Ted Menzies

[Supply, February 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House today to address this issue and to support the motion to drop the deposit for the CAIS program.

The reason I find this such a fascinating topic of discussion is because it is my life. I farmed for 30 years before I came to this House. I can sense the frustration that farmers are going through.

We need to remember that it is not only the farmers. It is the ranchers. It is the agricultural industry. It is the supply industries that provide all the input to those producers who are maybe not feeling the pinch yet, but who certainly will very soon if we do not address what we need to recognize as very dire circumstances.

My riding of Macleod is very representative of the broad scope of agriculture in this country. We have some of the largest cow-calf ranches in my riding of Macleod. Certainly they have felt the impact of BSE. We certainly hope to hear encouraging words today from Mr. Johanns who is the new agriculture secretary in Washington. Let us hope that continues and that we actually do see that border open on March 7.

The grains and oilseeds industry is very large in my riding and that was my background. I was a grains and oilseeds producer for 30 years. I sensed the problems even back then.

We are always accused of bouncing from pillar to post and from crisis to crisis in agriculture. That is probably because we have not addressed the long term issue of how we deal with this. I got very involved earlier on in trying to make a difference, trying to influence policies that could improve the situation for not only primary agriculture, but value added agriculture.

I fought long and hard through many debates at committee tables. I have had the privilege of actually sitting on both sides of committee tables now. I have the honour of knowing what questions to ask because I have had them asked of me. I was very much involved, and I am almost scared to admit this, in the formation of the CAIS program, but I must admit that I was dragged along kicking and screaming.

What we are talking about here today are the exact issues that I and my colleagues that sat on the national safety nets advisory committee warned the government about. We said that it should not require a deposit because it would not work.

We had a NISA program that was working but the former minister of agriculture decided that there was too much money in that account. That was always brought back and thrown in our faces when we said that there was an issue with agriculture. That money was capital tied up.

What do we have today in this program if we do not have capital tied up? We have over $600 million in deposits. That is the working capital of farmers. That is money they cannot use to buy inputs for this spring and money they cannot use to make their payments. It is critical that we change that.

By the time the end of March comes around it looks like we will be at $1 billion. Is that good use of farmers' money to be tied up in a bank account somewhere else when they have to go back and borrow more money, that is if they can, to be able to put a new crop in for this year?

There are some tremendous flaws, which is why I am speaking out loud and clear that we need to remove this deposit part of the CAIS program.

The other part of our motion that I have not heard as much talk about today is following through on the commitments the government made to agriculture, one being the commitment to defend agriculture at the WTO.

The government has not done much of a job in promoting the trade on which this country is so dependent. We need to have a stronger position. We need to work harder at the WTO to be able to open markets in other parts of the world, to remove the export subsidies that the Europeans seem to love so much and the domestic support on which American producers are dependent.

The U.S. farm bill that we are still dealing with is having an impact on the barley producers in my riding. Barley that is landing in southern Alberta right now is well below the cost of production for my producers. Uncle Sam is adding 70¢ a bushel to each farmer's bushel of barley coming in to Canada with no tariffs on it, competing against our products.

We need the government to stand up and say that is wrong. We have heard government members say a lot of things about Americans that have not helped, and that is part of the issue. We do not have the respect that Americans should provide to us to try to get rid of those barriers and those subsidies which they provide to their producers.

In 2003 we had thousands of tonnes of subsidized corn coming into this country competing with our products. These are the types of things that the government could make a difference.

I work very hard within the WTO trying to make some of these changes, both as a private producer and as member of producer organizations. I often felt like we were not getting the kind of support that we needed from our government.

This is the way we can fix some of these problems but working through the WTO is long term. Something we can do for producers right now is to get rid of this onerous deposit that is certainly hurting us.

The European common agriculture policy is still allowing the Europeans to subsidize their exports. The American farm bill and the U.S. common ag policy has cost Canadian grains and oilseed producers $1.3 billion a year. That has been going on far too long. We have not seen enough hard work to try and get rid of that.

Let me talk quickly about my farm. We heard talk about whether CAIS is working. We have heard many arguments from the other side of the House saying that it has worked. I spend a lot of money on an accountant to look after the books for my farm. I have a very good accountant and I keep very tight books. From all of the indications, we assumed that I would be getting a sizeable CAIS payment. I received the initial advance on that and then when I finally read all the rules and the actual accounting was done, I found that my farm had to pay back money to CAIS. That is how the CAIS program is working.

I urge those on the other side of the House to support the motion.

[International Cooperation, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, when most of us saw reports of the tsunami crisis we asked, “What can I do to help?”

Sitting at home in Barrie, the Minister of International Cooperation asked, “Can I make it to the airport before the Prime Minister cancels my holiday?”

