Michael Savage

[February 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there was not a word about the subject in question, not a word. The government talks about accountability, transparency and credibility. The World Wrestling Federation has more credibility than this bunch.

It is an outrage to Canadians regarding $1,000 a day for limousines, hiding the expense, and misleading the House of Commons. It is an affront to Canadians. It is still not on the website. I will table that from today if you want, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question. In this specific case, why the extravagance? Is $1,000 a day for a car a good expenditure? Why was it not disclosed and why was Parliament misled?

[February 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to have a chance to follow up on a couple of questions that I asked this week in the House.

I asked questions on successive days about the extravagant use of limousines by the Minister of Canadian Heritage while at the Juno's last year in Halifax. I received no answer on two key fronts.

There are a whole host of questions, but two key questions were never answered. Number one: Does the government consider it an extravagant use of taxpayers' money? Number two: Why were Treasury Board guidelines broken when these expenses were not posted on the website as required?

Last year Halifax was delighted to host the Juno's. In fact, Nova Scotia is one of the cultural capitals of Canada. We were delighted to have the Juno's for a number of reasons, one of which was the economic boom that it brought to Halifax. Taxpayers, however, were not aware of the extent to which the heritage minister contributed to that economic boom by the use of taxpayers' dollars.

I have the bill for the limo services that were used by the minister while she was in Halifax. It is interesting to note that she arrived on March 31 and left on April 3. On March 31, two different limousines were required. In fact, one was a mini-van and one was a limo. Apparently the mini-van was not good enough and the limo was requested. It took two orders to get her into the Delta Barrington.

Later that day she had another limo from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. for three hours. That evening she required a stretch limo from 4:30 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. It was on standby, meaning it was not even used. It was just sitting there being charged to taxpayers while she was doing other stuff, some of which could have been business, some of which could have been personal.

On April 1 a sedan limo from 9:45 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. was used for seven hours. Most of that time the limo was on standby. Later that evening, a stretch limo was required from 5:30 p.m. until 11 p.m., with a half hour break, and then another limo from 11:30 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. That was hospitality night, and the minister should go to some of those.

The hotel the minister stayed at, the Delta Barrington, is exactly one-tenth of one kilometre from where the Juno's took place. The hospitalities were all in the same general area as well. The Economy Shoe Shop is a great place and one that I would recommend to many members for the artichoke dip. It is a great spot. It is where CTV had the big bash. Did the minister really need 7.5 hours of stretch limo on standby while she was inside the Economy Shoe Shop, which is less than one-tenth of one kilometre from the Metro Centre? The Metro Centre and the hotel also happen to be connected by pedway and underground tunnel. It seems a little excessive.

The next day she used a stretch limo. The day after the Juno's it says here that a stretch limo was on standby from 12 noon until 5:30 p.m. That evening, two sedan limos were required for standby for the red carpet walk event. So even when she walked, she needed limousines. It boggles the mind. After the Juno's a stretch limo was required from 11:30 p.m. until 1:30 a.m. The next morning a stretch limo took her out to the airport.

The total bill for limousines for the approximately three days that the heritage minister was in Halifax was $5,475, of which she repaid $2,000, leaving $1,000 a day for stretch limos to the taxpayer.

I notice the parliamentary secretary here. He is not the guilty party. He is probably as disgusted by this as I am. He is most likely armed with all kinds of notes about the wonderful things that the minister has done for arts and culture. It is a mirage, all these cuts that the rest of Canada knows about.

I would give him three of his four minutes to give us that stuff. That is fine. I would ask him to take one minute to answer two simple questions. Is $1,000 a day for a limousine reasonable? Why did the minister break Treasury Board guidelines, try to hide her expenses, and not post them on the website?

[Government Programs, February 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, today thousands of Canadians are braving the cold to protest the government's lack of action, but students are getting used to being left out in the cold by the Conservative government.

Under the Liberal government, billions of dollars were invested in post-secondary education, research, infrastructure and directly to students. It seems Conservatives love power, but they hate government and especially government programs that work. Take, for example, the summer career placement grants.

