36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 79
CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 24, 1998
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| ENERGY PRICE COMMISSION ACT
|
| Bill C-384. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
1005
| PETITIONS
|
| Rights of the Unborn
|
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
|
| Bill C-36. Second reading
|
| Hon. Raymond Chan |
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
1010
1015
1020
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1025
1030
1035
1040
| Amendment
|
1045
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1050
1055
1100
1105
1110
1115
1120
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1125
1130
1135
1140
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
1145
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
1150
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1155
1200
1205
1210
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
1215
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
1220
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Motion
|
1225
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
|
| Bill C-36. Second reading
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
1230
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
1235
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1240
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
1245
1250
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1255
| Mr. Randy White |
1300
1305
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1310
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1315
1320
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
1325
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Mr. Denis Coderre |
1330
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1335
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1340
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
1345
| Mr. John Cannis |
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| MONEY LAUNDERING
|
| Mr. John Maloney |
| LIBERAL PARTY
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| ENGINEERING
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1400
| QUEBEC'S FISCAL BALANCE
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| WORLD METEOROLOGICAL DAY
|
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
| ACADEMY OF MOTION PICTURES, ARTS AND SCIENCES
|
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| LIBERAL PARTY
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw |
1405
| GREEK INDEPENDENCE DAY
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| LIBERAL PARTY
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
|
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
| MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1410
| RADARSAT II
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| PENSIONS
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| LIBERAL PARTY
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1415
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| THE SENATE
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1425
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. John Duncan |
1430
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1435
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| CUSTOMS CONTROLS
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| OLD AGE SECURITY
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1440
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
| SEARCH AND RESCUE
|
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
| Hon. Fred Mifflin |
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
| Hon. Fred Mifflin |
| PAY EQUITY
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| JOB CREATION
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
1445
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| TUITION FEES
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1450
| RCMP
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| CANADA LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
|
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw |
| AIR INDIA DISASTER
|
| Mr. John Nunziata |
1455
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| ROYAL CANADIAN MINT
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| OPTION CANADA
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Mr. John Godfrey |
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1500
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Mr. Jack Ramsay |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. John Cannis |
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
|
| Mr. Randy White |
1505
1510
| Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
1515
| The Speaker |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Member for Winnipeg North Centre
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
|
| Bill C-36. Second reading
|
1520
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1525
1530
1535
1540
| Mr. John Bryden |
1545
1550
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1555
| Mr. John Godfrey |
1600
1605
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
1610
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1615
1620
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
1625
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1630
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1635
1640
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1645
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
1650
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1655
1700
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1705
| Mr. Tom Wappel |
1710
1715
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
1720
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Jim Jones |
1725
| Bill C-36—Notice of Time Allocation Motion
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1730
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| TAXATION
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1735
1740
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
1745
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1750
1755
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1800
1805
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1810
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1815
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1820
1825
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
1830
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Diseased Sheep
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1835
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
| Health
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1840
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| APEC Summit
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1845
| Mr. Nick Discepola |
| The Environment
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
1850
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
1855
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 79
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, March 24, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to eight petitions.
* * *
[English]
ENERGY PRICE COMMISSION ACT
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP):
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-384, an act respecting the
Energy Price Commission.
1005
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce in the
House today a bill to establish the Energy Price Commission. This
bill will establish a commission to regulate the wholesale and
retail price of gasoline. The purpose of price regulation is to
avoid unreasonable increases which affect the cost of living and
depress business activity.
The bill will facilitate reasonable consistency in prices from
province to province, allowing for production and distribution
costs.
The regulations will further minimize the risk of collusion in
pricing and will prevent dominant suppliers from setting
unreasonable prices.
The bill links the issue of price control to competition. Any
investigation of an alleged offence under the Competition Act
which is related to gasoline pricing will be remitted by the
competition tribunal to the commission for investigation, and the
commission will report to the tribunal before it makes a
determination or order on the matter.
Many Canadians are looking for this bill so that gasoline and
oil companies will stop the gouging of consumers, business people
and farmers in Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to present a petition signed
by 100 constituents of my riding.
The petitioners pray that Parliament act immediately to extend
protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to
extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn
human beings.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
Hon. Raymond Chan (for the Minister of Finance) moved that
Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget
tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few
moments to speak on behalf of the government in support of Bill
C-36.
The proposed legislation contains some very important provisions
that will help build a strong economy and a strong society, goals
which this government has pursued since coming to office in 1993.
We have pursued these goals first and foremost by getting our
fiscal house in order. The federal books will be balanced this
year for the first time since 1970 and we will balance the budget
next year and the year after that for the first time in almost 50
years. It will be the first time in almost 50 years that
Canadians will see three consecutive balanced budgets.
Our commitment to fiscal responsibility, to putting an end to
credit card government, does not end there. We will reduce
Canada's debt burden through a two-front strategy of stronger
economic growth and a concrete debt repayment plan.
What we will do is take the same approach to the debt that we
have successfully used against the deficit since 1993. We took
the deficit down step by step. The same incremental approach
will, year by year, steadily reduce the debt burden.
We intend to keep the debt to GDP ratio on a permanent downward
slide using a two-track strategy, a strategy of supporting
economic growth and reducing the actual level of the debt.
This means that we will continue to present fiscal plans based
on prudent economic planning assumptions. Let me say that most
budgets fail because they are based on overly optimistic
assumptions. The consequence is severe. It is lost credibility.
1010
In addition to prudent planning assumptions we will continue to
build our plans on a substantial contingency reserve of $3
billion a year. This is designed to handle unexpected events and
to provide greater certainty that we will meet our balanced
budget targets.
However, if the contingency reserve is not needed, and in fact
it has not been needed in each of the past three years, it will
go directly to paying down the overall stock of debt.
Where do we expect this prudent approach to budget planning to
take us?
We project that by 1999-2000 the debt to GDP ratio, by our
comprehensive Canadian measurements, will have fallen almost 10
percentage points from its peak of almost 72% of GDP in 1995-96.
If we use the measurement which most other countries use, that
being the debt held by the public, Canadians' market debt to GDP
ratio will fall from a peak of almost 59% in 1995-96 to 48.5% by
the year 1999-2000.
In fact the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development is forecasting that between 1997 and 1999 Canada will
have the largest decline in debt burden among the G-7 countries.
While we must ensure the continuing decline of the debt, we also
recognize that the tax burden on Canadians is too high and has to
be reduced. That is why we have introduced targeted tax relief
measures in each of our previous budgets. For now these measures
are modest because the so-called fiscal dividend that makes them
possible is still modest. But even so, 90% of all taxpayers will
get some degree of personal income tax relief from our recent
budget.
Some 400,000 low income Canadians will be taken off the tax
rolls entirely. As our financial resources permit we will
broaden tax relief in future budgets.
Of course, some would argue that the dividends should go only to
reducing debt and cutting taxes. In my view this would be
shortsighted and, quite frankly, bad economics. We recognize
that the private sector is the engine of job creation, but
government too has a responsibility to provide leadership in the
economy.
To meet that responsibility we are putting the fiscal dividend
to work by increasing our investments in access to education, in
skills development, in low income families with children and in
health care.
For example, in last month's budget we unveiled the Canadian
opportunities strategy. It is a co-ordinated set of measures to
provide Canadians with enhanced access to knowledge, knowledge
and skills for jobs that can deliver a better standard of living
for the 21st century.
In fact, Bill C-36 implements some very important elements of
this strategy. For example, it establishes the Canadian
millennium scholarship foundation. This arm's length foundation
with an initial endowment of $2.5 billion will award more than
100,000 scholarships each year over 10 years to full and part
time students across Canada.
Scholarships will increase access to post-secondary education
for low and middle income Canadians to prepare them for the jobs
and knowledge based economy of the 21st century.
As the minister of finance said in the 1998 budget speech,
“This investment in the future of our country is the result of
our successful battle against the deficit. It is an investment
that will pay for itself over and over again in the years
ahead”.
The Canada millennium scholarships are, in effect, the largest
single investment ever made by a federal government to support
access to post-secondary education for all Canadians. They will
be awarded to individuals who need help financing their studies
and who demonstrate merit. For full time student scholarships
will average $3,000 a year. Individuals will be able to receive
up to $15,000 over a maximum of four academic years of
undergraduate study.
What this means is that a student receiving a $3,000 scholarship
for four years will in fact see his or her student debt load cut
by $12,000, about half of what it otherwise could have been.
1015
These scholarships are not just for young Canadians at
university. Canadians of all ages studying full or part time in
publicly funded universities, community colleges, vocational and
technical institutes, and cégeps will be eligible. Awards will
help recipients to study away from home, particularly outside
their home province. They will also support limited terms of
studies in other countries.
Student debt has become a heavy burden for many Canadians. In
1990 a graduate completing four years of post-secondary education
faced an average student debt load of about $13,000. By next
year the same graduate's average debt will almost double to
$25,000. At the beginning of this decade less than 8% of student
borrowers had debts larger than $15,000; now almost 40% do.
Last December federal and provincial first ministers agreed that
something must be done to reduce the financial burden on
students. They asked the federal government to take action in
the 1998 budget and we have. Bill C-36 will put in place a
number of provisions that will help individuals manage their
student debt loads.
First, we are increasing the income threshold used to qualify
for interest relief on Canada student loans by 9%. What that
means is that more graduates will be eligible for interest
relief.
Second, we are introducing graduated interest relief which will
extend assistance to more graduates further up the income scale.
Third, for individuals who have used 30 months of interest
relief, we will ask the lending institutions to extend the loan
repayment period to 15 years.
Fourth, if after extending the repayment period to 15 years a
borrower remains in financial difficulty, there will be an
extended interest relief period.
Finally, for the minority of graduates who still remain in
financial difficulties after taking advantage of these relief
measures, we will reduce their student loan principal by as much
as half.
Together these new interest relief measures will help up to
100,000 more borrowers. Over 12,000 borrowers a year will
benefit from the debt reduction when this measure is fully phased
in.
Any long range plan to acquire knowledge and skills for the 21st
century must look ahead to the students of tomorrow. The best
way to help to ensure children's futures is to save for education
today. We want to establish a new partnership to help parents
save for their children's future.
Bill C-36 introduces the Canada education savings grant. What
it does is it makes registered education savings plans even more
attractive.
Beginning January 1, 1998 we will provide a grant of 20% on the
first $2,000 in annual RESP contributions for children up to age
18. That is $400 of grant money per child that would go directly
into an RESP program. With the introduction of this new grant,
RESPs will now be among the most attractive savings vehicles
available to Canadians for their children's education.
Bill C-36 also contains measures for the Canadian opportunities
strategy to help address the urgent problem of youth
unemployment. In this bill we propose to provide employers with
an employment insurance premium holiday for hiring additional
young Canadians. Canadian employers who hire young Canadians
between the ages of 18 and 24 in 1999 and 2000 will be allowed to
take advantage of a premium holiday in employment insurance.
This will increase employment opportunities for youth and reduce
payroll costs for employers by about $100 million over the next
two years.
1020
While the role of education is very important in ensuring
equality of opportunity, the capacity to learn does not begin in
school. It begins at home and depends on the nurturing and
caring provided to the smallest infant.
That is why over the past year federal, provincial and
territorial governments have begun to build a national child
benefit system that will help fight child poverty so as to
provide a good start in life for all Canadians. To build the
system the 1997 federal budget allocated $850 million to create
an enriched and simplified Canada child tax benefit. Bill C-36
implements this commitment.
The new benefit commences in July and provides $1,625 for the
first child and $1,425 for all other children to all families
with incomes up to $21,000. In the future legislation will be
brought forward to implement the commitment in the 1998 budget to
further enrich the child tax benefit by an additional $850
million. The federal government will announce details of this
enrichment after discussions with provincial and territorial
partners and Canadians.
The Canadian opportunities strategy and the child tax benefit
provide diverse and comprehensive assistance to Canadians. These
initiatives will help Canadians acquire the knowledge and skills
they need for better jobs and a better life in the 21st century.
By expanding access to opportunity we are building a stronger
economy and a more secure society. I urge all members in this
House to support Bill C-36 in moving us forward to implement key
elements of our strategy.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure today to rise and lay out why I and the Reform
Party stand in opposition to Bill C-36, the budget implementation
act. I will start by giving the House an overview of the three
big reasons why Reformers stand opposed to this legislation.
The first reason is that there is simply no overarching plan
that really defines the roles and limits of government in this
bill or in fact in any of the previous legislation we have seen
from the government and which really establishes what the
relationship is between government and its citizens.
The second point is that there is simply no solid plan to pay
down the debt in this bill. Canadians have spoken with one voice
from across the country and have said that paying down the debt
is their number one priority. We see nothing that addresses that
need in this legislation.
Finally there is no net tax relief in this legislation. I ask
my friends across the way to note that I used the word net. While
government members would have Canadians across the country
believe that they are going to be better off after this budget,
Canadians will pay more in taxes this year than they paid last
year as a result of Liberal government tax increases.
I ask people to consider those as the reasons for our opposition
to this legislation.
I want to make my point by speaking in the form of a metaphor.
Taxpayers are like the goose that laid the golden egg. In fact
you could say they are like the flock of geese which keep laying
golden eggs. Over the last many years we have seen Ottawa run
around and scoop up those golden eggs as quickly as they are
laid. In some cases the government uses them to run essential
programs and we are grateful for that.
People in Canada value some of the programs they get from
government. They want a strong health care system. All members
acknowledge that. They want a system that ensures they can get a
decent education.
They want a system that will provide vital essential services
like national defence, foreign affairs and criminal justice.
People do not begrudge for a second having to see the golden eggs
that they produce go toward those types of programs.
1025
We also know that much of what taxpayers produce in the form of
revenue or golden eggs for the government is used for things that
are simply not essential. The best example of that is the
interest we have to pay on our debt today as a result of previous
governments that have lived far too high on the hog.
Taxpayers are producing these golden eggs to the tune of about
$45 billion a year just to pay the interest on the debt. The way
it works out is that the average taxpayer in Canada today pays
over $21,000 in federal taxes. Roughly a third of that, $6,000,
goes to pay the interest on the debt.
My point is that these geese are laying a lot of golden eggs
currently and Ottawa is scooping up the huge majority of them.
Ottawa scoops up at least half of all the income of the average
Canadian today. That is a tremendous amount.
As a result we think that these geese who are laying these
golden eggs are feeling more than a little bit abused. They do
not mind seeing the government take its fair share of these
golden eggs, but they get a little incensed when they see the
government eyeing their golden nest egg. That is exactly what is
happening today in Canada.
As a matter of fact members should know that according to the
Fraser Institute, since this government came to power in 1993 we
have seen disposable incomes fall by $3,000 for the average
family of four. We know that in Canada today we have virtually a
negative savings rate. In other words people are having to dip
into their savings to pay their taxes so that the government can
spend more money on all kinds of inane things. Sadly that has
been the case for a long, long time. When those sorts of things
happen, there are real consequences.
What has happened is that we see these Canadian taxpayers, these
geese who are laying these golden eggs, looking to the south.
They are starting to say “We are Canadian geese. We do not want
to go south, but unfortunately we are being forced to consider
that option because we have mouths to feed”. They have all
these goslings that have to be looked after. They have to feed
the people they are responsible for. They are starting to cast
about for other alternatives.
We point to the Nesbitt Burns study which came out not long ago.
It showed that many professionals are fleeing this country for
better opportunities south of the border and in other parts of
the world. That study points out that although there are a few
engineers coming in from other parts of the world, there are a
whole lot more engineers disappearing from this country and going
to places like the United States where they have a far better tax
environment and more opportunity as well. Taxes are lower and
there are more jobs in their field.
We see the same thing happening with people with skills in the
high tech industries, computer scientists for instance. We also
see the same thing with respect to the medical profession with
both doctors and nurses. They are fleeing in droves. I know
that my friends in the House, especially those from smaller
centres, will acknowledge that there is not a doctor in the
country who does not regularly get offers from American
hospitals. Many of them ultimately end up going. As a result
this country has a shortage of physicians.
As a consequence the situation today is people are being
educated in Canadian universities at a tremendous cost to the
Canadian taxpayers. Then we see them quickly leave to go to
other jurisdictions around the world because there just is not
the opportunity here.
The best example is British Columbia. British Columbia today
has the highest taxes in all of North America. We can thank the
provincial NDP government for that, but all of the blame does not
lie there.
We also have to point a finger at the federal government.
1030
In Canada today we have the highest personal income taxes of any
country in the G-7, not by a little but by over 50%. Our income
taxes are 56% higher than the G-7 average. Is it any wonder that
British Columbia today is entering a recession? It has gone from
being the fastest growing economy in Canada to being 10th out of
10 provinces and 2 territories. It is unbelievable.
My friends across the way still continue to fire this tired
rhetoric about the need to invest. That is fine. We understand
the need to invest. However, if one is investing in education
only to see the people who benefit from that education flee the
country in terror at the prospect of having to pay taxes that are
staggering compared to anywhere else in the world, does it make
any sense?
The government talks about a balanced approach. Let us have a
balanced approach but let it be an approach where we see taxes
starting to fall in a meaningful way so that we can remain
competitive with people in the United States, the U.K, Japan and
other countries around the world.
Yesterday I pointed out to the House that we have members in
this place who have seen family members leave for other countries
to make a living. When I talk about this I should also point out
that it is not necessarily just for lower taxes that they leave.
An added incentive is that lower taxes create more jobs and
better paying jobs.
Today the United States which has 4.8% unemployment does not
have to worry about three people chasing every one job. Three
jobs are chasing every one person. It is the complete reverse to
Canada. As a result, wages are much higher, so people can go
down to the United States and essentially command whatever price
they wish.
We recently read in the newspapers the story of Waterloo
university. A third of the graduating class disappeared to the
United States because Microsoft made them an offer they could not
refuse. I was talking to a gentleman who is on the board of
directors of Waterloo university. He raised this issue with me
as a serious consideration. The budget has done nothing to
address that problem.
I know my friends across the way will talk about the tax relief
in the budget. In fact, an hon. member at the beginning of my
speech yelled across the way what about the tax relief in the
budget. It is fair he raised that, but I think it is also fair
for me to point out that Canadians have come out behind as a
result of the government's actions since the beginning of the
year.
Let me explain. It is true that the government will lay out
about $7 billion in tax reductions over the next three years.
However, what my friend across the way would have us forget is
that on January 1 the government produced the biggest tax hike in
Canadian history, a tax hike that will see CPP premiums rise by
73%.
What my friend across the way would also have us forget is that
every year as a result of deindexation of the income tax system
we now have an automatic tax increase called bracket creep that
pushes different people in different income groups into higher
tax brackets as a result of the impact of inflation.
Therefore, in this current year alone the impact of bracket
creep will bring in just over $1 billion in new revenues for the
government, wiping out the $880 million the government is to give
people in tax relief. People are behind. My friends may call
that progress but it is a perverted view of progress. We are
going backward.
It is no wonder we have colleagues in this place who have
children fleeing Canada as economic refugees and going to other
parts of the world. Yesterday I referred to the member for Red
Deer who has three children all living in different parts of the
world because they went where the opportunities were best. What
can they do? Are they to work in some minimum wage job simply so
they can remain in Canada? They cannot do that. They need to
pursue opportunity wherever it is.
1035
My friend from Red Deer has a son who is now teaching at
Princeton. He is a Rhodes scholar but he could not get a
position at a Canadian university so he is teaching at Princeton.
What is going on with this country? He has two daughters. One
is in Norway and one is in the Netherlands. They had to leave to
pursue opportunity. I point to my colleague from Calgary
Southeast who has family members spread out all over the world
because that is the only place they could find jobs to meet their
skill levels. We have a problem.
It is fine for the finance minister to focus on education and
for the parliamentary secretary to wax eloquent about what the
government is doing for education. On the other hand they do not
talk about what people do after they get that education. The
millennium scholarship fund will end up being a subsidy to
Microsoft. It will end up being a subsidy to big American
corporations that scoop up those people who then go to the United
States and other countries around the world. What about the
balanced approach? Why has the government not addressed this
problem?
I was talking a minute ago about British Columbia and I want to
continue down that same path. As I mentioned, British Columbia
is now in a recession. The government was patting itself on the
back during the Liberal convention on the weekend, just about
dislocating its shoulders. It was patting itself on the backs
for the wonderful job it has done with the economy.
The Liberals forget that big chunks of the country are in
serious trouble. Atlantic Canada is certainly in trouble with
double digit unemployment. The fishery is dead. In many parts
of the country there are no prospects.
In British Columbia both the NDP government at the provincial
level and the federal government did what they could to kill the
economy of one of the shining lights of the country. I point to
a specific example of how that impacts on people. I could point
to a number of examples from B.C. but I want to point to a recent
example.
I just received a fax that was actually sent to another member
of Parliament, the member for Edmonton North, by a lady from Port
Moody, B.C. Members may have heard that a byelection is being
held in Port Moody—Coquitlam, so it is interesting we would get
this fax.
This lady is complaining about the amount of tax she has to pay.
She enclosed photocopies of two cheques she sent to the
Receiver General for Canada. At the bottom of the fax it says
“taxes paid in instalments during the year, $46,000, which
represented 23% of a $200,000 profit. The above two cheques are
for profit exceeding the small business tax credit of $200,000,
i.e. these amounts represent 55% of the profit”.
The total amount of these cheques would be somewhere in the
range of $98,000 which they have had to pay in taxes to the
federal government. That is a staggering amount of money.
Is it any wonder the job creating engine of the economy, small
business, is staggering to create the jobs that are necessary? We
still have an unemployment rate of 8.6%. I know my friends
across the way think that is good, but it is almost double the
unemployment rate in the United States. We are nowhere near our
job creating potential. I encourage my friends across the way to
consider that small businesses, the real creators of employment
in Canada, are staggering with the tax levels.
My friends across the way have received visits from members of
the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, one of my
favourite organizations. These people stand up for small
business owners. They stand up for people who are doing all the
things that annoy Liberals. They are hardworking, honest and pay
their taxes. They are complaining bitterly about high taxes.
When will the government understand that $7 billion in tax
relief against probably a $15 billion tax increase means people
are coming out behind? We cannot continue down this road. It is
killing jobs. It is killing opportunity and is driving people
from the country.
This has to come to an end.
1040
I will conclude by asking my friends to look up to the relief on
the wall just above the gallery. They will see a word carved on
the top of it. The word is “tax” carved in stone. How
appropriate that in the House of Commons in Canada we have a
shrine to taxes, but that is indeed the case.
Under the word “tax” we see a family sitting on a bench. It
looks as though it is a very gloomy looking family. There is a
mother, a father and a child. They are sitting on the bench
probably in the ante-room of the minister of finance or perhaps
in Revenue Canada, waiting to find out the verdict after they
have submitted their income tax for the year. I guarantee they
will be sorely disappointed. We know in Canada today they would
find out they owe half their income to government.
The symbolism of having that relief on the wall is interesting.
It is the only tax relief we have in Canada today. There it sits
almost directly over the head of the finance minister and almost
in direct alignment with the finance minister. That symbolism
speaks volumes. It speaks more eloquently to our situation than
I ever could.
There are a couple of interesting symbols just below that
family. One of them very appropriately is a serpent, a snake.
Somehow to me that symbolizes the government's approach to
dealing with taxpayers. At the very bottom we see a whale. I
think we should take that to represent government which has
become huge and consumes about 46% of the wealth of the economy
every year. The final figure is the man with the briefcase just
on the right hand side.
Mr. Charlie Penson: The taxman.
Mr. Monte Solberg: The taxman. The member for Peace
River has correctly identified the taxman. We see his briefcase
bulging with proceeds he has taken from individual taxpayers
across the country.
I encourage people to reflect upon this tax relief, the only tax
relief we have, sitting above the head of the finance minister,
and to consider the symbolism of that piece of work above the
public gallery. It speaks volumes about where the country is and
perhaps even speaks to a perversity the government has in
honouring taxes that I do not think should be honoured.
I conclude with the following amendment. I move:
That all the words after the word “that” be deleted and the
following substituted therefor:
this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-36, an act
to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
Parliament on February 24, 1998, since the principle of the bill,
while charging the consolidated revenue fund to establish and
fund the Canadian millennium scholarship foundation, fails to
guarantee that appropriate and objective accounting standards
will be followed as advocated by the auditor general.
The Deputy Speaker: There seems to be a hue and cry for
questions and comments. I should advise the House that on 40
minute speeches, as this one was, there are no questions or
comments. I know it was shorter than 40 minutes but the rule is
the rule.
1045
In the opinion of the Chair the amendment moved by the hon.
member for Medicine Hat is in order and therefore I put it to the
House.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Since there was some expression of interest in interrogating and
cross-examining the member for Medicine Hat, I would ask that you
seek unanimous consent to extend his time by 10 minutes so that
debate can take place.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House wish to give unanimous
consent for a question or comment period consequent on the speech
of the hon. member for Medicine Hat?
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid there is not consent.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberals are having fun and we are wondering why. They should be
working at meeting the needs of the public instead of making
jokes as they always, or almost always, do when we deliver
speeches on the real issues.
We have before us Bill C-36 to implement certain provisions of
the last budget tabled by the Minister of Finance.
I am pleased to speak on these provisions and I would like, for
openers, to define what we expect from this budget and which
expectations have not been met through Bill C-36 before us, which
implements certain provisions of the budget for 1998-99.
Just a few months ago and during the election campaign as well,
we asked the Minister of Finance to pay special attention to
actions that adversely affect the provinces. Since he tabled his
first budget in 1994, the Minister of Finance has made cut after
cut after cut in transfer payments for social assistance,
postsecondary education and health.
He has cut back so dramatically that 52% of the success achieved
in terms of balancing the budget and restoring health to the
public finances has in fact been achieved through the sacrifices
the provinces have had to make because of the drastic cuts made
by the Minister of Finance.
This means that 52% or most of the sacrifices were made by the
provinces, which are really the ones who restored the public
finances to health.
We therefore ask that the government take a very simple measure,
which was proposed last year by Quebec Premier Bouchard and
approved by all the premiers across Canada.
The government was asked to use, over the next two fiscal years,
that is to say 1998-99 and 1999-2000, 50% of the forecast surplus
in tax points—the real surplus, not the one given in the Minister
of Finance's budget, with its rounded down and close to
falsified figures—to counteract the harm done to Quebec and to the
rest of Canada, in the health sector for instance.
A transfer of just 50% of the surplus in tax points, in an area
that would become wholly provincial in the coming years, would be
sufficient to remedy the increasingly irremediable harm the
Minister of Finance has done to health, social assistance and
higher education.
The Minister of Finance refused to respond. He even refused to
acknowledge that the provinces had inherited the entire
responsibility for putting federal public finances in order.
1050
During the election campaign, as well as in the months following
it, we also called repeatedly upon the Minister of Finance to
change the way he was handling employment insurance and the EI
fund.
We proposed three changes which reflected a consensus not only
among Quebeckers, but among all Canadians, about the program and
the way the fund made up of employer and employee contributions
was being managed. Let us not forget that the federal government
has not put a red cent into the fund for years. The employers
and employees are the ones who contribute year in and year out to
the surpluses. Because of the high rates that have been set,
they are contributing to the huge surpluses the fund has
generated, to the tune of $6 billion yearly.
We therefore called for three things relating to the employment
insurance fund. First, that the Minister of Finance stop using
the surplus to put his financial books in order. The employment
insurance fund is in place for two reasons: to support those who
are without work, and to attempt to help them back into the work
force.
Instead, the Minister of Finance has been shamelessly pocketing
the surplus, and continues to do so. He has not met the
expectations of the Bloc Quebecois. He is still pocketing this
$6 billion annually in order to build up a spectacular surplus
and make himself look good as Minister of Finance.
Second, we called for a substantial reduction in EI premiums in
order to boost job creation. The surplus in the EI fund did not
just miraculously fall down from heaven.
If there are surpluses, it is as a result of the excessive
contributions employers and employees have to make. This limits
our job creation capacity. In Quebec, Ontario, the west,
British Columbia and in the maritimes, employers and
entrepreneurs are saying so, and even unions are saying so.
Not only has the Minister of Finance not reduced contribution
rates substantially, as we asked, but he has kept them at an
even higher rate. We talked about an overall drop in
contribution rates of $3 billion, half of the surplus in the
employment insurance fund.
The Minister of Finance gave us a few tens of millions of
dollars in reductions, which has no significant impact on job
creation.
The third change we sought, which was not in the budget speech
and is not in Bill C-36, is the creation of an independent fund
with the employment insurance fund, independent of the
government's general balance sheet, so that we may follow the
progress of contributions, the size of the fund and the
contributions made by employers and employees, and ensure that
the fund is really managed appropriately for the labour market.
The auditor general has also asked for this and he has received
no response from the Minister of Finance in the budget or in Bill
C-36, which implements some of its provisions.
We called for a significant reduction in people's taxes.
Some 52% of the results obtained in the effort to improve public
funds are due to the provinces' efforts. Bernard Landry and
Lucien Bouchard in Quebec did the work there, to the tune of 52%,
and not the Minister of Finance.
Taxpayers' share in improving public funds in the past four years
amounts to 37% of the total effort. In other words, since the
Minister of Finance has been in his position, since he has become
a part time shipowner—sometimes he is full time, it depends on
the bills he introduces—Quebec and Canadian taxpayers have paid
over $30 billion more in taxes than they should have, had the
Minister of Finance indexed the tax tables and made a targeted
reduction in individual and SMB taxes, as we asked him to do.
Instead, however, he preferred to keep taxes high. These levels,
together with the lack of changes in tax rules, to indexing, for
example, have resulted in taxpayers paying $30 billion more in
taxes than they should have.
1055
The Minister of Finance took $30 billion out of our pockets.
