Yasmin Ratansi

[Government Contracts, April 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the unelected Michael Fortier thinks he is entitled to be unaccountable.

Tomorrow, Treasury Board is set to sign off on a $400 million contract which TPG claims was altered mid-stream to favour a company which the minister recently worked for and whose financial success is tied to the minister's personal investments. The file is before the Public Service Integrity Office.

Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and wait for the results of this investigation before awarding the contract?

[Government Appointments, March 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Bernard Shapiro was always a thorn in the side of the ethically challenged Prime Minister. Everyone remembers how the Prime Minister was loath to cooperate with Mr. Shapiro when he investigated the Prime Minister's conduct on the scandalous floor crossing of the Minister of International Trade.

With a growing number of Conservative scandals, will the government commit that it will not name John Reynolds as their new nominee to be the ethics commissioner while he is under investigation?

[March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary did not answer a simple question which was: Does the government believe in equality? That shows it does not.

The budget is a bunch of gimmicks.

The Status of Women was established by the Liberal government, not by the neo-cons. The neo-cons can take as much credit as they want, but 52% of voters know that they are being conned.

According to chapter three of the Conservative budget, funding will be steered toward real action in key areas such as the economic status of women and combating violence against women and girls.

It is a fact that long guns are the most common type of firearm used in spousal homicides. Over 71% of spousal homicides involved rifles and shotguns. In spite of this shocking statistic, the Conservatives introduced legislation that would remove seven million long guns from the firearm registry. This is how they protect women.

Does the parliamentary secretary sincerely believe that removing rifles and shotguns from the gun registry will somehow protect women and girls from the threat--

[March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, these proceedings arise from a question I asked the minister responsible for the Status of Women last December, when the Conservatives announced that they were slashing the budget of Status of Women Canada by $5 million and forcing the closure of 12 of the 16 regional offices across Canada, as well as the layoff of nearly half of the department's staff.

The primary purpose of Status of Women Canada is to help women acquire the necessary skills to participate fully in the social, economic, cultural and political life of Canada and ensure that politicians and policy-makers are informed of key issues affecting women.

In a society where women continue to be marginalized within key political, social and legal institutions, and I point out that less than one in five members of Parliament are women, it is essential to promote the realization of women's human rights such as equality before the law, the right to an adequate standard of living, life and security and the same access to economic opportunities as men, in other words, equality. By equality, I mean real equality, not some abstract concept of law.

Since the announcement of the budget cuts, however, the Conservative government has flip-flopped on a number of issues. It is now adopting a familiar pattern of slashing and burning programs brought in by the former Liberal government and then suddenly reconstituting them and restoring funding when public opinion polls tell the Prime Minister that he has made another gaffe. This shows a visionless Prime Minister trying to slither with slimy gimmicks against women who constitute 52% of the population.

I know the response from the government will glorify the $5 million that was suddenly found in last week's budget, after the minister responsible for the Status of Women suffered the embarrassment of having her offices occupied by protesters on International Women's Day.

Let us take a closer look at what the Conservatives are actually doing. According to chapter 3 of the federal budget:

This funding will enhance the activities of a refocused Women’s Program, and create a new Women’s Partnerships Fund to foster joint undertakings in areas of common interest with other federal departments and other levels of government.

If that sounds like gobbledygook to members, I think most Canadians would agree. Yet what is not mentioned in the budget is that the Conservatives have changed the terms and conditions of the women's program under the Status of Women, which essentially wipes out research funding and disallows advocacy activities. How can Status of Women Canada promote equality when it is prevented from researching issues or advocating policy changes to politicians and policy-makers?

Let us talk about equality. The Conservatives have deliberately changed the mandate of the department and explicitly removed the word “equality” as a goal of the department simply because the minister responsible does not think equality matters any more. I would like to know, and, indeed, all Canadians would like to know, if the Conservative government no longer believes that equality is something that we as a country should strive toward.

I ask the question because it lies at the heart of the Conservative agenda. Does the government or the parliamentary secretary agree with the minister that the goal of gender equality is no longer relevant in Canadian society?

[Canadian Forces, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to pay tribute to one of my constituents, Mr. Ed Forsyth, a Canadian veteran who served in the 4th Armoured Division during World War II.

Mr. Forsyth is proposing that Canada honour its 116,000 fallen soldiers with the creation of the memorial wall of names that would list all those who served in Canada's armed forces and paid the ultimate price for their country. Although Canadian memorials are scattered across 75 countries around the globe, there is not a single location where Canadians can go to view the names of our fallen soldiers all at once.

I therefore ask all members of the House to provide their support toward the construction of the memorial wall of names to honour Canada's fallen soldiers.

[The Budget, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks a wonderful question. She brings to light something that is very critical. This budget has no vision. It has no vision for the future of Canada and Canada's place in the global economy.

If Canada wants to be competitive and to be up in that productivity agenda, Canada needs a vision, and research and development is one area that we need too. We have to be competitive in the global environment. In previous Liberal budgets, we put a lot of money into research and development. In this budget, I see no vision except gimmicks.

[The Budget, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is a very important one. We keep on hearing that the rural communities can look after their own and that we Liberals were trying to impose solutions for child care on them.

However, an interesting study has just come out on farm communities and how it is important that in the farming communities, to get economically viable, women must have proper child care. Child care spaces are essential.

In fact, in one of the reports on the farming communities, a report released in 2006, women who came before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women stated that it was the lack of proper, affordable child care spaces that was their biggest problem. That is from a rural perspective.

On the rural divide, we keep hearing from the Conservatives that rural women stay at home and that is what they do, but no, they want to go out and be part of the working environment so they can support their farms.

