Ed Fast

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would never suggest that the hon. member is dishonest as he has to me. It is very clear, however, that over the years that the previous government was in power, it accumulated $46 billion worth of EI premiums that did not have to be paid out. The Chief Actuary confirmed that there had been overcharging of premiums, money that was never needed to satisfy potential claims. We are returning $20 billion to taxpayers in this budget. That is real money, addressing real changes for Canadians.

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great opportunity to speak to a budget that serves the needs of Canadians. The budget addresses the critical needs in my province that were ignored for too many years.

The budget will be remembered most for one of the largest tax cuts and broadest tax relief in the history of our country. In total, the budget will cut 29 different taxes. What is even more remarkable is that over the next two years we will return $20 billion to taxpayers and pay off $3 billion of debt each year. That is more tax relief than in the last four budgets combined.

Better yet, 90% of the tax cuts go to individuals and families. This is clearly the good news budget that Canadians have been waiting for and it certainly is good news for British Columbians.

Over the last week and actually as recently as today, I have listened to the Liberal members of the House crow about how this is their money and that they are the ones who solved Canada's financial problems. It is only fair that taxpayers ask them why it has even got to this point. Why is it that today we are returning $20 billion to the pockets of hard-working taxpayers? The answer is quite obvious. For too long Canadians have been overtaxed and the Liberals have hoarded our money.

Let us take a closer look. Do members of the House remember unemployment insurance now called employment insurance? That is money collected from hard-working Canadians to provide some insurance against the loss of employment. What have former governments done? Since 1994 the balance in the EI fund has steadily increased to $46 billion, which is actually three times higher than what the chief actuary said was necessary to fund future EI claims. Did the former government ever pay it back to the employees? Of course not.

Then there were the federal cuts to transfers to the provinces in the late 1990s. I remember those days well. My community of Abbotsford was faced with the burden of finding an additional $6 million to $7 million because the previous government chose to pass the buck. Over 13 years, a total of $6 billion was downloaded to provinces and municipalities so that the previous government would not have to take the heat for overtaxing Canadians.

Finally, let us not forget some other tax increases in past Liberal budgets. We saw more taxes on family trusts, increased federal capital taxes, surtaxes, increased cigarette taxes, a 1.5% increase in gasoline taxes and, of course, even a temporary reduction in the contribution limit for RRSPs.

In the meantime, the previous government increased spending far beyond the rate of inflation. In fact, in this past year alone, government spending increased by almost 15%, more than five times the rate of inflation. How many Canadians received that kind of salary increase? That is why the present government has brought runaway spending under control.

I am especially proud of the fact that the government has worked hard to reduce spending increases in the budget to 5.4% this year and 4.1% next year. For every new dollar in spending for which the budget provides, we are returning $2 to taxpayers.

Over the last 13 years the previous government hoarded and hid billions of dollars from budget surpluses. Canadians were told on one occasion that the surplus was $1.9 billion and then, after the fact, and perhaps the previous government was dyslexic, we discovered it was actually $9.1 billion.

Canadians are justifiably angry when their hard-earned tax dollars are hoarded and then wasted in scandals such as the sponsorship program, the costly gun registry and the HRDC boondoggle.

Fortunately, today we have a new government that actually keeps its promises, a government that is focused and a government that has a plan and that plan includes tax relief for all Canadians, not just a select few.

This is a budget that, unlike previous Liberal budgets, does not pick winners and losers, pitting one taxpayer against the other. It provides broad tax relief. This budget delivers on the promises that the Conservatives made and I made to British Columbians.

Let us have a look at that. B.C. alone will see a total tax cut of some $1.2 billion. We are providing truly universal child care benefits of $1,200 per child under age six. We are providing the gateway funding of $591 million. There will be $53 million for health care in B.C.. We see tax relief for the fishing industry, seniors, students and apprentices, and millions more to keep our streets and communities safe, more money for post-secondary education and infrastructure funding.

I want to talk about one specific issue in my community, which is immigration and providing some support for new immigrants. Approximately 25% of the residents in my community represent recent immigrants, let us say over the last 25 years. They needed help and it was not there. We are providing that help now as new immigrants come in to build our country, to integrate into our communities and to build the social fabric of our communities.

We are also providing $1.5 billion for farmers. As I have said before, my community's lifeblood is the farming industry. Farmers need help. They needed a review of the CAIS program and we are now delivering on that promise. We are also providing $400 million for B.C.'s strapped forest industry that has been devastated by the pine beetle infestation.

