberal government had committed to labour market partnership agreements with the provinces and territories. These cuts were made despite the fact that our agreements had already been signed. These dollars would have expanded apprenticeship programs, literacy essential skills programs, workplace skills development programs and would have improved labour market integration of recent immigrants to Canada.

This will increase the inequality of newcomers by denying them access to apprenticeships and other skills development programs. Despite an apparent lack of skilled immigrants to this country, the Government of Canada has now made $18 million in new cuts to training and literacy.

In addition, it has cut $83 million from public service human resources programs. In my riding, Laval—Les Îles, the Laval Women's Group recently received a letter from this new Conservative government announcing that several million dollars would be cut from funding for literacy programs for 2007. In other words, this letter told them that they could no longer count on the roughly $80,000 they were receiving every year for their programs.

Another organization, the Table de concertation de Laval en condition féminine, is also extremely concerned that its funding, which supported its work for women's advancement, is now threatened.

This organization works to prevent violence and to effect social change in the local community. Last Monday, it launched a DVD as part of its education program. The Table does not know whether its members will be able to continue their work with women.

I am also thinking about the shelters in Laval and the Regroupement des familles monoparentales et recomposées de Laval, which will inevitably and unfortunately be affected by this government's cuts.

Violence against women has not decreased. We still regularly read horror stories about women who are murdered.

The newspapers today reported that the remains of a decapitated woman had been found in the Rideau Canal as workers were preparing the canal for the winter. This is terrible.

What we are witnessing today is the dismantling of programs that benefit newcomers, that benefit small and medium sized businesses and that benefit vulnerable Canadians who have a difficulty reading and even understanding product labels. These are Canadians who, through whatever circumstance, had to postpone their education at a very early age.

Even when the past Liberal government began cleaning up the fiscal debacle left by the previous Conservative government and we had to make tough fiscal decisions, the Liberal government never dismantled programs for vulnerable Canadians. Yes, we may have frozen program increases, but we never went so far as to dismantle programs on the scale that we are witnessing today.

The speech from my colleague from Yukon and my own, speak from two parts of Canada that are wildly different, the Yukon in the far north and my riding of Laval—Les Îles where I see people who come from the cities.

People also come from outside urban areas. There are two kinds of people, but they are all Canadians. All these Canadians will suffer and are already suffering as a result of this Conservative government's budget cuts.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to correct my hon. colleague on a few facts stated in her speech that were not at all correct.

First, she talked about a literacy program that she accuses us of cutting. What she neglected to say in her speech, however, is that these are not cuts in services to people. The cuts are for conferences, groups of lobbyists and researchers, and so on. So this was not services provided directly to people.

As a government, we are providing a great deal of money for programs that are available to older people who want to learn to read. That is in our budget. Millions of dollars are provided for that purpose. But the hon. member did not mention those facts.

I would also like to say that the reason why the Liberals are not happy with the changes made is that they want to spend the taxpayers’ money on their friends. We have put an end to the practice of giving money directly to the Liberals’ friends. That is the real reason why they are not happy. The Liberals had a history of waste and corruption such as has never been seen in the entire history of Canada.

We have here $28 million available for language learning, and for the other programs to teach immigrants to read English and French. We have programs that are still there in our budget.

I would like to know why the hon. member does not want Canadians to know that we have not cut services. This only involves the special interest groups that the Liberals had favoured.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to answer that quickly.

It is hard not to try to make people see what the reality and the truth are. I am talking about my experience, in my riding of Laval—Les Îles. I can tell you that the Laval Women's Group is not going to Hawaii or Vancouver or wherever to have a good time. This is a group of women who work hard, day and night. The vast majority of them are volunteers who do everything they can to help people acquire literacy skills.

I think it is an insult to the women to say that they are travelling around the country having a good time. We know perfectly well that these women are volunteering or are paid part-time but working full-time. Without these women, all those people would not be able to read and write and it would be up to this Conservative government to do the job, which in fact it does not want to do.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member about the summer career placement program, a program that has been hugely important in my riding, as I am sure it has in hers. It is an excellent program for summer work for students and for community organizations running things like day camps and doing community economic development. In my riding almost 100% of the money went to non-profit organizations and small businesses to run that program. Now the Conservatives have cut the money by over 50% to student employment, which I think is outrageous.

The problem I have is that the scissors must have been warm because the Liberals tried to cut that program by 30% in many ridings in the last Parliament. Why did the Liberals warm up the scissors to cut the student employment program which has been so crucial in so many ridings in the country?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it would help us all out if the party opposite would decide who its enemy is. Its enemy is not on this side of the House.

When we reformed that program, which is an excellent program, I was involved in making some slight changes to the formula for how we gave out the money and whom we gave it to.

That being said, the number of students who received bursaries for the summer stayed the same and in fact increased.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells.

I will begin by thanking my colleague from across the floor, the member for Markham—Unionville, for offering me the opportunity to discuss the importance of responsible budget planning.

While he and I may duel a little bit at the finance committee, he likes the GST and I happen to dislike it, we still can have a fruitful discussion about the nation's finances.

This topic raises an important question, a question that tells us a lot about our values and how best to translate them into a better economy for Canadians and for our families; an economy that can keep pace in the increasingly fast paced and advanced global arena; an economy with better job opportunities; and a higher standard of living and greater opportunity for Canadians to learn, to earn and to invest in the future of their want for themselves and their families.

I listen to the families in St. Catharines and Canadian families all over. What they tell me is that they want some basic budgeting principles applied when they manage their finances. First, they do not want the government to spend beyond its means. Canadians understand this and Canada's new government understands it as well. Not only do we understand this, but we are acting on it.

