Debates of Oct. 27th, 2006

Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see how these narratives roll out. One of them, certainly, from the Conservatives that we have heard many times is that the NDP just wants to spend more, more, more.

Actually, if we did an audit of NDP governments across the country, we would see that they have the strongest record overall of balanced budgets and dealing with debt.

We have this narrative and the Conservatives cling to it in desperation, but in actual fact the record is very different in terms of fiscal management for the NDP. It is a very good record.

In terms of the other questions that the member put, if we look at this budget, we have to make an assessment overall who were the winners and who were the losers. I would say that ordinary Canadians were the losers. Despite the few little bits and pieces that they might have received overall, they lost out.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to comment on Bill C-28.

I am a member of the finance committee. The committee recently completed a tour. We went from Whitehorse to Vancouver to Fort McMurray to Saskatoon and Portage la Prairie and then out on the east coast to St. John's, Halifax, Quebec City and Toronto. We wound up yesterday afternoon. I think we heard from over 400 witnesses. After a while we got a flavour of what Canadians seem to think about this budget. I have to say that they do not seem to think too much of this budget. In fact, after a while there were patterns that developed in the testimony.

I would have thought that thee Chamber of Commerce would have been an organization that would instinctively or intuitively support Conservative budgets. That organization had some rather critical things to say about this particular budget. The Chamber of Commerce said:

We note that Budget 2006 introduced piecemeal personal tax credits for a myriad of items. We believe this only serves to complicate the tax system--

And we all know that the Income Tax Act of Canada is a pretty complicated statute to begin with.

and relief should be delivered more broadly through rate reduction on increasing the bracket thresholds where the next tax rate is levied.

We ask whether the 1% reduction in the Goods and Services Tax rate was the “correct” method to effect a decrease in overall personal tax burdens. Generally, consumption taxes are preferable to income taxes, therefore we recommend reductions to personal income taxes rather than consumption taxes.

This was from a group that I would respectfully suggest is one of the key supporters of the Conservative Party.

We turn to the bill before us and we see immediately what it is that these people are talking about.

The first one is the new Canada employment credit. That sounds like a good idea on the face of it. If a person's income is from something other than employment, for example, a pension, investments, or things of that nature, this tax credit is utterly useless to that person. What is the point? Why would the government do that as opposed to bumping up the personal base exemption or reducing rates generally overall? We want to favour this over that. It speaks to the Chamber of Commerce position that the government has introduced a myriad of tax credits that end up complicating the system way beyond where it needs to be.

There is a textbook tax credit. That is just great. That is just wonderful. A student has 80 bucks worth of tax credits and a $5,000 tuition bill. That is a choice one makes. An $80 tax credit for goodness' sake is going to buy one textbook. That is great. The student can buy the textbook, but he or she cannot get into the school.

Witness after witness would say to the committee that this is lunacy. What people need is better access. That request would come generally from the student groups. They had some good ideas, all of which were ignored in the budget. The university side and the college faculty side want better infrastructure.

What they are really panicked about, and they should be, is that the various foundations that were funded over 13 years of Liberal government, those funds are not being replenished. As a consequence, the universities are afraid that the brain gain that we have had in the last few years will reverse itself again and become a brain drain. This could happen because there is no money available for the new applications that researchers put in.

Those folks are highly mobile people. They can do their research in California as well as they can do it in Toronto. They can do their research in New York as well as they can do it in Halifax. If we do not keep these foundations well funded with the ability to provide grants to do the leading edge research which has made Canada the number one publicly funded research country in the world, then these folks will find other places in which to do their research. What did the Conservative Party offer? An $80 book credit.

Then we come to public transit passes. That sounds great, but it is going to cost something in the order of about $900 million. It will cost $900 million to, in theory, increase ridership by 5%. That is a pretty expensive increase in ridership, $900 million on an annual basis. That does not build one kilometre of subway in my riding, not one kilometre. It does not even build a station. It does not replace any of the TTC buses in my riding, in the city of Toronto or in the GTA. It does none of that.

That is great; I have my tax credit. I am now going to get a tax deduction after I file my tax return, which has become so complicated that I now have to hire somebody to prepare my return. I am going to hand it in but I am not going to take the bus because the bus has flat tires all the time. These are utterly brilliant choices.