At a time when students need help the most, the government gutted $55 million from the program. It was meanspirited, it was stupid and it was unnecessary. Now thousands of students are left to wonder where they will work to pay for tuition and not for profit organizations, which depend on the grants, are left out in the cold. This program needs to be restored immediately.

It is time for the Conservative government to warm up to students, get serious about post-secondary education and invest in our future like the previous Liberal government.

[Canadian Heritage, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, coincidentally, today this year's Juno award finalists are going to be announced. Perhaps the minister will be nominated in the category most likely to abuse taxpayers' dollars and trying to cover it up, this while she was slashing millions of program dollars from the Status of Women, museums and the CTF.

Might the minister consider cutting her stretch limo budget a little bit, so that programs in her department might get some funding too?

[Canadian Heritage, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister responsible for Juno joyriding responded to a question regarding her $1,000 a day limousine habit by assuring the House that all guidelines were followed appropriately. Really?

Treasury Board guidelines are clear. They say explicitly that ministers are required to post on their respective departmental websites all travel expenses incurred. There are no limos there.

Why did the minister break Treasury Board guidelines? Why is she hiding her extravagant spending from Canadian taxpayers?

[Canadian Heritage, February 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I do not begrudge the minister a little transportation, but one vehicle a day should be sufficient. Why did the censored ATIP documents also show that the minister sent back a minivan she had already rented on March 31 and ordered two different limos to chauffeur her to meetings when the Junos did not happen until two days later? Did she need time to practise her red carpet walk?

[Canadian Heritage, February 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the Minister of Canadian Heritage wanted to arrive in style at last year's Juno awards in Halifax. Rather than just borrow a fancy car for her red carpet entrance, access to information shows that the minister was chauffeured around Halifax for three days in a stretch limousine.

When people started asking questions, the minister's conscience apparently got the better of her and she cut a cheque for $2,200, but when will the minister cough up another $3,200 to cover the rest of the cost of her Juno joyride?

[Prebudget Consultations, December 13th, 2006]

The brief answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes we can, but the longer answer is that governments make choices. It is not only about what the government is proposing to do in the future. It is chewing up dollars on things like the GST and providing $1,200 to families, many of whom do not need that money like others do.

Let me go back to what my mother told me years ago. She said, “If you go into politics, you will do the right thing, because you have to understand, you go into public service to help those who need help and not those who do not”. I do not know how long I will serve in this chamber, but I know that while I am here, this will be my cause.

In budget 2006, the gap between rich and poor was increased and that is unconscionable. Canadians have told the finance committee that it is wrong. It is not the Canadian way. I want to see in budget 2007, as do Canadians, a recognition that all Canadians deserve the attention of the government, and not just the well to do.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the most distinguished member for Laval—Les Îles.

It is a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to speak to the prebudget recommendations and in fact what we hope to see in the next budget, budget 2007. I did have the opportunity to be a member of the finance committee. Along with colleagues from all the parties, we produced this report, which I think is very comprehensive and has many good recommendations in it.

I would like to echo what some of the other members of the committee have said, that we did work quite well together as we travelled across Canada. We went from Whitehorse to St. John's, and I was particularly pleased that when we were in my home community of Halifax, we had a little reception on board the HMCS Sackville, which is Canada's naval memorial and a fitting tribute to the many Canadians who have served this country so well. I know that all the members enjoyed that.

I would like to very quickly just preface my comments on some of the specific recommendations by saying that I think the actions of the government so far, particularly the billions of dollars worth of cuts to women's groups, student employment, seniors, minorities and the voluntary sector are wrong. I think they are wrong to most Canadians. Certainly, that is what we heard as we travelled the country. People were very concerned about what the government had done so far and I hope budget 2007, in particular, will provide the government a chance to show that vulnerable Canadians actually count in its plans.

I would like to take members through some of the recommendations that I think are particularly important. As we have heard, there were 43 recommendations.