Despite the absence of leadership from this minister, individual Canadians gave generously to the relief effort. My question is, does the minister not realize that Canadians expect ministers to stay home and do their jobs rather than phoning in from the beach?

[Finance, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House to express to the wandering aimless government the priorities that should be addressed in the coming 2005 budget.

I do not use the words “wandering” or “aimless” lightly, but the never ending parade of ministers on walkabout throughout the world over the past six months has convinced me that the old U2 lyrics live on because they still have not found what we are looking for. It is called leadership and without it the government has lurched from crisis to crisis since the beginning of this minority session.

Along with my colleagues I have watched and waited breathlessly for the transformative change all Canadians were promised, but let us be honest. It has not happened yet and if the truth be told, it probably is not going to happen under the Prime Minister. We see the lack of leadership in the flailing Gomery inquiry, the mismanagement of the BSE file and the clear bungling of the tsunami crisis. Yet we stand here today to help the Minister of Finance to do his best to plan for the next fiscal year.

If leadership cannot be expected from those on the other side of the House, the Conservative Party of Canada stands ready to shine the light of common sense on the pathway to federal governance.

I address my remarks to the Minister of Finance today from the perspective of overseas development assistance. The recent tsunami disaster in southeast Asia highlighted the importance of Canada's overseas development strategies, or lack thereof as proven in this tragic case.

When reflected against the overwhelming generosity of individual Canadians, the anemic penny ante response from the Liberal government was at best piecemeal and at worst an international embarrassment. After being shamed into a series of hastily called press conferences, the government relief package grew grudgingly from $1 million eventually up to a twice announced $425 million over five years.

No long term relief reconstruction strategy for these funds has been announced. Where the money came from has not been revealed. What other CIDA projects will have their budgets stripped to pay for these promises? That has not been detailed.

Finally, how this ties into Canada's existing foreign aid policy or the upcoming integrated foreign policy recommendation has not been considered. The challenge comes when answering the following question: How does the finance minister allocate the appropriate funds to overseas development?

There is no legislated mandate for the Canadian International Development Agency. There are no clear accountability measures in place. As we saw over the Christmas period, funding priorities can shift dramatically from moment to moment, stretching and pulling the bounds of fiscal credibility to the edge.

The upcoming international policy review provides the finance minister with an unparalleled opportunity to send a strong signal in the budget. For the first time the overseas development envelope of spending must come with milestones and expectations clearly outlined for the disbursement. It is time to level with Canadians about how and why their foreign aid dollars will be spent.

There is a temptation for the Liberal government to further blur the lines between the departments of foreign affairs, defence and CIDA caving into the rattle and hum of ministerial greed. While we strongly agree that Canada's international policies must be integrated and complementary in their objectives, what we cannot allow is the unregulated $3 billion overseas development assistance funding to be used as a slush fund to restore the long overdue offensive and defensive capacity of our military.

As my colleague the member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills so eloquently pointed out, funding commitments must be made to bring the essential function of the military back to a combat ready force. Too often Liberals take the easy way out and try to sell Canadians a trumped up vision of benevolent peacekeepers.

The harsh reality is that in order to credibly back up Canada's diplomacy and aid efforts around the world, Canada's military must be sufficiently supported at home before acting as peacemakers, security builders and as a separate and impartial entity, to allow humanitarian efforts to succeed. It is the exception rather than the rule where military delivery of aid is preferred.

This government has a responsibility to meet its commitment to the three Ds in a separate but complimentary fashion. We will fight to ensure that in the Liberal rush to be all things to all people, Canadians are not misled with a shell game worthy of a cheap, street-side hustler.

Nations around the world are moving toward a formalization of their foreign aid strategies through legislated mandates and annual accounting to parliaments. It is time for Canada to rise to this challenge. Developed nations, such as Canada, reap the benefits of their prosperity at home. Enlightened leaders know this prosperity comes with responsibilities. Unfortunately, our Prime Minister believes that pretty words, repeated promises, and speeches filled with soggy rhetoric about bold international policy is even better than the real thing.

The overseas development budget is scheduled to increase by 8% a year. This is the least this Liberal government could do after a decade of slashing Canada's foreign aid to record lows. In fact, a more aggressive approach to restoring the needed funding would enable Canada to truly fulfill its potential on the world stage. However, I fear that this Liberal government cannot be trusted to plot the course to achieving the Pearsonian objective for foreign aid budgets of .7% of GDP.

I guess this explains why Canadians are no longer shocked when reminded of the broken promises from Liberal red books one, two and three. The Liberals are still trying to live up to commitments made in 1969.

In the meantime, changes must be made to the practices of our foreign aid delivery. Liberals must learn to untie aid. This government ties our donations of emergency food so tight that it squeaks. We are in danger of destroying local economies of recipient countries and in the long run in our rush to deliver Canadian food as short term food aid.

