Bev Desjarlais

[Finance, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague may have heard some of the comments of one of his colleagues earlier this morning who indicated that it was tough for a government to come up with an absolute balance as to what kind of surplus it would have because it had all these different things happening, such as a businesses going bankrupt. Therefore, the government could not give an accurate reading as to what the budget or surplus would be. I am curious whether my colleague has any comments on that.

From my perspective, it is one thing to be out a few dollars. I guess even Canadians might say the government may even be out a few million when dealing with that kind of budget. However, to be out $8 billion somehow seems a little crazy. We wonder who is looking after the books if the government cannot balance within more than a plus or minus $8 billion.

As well, there are groups that prepare an alternative federal budget. It is interesting to note that they have been a lot closer to the final figure than the government has year after year. Instead of using some of those independent sources that the previous member mentioned, maybe the government should refer to the people involved in the alternative federal budget who have been on the mark each and every year. Could my colleague comment on that?

[Finance, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to key in on two specific items that my colleague happened to mention.

One item was how much better the service is for aboriginal Canadians. On two counts in that area, in the last month we have had Liberals come into the Churchill riding and announce $27 million in expenditures to go to aboriginal communities. But the reality was that it was a re-announcement of money promised in 2003. Along with that announcement is the fact that $42 million for a water infrastructure project had been promised to one aboriginal community in 2000 and no dollars have flowed to that community.

Therefore, we had $42 million from 2000 that never went to the community along with a re-announcement of 2003 dollars in 2005. And somehow this is providing better service to aboriginal Canadians?

Along with that, the member talked about how we need equality, how we need to have no disparity among communities. We have a situation where asbestos-contaminated Zonolite insulation is in first nations homes and the government has said that it is not going to pay to have it tested or removed. It has said to first nations that it is too bad and they should just deal with it under the budgets they already have, this when the government does not give them enough money to fund their communities. Meanwhile, and rightfully so, $2 million is being used to remove it from the homes of military people.

How is that fairness without disparity in regard to who we are as Canadians? I would like the member to comment.

[Finance, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made the point of mentioning the $46 billion that have been taken from the EI fund and used toward what the government refers to as the surplus. I know the position of the Conservatives, previously the Alliance and Reform, has always been that the premiums should be cut. Part of the concern we have had is certainly that the government is using the $46 billion for other things, such as saying that it has a surplus and then cutting corporate taxes.

However one of the things the Conservatives seem to forget about is the fact that benefits to unemployed workers have been cut so much that 40% of unemployed workers no longer qualify for EI. I am wondering why the Conservatives would not see that as an answer to improving the situation with poverty and improving fairness to employers and employees. Maybe those EI dollars should be there to benefit the unemployed and make improvements to the EI program.

The Conservatives have indicated that we need to pay down the debt, and we are all in agreement with that, but I am wondering whether they have a position on whether all these dollars should be used to pay down the debt or whether there should be some balance with more dollars going into health care to provide the universal health system for which Canadians are so proud.

[Finance, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to listen to my colleague from Mississauga South over the last number of years and I cannot help but wonder, with all the grandiose things that he thinks the government should be doing for seniors and people living in poverty, why they have not been done.

Since 1993 the government has taken $46 billion from the EI fund and put it into general revenue, so why has it not done all those wonderful things already, rather than using the money mostly to pay down the debt? It is not a bad thing to pay down the debt but I, like most Canadians, believe there has to be a balance. We do not take money from the most deprived people, those who have little money, and use those dollars to pay down the debt and then say that we have to make life better for them.

Of that $46 billion that the government took from the workers and the employers of this country, why did it not come up with that wonderful plan of his for those seniors?

[Finance, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc did not mention the importance of the government's improvements to the EI program in the upcoming budget as being one of the areas the Bloc wished to see addressed. Certainly the New Democratic Party wants this area addressed within the budget.

I would like to emphasize that over the course of time the Liberal government has taken $46 billion out of the EI fund. The government has used it in general revenues and as part of the surplus. At the same time it has cut back on benefits to unemployed workers. The situation now is that roughly 40% of unemployed workers no longer qualify for EI.

It is much along the lines of setting up numerous programs to assist farmers when they were in the downside of the mad cow crisis and the numerous other programs for crop insurance. The government sets the programs up in such a way that no one is able to benefit from the programs. The government can hang onto that money and possibly fool around with it in a scandal of some sort.

Certainly to use the EI dollars for the surplus and other things rather than having it go to unemployed workers is rather unconscionable.

Is my colleague from the Bloc interested in commenting further on the issue of the government's use of the EI fund?

[Points of Order, December 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in his response to my question regarding missing security items, the transport minister implied that I was creating a security problem by bringing the issue to the attention of the House, while in his response he also, and I would hope inadvertently, misled Parliament by saying that every item going through the airports is checked. We know from non-confidential studies that this is not the case. I would appreciate it if he would take the time to correct the record on both counts.

[Air Transportation Security, December 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, air travellers have been paying for security, including those badges and pieces of uniforms that the minister says are not important. It is looking like amateur hour at the agency created to ensure security of the aircraft over Canada.

How does the minister justify throwing money at an agency meant to keep Canadians safe from terrorist attacks when the agency cannot even keep track of its uniforms? How does he plan to get the uniforms back? Will he go on eBay?

[Air Transportation Security, December 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday it was discovered that over 1,100 CATSA security items and almost 100 security shields have gone missing. To our surprise, a VP at CATSA told the CBC that the missing uniforms were not much of a concern. Instead of getting us into star wars, the government should be working on real security issues.

September 11 was not caused by ballistic missiles. It was caused by 19 men with box cutters who bypassed airport security. How can the minister support the perception of security by throwing good money after bad when it comes to CATSA?

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the government has devoted millions in resources, not to help aboriginal people, but to deny them justice. In spite of great sounding rhetoric by the Prime Minister and others in cabinet, there appears to be no mandate for resolving land and compensation claims.

How does the finance minister justify spending millions, if not billions, on lawyers just to delay land claims and other settlements?

[Committees of the House, November 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to try to sort out exactly what my hon. colleague feels is the right thing to do. He mentioned the seriousness of job losses, the importance of supporting the industry and putting in place proper processes. We and our colleague are calling exactly for that, however, time is running out. We need a decision now. The deadline is December 31.

Over the last number of years, I have watched the Liberal government procrastinate on trade agreement after trade agreement. We ended up with the whole softwood lumber issue because the government did not come up with a plan to address it before we ended up in crisis. We do not want that same thing to happen in the garment industry. We do not want all those people without jobs. The government has to act now.

Does my colleague support the motion? We absolutely believe there need to be long term plans, but right now the finance minister has to sign on the dotted line not only to ensure that we have a plan in place for later, but also to ensure that the industry does not suffer. What is his plan? Does he intend to support the motion? Does he intend to ensure that he gets the government to sign on to this?