Ordinary British Columbians have reason to applaud. For a moment, however, I would like to speak about a group of people within my community who often have no voice and very little influence on decision makers. These are the homeless, those who, for whatever reason, have difficulty finding housing for themselves. My community of Abbotsford has experienced this problem firsthand.

As we know, housing prices on the west coast have sky-rocketed, placing incredible pressures on the poor in communities around B.C. In recent months the problem has become so acute in Abbotsford that a number of homeless have taken over a tract of land owned by the city and established temporary makeshift shelters. The area is known as compassion park. I want to commend the mayor and council of my community for their patience in holding off evicting these residents in order to seek a more permanent solution.

In fact, I am pleased to report that, together with numerous non-profit groups and charities, local churches and many caring residents, we are addressing the situation of the homeless in Abbotsford. I had hoped that as a federal government we would make our contribution to solving this problem. I am grateful to the Minister of Finance for specifically targeting British Columbia with an additional $106 million for affordable housing.

We made a promise and we delivered. Will British Columbians be better off because of this budget? Absolutely. In fact, a family earning between $15,000 and $30,000 per year will be better off by almost $300 in the year 2007, and those earning between $45,000 and $60,000 will save almost $650. More important, this budget marks a distinct culture shift in Canada, as my colleague earlier alluded to, a shift from entitlement to accountability, from overtaxation and uncontrolled spending to a government focused on priorities and fiscal prudence.

On January 23, Canadians voted for real change and this budget delivers the goods. Canadians finally have a government that takes its hands out of their pockets and delivers real tangible results.

[Pacific Gateway, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the federal budget tabled this week is great news for Canadians and great news for British Columbians. For 13 long years, B.C.'s needs were ignored as the previous government wallowed in scandal and corruption.

During the recent election, we promised to address B.C.'s needs and this past Tuesday we delivered. We are investing $591 million in the Pacific Gateway because this government realizes B.C. is pivotal to Canada's economy. Trade with Asia is set to double over the next 10 years and Canada will not be left behind.

B.C. also receives $106 million for affordable housing, $130 million for transit and municipalities, $400 million for the forest industry and much, much more.

Finally, after 13 years, we have a budget that serves British Columbians. Our vision is clear, our commitment is clear, and that benefits all Canadians.

[Norad, May 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for supporting the agreement. My concern is with the confusion that we have had coming from across the floor. Earlier this evening, we heard the member's colleague indicate that somehow the agreement should not be here in the chamber at all.

That is the prerogative of the Crown and Privy Council, and that is where the decision should be made. Just a few minutes ago, his other colleague stated that this is exactly where it should be, here in this chamber. I am wondering where this member stands on the issue of whether this ratification should take place within this chamber or it should not be ratified at all by the members in this House.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, there are a number of different views on the issue of floor crossing. Some believe an elected official's first responsibility is to their party and to the flag that they carry. Others believe the first responsibility is to the people who elected them, regardless of political stripe.

Since there is such a diversity of opinion within the House, the member will know that our accountability legislation does not address that. This matter, if it passes in the House, will be referred to committee. The member, members of her party and members of the House will have an opportunity to have input and to make amendments. We will have the opportunity to add it if they believe they have the support for it.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing the federal accountability act. It is difficult to get into all the different problems that beset communities across this nation.

I do know that we, as a party, support our civil servants. What Canadians judged on January 23 was not the civil servants. It was the elected officials who were in government for the last 13 years. That is the statement Canadians made.

We have brought forward an accountability act that covers over 250 pages. It is comprehensive and probably the most sweeping accountability and ethical legislation that our country has ever seen.

I would encourage the member opposite to focus in on what we are trying to accomplish here, which is to restore accountability to government. We will have time to discuss some of the other issues such as crime and drug use. Those issues will be coming up, but in this forum right now, we are discussing accountability. It was sadly lacking for 13 years, but I am pleased to report that our government has a plan for real change.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my belated congratulations to you on your election as Deputy Speaker of the House. As you are the senior statesman in this House, it is a well-deserved honour.

As this is my first formal speech in the House and I want to direct a significant portion of my time to the residents of Abbotsford, the people who elected me and trusted me to represent their interests in this chamber. I am honoured to have been chosen by them to reflect their values and aspirations in this 39th Parliament.

