Debates of Oct. 27th, 2006

The House resumed from October 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-28, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I believe that the hon. member for Willowdale has five minutes left in his remarks.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking yesterday, I was talking about how cynical, how divisive, and how doctrinaire the government has been in bringing forth wedge issues that are not based on good public policy, but politics at its worst.

I talked about GST cuts at the expense of personal income taxes, which were actually raised. I talked about a baby bonus of only $100 a month instead of real child care spaces. I talked about cancellation of the historic Kelowna accord with our first nations. I talked about how the government has rejected the Kyoto protocol and not even given us any short term or medium term goals for climate change. Instead, it has given us transit passes which will not increase ridership, but will only help those who are already using public transit.

Let me go on. A fifth area where this cynical government has misled us in bad policy is our cities. It cancelled our programs for needed municipal infrastructure. Sixth, on agriculture, it wants to do away with the Wheat Board without even giving farmers a full voice. In terms of justice, it has a let us get tough on crime mantra, but without doing anything to the real causes of crime in our country.

The Conservatives talked about the fiscal imbalance. They ran on that program, and they were going to do something about it. We have not seen one word about what they will do about it. They ran on a program that would reduce wait times in our hospitals. It was one of their five major planks. What have we seen? Absolutely nothing.

In terms of charter rights, they want to set this country back into the dark ages by ignoring the charter rights of those who are most vulnerable in our society. They want to revisit the very divisive wedge issue of the rights of people who are minorities in our society and have been accorded the right to marry by the Supreme Court of Canada. They are so cynical they will not even bring in the notwithstanding clause, which is the only way to undo what the court has said is a minority right in our country.

In terms of facing the great challenges of the new emerging economies of the world, what did the Conservatives do about China and India? They cancelled our $470 million, over five years, CAN-Trade program to put more people in place in those countries to help Canadians meet the challenges and opportunities of these new emerging markets, and to help small businesses form the partnerships and the alliances that they need in order to be competitive in our new global economy.

Last, what have the Conservatives done? We saw it lately. Who did they sock it to? Who did they cut the funds from? Seniors, adults who are illiterate, museums, and our court challenges program, which has been the basis on which many people have been able to assert their legal rights, their charter rights. They cut the Law Commission and they socked it to women's equality rights.

This is not the type of government that Canadians want. Canadians know that good policies are good politics. They will not stand for the government and that is why the government is falling so quickly in the polls. Canadians have seen its true colours. We will not stand for this. Let us get away from the cynicism and the small mindedness of the government, and let us govern for all Canadians.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know there will be many questions for this boisterous young fellow, so I will be as short as I possibly can. He is up in years. He is getting up there like me, a little older. He has been around a long time. I have been in this place 13 years and I think he has probably been here longer than that.

Could he tell me why the wonderful Liberal government that we had in charge for 13 years could not get rid of simple things like child pornography, which is destroying our youth and he knows it? Why did we not get that age of consent raised during those 13 years? We begged and pleaded for the sake of children. We should start doing the right things for them. Crimes against children are right out of control today. If members do not believe me, they should dig into it and find out because I have and I have been working on it for 13 years.

I cannot believe that an adult, a man sitting in the House of Commons, would not fight hard to get rid of child pornography, the biggest junk piece we have in this land and it is destroying youth. What is wrong with the Liberals that they would not get on the ball during these last 13 years and even attempt to do it? What are they afraid of?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are not afraid of dealing with the issues of children in our society. The most important thing that we can do to help children is to give them a good start in life.

In terms of getting tough on child pornographers and child abuse, absolutely. The most important thing for our children is that they have a good start in life, that they have the health care and the education that they need.

This is why the Liberal government brought in the child care program of $5 billion in order to partner with groups right across this country, so that there would be a good start for these young people. We want them to have the proper training, the proper values, and the proper care that they need when they have working parents. That is how--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. We do have many people wanting to ask the member questions.

The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George briefly because there are others as well.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the feigned indignation of the member opposite is actually quite amusing, considering what my colleague from Wild Rose just said was very true.

All through the 13 years that the Liberal government was in power, it failed. The Liberals resisted every attempt by the Conservatives to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16.

