Debates of May 15th, 2006

Budget Implementation Act, 2006

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since the mid-1990s when the former government cancelled the national housing program, we are seeing more homeless people on the streets in big cities. There are certainly people living in rural Canada who are having difficulty trying to figure out a place to live. Homelessness affects everyone across Canada.

We did not have an affordable housing program for many years. The Liberal government started a supportive community housing program called SCPI, which created shelters, not housing. It is not clear whether or not money for this program is being renewed in the budget.

I have a specific question for my colleague. Given that the funding for housing in the budget is one time only funding and the SCPI money is no longer in the budget, how would the hon. member deal with the ongoing costs of shelters, of building supportive housing, especially in big urban centres, so that we can keep people from freezing in the streets?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have a growing problem in Saskatchewan. I would say that the primary reason for it is that we have had NDP governments for 50 years in our province. They have diluted our economy and basically put us in the situation where we are having a very tough time being competitive.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government's budget delivers the least to those who need it the most and the most to those who need it the least, with next to nothing for the rest of us.

This budget delivers little for what Canadians need. It delivers little for working families. It delivers next to nothing for seniors, students, aboriginals, immigrants, children and parents. Even worse, it delivers less than nothing to future generations. It delivers less than nothing to Canada, to our land, sea, air and water. It delivers nothing for our climate and the environment and less than nothing to all of us.

However, where it does deliver, it delivers the most to those who need it the least, to the small percentage of parents who do not need child care, to the wealthy and the higher income levels who do not need a windfall, to corporations that are awash in profits, and to the oil and gas industries that continue to feed pollution.

It is funny. The Conservative Party has always attacked the NDP for our efforts to redistribute health fairly and equitably, to eliminate poverty, to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor, to open up opportunity to create a better and healthier future for all, and to build a better Canada and a better world.

This Conservative government is proving that it wants to redistribute wealth as well. It wants to redistribute wealth but in the wrong direction. It is redistributing the wealth of this nation, created by generations of people from all over the world, to the wealthy. How do members like that?

After taking the word “progressive” out of the Progressive Conservative Party name, this government is now seeking to take “progressive” out of Canada's progressive tax system.

This callous, shallow and gimmicky budget delivers the most to those who need it the least, to the wealthy and highly paid, to big spenders who squander the money on unnecessary luxuries, to the stay-at-home spouses of wealthy Canadians, to rich corporations, and to the profit-laden, constantly-polluting oil and gas industries.

This budget redistributes Canada's health to the wealthy and with it, the wealth and the environmental health of future generations. This government has a very Bush-league mentality with this budget.

What is left for those most in need, who need a bit of our nation's wealth the most? What is left for working families struggling to get by? What is left for students and seniors? What about aboriginals or immigrants?

What is left for all the children in this country who live in poverty? I ask that question today, more than a decade after every member of every party in this House took Ed Broadbent's pledge to make child poverty history. Today, one in six Canadian children live in poverty. Close to half the children of aboriginals and new immigrants live in poverty; the newest Canadians and those who were here before anyone else.

Child poverty exists in this country and yet, this government sees fit to ignore it. This Bush-league budget does nothing to break the cycle of poverty. Instead, this Bush-league budget rips apart programs, such as child care and affordable housing, that could break the cycle of poverty. It helps entrench that cycle by widening the gap between the rich and low income Canadians, by widening the gap between the have and the have nots, making it harder to break those cycles in order to pursue opportunity and create wealth.

This budget raises hopes by promising choice and promising benefits, and then delivers gimmicks and bribes while gutting and ripping apart the social programs and public spending that people need in this country.

Consider working families struggling to make ends meet. This government has ripped away the funding for the new child care programs that we finally got under way after years of Liberal delays.

Those are real programs for real children like the new child care and early learning centre called Kensington Kids in Trinity—Spadina. Kensington Kids is a wonderful centre created by parents who are on the board of directors and the educators at the community school where it is located.

