Steven Blaney

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure this afternoon to talk about the fiscal, budgetary and governmental policies of our government. I would also like to do this with my colleague from Winnipeg South, who is doing remarkable work as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development , and with whom I sit as a member of the standing committee.

Our government, unlike the previous government, respects its commitments. We do what we say and we say what we do. This is something new for people who follow politics because they are used to a party that says one thing and the following day says the opposite while it goes on a spending spree. A change has taken place with the arrival of our new government. We have a responsible government that keeps its promises.

Today is a great day. Not because I am speaking in this House but because we have truly announced an effective policy to combat climate change and to overcome smog. This is what is called sustainable development.

Sustainable development is also economics and it is responsible economics. That is what we are talking about today. We are talking about a government that does not want to leave future generations with a tax burden, with a debt. That is the reality. That is also sustainable development. To achieve that, we must manage our money not as though it was someone else’s money but as though it were our own money.

It is almost a year since the people of Lévis—Bellechasse, Canadians and a great many Quebeckers elected a new government that promised more transparency and greater accountability. The way that government uses public funds is by far the most important aspect of that promise.

Canadians have seen that since we took office. Ask Canadian families, pensioners and businesses. They have more money in their pockets because income taxes and the GST have been reduced. Parents in Saint-Anselme and Saint-Henri who register their children in soccer, hockey, skating and judo programs receive tax credits. We are introducing concrete measures that help Canadians.

However, we also have a responsibility to properly manage the machinery of government. It is normal that the budget should be revised at regular intervals and that unnecessary expenses are cut. That is exactly what we are doing. We can thank the opposition for giving us the opportunity to tell Canadians about our budgetary exercise to cut expenditures on the order of $1.1 billion out of a total budget of more than $200 billion.

Members will agree with me that these are very reasonable cuts, in fact very modest, amounting to barely 0.5%. Still, this is a big difference from the previous government. We know that in the last five years, total program expenditures had risen by an average of 8.2% per year. For 2004-2005 alone, expenditures rose 14.4%.

What does a 14.4% a year increase in the federal budget represent? Had the population increased by 14.4%? Did Canadian taxpayers receive 14.4% more services? The answer is obvious. And yet we had to pay that money out. Unfortunately, we know that the previous government had the annoying habit of also cutting transfers to the provinces. There were increased expenditures, but less money for the people who really needed it.

Yes, we said it and we have done it. In the election campaign we made the commitment to make budget cuts, and we have done so responsibly. This shocks people somewhat. Some people who were used to being here for so long thought it was their money.

Let us talk about the Federal Accountability Act. Our first piece of legislation will create new and significant checks and balances. Parliament and Canadians will be able to see better where taxpayers’ money, our money, is being spent, and what the connection is between how it is being used and what measurable results are achieved.

Where do we stand today? There are some people here, on the other side of the House, and their colleagues in the Senate, who are delaying passage of that bill. What is the Senate waiting for to pass the Federal Accountability Act? Maybe, with that piece of legislation, it will be more difficult to set up projects that lead to sponsorship scandals?

Even more recently we learned that public servants had been lent to parties for political purposes, to hold phantom positions.

We need laws that will protect the public’s money. I hope that the Senate will abide by the wishes of Canadians.

The government is honouring the commitment it made in the budget. Treasury Board announced it on September 25, 2006, to save money in two very simple ways: through tighter and more disciplined management of spending—something we started to do as soon as we took office—and by applying the results of the program review we did over the summer. We are looking at which of our programs, and where, it is possible to cut, ensuring that we get results, that we optimize the use of resources and that we adhere to the priorities of Canadians.

One thing that our friends from Quebec will be particularly happy about is that we are a responsible government that respects the jurisdictions of the federal and provincial governments. We have a Constitution; let us abide by it.

The President of the Treasury Board has worked with the officials in his department, who have worked hard, and has consulted with ministers to identify departmental programs and expenditures that do not meet the criteria in the recent budget.

