Helena Guergis

[Sponsorship Program, March 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, last week one of the Prime Minister's chief organizers admitted to funnelling money from sponsorship through Groupaction to the member for Bourassa. Elections Canada has said that this was illegal but cannot prosecute because the offence is more than 18 months old.

Taxpayers' money was given illegally to the Liberal Party. Will the Liberal Party do the right thing and return the dirty money?

[Foreign Affairs, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, communist China has the world's largest military ready to crush independence and democracy in Taiwan. If it has money for military and space programs, it has money to take care of its own.

When will the Liberal government get its act together and decide exactly what its foreign policy is and help countries that cannot help themselves?

[Foreign Affairs, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on the heels of a booming economy and significant internal economic reforms, the World Food Programme director, James Morris, has announced that at the end of 2005 the program will no longer be an active operating program in China. China no longer needs us.

The Minister of International Trade returned from China earlier this year raving about China as a crucial emerging market for Canadian business. When will the CIDA minister get the hint that China is now ready for trade, not aid?

[The Budget, March 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. I have a great deal of experience in working in issues of violence against women and children. For seven and a half years I worked at a rape crisis centre. In fact I walked through three ridings to raise awareness of violence against women and children. This goes back about 10 years and I am really sad to say that nothing has changed on the issue of violence against women and children. We are seeing statistics that indicate it is even more prevalent.

Unfortunately, the government has failed. It has actually put a great deal of money into this serious issue through Status of Women Canada, but it has failed to actually address the issue. Without the department providing any clear evidence that women's programs are working to reduce violence against women and children, all we see are statistics indicating that violence is going up. There should be a program in place that provides measurable results in terms of reducing the rates of violence against women and children.

Also, I would like to note that the member for Calgary—Nose Hill has continually exposed the government for continuing with its strippergate program, which, as a woman, I find very offensive. I am also very concerned that aboriginal women still do not have their matrimonial home rights. This is appalling. In this day and age that should not be the case.

I can assure the House and the residents of Simcoe—Grey that at any given opportunity I will work as hard as I possibly can to eradicate violence against women and children.

[The Budget, March 9th, 2005]

Yes, it is unbelievable.

Our platform committed to $58 billion in new spending and tax reductions over five years. The Liberals now have made $55 billion in new commitments over the same time period. What has changed?

We told the truth. We knew what the surplus was. We knew the numbers. We will always know the numbers. We will always be honest with Canadians. The Liberal government was dishonest. It did not know the numbers, although I remember the Prime Minister saying time and again that he knew the numbers, that it was $1.9 billion. It is $9.1 billion in surplus.

Canadians and residents of Simcoe--Grey know that the Conservative Party means what it says. They know that if a promise is made by a Conservative government, the promise will be kept.

[The Budget, March 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that this is a new Conservative Party of Canada. I also would remind him, as I stand in this great House, that the residents of Simcoe--Grey elected a Conservative member of Parliament. Why? Because they believed the Conservative Party during the election. They understood that the Conservative Party meant business when it said it would increase military spending.

Let us talk about the campaign for a minute. In the last election, the Liberals campaigned against many of the Conservative initiatives, which they so happily now accept. The Liberals very much criticized our platform as being fiscally irresponsible.

[The Budget, March 9th, 2005]

That is correct. It is pure public relations. The real increase is $500 million this year and $600 million next year, for a total of $1.1 billion. The rest is pure fiction, and $1.1 billion over two years is not enough to get the military out of its hole. During the recent election campaign we promised twice as much, $2.5 billion over the same period.

I would like to read the amendment that was presented by the official opposition and my leader and voted on yesterday to remind people what the Conservative Party stands for. It states:

--but however [the Conservative Party] regrets that the budget does not reflect conservative principles since it fails to immediately implement the proposed tax reductions for Canadians; proposes spending to implement the fatally flawed Kyoto Accord instead of addressing real environmental issues; contemplates massive spending on a bureaucratic childcare program instead of delivering childcare dollars directly to parents; makes no commitment to the Agriculture sector and rural Canada to provide aid at a time when Canada’s regions need it most; does not eliminate the wasteful spending on the long-gun registry; does not immediately provide adequate resources for Canada’s military, so that our armed forces can become fully combat-capable as well as equipped for peacekeeping duties; continues to place billions of dollars in foundations and trusts contrary to the express recommendations of the Auditor General and indulges in a massive increase in bureaucratic spending.

