House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2015, with 70% of the vote.
Softwood Lumber November 2nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, Canadian lumber producers are trying to survive in an increasingly hostile environment caused by rising fuel costs and a stronger Canadian dollar. In the meantime, the Liberals continue to insult our best clients and our producers are paying the price for this bad behaviour.
Is the government waiting for the result of the U.S. election to finally defend the interests of Canadian exporters?
Equalization Payments October 28th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, amendments had to be made to the Speech from the Throne in order to force the Prime Minister to recognize the reality of the fiscal imbalance. Once again, instead of straight talking he is hiding behind the formula.
Will the Prime Minister be more straightforward, drop the trickery, come to the table and truly give the provinces their due?
Equalization Payments October 28th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, at the Standing Committee on Finance this morning, the finance minister admitted that the current equalization deal that is on the table for Newfoundland and Labrador has a cap on revenues. This statement directly contradicts the Prime Minister and the Minister of Natural Resources who have both stated repeatedly that there is no cap for Newfoundland.
On such an important issue, who is calling the shots? Does the finance minister's proposal take precedence over the Prime Minister's election promise to the people of Newfoundland?
Supply October 28th, 2004
Madam Speaker, I have a hard time understanding how the member can claim the fiscal imbalance does not exist when we have a $9.1 billion surplus and we are living in a country made up of mostly have not provinces right now.
My problem with the way the federal government deals with this issue is that it has its own agenda and its own policy objectives when it deals with the provinces and, as I said earlier, it is very rare that those policy objectives actually coincide with the objectives of the provinces and the municipalities to that extent.
When the federal government brings its priorities to provincial matters it ends up setting priorities on behalf of the provinces. This shifts provincial authorities away from the local needs of the provinces, the municipalities and the citizens toward the political programs and policy objectives of the federal government. It is clearly not in its own jurisdiction.
All provinces have different needs. Provincial governments are the ones that are closest to their citizens. It is their jurisdiction. They deserve the respect of the federal government. It is their constitutional obligation to deliver services to their own citizens and set their own policy objectives and priorities.
I would also like to point out to the hon. member that in the Speech from the Throne amendment the government went at least half way to agreeing that some people say that a fiscal imbalance exists. I look forward to the day when the government actually admits that the fiscal imbalance does exist.
Supply October 28th, 2004
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for St. John's East. As the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and members of the House know, the Conservative Party believes a fiscal imbalance exists in the country, and we support the motion. We also know the Liberal government caused this fiscal imbalance. The fact that the very existence of the fiscal imbalance is up for debate shows the arrogance of the government.
I will begin my remarks by suggesting that the first thing the government should admit is there is a problem. It should recognize fully that there is a fiscal imbalance and that it should be addressed and fixed.
Simply put, the fiscal imbalance results from the fact that the federal government is collecting more taxes than it needs to fulfill its obligations. This results is recurrent budgetary surpluses at the federal level and deficits at the provincial level.
While the federal government is raking in surpluses that are always larger than anticipated, the provinces have a hard time providing essential health and social services.
This widening gap between the federal and provincial budgets prevents the provinces from making long term planning and forces them to always depend on federal transfers for their programs.
This is too little, too late. And this assistance is often tied to conditions such as the achievement of federal objectives. If the provinces do not achieve these objectives, or if they wish to pursue other important goals, they do not get the funds that they were promised.
Thus, the provinces find themselves in a situation where they cannot refuse to contribute financially to new federal initiatives. They are then forced to implement programs that do not meet their local priorities.
While it is enjoying huge surpluses, the federal government's only solution is an increase in provincial taxes to pay for social programs. However, collecting new taxes and accumulating deficits are not the solution.
It is clear that the current tax structure no longer meets the needs of the provinces and territories.
The motion itself raises the arrogance of the Prime Minister at the equalization meeting on Tuesday and I would like to address this for a minute.
The meeting on October 26 was supposed to come to a new arrangement on equalization. At the first ministers meeting on health in September, the provinces asked that a separate meeting be held to address the issue of fiscal imbalance as well as equalization. The Prime Minister told the Premier of Quebec and the other provinces that such a meeting would take place before the next budget and would address the fiscal imbalance.
The Prime Minister did not keep his word. He continued to deny the existence of the fiscal imbalance and refused to have a specific discussion about the fiscal imbalance at the October 26 meeting.
At the meeting, it became apparent that there would be no give and take between the provinces and the federal government. The meeting was a take it or leave it offer and there was no discussion about solving the equalization concerns of the provinces today. There was also no addressing of the fiscal imbalance. There was also no greater conversation of the larger fiscal climate in which federal-provincial-territorial fiscal arrangements are operating. There was no flexibility from the Prime Minister. In fact he was so inflexible that he reneged on a deal he made with Premier Danny Williams to give the government and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador 100% of their resource revenues with no equalization clawback.
Those are nice words to say and promises to make during an election, but they are a little harder to follow up, especially when one has built one's career as a finance minister by saying no to the aspirations of Newfoundland and Labrador and other Canadian provinces.
As the Leader of the Opposition asked on Tuesday, what is the rationale for not allowing the provinces to have full access to their resource revenues and why is the Prime Minister holding back Newfoundland and Labrador?
