Alexa McDonough

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, let me say first that the member is just dead wrong if he thinks we cannot address in considerable detail where the budget measures in Bill C-48 are needed and can and must be spent. All we have to know is that we have had a virtual gutting of post-secondary education funding as it relates both to both core funding and to student aid measures.

Second, he says that we just do not have a clue as to how it would be spent if we did make the money available. He was not listening earlier. That is fair enough; he may not have been. I reported to the House that in Nova Scotia, for example, there has already been a bill passed in the Nova Scotia legislature, and by all political parties, by the way. The Conservatives, the New Democratic Party official opposition and the third party, the Liberals, unanimously voted and fast tracked legislation to say that the post-secondary education funding flowing from Bill C-48 would be dedicated to post-secondary education tuition reduction and improved training.

I do not know what Newfoundland and Labrador has done. I do not know what any of the other governments have done. Maybe all of us in this House could take a page out of Nova Scotia's book and actually engage in the kind of cooperation and collaboration that went on in the Nova Scotia legislature to pass that bill. The bill was introduced by the official opposition, so the government was not precious about saying, “Gee, we are not going to support something that has come from the official opposition”. It said, “Let us get the job done. Let us collaborate an all party agreement to fast track this and designate exactly where the money is going”. Maybe we could all learn a lesson from that experience.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities that his is a completely reasonable question. I think we have to really wrestle with this. I will tell him that my colleagues and I have wrestled with this.

I think the bigger question is about how we can make some progress here. The Minister of State for Infrastructure may not have been in the House when I said quite directly, and maybe I am being a bit too transparent here, that maybe one good reason for us all pulling together and saying “let's get the Atlantic accord dealt with” is so we can take away the games playing that would go on around the Atlantic accord and the obstructionism by the official opposition if we do not do this.

Why do we not just say let us get it done? Then we will finally be making some progress with all of the measures together. We have already heard the minister's own colleagues like the parliamentary secretary trying to say that it is some kind of preferential treatment to talk about just the Atlantic accord.

The Atlantic accord does have to do with Atlantic Canada. and in particular with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. Let us deal with that and get it out of the way, because the rest of the budgetary measures have to do with Canada as a whole. They have to do with Canadians in every part of this country who desperately need the investment and who will benefit from a huge commitment to child care all over this country, to post-secondary education all over this country and to infrastructure measures all over this country. We would then remove this argument that is going to go round and round about how it is somehow preferential treatment and the question about how an Atlantic accord is just preferential anyway.

Let us deal with it. We all agree on it. Then we can get on with dealing with as a whole the two budget measures, which are multi-faceted, with 28 different components, and maybe actually get the job done. However, we are being obstructed at the very first stage around a very particular thing that it seems we could deal with expeditiously.

I think the hon. member's question was a fair question to put and I do not have any hesitation about acknowledging it.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak further to the motion before us.

I am grateful for members like the member for Timmins--James Bay who spoke in a very direct way about when he returned to his riding last week and how clear it was to him that his constituents want us to get on with dealing with the business that we were sent here to do. I know of no member who works harder and who more passionately represents his constituents than the member for Timmins--James Bay. I suspect that if every member of the House were asked under oath to tell the truth we would all have to say that we heard the same urgings and pleas from our constituents over the last 10 days.

I want to take issue with what the parliamentary secretary said. He talked about how the motion before us to deal with the Atlantic accord in a expeditious way is somehow about preferencing or cherry-picking. I do not think that is the case. It is about trying to make some progress. It is about trying to take one important step forward and having the business of the Atlantic accord done. All members of the House presumably agree with that. I have not yet heard a rationale as to why somebody would not agree with the Atlantic accord. We could then get on and deal with the next item of business. This is not about preferencing. It is about recognizing that we have to make some progress.

The parliamentary secretary offered the argument that the reason it was easy to come to an agreement about fast tracking the veterans bill was because it was about a single issue. The reality is that the Atlantic accord in a sense is about a specific single issue. It is about moneys owing to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland because of historic measures that were put in place that actually prevented us from benefiting from those resources. The very same argument could be applied to the Atlantic accord.