Tied aid depresses world prices for commodities and undercuts the few local producers left in recipient countries. Tied aid is an insidious tool used by developing countries to make themselves feel generous as they answer the call of hunger in time of crisis.

By making untied aid a condition of future funding for Canada's ODA envelope, the effectiveness of our aid could increase by as much as 30% to 50%, and this is according to the Canada Food Grains Bank.

The time has come to focus on real solutions for poverty reduction. Let us marshal our resources to fight the fight we can win. There are many problems in the world. The ineffectiveness of Canada's foreign aid is not an enigma for the ages, but it will not be solved with photo ops with rock stars. It requires that rarely found in a Liberal quality, leadership.

Leadership in Canadian international development can begin with financial discipline. It will unravel with bold and determined choices and Canadians should be able to watch it flourish in the bright light of public scrutiny. That indeed would be a beautiful day.

The finance minister can start his government on the right path. He can make good on the spirit expressed in speeches from the throne over decades filled with good words and pledges to secure for Canada a role of pride and influence in the world.

If this finance minister is chafing under the mantle of indecision, he can break free. He can declare to the Minister of International Cooperation that he is prepared to commit the resources needed and establish the disciplines necessary for effective foreign aid.

I invite the Minister of Finance to consider these recommendations. I would be more than open to discussing these issues further with him.

[Ukraine, December 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, how can the minister justify shortchanging Ukrainians by not committing the necessary number of election observers? The current CIDA budget is over $2 billion a year. Let us not forget that we are still sending $54 million a year to the undemocratic Republic of China.

Why will those ministers not put their money where their mouths are and commit more observers and sufficient funding to bring true democracy to Ukraine?

[International Aid, December 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, with a cloud of controversy hanging over the government benches, Liberal ministers are gallivanting around the world on junkets paid for by the taxpayers, ensuring they are anywhere but in the House of Commons. Yet these trips are not about feeding the hungry. They are not about alleviating poverty.

My question is for the CIDA minister. When programs to fund humanitarian assistance and disaster preparedness have been slashed to zero, is her priority foreign aid or foreign travel?

[China, November 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, last week we heard that the Chinese government was in discussions to acquire Calgary based Husky Energy, but Canada is still sending $55 million a year in aid money to China.

My constituents are outraged, and aid is still going to China like a Liberal staffer to a peeler joint. I ask the CIDA minister again today, in light of this new show of China's economic power, how does she justify sending foreign aid to China?

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, November 29th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I was not sure if that was a question or just a comment. If there was a report card, I certainly think that the F minus would ring true. We have heard that a couple of times today.

It raises a lot of concerns with my constituents. During the campaign a lot of people asked what we would do with their taxes and how we would make sure that their taxes were spent more wisely.

I represent the southwestern part of Alberta. The people in Alberta understand the issues in the rest of this country. We live in a wealthy province. We are very honoured to be part of that province, but we are also very honoured to be part of a bigger country. We also want the contributions that we make to this country to be spent wisely.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, November 29th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, it is an interesting comment that we hear about taxation. Our Conservative Party was criticized when we came out with our policy platform saying that we need to cut taxes. In my mind that is a tough thing to criticize.

Our party believes that structured taxes, taxes that are spent wisely are an effective tool. In fact, we need that to run our country properly.

However, when we see the inventive budgeting that has gone on across the floor with these kinds of surprise surpluses, that is very difficult for me to explain to families that are having a difficult time buying food for their children, buying clothing, paying for education, running their businesses.

When we see this sort of a budget and this sort of a surplus it goes far beyond any projected expenses. People do not mind paying taxes. However, when they see that sort of a surplus left over, there is not that kind of a surplus left over in their budgets at home. In fact, if families budgeted the way the federal government does, they probably would be out on the street. It is unfortunate that the government can get away with doing that and we cannot in real life.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, November 29th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I guess the one comment I would make in answer to that question is that the buck stops here. The taxes come to the federal government. The federal government distributes them back to the provinces

As I mentioned in my speech, the provinces continually have had to come hat in hand looking for funding for our education systems which have had their budgets slashed.

Those that are closest to the people are the ones that seem to take the brunt of the criticism. The member talked about criticism. It is the criticism received by our municipal administrators that have had smaller budgets because our provincial governments have had smaller budgets to work with. That blame should be laid at the feet of the federal government.

The federal government is the one that made the decisions where the spending priorities are. The spending priorities have not been on education and shortening the lineups in our health care system. It is unfortunate that the premiers have had to come begging for more money.

We see this equalization as perhaps a better method of stopping the buck from just stopping here, but let us equalize it out across the country so it is fair to all.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, November 29th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to talk about Bill C-24, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. It speaks to one of the most fundamental elements of Canadian character. This legislation is a step toward the modernizing the way Canada operates as a nation and one that is typical of the Liberal government: overdue and incomplete.