There are other problems because the government knows that a deal with Newfoundland and Labrador would only be the beginning. If it exempted natural resource revenues from Newfoundland and Labrador, it would have to do the same for Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan which have the same concerns. At that point, northern territories would ask for the same, as would resource economies in every other province. Instead of using an equalization program as a means of taking back resource revenues out of the provinces, the federal government would have to let them prosper.
Then I ask, what would the government do if it stopped interfering in provincial jurisdictions? Would Canadians maybe turn their attention to things that are truly a federal jurisdiction? Would the lack of respect the government has shown to our military become a bigger story? Would our abysmal trade record and the growth-stifling policies of the Liberal government become perhaps a more pressing concern?
The government is holding provinces back in two ways. The most obvious this week is the way it claws back resource revenues from provinces. The second is in its persistent denial of the fiscal imbalance. The fundamental problem with the Liberal government is that it does not respect provincial jurisdiction with equalization, resource revenues and the fiscal imbalance.
The government will suggest that it has corrected the fiscal imbalance by providing equalization top ups and by seeking to bring more stability to the equalization program. It will also suggest that equalization and transfer payments are what corrects this fiscal imbalance.
Equalization and transfers do not correct the fiscal imbalance. These transfers are part of federal revenues that are used really to coerce provinces and force federal priorities on to provincial areas of jurisdiction.
This is the key issue. Instead of allowing provinces to meet local priorities, we have situations where the federal government alters the priorities of provinces by dangling more money in front of them. Of course, as the provinces have been starved by the federal government for cash, they cannot help but say yes to these federal conditions. Again, I stress that these conditions rarely meet local priorities.
As well, the federal government is hooked on the fiscal imbalance because it is addicted to its large surpluses. The government does not want to give up the surplus because it needs it to pad its own books. The government again and again uses the surplus as a carrot to dangle in front of the provinces for health care, equalization and now for cities and child care.
The fiscal imbalance goes deeper than a simple distortion in financial accounting. It provides the basis for the government's entire way of operating. The government knows that the more it holds provinces down economically, the more it can push them around and worm its way into their budgets and distort their priorities.
It is pretty clear why the federal government will not allow Newfoundland and Labrador the freedom to prosper from its offshore oil revenues. It is exceptionally clear why the Prime Minister will not hold meetings on the fiscal imbalance and why he will not finally correct the fiscal imbalance. If the Prime Minister were actually to give provinces the promises he made while he was struggling in the polls, he would be unable to hold the provinces hostage at health care meetings or equalization meetings.
When I first addressed the House early this month, I mentioned that addressing and correcting the fiscal imbalance would be something very difficult for the government to do. It has no faith in other governments or in individual Canadians. This lack of faith is even more apparent after yesterday and after the dyslexic surplus of a few weeks ago. The government has no faith in provincial governments and services and Canadians are suffering. The government has no faith in individual Canadians and it feels the need to control every aspect of their lives, even in those areas that are not in its constitutional jurisdiction.
Canadians deserve better and they deserve two orders of government working together, each competent and successful in their own jurisdictions. They do not need the federal government duplicating the work of provinces and they do not need the federal government to keep playing the role of big brother.
It is time to correct the fiscal imbalance.
Canadian Heritage October 14th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the minister is obviously still confused. The Minister of Canadian Heritage is on record as saying that Quebec can speak for Canada on Canadian cultural policy, but her colleagues, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, have clearly contradicted her. They have said that Canada speaks as one voice.
I again ask the heritage minister, which is it? Can provinces speak for Canada at international cultural meetings? I want to know what the Minister of Canadian Heritage calls this policy. Is it asymmetrical federalism or asymmetrical Liberalism?
Canadian Heritage October 14th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the government appears to be confused. Last month the Minister of Canadian Heritage stated that when she is at international meetings her Quebec better half can speak for her on Canadian cultural policy. She said, “Line can speak for both of us very well”. The heritage minister described this relationship as “a perfect marriage, if not a bit of incest”.
I ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage, can Quebec speak for Canada at international cultural forums?
Health October 13th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, this is another case of say one thing and do another. This is hypocrisy on health care. During the election the Prime Minister said:
To break your promises in terms of health care...is really a terrible thing.
I could not agree more. Breaking promises is a terrible thing. When it comes to private clinics, why do Liberals make promises during the election campaign that they know they will not keep?
Health October 13th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, in the pre-election euphoria, the Prime Minister pretended to be the great defender of the public health system, stating that there was no room for a pay as you go health care system. Yesterday, a private clinic opened its doors in the Prime Minister's adopted city. All of a sudden, it is as if pay as you go clinics were not such a bad idea after all.
Could the minister tell us honestly the Liberal policy on private clinics?
Agriculture October 12th, 2004
Mr. Chair, as the hon. member said, we need to increase the capacity to slaughter and pack livestock in our country so there is more reliability for the agriculture industry.
In my riding of Edmonton—Spruce Grove, a former member of the House, Stan Schellenberger, is spearheading an initiative called Ranchers Own. This initiative aims to provide farmers with a stake in a facility so they own it and will have a reliable facility and a fair price.
Ranchers Own is also using state of the art technology to ensure that it is able to process meat as efficiently as possible. Ranchers Own is also targeting niche markets to capture parts of the marketplace that larger packing facilities have no interest in so that if and when the border is open Ranchers Own will still be viable to process meat.
My question is about start-up initiatives. What is the government doing to ensure that start-ups are built to last so that when the border opens those facilities will not find themselves out of business?