The Conservative Party has said that we believe Canadians do not want to go back to the polls at this time. Therefore, we will not defeat the government.

[The Budget, March 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the budget and what it means for us as Canadians and the residents of Simcoe—Grey.

I would like to begin by saying that the Conservative Party of Canada does not believe the Canadian public wishes to go to an election, at a cost of close to $300 million, less than 12 months after the last one. Therefore, we will not defeat the government at this time.

It is interesting to note that positive items in the budget are taken from the Conservative platform and the government is following the Conservative Party's lead on areas that are important to Canadians. Such areas include: tax relief for low and middle income Canadians, as per the Conservative amendment to the throne speech; reduction of corporate taxes to help stimulate the economy, create jobs and raise government revenue, as per the Conservative platform; the caregiver tax credit, which again comes directly from our Conservative platform; and the removal of the CAIS cash deposit requirement, part of a Conservative supply day motion, supported by everyone except the Liberals.

I would like to add that our agricultural critic, the member for Haldimand—Norfolk, did an excellent job in identifying how the government could bring immediate support to our farmers, rather than the continued broken promises we see from the government that continues to ignore the brutal reality our farmers are facing on a daily basis.

Although the current government has taken some of the Conservative steps we have introduced, the Liberal budget does not go far enough or occur fast enough to have a substantial impact on the well-being of Canadians. As usual, we see a great deal of dithering. Most of the money is delayed until the decade, with no real plan. Lots of promises, with no intent to deliver. For example, the tax break I mentioned just a minute ago amounts to a savings of about $16 per person this year. What to do with all that cash?

The lack of immediate commitment in the budget illustrates the government is not taking warning signs that Canada's high priority programs could be put in jeopardy if comprehensive steps are not taken to grow the economy before the demographic crunch.

The facts with respect to the demographic crunch are very simple. In 2004 seniors, Canadians aged 65 or older, comprised about 13.1% of Canada's population. By 2030, this number will nearly double to about 25% of Canada's population.

The Conservative Party of Canada devised a standard of living strategy in a prebudget submission that if implemented, would have ensured that high priority social programs would be available to Canadians when they required them. These social programs include health care, agricultural support programs, national defence, environment, women's initiatives, affordable housing, infrastructure and senior's programs. Unfortunately, the Liberals did not adopt our policies.

The key components of the Conservative Party's standard of living strategy are: the encouragement of investment in Canada's productive capacity; a reduction of corporate, capital and payroll taxes; a streamlined regulatory environment; a more rapid reduction of the national debt; a reduction of federal spending to sustainable levels; the encouragement of education and training; and the promotion and stimulation of affordable housing development.

It is unfortunate that while the Liberals had a majority government, we saw nothing more than waste, mismanagement and scandal. I firmly believe the billions of tax dollars that were sent to Ottawa would have been better managed if they were left in the pockets of Canadians.

The facts are absolutely astounding. Did members know that Canadians have seen their real take-home pay increase by only 3.6% over the past 15 years? This amounts to a person earning $35,000 a year receiving an annual take-home pay increase of roughly $1.60 a week. However, since 1996-97, government revenue has soared by 40%.

A family of four in Canada has $24,000 less to spend per year than the same size family living in the United States. That amounts to $2,000 a month that could be paying down a mortgage, providing for a child's education or for investing in retirement.

I remind members of the billions of tax dollars that were mismanaged by this Liberal government that should have been put back into Canadians' pockets. Some examples of the mismanaged funds include the long gun registry, $1 billion and counting, wasted on a program that has done absolutely nothing to make us more safe as we see and hear on the news every day. I support gun control and I support gun safety, but I do not support the long gun registry that only penalizes law-abiding Canadians.

With respect to the sponsorship scandal, $100 million was misspent. Canadians are truly embarrassed by their government's behaviour and what angers most of us is the arrogance dripping from the Liberals. For example, the former MP for Simcoe--Grey insisted that the $100 million really was not much to be concerned about when we thought about how much the federal government was responsible for spending.