The member opposite from the Liberal Party said that the best way to protect children from sexual predators and child pornography is to ensure that they are raised properly in a good home, with the right schooling and health.

I would say to the member that there are many young children walking around in our communities thinking that they are safe. They have been raised in exactly those conditions and exactly those circumstances. They are being preyed on, on a daily or weekly basis, by the perverts that his government refused to take off the streets. That is the problem. Kids are getting a good start in this country. It is the perverts that are preying on them that his government failed to deal with. One has to wonder why not.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could ask the hon. member--

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I asked you a question.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

And I am going to respond with a question. You are the government--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. Please address your remarks through the Chair.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, that party on the other side is now the government. It is up to it to bring forward its agenda and how it wants to deal with the very issues that we are talking about. Let us ensure that the government is held accountable for what it has not done.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the hon. member. He knows very well that in 2001 a shipbuilding policy was laid on the minister of industry's desk. It is now 2006. The Liberal Party, when it was in power, did absolutely nothing for the shipbuilding industry. We are now into nine months of the Conservative government and we still have no word on when a shipbuilding strategy will be announced by any government.

My question for the member is quite clear. Although he has some very valid points against the Conservative government, why did his own government not do anything to assist the shipbuilding industry in this country?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall that our then minister of industry, now the Minister of International Trade, had undertaken extensive consultations with the various regions in this country in order to develop a shipbuilding policy, one that would actually work.

The number of ships built in this country over the last decade or so has dwindled and declined. If Canada is to have a viable shipbuilding industry, it has to work with all the stakeholders in order to achieve the types of targets and the concentrated efforts that we want.

The Liberal government was working on that very actively when the election was called. I hope that the minister who was so active then is still carrying on the same type of consultations. I fully expect the government to bring forth that shipbuilding policy at an early moment.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the NDP caucus to serve notice that we will not support the budget implementation act, Bill C-28.

My time does not permit me to outline the many shortcomings of the budget but let me at least say that I am disappointed that we did not get an opportunity to manoeuvre or negotiate any benefits through the budget because five minutes after the budget was tabled in the House of Commons, the leader of the Bloc Québécois walked outside into the scrum area and told all and sundry that it sounded good to him and that he would take it.

All the Conservatives needed was a dance partner and they got their dance partner first off, which is when all negotiations stopped. Normally in a minority Parliament there are opportunities for the opposition parties to do a little bit of horse trading. We were denied that opportunity because one party cashed in all its chips before the bargaining even started.

I will simply preface my remarks by saying how disappointed I am as an opposition member of one of the opposition parties that this minority Parliament was not even allowed to function the way minority Parliaments are supposed to operate because of the self-interest and selfish action on the part of the Bloc Québécois.

Let me touch on two reasons why we are disappointed in the budget because time does not permit any more detail than that. I come from the riding of Winnipeg Centre that used to be represented by Stanley Knowles. Stanley Knowles has a reputation as one of the founders, the father perhaps, of the Canadian pension system. I can safely say that Stanley Knowles would be doing flip-flops in his grave today if he knew that after nine years of surplus budgets by two senior parties in the country, old age security paycheques for low income seniors are actually going down as a result of the budget.

It sounds shocking. Some would challenge me perhaps to the veracity of those facts. I had to do a lot of research to plough through our arcane and complicated tax system but here are the facts. In actual fact, seniors have walked into my office with their July OAS cheque and their September OAS cheque. It is $10 a month lower. The government actually lowered the basic personal exemption for OAS and GIS senior pensioners. In other words, pensioners are paying tax on $400 a year more than they were last year, which, at a rate of 15.25%, is $60 per year or $5 per month. However, because it is for this six months, it was doubled to average it out over the year. It is $10 a month for this six month period.

This only applies to seniors who, because they have such a low income and no other source of revenue, they qualify for the guaranteed income supplement. There is an offsetting pension credit in another category for private pension plans. However, if the person is one of those many low income seniors in my riding who are trying to survive on just his or her old age security and CPP, the person will get less this month than he or she did last month.