The first one was on the whole issue of health promotion and wellness, which is something that is very important. It is one of the issues that brought me into politics. Coming from Atlantic Canada, we have a very high incidence of chronic disease. Diabetes is out of control along with cardiovascular diseases, arthritis and cancers. There is an issue here.

I will not read the whole recommendation, but it actually gets to having an impact on health promotion. It indicates that the government should continue to allocate funds for the national immunization strategy, which was an initiative that came out of our public health agency. When the member for St. Paul's was the minister of public health, this was one of her babies and she really did a great job on it, but it needs to be renewed. It is imperative that the government renew the strategy, so that all children in Canada get the immunizations they need.

Further to that, we have recommended that a dedicated fund be established of $300 million over three years for future immunization programs. There are some very exciting new vaccines being developed. Merck Frosst has one for the human papillomavirus that can virtually eliminate cervical cancer. It is very important that we invest in these vaccines, in this case for Canadian girls and Canadian women, that will virtually eliminate cervical cancer.

One of my colleagues mentioned mental health. We have a recommendation here for the creation of a Canadian mental health commission. I do not need to go into that a lot. Senator Kirby and his group from the Senate have put forward a very comprehensive proposal, which I hope the government follows up on, not only with vague commitments but with specific dollars attached.

Recommendation No. 6 is to amend the Income Tax Act to increase the value of the Canada child tax benefit. There is not a specific dollar associated with this, but a lot of anti-poverty groups, such as John Murphy from the National Council of Welfare and others, suggested $4,900. The Canada child tax benefit was an initiative of the previous Liberal government that a lot of people give it credit for. There is way too much child poverty in Canada, but the child tax benefit is the kind of policy for which an enlightened government takes responsibility and says that it is going to do something for our kids to ensure that all kids have some access to the resources that they need as they grow up.

One of our most important recommendations was around student financing. Just over a year ago, the previous government introduced a very important update that included huge, sweeping investments in access for students, low income families and persons with disabilities. It recognized that the federal government does have a role to play. Specifically, we are recommending in this report that the Canada millennium scholarship foundation mandate be renewed. This again was an initiative of some years ago.

It needs new money. It needs an indication very soon that it will continue. It is imperative that we do that and also expand Canada access grants. These are grants that provide direct support for students who do not have the means to go to university. We are recommending that those grants be upgraded to all four years of an undergraduate education. That is very important.

The topic of our whole budget discussions was competitiveness and productivity. We cannot discuss competitiveness without putting the people in the picture. The people are the kids in Canada, the young people in Canada who absolutely need assistance in getting to university. Access is a huge priority for them and it should be for the Government of Canada.

Recommendation 9 is to reduce personal income taxes. That one speaks to itself. Rather than investing $5.5 billion or $6 billion in GST cuts, which disproportionately favour those who do not need the assistance, reduce personal income tax for the lowest income Canadians, raise the personal exemption and make a difference in the lives of Canadians.

Recommendation 12 is to reinstate the programs and funds that have been eliminated. These are the cuts to the Status of Women, the law commission, the court challenges, volunteerism and things like that.

Another recommendation, recommendation 13, is for SCPI, the supporting communities partnership initiative. This is very important to Canadians. No one came to our committee and said that was a good move. Lots of people came and said that it was dumb and it had to be fixed. A very important recommendation of our committee is reinstating those cuts.

Recommendation 21 is that the federal government study the feasibility of a tax measure that would recognize and reward the hours of volunteer activity. This is a complex recommendation and I understand that. There are some templates at which we can look. For example, Ron Colman and the GPI, which is the genuine progress index based in Atlantic Canada, looks at the quality of life not just in terms of dollars, but in terms of volunteerism activity and quality of life and environment. A truly enlightened society goes beyond just the economics. There is a holistic approach to life and we need to do that. Recognizing the huge value that volunteers provide is a good start in that direction. Cutting the volunteerism initiative is sending the wrong signal.

Recommendation 22 is to increase funds allocated to the arts and culture. We get so much from arts and culture. Every one of us in the House can look to the artists in their community. In my case we have new artists like Matt Mays. We have artists in Nova Scotia, in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, people like Tom Forrestall. We also have dancers.

