Dave MacKenzie

[National Defence, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the chief of our air force appeared before the Senate defence committee and revealed that our air force has been stretched beyond its capability.

Senator Kenny later commented by saying:

We have a really stressed air force that is being asked to do more than it's capable of doing.

My question is for the Minister of National Defence. If Senator Kenny understands this, then why does the government not understand it?

[Foreign Affairs, February 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, after campaigning for the job of Prime Minister for the better part of a decade, and holding countless policy discussions and round tables, and after a year of in-house bureaucratic work on a foreign policy review, the Prime Minister has sent the long awaited document back and brought in a Liberal academic to give it more pizzazz. We are still waiting for the Prime Minister's own vision on what Canada's foreign policy should look like.

Can the Prime Minister tell the House when the pizzazz will be ready for delivery and what it will cost?

[National Defence, February 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, only days after his appointment as Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier terminated the current defence policy review which was described as boring, dry and dreadful. The minister has delayed the release of the review several times in the House. Now we learn that we are going to start over again from scratch.

The Minister of National Defence now fully supports the overhaul of defence blueprint and wants it to be filled with fresh ideas. Can the minister explain his 180 degree turnaround?

[Dairy Industry, February 7th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot about the effects of BSE on the beef industry in the past several months, but what we have not heard is that this crisis has had a negative impact on the dairy industry as well.

The city of Woodstock in my riding of Oxford is the dairy capital of Canada. Nearly 7% of the dairy farms in the province of Ontario are located in Oxford. Our dedicated farmers and their families deserve recognition and appreciation for the hard work they have invested in Canada's dairy industry despite the many challenges they have faced.

Recent price changes adopted by the Canadian Dairy Commission will hopefully see some reduction in the gap between operating costs and compensation for dairy farmers.

I urge the House to fully support this fundamental Canadian industry by ensuring that it is financially viable, and I want to thank Canadian dairy farmers and their families for all their hard work and dedication.

Finally, I would like to welcome the Dairy Farmers of Canada to Ottawa as it opens its annual dairy policy conference. I hope they enjoy their visit to the nation's capital.

[Finance, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if this government is listening to Canadians, Canadians will end up with more money in their pockets. The government would only be fulfilling what it said in the throne speech earlier.

[Finance, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite has brought up a couple of very important issues. One is that I am glad he recognizes one of our big issues with the deficit, which the Liberals continually point to a previous government and which occurred during a major recession. It did cause a great deal of harm to the economy at that time.

The problem is every year we go through this with the government. There is a certain planned surplus, but it always ends up to be way more than we expected. As a result, Canadians have been taxed and money was been taken out of their pockets for services that they did not receive. If we are going to pay down the debt, and it is appropriate that we should and this party has had a plan for doing that, we should plan that as part of the budget and not hope that at the end of the year there is money left over and we will pay it down.

The other part of this equation is that as the federal government is racking up surpluses, a number of the provinces have been racking up deficits. Part of that is because we put responsibility on the provincial governments to do those things that the federal government should do.

All in all, our policy still is that we plan surpluses or we plan to pay down debt. We do not plan to pay down debt and still have huge surpluses.

[Finance, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to take part in this prebudget debate and share with my fellow colleagues the view from my riding of Oxford.

Canada still holds a standing in the world as of one of its richest nations. Yet as Canadians continue to work harder and produce more, it is the government that continues to get the benefit. In many families both parents must work just to make ends meet. In fact, when it is broken down, one of them works just to pay taxes.

According to the Toronto-Dominion Bank, real take home pay has risen by only 3.6% since 1989 while the real gross domestic product per worker rose by 21.8%. Since the Liberal government came to power in 1993, it has had well over a decade to address the tax issues of the country. While the early years of the government were shrouded with policies of debt reduction and massive cuts to our health care system and Canadian Forces, it has shown little interest in capitalizing on a flourishing economy to bring tax relief to Canadians or for that matter to replace what it took from our health care system and Canadian Forces.