Then there is a credit for trades tool expenses. I kind of like that. What is wrong with that? Folks should be able to deduct their tool expenses. If one really thought about it for more than two minutes, one would say that a deduction for employment expenses should be broadly based because most people do not make their living in the trades. Most people make their living in services. We are becoming a services oriented country, so this particular credit is useless to most people.

The children's fitness tax credit is another one. I play hockey. My kid is a swimmer. I paid literally thousands of dollars annually for my daughter to swim. She is a nationally rated swimmer and now swims with McMaster University. I am going to get that credit. I kind of like that idea. I am happy about that, but my other daughter who dances is not going to get a credit. If any of my other children were participating in artistic endeavours, the credit would not be there.

Witness after witness after witness said that dance should be included, painting should be included and all kinds of other activities should be included. No one is ever going to make everybody happy. That is why it is crazy to try to do this.

I do not know whether you caught this, Mr. Speaker. The report to the Minister of Finance on how to handle this was released. The “Report of the Expert Panel for the Children's Fitness Tax Credit” states:

Fees for camps that emphasize physical activity theme.

That sounds simple.

To qualify, the camp program would need to last at least five consecutive days--

--not four--

--during which at least 50% of the activity during the program hours of each day would involve physical activity.

I do not know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I send my kids to camp and I am not sure my kids would qualify. The counsellors run the kids from dawn to dusk and make them do all kinds of things, but the activities are not always physical. Sometimes there are activities for painting, sometimes there are activities for learning about the woods and nature and things such as that. Those camps will not qualify.

This is going to be administratively ridiculous. No one is going to be able to keep track. It will place an administrative burden on all of these camps and then there will have to be a huge audit scheme to find out whether in fact a particular camp at a particular time had a five day program which involved physical fitness and physical fitness only.

In conclusion, the way to go is the way the Liberals set out in our November update, which was to raise the basic personal exemption and lower tax rates across the board if we want to do something in the area of tax relief for Canadians. This hodgepodge, mishmash, myriad of tax credits is administratively ridiculous and simply adds to Canadians' burdens rather than detracts from them.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the member to specifically focus for a few moments on the disaster for post-secondary education students.

He is probably aware that students in Nova Scotia are more hard pressed than any others in the country because of the lowest level of assistance to students and the highest tuition rates. In general, I am wondering if he could speak a bit about the fact that the main impact of these budgetary measures is to increase the debt burden on students as opposed to measures that would really address the debt burden and deal in an effective way with the reduction of post-secondary education expenses.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question and it is one on which the finance committee received quite a number of representations.

To try to summarize it in a one minute response is going to be a bit tricky, but we can basically divide the issue into two. The first issue is access of students, which the hon. member is concerned about, and the second issue is basically the infrastructure, the buildings, the labs, et cetera, when the students get there. Both need to be addressed.

The way in which the government seems to have responded at this stage is an $80 tax credit for books. Well good for them, but it is not going to do anything for improving the quality of our schools. Certainly none of the budget responds to the issue of keeping the research councils well funded so that we keep our best researchers here, and certainly nothing happens for the students.

We heard repeated representations from various student groups. It did not matter whether they were on the east coast, the west coast or somewhere in between; they feel that the government has essentially turned its back on improved access to post-secondary education.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend's comments. It almost seemed for a point there that he was arguing for the Canadian Alliance's old single rate income tax. He was getting to that point.

The hon. member owes it to the House, if he is opposed to all these tax credits, to indicate what he would push for in the next election when his party puts forth its platform. Would the member and his party unequivocally commit to repealing all the tax credits that he has criticized, the tax credit for sports, the tax credit for employees, the tax credit for pensioners, et cetera? Since he is opposed to them, would he be willing to commit that the Liberal Party would definitely repeal all these tax credits should the Liberal Party some day become the government?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is worried about our getting back into government sooner than he thinks, so in fact we have to be responsible about this issue. Frankly if he had read the November update, he would have almost a complete answer to his question.

The focus of the Liberal Party is to raise the basic personal exemption. The focus of the Liberal Party is to lower the rates at which the thresholds hit and to raise the thresholds themselves. That is broad base tax relief. By getting into a situation of this credit for this person and that credit for that person, all it does is creates a make-work project for a bunch of accountants. It also imposes huge administrative burdens on a variety of people who are in no way able to deal with them.