We have to take seriously the sense of dismay, cynicism and skepticism that Canadians have that we have deteriorated into such a self-serving, self-interested partisan bunch that we cannot get any of the business of the House accomplished. That is a tragedy. It is a tragedy as it relates to the business before us at this particular time, but it is even more serious than that. If Canadians have reached that level of cynicism because of the paralysis, the stonewalling and the games that have been played, it is serious for the future health of our democratic process.

I hope the government will reconsider its position on this and recognize that in the interest of making some progress we should deal with the Atlantic accord and then go on to the next step.

I listened to the passionate pitches put forward by the member for St. John's South--Mount Pearl and the member for Okanagan--Coquihalla. They talked about how badly needed these resources were for Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. Even though these provinces are the specific beneficiaries, there is no question that these resources will be beneficial to all Atlantic Canadians.

However I heard nothing in the comments of the Conservative members, not in their speeches nor in their responses to the numerous questions put to them, about how on the one hand they can make such a strong plea for the money to flow through the Atlantic accord to where it is so desperately needed, in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, but on the other hand make it clear that they intend to vote against other resources that are desperately needed by Atlantic Canadians.

Maybe one of the Conservative members will address my lack of knowledge on what decisions the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has made and what announcement the premier of Newfoundland may have made about where the resources from the Atlantic accord will be directed and actually allocated in the Newfoundland economy. I am sure other members would also be interested in knowing this.

The premier of Nova Scotia has said that most of the money from the Atlantic accord, if not the total $830 million, will go to paying down the debt, and I think there is quite a broad consensus of support for this decision. That of course is in the interest of freeing up moneys in the future so the money is not being used up in interest payments.

However we should make no mistake about it, at least in the case of Nova Scotia, that if that is how the money is spent, it is all the more imperative that the proportional share of Nova Scotia's fair share from the $1.6 million put in the better balanced NDP supplementary budget measures, flow through to be used for desperately needed affordable housing. It is not going to come from the Atlantic accord. Maybe it is in Newfoundland but it is not in Nova Scotia.

Similarly, there is a desperate need for those moneys in Nova Scotia, the money for post-secondary education, which the Conservatives voted against the second last day before we broke for a week, and money that is desperately in Newfoundland. We are talking about unprecedented levels of high tuition, crippling student debt and a serious erosion of quality post-secondary education that students are receiving today and will go on receiving if the re-commitment of dollars is not made to post-secondary education, to access, affordability and the quality of the educational experience.

I do not understand it. I do not get how the Conservative caucus, the official opposition, can take the position that the Atlantic accord is critically important but then vote to defeat the government so it could not go through. Let us say that the Conservatives have seen the light of day. They have had a week to reflect, realize the insanity of that position and they have come back saying that we should get the Atlantic accord through.

Surely to heaven they also recognize how critically important it is to ensure the money starts to flow for affordable housing, affordable education, improving the quality of education and certainly for the public transit measures and the energy retrofitting that is so desperately needed, particularly for low income housing.

Let us be clear. In job starved parts of this country, and heaven knows that includes Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, as well as New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, the energy retrofitting program, the affordable housing program and, for that matter, the post-secondary education program all have to do with the creation of quality jobs and the investment in our human resources so that people can fill and carry out those very important jobs.

It seems to me there is a fundamental contradiction that just is not explained at all by the members in the Conservative caucus from Nova Scotia or Newfoundland.

However let me go beyond the interests of just Atlantic Canada.The parliamentary secretary was not wrong when he asked whether people would think that if we were to fast track the Atlantic accord that only Atlantic Canadians would be given fair consideration and that the only people really pushing for this were Atlantic Canadian members of Parliament. Let the record show that is not the case. My colleague from Timmins—James Bay made an eloquent plea that we get on with this because we need to get the other budgetary measures through.

He and my colleagues have stood together and have agreed that we need to make some progress here. We need to deal with the Atlantic accord but let us do it because it is fair and because it will be some solid progress that Canadians can look to and we can take some satisfaction in.

I think we should do it. I think all members of the House should cooperate so we can put an end to the games playing, the stalling, the stonewalling, the strategizing and the tactics being used by the Conservative members. At least we will take away one of the obstructionistic actions that they have in mind and then we will try to deal with the next one.