This means that 32% of the budgetary effort is not the result of
his own efforts, of his department's efforts, or of his
innovative spirit—I would rather not talk about the minister's
innovative spirit—but of the efforts made by the provinces and
the taxpayers.
If the minister's estimates had been based on the proper data—
and we will get back to this later on—if the minister had shown
the true picture in terms of expenditures and revenues, in terms
of the surpluses generated over the years, he could have made a
substantial effort to reduce personal and even corporate taxes,
but he did not, even though it would have been desirable.
The minister could have done even more to alleviate the burden
of taxpayers and businesses if he had listened to us. For four
years now, we have been telling him—with the figures to support
our claim—that it is possible to reform Canada's individual and
corporate tax system and to get rid of all the obsolete
provisions that no longer meet the needs of our businesses—in
the context of globalization and competitiveness—and of our
families, given the current socioeconomic reality.
The first question we asked the Minister of Finance when we got
here was when would a true tax reform take place to improve our
system and increase our ability to reduce taxes and better manage
revenues.
The minister made us wait. We waited for the first two years,
since his inaction left us with no choice. But in the second year
we told ourselves that if the Minister of Finance could not take
his responsibilities, if he was not innovative enough to come up
with a new way to collect taxes—that is to say a more efficient
and beneficial way for society as a whole, and not just for the
federal government—we would propose ways to do it.
We wrote over 300 pages of suggestions to reform personal and
corporate taxes. When we tabled our document, the Minister of
Finance said we had done a great job, a job that required
incredible dedication.
It is no laughing matter trying to clean up the Canadian
taxation system, which has remained basically unchanged since the
Carter Commission in the later 1960s. It is not easy to pick
your way through it and identify those measures that still serve
a purpose as opposed to those that no longer serve any purpose at
all, but which are costing Revenue Canada a lot of money.
Taxpayers must not forget that every time some person or some
business somewhere does not pay taxes or avoids paying part of
the taxes they would normally have had to pay, had it not been
for some outdated tax loophole, which does nothing for society or
the economy, but which is there because it has been almost or
completely forgotten, or because the Minister of Finance lacked
the resolve to do anything about it, it is the average taxpayer
who makes up for what the business or rich individual should have
paid but did not because of this loophole. We have to remember
that.
So, the Minister of Finance had four years to undertake a
complete overhaul of the taxation system. He did nothing, and
we see the results. Over the last four years, taxpayers have
paid $30 billion more in taxes, and the much-heralded cuts over
the next three years pale in comparison to what could have been
achieved, and in comparison to what has disappeared from
taxpayers' pockets through the inertia and ineptitude of the
Minister of Finance.
We also asked the Minister of Finance something else—and he did
not listen to us—and that was not to create new programs. He he
turned a deaf ear and did as he pleased.
He acted as though nobody existed but himself and created new
programs with the assistance of his Prime Minister, who delights
in leaving his symbolic mark on Canadian political history.
He went ahead and created a new program, one we detest, called
the millennium scholarship fund.
1100
This is a program we detest because it encroaches, and
shamelessly to boot, into an area of jurisdiction which
generations and generations of politicians, generations of
premiers as well, starting back in the 1960s with Jean Lesage,
have jealously guarded as exclusive to Quebec.
According to philosopher Jacques Danton, a people's first need,
after bread, is education. Education is the backbone of the
survival and progress of every nation. Education gives us
everything we need to understand. It tells us where we come
from, who we are, who we want to become. Education is the basis
of any people's survival.
We understood this in Quebec years ago, and being federalist or
sovereignist does not change it in the least. When it comes down
to it, every Quebecker is a nationalist. When it comes down to
it, every Quebecker wants his people to continue to survive, to
progress, to expand as an international presence, to endure for
as long as it is possible to imagine.
One of the cornerstones of our longevity as a people, one of the
cornerstones of our strength as a people, our economic strength
as well as our cultural strength, the strength to which we owe
our existence, is education.
Each time the federal government has lifted a finger to interfere
in education, or a federal political party or its leader has
talked of education, of Canada-wide standards, of making our
children take tests, we in Quebec have risen up in opposition.
Even some federalists have joined forces with the sovereignists
to point out how deeply rooted our belief in education as our
prerogative is rooted, so deeply rooted in our convictions that
we rise up in aggressive opposition as soon as actions are taken,
or words spoken, that point to the possibility of federal
intrusion into education in Quebec.
The millennium fund, the millennium scholarships, which are
without a doubt the Prime Minister's idea of the way he can
leave his mark on the verge of the 21st century, are totally
unacceptable to us. This is something we will fight against
until our last breath.
It raises a hue and cry in Quebec and will continue to do so in
the coming months and years. We will never agree to their
investing in this field. We will not let them put their foot in
the door in order to gain more entry and to take the education
sector away from the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and make it
either shared or the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal
government.
We will never let anyone tell us Quebeckers, francophones most of
us, what our children will have to learn in school or what they
will be tested on in exams at the end of the year. No one but
ourselves will test their skills.
We will use every means we have to block the implementation of
the millennium scholarship fund and to ensure that what the
Quebec premier, Lucien Bouchard, and minister of education
Pauline Marois have called for comes to pass.
They are calling for the withdrawal of the millennium
scholarships, with full compensation for Quebec, given Quebec's
exclusive jurisdiction over education.
We will repeat this demand ad nauseam. We will also denounce ad
nauseam in this House and elsewhere the claims of the federal
government.
This matter really energizes my colleagues in the Bloc and
myself, because it symbolizes perfectly what we have always
opposed in the federal government and what the Prime Minister has
always presented as the centralizing claim of the federal
government. We will put all our energy into it and get into the
thick of it to make sure that this so thoroughly detested program
never makes it to Quebec.
It is not just the way this intrusion into Quebec's exclusive
jurisdiction was forced on us, but also the way it was
presented, that obliges us to reject it.
1105
I am referring to the Minister of Finance's accounting practices.
For four years now—members can check Hansard—there were always
questions about the Minister of Finance's dubious public
accounting practices. I am not alone, nor is my party, in having
raised this problem of borderline accounting practices. Two or
three times, to my knowledge, the auditor general singled out the
Minister of Finance because of his less than orthodox approach to
accounting.
I mention the example of the millennium fund because it comes up
in Bill C-36 before us this morning.
In the case of the millennium fund, from which initial grants to
so-called deserving students will not be made until the year
2000, the full amount of $2.5 billion has been posted to this
fiscal year, that is, 1998-99, when—and I would like to repeat
this—the first millennium scholarships will not be handed out
until the year 2000. Immediately this year, they slap down the
cost of a program that will not be implemented until the year
2000. This makes no sense.
There is no accounting rule by which one may honestly attribute
to the current budget expenditures that will be made only in two
years' time. Once again, the auditor general criticized the
finance minister's approach. On leaving the House and reading
the budget, we also criticized his way of doing things.
This is not the first time, and we will return to this a little
later on.
This method of accounting produces the following sort of
nonsense. On page 12 of the 1998 budget plan “Building Canada
for the 21st Century”, incomplete data are used to show that the
government's budgetary balance, in other words the deficit or
surplus, will be 0.0 in 1997-98, 0.0 in 1998-99 and 0.0 in
1999-2000. This is partly due to the fact that the $2.5 billion
of the millennium fund has been posted under this fiscal year,
when payments will not actually be made until the year 2000. An
actual surplus of $2.5 billion that could have been generated
this year has already been removed.
It is not for reasons of prevention that this amount has been set
aside, because it will be spent in any event on items other than
the millennium fund. What it boils down to is that the Minister
of Finance has gotten us used to his fiddling with the numbers.
He is literally cooking the books, and we are not the only ones
to say so.
The day after the budget was tabled, all serious financial
analysts—whether they are federalists or sovereignists—said it
did not make any sense. There is a budget plan, but we do not
really know where we stand, because of things like the $2.5
billion for the millennium scholarship foundation which the
government has already posted to this fiscal year. It is becoming
impossible to make proper estimates. We can no longer say whether
the expenditures and revenues indicated are appropriate, because
the figures were fixed. The government made sure that, for every
year, its expenditures would be more or less equal to its
revenues, so as to arrive at a balanced budget. It is a shame to
present things in this fashion.
Mr. Michel Guimond: It is all done with smoke and mirrors.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Precisely. This is unacceptable. This is an
outrageous approach.
The public expects some openness on the part of the Minister of
Finance, who should present the true figures, the true situation,
the true expenditures for this year, for next year and for three
years down the road. The minister should not include in the 1998
budget expenditures that the government will only make in the
year 2000, and make it look as if the money was going to be spent
this year. These figures make no sense.
People are tired of the government's treating them like idiots
who cannot understand balanced budgets and realistic estimates,
as opposed to unrealistic, cooked up estimates such as those
presented by the Minister of Finance.
1110
Just six months after the Bloc Quebecois presented its deficit
forecast for the year ending in April 1997, we anticipated the
deficit would be approximately $10 million. With the meagre means
available to us as an opposition party, we were nonetheless able
take a pencil and paper—we also used a computer, which
helped—to forecast what the deficit would be for the next six
months. We also looked at the deficit forecasts for the previous
year.
We asked the Minister of Finance whether it was true that, far
from reaching about $19 billion or $20 billion, as mentioned in
the last budget, the deficit for 1997-98 would actually be
approximately $10 billion.
The minister stood up angrily and almost threw his budget papers
at us as he replied that this was nonsense and that we were just
throwing out figures.
Six months later, in Vancouver, he confirmed that our figures
were right. Six months later, he admitted his forecast was off
by 63%.
If we were able to make calculations with a pencil and a
computer, it seems to me that, with the help of the hundreds of
officials and experts at Finance Canada and Revenue Canada, he
could have come up with figures that more accurately matched
reality, but he never did. From the very first budget the
minister brought down in 1994, we have been presented with
nothing but hogwash, making it impossible to see where we are at.
Now the Minister of Finance is making himself look good because
all that matters to him, the champion of surpluses, of
jack-in-the-box budget surpluses, is the Guinness Book of Records.
But that is not what the people want. What they want is honesty
and openness from their Minister of Finance.
They want to be given the straight goods, not the sort of
nonsense we are being dished up, especially in the last budget.
In 1996, the Minister of Finance pulled the same trick he is
pulling now with the millennium fund. He included in the 1996
budget the $1 billion in compensation unfairly paid to the
maritimes, when this compensation should have appeared after the
maritime provinces harmonized their PST and GST, in other words
this year, in 1998. He put down $1 billion under fiscal 1996-97,
two years in advance, when the actual expenditure came two years
later.
What he is doing is not right, and he should look out, because we
are getting a little tired of the way he presents things and
takes us for something we are not.
The Minister of Finance should look out, because of these
examples and because of many others it would take too long to go
into here. For instance, why does the finance minister not
create an independent EI fund? The answer is that he likes to
hide the truth. He knows that he can easily help himself to $6
billion annually from the EI fund. This does not show up
anywhere because there is no specific entry showing that the
Minister of Finance is going to help himself to $6 billion from
the EI fund. He puts it under general revenue. The Minister of
Finance's refusal to create an independent fund strengthens our
feeling that he has things to hide, that he is not telling us the
truth.
The Minister of Finance is really starting to get on our nerves.
We began to doubt his integrity, especially when he introduced
Bill C-28, which is 464 pages long and which contains two
paragraphs on his international shipping companies, and did so
without warning, on the sly. When the opposition discovered
these two paragraphs, which could mean tax benefits for him, he
turned to his ethics counsellor, Howard Wilson, who is paid by
the Prime Minister's office to save his neck.
People will realize one day, and I hope they will come to
understand it from our arguments, that they have been had, that
the Minister of Finance is playing tricks on them, that he did
not tell them the truth, that he presented incorrect figures and
that he asked them, in recent years, to make unprecedented
sacrifices in terms of the excess taxes they have paid. Thirty
billion dollars in four years ain't peanuts.
He also asked them to make unwarranted sacrifices in the area of
social assistance.
He asked the provinces, in particular, and the poor as well, to
make unwarranted sacrifices. He also asked students to make
extraordinary sacrifices and he is now asking the sick to make
extraordinary sacrifices.
1115
Injecting $1.5 billion a year over the next three years is not
going to change anything. People have to know that, in addition
to cooking the figures, the Minister of Finance is cooking the
facts.
In 1995, he brought down a budget that had a domino effect. He
announced once in it—he did not dare say it a second time,
because he was ashamed—that the social transfers to the
provinces to help fund social assistance, higher education and
health would be cut annually.
Instead of cancelling the cuts, he announces millennium
scholarships for some students, in the amount of $2.5 billion
but only starting in the year 2000, as well as $1.5 billion more
for the health care system for the next three years. Although the
Minister of Finance does not put it that way—the way it is
presented is very hypocritical—he is cutting $6 billion per
year until the year 2003 from transfers to the provinces. There
are $30 billion in cuts still to come.
On the government side, they are bursting with pride over this.
Either out of ignorance or ill will, I do not know which, they
are telling us “The government has heeded the people's cry of
alarm, and will put $1.5 billion per year into health”. My foot
they will! They will cut $6 billion per year from health and
social programs. That is the reality. They will take $30
billion dollars away from it between now and the year 2003.
That figure is a very long way from the $1.5 billion they are
putting back into health. They have just made $30 billion in
cuts, mostly from health.
The bottom line, then, is that in his 1995 plan the Minister of
Finance forecast cuts of $48 billion in health, transfer payments
to the provinces to fund health care, higher education and
welfare. Now, he is all proud to announce that he will not be
cutting $48 billion, but only $42 billion. There is nothing in
this government's measures, or the implementation of part of
what was forecast in the latest budget via Bill C-36, to be proud
of.
This budget—and my hon. colleagues will have the opportunity to
return to this point—contains other unacceptable measures which do
not reflect what people wanted.
For the most part, it contains some general measures which will
not provide all those who have done the Minister of Finance's
work for him, in other words getting public finances back on an
even keel, with any reward for all their efforts over the past
four years to achieve that result.
The very day of the budget speech, the public's reaction of those
really responsible was obvious. People were angry with the
Minister of Finance. They felt it was ungrateful of him to make
them do the work and then to boast about his wonderful
accomplishments over the past four years. Those who are really
responsible, and who received nothing in return, will not forget
this.
When the Minister of Finance asks them to co-operate on
federal-provincial programs, I doubt he will be successful, and I
am not only referring to Quebec—because our province will not
forget the millennium scholarship fund—but to the other
provinces as well. When Mr. Romanow said he was speaking on
behalf of the other premiers in Canada and felt like going after
the Minister of Finance to get what he is owed, his statement may
have signalled the beginning of more strained relations between
the federal and provincial governments.
It seems to me the Minister of Finance had always told the
provinces, directly or indirectly, that some day, when our
fiscal house was in better shape, he would compensate them for
some of the sacrifices they had made. That time has now come,
with the last budget and with the next three years.
The Minister of Finance never had a kind word for his provincial
counterparts and for all those poor people who had to put up
with his savage and drastic cuts. The minister will pay for this.
1120
His integrity will also take a beating, because he has been
hiding the real budget figures for the past four years. The
result of hiding the real figures, of fixing them, of almost
falsifying them—to the point where editorialist Alain Dubuc
wrote in La Presse that the budget was almost misleading—is that
the finance minister's integrity appears to be vulnerable.
Moreover, the minister is sponsoring bills to benefit his own
foreign shipping businesses in Liberia, Barbados, the Bahamas and
elsewhere. That takes the cake, as far as I am concerned.
Throughout the second reading of this bill, we will point out
certain aspects of Bill C-36 relating to the budget, including
those that I just mentioned.
We are going to repeat them over and over again, and that is not
all. Outside the House, we are going to launch a real public
information campaign so that people know what sort of
government, what sort of finance minister, they are up against,
who is really responsible for the problems in the health sector.
The guilty party is not Mr. Rochon in Quebec City, but the
Minister of Finance here in the House of Commons in Ottawa. These
are things we are going to say and keep on saying.
We have not done with the business of the finance minister's
ships. If members opposite think we are going to work ourselves
into a state over Bill C-28 and the finance minister's apparent
conflict of interest while they look all innocent, they are
mistaken. We are not about to give up. At the least, the
minister appears to be in conflict of interest.
He could be in total conflict of interest. I am convinced that
he made a mistake in introducing this bill and that he made a
mistake in approving a bill that will favour his offshore
shipping holding company and shelter it completely from Revenue
Canada's reach.
That having been said, I turn the floor over to my other
colleagues. They will examine other very important aspects of
the finance minister's last budget as they relate to Bill C-36.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, it is
always an honour to stand in this House at any time but I am
particularly pleased today to participate in the debate on Bill
C-36, the budget implementation act.
In his budget speech last month the finance minister
congratulated himself and the government for balancing the budget
after almost 30 years. Bill C-36 which is before us today puts
in place the mechanisms to carry out certain provisions outlined
in that budget.
My adopted province is Saskatchewan. Our party, which is now
the New Democratic Party and before that the Co-operative
Commonwealth Federation party, has been in government for most of
the last 45 years in the province of Saskatchewan. We have had
some financial messes to clean up.
Of our previous premiers, I think of Tommy Douglas who inherited
an atrocious mess from the provincial Liberals back in 1944. As
premier of the CCF and later the NDP government of the province
he proceeded to balance the books for a full 20 years.
In the 1970s the NDP government under Allan Blakeney, for whom I
had the privilege to work for a time, guided the province of
Saskatchewan for 11 years. In every one of those years the
Blakeney government delivered at least a balanced budget and in
many of those years modest surpluses.
The Conservatives came to power in 1982. They virtually
bankrupted the province of Saskatchewan. They managed to run up
huge deficits, basically $1 billion each and every year for the
nine years. It was clearly the worst government in the history
of the province of Saskatchewan. It probably can be fairly said
it was the worst provincial or territorial government in the
history of Canada.
The Devine government was succeeded in 1991 by the Romanow
administration which inherited this enormous mess. Over the past
seven years in the best traditions of social democratic fashion,
the Romanow government has gone back to work and the results have
been stunning.
The Saskatchewan budget for 1998-99 was tabled last week. For
the fifth year in a row the Saskatchewan budget is balanced.
1125
The point I am trying to make is that there are great
differences in how Saskatchewan and Ottawa have achieved the goal
of balanced budgets.
This year Saskatchewan was again able to balance its books as I
have said, but at the same time it has increased spending on
health care, education and on getting more children out of
poverty. There is more money for agriculture and highways. The
provincial budget also includes increased investment in jobs and
economic growth. This is after totally eliminating the deficit.
Saskatchewan continues to pay down the debt inherited from the
Devine administration by an additional $500 million in this
fiscal year.
As I said yesterday when we were debating Bill C-28, it is
backfilling every dime the federal government has taken out of
medicare as a result of slashing transfer payments to the
provinces in 1995 and the years thereafter. To preserve and
protect this country's health care system particularly in the
province of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan has put back in every
dollar that the federal government has taken out.
This is a stunning achievement. As Saskatchewan finance
minister Eric Cline indicated last week, the credit belongs to
the people of that province. As the minister said, those people
are now seeing the benefits which flow from the sacrifices they
had to endure in the past several years.
The Saskatchewan budget is one thing. The federal Liberal
budget is quite another. In my humble opinion it is a cynical
budget, a testament to the black art of accounting.
The finance department always hires slick, highly paid media
professionals to put a positive spin on the budgets. In 1995 the
government did its polling. There were focus groups in advance
of the tabling of the budget and it was found that Canadians
would stomach no more tax increases. Therefore the finance
department packaged a budget that contained few new tax
increases.
All the television news programs began that budget evening with
the Peter Mansbridges and the Lloyd Robertsons saying “Budget
'95, no new taxes”. Of course that was not the case. What the
1995 federal budget did contain was an unprecedented attack on
health, education and social programs, on unemployment insurance
and billions of dollars in cutbacks in transfers to the provinces
as I indicated a moment ago.
Those same or similar spin doctors are at work once again. This
time they are patting themselves on the back by saying that they
balanced the budget. Don't worry, be happy. Happy days are here
again.
The Minister of Finance in the federal Chamber has to hope that
Canadians have short memories about these billions of dollars
that have been slashed from spending on education, health care,
unemployment insurance and agriculture.
The minister now announces that he will not proceed with further
cuts scheduled for this year on health care for example and then
he portrays this somehow as new spending and new money. Having
mugged Canadians for five years, he now gives them 35 cents and
urges them to go and purchase some coffee.
[Translation]
Let us look for a moment at what is missing from the budget, and
therefore from Bill C-36. There is nothing to put right the
damage done by the minister's earlier budgets to medicare. Not
so very long ago, we heard on the news that Edmonton hospitals
were having to send patients to Saskatoon because no beds were
available. This is what the Liberals have done for health care.
What else is missing from this budget, and therefore from Bill
C-36?
There is no new investment in jobs for young people, no
objectives for reducing overall unemployment, no objectives for
reducing child poverty, no drug plan, no home care. The
government may not have a deficit in 1998, but ordinary Canadians
do.
1130
We have a social deficit. Who is paying for this deficit? It is
children living in poverty, the unemployed, students abandoning
their studies because they are too deep in debt.
Take the case of the really nice young man who worked in our
office recently. After finishing two years of university, he
had to quit because he owed too much money. The minister
announces that Canada no longer has a deficit, but things are
very different for this young man.
[English]
What else is not in the budget? The budget speech was entirely
silent on agriculture. The minister spoke in this House for
almost 90 minutes and the word agriculture never passed his lips.
Furthermore, in a 275 page document which was tabled relating to
the budget there were a mere 16 lines about rural Canada. Most
of that space was devoted to reminding us that the minister
provided additional money to the Farm Credit Corporation last
year.
The only current spending mentioned for agriculture is $20
million spread over five years and throughout several government
departments.
Federal government spending in support of agriculture and the
agri-food sector has declined drastically throughout this decade.
Spending has tumbled from $6 billion in 1991 to less than $2
billion in 1997. This year's budget confirms even further cuts.
We submit that the Liberals are dismantling rural Canada piece
by piece. They are closing post offices and allowing the
railways to double freight rates on grain and tear up
branchlines. They have totally forgotten rural Canadians.
One might well ask where the agriculture minister is in all of
this. Where is the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat
Board or the Minister of Transport? What are they doing to
represent the interests of rural Canadians at the cabinet table?
The answer clearly is not much.
Farmers and other rural dwellers have sacrificed enormously in
the fight against the federal deficit. The finance minister now
says that the battle has been won, but these same people could be
well forgiven for asking if we are any better off than we were
when the Liberals were re-elected five years ago.
I want to turn to post-secondary education and the millennium
fund.
I said that this is a cynical budget and nowhere is that more
clear than in its centrepiece, the millennium fund which has been
much touted by Liberal members opposite. Part I of Bill C-36
deals with the fund's foundation and its board of directors.
This scholarship fund is a clear example of the budget being used
as a tool of ideology, as the speaker before me so well indicated
and documented. The Liberals have used the fight against the
deficit as an excuse to pursue privatization throughout the
economy. Now they will use new spending to privatize education.
Here is how it will work. In 1995 and the years following, the
federal government withheld billions of dollars in transfers to
the provinces for education. Universities and technical
institutes have been starved for funds. Their roofs leak and
buildings threaten to collapse onto students. The universities
were desperate for money and raised tuition fees to the point
where university graduates with a debt of only $25,000 should
consider themselves fortunate. After years of starving students
the finance minister has announced this wonderful new scholarship
fund which he says will be worth $2.5 billion.
Let us deconstruct this for a moment. The millennium fund is
announced with great fanfare in February 1998, although it does
not actually begin until the year 2000. Coincidentally, that
will be when the Liberals begin their run-up for the next federal
election, but I digress. Tens of thousands of students will face
another $10,000 of debt each before the scholarship fund ever
kicks in. All the analyses indicate that at best the fund will
help only about 7%, perhaps less, of Canada's post-secondary
students.
1135
The minister tells us that this fund will be established by a
private foundation, and Bill C-36 provides for its establishment.
This foundation will determine which students are worthy of
receiving these scholarships. The foundation then has an amazing
amount of power to decide who is and who is not worthy of
receiving a scholarship. Indirectly the foundation's board,
appointed by this government, will have great power to decide
which educational programs are worthy of support. Is there any
chance, for example, that the foundation will reward those
students enrolling in university courses which focus on programs
that business has been demanding all along?
As I have said before, we believe that this is the Liberal's
first step in privatizing education, just as they have privatized
so many other things. Having starved our public system of
education, they now establish a fund for those individuals whom
someone else will decide are worthy enough to attend.
What about those who do not qualify for millennium fund
scholarships? As of this budget their parents are told that they
can cash in their RRSPs to help pay for their children's tuition
fees.
People in Canada are more insecure than ever. Study after study
shows that real wages and family incomes have been static or
declining for years. People are selling the family silver or, in
this case, the family RRSPs to help pay for the education of
their daughters and sons.
This is the brave new world of the Liberals. The deficit and
now the surplus is being used to support a growing gap between
those who are wealthy in our society and those who are poor or of
modest means. This growing inequality is continuing and I would
like to elaborate on it by quoting a prominent citizen.
What kind of society do we have, when we see these gigantic
salaries up there and these huge amounts of poverty down here? I
think that we are reaching the point of absurdity, in terms of
inequalities. There is third world poverty in this country. It
is beyond belief.
Any guesses as to who might have said this? Would it have been
the leader of our party, the member of Parliament for Halifax, or
perhaps the head of the National Anti-Poverty Organization? The
answer is no. This is a quote from the federal Minister of
Finance in an interview with the editorial board of the Ottawa
Citizen. Did he really mean it? What was he up to?
Perhaps he was casting himself for a part as a left Liberal, but
he quickly decided that he did not want to be in that play after
all. It has been reported in the news media that finance
department officials told their minister not to make that kind of
statement again. He certainly has not.
Surely the Minister of Finance knows, however, that the chief
executive officers of the Bank of Montreal and the Royal Bank
have take-home pay in excess of $10 million a year when stock
options are considered. This is hundreds, even thousands of
times what the average bank employee earns. Matthew Barrett
might make an argument for a salary which is 10 to 20 times
higher than that of a bank teller, but it is simply unjust for
him to take $10 million a year. I very much like the suggestion
made recently by the United Church of Canada that we do not only
need a minimum wage in this country, we need a maximum wage as
well.
In the meantime, these millionaire CEOs want their banks to
merge even though Canada already has the most concentrated
banking sector in the G-7 group of countries. Even the CEOs
admit that the merger would result in the shredding of 10% of
their workforce which amounts to about 10,000 people. We believe
that the job loss would be much higher than that, probably in the
magnitude of 25% of the staff or more than 20,000 jobs in the
banking industry overall. The NDP is going to fight this merger
every step of the way. I believe that we will be the only party
to do that.
What is the finance minister's answer to this proposed merger
and to the massive job losses that would occur? We are waiting
for it. He has certainly looked uncomfortable when attempting to
answer questions in question period on the topic.
1140
The minister and the Liberals remain the champions of big
business. We see this in spades in their unqualified support for
the MAI, which has been called a bill of rights for corporations
and the NAFTA on steroids.
I listened with interest an hour or so ago when the member for
Medicine Hat was talking about the number of Canadians who have
to flee Canada or leave Canada. Perhaps flee is too strong a
word, but they choose to leave Canada because there are greater
opportunities elsewhere.
But there is another side to the story the member did not talk
about, which deserves to be talked about, and that is the flight
of capital from this country. Successful entrepreneurs are
making the decision that, having earned large sums of money here,
they will now take their business and move it offshore where they
can avoid paying taxes of any kind, or very modest taxes.
I guess for me there is no greater example of that than the New
Brunswick multi-billionaire, Mr. K.C. Irving, who left a will a
few years ago for his sons, turning over all of the assets of his
very successful business to the children on the condition that
they could not live in Canada. In other words, they had to go to
a tax haven offshore, the Cayman Islands or perhaps the Bahamas,
where they would pay no taxes.
Those are the kinds of things that all freely elected
governments will have to deal with in the years to come. I would
suggest that it is far more important that countries like those
in the OECD deal with these kinds of issues rather than the
multilateral agreement on investment.
For too long the Conservative, Reform and Liberal parties have
had it their way. They have convinced many people that there was
no alternative to the attacks on our communities, our public
institutions and our families. I submit that is changing. I
think, for example, of the broadly based coalition working for
fair trade and against the MAI. I think of our party's work in
the alternative budget coalition with other social movements.
Together we believe we can provide economic alternatives that
once again will put people first.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, in listening to the hon.
member's speech, I would ask if rural Canadians will not benefit
from reduced taxes. Will the children from rural Canada not be
able to attend higher universities, educational institutions, and
have access to the millennium fund and the Canadian opportunities
strategy in order to further their education and be able to
compete?
This budget allows farmers and other self-employed business
people to deduct premiums for health care. This would put them
in line with other businesses. Do they not benefit from this
type of initiative?
I also remind the member of the elimination of the surtax on
incomes below $50,000. Does that not benefit Canadian farmers
and rural Canada?
The member talks about rural Canada as though it were not a part
of Canada, as though it were not benefiting from the initiatives
in this budget. I want the hon. member to answer to that.
Students from rural Canada who are dealing with student debt
will benefit from this budget.
I also want to mention that in my riding of Stoney Creek we have
a substantial amount of grape growing and winemaking. Brock
University put in place a university course for winemaking.
Students in the rural part of my riding will be able to access,
through the Canada millennium scholarship fund, education courses
at Brock University. Do they not benefit from these types of
initiatives?
Rural Canadians benefit from a balanced budget. Rural Canadians
benefit from low inflation and low interest rates. The hon.
member must stand in his place and admit that rural Canada will
benefit from the achievements of this government.
He may not agree with everything that we are doing but I cannot
possibly accept the fact that he says this government has done
absolutely nothing for rural Canada.