Maybe it is a byproduct or maybe it was an unforeseen consequence, I do not know. I am not accusing anybody of trying to starve low income seniors but that was the result and I cannot support it. I cannot do anything but condemn that result and consequence. The Conservatives should really rethink this. Surely, in a time of prosperity and record surpluses, we could do something for our low income seniors.

I talked with some anti-poverty groups and they said that the $10 a month probably represents four or even five days of a grocery budget for a low income senior. It is not quite one full week but what they have left over to spend for food, $10 a month is a significant drop. At the very least, it is a quality of life issue. It is one less thing that they will be able to do with their income.

That is one of the reasons I cannot support the budget. The other reason is perhaps what is not in the budget. I cannot understand for the life of me why in the first Conservative budget of a newly formed government, the Conservatives would not have done something to plug the outrageous tax loophole that allows Canadian companies to set up dummy companies offshore to avoid paying their taxes in Canada.

[Gerry Ritz]

Do you have an example?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

The one high profile example in this country that irritates me to no end is the fact that when the Liberals were in power they tore up 10 out of 11 tax havens but left one remaining.

[An hon. member]

Which one?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Barbados is the one they left remaining, exactly where the former prime minister, the current member for LaSalle—Émard, has nine of his dummy shell companies shielded from paying Canadian taxes in that particular tax haven. That is offensive to me. One would think a prime minister of Canada would be proud to pay his taxes in this country. I am not going to dwell on that because that is the past.

We now have a new Conservative government. Surely, it sees what is wrong when tax fugitives can use this blatant tax avoidance by setting up dummy companies. Some estimates say that the lost revenue is $7 billion a year. Why would the government nickel and dime all the little social programs that are important and critical to communities when it leaves $7 billion on the table? Who is it worried about offending?

The interesting thing about the changes to the election financing act is that big business can no longer buy elections or buy politicians. Who are we worried about offending by slamming the door shut on this last outrageous loophole? Big business cannot hurt anyone any more would be my message. We do not have to be afraid of Bay Street any more. We have been liberated. Why do we not stand up on our own hind legs and say that there will be no more freeloading and that companies can no longer be tax fugitives.

I got my information from this book that I will be happy to table. Pigs at the Trough: How Corporate Greed and Political Corruption Are Undermining America is the name of the book. I agree. Corporate greed, run rampant, is undermining democracy and certainly undermining the ability of elected officials like us to implement plans, programs and strategies because it is starving us of resources.

I cannot understand why this budget did not deal with the outrageous issue of this tax loophole of tax havens. In the textbooks at Revenue Canada it is called “tax motivated expatriation”. That is the nice title for what we call sleazy, tax cheating loopholes. We demand that they be plugged and we will not let up until we close that last tax haven loophole.

I have another thing I want to raise. I cannot understand how the government failed to make the connection between two of its strategic goals and that is that it missed the opportunity to address job creation through energy conservation, or these burgeoning new economic opportunities coming from the necessary reality that we need to conserve energy in order to save the planet.

There is a connection to be made there and progressive countries and political parties around the world are recognizing that saving the planet through energy conservation is not a negative and not an economic job killer. The job creation potential is enormous. The technological development potential is enormous.

I argue that there should have been some kind of policy statement through this budget from the government that Canada should lay claim to this new burgeoning technology. We should become a centre of excellence of energy conservation technology to show the world. It frustrates me. We have a cold, northern, winter climate and we could demonstrate to the world how we do not have to freeze in the dark to conserve energy. There is an appetite in the country that our R and D could lead the way to saving the planet from global warming. Why we did not make that connection with the opportunity of this budget frustrates me to no end.

I will close where I started by saying that regrettably the NDP cannot support Bill C-28, the budget implementation bill.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of my hon. colleague with interest and he had a couple of points that were worthy of further consideration.

He talked about horse trading. On January 23, Canadians got tired of the cattle and horse rustlers across the way when all they were left with was a pile of horse chips.