We need more centres like Kensington Kids across Canada to deliver on the quality child care that parents and children need. Instead, by ripping away the funding for next year, the government and the Bush-league budget has slammed the door in the face of Kensington Kids just as it is getting started. Kids will be out in the cold and that is happening all across Canada.

What does this budget offer instead? What would those parents get and what would these kids get? Well, here is the answer. They will get a couple of bucks a day, barely enough for diapers let alone child care. A couple of bucks a day is all that is left from the new allowance that the government used to call choice in child care until New Democrats proved loud and clear it provided no choice in child care.

The allowance was reinvented in the budget as a universal child care plan, but it still has nothing to do with child care and it still does not deliver a full $1,200 to anyone. It is Bush-league. Working families and single parents who need child care the most and need financial assistance the most, will actually see the least from this bogus program.

Even with the modest improvements the government made after the NDP pressed it relentlessly, and even after the elimination of some of the federal clawbacks, those who need the most will still see the least. The allowance is still taxable even though it could have been delivered through the child tax benefit program. The government still intends to eliminate the $250 young child supplement that so many working couples and single parents, low and middle income families depended upon. Canadians will only see a net gain of $950 and that is taxable.

Hardest hit are single parents, so often women, who have been abandoned and are struggling to make ends meet, feed their kids, juggle part time jobs and find reliable child care. They see the least and working couples see very little more. But who sees the most of this so-called universal program? Well, the wealthy, that is who. We are redistributing child care dollars to those who need it the least.

The Caledon Institute did a post-budget assessment and the stay-at-home spouses of the highest income earners stand to see the highest benefits of $1,071. That is higher than the families on welfare, families which may actually lose other benefits and end up with nothing extra to help them get child care and get off welfare.

The spouses of wealthy Canadians are the new welfare queens and kings, the wealthy Canadians who do not need child care at all, and do not need the extra assistance to ensure the kids have warm boots in the winter and do not go to bed hungry. They are receiving the highest benefits of all out of this Bush-league budget. That is wealth redistribution of the worst possible kind. It is universal all right. A universal con game. We can do better than that.

The Government of Canada should not be punishing parents who need to work for a living. It not should show bias against working women and it should not deliver more to the rich than it does to the poor and the middle class. This is not made in Canada; this is made in U.S.A. That is why it is Bush-league.

Let us consider our seniors. They are the elders of our community, who worked hard, educated their kids, paid their dues, paid their taxes and deserve to live in dignity and respect. They are people like my mother, people like the seniors who drop into the Cecil Street community centre in Trinity—Spadina. They are people who are struggling to stay in their family home and trying to get home care so families are not ripped apart. They are people who have paid for our health system, saw it become the best in the world, and now see it failing them just when they need it the most.

What is in this budget for seniors? Nothing. Those who need it the most are seeing nothing. There is no new assistance or extra income for seniors, nothing for health care, nothing for pharmacare, nothing for home care, nothing for property tax reduction, nothing but pennies a day from the GST reduction. It means pennies a day for most seniors. Very few will save even as much as $100 a year. It would take $10,000 of spending over and above rent or property taxes and food to save as much as $100 a year on the GST reduction. Most seniors will see maybe $30 or $40 a year, pennies a day.

In downtown Toronto that will not stretch very far. Seniors see rising heating bills, cost of living and property taxes. With this budget, they will see declining social services, which they need the most and yet they get the least.

Who will get the most from the GST reduction? Let us face it, it is a gimmick. It is a costly gimmick and a government bribe. Once again, it is wealthy Canadians. Those who can afford to spend the most will see the most from this budget. They will have big savings from the GST. A wealthy person can guy a Porsche for $100,000 and will save $1,000. This is a good chunk of change. Yet most seniors will see maybe $50, pennies a day, not enough for a one way subway ride in Toronto.

Think of the aboriginals. The first nations in this country have also been left out in the cold. Once again, they are an afterthought. The NDP managed to negotiate funding in last year's budget, which was a start, but with this Bush-league budget aboriginals are being ignored. There is nothing new and promised child care funding of $25 million was ripped away. Aboriginals deserve better and we can do better than that.

