Alan Tonks

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on the heels of abrogating on the Kelowna accord, the government now intends to eliminate the aboriginal standing offers on government contracts.

This aboriginal business strategy was created in order to increase the number of aboriginal suppliers bidding for and winning federal contacts. Many aboriginal businesses, large and small, rely on the Procurement Strategy for Aboriginal Business. Each year the livelihoods of many aboriginal entrepreneurs depend on these opportunities.

The previous Liberal government recognized that when it came to federal government procurement, aboriginal businesses pursuing and winning contracts were underrepresented. This government must realize that when it comes to fostering better opportunities for hard-working aboriginals, it must look beyond the bottom line and consider what is just.

The government should do what is right. It should honour and maintain the aboriginal standing offers on government contracts.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as a preamble to my question, I would like to say that having worked with the member, I have no doubt with respect to the sincerity with which he has articulated his principles and the principles that are driving the motion.

However, I have to ask the member a question. In his role as the leader of the New Democratic Party, he was able to create a budget amendment in the last government that covered $5 billion in everything from the environment to social programs. However, in this particular budget of the government, and given the linchpin importance of the New Democratic Party, is there anything in the government's budget that is serving seniors and that the hon. member can honestly stand up and take credit for?

Having said that, acknowledging that the taxing approach taken in that budget in fact attacks the lowest income earners, with respect to seniors, I would like the member to outline, if he could, how close he thinks he can get to those principles that were entrenched in the New Democratic platform, which talked about 10,000 additional long term spaces, $1 billion annually for home care services and a national prescription drug plan, given that the senior secretariat was dismantled by the government.

How optimistic is he that--

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members of the House appreciate the ideals that have been articulated by the member.

I am looking at a copy of the NDP platform from the last election. The recommendations in that platform include making investments to create as many as 10,000 additional long care spaces per year for four years. The NDP would support $1 billion annually to improve home care so that seniors and disabled persons could remain independent. The NDP would move toward a national prescription drug plan, starting with assistance for people facing high prescription drug costs.

I am looking at what was in the Conservative budget and the things that are allocated for seniors. The Conservatives are going to dismantle the secretary of state for seniors, which was created by the former Liberal government. The budget will be hardest on seniors in the lowest income bracket. In fact, the 2006 budget contains only one single measure directed toward seniors and that is a tax exemption that favours higher income seniors.

Does the member and her party not feel that seniors have been let down with that record of lack of accomplishment on behalf of seniors? Why did the NDP not get a better deal from the government? The NDP turned on the Liberal Party that was going to put forward measures and yet the Conservative government in the unholy alliance with the NDP, got nothing for seniors. It got squat for seniors. How does the member feel about that against those high ideals that she has articulated?

[Criminal Code, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I listened very carefully, as have other members of the House, to the comments made by the member.

I am greatly impressed with the comparisons with the American justice system and the trends, and what he described as a Conservative-Republican approach to the application of justice. He noted that the number of repeat offenders has gone up in the United as a result of the approach it takes as opposed to the trend of repeat offenders here. I hope I am not being too loose in the application, but I would attribute it to the fact that we have a conditional sentencing regime that has allowed for a great deal of discretion on the part of the courts.

The bill suggests that over 100 offences will now come under the Criminal Code, taking away the capacity for conditional sentencing.

Does the member think this will follow the trend that has occurred in the United States, which is a very serious concern? In fact, the penitentiaries have become the incubators for further offences that are of a very serious nature and repeat offenders find themselves back in the criminal justice system. Does he think this could become a possible trend here as a result of the legislation?

[Criminal Code, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House was greatly interested in and moved by the comments made by the previous speaker, in particular as it relates to those statistics that apply to women.

As the member was speaking I was reminded of the closing down of community based facilities in an attempt to replace prison-like settings with a more moral, humane and activist kind of setting as it relates to women who find themselves in the category subscribed by the member and in the conditions she described.

In terms of the conditional sentencing provisions, would the member like to see more flexibility provided through the courts for women who could receive the kind of support that is required through the probation and parole systems but would find them in more of a community setting where there are far more supports that would be relevant to the kinds of needs that they might have?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member. In the time I have been listening to this debate in the House, he is one of the few members to have linked the strategic part of the budget that either will nurture and cultivate manufacturing jobs and high value activity or it will not. The member quite frankly has come down on the side that it will not.

We all understand that Ontario, particularly the part of Ontario that the member comes from, is a catalyst to creating equalization that is being redistributed to the rest of the country. The manufacturing base is fundamental to that.