For context, it is important to note that section 36 of the Constitution reads:

Parliament and the legislatures, together with the Government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to the following three things:

(a) promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians--

A Conservative priority if I ever heard one.

--(b) furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities--

Again an idea I could get behind.

--and (c) providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians.

I believe all Canadians and parliamentarians should strive for these objectives.

Further, subsection 36(2) reads:

Parliament and the Government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.

There is no question that the Liberal government has not lived up to this commitment. Year after year the premiers have been forced to tell the Prime Minister that they are not receiving sufficient funds. We cannot make this country stronger if we accept that citizens in one region are less valued or eligible to receive services than another. Enactment of this bill will increase equalization payments by 42% from 2004-05 until 2009-10. This means $8.9 billion in 2004-05, increasing to $12.5 billion in 2009-10.

Again I go back to overdue and incomplete. While the increase in payments is needed, the Liberal government has had to set the total level of equalization on TFF for years to come. It is clear that the Liberals have not set the total levels of payments because their formula has been ineffective in setting the total levels of payments.

Also, the bill does not spell out how these payments will be divided among the provinces and territories in the future. Instead, the federal government has launched a review by an independent panel of experts on which the provinces and territories have been provided with two seats. However the federal government has retained decision making authority on how future levels should be allocated.

While the Conservative Party of Canada has repeatedly called for a panel, we must be conscious of Liberal manipulation in this endeavour. The panel could be used as another Liberal delay tactic at best, or simply a ploy to fool stakeholders into thinking that they had input into the process. This also gives the Liberal government one of its favourite escape hatches. When things go wrong, it will now have a fall guy to take the rap. “It is not our fault we got it wrong”, the Liberals will scream, “the experts made us do it”.

It is also important to note that the bill does not deal with non-renewable resource revenue within the current equalization formula. The Conservative Party has long sided with the concern expressed by the provinces with respect to the inclusion of non-renewable resource revenue in the current equalization formula. Under the current formula, provinces that benefit from non-renewable resource revenues are subject to a clawback that results in lower equalization payments. This is unfair and unacceptable.

I come from a province that has prospered enormously from its natural resources and it is inconceivable that the same opportunities and potential for economic growth are not available to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. The Conservative Party, along with the majority of the provinces, have long advocated for the removal of non-renewable resource revenues from the equalization formula. This would ensure that the spirit and intent of the program remains intact and to encourage the development of economic growth in the non-renewable resource sectors all across Canada.

I am proud to stand with my Atlantic colleagues to say in the House that the Conservative Party supports the efforts of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia to receive 100% of their offshore oil revenues outside of the current equalization formula, with no cap and no restrictions.

I believe that all regions of the country should benefit from changes to the equalization formula to encourage the development of natural resources and economic growth. Therefore the Conservative Party of Canada would remove non-renewable natural resources from the equalization program and change the formula.

The territories are an important element to consider as well. Bill C-24 does not address the outstanding concern that the Conservative Party and the territories have in the need to develop a resource revenue sharing agreement between territories and the federal government.

The TFF is an important and necessary grant mechanism to address and present the needs of the territories. The Conservative Party supports the TFF but also believes it is imperative that the federal government take steps to develop a resource revenue sharing agreement with the territories to facilitate their desire for control over their own economy and move to economic independence.

It is important that no province or territory suffer financially under the new formula, and I do not say this lightly. The Liberals portray themselves as the only national party but they stake that claim on the smallest of toeholds in many provinces, and after this summer's election they could not even secure a majority of seats in the House.

Nonetheless, they govern with the arrogance of a Liberal government of the past. I have seen it over the years, especially on the issues that face the agricultural industry. The Liberal government loves to divide and conquer. Whether it is region against region or commodity against commodity, the Liberals are almost automatic in their rush to create a domestic squabble to distract Canadians from their inability to get the job done.

The Conservative Party supports the equalization program as an essential component of Canada's nation building efforts. In order for Canada's provinces to grow and prosper, it is important that an effective equalization program be in place. Equalization is a difficult issue to address. By even using the language “haves and have nots”, this is inevitably causing discord and rancour.

As Canadians we have chosen to govern our country as a Confederation. The balancing of regions and provinces has historically proven a challenge. Some governments have managed the project better than others but citizens across the nation have felt the benefit in many small and subtle ways.

As I stand in the House today, I would like to leave the members across the floor with a final message. It is not just the Canadians who voted for them that deserve the respect and commitment to their best interests. It is not just their friends and cronies who should benefit from the power of governance. This issue, this act, is only one element of ensuring all Canadians prosper. The Conservative Party of Canada is proud to stand with every one of them to demand better.