The answer to his question is that we are in favour of broad base tax relief. Whether it would also include credits, it may well do. The credits would be higher credits an they would be right across the board. The credit would not be just for physical activity. It would have to be activity. If one is going to go down that route, one might as well go the whole way, and the whole way is one has to cover the artists, the musicians, the athletes, pretty well everyone. In which case, one might as well just raise the basic personal exemption and that way everybody benefits.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, a short question.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be short and specific.

The basic personal exemption as per Revenue Canada's own website actually went down on July 1, 2006. Low income seniors are coming into my office and showing me that their income cheques for this month are $10 less than the ones for June and July. Is the member aware that those guys have actually cut the pay of the lowest income seniors by virtue of this budget?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is my point exactly; it has gone up for everybody, as has the threshold rate, the initial rate. The way the Conservatives are paying for this idiocy is by increasing the tax burden on all of us, but particularly on the most vulnerable, of whom seniors are a component.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes that are available to me, I very much appreciate the occasion to participate in the debate on the government's budget implementation bill. It will not surprise any of my colleagues here in the House of Commons to know that, like my NDP colleagues, I will not be supporting this flawed, short-sighted and meanspirited bill.

I am proud of the work that my leader and my colleagues have done, both here in the House of Commons and out across the country, to draw attention to the errors and omissions, the missed opportunities and the misplaced priorities of the bill that is before us.

I have heard from a great many people, certainly, from many parts of the country, in relation to the failure of the budget to in any significant way address areas for which my critic responsibilities apply, those of international development and foreign affairs. I do not have the opportunity to speak at length about that today, except to say that the disappointments in the budget as they relate to dealing with domestic issues certainly are matched by the profound sense of disappointment felt by a great many people across this country that we have yet again shown no significant progress in meeting our international obligations to seriously commit to the eradication of poverty and to preventable disease in the very poorest parts of the world. We have a lot of work to do on that front.

I have also heard, not surprisingly, from a great many of my constituents. I will just very briefly refer to one of many messages received by e-mail, letter and in person. One that came to me is a longer one than I have time to read, but it speaks about the budget, stating that “the Harper government” has confirmed “one of the largest budget surpluses in Canadian history, a whopping $13.2 billion”. It goes on to say:

Even with this excess surplus, the Government is still cutting back on funding for programs relating to women, disabled persons, aboriginals, and other disadvantaged Canadians.

Furthermore, programs for helping disabled persons get jobs are not receiving any additional funding, no additional programs to encourage employers to hire disabled persons, no funding for youth programs, no additional programs to get disabled persons into the workforce, no legislation requiring employers to hire disabled persons.

That is just one example of our most vulnerable citizens who feel very let down by this ultra-conservative budget. Not surprisingly, this is a memo that this young man in my riding entitles “Big Surplus and Betrayal from Conservative Government”.

My colleagues have had an opportunity to speak about the disappointments in the budget with respect to how it is going to increase child care wait lists. Despite all of the talk about addressing child care, it simply does not do so. The fact is that family allowances will effectively be diminished, because the budget is now going to tax the $100 a month allowance and will be eliminating the young child supplement.

The fact is that pollution undoubtedly will go up because, just like the Liberals before them, these Conservatives have no plans to seriously tackle, with detailed plans, targets and timetables, greenhouse gas emissions and to get on with serious reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

As well, as I have already had an opportunity to point out, student debt will continue to grow because there is no serious commitment to tackling this problem.

I am very, very pleased with the fact that constituents in my community, given the opportunity earlier this week to meet with the NDP finance critic and the NDP critic for post-secondary education and literacy, responded by coming out to participate vigorously and enthusiastically in a discussion about not just the flaws, failures and omissions of the budget implementation bill that is before us, but also the very short-sighted and meanspirited cuts that have been announced subsequently, very much within the same genre, within the same spirit, or lack of spirit, for how to improve the lives of Canadians.

Among those who gathered in that meeting in my riding on Monday night were those who were speaking up for women who are desperate about the threat of cuts to transition houses, which help protect them from the abusive relationships from which they are escaping, and desperate about the threat of cuts to women's programs that are helping women to rebuild their lives.