1145
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, people in rural Canada
will benefit from having a balanced budget, and some very minor
nod on reduced taxes.
The point in the references to agriculture was primarily how
much has been slashed from the agriculture and agri-food budget
by this government over the past number of years. It had gone
from $6 billion in the early 1990s to $2 billion today for a drop
of $4 billion. I contrast that in terms of the farming
community, especially grain farmers in western Canada who have
played an enormous role in helping this government balance its
books by exports of grain and oilseeds. They have been rewarded
by seeing their grain transportation rates doubling and in some
cases even tripling as a result. They are now faced with low
commodity prices.
The point I attempted to make is this government has retrenched
in terms of its commitment to agriculture and the result has been
much lower expectations in the agricultural community.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I thank my colleague for everything he said. I totally
agree with what he said. I would like his opinion on a few
issues.
What is in the budget for regions that have very high
unemployment rates and for the regions that are running out of
unemployment because the UI program has been totally dismantled?
What is in the budget to help somebody on a waiting list for
months for heart surgery? What is in the budget to help a
student who has a $50,000 loan? What is in the budget to help
the people who are now paying 15% of the BST we have in New
Brunswick and Nova Scotia that we now pay 15% on heating fuel?
What is in the budget to help the people who now have to pay on
the toll highways in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia? What is in
the budget for the people who have all these additional burdens
and still have absolutely no jobs?
Could my colleague help Canadians across this country figure out
what is in the budget to help all these people who are suffering
today?
Mr. Dick Proctor: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for
the question.
The unemployment rate remains very disturbing, as has been
mentioned by a number of other speakers in this debate today.
There is absolutely nothing that we can point to specially in the
budget that will have any impact on reducing that. In this
country in recent years we have gone from an unemployment
insurance system that basically paid claims in the area of 85% to
90% to well under 50% of claimants receiving any kind of
employment insurance when they present themselves to the
officials. This is as a result of the changes from unemployment
insurance to employment insurance.
In terms of waiting lists in hospitals and other medical
facilities around the country, it is not a very encouraging
sight. The lists are growing. We read about it every day. There
is no new money in this budget. They are just taking less away
from us to help the provinces alleviate that condition.
1150
I touched on student loans in my remarks. I think the
scholarship millennium fund will, as I indicated, help less than
7% of students. A number of students have debtloads in the range
of American universities now. When I was a university student
many decades ago, we had a very low rate of tuition fees. It was
possible to graduate from university with a modest debt, as was
my case, and to get it paid off. Students today are looking at
$30,000 to $35,000 worth of debt. It is a horrendous figure with
virtually no way out.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. Did the NDP in
the last election not call for a student assistance program that
would give qualified students access to post-secondary education?
Have not we, the Liberals, actually delivered on that NDP plan in
our millennium fund? Should we not be applauded for that?
Did the NDP not call for increased capital and research funding
to restore and renew post-secondary facilities? Have not we, the
Liberals, in the last two budgets increased funding to research
granting councils? In this last budget and in the prior budget
did we not provide $800 million to create the Canada foundation
for innovation?
Did the NDP not also ask for investing in families with measures
such as access to high quality child care and support for
parents? Does not the increase in the child care tax deduction
by $2,000 partially deliver on that promise? Should we not be
applauded for that as well?
Mr. Dick Proctor: Madam Speaker, in view of the lack of
time, I will confine my remarks to the first point raised by the
hon. member concerning education.
I think it is fair to say that this party, given the
opportunity, would never have introduced a scholarship millennium
fund similar to the one we are debating here and now. The
problem for us is that the transfer money should go back to the
provinces and the territories and not in the way that it is being
done here where it is being handed out in some sort of way yet to
be determined for individual students.
The government has cut back significantly on post-secondary
education and on the facilities. It would have been much better
if the money had been put back into those facilities so that
tuition fees could be reduced and programs could be enhanced. For
political reasons the Liberals have chosen to go at it another
way.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Madam
Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak on Bill C-36. It has
been nearly a month since the Minister of Finance marvelled to all
who would listen to the upside of his balanced budget.
My message today for those who find their conscience in favour
of this bill is to reflect on the tired but relevant cliche, that
this budget is only as strong as its weakest link.
Let us not fool ourselves by standing here in the House and
declaring this country has a cause to rejoice. Let us examine
some of the weakest links of this so-called balanced budget,
which even the auditor general cannot endorse.
As of this day, Canadians are still the highest taxed
individuals in the G-7. While Canadians' personal disposable
income decreased, the incomes of our G-7 neighbour to the south
increased. The Canadian standard of living is 25% lower than
that of the United States and this gap continues to expand.
Youth unemployment figures are staggering yet the government
continues to lack a plan to address the issue.
Just last week the CIBC reported that some 200,000 unemployed
youth do not appear on the government's books. All the wonderful
news of 85,000 new full time jobs being created did nothing to
help young Canadians support themselves. Our current statistics
show that our youth unemployment rate is twice that of the United
States.
1155
These points tell me the minister has become obsessed with this
new agenda and sweeps the issues of the individual under the
carpet.
What did the budget do for tax relief in this country? We see
the 3% deficit surtax being slowly eliminated. Leading Canadian
economists agree that tax relief is essential to job creation and
prosperity. In fact, the Minister of Finance has said so on
different occasions himself.
Catherine Swift from the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business, who shares a key factor of the Progressive Conservative
platform, stated that further tax cuts would help business create
jobs, something the government should listen to: “We are still
not seeing a major job creation agenda here and from a small
business job creator's standpoint, that really should be the
prime target”.
This government lacks transparency in the area of employment
insurance. The auditor general criticized it for using
employment insurance to reduce the deficit when the system was
not set up for this purpose.
In the budget the government boasted of reducing all taxes by $7
billion over three years. Yet the same government is taking $6
billion annually out of taxpayer pockets. To my knowledge this
is the only government to establish an unemployment plan for
Canadians. It creates more unemployment, raises taxes and taxes
employment insurance. That is what its policy is doing.
When the Liberals are asked to reduce contributions they say no,
that does not work, it will not create real employment. Yet in
the budget they are doing just that for people between the ages
of 18 and 24 for two years only. When they are asked why, it is
to create employment. If it works for young people aged 18 to
24, will it not work for people aged 45 to 55? Unemployment is
too high in Canada? No, they believe only in minor measures and
always to save face.
The minister had an opportunity to follow his own wisdom and
make substantial cuts to the surplus, cuts that would have given
every wage earner in the country more disposable income and
therefore given businesses the cashflow essential to create jobs.
Even more shocking, if the Minister of Finance had consulted his
own cabinet colleagues he would have found the industry minister
agrees with the PC Party that tax cuts in Ontario have increased
job creation and spurred economic growth. Instead of aiding
Canadians directly with significant payroll tax relief, he elects
only to respond to their needs by phasing out the 3% deficit
surtax.
What Canadians do not know yet is that the Liberal government
will soon be introducing the single largest tax hike in Canadian
history by increasing Canada pension plan premiums. What has
taken place here is that we see the 3% surtax totalling $1.6
billion phased out and replaced with a tax hike that dwarfs all
its predecessors, bringing it to $2 billion.
It is as though we are at a carnival. While Canadians guess
which cup the peanut is under the minister continues to shuffle
and dazzle the crowd. In the last election we saw the carnival
booted out of Atlantic and western Canada.
Ontario and Quebec are his last stage because sooner or later
people will see the costs of the minister's games.
1200
Let us take a look at another weak link in the budget, the great
Canadian brain drain. Provincial premiers made it clear they
wanted from the budget a return of the billions in cuts from
transfer payments that devastated health care, social programs
and education programs.
For years now education has been a responsibility of the
provinces. At a time when we have another potential national
crisis on the horizon, the Liberal government elects to drive a
wedge into interprovincial relations by creating the millennium
fund. It has set aside for the fortunate class of 2000 and
beyond $2.5 billion to assist some 7% of all students to further
their education. In my mind it is a modern day Avro Arrow
program.
If substantial tax cuts are not made to create jobs, we place
graduates on graduation day in Seattle. Someone should point out
to the Minister of Finance that “sleepless in Seattle” was just
a figure of speech in a movie. At the present time Bill Gates at
Microsoft has extended a standing offer to all Waterloo computer
science graduates and the result is that over 80% of them are
going to the United States.
My home province of New Brunswick, which has invested
significant dollars into information technology training schools,
cannot retain the graduates it produces because it is not able to
compete with the U.S. market. We see the same exodus across the
country. It is disturbing to think that a large portion of the
$2.5 billion will benefit the U.S. economy.
Why go to the U.S. one may ask. For one the jobs are there.
Wages are higher and taxes are lower. Yet other students were
forgotten. What about the students of today and next year? They
were simply forgotten, not to mention the 97% who will not
benefit from the millennium fund in the next century. They will
not forget on graduation day as they watch Canada customs in
their rear view mirror.
Let us consider the comments of Sherry Cooper, chief economist
at Nesbitt Burns, who said broad based tax relief was crucial to
our economic future. She said:
We are pouring all this money into education and scholarships,
and then the better and brighter will go straight to the United
States where taxes are massively lower.
The Liberals have feed the brain drain from this country.
Instead of taking measures to be at the forefront of an emerging
information technology industry, they have decided to finance
another country's efforts. When one steps back and examines the
links in this chain, one comes to a quick realization that the
government has abandoned our social policies.
Our society expects government to take care of the elderly,
young people, workers and other individuals facing personal
crises and in need of a helping hand. These values are not to be
sacrificed. Canadians will not allow what makes the country so
unique to be altered, yet they know these values come at a price.
The goal for any government is to balance values against fiscal
responsibility. Some may think this is blatantly obvious, but as
I read the budget I realize these fundamental principles or links
in the chain were well worth repeating.
The government has ignored these concepts and values. It claims
to be sympathetic, yet it threatens seniors with a hidden project
it never unveiled as part of its platform.
1205
Canadian seniors rely on three basic sources of income. The
government has systematically attacked the retirement savings
systems since it has taken office. It has done so in piecemeal
fashion with the bottom line as its consideration. It has not
addressed the fundamental questions of what kind of retirement
assistance Canadians need and want or what are the best ways for
government to ensure Canadians are secure in their retirement.
Some would ask why the seniors benefit is an issue. Let us
state the obvious. It certainly was not an issue in the budget.
In fact, the government has gone back to the drawing board
because of the flaws my party exposed in the seniors benefit.
The Liberals proposed to eliminate the OAS, the pension income
tax credit, the age credit and the GIS. To date they have
refused to provide a full and proper analysis of how these
measures would affect retired Canadians in the future.
The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is committed to
forcing the government to disclose fully to Canadians the
financial impact of the proposed seniors benefit. Canadians of
all ages must understand its consequences. The Liberal
government must not be allowed to destroy the foundation of our
national pension system.
The government claims to be concerned about workers, but the
budget has nothing to do with the famous Liberal election battle
cry. Not so long ago a chant fell on Canadians' ears shouted by
the Prime Minister proclaiming jobs, jobs and more jobs. In the
budget it resembles less than a flattering wailing of a trombone.
Middle and lower income Canadians needed to hear from the budget
a trumpet of hope, for hope is what keeps the disparaged
committed to protecting the values of our society. When hope is
lost so are our motivations, our strength and our willingness to
endure.
In closing, we share with the Prime Minister of Canada and so
too taxpayers that the budget was one trick pony where even the
word balanced could not be endorsed by the auditor general. The
minister may feel that his spread sheet's bottom line is
balanced, but his trust to serve and protect the values of the
people have been wrapped in chains with many weak links. Once
broken they will break free and bring true balance to our
economy.
My party believes that it is time for Canada to have a strong
plan for growth in our economy. We need to get our foot off the
brake. For us this means lowering taxes by reducing EI premiums
by about one-third to create jobs and lowering taxes by
increasing the basic exemption for Canadians to $10,000 to allow
lower income Canadians to earn more and buy more of the essential
goods they need.
This is a government which has a great opportunity to launch us
on a new path, to close the chapter of deficits, and to start us
on a new path. It should set a target for debt reduction so that
we are able to measure our performance and to live in a political
environment where we can go to our neighbours and say that
together we need to limit spending to keep it under control. If
we do, we will meet a specific target. When we get there we will
be able to reduce taxes further.
1210
If we create that kind of political environment we will all
increase our chances of succeeding. Those should have been
lessons learned in the budget. Our party firmly believes that we
need a plan for economic growth. The budget is more than just
about numbers. It is about values. It is about the choices we
make. It is not good enough to shift numbers around.
Some parties would say they would put more money into education
but then they would cut equalization. The position we have taken
is that there would be more money put into education by building
a new deal with provincial governments. Then there would be a
health care guarantee for all Canadians and we could leave
provincial governments alone.
We believe in a plan for stronger economic growth. We can
reallocate priorities. We can put the emphasis on education,
health and guaranteed services to Canadians. It requires the
political will, the vision and the foresight to make it happen. I
am sorry to say this is something that was not part of the
budget.
The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and I cannot and
will not support Bill C-36 because it was merely a numbers game
that has left our country and our people suffering today with
little hope.
One could conclude that the budget should be judged by its
weakest link or by the missing links of the Minister of Finance.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, when my hon. colleague first began his speech he
quoted Catherine Swift, president of CFIB, and made a statement
regarding her reaction to the budget.
I would like to quote from Catherine Swift as reported on
February 25 in the Ottawa Citizen:
The biggest thing in there for small business was income tax
reduction. Putting more money into people's hands is good for
the economy. From a political standpoint it was a good budget.
There was a little something for everyone and a huge amount of
wiggle room which would allow the debt to be paid down faster.
Regarding his quotation of Catherine Swift and whether she had
more time to digest the good budget the hon. minister brought
down, how could he say that it was negative? The day after the
budget she indicated that she was quite in favour of it.
Mr. Jean Dubé: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
giving me a chance to get back up to speak on this point.
One good thing about the budget is that it is balanced. Why is
the budget balanced? Is it because of Liberal government
procedures? I do not think so and people know that is not what
it is all about.
It is about measures, sacrifices made by Canadians. We are
talking about free trade, which they voted against. We are
talking about GST, which was unpopular. They also voted against
that. We are talking about surtaxes, where the money comes from.
I cannot say that the government has not done anything. I will
be honest. I could not say that. I would be lying and I do not
like to lie. I am not a liar. The government has done
something. It has cut transfer payments to provinces which
affect social programs, education and health care.
Nobody knows more than Canadians the effect of these slashes.
People are looking for beds in hospitals throughout Canada and
cannot find them. Students are trying to obtain post-secondary
education to compete in the global market and are unable to
finance it. This is what the government has done.
Social programs in regions in great need of social programs have
been slashed.
People are starving. People are suffering. To say that you have
done nothing, I could not do that. There is a lot that we can
do. I hope that we have the ability and the political will to do
so.
1215
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member raised the issue of hope.
I would like to sincerely invite him to my riding of
Elgin—Middlesex—London and show him a community that during the
waning days of the last Tory government probably suffered through
the worst recession in its history. It had an unemployment rate
of well over 16% or 17%. Factories were moving out of our
community en masse.
I would bring him down to the community now and show him that
our unemployment rate has roughly been cut in half, if not
better. We have investments from companies all over the world.
If he wants to see a more hopeful, optimistic community, have him
come to Elgin—Middlesex—London.
I would also like to suggest that the story in my riding is not
unique. It is being repeated all across the country.
The point about Canadians having the highest income taxes in the
industrialized world is something we hear from the Conservatives.
It is something we hear from their kissing cousins the Reform
Party. The fact of the matter is that a truer picture of tax
fairness includes all taxes. The opposition repeatedly distorts
the facts by focusing on selected tax measures.
Total tax revenue for all levels of governments stood at 36.1%
of GDP in 1994. This puts Canada in the middle of the G-7
countries. Canada relies more than most countries on income tax
and less on payroll and sales taxes which increases tax fairness.
My main point is that in October 1997 a study conducted by KPMG,
an international consulting firm, concluded that Canada has lower
overall business costs than the United States and Europe,
including the lowest overall tax burden of the seven nations
studied.
Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you
again for giving me another opportunity to get up and speak on
this.
I would like to ask a question of the hon. member. What planet
is he on? We all know that we are the highest taxed country in
the G-7.
He also mentioned that I should visit his riding. I would like
to bring to his attention my riding, the people I represent. He
mentioned 19.5% or something like that. I will give him the
number from my riding. How does 50% unemployment sound? It does
not sound very good. I hear comments of bravo from the other
side, but I would not say that to the people of New Brunswick,
the people of Madawaska—Restigouche who are suffering today
because of the cuts in transfer payments that the government has
made.
The cuts to the EI, the reform of the Employment Insurance Act
have put these people against the wall. I invite him to come to
my riding and see these people, maybe consult with them. I
invite the government to come to my riding and consult with these
people and maybe find solutions to this chronic problem. It is
not more EI. It is to find solutions.
My Reform colleagues next to me would do away with EI and do
away with Atlantic Canada. That is what they would do. It would
start in Ontario. We know what they think.
We have a responsibility to all Canadians. We have to study
what has been going on in different parts of the country. It is
not just to throw money at the regions with the highest levels of
unemployment. It is to find solutions.
I invite the hon. member to my riding as well.
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member
would tell us how he would allocate the fiscal dividend. On
$100, how much would he put to the debt, how much to investments
in education and health and how much to tax reduction?
1220
Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I agree that we have to
attack the debt. We have said this all along. We need to have a
balance. We need to balance debt reduction with our social
responsibilities. If we can do that, we will find a way to
please all Canadians, including those in central Canada and all
the people in need. There is a balance to be found and we should
look for it.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks made by the
hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche, the riding next to mine in
New Brunswick. I agree with him that we would indeed have
expected a bill like this one to put back a much more substantial
amount into transfer payments so that the provinces will have
enough money to provide health care.
The Liberal government and its supporters claim, on the one
hand, that health should be a priority and at the same time
drastically cut transfer payments, starving the provinces as the
result, and on the other hand, they say “We are going to develop
a home care system”. Imagine the federal government involved in
home care.
Does the hon. member agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Human Resources Development, who stated this
morning that the whole employment insurance issue was not an
urgent matter? He said that we could take our time, that there
was no rush to take action on this issue.
Will the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche, whose riding,
like mine, is struggling with high unemployment and the problems
associated with seasonal industries, comment on this position,
which should have been reflected in the bill before us? Does this
not go to show how insensitive the Liberals can be not only for
eastern Quebec but also for all the maritime provinces?
Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question. I agree with him entirely.
As he knows, at my first committee meeting, I moved that we study
the impact of the employment insurance reform, because I come
from a region that is hard hit by unemployment.
I am disappointed by the committee's decision this morning,
because this matter warrants study urgently, in fact more than
study, because the employment insurance reforms have already
been studied. The study did not reveal much. What needs to be
done is for us to visit the regions, like those of my colleague
and myself, to see what the employment insurance reforms have
meant for the people. That would be much better for everyone.
order
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, discussions
have been held among the members of all the parties and primarily
the member for Shefford on the division scheduled for Thursday,
March 26, 1998 on Motion M-198. You will find unanimous consent
for the following motion:
That, at the
conclusion of the debate Thursday, March 26, 1998, on Motion
M-198 under the name of the Member for Shefford, all
questions necessary to dispose of the said motion shall be
deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and
deferred until Tuesday, March 31, 1998, at the expiry of the
time provided for Private Members' Business.
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, I want to address the government
whip's point of order, on clarification.
I moved an amendment to the motion in question. Will the vote on
the amendment be deferred the same way as the vote on the main
motion? If so, we would support the government whip's motion.
1225
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, and I apologize to the
member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques for
failing to discuss with him, because we need approval from him
and the members involved. It is certainly our intention to have
the vote on the amendment the same evening, on Tuesday.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[English]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-36, an act to
implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament
on February 24, 1998; and of the amendment.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from
Elgin—Middlesex—London.
I am proud to speak in full and complete support of the
government's budgetary measures. On behalf of my constituents I
am also pleased to express their points of view on the budget. I
have heard from many local residents in the month since the
budget was first delivered on February 24 by the hon. Minister of
Finance.
To me, families in rural Canada are the biggest winners in this
budget, with $7 billion in tax cuts, $13 billion in debt
reduction already this year and appropriate investments in health
care and education. These are some of the items that my
constituents have mentioned to me. I believe we are on the right
track and must continue this course.
This budget is a balance between new spending and tax or debt
reduction. The Minister of Finance has clearly accomplished
that. For example, the elimination of the 3% income surtax for
people earning under $50,000 and increasing the basic personal
exemption are two measures that will reduce taxes for 90% of
Canadians, especially low and middle income earners who form the
vast majority of constituents in my riding of
Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.
My riding is an assortment of small towns, villages and hamlets,
with the two largest centres having populations of approximately
12,000. I was delighted to declare that rural and small town
families are getting relief.
With the first balanced budget in 28 years and two more
predicted to the year 2000, the Liberal government has targeted
its efforts on the economic and social priorities that are
important in my riding. These are items such as support for
families with children, support for looking after ailing family
members, increased access to knowledge and skills with more money
for rural Internet access, help for small business owners to hire
young people, and to enable them to deduct their own dental and
health insurance.
As the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have stated,
Canada has cut up its credit card. The era of overspending is
behind us forever. I know that my constituents are breathing a
sigh of relief. They want their hard-earned tax dollars to be
spent wisely and prudently. People should expect nothing less
from their government. We are delivering and will continue to do
so.
As well, our goal is to put the horrendous national debt on a
permanent downward track. Last year it dropped for the first
time in a generation with more reductions to come to preserve our
financial future as a country.
More help for families came in the form of an enriched child tax
benefit. The 1997 budget allocated $850 million to the benefit.
This year we will increase that by another $850 million over the
next few years.
To help working Canadians with children, we will increase the
child care deduction limit from $5,000 to $7,000 for children
under the age of seven, and from $3,000 to $4,000 for children
between the ages of seven and sixteen. This will assist about
65,000 Canadian families with children. It is yet another piece
of good news from the budget.
Small business is the backbone of my riding. Entrepreneurs,
service providers, corner stores, farm implements dealers and the
farmers are all involved in our communities and make a positive
economic impact.
If a small business hires someone between the ages of 18 and 24
in 1999 or 2000, their employment insurance premiums will be
reduced to zero for those new hires. This will reduce payroll
costs for the employers by $100 million a year. This is on top
of the EI rate reductions announced in January. Both these
actions could reduce payroll costs by $1.4 billion.
To improve equity in the tax treatment of self-employed
Canadians, all owner operators of businesses will be able to
deduct premiums for health and dental insurance against their
business incomes.
This is certainly an excellent step forward. In addition, the
federal government will benefit the nearly 500 volunteer
firefighters in Lambton county and the many more in Kent and
Middlesex which are in my riding.
1230
The tax free allowance has been doubled from $500 to $1,000. Mr.
Don Crocker, Moore township's fire chief and Lambton county's
fire co-ordinator, says: “It is a big deal for them, a big
impact for the volunteers, manning the county's 20 primary rural
Lambton stations. It is a big plus for volunteers. They are
spending an awful lot of time and getting very little for it. I
think it is wonderful”.
There are nearly 22,000 volunteer firefighters in the province
of Ontario, so we can plainly see this budget is positive for
rural Canada.
Camalachie fire chief Gerry Dochstader can attest to the low
wages paid to volunteers. Some are paid on a points system,
others get compensation from their municipality. The extra tax
deduction will help, he says, in a February 26 article in the
Sarnia Observer: “It is like compensation for the wear and
tear of your car, tearing down to the fire station at 3 o'clock
in the morning, whipping out on Sunday calls while still in your
good clothes. For what we ask the rural firefighters they are
given very, very little in return”.
The tax allowance covers the cost of clothes damaged in fires,
special equipment, steel toed boots and other expenses they incur
as volunteer emergency workers.
Many of Canada's important industries such as agriculture are
based in rural communities. These primary industries account for
almost half of Canada's exports. My riding includes some of the
best dairy farmers in Ontario. Kent County is the number one
corn growing region in the country and Middlesex is home to
chicken, egg, beef and pork producers. Agriculture is the
lifeblood of my riding and of southwestern Ontario.
The 1998 budget confirms the four year $20 million Canadian
rural partnership initiative. This will support innovative
programs to help rural Canadians find community solutions to
challenges such as maintaining good soil and water and charting a
successful course in a rapidly changing economy.
In addition, $30 million over three years has been provided to
an expanded community access program. This excellent program
will provide an Internet connection for virtually every community
with 400 or more residents by the end of the year 2000.
I was pleased to recently announce on behalf of the Minister of
Industry up to $15,000 in Internet funding for several libraries
in my riding. I am confident that all of them will be hooked up
to the information highway very soon.
Children and adults alike are using the services provided and I
have heard nothing but great reviews.
Rural communities will also benefit from the $50 million capital
injection in the Farm Credit Corporation announced in the 1997
budget. These additional funds will be used to encourage
economic growth and diversification.
With fiscal discipline, targeted tax reductions and strategic
investments, the 1998 budget is working for rural Canadians and
all Canadians.
The budget marks a significant accomplishment for Canada. Tough
fiscal control has gotten us this far, and we are not about to
let up. Spending must continue to be constrained and federal
spending has dropped to its lowest level in 50 years relative to
the GDP. For the first time in half a century the Minister of
Finance will be produce three consecutive balanced budgets, a
remarkable symbol of financial stability on the world markets.
I am proud to be a part of the building of Canada and
Lambton—Kent—Middlesex for the 21st century. We will lead all
industrialized nations in economic growth this year and next. We
can finally look forward to the future with renewed hope and
optimism.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to applaud the hon. member for her speech and
ask her to comment on the following.
The budget set out a number of issues but the one I was most
pleased with was tax relief for low and middle income Canadians.
Beginning July 1, 1998 the basic personal exemption will
increase, meaning 400,000 low income Canadians will no longer pay
any federal income tax.
1235
Beginning July 1 the 3% general surtax will be eliminated for
Canadians with incomes up to about $50,000 and reduced for those
with incomes up to $65,000. These two measures alone will yield
close to $1.4 billion in tax relief for 14 million low and middle
income Canadians by 1999 and the year 2000 90% of all taxpayers.
I ask the hon. member whether this focused targeted tax relief
for those who need it most is being well received in her riding
or perhaps she could give what comments on the tax relief she is
getting in her own community.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon.
colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London for the question. I can
certainly attest as to the calls that have been coming into my
riding office. With the budgets that this government has
produced over the last four plus years we have never really had
many negative calls.
They were always positive, that the finance minister was
certainly addressing the deficit. Many of the calls I received
complimented the minister for exceeding his targets, which has
not happened in several years.
The positive element within my community is the same for this
budget as it has been in previous budgets the minister has
delivered.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I too
represent and was born in a rural riding. I do not know what
planet my distinguished colleague from the government party
comes from. In my riding, however, I have heard but one piece of
praise for the February 24 budget, and that was for the two years
of employment insurance premium exemptions for employers hiring
workers between the ages of 18 and 24.
I have, however, heard plenty of criticism about the lack of
anything to do with job creation. Nothing has been done to
reduce the poverty rate in Canada and to close the widening gap
between rich and poor.
Dr. Wagner of St. Hyacinthe even asked the leader of the Liberal
Party to backtrack on the cuts, particularly those to health.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague from the government side a
question. Is there in her riding anything like the AFEAS of
Thetford, which is in my riding, a group of women who have
flooded their MP with letters asking him or her to call upon the
government, more specifically the minister of finance, to
backtrack on the issue of calculating family income when women
begin to collect the old age pension at 65?
It is common knowledge that women are, unfortunately, the ones
who will be penalized when the time comes for them to collect
their old age pensions.
[English]
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon.
colleague for his question. I am pleased to say that I am on the
same planet he is in this wonderfully great country called
Canada.
I appreciate his question. I have not received any negative
comments from any women's groups or old age pensioners. The old
age pensioners in the riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex are
fully aware of the fact that the minister is reviewing the old
age pension, the GIS and so on. There has not been any indication
in this budget regarding that.
On health care, which is brought up continuously in this House,
the federal government's cutting transfer payments to the
provinces, I will relate specifically to my province of Ontario.
When Mr. Harris ran in the last election he promised a $4.5
billion tax cut. Unfortunately the federal government has
allocated dollars now and the provinces choose to divide it up.
Wherever provinces decide to divide it, it is up to each province
to decide whether to put it in health care or social programs.
Unfortunately it is reaping a negative impact in Ontario under
the circumstances with the massive tax cuts the premier wishes to
do.
1240
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on the implementation bill
and add my comments to the budget debate.
As many members have stated, this budget is very historic. I
think all our Liberal budgets have been somewhat historic but
this budget is historic because it can bring in renewed optimism
and renewed hope. We are now embarking on an age when we will no
longer say that with reliance on federal government support
things are going to get worse. We can now begin to say that we
have reached the bottom and things can get better.
More needs to be done. Many people in this country are hurting
and many people are not sharing in the prosperity that is
generally around the land. I will return to that point toward the
end of my speech. Let me highlight what I think are the major
accomplishments in the budget.
Against the backdrop of unemployment dropping very rapidly in my
own community, as I mentioned in one of my comments earlier,
since 1993 or thereabouts the unemployment rate has dropped
probably from around 16% to about 8%. We are seeing a gradual
but steady month over month decline of the unemployment rate
which is fundamentally the most important statistic that we can
talk about. It is more important than the balanced budget. It
is more important than tax relief. Jobs are the real issue in
this country. When people have the dignity of work they are more
hopeful for their existence and more hopeful as a community.
Having said that, however, we cannot underestimate how important
balancing the budget is. Not until we balance the budget can we
start to deal with the major issue of the debt. By balancing
the budget we know that as the economy grows both in real terms
and in inflationary terms and as we pay down the debt the
proportion of the debt as a percentage of our economy is going to
get smaller very quickly.