Immigrants in this country contribute so much to our economy, culture and quality of life. Yet this budget fidgets with settlement fees but does nothing to reform a system that is cheating our country of the contributions made by immigrants. There is nothing to reform the system, nothing to reunite families faster, nothing to stop families and communities from being ripped apart, and nothing to address the callous and shortsighted deportations of much needed workers. This is a country built by immigrants, a country that needs immigrants, and yet those who need the most get the least in this budget.

The largest university in Canada is in my riding, the University of Toronto. There are also community colleges and students from many other post-secondary institutions in my riding. The government seems bent on squeezing students out of the picture, at least the students who are most in need. They may save pennies a day on the GST reduction, but that will not help pay tuition or find affordable housing.

Think about it. The little bit that the government has put toward post-secondary education, in Bill C-48 by the way, is for capital spending for universities. That may build some new labs or libraries, but it will probably be for only some of the fortunate few students who will actually afford to go and be able to have a huge debt after graduating.

While the government gives GST windfalls to the wealthiest, it does nothing to address tuition fees. Tuition fees are a tax on students, a huge burden. The tax cuts the government is making are on the backs of students who are footing the bill. This is insane and again is widening the income gap and making it harder to break the cycle of poverty.

The government has talked tough about youth and gang crime, enforcement, policing and putting hard, cold dollars into this budget. That is all fine and good, but what about vulnerable communities? What about youth at risk? There is money to address a small number of criminals. They get lots of money devoted to them. What about the vast majority of youth who need programs, training and opportunities, money for positive programs and education, and public funding to help them get started and not leave them to fail? Those who need the most get the least. In this case criminals will get the most. We can do better than that.

Let us think about the millions of Canadians who need affordable housing, seniors, students, working families, immigrants, artists and aboriginals. We desperately need affordable housing in Trinity—Spadina, since the federal Liberals abandoned the national housing program over a decade ago. In the budget we see the bare minimum, based on what the NDP achieved in the last minority government. It may translate into a couple of homes in Trinity—Spadina, if we are lucky.

Think about it. Someone who is really wealthy could buy a million dollar condo in my riding and save $10,000 in GST. This is good for that person and for the developer, but what about the seniors, the students, the single mothers who need affordable housing? What about them? Why are we making million dollar condos more affordable, while failing to deliver affordable housing to those who need it? Why are we doing that? Why?

Something in this country is universal. It affects the rich and the poor, new Canadians, aboriginals, artists, business people, everyone, and that is the environment. It is the air we breathe, the weather we endure, the environment we live in. It is what we all need the most and it is getting the least. There is nothing in the budget for the environment. The government covers up by diverting a minuscule tax saving to transit pass buyers and that is it. That is the environmental program.

There is not enough to expand public transit by even a tiny bit. It is not enough to meet even the most modest Kyoto commitment. There is nothing for enforcement, nothing for regulations for industry, no teeth for existing enforcement . The budget fails on the environmental front.

In downtown Toronto there were 63 smog days last year. Kids with asthma are gasping for air. Seniors can barely breathe. Our health care system is being crushed by all of this. Yet the government buries its head in the sand, very bush league. We can do better than that, or at least we had better try.

In the budget there is nothing for the environment. Yet the money losing port authority is still allowed to operate squandering millions in taxpayers' money on ferry upgrades, for an airport expansion that no one wants. All that money that is being squandered could be put to good use on Toronto's waterfront, while stopping pollution and planes.

There is a gap between the rich and the poor in this country and it is growing. We have been through a decade of great growth and prosperity, but too many people have been left behind. Now is the time to invest some of that surplus and recycle some of that prosperity. Instead we are squandering the prosperity and the surplus to give more to those who need it the least, and to give the least where it is most needed. That is wrong.