My roots are firmly planted in Abbotsford. For the past 24 years my wife, Annette, and I have raised a wonderful family, built a thriving law practice and nourished many very special friendships, and Abbotsford has become our home. It has blessed us much more than we could ever repay and for that we are truly grateful.

I follow a handful of others that have walked these halls and who have come from my community, for example, Alex Patterson, Robert Wenman, Ross Belsher and, of course, the person who preceded me in this position, the irrepressible Randy White. I particularly mention those individuals because each of them in their own way articulated the conservative values that have for decades sustained Abbotsford, values such as hard work, family, respect for the law, accountability, fairness and caring for others, values which my government warmly embraces.

Let me introduce all members to Abbotsford and in so doing I hope to tell them why my community strongly supports the federal accountability act. Abbotsford is nestled in the heart of the Fraser Valley of B.C., framed by the Fraser River on the one side and by the shadow of majestic Mount Baker on the other, just a stone's throw from Vancouver. It is governed by our 81 year old mayor, George Ferguson, who is completing his thirty-first year in office. Members heard me correctly, that is 31 years as mayor of our community.

Abbotsford is among the most dynamic communities in Canada. With the fastest growing economy in the country last year and the largest farm gate revenues in B.C, we are certainly the destination of choice for many Canadians. Abbotsford is also the home of three Canadian Idol finalists, a professional symphony, Olympic silver medallist Alana Kraus and Canada's most decorated Paralympic athlete, Eugene Reimer.

My city is also a community of volunteers distinguished by its generosity. In fact, Statistics Canada recently reported that when it comes to donating to charity, Abbotsford is, by far and away, the most generous community in the country. It will thus come as no surprise to members that I speak with pride about my community of Abbotsford.

Nevertheless, Abbotsford is not without its own challenges. As I mentioned earlier, farming continues to be the heart and soul of our community and remains our number one industry. Many of our farmers are now facing labour shortages during harvest season with no relief in sight. Other farmers in Abbotsford worry about unfair trade barriers abroad and the impact international trade pressures will have on their livelihoods.

Perhaps the most compelling story is the avian flu disaster which has devastated the poultry and egg industry in my community. We have borne the full brunt of that crisis. In fact, some of my constituents face the loss of their family farms due to the inadequate compensation payable under the CAIS program. These are all concerns which my community needs addressed and I know the government will address.

Abbotsford has other challenges as well. The problems of the big city also affect us. Criminal and gang activity is on the increase. Marijuana grow-ops and crystal meth labs have become more common. Homelessness, family breakups and substance abuse are no longer strangers in Abbotsford. And, of course, seniors and working families are finding it increasingly difficult to cope under the heavy burden of taxes from all levels of government.

That is exactly why I am filled with great optimism over what we, collectively, as the 39th Parliament of Canada, can achieve in this session. Our government's initial five point plan is focused on strengthening families across Canada and addressing many of the critical failings within our society.

Our child care policy will benefit all young children, not just the 16% who use institutional day care. Our wait times guarantee will strengthen our publicly funded health care system. We will impose mandatory minimum sentences on drug traffickers and violent and repeat offenders. A 1% and then a 2% reduction in the GST will provide relief for all Canadians, not just a select few. Finally, the very cornerstone of everything we hope to accomplish for Canadians, is the federal accountability act.

Those are the five major commitments, which we made during the last election, and our tabling of the federal accountability act moves us one step closer to fulfilling those commitments.

There is, however, one great challenge facing Abbotsford and all communities across this country, and that is the quality of our environment. It is in that context that I would like to relate to the House an event that has forever changed the character of my city. In so doing, I hope to provide a springboard for further discussions on accountability.

In 1997 a number of our residents caught wind of a proposal by Sumas Energy, a well-heeled power company, to construct a power plant immediately adjacent to our community. Conveniently it was to be built on the American side of the border. The plant would have spewed millions of tonnes of poisons into our sensitive air shed every year. The profits and the power would have gone to users south of the border, but almost all of the pollution would have been borne by Canadians.

Never before has my community rallied behind a cause as it did against SE2 power plant. People from all stations of life, from all faiths and from all political stripes put aside their differences and spoke out with one voice. Together we fought the proposal on both sides of the border. We were told that it was a battle we could not under any circumstances win, yet soldier on we did, suffering a number of setbacks along the way.

