Bryon Wilfert

[The Budget, March 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the member has had a long and distinguished career dealing with municipal issues in Yukon, particularly with the Yukon Association of Communities. I would like to clarify something by asking the member to comment.

There was some comment from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities after the budget about the infrastructure funding. I have a letter dated March 5 from the president of the FCM indicating that the budget in fact has many positive elements to it. He talked about the green enabling fund. He talked about a number of the issues, infrastructure as well, and the fact that the minister had mentioned a down payment on infrastructure.

In terms of the issue of improving the quality of life for Yukoners, particularly in communities, how does the member see the budget touching them specifically in terms of dealing with infrastructure and air quality? Perhaps he could elaborate on the green enabling fund. That seems to be of particular interest to a number of communities in Yukon.

[Budget, March 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments. I too agree with him on the issue of accountability.

The minister talked about a new culture of accountability and more transparency in what we do. Programs that are currently funded will not necessarily will be funded again next year. They have to account for that. They have to account to Parliament. There should be more accountability of foundations for the taxpayer dollar.

I appreciate my colleague's comments. That is very much what the minister has framed in the budget, the context of which is very important. I would agree with the member that Canadians are concerned with any order of government, whether it is federal, provincial or municipal. They want to see that. The new culture of accountability is ensuring that the bureaucracy, members of Parliament and the public understand that these dollars do not just grow on trees. It is very important that we do that. It is outlined, as my hon. colleague will know, in the speech and it details how that would come about.

To go one step further, I want to ask the hon. member a question with regard to the issue of accountability. Are there specific measures which the minister did not address that could in fact be helpful in terms of ensuring this type of transparency so that every dollar is better accounted for to the Canadian public?

[Budget, March 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talks about intrusion on provincial jurisdiction. I find it rather interesting that seven or eight years ago the Bloc never mentioned fiscal imbalance when we had a $42.5 billion deficit. Now that we have surpluses, we have fiscal imbalance.

The member talks about intrusion on provincial jurisdiction. The $2,000 scholarships for Masters or Ph.D. programs do not intrude on provincial jurisdictions since they go directly to the students. The fact is that people in Canada, particularly in the Province of Quebec, are interested in governments working together more co-operatively to solve problems, whether it be health care or anything else.

My question for the hon. member is this. The member talks about the fact that we should just bundle up all the dollars, send them to Quebec and it will know how to manage them. We saw problems with that, such as money for diagnostic equipment, like MRIs, was used for bedpans, et cetera. There was no accountability. We want to see accountability.

Could the member tell me how it is more accountable to bundle up moneys to a province rather than have it designated so we can see where in fact the money goes?

[The Budget, March 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments. He mentioned Alberta and Ontario as excellent examples of good fiscal management. I would suggest that over the years the Province of Ontario has withdrawn over a billion dollars from colleges and universities, has cut back dramatically on spending in the social field and has used federal tax dollars to supplement health care.

Last year $2.2 billion was announced, of which $2.1 billion was federal transfers. He forgot to mention that. The fact is that Ontario's cap, because of deregulation, has been a disaster. It capped hydro rates. We have gone through a very severe winter and now it is estimated that it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars because of that mismanagement by the Ontario government. It is not exactly the best example.

I am surprised that the member does not mention our good fiscal management and the fact that in terms of paying off the national debt we are now down to our lowest in many years. We are down to 44.5% of GDP from 71.5% just five and a half years ago. There is also the fact that we are making strategic investments in infrastructure. We could talk about the strategic infrastructure fund, which communities across the country can support. We now have doubled that to over $4 billion.

There is municipal infrastructure, again, with a 10 year program, which is something that for many years municipal governments across the country have asked for.

The fact is that governing is about priorities. The priorities are clear. Health care was the number one issue. I did not hear the member mention the fact that although health care is administered by the provinces, the government, again meeting collectively with its provincial colleagues, worked collaboratively in that area. I would like to know if the member does not believe that this type of investment, which I am sure is critical to constituents in his community, will affect the appropriate delivery services in terms of the changes that are needed by his constituents and others across the country.

[The Budget, March 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's comments with regard to the issue of gasoline. As the hon. member knows, constitutionally the issue of competition falls within the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada and through the Competition Bureau. Where there have been specific complaints brought forward to the Competition Bureau, they have been acted upon. There have been a number of successful prosecutions over the years.