What did we do over the summer? We cut unused funds. We ensured that programs were optimized and that the administrative cuts were rationalized and consolidated. As I said earlier, we dealt with programs that were not in keeping with the priorities of Canadians.

I will provide a few examples of the cuts that were made to the Treasury Board portfolio. The previous government had decided to spend another $20 million in support for regional ministers. There is already a $3.8 million fund, and we think that is enough. It is unnecessary, therefore, to allocate these additional funds in the current budget. Eliminating this funding enables us to save $18.5 million of the taxpayers’ money.

Reducing the funding for the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada program should generate more than $83 million in savings.

At the end of the year, taxpayers may not have felt the difference, but they will feel it in their wallets. Insofar as program delivery is concerned, these kinds of cuts do not have any effect on citizens. Some cuts eliminated funding that had been allocated by the previous government but was superfluous to what was really needed to carry out certain classification activities deemed necessary. There is nothing so far to make a fuss about here.

We will save more than $9 million by reducing low-priority training for federal employees at the Canada School of Public Service. I was a public servant myself and can say that I benefited from wonderful working conditions. The school now has an $89 million budget for its programs. It is important to have competent, well-trained public servants. It is possible to do so. When we speak about low priority, it can hardly be denied that cuts are very possible in light of the situation of Canadian families that need us to manage their money responsibly.

Henceforth, the government will ensure that judicious expenditures become the norm by subjecting all new and existing programs to systematic, rigorous review. This is an exercise that will often have to be repeated because priorities change, needs change and society evolves. Our government will only approve funding that is really necessary in order to efficiently achieve measurable results, while optimizing resources. Canadians are entitled to expect accountable government.

Thanks to these initiatives, the new government will provide significantly greater transparency and accountability and optimized use of resources in all areas of federal government expenditure. Canadians expect nothing less. That is why this initiative is at the heart of the government’s management program.

In a word, I gave the House a statistic to remember: in 2004-05, spending grew by 14.4% in a single year. That is a lot. We can support some growth, but it is important to maintain cross-generational equity. To do this, we must bequeath good management to future generations and ensure that the debt burden is reduced.

In conclusion, I say to the families, businesses and pensioners in Lévis—Bellechasse that our government is continuing to take care of the disadvantaged, minorities and immigrants and that, in contrast to the previous government, we manage money as if it were ours and yours.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, October 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canada-France Inter-Parliamentary Association concerning its 34th annual meeting, held in Paris and Touraine, from September 10 to September 17, 2006.

[Older Workers, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, for too long the forestry companies of Canada, including those in Quebec, have had to face challenges that arose because of the inaction of the previous Liberal government and Bloc critics who could produce no results. More recently, some softwood lumber companies have had to make the difficult decision to lay off many employees, a great many of them older workers.

Can the Minister of Industry, my honourable colleague the member for Beauce, tell us more about what our new government, the Government of Canada, intends to do to mitigate the impact—

[International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today is the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, recognized around the world.

Like all Canadians, our government is committed to helping those less fortunate and implementing action plans not only to address poverty, but to eliminate it. The government is also determined to adopt a new approach to resolve the difficult situation facing many aboriginals. Our goal is to change the current reality of aboriginal peoples to ensure that their communities can count on the basic tools they need to achieve real, significant and long-term changes.

Thanks to these tools, which we are working hard to develop, we will be able to lay the groundwork for a strong, diversified economy in aboriginal communities. Next week, we will attend the Quebec first nations socio-economic forum, along with the Quebec government and first nations, in order to find lasting solutions to the problems and challenges facing aboriginals.

[Vincent Plante, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, September 29, I had the honour of hosting a cocktail party at my riding office in Lévis for Vincent Plante and his family, to congratulate Mr. Plante on winning the Governor General's Caring Canadian Award.

Today, I would like to pay tribute to the unconditional dedication of a man who has worked for more than 30 years to improve the living conditions of the less fortunate in our society.