If we have approximately 2% growth on an annual basis combined
with approximately 2% inflation we can expect that the debt as a
percentage of the economy will be cut in half in merely 10 years
or thereabouts. That is a tremendous achievement. It is all
based on having a balanced budget.
In promising a balanced budget this year, next year and the year
after, the finance minister has put us on the road to solid
recovery.
When I look at how things have changed in my own community since
we took office in 1993, I see a change from a community which
suffered a terrible recession in the late 1980s and early 1990s
to one where the prosperity level is very high. I see examples
of this where the Magna automobile corporation is making a huge
investment in my riding. Approximately 1,000 jobs will be
created in a new plant Magna is putting in. Freightliner is
making a major investment to build highway trucks in my riding.
The unemployment rate has been cut in half over the past five
years. Farm incomes are up. By and large things are clearly
better off now than they were in 1993. People expect them to be
even better over the next five years. The message of this budget
really is that things are going to get better.
The highlight of this budget is balance. Not only is it
balanced this year, it will be balanced for the next two years.
Members of the opposition like to talk about how many times the
government raises tax and they bring out numbers, 37 times. Why
do they not congratulate us for the tax relief in this budget?
It is not enough. We need to lower taxes even more. It is a step
in the right direction. I believe quite firmly it is a trend.
Because of the changes announced in the budget, 400,000 Canadians
will no longer be paying any federal tax at all. That represents
approximately 1,200 people in my own community.
The budget sets priorities, investing in education with the
millennium scholarship fund, investing in children with the
announcement of a second $850 million for the child tax benefit
of which I am very proud.
1245
Let me talk about what opposition members said previously and
ask them why they are not applauding the budget. The Reform
Party stated in its campaign that a Reform government would
balance the federal budget by March 31, 1999. The leader of the
Reform Party promised that in 1996 in Fresh Start. Lo and behold
we balanced the budget a full year earlier than the Leader of the
Opposition promised to do.
The Leader of the Opposition also said in Fresh Start that after
a Reform government balanced the budget annual surpluses would be
used to reinvest in the Canadian economy through lower taxes, to
increase spending on health and education, and begin to reduce
the debt. That sounds very much like Liberal policy. Perhaps
the Leader of the Opposition is really a Liberal, but I do not
think so.
Reform's suggestion for tax relief calls for measures found in
the 1998 budget. The basic personal amount would be increased
from $6,456 to $7,900. At least we went one-third of the way,
albeit means tested. The 3% and 5% surtaxes of the Tories would
be eliminated. We went part of the way and I am hopeful we will
go the rest of the way. Students would be allowed to claim a tax
deduction for interest payments on student loans. Lo and behold
the Liberal government adopted just such a policy. Do we hear
the Reform Party applauding us? No. Job killing payroll taxes
paid by employers would be reduced. We reduced the EI premiums
again, effective in 1998.
I will turn my attention to the Bloc for a moment. The BQ urged
the federal government to use the $3 billion it saves annually as
a result of this review to encourage small and medium size
business as well as very small businesses to create jobs. This
reduction in tax burden for businesses could take the form of tax
holidays linked to business performance with respect to creating
jobs and helping youth enter the job market.
The 1998 budget delivers. To encourage employers to hire young
Canadians, the budget proposes to give employers an EI holiday
per additional young Canadian between the ages of 18 and 24 hired
between 1999 and 2000. Should the Bloc Quebecois not be
applauding us for this measure?
As with the new hires program in operation in 1997 and 1998,
employers will be allowed to stop paying premiums when they reach
the 1998 level of payroll or they can claim a rebate when filing
their tax forms. This will reduce payroll costs for employers by
about $100 million a year for 1999 and 2000. Is that enough? Do
EI premiums need to come down even more? They certainly do but
at least it is the start of a trend.
The New Democratic Party called for an increase in capital and
research funding to restore and renew post-secondary facilities.
The Liberal budget increases funding to research granting
councils. Our budget of last year provided $800 million to
create the Canada Foundation for Innovation. Should the NDP not
be applauding these measures?
The NDP also asked for investment in families with measures such
as access to high quality child care and support for parents. Our
budget increased the child care deduction by $2,000 per child. I
have three children who attend day care. That will amount to
$6,000, a significant amount, and the government should be
applauded for that.
I will turn last to the Progressive Conservatives. The leader
of the Tory party promised a balanced budget by the year 2000.
That was in its 1997 election platform, “Let the Future Begin”.
Only two years later we delivered a zero deficit. Should the
Tories not be saying the Liberals brought in a balanced budget
two full years before they could do it?
The leader of the Tories said repeatedly that we must reduce EI
taxes when over their nine years in office the Tories increased
EI premiums four times from $2 to $3. The Liberal government has
reduced EI premium rates each year since 1994 from $3.07 that
year to $2.70 this year, and hopefully they will go down even
further.
The Tory's 1997 platform promised to start a $100 million
Canadian merit scholarship program. Our 1998 budget introduced a
$2.5 billion millennium scholarship fund. Surely the Tories can
applaud us for investing in higher education. The Tories
promised to make CPP self-financing, which we did with Bill C-2,
and called for the cash floor of the CHST to be raised to $12.5
billion. Lo and behold we have done just that and I would expect
the Conservatives to applaud.
The Tory plan for growth asked for the basic exemption to rise.
It asked for the 3% surtax, the Tory gift to the taxpayers, to
end and for a tax credit for interest on student loans. All
these measures are in our 1998 budget.
I ask all members of the House to support our budget because it
is not only balanced from a fiscal point of view. It is balanced
in terms of providing tax relief, debt reduction and much needed
reinvestment in social programs.
1250
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
member across the way cites a number of positive highlights from
the budget. One of the things he concentrated on and pointed out
was the fact that reducing EI premiums and the payroll burden
would stimulate jobs, put people back to work and have long term
benefits.
Given the huge surplus that the EI program shows and the fact
that less than 40% of unemployed workers now qualify for EI, I
would suggest energy should have been directed toward increasing
the eligibility or lowering the bar for eligibility so more
unemployed workers qualify. This would put more money into the
system and have more unemployed people actually spending and
thereby stimulating the economy.
What empirical evidence could the member cite to illustrate that
dropping the payroll burden by 20 cents per $100 from $2.90 per
hundred to $2.70 would result in stimulating job growth or
showing a lasting benefit, given the flip side of the coin? With
a $750 million per month surplus, we should be allowing more
unemployed people to collect benefits rather than be cut off due
to the stringent eligibility rules.
Mr. Gar Knutson: Mr. Speaker, let me address the preamble
to the question. I agree with the hon. member. I think an
unemployment system that covers only 42% is a real problem. The
government and all members of the House need to turn our
attention in a creative way to making constructive suggestions on
how to change the EI system so that it covers more Canadians.
However, I think we should learn from the lessons of the past.
Perhaps writing someone a cheque on a biweekly basis may or may
not make them more job ready for the economy that is coming as we
move into the next century. We have to find ways to use the EI
fund in a more creative manner. We have to find ways to use it
so that it supports appropriate training or retraining in the
adult workforce and people can find meaningful long term jobs.
By using the surplus in valid legitimate ways which will help
people find lifelong jobs that pay decent wages is something we
need to turn our minds to. I agree with the hon. member on that.
The argument about whether to lower premiums or increase
benefits to unemployed people is somewhat a phoney debate. We
can afford to do both. Certainly we do not want to lower
premiums to the point where we have to raise them again if the
economy goes into a recession. We have to be mindful that this
is the worst time to be raising premiums.
They ask for empirical evidence to show that when premiums are
lowered jobs are increased. We must remember that we compete at
the level of the firm, a starting point in economics. When the
cost to firms of doing business is lowered it gives them the
opportunity to make investments, to expand their production and
to hire people.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
a well known fact that the Minister of Finance is a cautious
person. He underestimates his revenues and overestimates his
expenditures, with the result that he has a margin of somewhere
between 8% and 12%.
The minister is also applying a questionable budgeting technique
by including in the current budget the $2.5 billion that will be
used only in two or three years for the millennium scholarship
fund. This, in my opinion, is a questionable technique.
1255
When I was the mayor of my village, people would have been upset
at me if I had told them “I am collecting twice the amount of
taxes this year, so that we will have a cushion in two years”.
The principle is, of course, to make taxpayers pay for the
services to which they are entitled, but they should pay in the
year that the expenditures are made, or in the year that it is
decided to make such expenditures.
The Minister of Finance will end up with a budget surplus in two
years, since the $2.5 billion that he will then spend will have
already been taken into account in this year's budget.
I wonder if the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London could give
us his point of view, if he has a sense of how budgets work, on
how the country called Canada should be administered.
[English]
Mr. Gar Knutson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think Canadians
really care whether the $2.5 billion is booked this year or a
couple of years hence.
All members should realize that if we did not book it this year
the numbers would look even better. The surging rate of
popularity of the Liberal government would probably go up even
higher. I do not think we are doing anybody a disservice by
trying to be conservative and booking the number in advance. We
are committed to the $2.5 billion, so what is the harm in booking
it now?
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to talk to the amendment to the motion this morning.
Specifically I want to talk about the millennium fund and some of
the misunderstanding of Liberals about post-secondary education,
which I am reasonably well qualified to discuss in the House.
I get a bit disturbed, as I usually do, when I listen to members
opposite talk about their own legislation. Virtually each time
they do so, they talk about the other parties rather than their
own legislation.
Before I get into that aspect of it, I am splitting my time with
the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley. That
gives the folks over there a little less time to talk to me.
It is no longer enough for the government to table legislation
in the House and then defend the legislation by talking about the
opposition parties. It is more appropriate to defend the
legislation. I might add that the sooner some members realize
this, the sooner they will become better debaters in the House.
I want to talk a bit about values when it comes to the amendment
to the motion which actually criticizes the government for
failing to follow generally accepted accounting principles from
which it declares deficits, surpluses or a zero balance as it is
called.
The values in that come from many places. I remember some of
the values my mother gave me. They were such things as do not
lie, pay as you go, and live within your means. Those are values
in my case that came from the maritimes. Those are values that
should exist throughout the House. I find them sadly lacking
when it comes to some of the submissions made by the other side,
the Liberal government in particular.
We can look at the values that come from Rotary International,
of which I am a member. Is it the truth? Is it fair to all
concerned? There are other significant tests of values. One has
to wonder, when the government does what it did with this
millennium fund, where those values come from.
Throughout discussions about the budget in the House I go back
to the people at home who have certain expectations.
They have children in school, in post-secondary education, for
which they are paying a considerable amount of money. These
young people are taking out student loans. I have two children
in post-secondary institutions, one with a significant student
loan.
1300
When we look at those kind of issues and the people back home,
issues like getting jobs for these young people, we really have
to wonder where this government comes from.
We have the millennium fund. I will describe some of the flaws
in it in a moment, but I have to ask whether it was just one huge
PR exercise or really an attempt to help the vast majority of
students in this country.
For those people who do not know, there is a difference in this
land between a scholarship and a bursary. I actually had the
pleasure in my community of establishing a scholarship bursary
foundation fund which carries in it well over a $1 million today.
The difference is this. A scholarship in this land is basically
an award given to a young person on the basis of their GPA, their
grade point average, or their academic credentials. It has
little regard for the financial need of the student. Whereas a
bursary is based on financial need.
The government is about to award students with a scholarship
based on their grade point average. There is nothing wrong with
that, in totality, at times. However, the government has totally
ignored the needs of financially impaired students. I can assure
members, having been in an educational organization at one time
in my life, that those with the highest GPA in school districts
end up getting awards, basically from their communities. They do
rather well at that. It would have been much better if the
government had helped the students who do not have the financial
capability to even get into university, much less proceed through
university.
This government announced that there was a $2 billion to $3
billion scholarship millennium fund. At the same time it
suggested that it had balanced the books. We are going to go
through this academic exercise of balancing the books for the
next three years. The government will say “Look folks, we
balanced the books”. But there is a big difference that the
folks back home do not seem to understand about this government.
Balancing the books means zero. If this government ends up
toward the end of the year with a $3 billion, $5 billion or $7
billion surplus, all it has to do is spend that $3 billion or $5
billion or $7 billion on whatever exercise it wants and stand up
at the end of the year and say “We balanced the books”.
An hon. member: Get real.
Mr. Randy White: A member over there, who obviously does
not understand what I a talking about, says “Get real”. The
facts are this. That is 100% accurate. As an accountant I have
seen it time and time again.
What this government is doing is saying “We will bring all this
down to zero, but we are not going to tell you that we could have
had a $10 billion or $15 billion surplus. We are going to blow
it”.
This year it said that it would create a millennium fund, make
the Liberals look real good, make the Prime Minister look real
good, and at the same time stand up in the House of Commons and
say “Look, we have balanced the books”.
The question is: What happens next year if we are headed for a
$10 billion or $15 billion surplus?
1305
Is there going to be money paid to Bombardier in grants like we
have seen before, only in bigger dollars? Are we going to see
the friends of the friends rewarded with yet more money and at
the same time, after they blow this money, will they come into
this House and sanctimoniously talk about balancing the books?
We are in for a lot of discussion on this very issue. It is
fact, according to the generally accepted accounting principles,
that the millennium fund should not have been charged to prior
year accounting balance sheets.
An hon. member: The auditor general agrees with you,
Randy.
Mr. Randy White: The auditor general, as my colleague
says, agrees with me. It is funny. We accountants have a
strange way of accounting. If we spend it, it goes on the books
in the year we spend it. If we do not spend it, it does not go
on the books.
This government seems to think that it can announce something
which it will spend in the future, which is considered a
contingent liability, but charge it to last year's books to
reduce the surplus. That is exactly what it did.
Let us talk about the millennium fund for a moment. It is a
scholarship, like I said before. It is given to those with the
highest academic performance. It is not given to those who have
financial need.
Ask any of these students who are sitting around in this place.
They know what I am talking about. There is not a student in a
school district in this country with the very highest of GPA upon
graduation who does not get a scholarship.
I question what this government is really looking for. If this
government is truly interested in helping young people, perhaps
it should consider putting more money into the pockets of their
parents who can then give it to their children, just like I would
do and just like I have done. It would be much more appreciated.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
was interested in the member's comments about the accounting
treatment of the millennium scholarship fund. It certainly has
been an issue which has captured the attention of the House, as
well as the auditor general and the public accounts committee.
It appears to me that there is a technical problem that is being
addressed with regard to the proposed treatment of the millennium
scholarship fund.
In fact, as I understand it, if the government were to
distribute the scholarships out of the innovation fund of the
foundation, it could have, and still could today, disbursed the
funds directly to the innovation foundation and charged them to
the operations of the current fiscal year because the innovation
foundation is a not for profit corporation, a separate legal
entity.
The reason I understand that the moneys have not been given to
the millennium scholarship foundation, which is the proposal, is
that the foundation cannot be legally established and
incorporated until after the budget is passed by this House.
I think the member will probably also know, with regard to the
auditor general, provided that an action is dealt with and passed
in the budget prior to the closing of the books and the issuance
of the statements, that will satisfy his requirements.
Given that extra bit of information and the fact that if it were
paid through the innovation foundation as opposed to the
millennium scholarship foundation, would the member not agree
that what we are really talking about is simply timing and has
nothing to do with the substance of the legal liability which the
government has declared in its budget?
1310
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I guess with accrual
accounting or even cash based accounting timing is everything.
The way the fund should have been established would have been to
take the money and declare it a surplus or take the money and
identify it in a fund. Yes, that could have been done.
But I think the member is missing another point. The point is
that this government had a surplus of approximately $3 billion.
I truly believe that this government made every attempt to bury
it.
The problem is, as I have described it, what are we going to do
next year? If we know now that we do not have deficits to get
rid of, then surely the surplus should be even more next year.
Are my colleagues in the Reform Party going to have to sit here
daily investigating the books, trying to find out where this
government is burying funds or promoting their friends or
providing patronage pots rather than at the year end declaring a
surplus? Once a surplus is declared, of course, then comes
accountability time.
The public is going to want to say “We don't think you should
spend it this way or reserve it. We think you should pay down
the debt. We think you should start giving tax breaks”. These
are the very issues that this government has a problem with. That
is why the government is trying to use any kind of surplus
dollars.
The answer is clear to me. The appropriate accounting method,
the morally appropriate method, to deal with this would have been
to have declared a surplus and then manage and spend the money.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the chance to
comment on the budget and the supplementary estimates and to
bring a dose of reality to the debate.
Liberals deserve the credit for bringing in the first balanced
budget in 30 years. It just goes to show how incompetent the
Mulroney Tories were when they failed to balance the budget in
similar circumstances during the mid-1980s.
It reinforces the incompetence of both the former Liberal
government and the Tory government when we have a national debt
that is over $583 billion. It is because of the incompetence and
the negligence of these governments that we are in this
situation.
I want to continue the discussion which my colleague just ended
on the surplus. This budget should have shown a $3.2 billion
surplus, but the Liberals chose to use it for new spending. They
chose to put $2.5 billion into the millennium fund. While
Canadians support funding of essential programs like health and
education, the Liberals have used the millennium fund to hide
their deviousness.
The accounting has been brought into challenge by my colleague.
I would suggest that it is very plainly a manipulation of
taxpayers' money. The government has taken $2.5 billion out of
the current budget even though this money is designated to be
spent two years down the road.
The auditor general has criticized this imaginative bookkeeping
and the government has defended its action. What a surprise. If
the government truly believes that this is good accounting
practice, then I challenge it to allow all Canadians and Canadian
businesses to use the same accounting practices in the real
world, that is, to write off expenditures before they occur on
their income taxes. Regular Canadians would go to jail if they
tried to do the same thing.
Let us look at the amount of support the Liberals are talking
about. The millennium scholarship fund will offer up to 100,000
post-secondary students grants averaging $3,000 a year. I had
not realized the difference between a scholarship and bursary and
that causes even more concern because these grants were supposed
to help low and middle income students.
Now that is under question.
1315
When one considers that there are 1.7 million full time or part
time students in post-secondary education across the country, the
millennium scholarship fund will only support 6%. Does this
government honestly feel that 94% of post-secondary students are
in the high income bracket? When this system is implemented there
will be a lot of disappointed and financially strapped students
who were given the understanding that help would be there.
Why did the government choose this particular avenue? Why did
it choose to only help 6% of the students? I can only imagine it
is because if it transferred the money to the provinces under the
Canada health and social transfer, the federal government would
not really get any recognition. I think the government was
concerned over the photo op when handing out the cheques. If it
transferred the money to the provincial governments to use for
the benefit of all students, it would not get this photo-op.
Another major problem with this is the ego of the Prime
Minister. He wanted to have a legacy to leave behind. This
country cannot afford to pay for an individual's ego.
Another concern I have with this budget is that it does not
address the very serious problem of taxes and bracket creep. This
is an area where the government continues to draw more and more
dollars out of the taxpayers' pockets. Bracket creep occurs when
an individual's pay rises to a point where it enters a higher tax
bracket.
While salaries have inched up over the past six years, tax
brackets have not. By law, tax brackets are only adjusted when
the consumer price index rises by 3% or more in any given year.
This has not happened for the past six years. Inflation has risen
9% over the same period of time. Thus individuals whose salaries
have just kept up with inflation often find themselves in a
higher tax bracket.
In his budget speech the Minister of Finance made it clear that
it is deliberate and that he intends to continue with this
practice. He stated “Upon coming into office, the government
and the Bank of Canada agreed to hold inflation inside a range of
1% to 3% to the end of 1998. That policy has worked. That is why
we are announcing today that we will extend the current agreement
with the Bank of Canada for a further three years”.
This government has made it clear that it intends on screwing
the Canadian taxpayer in this fashion. If this is not the case
then I once again challenge the Liberals to introduce legislation
to eliminate the 3% threshold for indexing the tax brackets. We
know they will not because they want the money.
Let me outline how much money we are talking about. This year
the Liberals will have collected an additional $800 million in
taxes through bracket creep. Next year it will be $1.5 billion.
By fiscal year 2000-01 the amount will be $3.3 billion.
Canadians already pay enough taxes. In British Columbia the
average family income is $57,949. The average tax bill in
British Columbia is $28,461. That is an awful lot of tax from
one family. While all Canadians need tax relief, it is nowhere
needed more than in British Columbia. With the highest marginal
tax rate in North America, it is driving business out of the
province.
My constituency sits on the American border. I cannot begin to
count the number of businesses that have moved 20 or 30
kilometres south because of taxation. Thousands of jobs have
been lost. Millions of dollars in tax revenues have been lost. It
is this departure of capital and jobs that has led to British
Columbia's woes. Responsibility belongs to both the federal and
the provincial governments which are taxing Canadians out of
house and home.
1320
The federal government is putting far too little back into that
province. Last year, transfers from the federal government
accounted for only 9.7% of provincial revenues, the lowest in the
country. Other provinces received much higher amounts from the
federal government.
Forty-three per cent of Newfoundland's provincial budget comes
from the federal government. For New Brunswick that figure is
45.5%. For Quebec, 17.6% comes from federal coffers and 31.8% of
Manitoba's provincial budget comes from federal revenue. The
Canadian average is 16.9%. British Columbia's is 9.7%. I
suggest that British Columbia is getting shafted.
The Atlantic provinces received an average of $2,000 per capita
from the federal government. Quebec received $927 per citizen
from the federal government. British Columbia, lo and behold,
received only $524 per citizen from the federal government. Now
that British Columbia is entering a recession, it deserves to be
recognized as being in a situation of need by the federal
government.
What do we get from the federal government? “It is the
provincial government's fault. It is the fault of the Asian
economy. It is everybody's fault but ours. And by the way,
don't count on us for any support or help”.
The Liberal government is so very quick to take responsibility
for the economic upturn and to take credit for the boon in other
parts of the country, but when it comes to accepting the blame
when an area of the country enters a recession, the government
runs a hundred miles. Liberal hypocrisy in its purest form; they
accept all the credit but they deny all the blame. The Liberals
cannot have it both ways. It will not bode well for the Canadian
economy if this is going to be their approach.
The government has shown that it can cruise through economic
good times, that it can garner a surplus and use it for new
spending. But when the economic cycle starts to go downhill, as
it is doing in British Columbia, this government shows that it
has no idea of how to handle it. That is very scary for all
Canadians.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about the
millennium fund. It was announced in the Speech from the Throne,
in the budget and it is in the legislation today. It is part of
the activities for 1997-98. We made it quite clear that we pay
for what we announce. We pay our bills. We tend to pay as we
go.
It is not really the accounting issue which the Reform Party has
a problem with. The real issue it has a problem with is that we
are spending $2.5 billion to improve the lives of students. The
Reform Party has a problem with putting money in the hands of
those students. That is really the problem.
I will ask the hon. member more of an accounting question. The
books close March 31. Adjustments are essentially made in
August. At the request of the auditor general those adjustments
are audited and scrutinized. Any surplus that comes over and
above those adjustments goes directly to the debt, just as it has
gone to the deficit year after year after year. Does the hon.
member know that? She is arguing about the fact that we are not
being transparent. We cannot get more transparent. If our
transparency goes beyond the requirements of public accounting,
so be it. I will let Canadians judge that.
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting how the
Liberals can look at accounting in one way for themselves and in
a different way for the average Canadian.
I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Finance. If as a business person I decided to buy a
building in three years and I wanted to earmark money I had
earned for that building, would the government allow me to use
that as an expenditure?
I would think not. I would think that would be part of my
income, my profit as a company. I would pay taxes on it. Then I
would report the spending of it in the year which I spent it.
1325
It was very clear with this millennium fund. If the government
had not planned new spending on a new millennium fund there would
have been a $3 billion surplus. That is what this government
does not want to address with the average Canadian, with the
taxpayer. This was not a balanced budget; this was a surplus
budget. This government chose to spend the surplus in a way it
felt would get the government more brownie points with the
Canadian taxpayers, the Canadian voters.
If the government wants transparency, it should talk with
Canadians about a millennium fund and see if Canadians support a
millennium fund over federal government dollars going into the
provincial coffers for education. Under the Constitution
education is a mandate of the provinces. If the federal
government wants to transfer money to the provinces for
education, then so be it. But for the federal government to be
spending surplus dollars and hiding it from the taxpayers, that
is not right no matter how we cut it.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, listening
to the member's speech, I felt that she gave very little
recognition to the Asian situation. Also when she referred to
businesses moving south of the border, there was no attention at
all to free trade and NAFTA.
Given her concern about the provinces and their fiscal plight, I
assume we can expect at the Reform Party convention this spring
that it will be agreeing to establish provincial sections of
provincial parties from coast to coast.
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, in case the hon. member
from the New Democratic Party is not aware, we have a provincial
party in British Columbia, or there is a Reform provincial party.
I will not say that we have it because there is no affiliation
between the federal and provincial parties.
I find it amazing that a member of the New Democratic Party
would even stand up and comment on the economic situation in
British Columbia. The responsibility of that has to be shared
with the New Democratic government that is there.
Trying to blame free trade and NAFTA for the downturn in B.C.'s
economy is ludicrous. The economy in this country is on a
positive swing because of NAFTA and the free trade agreement. The
reasons companies are going south, and I have talked to many of
them and I have talked to many individuals who are taking their
money south, are high taxes and the economic climate that has
been created by an NDP government. High taxes are driving our
businesses and our jobs south of the border. For individuals
from the New Democratic Party to say it is free trade and NAFTA
is absolutely ludicrous.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with the hon. member for Scarborough Centre.
I rise in this House today for two reasons. First, because it is
important that I do so as a government member to show that,
however imperfect it may be, this remains a historic budget,
which will have an extraordinary impact on the future.
I had just come out of a meeting of the agriculture committee
and was sitting at my desk when I heard someone viciously
attacking the integrity of the members of this House. This person
was literally shouting.
I thought to myself “My goodness, it's Howard Stern”. No, it was
the Bloc member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
I think a twelfth Oscar should be awarded to Titanic, the movie,
because looking at the line the Bloc is taking on the budget,
one can almost see the last scene of the movie, where the ship is
slowly sinking to the bottom of the sea. They cannot think of
anything to say.
1330
I will be calling the airlines to ask who supplies them with the
little bags, because the symptoms of parliamentary sickness are
similar to those of air sickness.
I can hear Bloc members continually spilling their venom and
making all sorts of disparaging remarks about the government,
especially by attacking the integrity of one of its most eminent
members: the Minister of Finance. It would certainly be a good
idea to attach one of these bags to each seat as a precaution, to
be on the safe side. They may come handy every time Bloc members
stand up to speak.
One thing is for sure, every time I hear—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Lévis, on a point of
order.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have been listening
to the member for Bourassa and I think he has gone too far. Props
are not allowed on members' desks and he is talking about
unparliamentary props.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member did refer to such things but
did not use a prop in the House, which is against the rules, as
the hon. member rightly pointed out. The member used unusual
language, but I do not think his remarks were unparliamentary.
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, sometimes the truth hurts. The
member for Chambly said I had no manners whatsoever, so I say to
him that I will save that. I will not forget it.
What really upsets me is that each time the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot rises to speak, he speaks about members'
lack of integrity. He spoke of almost falsifying and almost
lying. Not only is he uttering nonsense, but he said that ethics
counsellor Howard Wilson was being paid by the Prime Minister's
office to save the Minister of Finance's neck.
This is a mistake, because he should know he reports to the
deputy minister for industry. Those who have nothing to say
keep attacking members' integrity. He is undermining not only
his own cause, but this institution as well.
When it suits the members of the Bloc Quebecois, they pull out
their hair and question this institution's integrity. When it
does not, they get upset and raise points of order.
I am going to speak about the budget, unlike the members
opposite. There are some important things in the budget. It is
an excellent budget, as the member for Frontenac—Mégantic has
said. It is true. Why? Because it is historic. We paid off
the $42 billion in deficit that was there when we formed the
government in 1993. Canadians have made sacrifices. The result
is a zero deficit budget.
An hon. member: Delivered on the backs of the unemployed and the
provinces.
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, one thing is sure. This is the
start. I was in France at the beginning of March. What were
they talking about there?
The Canadian miracle. French senators and members of the
Assemblée nationale asked us “But how did you achieve this?”
People complimented us. They said “What a brilliant way to manage
the budget”.
If the Quebec government, the Bloc's head office, listened a
little better and was on the same wavelength as the public—but
things will soon improve, because Quebec will have a Liberal
government after the upcoming provincial election—we would
definitely not have any problems in the health and education
sectors.
Unlike sovereignists, who hold referendums, who continually talk
about the Constitution, and who say it is the federal
government's fault, we have taken our responsibilities and we
have the figures to prove it.
The issue of fairness was raised, but it is a start. Nothing is
perfect in this world.
We had to pay $42 billion and find fair and—
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: At the expense of the unemployed.
Mr. Denis Coderre: —equitable solutions to achieve a zero
deficit.
But we also did something that hurt sovereignists even more. We
talked directly to young people. We decided to invest in
knowledge and to make sure young people can reduce their debt
load and also—thanks to this government's vision—have their
place in the sun, like the baby boomers before them.
1335
Of course they are going to come up with examples. They are
always going to come up with an editorial. They will tell us
that the president of such and such a union opposed it. But
those of us from Quebec know how it works: some plant, some
little pequiste, some little separatist expresses his opinion.
They are good at it. There is no denying it.
When we watched the news, what was the first thing we saw about
the millennium fund? Three students from no particular party
were interviewed at random. Members opposite will say that
journalists are federalists. The young people were asked “What
do you think of the millennium fund?” What was their unanimous
response?
They replied “What we want is not to get involved in these
squabbles. The important thing is that, if we can benefit,
then, yes, we will”. The moral of the story is that the
government has understood that sometimes it is preferable to
speak directly to students, to speak directly to young people,
because they understand how it works.