We announced significant spending control measures to ensure that the government does not spend beyond its means and that spending is effectively focused on the priorities of all Canadians. We have clearly indicated that a strategy is in place to secure $1 billion in savings this year and next, as we promised in the spring budget. We saw that federal program spending was down $1.1 billion from the previous year, the first year over year decline in nine years. This is a critical point.

I would like to use some quotes to support our focus. First, “The government plans to make a regular exercise of chopping low priority programs to fund the Liberal agenda”. Second, “When it comes to funding and savings”, this individual said, “philosophically I believe it's absolutely the right thing to do”. This gentleman went on to say that his initial goal of bringing in excess of $12 billion out of government departments was just a start. Finally, he said, “There's no doubt you can't find $12 billion or even a chunk of it without affecting jobs”.

I know the House is waiting in breathless anticipation to hear who said those things. It was not me. It was not the President of the Treasury Board. In fact, it was not the Minister of Finance. It was the member for Markham—Unionville, the very person who is moving this motion today.

In fact, what the government is doing is what my hon. friend from across the floor agrees should be done. We have secured savings by identifying unused funds for programs that will not proceed. These are funds in excess of what is required to achieve results.

The previous spend-happy government liked to have its hand in the cookie jar so much that it could not be bothered to put the lid back on the jar. In fact, it became known across the country as the sponsorship jar because it was so easy to get into it.

This government has thrown out the jar and put the funds where they belong the most, with the highest priorities of Canadians. We also confirm that Canada's new government is reducing the national debt by $13.2 billion, one of the largest pay downs of debt reduction in Canadian history. This means that federal debt is actually down $561 for each and every Canadian and that the federal government will save approximately $650 million this year and every year into the future.

This represents substantial progress. It is reflected in the favourable ratings we receive from investment houses and bond rating agencies, which will result in lower interest for all Canadians at all levels of government, including right here and starting right here at the federal level.

Paying down the national debt means lower interest payments for all Canadians, freeing up resources for real priorities like tax reduction, supporting our seniors, and funding our health care system.

Canadians understand how this works. They know that it is better to pay down our debts as soon as possible so that we can spend money on better things than interest payments.

That is how Canadians want us to proceed and that is how we will proceed.

Our approach is already paying dividends, dividends we are reinvesting into some of the highest priorities of Canadians, such as our universal child care benefit, which provides parents with $1,200 per year to support their child care choice, or investments in core federal responsibilities like public safety, national defence and border security. These are vital for ridings like mine in the Niagara region.

There are also the priorities of financial assistance that will help meet the critical infrastructure needs of the communities we call home, the integrity of our universities and our colleges, and assistance for those who need affordable housing in this country.

We have done all this and we will continue to do more for Canadians and their families, because the Canadian family is at the heart of our agenda. As I hope I have illustrated here today, it is also the inspiration for our approach to managing taxpayers' dollars.

Paying down the debt is an investment in a low tax, high potential future for our children. That is what my parents, who are sitting here in the House today, want for their children. That is what I want for my children.

St. Catharines residents often tell me how important it is that our local economy is able to provide high quality jobs. It is important because we want our kids and the students at Brock University and Niagara College to be able to stay in the area and raise families. We do not want them to leave because they have to find jobs elsewhere. By reducing the debt today, we are helping ensure that a bright future will be there for them tomorrow.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about spending money on priorities. I want to read for him something from a constituent and ask him if he thinks it is a priority. I thought that crime prevention, cutting back on crime, was a priority of the government. This person who wrote, quoted the Prime Minister from Hansard, when he said:

Mr. Speaker, I think the most effective way of dealing with that kind of exaggeration is, once again, simply with the facts. The government will be spending over $80 million a year in the next two years. The government has announced new funding for immigration settlement which will also contribute to literacy programs.

The fact of the matter is that under the previous government, for 13 years, adult illiteracy went up. We are going to ensure that we spend effectively so that it goes down.

Sierra van der Meer from the Yukon Literacy Coalition wrote in response to that:

If the crime rates rise, do we fire police? If the cancer rates rise, do we cut research funds? If adult illiteracy rates went up, don't you think that signals a need for ADDITIONAL funding, not eliminating funding?

The government says when that crime goes up it wants to hire more police and invest more in crime prevention, so why, with illiteracy rates going up, as the Prime Minister just said in his speech, would the government not increase funding for literacy, not decrease it, just like the government is doing is for crime prevention?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the comments of the hon. member. I spent a great deal of time meeting and speaking with the individual in his riding with whom we met a couple of weeks ago. I certainly enjoyed that opportunity and had a chance to understand the work she does.

However, there is something the member needs to think about in terms of what he said. He said that illiteracy rates are actually climbing for adults in this country while at the same time funding was increased. That speaks directly to the issue we need to deal with, that is, if we are going to deliver a program, if we are going to take responsibility for a program, it had darned well better deliver results, not only for taxpayers in this country and not only for the people in the hon. member's community, but for the people who are going to be receiving it.

What we have said is that we will make sure the core focus of literacy programs under the responsibility of the federal government delivers results and that those who need the help are going to get the help.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Victoria, for a very brief question.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the $55 million in budget cuts to student employment programs. The number of students forced to work full time while studying tripled over the years that the Liberals were in power. That program directly affects the debt load of students.

I am wondering if the member would agree with the students who appeared this week before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for St. Catharines, for a very brief response.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this has been something that from a finance committee perspective we have been talking about for a number of weeks and it has been presented. One of the interesting results is that since 1999 in this country numbers of those who attend university have increased from 19% to 25%, so they are attending school and they are getting the education to become better Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings. Pursuant to order made earlier today all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, October 24, at 5:30 p.m.

The hon. member for Selkirk--Interlake on a point of order.