Others who participated came because they are very concerned about the lack of new housing initiatives in this budget and the continuing failure, right up to as recently as yesterday, to confirm in any kind of detail the continuation of SCPI funds and the commitment to new funds to basically rebuild what was once the best national housing program in the world, which was simply killed by the previous prime minister when he was serving as finance minister. The result, of course, was predictable: incredible numbers of homeless people.

At that meeting on Monday night in my riding, we heard from people who are very concerned about the cuts to the arts and about an attempt to somehow define as illicit lobbying the attempts of those who would champion the arts and try to get the government to understand that this is really about the heart and soul of the nation. It is really about the ability of Canadians to come together around who we are and who we want to be in today's world.

Others were there to speak with real concern about the unbelievable decision, announced since the broader budget framework, of killing the international youth internship program. It is absolutely unbelievable.

In this globalized world in which we live, at a time when our young people are anxious, eager and highly motivated to get out and really contribute their time and energies, and their hopes and dreams and aspirations, to building a better world, in one of the very best programs available to give them overseas experience and help open the doors of opportunity to valuable employment, the doors have just been slammed shut. This has to be one of the most cost effective programs from the point of view of the opportunities given to young people on their way to building careers in international service. This cut also is a real blow to the NGOs that depend upon the very significant contributions and skills of our young people in their hard-pressed, seriously underfunded agencies.

The list goes on and on in regard to the tremendous sense of loss felt across the country.

There is also the community access program, which has been very important, in this knowledge-based economy, in putting people on track to be able to use the Internet for modern communications.

There is the death blow to various volunteer initiatives and organizations.

I am sorry there is not more time, but I have to say that at the end of the day this is a budget that is a series of misplaced priorities and missed opportunities. For that reason, I too will be voting against this budget implementation bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I did not want to interrupt the member during her oratory but the hon. member will recall that at the beginning of her speech she made reference to another member by his name.

You have 25 years' experience as a legislator and you do care about decorum.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Fredericton.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to my hon. colleague and thank her for her intervention. I could not agree with all of it, but I agreed with much of it.

I would like her to comment on what this reveals about the ideology behind the government, which really does not believe that the government has any place in financing criticism, that it does not have any place in financing the court challenges program, or in giving money to artistic organizations to do advocacy or to women's groups to do advocacy, to do pure advocacy. Service is important, but so is it necessary for governments that are sometimes isolated, sometimes living in rarefied atmospheres, to hear from people on the ground about what is important to them. I would like to hear her comment on what this says about the government and its ideology.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to address this question. Let me apologize for referring to a member by name. I actually cannot even recall to whom I referred to by name. I apologize, and I am going to have to figure that out later, because I do know better. I am not permitted to do that and I did not intend to do that.

I welcome the question from the member for Fredericton. By chance, the very next item I was going to speak about if I had not run out of time was the court challenges program, which serves as a screaming example of the hypocrisy of this government. I have to say that for a government whose members in opposition constantly talked about being the real grassroots democratic voice of Canadians, it is stunning to watch the many different ways in which they are trying to quash any meaningful advocacy and any meaningful discussion.

It is doubly hypocritical because, with great enthusiasm, the government has taken up the notion that we should really push our overseas development assistance obligations aside, or at least cut down on the extent to which that should be a really high priority, and instead commit to “democracy building” in failing and fragile states.

I absolutely think we should be committed to democracy building in failing and fragile states, but there is an expression, “Physician, heal thyself”, and maybe we could tweak that a little and say, “Politician, would-be democrat, heal thyself”. As for us going around the world on this, I worry about where this government really wants to take us in this democracy building exercise, because that can go as far as talking about regime change that causes chaos in the world.

Even acknowledging that an element of our overseas development commitment should involve contributing to the kind of capacity building and to the political sensitization of people who need and want to build a stronger foundation for democracy, it is unbelievable to me that this government is busy quashing dissent and cutting off opportunities for democratic expression everywhere we turn.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been puzzled by the NDP lately and maybe a lot of other people have as well.

[An hon. member]

Lately?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Yes, well, I guess it should not be unique, but I guess it is. Could the member tell me what the rationale was for the NDP to vote against the motion which questions the “value or wisdom of...[the] announced expenditure cuts which unfairly disadvantage the most vulnerable groups in Canadian society”?