It was under the visionary leadership of people like John Vissers, Patricia Ross, Mary Reeves and thousands of others in our community and region that we took the battle to the National Energy Board and eventually to the Federal Court of Canada and amazingly, against all odds, we actually won. In the process we established new legal precedents in the area of environmental stewardship.

That struggle and that monumental victory for my city have come to define the character of my community, the city of Abbotsford.

Why do I give this snapshot glimpse into the life of my community? My purpose is twofold.

First, it is to highlight the fact that our successful struggle against SE2 reinforces the fact that there is very little, if anything, that can prevail against the power of people coming together in a common cause, putting aside their differences and focusing on building a better a community. It is my hope that others will take courage from our experience and apply it in their own communities.

My second purpose, however, is to challenge the members of the House to use Abbotsford's experience with SE2 to clean up not only our environment, but the ethical mess that was left behind by the previous government.

The residents of Abbotsford have become quite disillusioned with the culture of entitlement, which has paralyzed our federal government for over a decade. Corruption, scandal and mismanagement are certainly not Abbotsford's values and, quite frankly, I know they are not Canadian values. Without a clear ethical framework for those who work in, for and with government, Canada cannot be a leader among the nations of the world.

Sadly, over the last decade, Canada has achieved distinction not as a lighthouse for responsible government, but as an example of how even great democracies such as ours can be hijacked by the selfish and the greedy. That is why I can say with great confidence that the residents of Abbotsford strongly support the federal accountability act.

It will take great courage. It will involve significant political risks by all of us in the House, but those are risks that Canadians are asking us to take, and take them we will.

Our accountability legislation addresses everything from strengthening the role of the Ethics Commissioner to banning secret political donations, tougher lobbyist restrictions, truth in budgeting, protection of whistleblowers and so on.

Since 1993 the message from Abbotsford has always been the same. We wanted real change. It is my hope that, as with our battle against SE2, members of the House will set aside partisan differences and heed the call from ordinary Canadians to support the federal accountability act. My community demands it; Canadians demand it.

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to affirm my colleague's comments. I have heard the members opposite taking the position that they are responsible for solving the country's financial woes. I believe that position is quite disingenuous. When we look back I think the record will show that the Liberals did that on the backs of Canadians. They eliminated the deficit and were able to start paying down the debt but how did they do that?

First, they did it by charging much more in GST than they ever had to. My understanding is that when the GST was first implemented it was supposed to be revenue neutral. In fact, we know that it never was revenue neutral. It provided billions of additional dollars to our national coffers.

Second, they took in way more money, under employment insurance premiums, than they needed to pay out employment insurance to needy employees who were without work. Where did that money go? It did not go back to the employers or the employees. It went into general coffers and was used to pay down debt and eliminate the deficit.

Finally, they downloaded to municipalities and local government. I was personally involved in local government in those days and I can tell members that our community itself took a hit of about $7 million because of downloading.

Will the member confirm that our government will bring GST tax relief to all Canadians, not just the chosen few?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for her vigorous defence of children in Canada who are in day care. I think we can all agree and come to a consensus that children are among the most vulnerable of individuals in our society.

However, the member may not be aware of the fact that only five days ago, on April 5, Statistics Canada issued a report highlighting a number of surprising statistics. First, only 16.2% of Canadian children between the ages of six months to five years are enrolled in day care centres and second, Canadian parents, given the choice, prefer other forms of child care by a margin of 4.5 to 1.

The Liberal one size fits all solution does not work for most Canadians. There is an even more astounding study that was completed by the University of Guelph in 2000 that showed that nationally 54% of day care centres report having vacancies with 30% reporting vacancies in excess of 10%. Given these statistics, I have a question for the member. Why is her party intent on preserving vacant day care spaces when the government has a plan which allows for parental choice, pays $1,200 per year, per child under six, and creates 125,000 day care spaces that will actually be full?

[Agriculture, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I preface my comments and my question to outline the significant concerns my community has and also the investment that my community has in agriculture. Before anyone can ask questions, we have to understand the context in which that question is asked, particularly when we have a community that is so deeply dependent on farming, especially the supply managed commodities. It is important that the House understand my community and many of the communities across the country, which are in a similar situation.

My question was actually put earlier to members opposite from the official opposition, but we never received an answer from them. It was a refusal to answer.

I now ask whether the member for Richmond—Arthabaska will join our government in defending supply management at international tribunals and to defend our farmers against unfair trade practices and subsidies abroad.