Rona Ambrose

[Peter Schiemann, March 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the people of Stony Plain, Alberta for their compassion, community spirit, love of family and friends and faith.

I had the great privilege of being in Stony Plain to attend the funeral service for fallen RCMP constable Peter Schiemann, our hero and friend. I want to share with everyone what I saw.

I saw young men and women in their red serge gather in a small town that opened its homes and hearts to mourn with the RCMP and the Schiemann family.

I know hundreds of members of the congregation of St. Matthew's Lutheran Church gave up their favourite pews to make room in the church for Peter's RCMP graduating class so they could be close to him and pay their respects.

I heard a brother and a sister, Michael and Julia, talk about their brother Peter, sharing with us their memories and assuring us of the love and faith that Peter had in God and in his fellow officers.

I saw a father and a mother beam with pride when talking about their son, inviting all of us to join them in their home any time for a coffee and stories about their hero and son, constable Peter Schiemann.

I feel very lucky and honoured to have been part of the ceremony.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for his question and comments on the issue of day care and jurisdiction. In fact, he is correct. The delivery of child care services and early childhood education is a provincial jurisdiction.

The provinces are currently delivering this service in a variety of different programs across Canada. One of the major concerns, particularly for Quebec as my colleague raised, is that while this is a provincial jurisdiction, it is also very much a family jurisdiction, to use his language, and I would agree with him that these are the two different issues that are going on in this discussion about child care.

We have Canadian families from coast to coast, and Quebec families, indicating that they want to make choices for their children in child care. The other conversation going on is that provinces want to make the decisions with their communities and with their families on this issue, so that they can make the decisions about the best way to use the tax dollar to deliver the best possible child care for families and communities across the country.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my speech really related directly to the intergovernmental perspective. I raised the issue of Quebec and Manitoba in relation to renewable resources within the equalization formula and in conjunction with the issue of non-renewable resources.

As the hon. member knows, the Conservative Party's position on this issue is that non-renewable resources should be removed from the equalization formula. We have talked about this for several years, as have many if not all of the provinces.

I raised this issue because my largest concern is that the deal since October has resulted in provinces being pitted against provinces, as we see right here in the House today. We have a discussion comparing the fiscal capacity of Manitoba to Saskatchewan within the equalization formula. We have Ontario saying that it wants the same deal that Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia received under the Atlantic accord.

My largest concern is that the Prime Minister has not shown enough leadership by sitting down with the provinces and actually discussing these issues in October. Now we are left with a situation in which we have infighting amongst premiers and provinces being pitted against provinces. I would say to the member that I would have liked to have seen the Prime Minister deal with this issue upfront and if not then, then shortly sometime in the near future.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on this motion which originally read as follows:

That the House call upon the government to immediately extend the expanded benefits of the recent Atlantic Accord to all of the provinces since the existing equalization claw-back on non-renewable resource revenues severely curtails the future prosperity of Canada by punishing the regions where the economy is built on a non-renewable resource base.

Before I begin my speech, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to our Saskatchewan caucus members, who have come together today, one after one, to make very poignant arguments as to why the current equalization formula needs to be changed to better reflect the finances and aspirations of their great province.

Now I come to the issue of equalization.

Last weekend, supporters gathered at the Conservative Party policy convention in Montreal adopted the following policy on equalization:

Equalization is an essential component of Canada's nation building efforts.

The Conservative Party supports changes to the equalization program to ensure provinces and territories have the opportunity to develop their economies and sustain important core social services.

We will remove non-renewable natural resource revenue from the equalization formula to encourage the development of economic growth in the non-renewable resource sectors across Canada.

The Conservative Party will ensure that no province is adversely affected from changes to the equalization formula.

It is extremely important that the provinces currently receiving equalization payments do not suffer financial hardship as the result of any changes to the equalization formula.

One of the problems with the current financial agreement between the federal government and the provinces is that the Liberal Party is afraid to tackle this issue head on.

The Prime Minister is working against the aim of equalization by failing to collaborate with the provinces to establish a program that would enable them to build a better economy.

The Prime Minister should have dealt with the problems posed by the equalization formula back in October at the first ministers meeting. Instead, he signed side deals and adopted policies that have set one province against the other.

To promote harmony among the provinces, it was suggested that the motion be amended to ensure that any change to the equalization formula will come with a transition adjustment measure for those provinces whose compensation will not see sustained growth.

To promote harmony among the provinces, an amendment was made to this motion to ensure that proposed equalization formula will include a period of transition and adjustment so that the provinces to whom these expanded benefits do not apply can receive fair compensation.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that changes made to the equalization formula take more fully into account provinces that have both renewable and non-renewable resources, like Quebec and Manitoba, both of which are rich in hydro power.

With this amendment, the future equalization formula will more closely reflect the actual financial situation of provinces that have renewable and non-renewable resources, provinces like Manitoba and Quebec, which both have water resources.

This way, Quebec will continue to fully benefit from the current system in order to pursue its economic and social development.

Equalization and the growing fiscal imbalance show the Liberals' weak commitment to improving relations between the federal government and the provinces and territories.