The Conservative government is using the ridiculous excuse that the Liberals did not deliver on all their promises either. We know that and it is no excuse. The Canadian people voted the Liberals out of office. Canadians expect better from the government. Some are seeing more: the wealthy, the corporations; those that need it the least are seeing the most. It is bush league, and the government should be ashamed of the budget.

We can do better and all Canadians deserve better. It is up to all of us in Parliament to ensure that the government delivers more to those who need it. Let us work for a progressive government for all Canadians and for future generations.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments. Perhaps the member could make a quick comment on the government's commitment to the environment, specifically in terms of the transit credit and the almost 16% credit for users of public transit. Certainly that will benefit Canadians whether they ride the subway in Toronto, or whether they ride the bus in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan in my riding.

The transit pass subsidy is something that has been very well received in my riding. It is something that will reward individuals who already utilize public transit, but it will also encourage a number of people to start using public transit. This will of course reduce emissions in the long run.

The member may be tempted to get into a big discussion on the environment. She may rest assured that the Minister of the Environment is working hard on these issues and is working hard on a made in Canada solution that will clean up our air, water and the land.

Would the member please comment on her reaction in the budget to an almost 16% tax credit for public transit? Does she support that tax credit for public transit? Does she think it is a good idea?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the $150 million which is this year's tax credit for the cost of public transit is something for which the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and all municipalities have been asking. That is not a bad step. However, what the TTC and other public transit systems across Canada are also saying is that people can be encouraged to take transit but what if there is no money to buy buses, or to repair or build subway systems and new lines and pay for fuel?

Gas prices have gone up. Transit authorities, whether they are in Moose Jaw, Toronto, Vancouver or Halifax are saying that because of the rising fuel costs they need operating dollars. They are struggling. Aside from raising fares they cannot find enough money to pay for the transit service that the riders desperately need. They agree the credit will generate more riders, but they also need the funding that is missing. They need the 5¢ gas tax credit right now in order to pay for transit improvements so that more people will leave their cars at home and ride public transit. That is the piece that is missing in order to complement the tax credit. Getting more people to take public transit will not work if there are not enough buses. It is really costly. They will have to increase fares.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for an interesting speech that was full of very strong words about the budget, things like gimmicky, superficial and bush league. While I have no objection to using strong words to criticize a budget that I agree is sorely misguided, I must admit that the hon. member's comments leave me a bit perplexed.

She spoke at great length about the importance of child care to her and her party, yet I could not help but think that it was the member's party that helped bring down the previous government, a government that had committed to an investment in child care. If it is a priority, the question becomes, would the NDP not want the government to proceed as quickly as possible with a national child care program? Why did the NDP want to destroy the chance of seeing that child care system come to light? The only possible explanation would be naïveté. Perhaps the member's party believed that a new government, and the only real alternative we all know was the Conservative Party, would go ahead and create a progressive, well thought out national child care program.

Why did the hon. member's party pull the plug on the previous government? Was it because child care was really not a priority, or was it because of naïveté?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been called all sorts of things but naive may not be one of them.

Anyone who knows the history of my political life knows that all through the 1990s I pushed desperately for a national child care program. A whole generation of children have now grown up without child care. It is heartbreaking to see because many parents were promised it, whether it was in 1987 with the Brian Mulroney child care act, or the 1993 red book, or the 1997 red book, or the 2000 red book.

In 2004, whether we call it an early childhood development initiative or a multilateral framework agreement, we could call it all sorts of things but there was no child care program delivered. In fact in Toronto there were fewer child care spaces two years ago then in 1992 because of the various budget cuts by the federal government and of course by the provincial government also.

The child care program that we have been pushing for, which the last Liberal government finally began to put in place in its minority government, unfortunately was not enshrined in legislation. That allowed the new government to come in and cancel the agreements. Imagine if there were a national child care act that enshrined child care into legislation, today we would be in the House debating a child care act, not these bilateral agreements that can be cancelled with the stroke of a pen.

I put the fault of not having a national child care program with the way the former Liberal government created it.