On the issue of pricing of gasoline, I refer the hon. member to the Constitution and the fact that it is a provincial jurisdiction. If he wants to talk to his colleagues in Quebec City, the Government of Quebec has the power as every other province has to put a freeze on pricing. In fact the government in March of 2000 forwarded a letter to all provinces suggesting that the government would suspend its portion of the GST on gasoline if the provinces would follow suit. Regrettably only one province bothered to reply.

Therefore on that issue, although we certainly understand the issue the member has raised, it really is provincial.

On the celiac issue, I point out as well that the government is taking specific action with regard to that. The member I know has had a long interest in this and again I refer him to the consultations and the legislation which will go before the committee in a few weeks.

[National Engineering Week, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, National Engineering Week is a national celebration of engineering excellence. This year engineering week will be from March 1 through to March 9.

Without engineers and their ingenious inventions there would not have been the Canada as we know it today. We must inform our youth that engineering is an exciting, fun and rewarding career choice.

The mandate of National Engineering Week is to raise public awareness of the importance of engineering and technology in our daily lives and encourage young people to consider careers in engineering and technology.

National Engineering Week activities give Canadians of all ages a chance to explore, discover and appreciate how engineering, science and technology contribute to our quality i life. The emphasis is on activities for youth that show how math and science can be fun and that demonstrate real life applications of engineering.

When we drive across a bridge, make a telephone call, fly in a plane or use a computer, we experience firsthand the work of engineers.

This is a young person's chance to explore engineering, to consider it as a career and to discover the impact it has on all our lives. Engineers prove every day that anything is possible.

[The Budget, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there is a deduction for parents with children aged seven years and under. If they do not send them to day care they already get a tax benefit. The member failed to mention that.

The member talked about uncontrolled spending. I have pointed out many times in the House that, in fact, that is a fallacy. It is around 12% and it was 16% in the early 1990s.

One of the things that the Alliance members keep saying, when I mention that the debt to GDP ratio has gone from 71.5% down to 44.5%, is that it is smoke and mirrors. They say that the debt has gone up. I would like them to table the documents to prove that because in 1997 the debt was $552.5 billion and it is now $507.7 billion. I would like them to provide that information.

[The Budget, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggested that the budget had no real assistance for either Quebec or his region. I would assume that the hon. member has constituents who get ill and therefore the significant increase in transfer payments for health care will be of benefit to his community. I assume that the issue of child poverty is a concern and a problem in his region. Again, that is being addressed. Homelessness is being addressed. Urban communities and farming are being addressed.

The fact is that all Canadians are benefiting because again we have a balanced budget or better. The Province of Quebec is benefiting, particularly because of federal transfers for the needs of his community, so I was a bit surprised to hear that there is nothing in the budget. Clearly there is a lot in the budget and I would invite the member to look line by line at some of the very important initiatives that are being helped.

One of the comments he made was about EI. The minister has indicated very clearly that we are going to move on EI reform. I would remind the member that for the last 10 years premiums have been going down, whereas they were going up under the previous administration. Again, that benefits everyone.

Those are the kinds of things that I would hope the member would highlight in looking at those benefits. I did not hear anything, unfortunately. Maybe the member could suggest what he would do if his party had the opportunity to bring down a budget.

[The Budget, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the issue she raised, the member can take a look at the budget bill herself.

With regard to the issue of fiscal imbalance, the Bloc members often speak about fiscal imbalance. They speak about it now because the government has had surpluses. In the days when it did not have surpluses, the Bloc never said that there was a fiscal imbalance. When Bloc members speak about tax points, they only speak about new tax points. They do not recognize old tax points. They speak about the 14¢ on the dollar for health care which is totally erroneous. We know it is closer to 40¢ when we put in cash and tax points.

Could the member comment on the issue of fiscal imbalance? How does she see this budget, which clearly has poured significant dollars into health care and the support of the province of Quebec in this regard, will benefit the people in her community in terms of medical services?

[The Budget, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first, with regard to persons with disabilities, the government provides just over $3 billion in support, over $1 billion in programs and $1 billion that deals with tax issues.

I want to zero in on a comment the hon. member made with regard to the preparing of food, which is very important. The amendments that have been brought in are less restrictive now than they were in August. In fact people who currently have difficulties with preparing food are not affected by this. On people with celiac disease, a medical expense tax credit is available for them to receive additional assistance.

I would like the member to study those two aspects which are very important. Not only is the spirit of what the member is asking being adhered to but the letter as well. Could the member comment on that?