During the last campaign all four parties in the House professed a desire to get tough on crime. The NDP believes in cradle to grave socialism but apparently it has forgotten about cradle to grave protection from criminals. I am wondering why the NDP has now decided to go soft on its campaign commitment to get tough on crime and has left us doing it alone on this side of the House.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear my colleague say that. He should perhaps look at the problems in Manitoba and the examples of where there is no contradiction between being a social democrat and being tough on crime. There is no connection between being soft on crime and being NDP.

In actual fact, the leader of our party, during the election campaign, was within, I believe, six months in the debate arguing about mandatory minimum sentences. The policy of the Conservatives and the policy of the NDP on mandatory minimum sentences were six months apart. It is not such a big bridge.

I cannot understand why the Conservatives missed the connection, when talking about being tough on crime, in clamping down on these tax havens. I call it economic treason when a company undermines the best interest of Canada, even though it is enjoying the benefits of the Canadian corporate structure and the stability of our great nation. That wholesale tax avoidance should be deemed to be criminal, in my mind.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, just a quick follow up to my colleague's question in regard to getting tough on crime.

I have heard the member speak several times on this issue about problems that he has had in his own riding. He knows very well what I am talking about. I agree that the talk was out there during the election campaign. I heard it. I was on the platform with NDPers and Liberals, and even the Green Party was talking tough on crime.

What amazes me is what happens when we get here. We get to a committee and we have a bill before the committee, Bill C-9, which would get rid of house arrest, quit mollycoddling criminals and would get criminals to pay the penalties for the crimes they commit, which is called getting tough on crime, and yet the member and his party would not support that. They gutted that bill.

Those members listened to every soft on crime witness that came before the committee but they did not listen to the victims of crime or to the police forces. They did not listen to a number of witnesses who testified why we need to stop things like house arrest. What they call petty crimes, it is not a petty crime when someone breaks into a home. It is not a petty crime when there is a home invasion. These kinds of things need to be dealt with right on the ground. This government had a bill to do just what Canadians asked us all to do and something on which we all campaigned.

Could the member tell me why his party is not supporting getting rid of house arrest for certain crimes that should never be even considered?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think we would like to take the cliché one step further. When people say tough on crime, it has become so commonly used that it has become almost meaningless. We prefer to say that we are smart on crime because our activities and our directions are results-oriented.

However, I will give one example where we are working at committee to strengthen one of the crime bills where we think the Conservative government was too soft, and that is the proceeds of crime components of the money laundering bill. We believe the federal government should be able to seize the assets of known criminals who are associated with criminal gangs, not just their bank accounts but their homes, their luxury cars, their luxury motorboats, et cetera. If they cannot show that those luxury items were bought with legitimately earned moneys, then the items should be seized and the reverse onus put on them to prove to us that the items were not the proceeds of crime.

That would be getting tough on crime and that would ensure that crime does not pay. It would go a long way to send a message to the biker gangs and the criminal organizations that flaunt their wealth and their luxury items right under the noses of the police officers. We believe in giving the police the tools they need to do their jobs and to make the case that crime does not in fact pay.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns I have about this budget is the lack of consideration for our seniors, especially those widows and widowers of our veterans.

There are many problems within the system where we claw back, we take away and we do not give benefits to particular veterans or their families or the widowers of veterans because of technicalities in legislation. One would think that with a $13 billion surplus last year and a $6 billion surplus this year, which means the government is swimming in an extra $19 billion, it would have at least reached out to assist veterans and their widows.

I would just like the hon. member, who is from that great city of Winnipeg, to comment on what effect this has on his veterans and their families in Winnipeg.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore for his concern for seniors and specifically for veterans.

It is not often that we get a letter from the Prime Minister promising something in writing, and we have it right here in our own hands, but my colleague was talking about a program called the veterans independence program, a tiny little program that costs pennies on the global scale of things and helps veterans and their survivors stay a little longer in their own homes before they have to be put into nursing homes, et cetera.

I have here a letter from the Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, saying:

You will be pleased to know that a Conservative government would immediately extend Veterans Independence Program services to the widows of all Second World War and Korean War veterans regardless of when the Veteran died or how long they had been receiving the benefit before they passed away.

That is not just a campaign promise. That is a promise dated October 4, 2005. Why was that not in this budget? That tiny little budget line, this promise made, why was this not in the column of promises kept?