Rona Ambrose

[Child Care, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, at least on this side of the House we would have given this money to parents already.

The Liberals say they take child poverty seriously and yet their day care deal leaves millions of children without financial support. The Conservative Party has committed to providing each and every child with significant financial support, regardless of whether or not their parents choose day care or stay home.

Why is the government refusing to give this money equally to every child in Canada?

[Child Care, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of New Brunswick wants to give his share of the federal child care money to parents, so they can have a choice in child care, but the Minister of Social Development refused to listen and said that federal money will only go to trained child care experts.

When will the Minister of Social Development understand that these billions should be going to the real child care experts in this country? Maybe he has heard of them. They are called mom and dad.

[Nickolaus Meyers, June 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in 1936, General Franco installed a Fascist dictatorship in Spain, overturning the democratically elected Spanish Republic.

While Fascist Germany and Italy sent massive military aid to supply Franco's forces, western democracies failed to officially support the Spanish loyalists.

However, over 1,300 brave Canadians left their families and friends to travel halfway across the world to fight in the International Brigades against Franco for the causes of freedom and democracy.

If records did exist in Spain about the war, we would come across the following name: Captain Nickolaus Meyers, a Canadian whose real name was Nickolaus Myroniuk but, like many others, had to travel under an assumed name because of the opposition of their government to the war. Captain Meyers, my great uncle Nick, recently passed away, on January 21, at the age of 89.

Today I am rising in the House to pay tribute to my uncle who understood that evil cannot be escaped by ignoring it. My uncle and the many other Canadians who volunteered in an inspiring story of courage, conviction and determination, pressed forward and made sacrifices for freedom and liberty.

[Child Care, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Montreal Gazette said that a Liberal one size fits all day care plan was unfair and discriminated against shift workers, people who live in rural areas and stay at home parents.

A Margaret Wente article in Reader's Digest said that the Liberal day care program would not help poor children. We have been arguing this for months. Instead of putting the money into a program that only benefits some, we would give money to every Canadian child.

When will the Prime Minister stop supporting a program that discriminates against so many families?

[Child Care, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there are over 30,000 children waiting for child care in Quebec. It is clear that Canadian parents simply need more money in order to have choices.

A Conservative government would provide significant cash subsidies, directly, for each Canadian child, no matter how much their parents make. That way, the parents could have the child care services they choose.

When will the Prime Minister recognize that all parents want choice?

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to make Certain Payments, June 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if I can explain to the member what he is thinking or trying to express, but I would like to say to the hon. member that it would be nice if there were more common sense, particularly in this House in reference to fiscal prudence and fiscal management.

Sitting on the finance committee for the last number of months, I must say that one of the things that I enjoyed very much was going through the prebudget consultations and hearing the common sense approach presented by so many groups and organizations and individual Canadians who came before us.

One of the things I respect about Parliament is process and protocol and one of the things that bothers me most about Bill C-48 is that none of this was followed. It was a very undemocratic approach to doing any sort of fiscal management or planning. Canadians were not consulted. No organizations were consulted. None of the people who matter in this country, who pay for these programs, were consulted. That would have been a common sense place to start with this budget.

I do not think anyone on this side of the House would ever say that any of those programs are not important and should perhaps not receive more funding, but to do away with tax cuts and have no balance in this budget, and not to hear the priorities of Canadians in the way that we have set up prebudget consultations, unfortunately that is where there is no common sense.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to make Certain Payments, June 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, we are here tonight on this beautiful evening to debate a bill that is empty. It is empty on prudent fiscal guidelines, empty on good public policies, and most importantly, it is empty on much needed tax relief for Canadian families.

The Liberal-NDP budget contains no hope for Canadians and it contains no vision for our nation. Every day I receive calls from my constituents who are struggling to pay their bills, who are struggling to put aside money for their children's education, and who are struggling to save for their retirement.

The Conservative Party of Canada believes in policies that will enhance productivity, encourage economic growth, and build up our fiscal capacity for the next generation. We believe that every citizen in our great country should have the opportunity to live the Canadian dream. They should be able to attend a high quality post-secondary education institution. They should be able to find a good paying job and they should be able to start a family, buy a house and save for retirement.

However, they can only do that if the government does not tax too much or spend too much. Bill C-48 is a $4.6 billion deal using taxpayers' money to keep a corrupt party afloat in government. All those left out of the original budget, fishermen and farmers, seniors and softwood lumber producers, remain left out of this new deal. They have been left out in favour of spending on idealistic priorities.