As a Conservative, I am insulted by surplus budgets. I believe that surplus budgets are nothing more than the result of overtaxation. Canadian taxpayers deserve a bigger piece of their paycheques. I want to see governments produce a balanced budget.

I would like to bring before the House an example of the cold-heartedness of the Liberal government that swims in surplus after surplus of cash.

Last fall it was brought to my attention that our veterans who were promised compensation for their participation in chemical warfare testing were suddenly being denied benefits. The first thing that came to mind was the Liberals were going to turn this program into another hepatitis C debacle. Sure enough, with a little investigation, it came to my attention that a cabinet memo instructed defence personnel to hold back payment on estates of veterans who died without a legal will.

At first count, with only 50% of the applications looked at, the government froze payment on 20 families of veterans that it acknowledged took part in chemical warfare testing. What did they offer the families instead? Instead of receiving the $24,000 compensation funding the government had promised, they were offered a certificate to hang on the wall. Another class act by the government, the same government that bragged about a projected $1.9 billion budget surplus that has now turned into a $10 billion budget surplus.

One can only imagine the damage to the federal government's credibility with the provinces, given that time and time again on the health accord and equalization agreement the government always tries to argue that the cupboards are bare. Instead of this Parliament with its minority government being different, we see the same thing continuing to happen.

Last year budget 2004 projected a surplus of $4 billion. In November we were told the surplus was nearly $9 billion. Now it seems it could be even more.

Why does the government like holding back money when so many Canadians are in need? It appears that the current economic situation is strong enough to allow the government to make both greater spending on areas of priority and major tax relief part of its budget for 2005.

Members of the official opposition have been listening to Canadians, responding with calls for tax relief for low and middle income Canadians, an independent process for forecasting the government's financial situation, and that all uses of the employment insurance program's funds be directed to the benefit of workers for whom the program was created to support in the first place.

In response the Prime Minister has made clear his reluctance to reduce the tax burden on Canadians. The government inherited a GST program and a free trade agreement that have turned into a cash cow for it. When I look at the size of our budget surplus, I have to ask myself, were all the cuts we suffered in health care and defence in the early nineties even necessary?

While I am no economist, I think Canadians want to see fiscal management by the government that is a little more sensitive to the basic needs of our country. These basic needs include investment in education, development of businesses, especially small business and the ability of Canadians to save for the future. The government's policy of taxation reduces incentive to invest in all these areas, meaning lost opportunities and lower potential.

For Canadians, this means that individuals and corporations are operating at less than their potential in an economy that is not as robust as it should be. For the government, it means less revenue which because of poor government choices has threatened our ability to provide the quality of social services that Canadians on which pride themselves and depend.

Since the opening of this Parliament last September, the Prime Minister has repeatedly made clear that reducing taxes is not one of his priorities. This is hardly fair to the average Canadian whose take home pay has barely increased in the past 15 years. This situation is also unfair to younger Canadians as it threatens our long term economic growth and our social safety net.

If the Liberal government wishes to represent Canadians by being responsive to their needs, its 2005 budget must include an immediate pay hike for all Canadians through a program of lower taxes. It should also concentrate on the standard of living, not just now but in years to come, by strengthening Canada's competitive position through measured debt repayment, strategic spending and reductions in burdensome regulations.

In its throne speech the government committed to reducing taxes for low and middle income Canadians. If the governing party wishes to depart from its record of broken and empty promises, it should deliver on those verbal contracts with Canadians. It is great to make promises to those who are in need but the government has a moral obligation to follow through on these promises.

The government should also deliver on its promise to increase the guaranteed income supplement; empty words that do nothing to change the situation of those Canadians who are in greatest need.

The needs and concerns of Canadians are not beyond the power of the government to help. Workers have seen little increase in their take home pay. Middle income Canadians face a staggering tax burden. Seniors need help with their drug plans and GIC supplements. EI benefits need to be adjusted to reflect the different regions of Canada and EI stakeholders should be given a say in benefit and premium levels.