Maybe the Conservative caucus, which pretends to be the party, aspires to be the party and brags about being the party that reflects the true feelings of grassroots Canadians, will actually be forced to start listening to their own constituents who are saying, “For the love of God let us get on with dealing with these budgetary measures that are needed”.

I want to say something about the continual attacks by the Conservative members on the notion that somehow there is a grotesquely irresponsible $4.6 billion that have been committed in the NDP additional budgetary measures that are contained in Bill C-48.

Unless the Conservative members have not done their homework, and it will be pretty funny if they actually plead ignorance on this point, every member of that official opposition caucus know the finance committee had four independent forecasters do work on the government's state of finances and bring in reports to indicate clearly that the $4.6 billion could be afforded. We are talking about $2.3 billion in each of two years.

The Conservatives are either pretending they do not know, in which case that is less than honest, or they actually do not know, in which case the very party that wraps itself up in all this talk about fiscal responsibility has not paid enough attention to the work of the finance committee to recognize that the four different independent forecasts done for the finance committee made it absolutely clear that the size of the government's surpluses that were solidly predictable will more than allow, not just the expenditure of $2.3 billion in each of 2004, 2005-06, 2006-07, but actually made it clear that the surplus of $8 billion, which is projected for each of those two years, would be sufficient to absorb the additional $2.3 billion in spending contained in the NDP budget measures without incurring a deficit. In fact, having absorbed those additional expenditures, the budget would still permit that without affecting the reserves that the government typically sets aside for contingency and economic prudence. There would still be funds left over to increase spending even further.

Let us not start talking about new ideas and spending new money. Surely the Conservative caucus will not refuse to acknowledge that the Liberals in 1995 brought in a budget that eliminated the best affordable housing program in the world. This infusion of $1.6 billion is just the beginning of rebuilding that affordable housing program. It is criminal when we look at how little has been done to create new affordable housing stocks in this country.

The Conservative caucus members also know that in the middle of the last election campaign the Prime Minister went to Newfoundland and participated in a debate with my leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, where the Prime Minister pledged that $8 billion would be recommitted to post-secondary education. It would not be fully accomplished in the budget but it would start in the budget.

When the Conservative caucus members took about two minutes to look at the Liberal budget, they did not even object to the fact that there was no new infusion of funds to restore core funding for post-secondary education. They could not wait to get out fast enough to those microphones and the scrum to say, “We like this budget and they can count on our support”.

Now the Conservative caucus is talking about needing to drag out the process so that people will still be left waiting and wondering if we are going to have that budget approved by the end of this session in late June. They know these extra moneys can be afforded. They know they are desperately needed.

They know that part of what is plaguing the lives of ordinary working people in this country is the fact that the Liberals have gutted the commitment to affordable housing and the commitment to core funding, including student aid programs and tuition reduction, yet they are talking about not being able to afford these investments. These are critically important investments. We cannot afford not to get on with those investments.

Finally, I want to again plead with all members to recognize that we have the opportunity here to pull together around what I think it is increasingly clear Canadians want us to do. They want us to deal with these budget measures. They do not want us to drag it out.

I do not have the figures right at my fingertips, but unless I am mistaken, this kind of dragged out, protracted and detailed analysis, which the official opposition is now saying is absolutely necessary, of every line by line in the budget that goes to the finance committee, has never ever been pursued by the official opposition. Maybe if it had been pursued more vigorously over the years, we would not have some of the problems of government misspending, of the lack of accountability, which we know about.

I have not been on the finance committee as an ongoing member, but I think I am accurate in saying this. My recollection is that most often the detailed questioning and the heavy lifting that has been done in terms of demanding accountability before the budget implementation bill in front of the finance committee has been done by New Democrat members, so it is a little sickening and a little disingenuous, to say the least, to hear these members going on and on about some kind of reckless, wasteful, spendthrift measures that the NDP has put before the House and which will be put before the finance committee.

Let us stop playing the games. Let us stop the partisanship. Let us get on with listening to what Canadians want. Let us actually be able to leave this session with a sense of satisfaction that we pulled together, that we came together and did what we were sent here to do.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to raise a question with the parliamentary secretary. I mean this quite sincerely because already the House has been back in session for about five hours and anybody watching the debate is saying, “There they go again, playing their games”.