I do not understand. I thought that regardless of pretty well anything, this is what the NDP stood for: the vulnerable groups in Canadian society. Why would the NDP vote against that motion?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have time to get into a full-blown discussion. I will only say to my hon. colleague opposite, with all due respect, that when the Liberals are in opposition, we often hear from the Liberal benches a great deal of championing of the most vulnerable.

But when the Liberals were in government, let the truth be known, after the deficit had been eliminated and after we were on our way to the third straight surplus budget, that Liberal government, instead of rebuilding the programs it had devastated, gave away $100 billion in tax cuts to those who least needed them, not the vulnerable.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, It is an honour to stand in the House and speak to this important issue. One could suggest that there is no more important issue that a government brings to the House than the budget.

When I talk to constituents about the proposals that have been put forward by the government they see this budget as an opportunity missed. Quite frankly, it is an opportunity missed because when we look at the fiscal accounting presently, we see that most recently there was a surplus of $13 billion of Canadians' money that we all contributed to in the general pot.

When the government was in opposition it was very clear on its concern, which we agreed with, that before the money that is in the surplus side of the equation goes to deal with the accumulated debt, we should have a debate and Canadians should have an opportunity to suggest where those moneys would go.

We saw most recently that the government, instead of taking its own advice when it was in opposition, and instead of having a debate and talking about where the $13 billion of surplus should go, it decided, with the stroke of a pen, to make the decision for Canadians on where the money should go.

Strangely enough, the government also decided to cut a billion dollars worth of programs, programs that affect everyday people. For example, the billion dollars in cuts affected people who are working in communities, be it here in Ottawa or across the country, who volunteer their time and sweat to help out local museums. This is one of the strangest cuts I have seen in a long time.

The government cut summer employment programs. The rationale was that these were subsidies for the private sector. I am not sure if it looked at the list that most of us look at each year to look at the summer employment opportunities, but I know in my riding none of them were subsidies to private sector ventures. In fact, all of them were helping out community based, not for profit enterprises.

For example, the Vietnamese Community Association cobbled together moneys for a summer employment program and, with the help of a meagre amount of money from the federal government, it put together a summer work employment program that gave an opportunity for youth to help it with the work that it does, helping people every day.

These kinds of opportunities for students in summer employment programs not only help these community based groups, but they also give opportunities for youth to be apprentices in certain areas, to gain very valuable experience in administration and be able to contribute to their community.

At the same time as the government had the $13 billion surplus, other cuts had to do with people who are working in areas to help people who are most disadvantaged and people who are working in the area of literacy. We have heard a lot about that. Giving people an opportunity to climb out of the darkness of illiteracy is something I believe is not only something government should do, it is something the government must do.

To see people who recently were in the news who were well into their eighties speaking publicly about coming out of the darkness of illiteracy and being able to finally contribute and be a full-fledged citizen is something that not only tugs one's heart strings but, more important, it allows us to understand the importance of these programs.

We had the government with this proposition in opposition, which said that when we have a surplus of Canadians' money, not the Liberal Party's money, not the Conservative Party's money, not the Bloc's money and not the NDP's money, we should be able to debate this. The Conservatives were very vigorous in opposition on this and we agreed with that.

One of the reasons we support and we propose to have someone oversee the budget spending, which we see in Bill C-2, is for this very reason. We do not just have the money holus-bolus written off because the Liberal Party, or the Conservative Party in this case, decides it should go wherever it likes. It should be opened up and there should be evaluation. We are hoping to see that when Bill C-2 comes into effect.

It did not happen with the Conservatives because it was just $13 billion and away it went with no debate. They went against what they said in opposition.

We need to look at how the process works. The billion dollar cuts, to which I referred, and the $13 billion surplus were outside of the budgetary framework and did not allow us as parliamentarians to debate it. We are bringing it up with regard to the billion dollars and will have motions brought to the House.

One with which I am sure the government will have a problem is the rebate to tourists. It obviously did not do its homework on that. It suggested only 3% of tourists take advantage of it but the government forgot that when people are in countries of origin that is when they take advantage of the GST rebate. Obviously it forgot to ask people how the program works and did not get the right statistics on it. We will probably see the government flip-flop on that. With that program the government showed the haste with which it made the cuts and it did not build it into the budget. It was in-between the budget of last year and the budget that will be coming up in the spring.