The nation's largest employers who create jobs and the hardworking Canadians who drive our economy have had the door slammed in their faces by the leader of the NDP and the Prime Minister. This budget pretends to address the child care needs in this country but falls short. Rather than seizing this opportunity to address the fiscal imbalance, the NDP-Liberal alliance has felt content to leave it be.

The finance minister warned that the opposition could spark a financial crisis by tampering further with the government's main money bill, Bill C-43. He said:

You can' t go on stripping away piece by piece by piece of the budget. You can't, after the fact, begin to cherry pick: “We'll throw that out and we'll put that in, we'll stir this around and mix it all up again”. That's not the way you maintain a coherent fiscal framework. If you engage in that exercise, it is an absolute, sure formula for the creation of a deficit.

And yet, it was his own government that decided to go on cherry-picking. Here we are debating whether or not, as our finance minister has told us, to head down the road toward a sure formula for the creation of a deficit.

The Conservative Party of Canada will do everything in its power to prevent us from going down that long dark road. The Conservative Party of Canada, although we found flaws with it, did not oppose the original budget. In fact, we passed a number of amendments that made it stronger. Our party was determined to act responsibly in this situation and make Parliament work for the benefit of Canadians.

For some reason the Prime Minister decided to exchange the support of 98 Conservative MPs on his budget for the lesser support of 19 NDP MPs on his new budget. That was his choice and his choice alone. The Conservative Party of Canada cannot accept this budget, this last ditch effort to save the Liberal government when it does so little to help Canadians.

Bill C-48 is a deal that was conceived behind closed doors with the federal finance minister nowhere to be seen. It is a bill that is heavy on the public purse but extremely light on transparency, details and fiscal prudence. This bill authorizes cabinet to design and implement programs under a vague policy framework and then allows cabinet to unilaterally disburse them as it sees fit. It has already been said that this plan places the cart before the horse and I could not agree more.

Canadians expect a higher standard than vague commitments and untold plans for their hard earned tax dollars. The Auditor General has raised some serious concerns about the ability of certain departments to deliver programs effectively, departments to which the Liberals want to give more money in this bill including Indian and Northern Affairs and the Canadian International Development Agency. In addition, the Auditor General's office is currently conducting an audit of the Government of Canada's climate change expenditures which will be released in 2006.

The Conservative Party of Canada recognizes that numerous Canadians are not receiving the level of assistance from the federal government that they should receive and deserve. This is a direct result of the Liberal approach to problem solving, throwing in money without an adequate plan. Throwing more money at the programs included in Bill C-48 would be unfair to our nation's hardworking families. This bill should have included safeguards that would ensure that existing money is spent effectively and that new money is not wasted.

The notion of a Liberal-NDP slush fund of $4.5 billion simply does not sit well with my constituents of Edmonton—Spruce Grove and I am certain that it does not sit well with Canadians from coast to coast.

The Conservative Party of Canada has long supported an independent budget office to ensure sound fiscal forecasting. With Bill C-48, the need for a sound fiscal forecast is more acute now than ever.

An immense $4.5 billion spending spree now rests solely on a surplus that may or may not even exist. Everyone in the House knows that the government has an abysmal record when it comes to projecting the final results of our national balance sheet, and this type of fiscal arrangement is indeed dangerous to the nation's finances.

It is somewhat ironic that the bill violates the principle held by the NDP, as presented in its prebudget report, that Parliament should have an opportunity to decide on the allocation of any public surplus. Under Bill C-48, the allocation of any surplus in fiscal years 2005-06 and 2006-07 is partly defined.

Of additional concern is the fact that the bill does nothing to help out those in desperate need of tax relief. Canadians' real take-home pay has remained stagnant for 15 years and it must be spurred on. A Canadian who earns $35,000 a year has seen his or her real take-home pay rise by only $84 over the last 15 years. That is unacceptable. This new budget should have done something to address that.

A Conservative government would implement a program of smarter spending, responsible tax levels and productivity enhancing measures that create opportunity, prosperity and compassion.

Many of the areas addressed in the bill fall under provincial jurisdiction. Issues such as post-secondary tuition and low income housing fall almost completely under provincial jurisdiction.