The parliamentary secretary knows that the Conservatives, the day before the House went down for the week's break, voted for the government's Liberal budget, including the Atlantic accord. They then turned around and voted to defeat the government in the very next vote to ensure that the Atlantic accord and everything else was killed.

Why does the Liberal government not call the bluff of the Conservatives and support the splitting of this bill as the NDP has suggested? We would fast-track the Atlantic accord, so we could get on immediately with dealing with the next step. At least we would be making some progress. If the government is prepared to do that, maybe the Conservatives would stop playing their obstructionist games when it suits them when they tried to defeat all of the budgets, including the Atlantic accord 10 days ago.

Why does the government not just take a stand here? We could do it. We did it with the veteran's bill. Everybody is in agreement on the Atlantic accord. Let us deal with it and get on with the next step.

[Question No. 135, May 30th, 2005]

With regard to the death of Canadian citizen Zahra Kazemi in Iran: ( a ) what specific actions, if any, have the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the Department of Justice and the Prime Minister’s Office undertaken in Iran, at the United Nations and within other multilateral forums since the government was first notified of Ms. Kazemi’s arrest in Iran; and ( b ) what specific recommendations, if any, have the Prime Minister and Ministers of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Citizenship and Immigration, and Justice received from departmental experts, with regard to proposed actions the government may take in Iran, at the United Nations, and within other multilateral forums to ensure (i) that a full and accountable investigation into Ms. Kazemi’s death took place, (ii) that the perpetrators were tried in a fair and transparent trial, and (iii) that her remains were returned to her family in Canada for a full forensic examination and burial?

(Return tabled)

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to raise a couple of questions with the member for Okanagan--Coquihalla.

I do not wish to get into a dispute over the point, but I do want to give fair credit where credit is due. The Premier of Nova Scotia and the leader of the official opposition in Nova Scotia worked together to advance what has ended up in the Atlantic accord long before the member's party took up the challenge. It is only fair to give credit and there is certainly credit to be passed around.

This was a relentless, persistent campaign that went on for several years by Nova Scotia politicians across party lines. The Premier of Nova Scotia had the foresight to invite members from the federal Conservative caucus, the NDP caucus and the Liberal caucus to sit together to pledge commitment to support this campaign. The Newfoundland and Labrador premier, who is quite dramatic, did a good job of driving this issue home during the election, but it was all party collaboration that brought it to the point of finally being adopted and that fact has to be recognized.

We should let bygones be bygones. We should not dwell on those on the Liberal benches who tried to block this in the earlier stages because the Prime Minister did come on side. The question now is this. What is needed to ensure that we can deal with this expeditiously so we can then get on with the rest of the budget measures?

I have heard both members on the Conservative benches talk about how important these resources are to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, which is absolutely true. In exchange for the kind of fast tracking support for which my colleague is looking, which has already been given by my caucus when our leader seconded this original motion to split the two budget items, can the people of Atlantic Canada, especially those in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador , count on expeditious support from the Conservative benches for the other desperately needed measures of affordable housing funds and funding for post-secondary education? There are no two provinces that more desperately need those funds than Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. As well important funds for public transit and energy retrofitting of low income housing are desperately needed.

Can we count on Conservative members to give the same kind of expeditious support to ensuring that those measures are delivered and in the pipeline for Atlantic Canadians as well as all the other budgetary measures that we simply cannot and should not hold up beyond the end of this spring session of Parliament?

[Maher Arar Inquiry, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians welcomed today's reversal of the Prime Minister's earlier refusal to end government stonewalling of the Arar public inquiry. The unredacted memo released today proves that the government has been frustrating the public's right to know the truth by viciously redacting documents pertinent to the inquiry and doing so in a manner highly prejudicial to Maher Arar.

Will the government apologize for this despicable behaviour and give assurances today to Maher Arar and to Canadians that we can count on this cooperation to continue?

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, May 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I genuinely thank the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for his enthusiastic support of Bill C-48. He was pretty straightforward in saying that this bill, in terms of his budget priorities, reflects both his personal philosophy and that of Canadians.