What is happening here is that the government is changing the mechanisms of how we debate as parliamentarians with regard to how citizens' money should be spent or, in this case, how their money is taken away. That is of concern because every citizen expects us to represent them and they expect that we will follow the rules and procedures of the House. To have a billion dollars worth of cuts without allowing us to have a debate on it is very problematic. Proposed cuts should come before the House for debate to ensure that everyone is fully aware of how it will affect our communities and the bottom line of the government.

This process and procedure of fiscal management should be done within the budgetary process and not the surprises that we have seen from the government, both on the surplus and the billion dollar cuts.

The final thing I will say about the billion dollar cuts is that they were clearly ideological cuts. We know the previous government booked more than the government cut when the previous prime minister came into power. In fact, he was going to cut five times as much. We know that was booked and that the government had to exact those savings. We see that now with the $2.5 billion it will try to get out of procurement.

I will take a minute to focus on procurement. The previous government went to Chicago and hired a consulting group. It was supposed to cost $1.5 million for the Chicago consulting group, A.T. Kearney, to come up with a plan on how the government could save money through reverse bid auctioning, which has been thrown out at this point. However, the price of the contract escalated all the way to $24 million.

My constituents became aware of this contract and when I became aware of it I mentioned it in the House. We had a contract, to be clear, that started off at $1.5 million and ballooned to $24 million. The icing on the cake was that the information the government got from A.T. Kearney was useless. That was what everyone in this town told the government before, that it was on the wrong track. We had to get the attention of the government to tell the government it was on the wrong track. Finally, it canned the project after we had sent $24 million to the consulting company out of Chicago. In my opinion, that is fiscal mismanagement. We thought we were done with that kind of mismanagement with the previous government.

I could go on about all the other programs that were affected and the missed opportunities here for young people, for post-secondary education, the no help for seniors and the child care plan that is a child care scam, but I will save that for another day. For reasons aforementioned, I cannot support the budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the visitor GST rebate fund that was cancelled by the government, thus affecting our tourists, especially in regions of our country such as Atlantic Canada.

However, the one thing the government did not tell us is that approximately 100 jobs will be lost at the taxation office in Summerside because of it. It is funny how the government never mentioned that when it talked about it.

In Atlantic Canada we like the idea of having full time employment. What would the hon. member tell the employees who are about to lose their jobs if this thing continues?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I would tell the member is to support our party and to hold the government to account to reverse this decision, so that this does not happen and they will not lose their job. They then can continue to do the good work that they do on behalf of all Canadians.

As I said in my speech, the government did not do its homework on this particular cut. We will likely see it reversed. We will put pressure on the government to reverse this decision so they can keep doing the good work they have been doing.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

When we return to the study of Bill C-28 there will be three and a half minutes left in questions and comments for the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Autism Spectrum Disorder

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should create a national strategy for autism spectrum disorder that would include: (a) the establishment, in cooperation with provincial governments, of national standards for the treatment of autism spectrum disorder and the delivery of related services; (b) the study, in cooperation with provincial governments, of the funding arrangements for the care of those with autism spectrum disorder, including the possibility of transferring federal funds to assist provincial governments to provide no-cost treatment, education, professional training and other required supports for Canadians with autism spectrum disorder without unreasonable wait times; (c) the creation of a national surveillance program for autism spectrum disorder to be managed by the Public Health Agency of Canada; and (d) the provision of funding for health research into treatments for autism spectrum disorder.

Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank the large number of people who have aided in my understanding of this issue. They are parents, community activists and autism support workers. They are Canadians concerned about something that is unfinished business for Canada.

This is a moment when the national government can step up, accept responsibility within the context of its own authorities in this Confederation, and show leadership on this issue. This is a very rich country and, as such, we can no longer afford to look the other way in terms of this rather outrageous limitation of what is available through the public health insurance program in Canada.

I understand there are jurisdictional limitations to which we have to attend, but within that there is an opportunity to show leadership on this file, to work with provinces, to encourage them and incent them to deal with those areas, such as research and evidence-based public policy and standards.

The motion appeals to the government to show that leadership and to Parliament to ask the Government of Canada to do that. The rationale for this is relatively simple and stunningly inconsistent with my view of my country.

The reality is when parents are told their child, at 18 months old, has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, depending upon how profound that condition might be, the effect on the child for the rest of his or her life could be incredibly limiting. Then they are told that there are treatments, therapies and things that can be done, but they are expensive. They may cost them their house. It means that somebody probably has to stay at home, which may cost a parent a job.