[John Baird, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly confirm to the House that the hon. member has been fighting for many of the things she has talked about. I have some of the scars to prove it from over the years.

She did talk about seniors. Seniors are very important to me in my riding of Ottawa West--Nepean. She said that this budget contains nothing for seniors, but does she know about the important tax cut for seniors in doubling from $1,000 to $2,000 the basic tax credit on their pensionable earnings? Is she aware of that and would she not want to promote that to the good constituents of Trinity--Spadina? That of course would be in addition to the GST tax cut.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the first deduction was introduced in 1975. Most seniors do not pay tax because they do not have enough money. They are not over the $25,000 to $30,000 bracket.

Seniors are in most desperate need of an increase in the guaranteed income supplement. For 12 years there have not been any additional increases. Last year the former Liberal government put in less than $1 a day for the GIS. What we need here is an increase specific to seniors on the guaranteed income supplement so that they will not live in poverty.

A lot of seniors are living in isolation because they cannot even afford that extra dollar to buy a subway token or pay the bus fare to visit their friends. They do not even have enough money to have a telephone. They do not have enough money for television sets. That is how desperately poor they are.

It is not the tax relief that is in this budget that is needed. It is extra dollars in the guaranteed income supplement that is most wanted and needed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mississauga South.

I do not know if anyone read the Globe and Mail this morning but there is an article by Norman Spector, a man who is hardly a great friend of the Liberal Party of Canada, having been Brian Mulroney's chief of staff and a former ambassador to Israel. Regardless of whether we agree or disagree with him, he is a noted commentator on the political scene in Canada.

He starts his column with a trenchant observation that no one should be surprised when the public interest gives way to what interests the public. He goes on in his article to point out that there are quite a number of areas in which public policy gets lost in favour of what is political expediency.

Jeff Simpson makes a similar observation when he says, “What's going on here is part of a pattern set early by the Harper government -- the making of political commitments in defiance of”--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I would ask the hon. member not to try and do indirectly through quotes what he is not supposed to be doing directly.

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

I consider myself well and truly chastized, Mr. Speaker. I will try not to repeat the name.

The quote continues, “--expert advice, including from within government departments. There seems to be a rift between ministers and their own departments. The rift is probably widest in the Department of Finance and probably exists in others, such as the Department of Justice. There is almost a chasm in terms of what the minister wants done and what the people who have spent their entire careers studying these issues think should be done. There is a consensus among experts with respect to those issues.

Spector goes on to raise one of the most difficult and problematic issues facing this government, or any government, and that is the Conservatives' approach to the so-called fiscal imbalance. His argument is that this approach is quite worrisome, that the government could be putting Canada's future at risk for no other reason than electoral politics. The problem here is the raising of enormous expectations which makes the solution to this vexing problem quite difficult to achieve.

I suggest that we will look in vain through the documents submitted with the budget to find a solution to the so-called problem of fiscal imbalance. The only phrasing in the entire document is the issue of fiscal balance. As Simpson said, the pattern set by the government of ignoring the advice of experts in order to achieve its political expediencies is quite difficult. Not a soul in the Department of Finance believes that the fiscal imbalance exists, and they are right.

Provinces have access to all of the same taxing authorities as does the federal government. They have access to personal income taxes, corporate income taxes and consumption taxes. In fact, the provinces have access to some sources of revenue, such as gambling revenue and resource royalties, which the federal government does not have.

In addition, the federal debt as a percentage of GDP is higher on average than the provinces. Some provinces have no debt whatsoever, such as the province of Alberta. If we really want to talk about fiscal imbalance, we should look horizontally at Alberta which is in a league by itself in terms of its ability to raise revenue. Some provinces, quite candidly, have difficulty raising revenue because they simply do not have the wealth base on which to raise it. That is a horizontal fiscal imbalance and that is a legitimate concern because the inequities of revenue among those provinces leads to other difficulties that are politically quite problematic.

Let me give the House an example of a perverse consequence of poorly thought out public policy. The illustration is in the GST. I appreciate that the GST reduction from 7% to 6% and ultimately to 5% is politically popular. I concede that point.