The federal government continues to rake in way more money than it needs to meet its constitutional obligations, while the provinces cannot put enough together to meet their obligations.

This is crystal clear when the financial situation of the federal government is compared to that of the provinces. The federal treasury is accumulating surpluses year after year, while the provinces are struggling to balance their books and several are actually in a deficit position.

I will note that I am going to be splitting my time with the member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

How can it be that Ontario, one of the strongest and most important economic engines of the country, must carry a 2004-05 deficit of over $6 billion while the federal government rakes in an $11 billion surplus?

Just to focus on Ontario for a moment, there is a great divide between the McGuinty Liberals and the Prime Minister right now. With the new floor in equalization, have not provinces reached an important guarantee that equalization payments will not be scaled back or taken away in the event of a downturn in the Ontario economy.

However, the agreement reached could actually hurt Ontario. If the Ontario economy begins to falter, and there is growing evidence that it is, Ontario will not be able to afford to pay into equalization and fund important social programs for Ontarians.

How could it be that our provinces, charged under our Constitution with carriage of our most valued social programs, cannot financially scrape by, while the federal Liberals, rolling in cash, waste Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars?

It is partly a reflection of the fact that the provinces are responsible for expensive but important social programs, especially health care and education, but it also reflects the fact that the federal government is taking up too much tax room.

The provinces, facing increasing costs and growing deficits, must come to the federal government pleading for financial assistance. The Liberals, reluctant to hand over the fruits of their overtaxation, use the surplus as political leverage and force the provinces to accept conditions and targets that reflect Liberal policy priorities, not the priorities of Quebeckers and Canadians.

I believe that both the original motion and the amendment serve to address some of the problems raised by the provincial governments.

To conclude, the Conservative Party believes the equalization program should treat all provinces fairly and equitably. We recognize that the current formula presents many problems, but we also understand it is imperative that no province currently receiving equalization payments will be worse off financially if any changes to the structure of the formula are made.

It is extremely important that the provinces currently receiving equalization payments not be financially penalized by any changes whatsoever made to the equalization formula.

The Prime Minister has shown a lack of leadership on intergovernmental relations and has pitted province against province. This is no way to strengthen the federation. Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec and all the provinces and territories should be treated equally by the federal government.

[Conservative Party of Canada, March 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great day to be a Conservative.

This past weekend the Conservative Party held the most successful national gathering of Conservatives in two decades. Three thousand Conservatives from coast to coast to coast gathered in the beautiful city of Montreal to debate policies and prepare for the next federal election at the founding policy convention of the Conservative Party of Canada.

It is clear that the policies endorsed by Conservative grassroots firmly reflect the mainstream opinions held by Canadians. The Conservative Party's membership is vivacious and its financial situation is sound. If I may gush for a moment, the leader received a resounding endorsement from the party that will no doubt lead him and the Conservative Party to power in the next election.

I would like to congratulate the delegates and staff at the convention who worked so hard together, not just as proud Conservatives but as principled Canadians.

Our caucus is united and energized. We will promote Conservative policies, we still stand against a tired and corrupt Liberal government and we will strive to earn all the support we need to win the next election.

[Taxation, February 22nd, 2005]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, but there is only one taxpayer in this country.

Instead of sidestepping the question, the minister should depend on some competent economists. All the real experts say that the surplus will exceed $30 billion over the next three years. He is encroaching on provincial areas of jurisdiction, while shamefully condemning the provinces to oppressive taxation of the middle class.

Tomorrow, will he bow to the arguments of Quebec, or will he continue to bleed the taxpayers dry?

[Taxation, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance's cynicism is contagious. Quebeckers long ago lost confidence in this nation's accounts, after so many years of the Liberals cooking the books. Year in and year out, the surplus grows more and more gigantic, and the cover ups more and more heavy handed.

The minister has no excuse. He must acknowledge what is obvious to everyone but him and correct it. When is he going to address the distressing matter of fiscal imbalance?

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I want to let my colleague across the way know that I would never consider the competing interests in this debate to be un-Canadian on either side. Nor would I ever consider views coming from gay advocacy groups and gay and lesbian couples who are interested in participating in the institution of marriage to be un-Canadian.

We need to find a compromise position between the competing interests at stake here. I believe that compromise position is reflected in what the Leader of the Opposition has put forward in recognizing all the rights and benefits of marriage for same sex couples in recognized unions.

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is my view that our proposed amendments reflect the fact that gay and lesbian couples should be accorded all the same rights and benefits under the law as marriage rights are accorded under the traditional definition of marriage. That is my view.

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member. It is very concerning that this is one of the only pieces of legislation we have seen introduced by the government in this session. It is particularly concerning because it is not legislation for which Canadians have asked. It is not legislation for which any of the opposition parties have asked. It is legislation that the government seems obsessed about and clearly is not reflective of the democratic will of the House or of Canadians.

I agree, going back to my constituency, that this is a very important issue for us to consider as legislators, and my constituents have strong views on it. However, there are many other issues in my riding such as homelessness, poverty, violence against women and many important social public policy issues with which we are not addressing. I hear the frustration from my constituents as well every day as to why, particularly coming up to budget week, we are not discussing issues of the economy.