I wonder if the member could further elaborate on how the budget has not acted as that catalyst, particularly for the transportation and engineering sectors that he knows so well. Perhaps he would like to take a moment to emphasize how strategically unprogressive this budget is in acting as a catalyst to investing in the transportation sector.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is very interested in the environmental implications, with respect to programs that have been slashed in the budget, as they affect the north, certainly the FedNor programs and programs related to the Canadian rural partnership.

Would the member like to expand for a moment on how slashing those programs is going to affect the north at a time when we are looking at the north as being one of the great frontiers that will add considerably to the value in our Canadian economy in the future?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that is the best question of the day, and I do not mean that in a patronizing sense.

I would like to direct my colleague to the 10 year trend with respect to the income tax reductions that had been distributed through the surplus to those who fit into that very category he talked about. If he looks at that 10 year trend under the budgets that were brought forward by a Liberal government, he will see that while it has not been fast enough, there was definitely an improvement in those lower categories through the regime and architecture that the Liberals had supported.

That is not the trend nor the pattern nor the philosophy of the current government through this budget. It is going to go in exactly the opposite way.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, let us use a case in point. I would like to expand a bit on the case that I use in terms of Ontario.

We do recognize that there is a fiscal imbalance. More than that, we realize that if we do not invest in the manufacturing economy of the province of Ontario, for example, at a time when natural resource based economies are booming, that is the economic engine that in terms of our federal history has produced the kinds of prosperity that we have all enjoyed. That budget does not do it.

I do not know what the member means in terms of challenging this side of the House. This is not the side of the House that he should be looking at. He should be looking at his side of the House because it is that side, through this budget, that is not going to generate the multipliers, transform the economy to the extent that we create jobs in high value added activity such that there is more of the economic pie that we can then equalize across this great nation.

That has been the history. That is what the Liberal Party and Liberal governments recognized and that is what they did so well, that this budget is not going to do, and that is tragic.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for the great riding of Thunder Bay--Rainy River.

After 13 years of Liberal government, Canada's economic and fiscal situation is among the best in the world. I hope the government would agree that it is extremely fortunate to inherit the strong economic house that was built and fostered by the governments that preceded it.

The budget we are debating today is in large part a budget of small advancements that is rigidly tied, it appears to me, to an ideology that really is the architecture of small government. It is in large part a short-sighted budget, in my mind. It is a budget that values political expediency, as the member from Markham pointed out, instead of long term stability or progressive investments in the future of Canada.

Liberals believe the budget should have included, for example, a national child care system that offers quality and affordable child care to all Canadians. As well, it is a shame that the Kelowna accord, which finally turned a page and enabled Canada to move forward on improving the social and political situation of Canada's aboriginal people, was entirely neglected.

While the Prime Minister may want to focus his attention on five priorities, this country is far bigger than that. There are many challenges facing this country, as well as many opportunities. This is not the time to put on blinders and ignore the difficult issues that Canadians expect us to be working on.

That said, the budget is not entirely without merit. There are some very positive aspects. The Conservative budget, for example, talks about tax relief, and the kind that applies to all Canadians equally, sales tax relief. It is a positive way to encourage our citizens to become more productive.

Don Johnson, a tireless crusader for the arts and social causes, has long been an advocate of tax abatement for those who give stock contributions to charities. Thanks to his hard work and tireless advocacy, a total exemption for charitable stock contributions was included in this budget. That is a good thing.

My riding is a thriving bastion for small business. Over 95% of all businesses in Canada are small businesses. They are responsible for not only the spirit and drive we find in York South--Weston, but also for nearly half the jobs created in Canada every year. I am glad, and I am sure all members in the House are glad, to see that the threshold for small business income eligible for the reduced federal tax rate will be increased to $400,000.

We are also glad to see that the government has listened to the many members on all sides of the House and has pledged to support our police forces. Funding those who shield our municipalities and protect our provinces and our people is a noble and necessary pursuit.

At the federal level, the RCMP need to be equipped with the latest technology and capable of handling the most challenging of investigative tasks. This budget at least recognizes that there has long been a shortfall in the funding of the mounted police. An accomplished force with such a rich history and storied symbolism deserves the best we can offer.

However, I am compelled to talk about some of the shortcomings of the budget. I wish I could say more positive things about what is being offered the rest of Canada, but sadly there is not that much. This is a budget that fails the regions, fails our health care system, fails our first nations and fails the environment. I would like to expand on the reasoning behind this statement.