However, the chief beneficiary of this reduction will be the wealthiest province, Alberta, because it has no provincial consumption taxes. The province of Ontario has a total of 15% in terms of consumption taxes, both retail, federal and provincial. Alberta, on the other hand, only has the GST and therefore a one point reduction effectively means about a 14% reduction in consumption taxes. However, in the province of Ontario and similarly in other provinces it is only about a 7% reduction in consumption taxes.

There is a perverse consequence of reducing a tax which appears to be politically popular but in fact allocates a tax relief measure to a province that needs it the least, which creates its own level of difficulties.

It is not only the Department of Finance. It is also the Department of Justice. No one in the Department of Justice thinks minimum mandatories are the appropriate way to go. The argument is quite clear that minimum mandatories just simply do not work.

I sat on the justice committee occasionally with you, Mr. Speaker, and there was not an expert who came before the panel of parliamentarians who thought that minimum mandatories work but, nevertheless, the government seems bound and determined to plough ahead with those kinds of issues. These are people who have spent their entire careers thinking about and listening to the evidence and yet the government seems bound and determined to ignore what people who think about these issues have said.

Every serious study of Canada's economic future believes that focusing on education, research, innovation and productivity is the only way forward and yet nary a word in this budget about those kinds of issues.

In fact, we shove in the window things like the GST reduction and these fairy tales about 16 is actually lower than 15. We shove in the window that these are actually tax reductions when in fact they are tax increases. We create tax credits where, again, people who think about these things know that giving a sports tax credit will just lead to other people requesting other credits for other activities. The government is creating an administrative nightmare. That has been the position of the Department of Finance for years.

Similarly with transit passes, it gives credit to people already using the system. It will not increase the use of the system except marginally. However I understand how, for political purposes, these so-called ideas are attractive to people.

The budget has a huge gap between what the people, who have thought about the issues, actually think is the proper way to go and this panoply and basket of issues which have political popularity but are poor public policy.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Questions and comments? I want to say the hon. member for Elk Island but I know that is wrong. The member for Edmonton--Sherwood Park.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to have been the member for Elk Island for almost all of its existence.

I want to challenge some of the things the member said. I would like to challenge a whole bunch of things but I will go to just one. He said that mandatory minimum sentences do not work but there is a lot of evidence that shows they do.

I will give a quick example. On Saturday, while I was driving down the road in my riding, there was a construction zone. In the past people would always pass other drivers in the construction zones. Some would go the reduced speed limit and others would just go zipping by. As a result of a number of highway workers being killed because of these people, the provincial government took the initiative to put up signs at these construction places stating, “Speeding Fines Doubled”. On Saturday, when I drove through that zone, not one person passed me while I was going the reduced speed limit through the construction zone.

Deterrents do work. I think it is rather specious of the member to just make a point blank statement that it does not make any difference and, therefore, why should we bother. It does in fact.

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

Mr. Speaker, with greatest respect to the hon. member opposite, I spent six years on the justice committee. We spent a great deal of time talking about whether minimum mandatories would work. With greatest respect again to the hon. member, he should read the material. He should read the studies.

It does not work. It does not reduce crime. It has no impact on the incidence of crime. It is not as if somebody thinks that if he uses a gun, he will get a minimum mandatory of four years, which is the current law. It is not as if he thinks whether he should use a gun or some other weapon. The truth of the matter is, criminals just do not think that way. Therefore, the issue of minimum mandatories, which is essentially taking away the discretion of judges, is an appearance of a solution and it panders to a certain segment of our population, but it has no consequence on the impact of crime.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was able to weigh in with some comments on deterrence. I would like him to share with the House a few comments on incentives. The government has put in the window something that is fairly attractive, a $500 deduction for young people for the registry of sport. When Canadians do their income tax next spring, they will realize this equates to about an $80 benefit.