This is unacceptable in a country that prides itself on its public health care system. We have to move on this, and the Government of Canada can show leadership on this issue.

I am former assistant deputy minister of intergovernmental affairs with the province of New Brunswick. I understand the jurisdictional issues, but we cannot let those jurisdictional issues get in the way of doing what we know to be the right thing as a national government for Canadian citizens.

I became most aware of this as the member of Parliament for Fredericton. I have a military base at CFB Gagetown. When members of the forces were transferred to New Brunswick, if they happened to have children who were diagnosed with autism, they would call me to say that they needed to get back to Edmonton or some other place in the country. As a parliamentarian, as somebody who feels an obligation to those military personnel who serve our country, I was concerned. However, I was also concerned as a New Brunswicker. What does that say about everybody else who lives in New Brunswick, who would wish to have those services that are better provided in other places in the country?

The other thing that has been revealed to me is all the treatments and therapies available. It is a spectrum disorder so I do not think we can get caught in a narrow debate about this one or that one. The reality is there are things out there at which we need to look. There are things available today that work and they need to be supported by the government so they can be used by parents and families.

I like to see this as a rights issue, something that we do because it is the right thing to do. However, if I cannot convince everybody to do it for that reason, just think about the long term costs of not doing intervention early and now. Think about what that means in terms of the life of that individual and the role the state will have to play. If it is not enough to simply speak to the rightness of this issue, then we should realize that the state will carry a tremendous cost if we do not do the right thing early.

In putting forward a motion to Parliament to appeal to the government, the process I envision would be the national government would recognize that medicare formularies are the jurisdiction of provincial governments. The national government could work with provincial governments, on behalf of Canadian citizens, to advance this issue, with the ultimate objective being that the treatment and care of Canadians with autism would be covered under medicare.

We cannot do that from here and we accept that. However, we can show leadership, offer incentives, do the research and establish surveillance so we can do good evidence-based public policy. Those are all things that are clearly under the purview of the national government. Until we do those things, we really do not have any right to expect the provinces to do the right thing. When we do those things, then we will have a stronger moral position on the other issues.

Again, I want to ensure that it is understood. I know this will be a difficult issue for the government to deal with because of the jurisdictional issue. That is an understood aspect of this debate. I do not think for a second that should allow the national government not to do the things within its purview. It will make it more difficult for the provinces to say no. More optimistically, it think it will encourage the provinces to do the right thing as well.

I would like to thank a number of people. The seconder for this motion, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, has long been a champion on this issue. In fact, when my bill was drawn in the process earlier than his, he offered me the opportunity to put this forward so it would be a votable motion, and I appreciate that.

I appreciate the many meetings I have had with representatives of the government. I believe the government genuinely would like to find a way to get this done. For those who watch this place, sometimes not operating at its finest, maybe we can come to a conclusion that would demonstrate just how well this place can work when something calls out to be fixed.

I was asked to read a letter by a constituent in my riding, who is in the armed forces. His name is Brian Rimpilainen. He is from Fredericton. He and his wife Tracy have two kids, a four year old and an eight year old, who has been diagnosed with autism. This was specifically written by him. He stated:

The birth of a child is both joyous and trying at times, but at the age of 3 yrs came the crushing blow of an autism diagnosis for our oldest boy. Overwhelming and frightening was the situation we were thrust into. With reason comes questions— What to do?—What information can we find to educate?—What treatments?— WHAT HELP?

Well, there is ABA (Applied Behavioural Analysis). At our own expense, we sought the guidance of Dr. Paul McDonnell and a therapist. 40 hrs/ week is the recommended therapy which is not always possible for some families. We learned the basics of ABA—we did the best that we could. Later, some assistance came—but too late for our son—he was already entering kindergarten. Tracy was fortunate to have the opportunity to be certified as an ASW (Autism Support Worker) at the University of New Brunswick's College of Extended Learning.

We know that we were blessed to have been given an autistic child—we celebrate the joys of both our children's successes and embrace the hardships/headaches of autism. But what now?— What more can be done?—What will happen when Tracy and I are gone? Will my son be taken care of in his adult years?