On this last point, the Auditor General has concluded for several years running now that the government has failed to respect the intent of the Employment Insurance Act. While the government throws up its hands and says that there is no money, the EI account now has a $46 billion surplus. Why is the government overcharging Canadians? This program is about workers. Given them a say in benefit and premium levels.

Our farmers are desperate in many sectors for assistance. The BSE crisis has had a tremendous effect on our agriculture in Canada to the point where we now see an increase in milk prices because there is no market for the older milking cows. The ripple effect of this crisis has hurt many small businesses that support the farm industry in my riding of Oxford. It is bad enough the government forgets our farmers, but it in turn also turns it back on small business owners as well.

In my riding tobacco growers are struggling as well. Many of them want to get out of the business all together. However, they are having difficulty getting compensation the government promised them before the last election.

It remains to be seen if the gas tax promised to urban communities in Canada will be effective. Mayors across Canada are already skeptical.

Over the past decade government spending has grown at record rates, yet it is my opinion that Canadians have not received the same increase in value from government services.

Budget 2005 should also fulfill a promise made by the Liberals to increase spending for Canada's military to help bring it to a more effective level. More and more increasing demands are being put on our troops as Canada struggles to hang on to its place in the world.

The deployment of the DART during the Tsunami disaster was a great example of how poorly our forces are funded. Italy had a field hospital set up and running within 48 hours while we were still debating where to send the reconnaissance team and locate a charter airlift to get the equipment there. Two weeks later we were finally operational.

We have debated for years in the House the side effects the Liberal government's fiscal policy has had on our Canadian Forces. In 1993 the government cut 26% from the defence budget. That was a crippling move. As a result, today our forces are in dire need of too much equipment at one time. We need to make a priority list and shop from there.

Our forces need ships, airplanes, helicopters, submarines, ground transport and more. Proper equipment for our Canadian Forces should be a priority. Without it, we cannot expect the brave men and women of our forces to carry out the missions on which we send them. This lack of equipment threatens both the lives of individual troops and our place in the global security community.

The Minister of National Defence has delayed several times now the internal review that has been taking place within the department. The last white paper was in 1994. Perhaps we should be considering another since we are 10 years down the road and the world is a very different place.

In closing, let me reiterate, as my colleagues have stated throughout this debate, that in this minority Parliament it is up to the Liberals to decide when and if they want an election.

The Conservative Party remains open to supporting budget 2005 if it contains an immediate pay hike for hard-working Canadians through a program of lower taxes, a longer term standard of living strategy to ensure that social programs are adequately funded during the upcoming demographic crunch and the funding necessary to bring Canada's military to a more effective level. Their fate is in the government's hands.

[National Defence, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the fate of the Sikorsky H-92 program depended on the U.S. contract. A disturbing comment was made by the chairman of Sikorsky, “This is win or drop dead, as far as we are concerned”.

Could the minister assure the House that Sikorsky will not shut down the H-92 project since Canada is now the only country to purchase that helicopter for military purposes?

[National Defence, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Agusta-Westland recently announced it has been awarded a contract by the United States government to replace their fleet of Sea King helicopters, best known as Marine One which transports the President of the United States. This helicopter was chosen over the Sikorsky H-92 which the government chose to replace our Sea Kings.

If the Sikorsky helicopter is second rate for the President of the United States, then will the Minister of National Defence explain why it is first rate for the men and women of our Canadian Forces?

[National Defence, December 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, duct tape will not fix that problem.

Another naval message surfaced this weekend citing significant electrical problems on the Chicoutimi during its maiden voyage just hours before the fire occurred. On October 13, 2004, the Minister of Defence stated:

The Canadian navy took all of the necessary precautions and professional measures necessary to determine the seaworthiness of this ship before it set to sea.

Which is it? Was the submarine safe for travel or was this decision made for political expediency, to get this submarine home?