That $100 million would have made a world of difference in my riding to help with infrastructure costs and to support our farmers. The towns of Collingwood and New Tecumseth want and need recreation centres. Water and sewer systems and roads throughout the riding need upgrading. Residents of Simcoe--Grey would have liked to have seen a plan for infrastructure, but the budget failed to deliver the promise on infrastructure funding. Another promise made; another promise broken.

That $100 million is not a drop in the bucket. To top it off, we have seen an outstanding increase in bureaucracy. The cost of bureaucracy has increased by 77% since 1996-97, yet Canadians are not getting better customer service. Canadians are still forced to wait in long lines to fill out incomprehensible forms and to speak with numerous representatives before they get to the right person, if at all.

I believe that when programs fail to deliver promised value for money, it is cruel to those who depend on them and unfair to taxpayers who fund them. Canadians work hard to contribute their taxes for government services. Canadians do not mind paying taxes. We are a very caring people and happily accept our responsibilities to care for each other with pride, but Canadians do mind being overtaxed and underserviced, and clearly they are. The waste and mismanagement must come to an end. It is about time Canadians received value for their hard earned tax dollars.

I would like to tell the House what Canadians should have seen in the budget.

Canadians would have liked to have seen a plan for our aging population, not just a few measly dollars thrown their way. A large group of seniors are living on such low levels of income that it is embarrassing for the government because it has done nothing about it. I consider it a human rights violation that such a large number of our seniors, who have given so much to our country, wonder how they will make ends meet. While we do welcome the promised increase in GIS, it is too little too late and it will take too long to get to our seniors. This is an empty promise.

To qualify for GIS, a senior needs to be making less than $13,000 a year. The fact that so many of our seniors have an income of only $13,000 is outrageous. Out of all those seniors receiving GIS, only 10% will qualify for the full increase about which the Liberals keep bragging. The remaining 90% will only see a portion of the increase. Ontario has GAINS. When GIS is increased by $1, GAINS is decreased by 50¢.

What I find most disturbing is that seniors will have to wait until January 2006 to receive the first half of the increase. They have to wait until January 2007 before they become eligible for all of it. The government brags about the $35 a month when in reality we know that is not the case.

I asked the minister if the government had consulted with the provinces about a possible GAINS clawback prior to delivering the budget to ensure that seniors actually saw the promised dollars. I did not get a sufficient answer.

Our seniors cannot afford to wait. The government should forward the money immediately and it should have assured us that provinces, like Ontario, would not claw back any of the additional funds.

My riding of Simcoe--Grey had what once was the largest training base in Canada. How it has deteriorated over the past decade. My home town of Angus, which is immediately beside Base Borden, and the entire riding were very proud that we had such a strong base. Now we find it embarrassing.

Residents of Simcoe--Grey want to know what an increase will mean for their community.

After having some time to review the budget, we have discovered that it really is not true. The government has bragged about the increased funding to the military of $12.8 billion, but the reality is it will only be $1.1 billion. This is not a good budget for the military. It is all about preparing the Liberals for the next election. Of this $12.8 billion, $5.8 billion is recycled money. Of the remaining $7 billion, approximately $5.9 billion is shown in the third, fourth and fifth years. This will never happen. We already know what the Liberals' track record is on our military spending, and they are asking us to trust them. Quite frankly, residents of Simcoe--Grey are having a hard time doing that.

[Senior Citizens, February 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, many seniors may not see all or part of the guaranteed income supplement promised in the budget. In Ontario, for example, the guaranteed income supplement is integrated with the provincial guaranteed annual income supplement for seniors or GAINS. If the GIS goes up by a dollar, GAINS will go down by 50¢.

Would the minister advise this House if he has obtained any assurances from the McGuinty government that the GAINS clawback will not swallow half the GIS increase for very low income seniors in Ontario?

[Supply, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly I cannot come up with any good reason as to why anyone in my riding would trust the current Liberal government on any of the decisions it makes with respect to the Auditor General auditing the foundations.

Canadians want to know what is happening with their hard-earned tax dollars. I constantly receive correspondence in my office about the sponsorship scandal. They are watching it on television, but they are not getting answers. I receive that comment on a regular basis.

Because this is the fourth time the Auditor General has raised this issue and questioned it, they are concerned that they are seeing another sponsorship program unfold.

Therefore, I firmly support the motion that is in front of us today. I wish the Liberal government would do so as well.