I see the heartache of parents who relocate to find services for their autistic children. Shall we all move to Alberta where services are enviable? As a member of the Canadian Forces I have contemplated the possibility of a posting. What services will be available? How will the move disturb our children's balanced life?

I see that there is research and training that could be done. The school-aged autistics need the help of trained Teacher's Assistants. “Inclusion” is not the answer for all autistics, some require one-on-one instruction, some flourish with the social interaction of peer mentoring. I question why all autistics across Canada can't get the same level of services within reasonable wait times. Stress and hardship in the autistic family leads to a higher than normal divorce rate: the mother becoming the primary caregiver.

With such a high prevalence rate we must act now. Does it not make sense to invest in trying to facilitate the ability of autistics to achieve their potential as productive citizens? The alternative is an immense cost to society in long-term care. AUTISM does not discriminate, it does not wait, it does not stop at age 6. As a father/ parent, all I can hope is the recognition, dignity, and security for our children as citizens of Canada.

For Brian and Tracy, their story tells the story. I do not know how we can turn our backs on the thousands of Canadians who can tell that story.

As a Parliament, we need to recognize our responsibilities. The Government of Canada needs to show leadership in its dealings with the provinces. It should be respectful. It should not pretend or grandstand. I am not grandstanding. This is something that needs to happen. In this place we have the opportunity to do that. We have the opportunity to show the leadership, to do the research, to make money available, to do the surveillance and to do good evidence-based public policy to ensure that parents know what treatments are working, where they are, who does them and so on. That is critically important.

Also, I thank a Grade 12 political science classroom in Fredericton. Last year the classroom, which graduated in June, took on the project. The class this year has picked it up. The students are writing to members of Parliament. I am sure all members have received letters. These kids have brought in parents and professionals. They had somebody in who drafts legislation for the Province of New Brunswick. They have committed themselves to this. Their teacher is an amazing teacher, by my thinking, and these kids are absolutely committed to this. In fact, I suspect right now there is a full class taking a look at this.

It really speaks to making this place work for Canadians. They are watching. They would like to see this happen. They have put a lot of time in it. They understand the science. They understand the implications for parents and their families.

At the end of the day, I do not think there is anything else to say. In a country with this kind of wealth, and Canada is a wealthy country, and in a country that takes such pride in our public health insurance program, as Canadians, regardless of jurisdiction, we need to step up and say this is wrong and it needs to end. People who need this service have a right to expect their government to pay for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot thank the hon. member for Fredericton enough for his dedication and work for those thousands of families with children who have autism.

Some people would be concerned about the fiscal costs of this initial treatment and everything else. However, research has shown that, in the long run, federal, provincial and territorial governments would save money. Instead of being expenditures, these are investments in our children.

I know every one of us in our ridings have families with children with autism. This is something that transcends all of us across the country. The member knows that in one out of every 166 births in our country a child is diagnosed with some form of autism, and it is increasing. We need to find out what causes autism, what we can do to prevent it from happening, if that is possible. We especially need to provide the care and the treatment they require.

On the fiscal argument, I would like the member to have a couple of more moments to indicate that this is really not an expenditure of dollars. It is an investment in some of the most beautiful children in the world.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that when we ask a question, we are generally supposed to know what the answer is so we are not surprised, but it is not necessarily the case that when we ask the question, we have to give the answer as well. However, I take the member's point.

I frankly prefer to feel that as a nation we would do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, but if that is not enough, the reality is that this will save the provinces that are engaged in it and the nation enormous amounts of money. The upfront costs associated with intervention are so much less than the lifetime costs of not intervening. It is not really even arguable. To answer the question specifically, that would be the answer.

One of the things we really do have to recognize is that the federal government must be compelled to show leadership on this to pull all the provinces together. In the Maritimes, if New Brunswick stepped up and really did this better than everybody by a long shot, which it should and I wish it would, but if it did, there would be people who would relocate to my province specifically to have access to this service.

That is one of the reasons I am fearful that provinces would be a little reluctant to step up and do the right thing. That is why it is important for the national government to bring all the provinces together, so that all of the provinces can work together and move together to remedy this outstanding grievance.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated my hon. colleague's speech. I know children who have autism and I know how hard it can be for their parents.

My question for the member is this: does he have any support for his motion? Can he tell us if the Autism Society Canada, for instance, has written to him to indicate its support for the motion?