Where we have our greatest impact on young people, where we have our greatest impact on young athletes is when our premier athletes excel. We see the stars who are created over the Olympics and how that motives and inspires the next generation.

If the Conservatives had come through with their campaign promise of 1% of the health budget for sport and fitness, it may have made some kind of difference. Instead they offered this paltry exemption of $80, as my colleague indicated a bus pass. What impacts will be elicited from these types of tax exemptions?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. friend has followed this issue assiduously over the past number of years. When I was the parliamentary secretary to the finance minister, he and I had regular conversations about it. In particular, he must be terribly disappointed by the appearance of a response to the issues that he pursued when he was a member of the government and the results of it.

A lousy $80 will not make a hill of beans worth of difference to most people who are putting their kids in hockey. That is just reality. These days that hardly covers one skate and that skate has to be used. It will have virtually no impact.

Simultaneously, it will be an administrative nightmare. We will have a whole bunch of athletic clubs, whether big club or small and they will all have to issue tax receipts. When they get around to trying to issue tax receipts in February, do we think the treasurer of the local soccer club will be really happy trying to remember to what tax credit so and so is entitled?

This is a classic example of poor public policy, released to great fanfare, giving Canadians an illusion that they are actually getting something. When they sit down next February, it will be a big disappointment.

Winter Olympics

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today a number of Canada's Winter Olympians and Paralympians are in Ottawa to be recognized for their great achievements. Like all Canadians, I am extremely grateful for the dedicated and skilled athletes who so proudly wear our maple leaf.

During international competition, the focus and measure of success is often tied to the winning of medals. However, I believe such measurements are secondary to the sacrifices these athletes have made to reach the pinnacle of their chosen sport. With hearts of gold, brilliance of silver and resolve tempered like bronze, our Olympians shine for Canada, yet behind every athlete, coach or trainer there is a personal story. In their personal stories we find reflections of our great nation.

The courage, determination and dreams that form Canada can also be found in the character of our Olympians. Their stories are Canada's story. Like Canada's success, their success did not come easy but it was achieved nonetheless.

To the Olympians here today and to all of Canada's Olympians, I thank them. They make this nation proud.

Peter McKee

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, a gentle giant of a man, Father Peter McKee, originally of Bouctouche, New Brunswick, succumbed to a three-year courageous battle against cancer. Father Peter passed away on January 16 at the age of 70.

After graduating from high school in Chatham, he received his undergraduate degree from St. Thomas University. He later attended Holy Heart Seminary in Halifax and was ordained a priest on May 28, 1961.

Father Peter McKee was much more than a priest to the Moncton community.

For over 20 years, he was a member of a hockey team called the Flying Fathers. His vocation and the sport he loved were, in a way, another aspect of his priesthood. His team raised millions of dollars for organizations in Canada, the United States and the world.

As remarked in his eulogy by Father Jeff Doucette, “yes, Father Peter's passing leaves a big void in the community but, just like him, he has thrown a torch of challenge to all of us to fill that void”. Wise words, indeed. Quite a challenge.

Requiescant in pace.

Pierre Harvey

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

Mr. Speaker, passion, perseverance and versatility are a few words that perfectly describe cross-country skier Pierre Harvey.

Pierre Harvey was one of the first athletes from Quebec to make his mark on the international circuit. During his career, he won three cross-country skiing world cups, an unimaginable feat for a Canadian in the 1980s.

A member of the Canadian Ski Hall of Fame and a recipient of the Order of Canada, Pierre Harvey showed that anything was possible with effort, in his case, in both cycling and cross-country skiing.

On April 29, the Canadian Olympic Committee inducted this great athlete from Quebec into the Canadian Olympic Hall of Fame in recognition of his outstanding achievements.

The Bloc Québécois members join me in congratulating Pierre Harvey on his prestigious career.

Devils Lake

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, our beloved Lake Winnipeg is choking to death, grievously injured by generations of human ignorance and neglect and pollution ranging from mercury from pulp mills to nitrogen and phosphorus from chemical agriculture.