Members opposite are also going to tell us we are interfering in
education. We are not. Access to education and reducing student
indebtedness are shared responsibilities. I would like to remind
the House that the loans and scholarships program was created
with assistance from the federal government, and each year we pay
a percentage. They have decided to run things their way. We
have no objection to that. We will sit down with them and use
the same parameters.
The important thing—and I represent this generation—is that young
people be given an opportunity to have access to education.
When young people graduate from universities, CEGEPs and high
schools, they are in debt. Young people want to enjoy equal
opportunities and to be part of society. They want to join the
workforce as soon as they graduate.
The debt reduction strategy includes seven components. There
are, of course, the Canadian scholarships. The millennium fund is
great. About 100,000 young Canadians will receive scholarships.
The government also wants to increase support for advanced
research and for graduate students, by increasing the budget of
the three granting councils. We will help graduate students to
better manage their debt, through a tax break for the interest
paid on student loans, and through improvements to the Canada
Student Loans Program. How can anyone be opposed to these
initiatives?
We heard what the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot had to say. He
said they had been energized. Does this mean they had no energy
before? It is their problem. He said they had been energized,
that they would keep a watchful eye and not let anything go
through. The sovereignists can go ahead and tear their shirts. We
can give them the addresses of some stores that sell shirts at a
good price. Given the number of shirts they tear these days, it
will still cost them a bundle, but it will probably benefit the
shirt industry.
What is certain is that young people will realize the importance
of the government's action.
We are also being accused of not caring about the elderly and
the handicapped, and of not providing tax relief for the poor.
What is extraordinary in this budget—and I will give you an
example because they will surely have questions or criticisms for
me—is that we are the first government to eliminate a tax. We
said “We will remove the 3% surtax that was put in place by the
Conservative government”.
If this is not a sign of credibility, a clear demonstration that
this government is listening to the people, then I do not know
what is.
I rely on the public's judgment. Many of my constituents phoned
me. I spend a great deal of time in my riding.
My constituents did not criticize the budget. Quite the
contrary. They said it was a good budget, a good start, and that
the priority was to eliminate the deficit. Then, we should
preserve and strengthen existing social benefits—which is what
we did in this budget—and tackle the debt. The facts speak for
themselves.
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I always enjoy hearing the hon. member across the way do
a bit of bragging because he is pretty good at that.
1340
I happened to look at one of the World Bank ratings of income
per person. It shows very clearly that since 1990 we have
slipped from number three to number twelve. The income per
person has gone down just about 10 rating points.
That just does not take the cake as far as I am concerned but in
today's Quorum we see that even the people, including some
of the bureaucrats, are saying this is no place for brains in
this country, that we had better find jobs somewhere else.
I would like to see where all the gravy is coming from that this
member is talking about. I am sure the ordinary people have not
experienced it except the guys with the MP pension plan.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I will tell my hon. colleague
that this budget clearly contains tax relief measures.
Not only are we investing in knowledge, but a decision has also
been made to make a substantial increase in development, in
research councils. These are things that will have an impact.
I will also remind the House that lightening the debt load will
also have a psychological effect on motivating young people. It
is hard for a young person not to be able to see the light at the
end of the tunnel. We have a saying in my part of the country
“If you're not a revolutionary at 20, you'll end up a pastry
cook by the time you're 40”.
An hon. member: And you are how old?
Mr. Denis Coderre: Thirty-four.
We are giving opportunities to young people. I believe in
dynamism. The budget is not the only thing. We have also
introduced measures relating to small and medium size
businesses, via my hon. colleague, the member for Outremont and
Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of
Canada, which in conjunction with this budget will enable us to
create jobs.
I remind my hon. colleague that this is working amazingly well,
as close to one million jobs have been created in the past five
years. These are facts that attest to good management.
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I could not help but notice as my
hon. colleague was speaking to Bill C-36 that the members of the
Bloc were squirming in their seats. One was going around
actually ensuring that other individuals perhaps did not get up
and ask any questions.
I want to ask the hon. member if he can describe for us what the
impact this is having in the province of Quebec. The Bloc is here
and purports to represent the people from Quebec. But let me ask
the hon. member who is from Quebec and who so eloquently
demonstrated in his speech the benefits of this budget if he
could continue for a couple of minutes and speak to why this
budget is receiving such support in the province of Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Coderre: An excellent question, Mr. Speaker.
The proof that truth hurts and that the budget has had an impact
comes when I hear members of the Bloc on the other side
constantly whining and making comments. I understand how
extraordinary a budget it was.
When you take a rational look at the budget—without the
venom—it is clear it has a positive impact and represents a fine
beginning.
You have to understand one thing. Quebeckers look at the
financial impact, the impact in terms of bursaries, for example.
What do they say? They say “Finally, we have a government that
keeps its promises”.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Liar.
Mr. Denis Coderre: The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is calling
me a liar—
Mr. Yvan Loubier: You are a liar.
Mr. Denis Coderre: I would send him packing, but that is my
problem.
One thing is sure, when you look at the facts—
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Who is the liar?
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, would you ask the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to be quiet and stop calling me a liar? A
chihuahua on the other side has started yapping too much for my
liking.
Could you ask him to cool his jets and settle down? When he
spoke, I let him speak.
One thing is sure—
Mr. Yvan Loubier: You were not here.
Mr. Denis Coderre: Yes, I did listen to you. The budget had a
positive effect, not only for child care centres, but also for
SMBs and young people. I did not receive one complaint at my
riding office.
Everyone knows how much I am present and I get a lot of calls
and mail.
The Deputy Speaker: If the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot
has called the hon. member for Bourassa a liar, as he claims, I
am sure he will want to retract such words, because he knows
they are unparliamentary.
I did not hear him myself, but if the hon. member is present he
could provide an explanation. I am sure that if he said them, he
will withdraw them.
1345
Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is customary to
ask a member to retract something he might have said. Motive is
being imputed. You yourself admitted you did not hear the
member say anything. I therefore think he should not be asked to
apologize.
If the member who had the floor heard noises from I know not
where, it is up to him to draw his own conclusions and not to
make assumptions about accusations.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. He was heard by at least two
members. I heard shouting from other members when the hon.
member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot said something. I did not hear
him say the words, but perhaps the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot can help us out.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, when I heard my colleague speaking
about the favourable reception given the millennium scholarships
in Quebec by students, and so on, I took exception because this
is not the case at all. Not only were the millennium
scholarships not warmly received, but they were almost
completely rejected in Quebec. I therefore did say he was a
liar.
As requested, I withdraw my words because they are
unparliamentary, but they represent my firm belief.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member for withdrawing his
words.
[English]
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the budget debate.
First of all, let me congratulate the Prime Minister for his
leadership on this issue and of course the finance minister for
his fortitude and the vision he has shown toward leading us to a
balanced budget.
Most important, I take this opportunity to congratulate and
thank the Canadian people because this is indeed their budget,
their reward. All their hard work has paid off in a balanced
budget; 1998 marks the first time in 30 years that a federal
Government of Canada has journeyed into this area. Before we get
to the facts and figures, I want for a moment to outline how we
got to where we are today by taking us back to 1993.
When I was first elected in 1993 the deficit was $42 billion and
the country's finances were in disarray. This meant high
interest rates and of course fewer jobs for all Canadians along
with lower revenues overall.
This led to a very dismal economic situation. Our future did
not look good but the people in 1993 gave us a mandate because we
gave a very clear message of what we wanted to do. We also told
them at that time that it was not going to be easy.
In the fall of 1994 we introduced a framework for a better
economic policy, a guide that would dictate just what this
government was going to do, how it was going to do it and what it
was not going to do.
The 1995 budget put that framework into action. All of us took
the plunge at that time. The 1995 budget set the country on a
course of fiscal responsibility and government renewal. We all
knew that these decisions were not going to be easy.
The reduction in government spending was unprecedented in
Canadian history. The budget not only overhauled how government
works but what government does.
We reduced program spending from $120 billion to $108 billion.
In short, the 1995 budget initiated that overall departmental
spending be cut by 19% in three years.
The 1995 budget also made it clear that subsidies would decline
by 60% in three years. The government made the move to
privatize, for example, commercialized government operations
where it felt feasible and very appropriate.
As I stated, we changed government operations as a business for
future generations. We responded to the need for more than an
effective system of provincial transfers. For example, the
Canada social transfer made it possible for the provinces to be
more flexible and respond to the needs of the people rather than
the flexible rules that existed in the past.
1350
Each province has different needs. However, the conditions of
the Canada Health Act were and still are being maintained. As
the Prime Minister emphasized just the other day on television,
health is one issue that we are adamant on maintaining for all
Canadians. For this government these conditions remain
fundamental and non-negotiable.
We also decided in 1995 to make some very different choices. We
chose to work in favour of a strong economy and a stronger
country. Many governments have known and talked about the need
for reform and renewal. Our government chose to stop talking and
to start acting. It was very tough but we made it happen and here
we are today.
For a moment let us fast forward to 1998, the first budget of
the new mandate. The economic recovery was indeed remarkable. In
1993 the deficit was $42 billion. Who would have believed we
would be sitting here today talking about a zero deficit, a
balanced budget? We have been applauded not just within Canada
but beyond our country.
In 1993 the unemployment rate was 11.4% and growing. Today,
when we look at the more recent statistics, it is almost 8.5% to
8.6%. If we start breaking that down regionally, in the greater
Toronto area it is even lower than 8.5%. I believe it is just
over 7%. Calgary, for example, is looking for people to hire
today.
Also in 1993 interest rates were at an all time high. They were
definitely in the double digits. They are now hovering around
7%. Not too long ago they were even as low as 6% to 6.5%.
The burden of debt in 1993 was very unmanageable. Now, with a
zero deficit, we can start chipping away at the debt. Anybody
who can add one and one will know that we first had to address
the deficit before we could start addressing the problem of the
debt.
The 1998 budget puts in place the debt repayment plan. We have
actually paid down $13 billion in market debt in the past year
alone. In the next three years we predict that we will be able
to bring down the debt by an additional $9 billion.
The economy is now on the move upwards and growing. On the
average in 1997 the economy had an overall growth of 3.5%, the
best pace since 1994. In fact, our economy has managed to climb
its way out from the financial basement of the G-7 to being
number one and applauded worldwide.
Job creation has rebounded very strongly since 1993. More than
one million jobs have been created since 1993. This is not
according to what we as politicians are saying or what people are
saying. This is according to what the statisticians are saying
and the people who are working out there today.
Consumer confidence is back and strong. Canadians are feeling
very confident about their economy and about their country as a
whole. With this balanced budget we are finally able to
introduce initiatives that will leave more money in the pockets
of all Canadians who have worked so hard and have been so patient
with us and this government. That was reflected with the return
mandate to continue the programs that were commenced in 1993.
The government has kept its promise to reduce taxes once the
budget was balanced. We know that in 1993 we inherited payroll
contributions of $3.03. Since then they have been going down
steadily to about $2.70 where they stand today. The 1998 budget
has targeted tax relief to those who need it the most, low and
middle income Canadians. As I said, by July 1998, as the budget
states, almost 400,000 low and middle income individuals will be
removed from the tax rolls and an additional 4.6 million
taxpayers will pay less income tax.
Let me stress that in Ontario alone 91% of all taxpayers will
benefit from tax relief. Catherine Swift, president of the
Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said: “Putting more
money into people's hands is good for the economy”. That is
what this budget has commenced doing.
1355
Very clearly there are modest tax reliefs right now but it is
only the first step, as the finance minister and Prime Minister
have stated, and as we all have been stating.
As our economy continues to improve taxes will be reduced even
further. This year's balanced budget alone means we can again
start investing in our future, particularly in the areas that
Canadians have told us are their priorities.
More than 80% of all new spending will go to health and
education through increased transfers to the provinces. The 1995
budget made some very difficult decisions with regard to health.
We did not have many choices at that time. Our backs were up
against the wall. In 1998 we had a choice and we chose to follow
the recommendations of the national forum on health and increase
the Canada health and social transfer cash floor from $11 billion
to $12.5 billion, an additional $1.5 billion on the forum's
recommendation.
This measure will provide the provinces with an additional $7
billion in cash over the next six years to fund health care,
education and social assistance. It is now up to the provinces
to make the choices of how they spend their moneys.
Will they continue to cut funds from health care in order to
keep their election campaign promises of tax relief? In Ontario
alone the Tory tax cut agenda will reduce provincial revenues by
$4.8 billion per year. This is more than five times the $850
million a year in federal transfer cuts to that province.
Canadians should realize that the province's insistence of
blaming the federal government for all these woes is of course a
convenient way of detracting attention from their program.
Another choice the federal government has been given with this
year's balanced budget is to introduce the Canadian opportunities
strategy.
The Speaker: My colleague, although there are five
minutes of questions and comments, you will have the floor right
after question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
MONEY LAUNDERING
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
major element of the illicit narcotics trade and its partner,
transnational crime, is the phenomenon of money laundering. It
has been estimated by the United Nations drug control program
that the annual amount of money laundered as a result of narcotic
drug trafficking alone is in the order of $400 billion U.S.
Money laundering is a major international problem not only
because of the magnitude of the sums involved but also because of
the affect those sums have on the macro economy and on the
financial sector, particularly financial institutions.
There is a continuing concern that financial crimes and money
laundering are occurring with varying degrees of regularity and
that some affected or vulnerable governments have still not
criminalized this illicit activity.
International standards against money laundering require
comprehensive legislation, financial regulation and law
enforcement mechanisms to combat the problem. Experience shows
that effective action can and must be taken now.
* * *
LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, membership truly has its rewards and the following
Liberals are being rewarded by the taxpayers of Canada for being
a member of the Liberal family: a Liberal campaign crony from
Richmond, B.C.; a former special assistant for Ontario to the
Prime Minister; a defeated Liberal candidate from
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve; the multicultural minister's campaign
manager in Vancouver Centre; a failed 1993 Liberal candidate in
Calgary and a former EA to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Also, the former Liberal president of Madawaska—Victoria
riding; a former president of the Liberal revenue subcommittee; a
Nova Scotia member of the Liberal Party permanent appeals
committee; a defeated Liberal candidate for Louis-Hébert; the
defeated Liberal candidate in Winnipeg Transcona; a friend of the
Prime Minister's chief of staff; the Manitoba leader's assistant
on executive committee; a defeated Liberal MP from Kings—Hants;
the failed candidate for the Liberal nomination in Mississauga
West.
The list goes on and on.
* * *
ENGINEERING
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on March 2, Ms. Chantal Chartrand and Michelle Bennett were
presented with the Canadian Engineers Memorial Foundation's
$10,000 engineering students project award.
1400
These two University of Ottawa students received this
prestigious national award based on their proposal to include
outreach in the adventures in engineering and science program to
northern Ontario and to young girls.
They have developed specific initiatives to interest young girls
in these fields through positive reinforcement and strong female
leadership roles.
This is the first time anyone at the University of Ottawa has
been recognized for work of this type. I extend my sincere
congratulations to these two remarkable young women.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC'S FISCAL BALANCE
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during a
promotional visit to Montreal, the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs stated that the sovereignists were once again to blame
for Quebec's budget not being balanced yet.
Of course, the Liberal Party of Quebec, which sat on its hands
during the nine years it was in power in Quebec, is not to
blame. The Liberal Party of Canada, which eliminated the federal
deficit by shovelling 52% of its spending cuts into the backyards
of the provinces, is not to blame either. No, the separatists are
to blame, according to the minister.
Go ahead, pin it on the sovereignists, we can take it.
What concerns me however is that, to replace Daniel Johnson,
whose party was responsible for the largest deficit ever in
Quebec's history, the Liberals are set to crown the leader of the
party responsible for the largest federal deficit in Canada's
history, the leader of the Conservative Party. That is scary.
The federalists are the ones who have plunged Quebec and Canada
into debt. It is a good thing that the sovereignists were there
to take things in hand.
* * *
[English]
WORLD METEOROLOGICAL DAY
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday marked World Meteorological Day. Every year on March
23 we commemorate the coming into force of the convention of the
World Meteorological Organization in 1950. Canada is a founding
member of the organization and plays a prominent role in its
work.
World Meteorological Day is an opportunity to raise public
awareness and appreciation for the valuable public weather
service that Environment Canada, with its dedicated staff,
provides to Canadians 24 hours a day, every day of the year.
Weather events such as the recent ice storm that hit eastern
Canada, the Manitoba floods and the Saguenay disaster, remind us
how important reliable, accurate weather and environmental
information is in helping Canadians protect themselves and their
property.
* * *
ACADEMY OF MOTION PICTURES, ARTS AND SCIENCES
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to four
graduates of the University of Waterloo who this week won awards
from the Academy of Motion Pictures, Arts and Sciences.
Bill Reeves and Bob Krieger earned scientific and engineering
Oscars. Reeves was recognized for his part in the development of
a Marionette three dimensional computer animation system. This
was used to create the first three dimensional computer animated
film feature Toy Story. Krieger was recognized for his
geometric modelling component of the Alias Power animator system,
the best commercially available system of its kind.
Paul Breslin and Kim Davidson were awarded the academy's
technical achievement award for their creation of the procedural
modelling and animation components of Prisms software package
used to simulate natural phenomena. This award was also won by
the University of Waterloo faculty last year.
I congratulate these four winners and the University of
Waterloo.
* * *
LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the list of Liberal patronage appointees goes on: the son of a
prominent Liberal organizer and fundraiser for André Ouellet the
former president of the Longueuil Liberal Riding Association; the
former vice-president for eastern Quebec Liberals; a Trudeau era
minister and the godfather of the Atlantic; a former legislative
assistant to several Ontario Liberal MPPs; a close associate of
the Clerk of the Privy Council, Madam Bourgon; the former
vice-president, French, for the Liberal Party; a former Liberal
Party president and cabinet minister; a prominent Liberal
backroom boy and defeated Liberal MP; the defeated Liberal
candidate in Kindersley-Lloydminister from 1988; the former
western vice-president of the Liberal Party; the former president
of the Vancouver Quadra Liberal Riding Association; the former
president of the Liberal National Women's Commission and a failed
candidate; a key Manitoba organizer for the Prime Minister's
leadership race; the president of the Saint Maurice Liberal
Riding Association; a friend of former Liberal minister Doug
Young from New Brunswick; the 1984 Ontario campaign chairman for
the Prime Minister; and the former president of the Manicouagan
Liberal Riding.
The list goes on.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I met Gabriel and Delila Grey, two very special
constituents at the Ottawa airport.
The Greys, originally from Guatemala, arrived in Canada with
their landed immigrant status. I cannot say how thrilled I was
to finally see them.
1405
Many of their supporters were at the Moncton airport to welcome
them back to their homes. The Greys have waited almost two years
for this moment.
[Translation]
The Greys lived in a church basement in Dieppe for nearly 18
months. On November 7, Gabriel and Delila left Canada for a
temporary host country.
This was not an easy decision for Gabriel and Delila, but the
people of Moncton rallied behind them and looked after them. I
am very proud of the spirit of co-operation and generosity
displayed by the people of Moncton, Riverview and Dieppe.
Delila and Gabriel can now resume their lives in Moncton. I wish
them the best of luck.
* * *
GREEK INDEPENDENCE DAY
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at our
biannual convention held over the weekend, the Prime Minister
stressed the unique character and rich cultural diversity of this
country. This diversity is our strength.
[English]
It is this diversity that makes it possible for Canadians of
Hellenic origin such as myself to join the millions of Hellenes
around the world in celebrating Greek Independence Day, March 25,
1821. Canadians of Hellenic origin will be parading their pride
and deep affection for their country of origin, Hellas, where
democracy was born.
Today, on the eve of the 177th anniversary of Greece's
Independence Day, we are joined in the House by a representative
of the Greek government, Mr. Yiannis Anthopoulos, Deputy Minister
of National Education and Religious Affairs, who also
participated in the facilities organized by the Hellenic
Community of Montreal.
Celebrations will be taking place across Canada and I encourage
all my colleagues to participate.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Greek and provided the
following translation:]
Long live Greece; long live Canada.
* * *
[English]
LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
membership indeed has its rewards. Liberal patronage continues:
the Liberal campaign manager of Burnaby, B.C.; a prominent B.C.
Liberal and oldtime golfing and business buddy of the Prime
Minister; the nephew of the Prime Minister; the defeated Liberal
MP for Halifax; the former legislative assistant to the Prime
Minister; the wife of the former defence minister and director of
the Liberal Party; the former president of the Liberal
Kindersley-Lloyminister riding; the former Liberal MP for North
York; the wife of a former aide to Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau;
the failed 1993 Liberal nominee for South West Nova; a former
board member of the federal Liberal Agency of Canada; the former
executive director of the Quebec Liberal Party; the former
Liberal Minister of International Trade; the failed 1993 Liberal
candidate in Selkirk-Red River, Manitoba; the defeated 1997
Liberal candidate in Laurentides; and the list of Liberal
patronage goes on.
* * *
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
national Liberal caucus has established the national Liberal
caucus twinning program, matching members of our caucus with
Liberal riding associations across Canada.
I have the honour of being twinned with West Vancouver—Sunshine
Coast. Mr. Hans Krause and the other members of the West
Vancouver—Sunshine Coast Federal Liberal Riding Association have
greeted me with open arms and Liberal hospitality as their
representative in Ottawa.
In April, while the Standing Committee on Health is in
Vancouver, I will be taking the opportunity to visit my surrogate
riding. West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast is a magnificent area of
our country with diverse areas such as Whistler, Squamish, Powell
River and West Vancouver.
I am excited about the opportunity to visit this beautiful part
of our country and especially to meet with fellow Liberals to
discuss how we could continue to build this great country
together.
* * *
[Translation]
MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs gave the oddest speech.
After a long weekend, in which he was isolated and told that his
great constitutional scheme, Plan B, did not exist, the minister
lost his cool and said he had had enough.
Before the Canadian Bar Association, the minister sent the Prime
Minister and the Minister of Human Resources Development off to
do their homework. “There is most certainly a Plan B and you are
going to see it in action”.
In 1980 and 1995, representatives of the federal government
threatened to deprive Quebeckers of federal services if they
opted for sovereignty. Now the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs is threatening to continue to provide services whether
they want them or not.
We have seen things that made more sense.
Who is telling the truth in this government? The Prime Minister,
other ministers, members of the Liberal Party, or the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs?
* * *
[English]
REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday Reform members outlined their approach to
health care.
They want an Americanized, privatized two tier health care
system. They want more competition in health care. They want to
amend the Canada Health Act to set up a parallel private system,
a separate system for the rich and another system for the poor.
The Reform member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca even admitted, is
it unequal? Yes. Does the Reform Party care? No.
1410
Canadians believe their right to life and treatment for illness
and injuries should not be based on income. Canadians should not
become guinea pigs for Reform's irresponsible health theories
playing around with Canadian lives to put in place a dangerous
system in which low and middle income Canadians unnecessarily
suffer and die.
We already have a crisis in our health care system. We need
reinvestment to strengthen that system. Why should we require
people to sell their homes or go bankrupt to pay for necessary
medical treatment? We say no to Reform's ill health plan. We
say yes to medicare.
* * *
RADARSAT II
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, MacDonald,
Dettwiler and Associates Limited of Richmond, British Columbia,
was selected through the competitive process by the Canadian
Space Agency and the government to construct and manage RADARSAT
II, Canada's next generation synthetic aperture radar satellite.
The government will invest $225 million and MacDonald, Dettwiler
and Associates Limited will invest $80 million for the
construction of this high tech satellite system.
It will be implemented at half the cost of RADARSAT I through
the use of new technologies and engineering that will create a
lighter, more capable and more cost effective satellite. It will
create approximately 300 jobs across Canada. This will help
bring prosperity to all regions across Canada, especially to the
province of British Columbia.
Scheduled for launch in 2001, RADARSAT II will contribute
valuable new information to areas such as ice navigation,
geological exploration and disaster relief operations.
This is good news for British Columbia and all Canadians.
RADARSAT II and the Canada Space Agency through the government's
support will ensure that British Columbia and Canada will remain
a world class developer of satellite technology for earth
observation into the next millennium.
* * *
PENSIONS
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
when people lose their health it has a tremendous effect on their
lifestyles. I am appalled at the government's lack of compassion
for those who apply for the Canada disability pension. Today
applicants for the CPP disability pension must wait on average
close to seven months for a decision on their financial future.
It is absurd to be put on hold like this, not to mention the
strain it has on their state of mind as they try to recuperate
from their illnesses.
It is even more frustrating that they put their faith in their
doctors and in the system. Their doctors fill out reports and
recommendations for their patients, only to have them rejected by
a panel of nurses.
We are seeing the mismanagement of people's lives when there
should be compassion for those who suffer from disabilities. We
must revisit this system and make the necessary improvements to
assure all Canadians in need of the program that it is fair and
prompt in its service.
* * *
LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal
patronage list goes on: the 1988 Liberal candidate and long time
riding president of Brome—Missisquoi; a former Quebec Liberal MP
and past president of Quebec Liberals; the wife of a former B.C.
Liberal president who was herself a twice defeated candidate; the
Prime Minister's former law partner and chief fundraiser in the
1984 campaign; the former Liberal Party president and 1970
Liberal MP; the Liberal president for Quebec East, 1990-91; the
Prime Minister's 1984 Manitoba campaign leader; failed Liberal
candidate in 1993 and former riding president in Abitibi; former
president of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre Liberal Riding Association;
the Prime Minister's leadership co-ordinator for Atlantic Canada
in 1990; a former Liberal cabinet minister; the former Liberal
riding president for Labrador; the defeated 1993 Liberal
candidate in Mission—Coquitlam; and the list goes on and on.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday we asked the government what it was going to
do for the British Columbia economy. B.C. is now in a recession.
Its unemployment rate is up one half of one per cent in a single
month.
Today we got our answer. For starters the Liberals are going to
cut B.C.'s fishing quota in half. Up to 5,000 B.C. fishermen and
plant workers will be laid off.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why does British
Columbia have to pay the price for federal mismanagement of the
west coast fishery?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we know there is a problem in British Columbia. It is
the part of Canada that is most affected by the economic
situation in the Pacific rim.
1415
We have done everything we can and we are still working on many
programs to diversify the economy of British Columbia. For
example, we have helped it enormously with improving and
maintaining Vancouver airport, one of the most important airports
in North America, and many programs of this nature.
In terms of fisheries, stocks vary from year to year.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, here is what a senior cabinet minister from B.C., the
federal minister of fisheries, said about this quota cut: “It
does not necessarily mean that people do not have work. It just
means that they earn a lot less when they do work”. He actually
said that, it does not necessarily mean that people do not have
work, it just means that they earn a lot less when they do work.
Why is the Liberal economic plan for British Columbia fewer jobs
and less pay?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the British Columbia economy benefits from the
advantages of the economy of Canada. At this moment British
Columbia has the lowest interest rate in generations, a climate
resulting from Canada's managing to balance its books.
I explained there is a reduction in Pacific trade that is
affecting all Pacific countries. It is the situation for British
Columbia. It benefited during the rapid growth of the Pacific.
Now that there is less growth it is more exposed than the rest of
the country.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this means absolutely nothing to the people of British
Columbia. The only significant natural resource the government
directly manages is fish. Yet the fisheries department ignored
scientific advice on conservation, it failed repeatedly to deal
with foreign overfishing, it has presided over the collapse of
the east coast cod fishery and now it is failing the west coast
fishery.
Who is the Prime Minister going to ask to resign over these
failures, senior bureaucrats in the department, the minister or
both?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the report talks about the collapse of the fisheries in
the Atlantic, for example, 12 years ago. Members of the
committee looked at the original decision. We were not in
government at that time. We have put in place some programs to
help the fishing community in eastern Canada and the Reform Party
opposed the TAGS program.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the fisheries minister was asked why so many of his bureaucrats
work in Ottawa and so few close to the ocean. He answered:
“Ontario pays a substantial amount of the taxes in this country,
and simply people moving away from Ottawa and moving jobs from
one province to the other will not necessarily be an easy task”.
This is a big fish story.
Why does the fisheries minister care so much about his own
department and so little about fishermen's jobs in Vancouver or
St. John's?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have always been in favour of transferring jobs. In
fact, when I was president of the Treasury Board I moved from
Ottawa to Surrey, B.C. the taxation division of the department of
revenue and almost 3,000 people working there. We have done it
on many occasions and I hope we will be able to do it in the
future.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in 1991 the Prime Minister told the House: “Every minister in
the cabinet I preside over will have to take full responsibility
for what is going on in his department. If there is any bungling
the minister will have to take full responsibility”. The
Liberal dominated fisheries committee has uncovered an ocean of
bungling.
When will the Prime Minister demand that the fisheries minister
do his job or put in the member for Grand Falls, Newfoundland who
will?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the report looks at the problems since the collapse of
the fisheries in the maritimes 11 years ago. The minister was
not there at that time. He has now received a report which he
will study. We will all study the report and make changes as
quickly as we can.
I want to point out to the Reform Party that the problems
occurred when there was not even one Reform Party member in the
House of Commons.
* * *
1420
[Translation]
MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Over the weekend, Liberal supporters did their best to show
openness toward Quebec by covering up plan B, but it took the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs less than a day to bring
them back into line. The day after this four-day Liberal
convention, he had already renounced the good intentions
expressed during the weekend.
Are we to understand that the real government spokesperson on
the issue has indicated that the fun is over by making his
government's usual threats again?
Are we to understand that the weekend party is over and that the
government is once again taking the hard line?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have been saying the same thing all along. We have always
explained clearly the headway we were making.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, like the other
ministers, talks about the federal agenda globally. The Bloc
Quebecois refuses to recognize that we have transferred manpower,
that we have improved the situation on five, six or seven issues,
that we have passed a resolution in the House of Commons
recognizing the distinct character of Quebec, that we have passed
a bill giving a veto to the five regions. Each time, the Bloc
Quebecois voted no.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the
beginning of the convention, the Prime Minister made a candid
remark, stating that there was not plan B, that it did not
exist, that it had been made up by the press.