As an adolescent, Vincent Plante was already organizing activities to benefit his parish. Since then, with his wife, Nicole, his brothers, Gérard, Louis and Aurélien, and his sisters-in-law, whom I also salute, he has worked to improve the lives of others. He visits the elderly in several facilities and also serves communion at Hôtel-Dieu de Lévis hospital. He told me that he had sometimes spoken the final words of comfort to patients before their passing. With their enchanted Christmas tree, the Plante family brings joy and Christmas gifts to children—sometimes the only gift they receive.

Mr. Plante provides outstanding care without making distinctions or passing judgment. As we say where I come from, his heart is in the right place. This award also honours all the volunteers in Lévis—Bellechasse and Les Etchemins, and I want to say thank you to Mr. Plante, because he symbolizes our country's generosity.

[Criminal Code, October 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's presentation. It is with great satisfaction that I noted, as he did, that a change had taken place in the riding of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, now represented by a colleague who sits on the government side and who helps bring forward concrete legislative measures like the bill before us today.

During the summer, that member took the time to hold consultations in his riding to ensure that the measures brought forward will help improve our justice system. I myself took part in some of those meetings, including with women's groups that are trying to deal with the problem of domestic violence and that are looking for ways to help rape victims and to prevent these types of crimes.

The groups we met were very pleased with the measures proposed by our government. What is nice about being a government member is to be able to propose concrete measures and to go forward with them with the cooperation of other parliamentarians.

This bill will make several improvements. I would like to have my colleague's opinion on three of those. I would like to know if he supports them. First, this bill proposes to give our justice system a means to deal with child pornography. It also provides that the examination of an accused be conducted in the language of the accused. Finally, it limits or prohibits communications between the accused and the victims.

I would like my colleague to tell us what he thinks of those three measures, which I believe are excellent and will improve our justice system.

[Employment Insurance, October 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, many workers are affected by the turbulence experienced in the manufacturing sector.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague, the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, what our government intends to do with regard to the impending expiry of the transitional measures for employment insurance in New Brunswick and Quebec.

[The Environment, October 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, not only is the Liberal’s track record on the environment a source of annoyance for Canadians, but it also a cause of considerable concern for the Commissioner of the Environment. “The federal government has done too little and acted too slowly on Canada's commitments to address the challenge of climate change,” she said. “It is increasingly clear that Canada will not meet its international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

The fact is that since 1997 we have been told that more than $6.3 billion was going to be spent to combat climate change. What is the result? The result is that greenhouse gas emissions have risen, not by 10 per cent, not by 20 per cent or 30 percent, but by 35 per cent.

Where is the taxpayers’ $6.3 billion? Has it gone up in smoke?

Talk is cheap. The Liberals talk a good game, but facts are facts: as usual, the Liberals are failing miserably when it comes to the environment. Enough of the bloated rhetoric and more action. The new Conservative government keeps its word, and is preparing a green plan that will deliver concrete results on the environment for all Canadians. That is the difference.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for her question and I congratulate her on the contribution she has made to furthering the cause of women in our society. Recognizing the rights of women is one of the things that makes this a great country.

I would like to make it clear that my comments should be interpreted in the context of today's motion, which touches on the administrative cuts to the program in question.

Taxpayers and women expect cuts. Women are good managers. We await the day that a woman is minister of finance. We already have good management, but perhaps it could be even better.

Thus, my comments were made in the context of the motion being debated today. Yes, I believe that cutting administrative expenses will enable us to provide better service to Canadian communities.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my honourable colleague for his question. And I thank him also for telling me about this program for veterans.

I can say to him that, as the member for Lévis—Bellechasse, I will be meeting veterans in my office tomorrow to hear their concerns.

I have already met with them on several occasions, and they have a long list of grievances. The VIP program, as my colleague referred to it, is not the only item that was neglected by the previous government.

These veterans deserve to be honoured and respected for their past contribution to the vitality of democracy in our country.