First of all, I would like to expand on how this budget fails our health care system. During the election, the Conservative Party made wait times reduction one of their five core priorities. During his budget speech on May 2, the hon. Minister of Finance said his government was “committed to implementing the 10-Year Plan to Strengthen Health Care”.

The Conservatives' federal budget provides no additional funding for wait time reduction, nor any explanation as to how their wait times guarantee will be implemented. What happened to the Conservative priority of fixing wait times? They promised to outdo the Liberals, yet their budget invests no more funding for wait times reduction beyond what the Liberal government already committed.

How will the Conservatives pay for their wait times guarantee? Will they download costs to the provinces and territories without giving them more funding to cope? Despite their criticism of the Liberal government's 10 year plan to strength health care, this plan has now become the core pillar of their health care platform. Now that the groundwork has been laid by the previous Liberal government, the Conservatives seem ready to claim its successes as their own.

It was the Liberal government that worked with the provinces and territories to establish benchmarks for medically acceptable wait times, to set reduction targets for key medical procedures, to create the $5.5 billion wait times reduction fund, and to integrate foreign-trained medical professionals to supplement shortages within the Canadian medical field.

The Conservative government seems to have overlooked not only one of its own priorities but the number one priority for Canadians: a better, stronger health care system.

The budget also fails our children and working parents. The Conservative budget fails to provide a real child care choice for parents. Twenty dollars a week for child care is simply not enough. Low income parents will also be losing the young child supplement of the Canada child tax benefit. The Conservatives are cutting $1 billion from the child tax benefit, which was supposed to reach $10 billion next year.

The budget fails our first nations people. The hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has implied that he has doubts whether the $5 billion for the Kelowna accord was actually budgeted for by the previous Liberal government. This commitment is so fundamental that it is vital to dispel any such doubts.

The previous Liberal finance minister has confirmed that as of November 24, 2005, the day of the first ministers meeting when the agreement was signed, the fiscal framework of the Government of Canada included a total of $5.096 billion to address obligations arising from the Kelowna accord.

In the Liberal government's 2005 economic and fiscal update on November 14, the importance of the then upcoming Kelowna meeting was specifically stated, together with an undertaking to provide the needed financing, and there was more than enough unused fiscal room in our framework to accommodate the expected sum. When the Kelowna meeting actually took place 10 days later, the money was booked.

The fiscal treatment of the Kelowna accord was quite similar to how we handled special federal funding of $755 million to help grains and oilseed producers in the farm sector. Although we are pleased that the Conservative government has proceeded with our $755 million commitment to help farmers, it is just as important that it also follow through on our parallel commitment to aboriginal peoples, delivering the funding that was most certainly set aside for this compelling purpose on November 24.

What looms ominously over the budget is the Prime Minister's commitment to cutting $1 billion worth of unidentified programs each year for the next two years. Does that means that the right hon. Prime Minister intends to cut these things: the northern strategy, which ensures that economic development opportunities are developed in partnership with northern Canadians; the Mackenzie gas project, which increases federal and regional capacity; and the oceans action plan, which improves oceans management and preserves the health of Canada's oceans?

This budget also fails the environment on the commitment to Kyoto. The government has eliminated climate change programs and is getting ready to pull out of the Kyoto accord. Its transit tax credit is costly and ineffective. It will cost almost $400 million over two years and will increase transit use by only 5%. This translates to a cost of $2,000 for each tonne of carbon dioxide saved, and that will be 10 to 100 times the cost per tonne under the Liberal project green plan.

The budget also fails Ontario. A year ago, the Liberal government and the Government of Ontario signed an agreement that would see Ontario receive $7 billion in federal funding. This money was to be used by Ontario's government to help convert coal-fired power plants to natural gas, expand public transit, augment funding for universities and community colleges, and bring the province up to the same level as the rest of the country in federal spending on immigration settlement and job training programs.

During the election, the Prime Minister promised to uphold this agreement and transfer every single dollar of the deal to Ontario. Yesterday we learned that the Prime Minister's Minister of Finance has written to his provincial counterpart and informed him that the money on its way to Ontario will be $3 billion short of what was promised. This is no way to retune the Ontario economic engine, which in fact transfers through equalization two-thirds of the total amount of money that goes to those fiscally disadvantaged provinces in Canada.

This budget fails Canada. This budget is all about short term gain in exchange for long term pain. The budget has failed all Canadians.