I have to say, without any disrespect, that the member for Dartmouth--Cole Harbour, who enthusiastically supports Bill C-48, must have been profoundly disappointed in the budget that was brought in by his own party. Even though Canadians saw that these were the priorities that made sense and that he personally felt that, his party clearly did not. It was not until there was incredible political pressure brought to bear that these priorities emerged.

I want to speak to the question raised by the member from Abitibi. He is not the only one who has asked this question today or on previous occasions. He wants to know why the NDP would be so trusting or naive to think that the government would actually deliver on the priorities that are now contained within the NDP enhanced budget.

I would raise the following question and ask the member to address it. Should Canadians not think about the fact that it took 19 New Democrats to work with the government to say that we are responsible to make this work and we got these kinds of changes? However the combined forces of the 153 members sitting on the opposition benches from the no longer progressive conservative party and the Bloc were not sufficient to actually make a difference in shifting the priorities of this budget.

How will the member explain why he is asking people to vote for him in the next election, instead of Anne-Marie Foote or Peter Mancini, whose party also supports these priorities, in addition to Canadians personally supporting these priorities?

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, May 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I know we have heard again and again, it is like a right wing mantra from the no longer progressive Conservatives, that the priority should have been to pass on more tax cuts to big corporations because that is what strengthens the economy and generates the jobs. However, I cannot believe for a moment that the hon. member and his colleagues are not aware of the considerable research on the most cost effective forms of job generation and the most effective ways to strengthen the economy.

It is literally true that detailed economic analysis would show that tax cuts are not the most cost effective way to generate jobs. It is direct public investment in things that not only have the job generation pay off but also the benefits of direct delivery, predictable, targeted, intended delivery, for high priority things that Canadians want.

On that alone, Bill C-48 should be supportable by anybody who makes the pretense that jobs need to be a more important part of this budget. It is absolutely well established and well documented that affordable housing, that housing construction and energy retrofitting are some the most job-intensive forms of investment that can be made.

Regarding post-secondary education, not only is there considerable job generation in post-secondary education funding investment, but in the other parts of that agreement for better training. What better way to strengthen our economy than to make that kind of investment? Let us not pretend there are not a lot of jobs directly in post-secondary education.

I could go on with more examples. If we take the four priorities contained within Bill C-48, the evidence is overwhelming that if we are only concerned about jobs, it is still clear that a more cost effective investment with lasting benefits to Canadians is to invest not in tax cuts for big corporations but direct services.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, May 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a few questions of the Bloc Québécois member who has just spoken.

I listened very carefully to the member's speech. I was with him when he condemned the government for the introduction of a budget that failed to deliver what was needed for affordable housing and energy retrofitting. I was with him absolutely all the way when he condemned the budget because it did not put money, as promised, into post-secondary education and training. I was with him all the way when he talked about how disgraceful it was that the original Liberal budget introduced in the House did not commit in any meaningful way to overseas development assistance. It did not even come close to putting in place timetables and targets to deliver on our longstanding commitment, actually a standard set by Canada in the first instance, of moving to commit 0.7% of our GDP to overseas development assistance.

Then he lost me, because he then said that his party could not support Bill C-48, which actually brings in concrete remedies for every one of those things that the Bloc members say was wrong with the original budget.

Let me make it absolutely clear that the budget does not deal with all of the shortcomings. It does not deal with everything we would like to see remedied. However, it is absolutely not accurate to characterize the budget as failing to address any of these things which the member himself outlined as priorities, because it precisely commits to deliver $4.5 billion. I get excited at the thought of that money being directed to the very priorities the member talked about.

I wonder if he could explain how it is that the very priorities he mentioned now are addressed in Bill C-48, yet he is rationalizing his way to a partnership with a party that he absolutely knows would not stand behind any of those priorities. It never has and never will. The damage and destruction caused by that party, by the ultra cons, the no longer progressive Conservatives, is exactly why we are in desperate shape trying to rebuild commitments to affordable housing, post-secondary education, energy retrofitting, public transit, all of the things that have been torn down because of the responsiveness of the Liberal government to those pressures not to do those things. Now the member wants to enter into an alliance with that party and call it progress. How does he explain that?