How can the Prime Minister stand behind this kind of statement
when, as soon as the Liberal weekend party was over, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs reinstated all the means of
intimidation in the government's plan B?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I stated yesterday that, should Quebec secede
unilaterally, the Quebec government would not be in a position to
take over all the functions currently available to all Canadians
without the agreement of the federal government. I presented an
argument to this effect.
If the opposition leader can see a flaw in my argument, he
should point it out, but he must understand that, failing this,
he is wasting the time of the House by asking totally unfounded
questions.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are going to
carry on wasting time. I am going to quote the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs.
In his role as adviser to the Prime Minister not so long ago, his
theory was to make Quebec suffer. Yesterday, the day after the
Liberal show on the weekend, the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs went back to his old line.
Are we to understand that it is not the Prime Minister or the
other ministers who set the tone in the government, but rather
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs? Whose idea it is to
punish Quebec and who gave us plan B.
The Speaker: The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is a false accusation and slanderous.
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, I ask you to be very careful in
choosing your words.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs made the statement, in case he has
forgotten, on March 15, 1995 in Toronto before a group of
intellectuals. He said “The more it hurts, the less support
there will be for sovereignty”.
Is he now going to deny that his entire speech and the
government's plan B are based on his long held belief?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I still believe the member to be an honest man and I
will give him the opportunity to prove it.
Two days later, a correction appeared in the same papers to the
effect that I had never spoken these words ascribed to me at the
time.
Secondly, on another matter, what I said yesterday I said because
I am a Quebecker and because I do not want my society to find
itself in a situation that flies in the face of democracy in
which a government would be trying to grab all jurisdictions not
its own in an unacceptable state of confusion.
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Andrew
Thompson has finally said adios and bid goodbye to the Senate in
order to collect his pension.
Instead of using talk about Senate reform as an excuse for not
acting, I want to ask the Prime Minister the following question.
1425
Why not seize the opportunity of this vacancy, which now creates
a vacancy in the upper house, and announce today that he will not
be filling this vacancy as the first step toward the abolition of
the unelected, unaccountable Senate of this country?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have tried and are willing to try to reform the
Senate. We have a system of two houses in Canada. The member is
proposing something that I cannot do. If I have an institution,
I have to use it.
If some day Parliament were to decide not to have it, of course
it would be different. But it is not what we are proposing at
this time.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister could easily decide not to appoint a senator and
bring a resolution before this House as the first step toward the
abolition of the other place. If he does that, he would have the
support of our party, he would have the support of several
premiers and the support of the Canadian people.
Instead, he wants to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to
renovate the Parliament Buildings, millions of that to move the
senators to a temporary home and renovate the Senate. Why not
save that money, bring in a motion to abolish the other place and
do it now?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that the government
cannot abolish unilaterally the Senate. It needs the consent of
the 10 provincial governments.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the fisheries committee tabled the east coast report. The
committee recommended that senior DFO personnel who are viewed by
the fishing community as being responsible for the crisis in the
fishery be removed from the department.
Does the Minister of Fisheries agree with this recommendation?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister when he
comes back to Ottawa will certainly be reviewing this report and
responding at an appropriate time.
I can say one thing for certain. The minister is not going to
get into finger pointing and witch-hunting. He will be wanting
to develop things forward in a positive fashion for the future.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, can the
parliamentary secretary confirm that he also agreed with the
recommendation to remove senior DFO personnel until he came under
pressure from within his own government who threatened to remove
him from his position as parliamentary secretary?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): The member could not be further
from the truth, Mr. Speaker. If you look at the report and read
it, you will see a supplementary opinion and a number of members
decided that rather than get into this witch hunting that you
seem to be promoting we wanted to move forward—
The Speaker: Colleagues, please direct your questions and
answers to the Speaker.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, British Columbians have been following the Pacific
salmon treaty discussions and they have seen four years of
inaction. They have seen hundreds of meetings, two negotiators
and countless empty promises.
What is the result? A 50% reduction in quotas and 5,000
fishermen and fish plant workers laid off.
Why will the Prime Minister not tell the minister of fisheries
to stop talking and take action or find someone who will?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have made very significant advances in coming to
grips with the United States on getting a solution. We had the
Ruckelshaus-Strangway report which recommended a series of steps.
We have during the visit of secretary of state Madeleine
Albright come to an agreement on a new negotiating regime which
will focus specifically on getting an agreement for this spring
fishing season and at the same time establish a proper framework
of negotiations.
There are two countries to the treaty. We have to get agreement
between the two countries. To follow the hon. member's
advice—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver Island North.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the fisheries minister and the foreign affairs minister
do not know who is in charge for starters.
The fisheries minister is always talking conservation,
conservation, conservation.
What about honesty, integrity and leadership on this issue?
1430
The priority of the fisheries minister has been to avoid
upsetting the Americans. Meanwhile 5,000 fisheries workers are
going to be out of a job.
Why will the Prime Minister not give the job to someone who will
do it?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member has a very
distorted sense of priorities. He criticizes the minister of
fisheries for being concerned about conserving the fish stocks.
If there are no fish, there are no fishermen. We must get a
co-operative framework in which the two countries of North
America can work together to preserve the fish stocks and
preserve the livelihood of the fishing communities.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is now convinced
of the federal government's responsibility in the collapse of
northern cod stocks and of its obligation to provide support to
fishery workers affected by the moratorium.
Since fish stocks have not yet been renewed, and thousands of
fishers still have no way of earning a living, will the Prime
Minister admit his government's responsibility for mismanaging
the fishery and will he promise to make money available to extend
the TAGS program?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Atlantic fisheries crisis began before we were elected to office.
We assumed our responsibilities.
Four years ago, we implemented a program to support fishers and
fishery employees. The program is scheduled to end this year,
and the government is now looking at what it can do. The
Minister of Human Resources Development is working on this right
now, and we hope that it will be possible to announce something
concrete in the coming weeks.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister does not seem to have
abandoned the idea of extending the TAGS program, can he tell us
whether or not he shares the opinion of colleagues in his own
party regarding the federal government's responsibility for the
mismanagement?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
inherited this problem from the former government. As soon as we
formed our government, and although we were in very difficult
financial shape, we created a program to provide support to
Atlantic fishers at a time when the deficit stood at $42
billion. We assumed our responsibilities in the wake of the
disaster caused by the mismanagement of the Conservative
government of the day.
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
finally after 30 years of absenteeism and chronic abuse of the
system, Senator Andrew Thompson has resigned from the Senate.
Since 1993 the Prime Minister has made 28 patronage appointments
to the Senate. With Thompson's leaving, we now have another
Ontario vacancy.
Has the Prime Minister learned anything from the Thompson and
Fitzpatrick scandals, or is he simply going to appoint another
unelected and unaccountable Liberal hack to sit in the Senate?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very proud of the senators I have named. They are
working very well. I believe I put a lot of pressure on Senator
Thompson to resign and I am happy to see that he listened to what
we asked him to do.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
obviously the Prime Minister has learned nothing from his past
mistakes. He is going to make those same mistakes over and over
again.
Even the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of
the Queen's Privy Council admits that “we cannot boast of the
most democratic Senate in the world”. At least one member on
the government side recognizes that the Senate is undemocratic.
Apparently the Prime Minister has learned nothing from the
Thompson and Fitzpatrick affairs. When will the Prime Minister
allow Canadians to democratically elect their own senators?
1435
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will repeat that if we were to begin electing a
senator at this time, we would perpetuate the situation forever.
I will quote Dennis Anderson, a former cabinet minister in the
Don Getty government who chaired the committee which produced the
Senatorial Selection Act, 1989. He said that when they are
elected “it will be next to impossible to renegotiate the
distribution of seats. For Alberta, that is the very worst
possibility, much worse than abolishing the Senate”.
* * *
[Translation]
CUSTOMS CONTROLS
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there
has recently been an increase in excessive controls by U.S.
customs, at the Canadian border.
There are even some members of this House who were subjected to
these picky controls and to the rudeness of U.S. customs
inspectors.
My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Given the
good relations that exist between Canada and the United States,
including at the border, does the minister intend to make
representations to put a stop to this unacceptable behaviour on
the part of U.S. customs inspectors?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, last week we indicated in
the House that we are in fact engaged with United States
negotiators over these kinds of border issues.
We made it very clear there are very basic standards that we
apply. The United States has since sent a letter clarifying the
situation, indicating that in fact it was not a U.S. border
inspector who went through the search and seizure procedure. We
concur with that kind of assessment. What we have to do is get
on with the negotiations so that once again we can establish a
new model for border crossings that will be the model for the
world.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
light of the comments recently made by Mrs. Albright during her
trip to Canada, regarding the wonderful co-operation that exists
between Canada and the United States, does the minister intend to
remind U.S. official of the comments she made, so that the
situation can get back to normal as quickly as possible?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it always amazes me that when hon. members prepare a
supplementary question they do not listen to the answer first.
The fact of the matter is that we have raised the issue with the
United States. It has responded to say it was not involved. I
would suggest to the hon. member that before he asks a
supplementary he get the facts right.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Last week we learned that a former business associate of the
Prime Minister's, Ross Fitzpatrick, was awarded the latest snooze
seat in the Senate. Yesterday we learned that a former employer
of the Prime Minister's gets to sit on the board of the Export
Development Corporation.
Will the Prime Minister now table all the names of his former
employers? That way Canadians will know in advance who his next
appointees will be so that they can check their credentials.
The Speaker: My colleague, I think we are stretching it a
bit here. If the Prime Minister wishes to address himself to
that question, it is out of order but if he wants to address it,
the right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for the past five or ten years my employers have been
the 35,000 voters in the Saint-Maurice riding who have given me
the job of representing them in Ottawa.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one
thing that is becoming clear is that a pattern is developing
here. If someone was a business associate or a former employer
of the Prime Minister's, they are in line for a patronage
appointment.
Will the Prime Minister promise today to discontinue this
practice so that Canadians will see some confidence restored in
the process?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said and the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday that
Mr. Robert Fung is a very pre-eminent businessperson in Canada.
He serves on three committees. Two of them do not pay him a cent
and the other one pays something like $3,000 a year.
I think we should be happy to have people who are willing to
devote their time to helping the government give good government
to the people of Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
OLD AGE SECURITY
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, members
of AFEAS, the women's association for education and social
action, signed and mailed over 35,000 cards to the Minister of
Finance, asking him to make substantial changes to his proposed
reform of old age security.
Does the Minister of Finance intend to follow up on the requests
and recommendations made by AFEAS?
1440
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
already had very successful discussions with representatives of
AFEAS. They raised some very interesting points.
As I already said in this House, it is our intention, when the
amendments to the legislation on old age security are
introduced, to make some changes.
* * *
[English]
FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRY
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
British Columbia boasts the fastest growing film and television
production industry in Canada. Major international productions
such as the Oscar nominated The Sweet Hereafter, and the
highly acclaimed X Files are but two examples of its
success.
What has the government done to help British Columbia develop
the strongest possible film and television production industry?
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
his question.
The recently announced film or television production services
tax credit which is administered by the Department of National
Revenue has only been the latest example of our efforts.
This extra $55 million
in support has helped create jobs in British Columbia, in fact
over 12,500 jobs in this particular area. This is wonderful for
Canada. It is good for Canadian culture. It is especially good
for British Columbia.
* * *
SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last December a plane crash in Little Grand Rapids,
Manitoba took the lives of four people. Weather prevented
military aircraft from offering immediate assistance.
John Gibson, a helicopter pilot with 23 years experience, used
his training to rescue a woman and a two year old boy from the
crash site. Why will the Minister of Transport not give this hero
a medal instead of an investigation?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we all have to have rules to follow particularly in the
business of flying airplanes and driving ships. Rules are rules.
Investigations have to be conducted whenever there is a chance
that these rules may have been breached. This is the case and
the investigation is under way.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are fully aware of the importance of air regulations
and safety.
This clearly was a special case. This was not someone out joy
riding. This person put his own safety on the line to help
somebody else.
Why will the minister not recognize the heroic efforts of this
man instead of trying to discredit his flying ability?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have heard the Reform Party often talk
about how rules should be enforced.
Given that Transport Canada's prime concern is safety, is the
hon. member and the Reform Party suggesting that safety not be a
top concern and that the possible violations of regulations not
be investigated? I think not.
* * *
PAY EQUITY
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
earlier today the Canadian Human Rights Commission criticized
federal government stall tactics on pay equity for setting an
“unfortunate example” that invites employers in the private
sector to use court challenges to evade the law as well.
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. How
does the government, entrusted with upholding the law, justify
not only evading its own responsibility on pay equity, but also
setting in place what the human rights commission calls a pattern
of resistance that is being used to delay and deny justice for
Canadian women across the country?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the judgment of the federal court which was rendered last week
and the one which was rendered yesterday indicate very clearly
that the unions can lose their case in court and that the best
way to look at pay equity is to negotiate it.
At present we are trying to negotiate with the various unions a
system of pay equity that is equitable for everybody. The courts
remind us that for our employees this is the best course to
follow.
* * *
[Translation]
JOB CREATION
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
many Canadians are still looking for those jobs the Liberals
claim to have created.
The phone in my riding office has been ringing non-stop with calls
from my constituents asking where those jobs are. Worse still,
some of the people in my region no longer get EI because of the
Liberal government's cuts.
When will the Prime Minister quit attacking the poor and start
attacking the real problem, the lack of jobs, and when will he
create a long-term job creation strategy to create real jobs
rather than band-aid solutions like the ones announced by the
Minister of Human Resources Development?
1445
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is deeply
committed to employment. That is why we have restored order to
Canada's public finances and why interest rates are dropping
significantly.
That is also why we have created the transitional
job fund, which has been useful in the Atlantic provinces, New
Brunswick in particular, where it has attracted private sector
investments which have led to the creation of real, full-time
jobs. Our priority is job creation.
* * *
[English]
THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, many
thousands of people in Atlantic Canada have been waiting in
anticipation of the federal government announcement on the
post-TAGS program. Can the Prime Minister now confirm that the
federal cabinet met last week and has already made a final
decision that there will be no follow up TAGS program in Atlantic
Canada?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been working very
hard on the post-TAGS environment. Mr. Harrigan produced a very
healthy and very good report that will allow us to make the best
decisions possible. We are consulting with the provinces right
now. We are consulting with the communities, the fishers and the
fish plant workers. It is very important that we address the
issue the right way.
We made the announcement a long time ago that TAGS was ending in
August. That is why we are now working on the post-TAGS
environment.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, if
there is to be no post-TAGS program, the minister should be aware
that Canada no longer has fish in excess of its needs and that
foreign countries are presently fishing our resources. Will the
minister immediately adopt recommendation No. 5, which would no
longer permit foreign countries to fish inside our 200-mile
limit, taking resources away from Atlantic Canadians who
desperately need them?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier,
the minister will respond to the specifics of the report in due
time.
We have to abide by international obligations. If we were to
kick the foreign fleets out tomorrow we would destroy thousands
of jobs in Nova Scotia and I am certain the member does not want
that. We have already been offering fish to Canadians first.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. UNICEF is
leading global efforts to end the use of child soldiers which
include not just the 10-year old boy with an AK-47 assault rifle,
but also many thousands of young girls who are abducted and
forced into sexual slavery and child labour. What is the
Government of Canada doing to address the exploitation of over
250,000 child soldiers around the world?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, a very important round table meeting was held in
Ottawa yesterday. It involved experts from around the world who
are dealing with this very serious humanitarian problem.
There are approximately three ways of attacking the problem.
First, Canada is working very actively to amend the optional
protocol to prohibit the use of child soldiers to make it an
international covenant. Second, through the work of CIDA and
other organizations, we are developing programs to help end the
use of child soldiers in many countries by enabling them to
return to their communities to get an education. Third, it is
important that a number of private organizations and Parliament
speak out against the vicious practice of using our young people
in combat. This is something that Canada can once again take a
humanitarian lead in around the world.
* * *
[Translation]
TUITION FEES
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when I
visited Montreal last week, a McGill University student asked me
about the differences in tuition fees in Quebec. In the present
system, students from other provinces are penalized.
We know that the provincial governments are trying to freeze
tuition fees, but penalizing students from other provinces is
not the solution.
Does the government feel that these different tuition fees are
acceptable?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, setting university tuition fee
levels is a provincial jurisdiction. It is therefore up to the
Government of Quebec to set tuition fees within Quebec.
I have already written to Mrs. Marois indicating that our
government did not accept the idea of different tuition fees for
citizens of this country, because equal access to these
institutions was important, particularly for our francophone
friends in Ontario and for our Acadian brothers and sisters in
New Brunswick.
* * *
1450
RCMP
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Solicitor General.
Sunday evening, an aboriginal woman and her 9-year old son were
shot by the RCMP near Calgary, Alberta, in an operation that
turned sour and that seems absolutely unjustifiable.
How can the Solicitor General explain such a violent response
from the RCMP and should he not immediately order not an internal
investigation but a public inquiry to let everyone know how such
a tragedy could have happened?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think everyone in this House feels badly about the
incident that occurred in Alberta. The investigation which is
currently being conducted is being conducted under the purview of
the province of Alberta.
* * *
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it
is incredible that in Canada we still do not have a national
grants program for post-secondary education. The Prime
Minister's pet project, the millennium fund, just does not cut
it. Even delegates at the Liberal convention called on the
government to institute a national grants program. It is
shameful that Canada is only one of two OECD countries that does
not have such a program.
When is the Prime Minister going to listen to students and his
own party members and bring in a national grants program?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member
to put that question to me.
The budget has been very, very well received precisely because
education, access to knowledge, competence and skills is at the
heart of it.
There are grants. The millennium fund will grant 100,000
students with scholarships of up to $3,000 per year.
We are making major improvements to the Canada student loan
program. We are providing grants for students with dependants. I
could go on. This is the best achievement we have made in the
last three months.
* * *
CANADA LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
under section 10 of the Canada Labour Code a person is not
eligible to hold office as a member of the Canada Labour
Relations Board if they hold any other employment. Yet the
Minister of Labour has recently appointed Mr. Paul Lordon as
chair of the CLRB, even though he is still chairperson of the
RCMP pay council.
Can the minister explain why this was allowed?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my office has spoken with Mr. Lordon today and he has
indicated that he is wrapping up his business with the RCMP pay
council. In fact, under the conflict of interest code, section
8(b), Mr. Lordon has 120 days to wrap up his business and that is
what he is doing.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Cooperation.
Millions of children in North Korea are at risk of starvation.
With Canada's great tradition of helping the poorest of the world
can the Minister tell the House what action she is taking to help
the people of North Korea?
Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the
past year we have contributed over $10 million for food to help
the people in North Korea. Unfortunately the food shortage
continues. I am pleased to inform the House that a further $5
million worth of Canadian wheat will be sent to North Korea by
the Canadian food grain bank.
What must be remembered is that $1 million was donated by
Canadians and $4 million was donated by the government. Canada
will also contribute three quarters of a million dollars to
UNICEF to provide for the basic health needs of those people.
* * *
AIR INDIA DISASTER
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is with respect to the worst mass murder in
Canadian history.
When the Liberal party was in opposition the leader of the
party, the present Prime Minister, promised, in writing, to have
a royal commission of inquiry with respect to that particular
disaster.
My question is to the Solicitor General. When does his Prime
Minister intend to keep that promise and why does his government
insist on continuing the cover-up that began in the Mulroney
administration?
1455
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the investigation around the Air India disaster has been
one of the most intensive ever conducted by the RCMP. The
investigation has been ongoing and that is the reason why it
would be inappropriate to conduct any other kind of
investigation.
Ultimately, if and when charges are laid that will be up to the
Office of the Attorney General of British Columbia.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MINT
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Royal
Canadian Mint has decided to get into a new business, competing
directly with a world recognized plant in my riding.
The minister has chosen to ignore some important facts. Westaim
can and is ready to assure the supply.
The government's unfair competition with the private sector is
putting the jobs of 100 people in my riding at risk. The new
Winnipeg plant the government wants to build will cost $48
million in construction costs and lost savings. All of this is
for a plant with unproven production and technology.
Will the minister assure us today that he will stop this project
or at least put—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Public Works.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, the mint has
no intention of competing with the private sector. Concerning
this project, about a year ago Westaim said it was getting out of
its core business, so the mint has the responsibility of ensuring
that it has the necessary supplies to produce the coins which we
need.
Representatives of the mint and I met with the president of
Westaim and offered to work with his company in order that it may
continue its business and assure the supply for years to come.
However, he refused and decided to do something else. That is
his business.
* * *
[Translation]
OPTION CANADA
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
While the Minister of Canadian Heritage has insisted that all
the information concerning Option Canada was in the public
domain, we are still unable to obtain a copy of the letter that
the minister apparently sent to the president of Option Canada,
asking him to explain how the $4.8 million were used.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to act right now to ensure that
the commitments made by his minister are honoured and that the
letter in question is made public, as promised last Thursday?
Mr. John Godfrey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's
allegation is totally false. We have followed the guidelines and
are conducting an investigation on the subject.
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I had hoped to ask a follow up question to the Prime Minister
about the Senate, but perhaps the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs could answer why the federal government is not prepared
to set the ball rolling with respect to the abolition of the
Senate.
We understand that the House of Commons cannot do this on its
own. However, we do have an amending process. We could begin
with a resolution in this House to abolish the existing
undemocratic Senate and put the provinces and other parties on
the spot as to where they stand on the issue of abolishing the
Senate. We can always recreate it in a democratic forum if we
want to.
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be pleased to draw the hon. member's
representation to the attention of the Prime Minister.
* * *
THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question, once again, is for the minister of fisheries.
I have to say that recommendation No. 2, as was stated by one of
my colleagues, would cease giving permission to Canadian
companies to hire foreign vessels and foreign crews to catch fish
in Canadian waters.
The reply from the parliamentary secretary was: Does the PC
Party want to put people out of work in Nova Scotia? What we
want to do is put people to work in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick
and across the whole of Canada.
Considering the thousands of Atlantic Canadians who are
unemployed, will the minister inform this House and Atlantic
Canadians that he too agrees with recommendation No. 2?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I clearly said
earlier, the minister will respond to the specifics of the
recommendations in this report at a later date.
Again I have to spell out to the member that there are certain
international obligations. If we kick out the foreign fleets we
will lose the leverage to influence the decision to protect world
fish stocks in a sustainable fashion. There are, in fact,
thousands of workers who depend on the fish that are caught by
those foreign fleets for processing jobs in Canada. We do not
want to destroy those jobs.
* * *
1500
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
justice minister has refused to inform this House when she will
bring in amendments to the Young Offenders Act. I ask her again.
When will she put public safety first and bring in amendments to
the Young Offenders Act? When will she do this?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have always indicated in
this House that we are a government that is not going to take a
simplistic approach to young offenders. Protection of society is
a key value, but obviously so are prevention of crime and
rehabilitation and reintegration of young offenders.
The hon. member can rest assured that the response will be
tabled in this House in a timely fashion.
The Speaker: My colleagues, that would bring to a close
our question period for today.
I am going to deal first with a question of privilege. The hon.
member for Scarborough Centre.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my privilege arises from question period when the member for
Winnipeg Centre asked a question and he was left alone. But in a
response from the minister of labour on pay equity I commented
and so did my colleagues around me. He expressed himself with
language that is uncalled for in this House, unnecessary, vulgar
and—
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would hope that if such
a thing occurred, I of course did not hear it, but I would hope
that hon. members would always speak to each other with great
respect in this House.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order with regard to a matter that occurred
in the justice committee. It is a matter that only this House
can address and is a matter of interest to all members of this
House.
While I recognize that committees are masters of their own
proceedings, the justice committee has gone beyond its authority
by ignoring an order of this House.
On March 10, 1998 at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights the chair ruled that a motion passed by this House on
October 30, 1997 did not bind the committee. This is confirmed in
the letter sent from the chair of the justice committee to the
sponsor of the motion, the member for Prince George—Bulkley
Valley. In the letter the chair states:
Enclosed you will find a copy of the order of reference on
impaired driving dated October 30, 1997. As you can see, no time
line was imposed on the justice committee. This project has been
considered by both our steering committee and the full committee
in planning our future business—we will not reach this project
before June.
The order of reference given the committee was contained in two
motions. The first motion which carried unanimously read as
follows:
That this House call on the government to bring forward a motion
pursuant to Standing Order 68(4)(a), to instruct the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights to prepare and bring in a
bill to amend those sections of the Criminal Code which deal with
impaired driving in order to (a) enhance deterrence; and (b)
ensure that the penalties reflect the seriousness of the offence
and that the said committee, when so instructed, submit its
report to the House no later than May 15, 1998.
Subsequent to the adoption of the supply motion, the committee
was so instructed by a motion moved by the Minister of Human
Resources Development. I was involved in the negotiations of
that instruction, so I do know for a fact from where we come on
this particular point of order.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, a motion cannot direct or order the
government to take action. That is why the supply motion called
upon the government to act. The second part of the motion read
“and that the said committee, when so instructed, submit its
report to the House no later than May 15, 1998”.
1505
The second part of the motion dealt with the committee. The
motion directed the committee and as you know, Mr. Speaker, that
is perfectly in order for any motion of this House whether it be
a supply motion, a private member's motion, or a government
motion.
In Beauchesne's sixth edition citation 760(2), it states that
“committees receive their authority from the House itself and
the authority of the House overrides that of any committee”.
Citation 831(2) points out that “a committee is bound by, and is
not at liberty to depart from the order of reference” from the
House.
In the last Parliament, the 35th Parliament, the Special
Committee on Code of Conduct was given a reporting date by the
House. The committee could not and did not decide on its own
when to report to the House. When the committee found itself
crunched for time it had to come back to the House and seek
authority to extend its reporting date.
Also in the last Parliament there were two important rulings
regarding committees and orders given committees by the House. On
June 20, 1994 and November 7, 1996 the Speaker ruled that “while
it is a tradition of this House that committees are masters of
their own proceedings, they cannot establish procedures which go
beyond the powers conferred upon them by the House”.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to address at this time the fact
that there are two motions in play on this issue. If you
consider our practices regarding the management of our business,
there is often more than one motion dictating the business of the
House and its committees. Superseding motions for example are
always acceptable motions, such as motions to adjourn debate.
We often pass motions that prescribe the way debate is
conducted. The actions in the motions are triggered by events
that may happen during debate. For example, during late night
debates the words “when the last member rises” often trigger
the question being deemed put and the vote deferred to a
determined time.
Time allocation motions often address the report and third
reading stages of a bill. It presupposes that the report stage
will carry and that the third reading debate will proceed and be
guided by the time allocation motion. Such an order waits until
the business is called even though that business may never be
called.
What is disturbing about this issue is that it is the justice
committee of this House that is at the centre of controversy once
again.
It was the justice committee that refused to report a private
member's bill to the House, which triggered a number of questions
of privilege and resulted in a Speaker's ruling allowing a new
procedure to deal with insubordinate committees.
It was the justice committee that restricted an opposition
member's participation contrary to the rules of the House that
led to the Speaker's intervention of November 7, 1996.
It was the justice committee that ignored an order of the House
in regard to the drafting of a national victims bill of rights
that we put forward in this House on April 26, 1996. That has
not been dealt with since in the justice committee.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: You should not have walked out.
Mr. Randy White: I trust I did not hear “I just lied”.
In conclusion, seeking a solution to the problem of drinking and
driving is supported by the public and was supported unanimously
by this House. Not only did all members speak in support of the
motion introduced by the member for Prince George—Bulkley
Valley, but all members unanimously supported an amendment moved
by a Liberal member, the member for Abitibi, which inserted the
reporting date which is the focus of my point of order today.
I would agree with the words of the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who said during his presentation
in debate “Members should come together without partisan
politics and create new legislation that will contribute to the
saving of lives”. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime
Minister said “I support the intent and essence of this
question. When the protection of human life is involved we have
to do everything we can”.
The justice committee should take note of the sentiments
expressed during that debate on October 30, 1997 and respect the
decision of the majority by reporting to the House as ordered.
1510
Let me sum up. We the members of this House, in this House, all
agreed that there would be a bill received in this House no later
than May 15. The question is how does this House become and stay
relevant if a committee of the House arbitrarily makes a decision
without coming back to this House on the very issue that we all
supported, all members of this House from all parties?
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are three things that are very important here.
One is that the justice committee, and in particular the chair
of the justice committee to whom some of this seems to be
addressed in the person of myself, has every intention of
following the order of the House that we received in our
committee through our clerk.
Number two, we take very seriously the issue of impaired driving
in this country. I have confirmed to at least one justice critic
in the last 24 hours the significance of that review and the fact
that I am looking forward to undertaking it.
Number three, had the Reform House leader referred to the
proceedings of the committee in preparing for today, and he may
have, I do not know, he would have found that we even talked at
some point about how extensive this review would be.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, it is important for you to know
that when we received the order of reference from Journals branch
the order of reference was not time dated. There was no
reference in that order to May 15.
As a result of that, apparently the member who is interested in
this motion in the first place wrote to me. We have heard part
of the letter. The rest of the letter indicates an undertaking,
as I recall from writing the letter which I do not have here,
that we would deal with this issue as soon as we possibly could.
It is important however for the House to know that this schedule
is not drawn up in a vacuum. This schedule is drawn up after
consultation not just with a steering committee but with all
members of the committee who represent all parties. I point out
that the Reform Party has three members on that committee, none
of whom has ever suggested that this is of the highest priority
to them.
