Rona Ambrose

[The Senate, February 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are having a hard time believing that the Prime Minister is, as he likes to say, very, very, very committed to fixing the democratic deficit. What has he done to bring democracy to the Senate? What premiers have you talked to about your Senate reform proposal and when--

[Parental Leave, February 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we are up against a Liberal bad habit: the Prime Minister makes an election promise he has no intention of keeping, then sends the case to the Supreme Court, and then makes the province fight to obtain what it was promised.

That is exactly what is happening to Quebec on the issue of parental leave. When will Canadians be able to count on a prime minister who keeps his word?

[Parental Leave, February 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the deadlines have gone by and the Prime Minister has not reached an agreement with Quebec on parental leave. The Liberals are still hiding behind the Supreme Court, instead of working with Quebec to find a solution. It is clear that the Prime Minister is not trying to reach an agreement that would be fair to Quebec and to working families. The Prime Minister stubbornly opposes Quebec's desire to set up its parental leave program.

Why is he not keeping his election promise?

[Points of Order, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if that language is unparliamentary, I have no problem withdrawing it.

[Parental Leave, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government should drop its appeal before the Supreme Court immediately and offer all the provinces the opportunity to implement a parental leave program funded by a transfer to the provinces from the employment insurance fund. While the Prime Minister is trying to have it both ways, the Government of Quebec and working women are being penalized.

If the Prime Minister is so interested in reaching an agreement, then why is he dragging Quebec into the Supreme Court? Why is he being dishonest with Quebeckers?

[Parental Leave, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in January 2004, the Quebec Court of Appeal ruled that the Government of Canada did not have the constitutional right to prevent Quebec from implementing a maternity leave program. at the time of the election, the Prime Minister even promised to reach an agreement. Yet, after the election, he appealed to the Supreme Court and is now blocking any agreement. The government has been dragging this out for eight years now.

When will the Prime Minister realize that he cannot obstruct Quebec's rights and finally make a reasonable proposal for women and families?

[Finance, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that there is a serious problem, particularly with our age group in the twenties and thirties, who are leaving university after graduation to seek employment elsewhere, particularly in the United States. We see it.

I know the government has suggested that there is no brain drain, but just among my own colleagues, out of eight medical specialists I know seven have gone to the United States to seek employment, and because of taxation issues in particular. It is a major problem.

I think the other thing associated with this for us as we are looking down the line for future generations is debt repayment. We need to be looking at a serious attempt at paying down the debt in a way that is legislated. I think that is important for future generations. When we look at a province like Alberta, which has legislated debt repayment, we see that while there has been pain there has been a lot of gain. We can see that years later.

After years of legislated debt repayment, now we have the opportunity to look at improving the education system in Alberta. Alberta has probably the best health care system. We have an opportunity to look at lowering tuition costs in Alberta. All of these things came with some pain, yes, but with a lot of gain, and a lot of it was done under the eye of long term planning with the legislated debt repayment plan.

[Finance, January 31st, 2005]

In fact, Mr. Speaker, our party has a very thorough policy for the environment.

As the hon. member well knows, one of the problems with the Kyoto accord is that it does not address issues of pollution. One thing the Conservative Party brought out in the last election was a proposal to implement a policy called the clean air act. The clean air act proposal dealt directly with practical ideas to clean up air pollution, water pollution and smog. These particular areas are not targeted by Kyoto, so I would suggest that the hon. member is wrong.

The environment is an extremely important priority for the Conservative Party. In regard to the Kyoto accord, we believe that renewable resource energies and policies along those lines in particular need to be looked at as well, but we also believe that there needs to be a very concerted effort to make sure that we have a sustainable industry as well as a sustainable clean environment.

[Finance, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, I have had the opportunity and privilege over the last few months to hear from many well-informed Canadians representing various organizations, associations, groups and individuals during the prebudgetary hearings. I am pleased to reflect in my comments some of the important issues that these presenters were able to bring to our attention.

I feel fortunate to have had the opportunity to also give voice to other Canadians who may not have had the same type of access to the finance committee as our presenters, yet who have contacted my office regarding the budgetary priorities they believe should be front and centre in budget 2005.

I doubt that there has ever been a time when every party, including the government, has agreed with the finance committee's final report. The budget report process is important for this very reason. It allows each party to take the opportunity to bring their issues to the budget debate, representing different viewpoints. The hope is that each will be listened to carefully by the finance minister.

The response to this report and its supplementary and dissenting opinions will also say a lot about this government and, in particular, the finance minister and the Prime Minister. Will they take the opportunity to gather the valuable ideas presented and table a budget that is reflective of what Canadians want and in so doing harness the potential of our country?

My hope is that the government will listen to Canadians like those who appeared in front of our finance committee, who work in the public health care system and for advocacy groups and who have completed years of research on taxation and its impacts on all areas of public policy.

Will the government ignore these great ideas brought forward by great Canadians and table a budget that is hijacked by polling results and directed by politics instead of policy? Ultimately it is the actions of the finance minister which will direct the economic and social interests of our country.

As a younger Canadian, I can think of no greater gift that this minority Parliament can give to the next generation than a budget that supports them as they prepare to compete in the global marketplace and build strong families and communities here at home.