The second aspect is that $2 a day is an insult to the urban communities. In my riding of Don Valley East, child care costs $1,500 a month. That tax deductible $100 does nothing for them but keep on making them poor.

[The Budget, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

It is an honour to rise in this House today to represent my constituents of Don Valley East.

Last week the Conservative government introduced budget 2007, its second federal budget since assuming office in 2006. I wish I could say that these past two budgets have improved the lives of low income and middle income Canadians, yet I am afraid that the facts speak for themselves.

It is a fact that in 2005 the last Liberal budget made a significant effort to deliver tax relief for those in our society who earn the least. The lowest tax bracket was dropped to 15% and, despite what the Minister of Finance said in question period today, those who filed their tax returns know that it was 15%. The amount that all Canadians can earn before taxes, the basic personal amount, was increased by $400 in the Liberal budget.

Putting more money in the pockets of low income and middle income Canadians represents true tax relief for those who need it most. Yet this year, Canadians earning $36,000 a year or less will be in for a rude awakening when they file their income taxes. This is because the tax hikes that the Conservatives levied on low income and middle income Canadians in budget 2006 will come into effect this year.

Those earning the lowest incomes will see their tax rate increase from 15% to 15.5% and the $400 tax credit that the Liberals delivered in 2005 will suddenly disappear. In fact, the income tax measures first introduced in budget 2006 will have the effect of putting 20,000 low income Canadians back onto the tax rolls, taxpayers that had been previously removed by Liberal tax cuts.

For example, it is estimated that a single individual earning $15,000 a year will actually see his or her income taxes increase by as much as $149. Furthermore, a single individual earning an annual salary of $35,000 will pay an extra $122. Does this sound like tax fairness?

The fact is that the Conservative finance minister has squandered an opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of 5.2 million Canadians who live at the margins. While the so-called new government claims that budget 2007 will somehow help low income Canadians aspire to a better life, the fact remains that this budget is financing its vote buying scheme on the backs of those in our society who earn the least.

Here is a real gem of an example. Chapter 3 of the budget outlines one of the Conservatives' foremost priorities: “Encouraging youth participation in Canadian heritage sports like Canadian three-down football and lacrosse with an investment of $1.5 million over the next two years...”.

I have nothing against football or lacrosse, but like most Canadians I wonder why the federal government would intrude so far into provincial and municipal jurisdictions and come up with a budget gimmick like this.

What about the environment? What about affordable child care? What about the quality of life for first nations?

And what about hundreds of thousands of seniors who lost their life savings when the Conservatives deliberately broke an election promise last October and wiped out billions of dollars from the income trust sector?

Canadians no longer trust the Conservative Prime Minister, who, as leader of the Canadian Alliance, called the Kyoto protocol a “socialist” plot to suck wealth from developed countries.

Nobody took the Prime Minister seriously with his sudden conversion to the environment, especially since last January he quickly sacked his environment minister, who happened to be a woman, to salvage his government's public image.

If the Conservatives are truly serious about climate change, I challenge some of the government members sitting on the opposite side of this House to please explain their position on carbon markets and why Canada will not participate even though business leaders, including the chair of the Toronto Stock Exchange, enthusiastically favour such markets.

However, the Conservative finance minister has distinguished himself on at least one front. With $12.7 billion in new spending, combined with various other tax gimmicks, he has established himself as the biggest-spending finance minister in Canadian history.

So much for the tax and spend Conservatives who, when they left office in 1993, stuck Canadians with a $42 billion deficit and the largest federal debt in history. Also, the finance minister left Ontario with an almost $6 billion deficit. Talk about fiscal prudence.

However, let us return to assistance for low income and middle income Canadians. What happened to affordable day care in this country? In 2005 the Liberal government signed an agreement with all 10 provinces and territories to create a truly national day care program. That plan created 14,000 newly licensed child care spaces in Ontario alone. The Conservatives destroyed that program and replaced it in their first 2006 budget with a naive scheme to create 125,000 new child care spaces simply through business tax credits.

How many new spaces were created under this plan? Zero. Nil. Not a single new space was created and the Conservatives wasted an entire year. Now they have quietly axed this program in favour of a meagre payment to the provinces and territories that pales in comparison to the $1 billion delivered by the former Liberal government.

The cancellation of the early learning and child care strategy was an insult to parents in the first place, and to witness the failure of yet another Conservative scheme is mind-boggling.

How about the first nations? One of the first acts of the Conservative government was to axe the $5 billion Kelowna accord, which would have had a significant impact on the quality of life for first nations. Budget 2007 contains very little for first nations and, once again, another year has been wasted.

Never before has a government done so little with such a large budget surplus.

Seniors who lost their life savings through the income trust announcement last October are asking what is in this budget for them. Nothing.

That is why I and my Liberal colleagues cannot support this budget. The Conservatives have squandered an opportunity for low income and middle income Canadians to aspire for a better life.

Worst of all, they have wasted an entire year and the entire budget surplus on little more than a public relations campaign designed to buy votes with the hard-earned tax dollars of Canadians. Hence, my colleagues will not support the budget.

[The Budget, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the plain truth is this. Taxes started going up the day the government took power. In 2005 the lowest income tax rate was 15%. After the 2006 budget, the rate was raised to 15.5% and last week's budget did absolutely nothing to reverse this inexplicable tax increase on those who earn the least.

Is this what the Conservatives consider fairness?

[The Budget, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, last week's Conservative budget shows the government has completely abandoned tax fairness for the second time in two years. It is a disturbing pattern. Income taxes are going up every year under the government and the income trust disaster cost investors $25 billion overnight.

The minister somehow called this gross injustice his tax fairness plan. Taxes are up and private savings have been decimated. Where is the fairness in this?