There is a problem here and that is assuming the order we
received from the House was not time dated, and I believe that to
be the case, then what do we put aside in order to accommodate
the interest of a member of Parliament who is not a member of the
committee and who does not attend our committee proceedings? Do
we tell victims of crime on whose work we are operating that
their work is less important than the work of this member? Do we
tell persons with disabilities that we are sorry, we cannot work
on the amendments to the human rights code right now because we
have to do work that has come to us from outside our committee?
Do we tell the victims of crime, the police community and others
that we are sorry that we cannot do our work to establish a DNA
data bank because one member of the Reform Party has another
agenda?
This is a terrible situation in which our committee is put. I
see you signalling me, Mr. Speaker, but there is a lot more at
operation here than would be suggested.
Let me say this, Sir. We have never sought to defy, directly or
indirectly or inadvertently, an order of this House. The order
we have does not—
The Speaker: I am trying to give as much latitude as I
can but I think we are getting a bit into debate. Before I go to
your point of order may I ask the intervener, the opposition
House leader, and I am going to have a look at all the papers,
but is it your contention that both of these motions passed by
the House were time dated? I want to clear that up.
Mr. Randy White: No, Mr. Speaker. As I said there were
two motions involved. The first motion was time dated with an
amendment from the government.
1515
Subsequent to the approval that night, we did discuss the fact
that it has to be a ministerial authority to give direction. We
arranged for that. This is not something that only the Reform
Party mandated. All parties in this House agreed to it.
The Speaker: I guess what you are saying is that
although it was not time dated on the paper, there was agreement
in the House that this also be time dated.
Colleagues, I think I have heard enough. I will take the
information under advisement and return to the House very soon. I
will not wait long on this. I want to have a look at the
documents. I want to have a look at everything that has
transpired. I will come back with a decision on this issue.
I think I have heard enough on this point of order unless there
is something I have missed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
following the intervention by the chair of the justice committee,
I want to make it clear that this is not the desire of only the
Reform Party.
This is not just a member's desire, although a member put
forward the motion originally. It is a decision of the House.
It is the decision of the House that cannot be contravened, not
just that of a single member.
The Speaker: I do not want to get into debate. I have
already made a ruling about a House order and I will have that to
guide me as we go along.
I think on this point of order I am prepared to look at all the
documentation and get back to the House with a decision.
MEMBER FOR WINNIPEG NORTH CENTRE
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Winnipeg
North Centre said during her member's statement that in the
course of a health care debate yesterday Reform does not care
about health care. She quoted me incorrectly.
That is absolutely not true. I would like the member to
withdraw that statement.
The Speaker: In the course of debate we have one member
who said this and one member who said that. I would hope that in
the course of debate we would take these matters into
consideration and try to keep ourselves on course for the debate.
I thank the hon. member for his clarification.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
on the same point of order, I listened carefully to the statement
of the member for Winnipeg North Centre.
The phrase that is being referred to, I understood her not to be
quoting the hon. member. That was a conclusion that she came to
after quoting something the member said yesterday. I think it is
correct—
The Speaker: That is enough. That is debate.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, an
act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
Parliament on February 24, 1998, be read the second time and
referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: When the House broke for question
period, the hon. member for Scarborough Centre had completed his
remarks. There are five minutes remaining for questions and
comments.
1520
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, in this debate on the budget, the Liberal
majority tends to forget that an important issue is at stake,
namely that the Constitution has made education a provincial
matter.
This bill contains a measure relating to the millennium
scholarships, which will mean throwing over all the expertise,
the entire student financial aid program that has been
established in Quebec.
I would like to ask the hon. member whether he might not find it
more appropriate, rather than creating the millennium
scholarships, to return the money to the provinces as transfer
payments. This would enable the provinces to administer their
education system properly, as well as give them the necessary
resources to provide everyone with a proper education, rather
than targeting some people while leaving most students unable to
take advantage of the new measure, which is more or less a Prime
Ministerial whim.
[English]
Mr. John Cannis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question which I listened to very carefully. He basically asked
if we would turn over the funds in the millennium fund for the
province to control. Absolutely not.
The provinces have jurisdiction over secondary and junior
education, which is fine. But this post-secondary education
program will have the rubber stamp of the federal Government of
Canada whether it is the Liberals of today or whoever else it may
be tomorrow.
This is not targeting part of the clientele as the member
quoted. This is targeting Canada's future, Canada's youth to
make sure that when they want to access funds, the funds will be
there to allow them to get the education and the academic skills
they will need. As we have said before, a good education is the
best equalizer.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am going to
speak to Bill C-36 with enthusiasm.
You will understand from the start that I oppose it and in
particular the matter of the millennium scholarships. I will
support the Reform amendment, which provides that the budget
does not meet the usual public accounting criteria, as very
clearly indicated on many occasions by the auditor general, Denis
Desautels.
I was in fact very keen to speak to both the budget and Bill C-36,
which serves to implement it. I will first describe the context
of the employment insurance fund surplus. Then I will speak to
the shameless waste—and I will say why—in the form of the
millennium scholarship fund.
Finally, I will ask that this money be returned to the provinces
in education, to Quebec in particular, or to Quebec at least, if
the other provinces are not interested.
The budget provides for a forecast employment insurance surplus
of $6.7 billion. Already there is an accumulation of $15
billion, which means that the Minister of Finance could give a
contribution holiday to all businesses and workers. We could
pay all benefits under the law and there would still be an
accumulated $3 billion by the time of the next budget.
1525
In this context, the Minister of Finance is planning for an
additional surplus of $6.7 billion. This is scandalous. Why?
It is a scandal because workers pay the surpluses, especially
those earning low or middle incomes, because if you earn over
$39,000 you do not pay. You pay up to $39,000, and the surplus
is not taxed.
It is essentially the SMBs that are affected, because the major
companies pay salaries over $39,000 including overtime.
Generally, the SMBs pay less than that, especially those hiring
a lot, labour intensive businesses.
This is outrageous, because the workers and the businesses are
the heart and soul of the economy. In a country with 1.4 million
unemployed, we do not purposely try to make the economy
unproductive. Some might say “Sure, but economic growth was
almost 4%”. We have to be careful.
Even the documents from the Privy Council say that growth not
accompanied by strong productivity will provide increased
revenues to businesses and will result in a number of jobs being
created, but it will not lead to an optimum increase in revenues
and wealth. Increased productivity such as the one we have here
in Canada, which is the lowest among the G-7 countries and OECD
members, thus putting a burden on the economy.
The government is urging businesses to promote innovation by
investing in research and development, and also in labour and
management, but it leaves taxes and employment insurance
contributions at their current level, which is not good for the
economy. The government could say “Okay, we will at least improve
the employment insurance program for unemployed workers, so that
they will have more money to spend in the economy”. But it is not
doing that.
As we all know, the minister announced that contributions would
be reduced to $2.70. But we also know that, given the huge
surplus already accumulated, the program could operate with
contributions of just $2. Bloc Quebecois members have been saying
for quite some time that the extra 70 cents could be split in
two, with one half being used to reduce contributions, and the
other half to improve the program. We could do this without any
problems.
Again, it is outrageous to have an accumulated surplus in the
employment insurance fund, and to also have an anticipated
surplus of $6.7 billion. It is outrageous and it primarily hurts
small and medium size businesses, but also all the businesses
that will contribute $3.9 billion to that $6.7 billion this year,
even though they should not have to do so.
In the 1994 budget documents, the Minister of Finance said “We
will not increase contributions from $3.07 to $3.30, as the
previous government had planned. This will result in the creation
of 40,000 jobs in 1996”.
1530
If the minister's reasoning was good in 1994, it is still good
today. This means that by not reducing premiums by an amount
greater than that of 1994, he is not creating over 40,000 jobs.
And that is serious.
That is not all I will speak about, because time is flying, but
that is the basic point. It makes no sense. The public has
heard about it and people know that it makes no sense.
What is the government doing with the surplus it has thus managed
to create? I could remind the House that another reason the
government was able to generate this surplus was because there
are ongoing, annual cuts in the Canada social transfer. Cash
transfers stood at $19 billion, at which point the government
told us: “We are going to be good.
We are going to hold it at $12.5 billion”. The shortfall is the
reason for the problems being experienced everywhere in
emergency rooms, in health care, in education and in welfare.
In this context, pleased at having generated a surplus, what does
the government do? Does it decide to take $2.5 billion and put
it to use right away in the education, health and welfare
sectors? No. It decides to hand it over to a foundation that
is not accountable, the foundation that will work on the
millennium scholarships.
I will say right away that, in addition to constituting
interference in Quebec's traditional areas of jurisdiction—if the
other provinces do not want to exercise their jurisdiction, that
is their business, but we have always exercised it in Quebec—this
foundation is utterly wasteful, and I am going to show why.
The federal government amended the Canada Student Loans and
Scholarships Act. I sat on the committee that studied this
bill. In this bill, it is the government that decides who, in
each province, will decide which students are eligible and what
criteria will be used. It is the government that decides which
institutions are eligible and that negotiates with banks, caisses
populaires, etc. for loans and scholarships.
The federal government itself controls its Student Loans and
Scholarships Act. Each province already has people familiar
with the relative calibre of each institution, who know the
requirements, who are able to judge and provide assistance. One
does not just throw together a foundation to hand out 100,000
scholarships a year overnight, particularly as the wording of
the bill is very disturbing.
Clause 5 of the bill reads as follows:
5. (1) The objects and purposes of the Foundation are to grant
scholarships to students who are in financial need and who
demonstrate merit, in order to improve access to post-secondary
education so that Canadians can acquire the knowledge and skills
needed—
And here there is a big mistake in the French version.
1535
Out of the blue, a foundation will set the terms for assessing
applications received from students across Canada and decide, on
the basis of merit and need, who should be granted a $3,000
scholarship. How much will it cost to determine which student
will receive a $3,000 scholarship? Unless no assessment is
conducted, in which case this will be a patronage haven.
What questions will the House be allowed to ask on this? Which
politicians will be allowed to ask questions on this issue? And
that is not all. The bill states that the foundation shall grand
scholarships in a fair and equitable manner across Canada. It
states further that the directors, who all have the power to
hire, make expenditures, rent premises and what not, are drawn
from the various regions of Canada, not the provinces.
Quebec is part of the eastern region.
They are appointed to ensure that the board is knowledgeable
about—listen to this—post-secondary education and learning in
Canada and the needs of the Canadian economy. Do not come and
tell me that this is not an intrusion in provincial
jurisdictions. It means that, not satisfied with creating
duplication by not making use of the existing structure to
distribute the scholarships, the government has decided that
these scholarships should be distributed based on the needs of
the economy. While reference is made to a changing society in the
objects and purposes of the foundation, the directors are
expected to be knowledgeable about the needs of the economy.
We have heard a great deal of hogwash about the next millennium,
the year 2000. Much has been said about the need for vision, but
what do we end up with? There are quite a few problems in Quebec
and Canada besides the Quebec-Canada problem.
For our post-secondary systems to be of the required level, they
must not be exclusively focused on the economy.
This means that the millennium scholarships are scholarships
geared toward the economy. But what about culture and social
studies? Granting council and humanities council representatives
told the industry committee how essential research and studies in
humanities were in this society of ours.
According to a Privy Council document entitled “Human
Development Expansion and Social Cohesion”, one of the major
challenges facing Canada between now and the year 2005 is social
cohesion and human development. With the millennium scholarships
we hear so much about, as if they were the key to the future,
care is taken to select directors who are knowledgeable about the
needs of the economy.
If the federal government is concerned about the quality of
education, it should not have cut social transfer as it did.
Instead, it should have put money into education as soon as it
became possible to do so, giving it directly to the provinces.
1540
That would keep costs from rising so quickly. It is not often
that the Gazette and I agree, but one of its editorialists said
“For heaven's sake. The government has to give the money back,
otherwise students will have bursaries, but there will be no
institutions worthy of the name university”.
Ask any rector—the president of the University of Toronto, the
president of McGill, the president of the University of
Vancouver. They are all concerned about the quality of
education. They are concerned, and, as we know, the situation is
different in the United States. We know that more money is being
provided for research. Graphs are easy to do. In Canada, we are
going one way, in the United States, they are going in the
opposite direction.
What we have done in Canada with research is to bring some of it
back. It is still very little.
The situation is serious. When we congratulate ourselves because
in 2000 we will start giving $3,000 on a merit basis to needy
students across Canada through a foundation and solve all the
problems, we are just fooling ourselves and that is dangerous.
Universities are not built in a year. They are a bit like the
country's demography. The fact that we have reached a decision
does not mean it will have an effect the following year. At
least 25 years are necessary. Maybe it is not 25 years for the
universities, but to ensure strong universities it takes teams
with support, that succeed one another, and that are in contact
with other universities in Canada, the United States and
elsewhere in the world.
Yes indeed, students need hope, but the possibility of a $3,000
bursary, if you live in the country or anywhere, is not the
solution. In Quebec, the likelihood is greater because the
system of loans and grants is more generous than elsewhere in
Canada and the costs of education are half as high, which is the
very reason we say we are prepared to negotiate with students
from other provinces, but we want to keep education costs low.
In these circumstances, this system of millennium scholarships
preventing Quebec from opting out to make the most effective use
of its bursaries, is most unacceptable. I repeat for those
unmoved by these arguments, take a good look at the waste. It is
waste, because there already exists a structure under federal
control to provide bursaries.
There is no point creating another structure from scratch,
without the House having any control over it, in order to meet
the visibility and honourable retirement needs of a Prime
Minister, whoever he may be.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when the British North America Act was written and the
Fathers of Confederation assigned management of education to the
provinces, I do not think they envisaged anything other than that
the provinces would treat all Canadian young people equally.
As we heard today in question period—and we had an allusion to
it in the member's speech—young people are not treated equally
in Quebec. The province of Quebec discriminates against young
people from other parts of the country by charging them more for
tuition. It costs them more to go to university in Quebec. I do
not understand why more is not made of this because it is a clear
case of discriminating against people simply based on where they
live.
It has nothing to do with culture. A francophone from northern
Ontario who tries to go to school in Quebec will be charged more
than a young person from Quebec. Yet the Bloc Quebecois is
asking for total control of the $2.5 billion in millennium
scholarships planned by the federal government.
How can we trust a provincial government that engages in
discrimination against young people from other parts of the
country who might want to be educated in Quebec?
1545
How can we trust a province that engages in this kind of
discrimination to handle the millennium fund, to share it equally
with all young people in Canada who are in need? In fact young
people in Quebec have an advantage because they pay less. Is it
not far better to give it to a federal government which will
treat all young Canadians equally?
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable
colleague for his question. It will give me the opportunity to
clarify some things that were said during Oral Question Period
which came very close to being something other than truthful.
It is true that tuition fees in Quebec are very close to half
what they are in many other provinces, while Quebec is not the
richest of the provinces. Why is this so? Because there is a
political desire to foster accessibility.
There was a time when there was a wide gap between those who
could afford to go to university and those who could not.
My generation wanted everyone to be able to attend, which is why
Quebec CEGEPs, which anyone can attend, are the equivalent of
first year university in the other provinces. They are free of
charge. University itself often costs half what it does
elsewhere, because we want many people to be able to attend.
This is a policy choice, and it seems to me that any
discrimination there might be is not negative discrimination.
It would be a kind of positive discrimination.
It costs a lot of money to train a physician. If medical
students choose to come to Quebec because they pay half as much,
is it not normal that there be an attempt to negotiate a kind of
equity with the government? If our students go to Ontario, they
are going to pay twice what they would in Quebec.
American medical students had been coming to Quebec for ages
before people started to say “Just a minute now.
They are coming to study here, costing us X thousand dollars a
year, and then going back home”.
So this is not a matter of being petty, but an approach based on
looking at what things cost. We are making a collective effort
to encourage education. We want Quebec to benefit from it as
much as possible. We have nothing against young people from
elsewhere coming here to study, but there must be agreements with
the governments on this. That seems to me to be far from
discriminatory.
When the statement is made that these funds must be administered
in the same way, that strikes me as common sense. Where
scholarships are concerned, a system is already in place. It is
so hard to be fair in this area, to decide whether this person or
that person deserves a scholarship, so such a system cannot be
left in the hands of just anybody. We know that universities are
recognized as having different strengths in different
disciplines.
One cannot improvise with nothing.
The Quebec loans and grants program meets students' needs.
McGill University students are very happy with it and they do not
want another program. The program is fair to all students.
Negotiations can take place with students' associations. The
program provides not only loans but also scholarships. And more
and more scholarships become available as the education level
gets higher, because costs also go up.
We want that money to go to the existing program, instead of
being used to create another infrastructure, with administrators
designing national application forms for all Canadian students
and deciding who should be awarded the scholarships. If the
scholarships are based on merit, then they are not awarded
haphazardly, which implies that a real system is in place.
Incidentally, what kind of control do we have over this?
I hope I am convincing people. The general idea may sound
appealing, but if you take a closer look, it does not make
sense. It is costly. It provides no guarantee whatsoever that
young people are the ones who will benefit and, more importantly,
that the process will be fair or efficient. It also requires that
we put a lot of emphasis at first on the infrastructure.
1550
It is a waste. It seems to go against the idea that, from now
on, the government will no longer spend in a senseless way. It
will not benefit education, it will not prepare us for the year
2000, and it is not for students.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in the early part of her speech the member referred to the
scandalous surplus the government was budgeting. The member will
well know that the commitment made to Canadians was to balance
the budget in the current fiscal year ended March 31, 1998, and
to balance it again next year and the year after. This is the
budget for the current year with a two year outlook.
The member will also know that the budget includes a contingency
of some $3 billion. If the member looks closely she will also
find very prudent assumptions with regard to the interest rate
and growth estimates during the periods under which the estimates
are being given.
It is very clear that if private sector estimates on interest
rates and growth are achieved, which are much more positive than
the government is assuming, surpluses will even be larger than
projected.
The member must concede that if we are to pay down the debt, if
we are to service the debt in an orderly way and get it down to
sustainable levels, surpluses have to be achieved.
The member also knows that it is the intent of the government to
use 50% of surpluses for important program spending like health,
education and social programs. The other 50% will be used for
debt reduction and for income tax relief for Canadians.
The member should temper the comments about scandalous surpluses
in view of the fact that it is very important for us to have our
debt being paid down so that we can continue to enjoy very
competitive and lower interests rates which benefit all
Canadians.
My question for her has to do with the millennium scholarship
fund. She talked about the fund, as have many other members, as
a subsidy for people already in the education system to lower
tuition and to deal with student debt.
She has missed the point. It is important for us to remember
that accessibility to post-secondary education was one of the
primary reasons for the development of the millennium scholarship
initiative. Many students would like to go on to post-secondary
education but cannot afford to incur the costs of living and the
costs of tuition. They are not prepared to enter into that
obligation.
Some have said that the millennium scholarship fund would only
benefit 7% of students. It could be zero per cent of existing
students and another tranche of students who would not otherwise
go to school.
Would the member not agree that the issue of accessibility is
much more important to Canadians than subsidy?
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question in two parts. I must tell him that, if the government
really wanted to increase accessibility, it would put money into
the existing system that is under its control.
There is a student loans and scholarships act. The structure is
already in place, and the people responsible for that program in
each province are appointed by the government. These people are
much better prepared to give out more scholarships in each
province than if the government creates a whole new structure. To
me, that does not make any sense, and I would even say that it is
outrageous.
1555
The structure already exists, and accessibility would be
increased to a much greater extent if we invested money in that
structure. The fact that these people are not public servants
does not mean that this structure is an infrastructure and a
bureaucracy. And who will control all that?
It seems to me that our colleagues from the Reform Party should
be concerned about that also. The structure exists. Let us put
money into that structure. There is no reason other than
visibility to create a different structure. There is absolutely
no other reason. Accessibility will be greater if we invest in
the existing structure, and the money will go directly to the
students.
The employment insurance fund is at a level where I would dare
to say we will never be able to use it up, even with the most
serious crisis imaginable.
Therefore, we must make plans to make everybody pay, and not
only small businesses and workers. Why is deficit reduction
costing more to those people making $39,000 or less?
Proposals have been made to improve our tax system, but in this
case, it is always the same who end up paying.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the member, but her
time has expired.
[English]
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
shall be splitting my time. I rise today not in my parliamentary
secretarial capacity but in my backbench enthusiastic capacity,
if I can put it that way.
Our last budget was the first of the post-deficit era. It had a
format which I found quite compelling. It was a format which
basically dealt to some degree with debt reduction and to some
degree with tax reduction. Rather than distributing a series of
investments and expenditures across the system it picked one
major theme. That theme, as we have been discussing, was the
theme of access to higher education. At the centre of that theme
was the millennium scholarship fund.
There are many other aspects and elements to this theme
including the reduction of past student debt, the ability of
mature students with children to get some help with child care,
and the ability of people in the future to invest in the
well-being of their children and their grandchildren. We took a
subject and we swarmed it. We really spent a lot of time on the
whole access issue.
If this is the new format for doing budgets in the post-deficit
era, what will be the major theme of next year's budget? There
are compelling alternatives. There are many who would argue for
a health care budget. There are others who would argue for a
global warming budget.
Since we have to prepare now for next year, let me advance a
third possibility which will feed in as well to a health budget.
At the heart of next year's budget we should place young
children, specifically children under the age of six. We should
attempt to use next year's budget to achieve part 1 of the
national children's agenda which is high on the list of
provincial and federal governments in order to ensure that all
our children, wherever they live in the country, have access not
to higher education but to kindergarten in the best state of
readiness we can create.
If a theme or name for this project is needed, it could be
called the success by six millennium project. I see it as very
much a continuation of this year's budget, a budget which focused
on young Canadians as they left the formal school system and
headed off toward post-secondary education.
This time we are asking how we can make sure young Canadians as
they enter the educational system, notably in kindergarten, are
as ready and well prepared as we can make them. These two form a
complementarity, a pair of bookends.
Why pick this group of Canadians for next year's budget? What
is the compelling argument, need or urgency? According to
statistics it is estimated that up to 25% of all Canadian
children live in poverty. We have attempted to deal with that
through the national child benefit system. That is not all. Our
children have other problems. It is estimated that about 20% of
Canadian children between the ages of 4 and 11 have serious
emotional and behavioural disorders.
1600
We know from question period the concern of many members of the
House over what happens to those children when they become older,
when they become potentially criminal.
We know we have problems. We know that 5.7% of the population
of this country is born under an acceptable birth weight and
because of that two-thirds of all infant mortalities occur in
that group. We have problems with not just the zero to six
population, but the pre-zero, the pre-natal group as well.
If I were to say what the mission statement, the central theme,
of next year's budget should be, it would be simply to ensure
that every child in Canada is ready to learn upon entrance to the
formal school system.
The challenge is huge because, as with all modern problems, they
do not fall into old silos. There are at least six federal
departments which deal in one way or another with children,
whether it is the Ministry of Health, Human Resources Development
or the Solicitor General's department, which has to deal with the
product of children who have not been made ready for school or
for life.
The justice minister has to deal with crime prevention and
appropriate behaviour can best be taught between the years of
zero and six.
Then we have the department of Indian affairs. We know that
children among our aboriginal populations are severely at risk.
Finally we have the Minister of Finance, who allows all of these
potential reforms to go ahead.
We have to, within our own government, get our act together.
It is also complicated because in our Constitution we do not say
who is responsible for young children before they hit the school
system.
We know intuitively that it is the primary responsibility of
their families, but it is also the responsibility of communities
and, in some cases, social agencies and not for profit
organizations, along with municipalities, the provinces and the
federal government itself.
We cannot afford to wait until we delineate who is precisely in
charge of what. We just have to admit that it is a huge
challenge for this country and we all have to work on it
together.
What we need to do is to have the notion of projet de société,
as we say in French, a national project, something which rallies
us around a great cause that cannot otherwise be achieved.
We know about national projects. We have done them in the past,
whether it was building a railway or creating the health care
system. We understand that the outstanding characteristic is
that this is a job which is so big there is not one part of
society which can do this by itself.
The role of the federal government is not to dictate what the
answers are. The role of the federal government is to bring us
all together for the good of all to undertake a mighty task,
which is to make sure that our children are ready for school.
We know from literature the way in which children specifically,
and human beings in general, develop. The most crucial period
for the development of the brain and social behavioural patterns
is in the early years.
We know if children can be given coping skills that will be the
greatest single denominator of adult health status of anything we
can do. We know it is linked to the health care system because
it is linked to the prevention system.
We know that crime finds its origin most clearly in things that
go wrong before the age of six. If we know that, why would we
not do ourselves a collective favour by taking on this task, huge
as it is?
How do we start? The way we start is by actually trying to keep
score. We do not know how our population is on a community
basis. I have tried to find out in my own part of Toronto, East
York, east Toronto, what we are doing for children from zero to
six.
After the birth weight of all children is measured, which is
taken at the hospital, there is no way of finding out much until
they actually hit the school system.
When they hit the school system there is no way of finding out
just how well prepared they are. We do not measure that. Until
we start keeping score, we are not going to be able to change the
collective social institutions, whether it is child care, whether
it is screening for risk, whether it is parenting courses, until
we know how we are doing.
The readiness to learn measure has to be at the heart of our
“success by six” program. Without measurement, the rest is
just guessing.
The measure not only passes a judgment on all of the social
institutions in a community which have contributed to that
child's state, but it also allows the school system to understand
what deficiencies have to be attended to when the child enters
school.
If that is done the child will not be burdened with inabilities.
If we attend to those soon, the child can get on with it and not
fall further and further behind.
1605
This is a tremendous challenge. We have already started to do
something about it. The federal government in North York, which
is part of my community, has started to finance a research
project on readiness to learn. That research project involves
all sorts of community institutions, including the health care
system, schools and social agencies so that they are not simply
measuring how children do when they enter kindergarten, they are
actually going to start changing the way in which they interact
with each other so that children will have a seamless web of
services to support them.
The readiness to learn project, which we promised in our second
red book and which we promised as well in the Speech from the
Throne, is only the beginning. Coming out of that we can then
work collectively. I emphasize that this cannot be dictated by
the federal government. The federal government has to pull
people together on a community basis to work with children.
Starting with that measure we will then be in a much stronger
position to fill in the gaps at the community level and at the
national level which impede the full human development of our
children.
A number of measures are in place now, tools which we might want
to make the equivalent of the millennium scholarship fund. We
have, for example, the community action program for children
which is already in place. That program is a platform, if you
like, of 12 agreements between the provinces and the territories
and the federal government. It has 550 communities organizing
themselves in a holistic fashion around the zero to six
population, particularly children at risk. It will allow for a
measurement of success to take place which we might wish to
convert to a readiness to learn measure.
What we probably need is to multiply that example by about
tenfold, but understanding—
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt the hon.
member, but his time has expired.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened to
the government member. He started off by telling us about this
budget that his party has balanced and about the debt and taxes
in particular, which he would have liked to start reducing.
But for the time being, the government will be focusing mainly
on the millennium scholarships. The hon. member addressed great
national projects in areas like rail transportation, although I
personally do not think it was a good example, especially since
the $580 billion debt was accumulated in the past because of
these great national projects.
Regarding the millennium scholarships, we know full well that
the cost of education is much lower in Quebec than in the rest of
Canada, which means that the student debt level is much lower.
Instead of trying to bring costs down outside Quebec, they are
trying to implement a program that will just add to current
government expenditures.
I wonder how the government will ever manage to bring the debt
down, if it keeps creating new programs in areas that fall under
provincial jurisdiction anyway.
Mr. John Godfrey: Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the debt,
because there are two kinds of debts. There is the tax liability,
of course. But more importantly there is a human debt, the social
debt.
1610
For some time now, we have watched our human capital deteriorate.
This is now clearly evident in the province of Quebec, Montreal
in particular. When studies are done on the condition of
children in Montreal, particularly in downtown Montreal, everyone
acknowledges that there are problems.
The only way to deal with this human debt, which exists almost
everywhere in the country, but particularly in economically
deteriorated regions, is to work together, not to get embroiled
in constitutional battles, but rather to set an objective that is
valid for all, since we all value the place children hold in our
society.
I recognize that Quebec is often ahead of the rest of Canada as
far as young children are concerned.
Quebec has made enormous strides as far as daycare and other
things are concerned. To me, the strength of federation is
precisely the ability to acknowledge avant-garde models, such as
are seen in Quebec, and to follow their example, if I may put it
that way, like we did 30 years ago in the health care field, when
Saskatchewan played the lead role.
Now it is up to all of us as Canadians to join forces in
nation-wide societal projects. We must begin with our children.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
know that the member mentioned a theme for this particular budget
and I know he is also very interested in other areas. I wonder
if the member might like to suggest where we go from here with
the millennium scholarship fund and the education plan. Possibly
he has some insight for us on how we can build on what we
started.
Mr. John Godfrey: As I have said, Mr. Speaker, if we take
next year's theme to be readiness to learn and use that to
mobilize all of our resources, whether they are provincial,
community based or whether they are with families, rather than
simply imposing something—the federal government telling
Canadians what to do—then we have a chance to change our
thinking as a society about the crucial importance of the early
years of development. That is the way we are going to make
social progress in this country.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with pleasure that I join the budget debate. This
debate comes at a very interesting time in our country's history,
inasmuch as all of our citizens know we are approaching the end
of a millennium and the beginning of a new one.
It is heartening for all of us, even for our friends across the
way, to know that this government has been able to put the
finances of the country on such a firm footing that we are now
the envy of countries like Japan, who only wish they could find
themselves in the situation we now find ourselves in.
Imagine having inherited an annual deficit of $42 billion. In a
short period of time, from 1993 to February 1998, this government
has been able to balance the books, to eliminate the deficit and
to give all Canadians, either as private citizens or as business
people, a sense of renewed confidence, a renewed vision for all,
as we end this millennium and prepare for a new one.