We cannot only look at a budget and say that all we will do is health and economic development. Arts and culture provide so much of what makes us unique as Canadians, makes us unique as Nova Scotians, makes us unique as Dartmouth—Cole Harbour residents as well.

Recommendation 25 is to amend the Excise Tax Act in order to ensure a full rebate on the GST paid by universities, colleges, school boards and hospitals. We heard quite a bit about that. It makes eminent sense that we do not want to be penalizing behaviour that leads to increased productivity for Canada.

A very important recommendation was on research. I have mentioned before that in the late 1990s Canada underwent a transformation in research and innovation. We were not the only ones in the world doing it, but we did it as well as anyone. It became kind of a template for success internationally. It put something in the order of $13 billion into research and innovation.

We developed and created CIHR, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research out of the old MRC, Medical Research Council. We have put huge amounts of money into CIHR. That money leverages so much more. It has not only done basic biomedical and clinical research, but has looked at population health and health systems. How do we impact the health of aboriginal Canadians? How do we impact the health of Atlantic Canadians, of women, or groups within society? They have leveraged so much money. It is very important that we continue that.

CIHR has made a very strong case for increased funding of $350 million, and that is in the report. Increasing the indirect costs of research is also in the report. For quite a while the research institutes in Canada have said they need 40% indirect costing. They now receive in the range of 25¢ on the dollar. Last year's economic update proposed to go to 40%. That was cancelled by the new government when it took power. We need to follow through on that.

One item that was missed in our report was the very important issue of research done by health charities, the Heart and Stroke, Cancer Society, Diabetes Association. They also need indirect costs and the government has to find a way to ensure they are not penalized.

GrowthWorks Atlantic came to see us a number of times and indicated that the federal government should amend the Income Tax Act to increase to $1,500 the labour sponsored funds tax credit. That is very important for venture capital.

International development is critical. At some point in time we have to do more than we are doing. Canada has been very supportive internationally of development work in continents such as Africa, Asia and Central America. We should commit to the 0.7%, the Pearson standard in international development.

While members of Parliament are preparing to go home to our ridings for a comfortable Christmas, and most Canadians are going to have a reasonable Christmas, half the world suffers in extreme poverty, with much disease. As a nation, we have to get our heads around the fact that we have a responsibility to the rest of the world. It is very important that we hit that 0.7%. The government should takes some steps in that direction.

In conclusion, the most important advice that I ever got about politics was from my mother--

[Prebudget Consultations, December 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, people back home do not realize that when members serve on committees, they get to know each other and respect their contributions. I enjoy working with my colleague on the finance committee. He works very hard and he has done a good job.

We both come at things perhaps from a different point of view. I know my colleague has been a successful businessman since he was quite young. It seems to me that perhaps his view is shaped that everybody has the same opportunity as he had to be successful. Not all Canadians have that opportunity.

In my view, one of the flaws of the government is that it does not work hard enough at providing equality of access.

I want to ask my colleague about post-secondary education. Over the last number of years, the former Liberal government invested some $13 billion in research and innovation since it balanced the books. Budget 2006 put a paltry $200 million over two years into research, which includes foundations like CIHR, CFI as well as the granting agencies NSERC and SSHRC. This has them very concerned.

We cannot turn the tap off on research and expect to keep the researchers, who have come here over the last number of years, in Canada. The recommendation in the finance report specifically mentioned $350 million for CIHR. Could I hear my colleague's views on whether he supports this specific recommendation?

With respect to post-secondary education access, thousands of Canadians simply cannot afford to go to colleges or universities and tax breaks do not make any difference to them. Eighty dollars for books is entirely immaterial to those people. Last year we put billions of dollars into direct support for the lowest income Canadians, for persons with disabilities and for aboriginal Canadians. Does my colleague believe the Government of Canada has a direct role to play, through things like the millennium scholarship, in assisting the lowest income Canadians go to university?

I also wish him a Merry Christmas.