In previous debates in the House, I have argued that the government has used the fiscal imbalance as a means to spend money in areas of provincial jurisdiction and set provincial priorities. Bill C-48, which addresses areas that fall largely under the jurisdiction of other orders of government, for instance, tuition, public transit and affordable housing to name a few, as well as the recent deals on child care, only serve to prove my point.

I would have hoped that a party such as the NDP, which recognizes the fiscal imbalance, would have spoken up for this in the bill.

Both the Liberal and the New Democratic Parties have claimed child care as one of their top priorities, yet the deals reached between the federal government and the provinces will not begin to scratch the surface of the child care needs in this country.

The Conservative Party of Canada has already promised to put money directly into the hands of parents so they can make their own child care choices. It is particularly disheartening to see that this Liberal-NDP budget does not go further to address the concerns of parents with regard to child care.

In the words of the member for Toronto—Danforth, the NDP leader, this new budget “substantially alters the 2005 budget to reflect the priorities of Canadians”. It is difficult to believe that the hon. member knows what the priorities of Canadians are, given that in the last federal election over 84% of Canadians did not support him, his party or his agenda.

What is not difficult to believe is that the bill substantially alters the budget originally tabled in this place. The alteration of the budget is an attempt by the NDP to extort an inordinate influence on the government's budget. Canadians are not impressed.

There is nothing in the new budget about tax relief for hard-working Canadian families. There is nothing in the new budget about support for farmers or those affected by the softwood lumber dispute. There is nothing in the new budget about child care or the fiscal imbalance. There is nothing in the new budget that will fuel our economic engine for future generations.

At committee, the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition rejected Conservative efforts to restore prudent fiscal management. This would have included real solutions for Canadians, such as matrimonial property rights for aboriginal women, and ensuring accountability and transparency.

At report stage, the Conservative Party has tried once again to move amendments to make the spending in Bill C-48 more accountable to Canadians and to reflect a more prudent fiscal approach.

The Conservative amendment to clause one would raise the amount of surplus that would be set aside for debt paydown. The interest saved as a result of additional federal debt paydown is needed to prevent cuts to social programs as a result of the impending demographic crunch.

The Conservative amendment to clause number two would force the government to table a plan by the end of each year outlining how it intends to spend the money in the bill. Spending without a plan is a recipe for waste and mismanagement.

With the stroke of a pen in a downtown hotel room, both the Prime Minister and the leader of the NDP have managed to set Canada on the wrong path. This path will lead us back to the dark days of economic turmoil. Even the once powerful Liberal finance minister has admitted this much to us.

This is a budget that no longer reflects the priorities and needs of Canadians. We cannot support it. Given the circumstances, that is the only responsible thing to do.

[Transfer Payments, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Nova Scotia report clearly states that the fiscal imbalance needs to be addressed for the good of our nation and the benefit of our provinces and our municipalities.

The Conservative Party of Canada is the only federal party that is listening to the provinces and municipalities and working toward solutions to rectify the fiscal imbalance. When will the Prime Minister admit that his approach to federalism is failing and is undermining the ability of provinces and municipalities to meet the needs of Canadians?

[Transfer Payments, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Bank of Nova Scotia released a report arguing that the “financial arrangements between Ottawa and the provinces are in a mess and need a major overhaul”, and that the government needs to take a holistic approach to solving the issue of the fiscal imbalance.

The Conservative Party has long argued the need to reform the equalization formula and address the fiscal imbalance with a national vision. When will the Prime Minister finally admit that a fiscal imbalance exists and that his government's continuing denial of this serious problem is undermining the relationship among all orders of government?

[Conservative Party Youth Caucus, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce that today the Conservative Party of Canada officially launched the young Conservative caucus, a group of 20 Conservative MPs aged 40 and under.

Our party is young and energetic, led by the youngest leader in the House. We have the youngest caucus in the House of Commons today and one of the youngest in recent history, with over 20% of our members aged 40 and under.

We have almost as many young members sitting in the House of Commons today as all the other three parties combined. We have the three youngest parliamentarians.

Our party has been extremely successful in bringing young MPs to the House of Commons. We want to build on that success by encouraging young Canadians to be involved in politics.

This caucus will provide a forum for our party to communicate with young Canadians facing a heavy tax burden, mortgage payments, student debt, child care challenges and environmental concerns.

The young Conservative caucus is a diverse and influential group that will help shape the policy and priorities of the Conservative Party of Canada and our country for years to come.