As previous speakers from the official opposition have said, it is time to leave mediocrity behind. It is time to discard the adherence to a political mythology that results in short term electoral gain but dismisses the long term needs of Canadians. It is time to present a budget that showcases Canada to the world, a budget that shows we are finally serious about economic strength and fiscal responsibility.

Many of my colleagues have spoken about what such a Canada would look like, with a focus on innovation, productivity, quality of life, lower taxes, an improved pan-Canadian economic picture, sound environmental policies, and what improved fiscal relations would mean for rural Canadians and for people in Newfoundland and Labrador as well as Nova Scotia.

These ideas are all found within the Conservative Party supplemental report. I hope that the finance minister takes the time to reflect on our suggestions and consider them carefully.

Today I am going to limit my comments to two issues: a move toward rectifying the fiscal imbalance and finding a spending balance that recognizes the federal government's actual priorities and a sincere move toward measured debt repayment.

Recommendation 6 of the committee's report affirms a commitment to continue ongoing discussions toward rectifying the fiscal imbalance. This is a compromise position, but ongoing discussions have done nothing to solve the fiscal imbalance. In fact, these discussions have exacerbated the problem by suggesting that it does not exist.

Provinces unanimously recognize that the federal government takes up too much tax room and collects more taxes than it needs to fulfill its constitutional obligations. It uses the excess moneys it collects to intervene in provincial jurisdiction and set provincial policy priorities.

This problem is confirmed by the fact that governments in Alberta and Newfoundland, as well as the Quebec Liberal Party, have each written reports for their own provinces on a way to see greater autonomy within Confederation and a better rebalancing of the federation based on their concerns over loss of provincial fiscal and constitutional power.

The fiscal imbalance is the very reason that the premiers have set up the Council of the Federation and it is the reason they joined together and derailed the Prime Minister's agenda at the September health conference and the conference on equalization.

While the Liberal government fails to recognize the fiscal imbalance, ironically it is the Liberal members of the finance committee who have indirectly recognized it through their recommendations in their dissenting report.

For example, let us look at the Liberals' push for a national day care program. The members suggest that we need to start this system to stop child poverty.

Everyone in the House knows that a national day care program will not solve child poverty. As long as productivity is low, as long as unemployment is high, as long as taxes are high and as long as there is a shortage of affordable housing, there will be child poverty in this country.

Next we see that the Liberal members would like to see increased funding for emergency shelters for women and children who have experienced domestic violence.

Everyone in the House would like to see this sort of funding, but then again, everyone in the House would like to have seen this funding since 1995, when the Prime Minister gutted social transfers to the provinces, which then had to cut funding to programs such as this or download this funding to municipalities.

As someone who has spent a great deal of time supporting victims of domestic abuse either through volunteer efforts or through fundraising, I can tell members that women's shelters are in desperate need of funding.

But few people in this House trust this government or this Prime Minister to follow through on these priorities. After the Prime Minister's transfer cuts it was these very sorts of programs that suffered, so it must be somewhat difficult for the Prime Minister to have his own finance committee members repudiating his efforts of a decade ago.

So yes, there is a fiscal imbalance, and the Liberal Party recognizes it every time it attempts to correct the Prime Minister's financial record with the provinces by intervening in their jurisdiction with new programs to solve old problems.

I would also like to talk a little about debt reduction. As a younger Canadian I think I approach this issue differently than some others in the House. We know the debt is too large. We know that we have to get rid of it. Ultimately, having a large debt does not just inhibit our generation's ability to provide tax relief, social programs, a robust military and, most important, a trustworthy trade and investment climate; it also inhibits the ability of future generations.

I have received letters from many young Canadians, as I know the Prime Minister has, regarding the size of Canada's debt and the problems it poses for those 40 and under. We are currently paying for deficits and interest from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Without a significant move to rid ourselves of debt today and over the next 10 to 20 years, we will continue to pay that interest, alongside the acknowledged increase in social spending and a reduced income tax base when baby boomers retire.

That said, we still do not have a plan for putting our fiscal house in order. We need a systematic, measured method for repaying debt. Instead, what we have seen is an on-again, off-again inclination toward reducing the debt when it suits the government's political interests.

The government reports inaccurate surplus forecasts, every year coming in with a surplus that is far beyond the predicted one, as a result of overtaxing Canadians. Last year it was a $9.1 billion surplus and this year it will likely be upwards of $11 billion. This is unacceptable and imposes insurmountable challenges for provinces in their attempts to set their own budgets and make long term plans.

I started this parliamentary session by noting that this was a government with no vision for tapping into the economic and social potential that the country holds. In the last four months I have had the privilege of hearing from Canadians across the country in prebudgetary hearings, and I have had the opportunity to work alongside my learned colleagues on the finance committee, who bring vast experience to this debate.

This minority Parliament has a choice. We can provide Canadians with a budget that sets into motion a focused and exciting plan for our country and focuses on policy as opposed to politics. Canada can do better. Canadians deserve better. I urge the government and the finance minister to consider carefully and implement the suggestions of Canadians from across the country as submitted by the Conservative Party.

[Question No. 36, January 31st, 2005]

Since April 1, 1999: ( a ) how much money has the government spent on early childhood education programs; ( b ) how are these programs delivered; ( c ) how much money has been spent on parental leave benefits; ( d ) how many Canadians received parental leave benefits during this time; ( e ) how many children were born during this time; and ( f ) how much money was spent on other programs and services for children?

(Return tabled)