This massive and magnificent body of water may not survive its latest indignity, the Devils Lake diversion, which diverts water from the northern United States into the Red River and Lake Winnipeg.

The inter basin transfer of water is a crime against nature. It offends the natural order. It is scientifically negligent and wholly irresponsible. Additional chemical pollution, combined with the risk of invasive species entering our Manitoba aquatic ecosystem, may be the end of one of the world's great freshwater lakes.

I urge our Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to use every diplomatic measure possible to stop the governor of North Dakota from opening the floodgates and the Devils Lake diversion and killing our great Lake Winnipeg.

Regina—Qu'Appelle

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the residents of Regina—Qu'Appelle for trusting me again to represent them in the House. I am honoured by the trust they have placed in me and promise to make them proud of their choice.

I would also like to take a few moments to congratulate the town of Fort Qu'Appelle, the town of Qu'Appelle and the north central community in Regina for an excellent job hosting Her Excellency the Governor General.

The Governor General paid a visit to these three areas last week. First she visited beautiful Fort Qu'Appelle, where she met with hundreds of residents as she walked along the streets of that historic town. Volunteers helped make her visit extra special and the entire town did a great job hosting her visit.

Next she visited Qu'Appelle, where the residents and town officials had spent hours of work making the town more beautiful than ever preparing for her visit.

After visiting those two communities, she went on to the north central part of Regina. There, residents and community volunteers gave her a true Saskatchewan welcome.

The residents of these three communities deserve a warm round of applause for hosting the viceregal couple and proving that the best hospitality is Saskatchewan hospitality.

Blind River

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, May 14, marked the 100th anniversary of the incorporation of Blind River as a town. For 100 years, locals and visitors have enjoyed Blind River's beautiful natural surroundings and legendary northern Ontario hospitality. Even Canadian singing start, Neil Young, has immortalized Blind River in one of his famous songs.

The community's history has included forestry, being on the cross-Canada Voyageur route, tourism and an excellent history of relations with the neighbouring Mississauga First Nation.

I was born in Blind River. As such, it holds a special place in my heart. Located on the north shore of Lake Huron between Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie, Blind River picturesque and friendly. The town is famous for its community celebrations, which has included being named one of the top 50 festivals in Ontario. The committee, with a lot of volunteer help, plans many special activities for this summer.

On behalf of town council, Mayor Gallagher and the residents of Blind River,and all of the north shore who share this time, I invite all members, senators and Canadians to visit and celebrate with us. Please join me in saying, “Giv'er, Giv'er Blind River”.

Spirit River Academy

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to recognize a group of students who are visiting our national capital today from my constituency of Peace River.

The students from Spirit River Academy are participating in a musical exchange with the Carleton Place High School band. While on the exchange, the students have had the opportunity to participate in two concerts and experience some of the local attractions.

Today the students will tour the Parliament Buildings and will attend question period in the House of Commons. I hope each student will gain a stronger appreciation and an understanding of the work that happens here in the chamber and throughout our nation's capital.

I am sure the students from Carleton Place High School, who have had the privilege to travel to Spirit River, also have gained a great appreciation of the beauty, the culture and the spirit of our communities of the Central Peace

Along with my colleagues, I am pleased to welcome the students and the supervisors from Spirit River Academy.

President René Préval

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Port-au-Prince, René Préval was inaugurated as the new president of Haiti.

The new political stability that René Préval has brought to the country since his election on February 7 is a good thing for Haiti.

It is high time that the international community got involved in the long-term development of this country and supported the new president in introducing the democratic, social and economic reforms he wants to make.

As Mr. Préval stated when he was sworn in, MINUSTAH, the UN stabilization mission in Haiti, must remain because its job is not yet done.

Quebec has always been a friend to Haiti, and we will continue to pressure the Government of Canada to increase its financial aid, in view of its special responsibility to Haiti.

The Bloc Québécois congratulates the new president and joins the 120,000 Quebeckers of Haitian origin in wishing this jewel of the Caribbean a long and peaceful existence.