I have just a word about my riding because it will help put into
context some of my comments. My riding of Algoma—Manitoulin, a
northern Ontario riding, is roughly the size of New Brunswick.
It contains a beautiful major part of the Boreal forest, sections
of the Great Lakes of Huron and Superior, numerous First Nations
communities and communities that were founded either as railway
towns, forestry towns or mining towns which today have, for a
number of reasons, evolved into renewed communities, communities
that hope for great things for themselves and for young people.
While I will acknowledge there are challenges ahead, there will
always be challenges. It is incumbent on us as elected
representatives and as a government to respond to our local
leaders and our citizens with vigour, vision and energy.
1615
As I travelled throughout my large riding, I go into these
communities with a sense of pride knowing this government has
been a caring government. This is a government which has
listened to the voters and has, as its first priority, getting
our finances in order. We know that ensuring the sustainability
of our social programs, our health care system, our pension
system depends on having a strong financial base. To the credit
of the Prime Minister and the finance minister this has been done
in a very careful and caring way.
I am the chairman of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources
and Government Operations and it is our intention, as an all
party committee, to pursue a study done in the last Parliament
called think rural. It was very important in this last budget, as
in previous budgets, that rural Canada receive the attention it
deserves.
The federal development agency in northern Ontario called FedNor
was due to expire next March but has been renewed at an annual
funding of $20 million a year indefinitely. This program which
is an important program for economic development in northern
Ontario can now depend on long term funding. Its programs can now
become more responsive to the needs of business and communities.
In addition, the Canadian rural partnership which is a $20
million program will spend $5 million a year over the next few
years. It will be designed to allow local non-profit groups,
municipalities and their leaders to come up with new and
innovative ways to make sure rural Canada has the best and every
opportunity to stay up with our urban neighbours.
It is all too often the case but a fact of economics that with
the recovery we are seeing in our economy it is natural that our
urban areas feel it first. We are seeing tremendous progress
when it comes to job creation. The last report which indicated an
8.6% unemployment rate is the lowest we have seen in decades. I
will grant that it is not low enough but I believe we are going
to see that rate of unemployment drop continually over the months
and years ahead.
I intend to speak with local leaders about the Canadian rural
partnership initiative and that will give us an opportunity to
pilot some projects in our rural areas which will help prepare
our rural communities for the next millennium. The economic
growth we are seeing in our urban areas will also, as it should,
include our rural areas. We are seeing that happen.
Much depends on initiatives taken at the local level, be it
municipal leaders or business leaders. It is incumbent on the
government not to be out telling local communities what they
should do but rather to listen to ideas and where appropriate
help them get their ideas off the ground.
1620
Some would argue that government has absolutely no place when it
comes to being involved with either the private sector or local
government but I disagree strongly. The federal government with
its national vision can and should certainly be there to partner
with local communities.
Take for example the long term vision of this government for
pharmacare or home care. A budget of $150 million has been set
aside for local areas to create and experiment with new ideas to
deliver pharmacare or home care. This is part of a national
evolution toward universal coverage of pharmacare and home care.
This is very important to me. It is one thing for a federal
government to have a vision, but it has to be prepared to partner
with communities and local leaders who must deliver that vision
at the end of the day to the grassroots level.
I believe it is wrong to think the federal government is limited
to international and military affairs and so on. We have a very
important place at the local level, especially as we see the
provinces moving away from engagement with local leaders and
their communities. We have seen this happen with Ontario.
When it comes to rural Canada, the government has committed to
making sure through the Canada access program, CAP, and SchoolNet
that all our communities, their schools and libraries are hooked
up to cyberspace through the Internet. In the very near term we
will see that every community is hooked up.
In addition to the specific initiatives for rural Canada such as
FedNor, the Canadian rural partnership initiative, SchoolNet and
CAP, a government that can keep interest rates and inflation
down, that can keep our exchange rate with the U.S. in particular
at a stable state is a government that is helping not only urban
Canada but rural Canada. A rising tide raises all boats. It is
unrealistic to expect that rural Canada can do well if our cities
are not doing well or that our cities can do well if our rural
areas are not doing well.
We are all in this together. Whether it is improving the
literacy rate of Canadians, whether it is ensuring that our
pension programs are secure for the future, which we have done,
whether it is providing important tax cuts to selected taxpayers
at the low and middle incomes levels, whatever the initiative, I
believe this government has put people first. We are prepared to
listen. My constituents can count on me to listen to them.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
listened carefully to the speech by the member opposite.
I am surprised at his support for the federal government's
centralizing attitude. In the last part of his speech, he said
that the government must listen to municipalities, but must
intervene. It must listen to the private sector, but must
intervene.
He also spoke of great national visions and of national
criteria. I wonder if he really believes in the federal system.
Let us not forget that the federal government did not create the
provinces. It was the other way around. In creating the federal
government, the provinces delegated powers and jurisdictions.
The federal government must honour its creators—the provinces,
that is—and their requests for jurisdiction. It must stay
within the limits of the powers granted it.
The member spoke of health and national standards, and I
understand that he was speaking of them in terms of better
service to the public or assistance to the disadvantaged.
1625
I understand perfectly well that the federal government must help
all Canadians to achieve a certain equality, a certain fairness
in health care and education, but it could show respect for
provincial jurisdictions in so doing.
I could take the example of the millennium scholarships.
According to the most recent surveys, 80% of the public in
Quebec is against having these scholarships administered by the
federal government. All university presidents in Quebec are
opposed to these scholarships. The entire education system as
well as the two main political parties, the Liberal Party of
Quebec and the Parti Québécois, are against them. And what does
the federal government say? It says it will go ahead anyway.
If it really wants to help the education sector, why—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member, but the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin now has the
floor.
[English]
Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
question from the member for Richelieu because it gives me an
opportunity to clarify something.
When I said I believe strongly in the importance of the federal
government, because of its national view, to be engaged with
individual Canadians and their communities, this does not mean
the provinces do not have a very strong and important place in
that partnership.
As the member suggested, it was an evolution of a federal
government through the coming together of the provinces over the
generations. However, the federal government was created for a
purpose. The provinces clearly saw that it was important to have
a national view.
I will take issue with the millennium fund. This fund is in no
way interference with the provincial jurisdictions over
education. The millennium fund will put much needed money in the
hands of students who will themselves choose to apply to a
particular college or university for their—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, but we
need to get one more question in on this.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the hon. member talking about the balanced
budget and taking accolades for the government on that score.
I would like to remind the member that most of this budget was
done on the backs of the taxpayers. In the basic rural community
that I come from, I have had a number of phone calls with regard
to the high taxation level in Canada under both the provincial
and federal governments. As a matter of fact, B.C. is the
highest taxed part of North America. A large percentage of that
is right from the federal government.
I would like to ask the member if he has had any phone calls or
questions with regard to the high taxation.
Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
member's question. I have a high regard for his opinion.
Certainly over the period of 1993 until now I have had a couple
of questions on taxation, no question about that. However, it
certainly is not the issue that he thinks it is which is the one
in his riding in B.C. He may want to speak to the B.C.
government about that because the rate of federal taxation in
Ontario is the same as it is in British Columbia.
He suggests that our tax rates are the highest in the
industrialized world or something along those lines. I
understand, when we factor in our universal medicare, payroll
taxes, sales taxes and so on, we are in the middle of the pack
when it comes to the industrialized nations.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Unfortunately the
hon. member's time has expired.
[Translation]
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House
that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of
adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Frontenac-Mégantic, Diseased sheep; the hon. member for Winnipeg
North Centre, Health; the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, APEC
summit; the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, The
environment.
1630
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to say a few words on the budget bill which is before the House.
My comments will be fairly brief.
Like every other Canadian, I am pleased that we now have the
first budget in 29 years that is balanced from a fiscal point of
view. I do of course question some of the methods that were used
to balance that budget. I am sure the member who has just spoken
is also concerned about the tremendous cutback in social programs
to give but one example. He comes from northern Ontario and I am
sure that those cutbacks have hit very hard.
In terms of the transfers in education and health to the
provinces, his good friend the premier of Ontario, Mike Harris,
of course is cutting back radically and severely all throughout
northern Ontario. That affects the constituents of my friend
from Algoma who has just taken his seat in the House. I am sure
he too is concerned about some of the methods that are used to
cut back on social programs in this country to achieve a fiscally
balanced budget.
I am also concerned about some of the other directions we are
going in our society. I want to say a few words about that. I
remember growing up in this country and seeing the evolution of
activism in terms of the government, when we had very activist
governments at the provincial and the federal levels. The
Pearson days and the Trudeau days. I can go on to more recent
times and talk about provincial governments in Alberta under the
premiership of Peter Lougheed. That government was very activist
in terms of programs for ordinary people.
That seems to have come to an end. Activism for the welfare
state and social programs seems to have come to an end. We have
been told by neoconservatives it is very passé and that there is
not really a role for governments today. That type of activism is
gone.
Thinking about it more and more, there is a certain kind of
government activism that is very much alive and kicking, not just
in this country but around the world. It is not an activism that
creates a welfare state in terms of social programs and more
equality for ordinary people. It is the kind of activism that
creates a welfare state for the large multinational corporations
and creates what might be called the corporate welfare bums of
the world.
I think here of the trade deals that governments have negotiated
on behalf of capital. The World Trade Organization, the WTO. The
free trade agreement with the United States. NAFTA which brings
in Mexico. I also think of the multilateral agreement on
investment, the MAI. All these things are charters. I guess one
could say they are charters for investment or charters for
capital, or charters for business in this country.
It is the activism of governments around the world that has
provided this kind of strong governmental support for capital in
the world. We also see all kinds of other examples where there
still is government activism for large corporations but not for
people.
Investment houses and bankers around the world are very much in
favour of strong central banks that are regulated, that can set
interest rates and make all kinds of monetary decisions that are
extremely important. They are very much in favour of these banks
that are removed from political control, that are almost acting
as independent agencies.
This new kind of government activism is not for ordinary people,
it is for capital and it is much less democratic. It is also
international in nature. That is the kind of evolution we have
been seeing. The government is very much part of that.
I remember the campaign in 1993 when the now Prime Minister
crossed the country saying “Elect me as Prime Minister and I
will tear up NAFTA, I will negotiate NAFTA”. He was saying the
free trade agreement was not very good. Back in 1988 the then
leader of the Liberal Party was talking about tearing up the
trade deal. What has happened to that Liberal Party?
The member from Algoma was here in those days working as a
valuable assistant to a friend of mine who was his predecessor.
He was very involved in those days in fighting the NAFTA deal and
fighting the free trade deal with the United States. He was
concerned about the giving up of our sovereignty. But all of a
sudden that short distance across the aisle which is two sword
lengths away has completely changed the orientation of the
Liberal Party. It has taken on the mantle of Brian Mulroney and
the Conservative Party.
That is what has happened to the Liberal Party across the way.
1635
I saw Mulroney on television a few months ago. He said he was
quite pleased with the Liberal government across the way. He
said “After all, it has implemented and carried on with most of
my policies”. I know you agree with that, Mr. Speaker. The
Liberals are sitting back there smiling. They are in total
agreement with this.
There is nothing wrong with the Liberals doing that if they had
been honest with the electorate beforehand and told the people
“We think Brian Mulroney is doing the right thing. We think he
is doing a courageous thing. He is a fantastic prime minister in
terms of his policies. Elect us and we will do exactly the same
thing and we will do it faster than the Brian Mulroney government
can do it”. That is exactly what has happened.
The GST is another policy. I remember the Liberals talking
about getting rid of the GST, killing the GST. The now Minister
of Canadian Heritage was jumping over desks in a committee room
going after Conservative ministers for bringing in the terrible
GST and talking about the trade deals, that it was a horrible
thing that was happening in our country.
Here we are a few short years later. These same Liberals who
are now hanging their heads in shame across the way are those who
are supporting these Mulroney policies and perpetrating those
Mulroney policies on the people of this country.
The old saying is that the more things change, the more they
remain the same. All we have are different personalities and in
many ways a government now that is more conservative than the
Brian Mulroney government of 1984 to 1993. Many of the things
that the Liberals are now doing the Mulroney government could not
have done politically. The Liberals in opposition at that time
would have risen in the House and organized an opposition that
would have prevented the government from acting.
This is the kind of trend which is happening. We see this trend
toward more and more government activism for the large
corporations and large capital in this country at the expense of
many small business people. We see this trend toward activism
for large corporations in the way they are starting to structure
some of their programs.
An example is the Foundation for Innovation. It is handing out
some $800 million worth of grants to companies for research and
development and for innovative projects. Again, who is doing
that? A board of unelected business people is making the
determination as to who gets that money.
There is the millennium fund. Again a board primarily of
business people will be determining who gets the $2.5 billion.
There are the changes to the Canada pension plan and the setting
up of an independent investment arm of that pension plan that
will soon have assets of over $100 million. Guess who will be on
the board? Again, members of the big business community will
make determinations about those investments. Once again it is
activism on behalf of large corporations in this country and
around the world. That is what is happening in Canada.
We are not seeing that same kind of activism when it comes to
ordinary people. We have Liberals across the way who used to be
progressive. The member from Toronto used to be very progressive
at one time. But I do not see him up in the House talking about
tax fairness for example and looking at a Tobin tax on
international currency transactions. Those are the things the
Liberals used to talk about in their opposition days.
The Tobin tax is named after James Tobin, an economist who won a
Nobel prize. He had an idea that we should have a small tax on
international currency transactions. This should be discussed
among the leaders of the G-7 or the OECD. Yet where is our
Minister of Finance and where is our Prime Minister in terms of
leadership, in terms of trying to bring about this kind of a
financial transaction?
We are seeing a real evolution in the world. Maybe for the
first time we can do some of these progressive things. The
Europeans have finally thrown off this yoke of conservatism, of
Thatcherism and Reaganism. They have elected social democratic
governments, like Tony Blair in Great Britain and Lionel Jospin
in France.
[Translation]
Lionel Jospin is the long-time leader of the Socialist Party in
France.
[English]
He is not a liberal; he is a democratic socialist leader. There
is a social democratic alliance in Italy. I predict in September
of this year for the first time in 17 years that great friend of
the Liberal Party, Chancellor Kohl in Germany is going to lose to
a social democrat.
For the first time in European history there will be social
democratic governments in the four largest countries in Europe,
all of them with 60 million people or more. Those progressive
governments are being elected in Europe.
I say to the government across the way, why does it not take the
initiative now and start talking with our allies around the world
about an international tax on currency speculation and currency
transactions, the Tobin tax.
That is a way of getting billions of dollars around the world to
distribute to poor people, to create more equality, to look after
disasters like the one in Chernobyl, or big floods, and to help
take pressure off some of our social programs.
1640
That is something we can do, but we can only do that
internationally. There has been a great change in the world in
the last 10 or 15 years. The power of the nation state is
diminishing very quickly. In its place are international
agreements which are basically there for capital and for large
investors.
The same kind of government activism and government intervention
that is creating a haven or a charter for international capital
should be done in terms of creating a covenant for people and a
covenant for social programs that is international as well. We
can do that if we have the political will and the political
determination.
We can do it in terms of a minimum standard for social programs
around the world and in terms of labour standards and in terms of
environmental standards. We can do it on the revenue side by
looking at the possibility of a Tobin tax which is a tax on
international currency transactions. These are the kinds of
things we could do if we had a more progressive government that
was interested in intervention and activism and a positive role
on behalf of ordinary people and not just on behalf of its
friends like Conrad Black and the huge investors in the
multinational corporations around the world.
That is the main point I wanted to make. We now have in our
country a balanced budget. We are now going to be turning
another leaf. We are now going to be opening another chapter of
the book of Canadian history. What we have had in the last few
years is the transformation of the Liberal Party of Canada into
the great Conservative Party of Canada in terms of the legacy of
Brian Mulroney and his Conservative government.
The books are now balanced. There was a Liberal convention in
the city just last weekend. Rank and file Liberal delegates are
concerned about the right wing conservative direction of the
government across the way. They want to make health care a
priority. They are concerned about the MAI. They are concerned
about the proposed merger of two of our three largest banks. They
are concerned about this right wing drift of the Liberal Party.
I am sure there are Liberal backbenchers who feel the same way.
Why do they not get up in this House and start talking about a
progressive agenda for the people of the country? An activist
government once again that will be an activist government for
ordinary people and not just an activist government for
multinational corporations.
I am interested to see whether or not Liberals across the way
might have some comments or questions and whether or not they
will have the courage to question the leadership of the Prime
Minister who all of a sudden has changed from red to blue and is
dressed in Conservative clothing.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened carefully to my friend's comments. I have a
lot of time for the member but when it is all said and done he is
still a member of the NDP which is no reflection on his character
at all.
The member made mention of the Liberal convention this past
weekend. I was there as one would expect. It was a wonderful
convention, probably one of the best national conventions on
record of any party.
It clearly demonstrates again that the Liberal Party, unlike
other parties represented in this House, takes policy initiatives
seriously in co-operation with Liberal members from coast to
coast. It is a very positive creative process. There is no
question in my mind that the Prime Minister, the cabinet and the
government do listen. I am not sure if the hon. member was at
our convention. He may have been, I do not know.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: No.
Mr. Brent St. Denis: He says no. If he had been there,
he would have felt much different about it than his comments
would indicate.
The Liberal Party because it represents the vast majority of
Canadians in its thinking I suppose takes the best of socialist
ideas and the best of conservative ideas and brings those better
ideas together in a moderate balanced approach to governing this
country.
I take issue with the NDP attitude toward corporations. I am in
favour of fair and appropriate taxation for corporations,
including banks. But the NDP have this idea or socialists in
general have this idea that corporations are people. They are
not people.
Corporations are owned by shareholders. Those shareholders are
average Canadians, their pension funds, and in many cases union
pension funds. Corporations are owned by people. Those same
people are voters. They are smart enough to know that if we tax
a corporation to death, then of course the jobs will be lost that
go with that corporation. There has to be a balance. We cannot
have a taxation regime that moves jobs out of the country.
1645
If it is all about creating jobs for our citizens I would put
the record of this government in front of any person anywhere in
the world with pride. We are not there yet. I will concede that.
But we are on a track in this country that is the envy of the
world. I would take our prospects over the prospects of any
other nation for the months and years ahead.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: I am not sure what the question was,
Mr. Speaker. I was interested in whether the member might
have a comment on the really radical change in terms of the
conservative direction of this government. Most commentators
have said this government is continuing on with the policies of
Brian Mulroney: GST, trade deals, deregulation, privatization and
on and on. Those are many of things the Liberals campaigned
against in 1993, campaigned against in 1988 and yet those
policies are the continuity of Brian Mulroney.
I saw him, as I said, on television a while ago saying that he
is very pleased that his policies have been endorsed by the
present government. They have been carried on.
What I am saying now is we have a balanced budget in this
country. It is time again to have a government that is more
activist on behalf of ordinary people and more progressive on
behalf of ordinary people. The government has not hestitated to
be activist on behalf of capital, in terms of the trade deals, in
terms of the World Trade Organization, in terms of the banking
system, the regulation of banks and so on in this country. So
why not be activist on behalf of ordinary people?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way
keeps referring to the fact that we are following on with the
Tory policies. I just want to remind the member of the 1989
budget and the fact that the Tories increased the manufacturers
sales tax and excise taxes, increased surtaxes, increased high
income surtaxes, brought in large corporation capital taxes. That
is the Tory policy. That is not the Liberal policy.
But let me go on and address a couple of the points that the
hon. member made when he talked about the millennium fund being
stacked with CEOs and business people in this country. If the
hon. member checked there will be a student on that board. There
will also be university presidents. I am sure he will find a few
friends of the NDP from the university presidents. If he cannot,
I suggest that is his problem.
We have struck a balance to ensure that those individuals who
are going to partake in deciding where that $2.5 billion is spent
are really a reflection of Canadians.
On the CPP as well, where the member talks about it being
stacked by CEOs, every province of this country provided input
into who would be part of that board.
He mentioned Tony Blair. How does he respond to Tony Blair when
he said in his campaign that the Labour Party is committed to
strict control of government borrowing and lives by the pledge
that sound public finances are essential to long term stability?.
He went on to say spending is not the solution to every problem.
It is how the money is spent that counts.
If we put that to the test this government has met the test and
has certainly been a reflection of what Canadians have been
telling us. We have taken a balanced approach. We will continue
to take that balanced approach. We continue to deal with the
finances and we are now investing in Canadian priorities
irrespective of what the hon. member says.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the
member knows his political history very well, but I certainly
would agree 100% with what Tony Blair has said. That has been
the whole legacy of the Government of Saskatchewan for example.
If we go back to 1944 in Saskatchewan when Tommy Douglas was
elected, Saskatchewan always had a balanced budget. There was
always a fiscal responsibility there. It is the same thing in
the 11 years of Allan Blakeney. With the current government of
Roy Romanow Saskatchewan was the first province in modern times
to balance its budget. Saskatchewan also has the second lowest
per capita spending in terms of government costs in Canada.
We have come from a legacy in our party of being very
responsible with taxpayer money. It has been Conservatives over
the years—
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
1650
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: The member from British Columbia
laughs but the NDP governments, the CCF governments, going back
to 1944 in Saskatchewan, have always balanced their budgets. The
member knows that.
It is his friends in the Conservative Party, the Grant Devine
government, who ran up in nine short years the largest per capita
debt in the country, even higher than Newfoundland. It is his
friends. They were the reformers of the day who ran up the
debts. It was the Brian Mulroney Conservatives who ran up the
debts, the friends of the Reform Party, the fiscal conservatives.
If we want to learn something about being responsible
financially, look at the history of the CCF-NDP in Saskatchewan.
It was always balancing budgets and at the same time had the most
progressive social and economic legislation anywhere in North
America.
Mr. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I have a very quick comment
to follow up on what the hon. member said.
His leader proposed the program in 1997 with tax increases
amounting to $8 billion but spending increases of almost $20
billion. That leaves a shortfall of $12 billion.
The hon. member just got up and said how his party is very
concerned about finances and to ensure balance. There is a $12
billion difference and the NDP never did explain how or where it
would find the $12 billion. I will give the hon. member a chance.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, that is Liberal
mathematics. I do not think the Canadian people will believe him
on that. Once again I tell him about the fiscal record of the
Saskatchewan government. The experience speaks for itself.
Here is a government that was left with a humongous deficit, a
humongous debt that was run up over nine short years by a very
conservative government, very similar to some of the Reform Party
folks today, similar to the Mulroney government the Liberal
member opposite supports.
It turned this around within two short years. We are the first
government in Canada provincially to balance the budget. We have
now had five successive balanced budgets.
One can be fiscally responsible and progressive at the same
time. That is exactly what has happened in the Saskatchewan NDP
governments, the CCF governments. That is now what is going to
happen in places like Great Britain with Tony Blair.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I was interested to hear the previous speaker not cite the
example of Ontario under the NDP in his very eloquent defence of
what one could only call a dramatic shift in the philosophy of
this party at certain provincial levels dating back to the Tommy
Douglas days.
Tommy Douglas was a great Canadian, I might add. He contributed
tremendous things to our country. Regardless of political
stripe, we have to be proud of the legacy of someone like that.
It is interesting to see what has happened in Saskatchewan. The
member does not mention the hospital closings, the privatization
and the shift in the burden, the changes. The reality that Mr.
Romanow faced when he took office was that they were going to
literally devalue the financial status of that province if he did
not make some dramatic adjustments.
I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Scarborough
Southwest.
Take a look at the policies of Tony Blair and the Labour Party
in England. Mr. Blair is showing in my view the fact that there
need to be adjustments from the extremes.
It is interesting. The Liberal Party has been in that position
for years. What does it say, we represent the radical centre
and not the extreme of the left.
An hon. member: The flushing middle.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: The flushing middle. Let us leave that
out of it. Leave my personal descriptions out of this.
In all seriousness, though, there is a recognition in economics
that we simply have to change the way all governments of all
stripes around this world have behaved over the past 50, 60 or
100 years. There is no question about that.
We could all do our mea culpas if we want but the fact is to
accuse this government of carrying of the mantle of Brian
Mulroney is absolutely mind boggling. What we inherited—
An hon. member: It does hurt.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: It does not hurt, it is ridiculous. It
is not true.
The member opposite chirped and I will respond to him because I
actually intended to raise the issue. I am not afraid to talk
about the GST brought in by Brian Mulroney.
1655
Business people in my riding will say please stop already with
all the changes. “I have already converted all my cash
registers and my accounting procedures and my ledger sheets. I
already have a system in place to handle the debits and the
credits on the GST. I would not mind if you would lower the rate
to make the cashflow a little easier but please do not go through
another major overhaul”.
We have attempted to harmonize and we have successfully done so
in eastern Canada. The response in Ontario from the Chamber of
Commerce, the retail associations and the consumer was do not do
that, it will just to complicate business lives.
I hear members talk about great success in other parts of this
country. I spent five years suffering in opposition as I watched
Bob Rae and Floyd Laughren attempt to spend their way to
prosperity. Imagine, they attempted to intentionally spend $10
billion more than they were bringing in so they could run
deficits and then increase the total debt of that province to the
point where there was a very serious problem. Now the other
extreme has come in. They can pretend to be Tories in there but
the reality is they are closer to their Reform cousins. It is
only because they made a deal not to set up a Reform Party in
Ontario that the Reform backed off, Harris was elected and now he
has gone to the other extreme.
An hon. member: Are you still crying?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: A little. It hurt but I got over it.
I would not be here if I did not get over it.
This is what we have done, what is in the budget and what we are
talking about today. We have said enough of the overspending.
The $42 billion deficit is history but we are not going back to
the days where we could spend on any kind of program, social or
otherwise. We have to live within the means of this country.
Canadians understand that. I would have liked it if we could have
given more in the form of tax decreases but I believe that is
coming.
Everyone seems to want to talk about the conference of this
weekend which was a great success. Imagine saying that
backbenchers should have the courage to get up and criticize the
Prime Minister. He only got 90% voter approval from our party. I
happen to be a proud member of the Liberal Party. I think I was
listening to the grassroots when 90.19% of the people at that
convention gave a ringing endorsement to the Prime Minister, the
leadership and the plans put in place by this government.
Help me to understand what we in the backbench are supposed to
criticize. Members can be assured that we fight within caucus,
we fight within committees for things we believe in but why would
we criticize our Prime Minister for bringing in the Canada
millennium scholarship fund? I guess members opposite do not want
to support students. We heard, we listened, we saw the
demonstrations, we saw the students taking over the bank in
downtown Toronto, we saw them marching on legislatures around the
country saying give them an opportunity to survive while they
learn. They cannot be expected to come out of post-secondary
education with debts of $30,000 and $40,000 and not give them
some opportunity for relief.
What did we do? We brought in some tax relief for students who
graduate with debt. We brought in interest relief. We even went
as far as to say that if the circumstances warrant, there is a
process in place to forgive the debt.
The socialist answer to post-secondary education is that it
should be free. There should be no obligation for any of the
participants to pay for it at all. It should become part of the
social safety net. Most Canadians, certainly those I represent,
would totally reject that idea.
1700
If one takes a look at the cost of education in Canada, there is
no question that it is a burden on students. They do have to
work hard to get through. The tuition fees for a world class
university in Ontario such as the University of Toronto, York
University, Guelph, McMaster and Western in London are about
$3,800 a year. These are post-secondary education institutions
which are second to none in the world.
However, if we were in a university in the beloved Reform
Party's United States of America, we would be spending between
$30,000 and $50,000 on tuition. We do not have that situation in
this country. However, even though the students have to struggle
and work at part time jobs, they wind up with a debt.
Most Canadians would hope that the debt would be manageable and
the opportunity would be there for students to pay down their
debt once they had jobs and became productive members of society
by earning money and paying taxes. That is what this government
believes.
This budget has clearly shown that we believe in a balance that
creates incentives and jobs for young Canadians. We want to
ensure that our young people have a chance to learn in order to
earn money and pay back what they had to borrow while they
learned. That is not radical, centre, left, right or anything.
It just makes darn good sense. I know that Canadian youth will
benefit from this millennium scholarship fund and from the
financial leadership of the Minister of Finance and the Prime
Minister of this government for many years to come.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, again we get into a balanced budget scenario here.
Before we get into that, the member mentioned disagreeing with
his leader, the Prime Minister. Maybe he has learned to not
disagree with the Prime Minister in the same way the hon. member
from York South—Weston has learned. He now sits over on this
side of the House.
I will ask the member the same question I have asked other
members on that side today. I have had a number of phone calls
from my constituency in regard to the high taxation levels in
Canada. I have only heard one member from over there say he has
had two phone calls on it. I would like to know if the member
himself has had any phone calls on the high taxation levels that
this government is imposing on honest, hard-working citizens in
this country.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to share
the phone log of my office. Of course I have had a few calls
about that. I had those calls when I was in the provincial
legislature. Who likes paying taxes? We would all like to
reduce taxes. However, until we are able to get the books of
this country balanced, which is what this government has been
doing since 1993, how can we possibly talk about taxes?
Let us take a look at what happened in Ontario. The Ontario
government came in with a huge deficit and a huge debt and
automatically reduced provincial income taxes by 30%. Those
taxes have come down by about 22%, with more still to come. What
is the outcome of that? If we decrease taxes before we get rid
of our deficit and start paying down the debt, then we have to
take it from somewhere.
People can say that health care has not been cut in that great
province, but it is nonsense. If we talk to the people lying in
beds and cots in emergency departments we will see exactly where
the 30% tax cut has come from.
Let us do it with a balance. On the weekend, the Prime Minister
said that one of the things we want to do, in addition to
supporting health care, is to look at reducing taxes. I am
confident we will do that.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question for the member across the way concerns the GST.
His solution now is to harmonize the GST. We are going to have
the polls closing in Nova Scotia in about 55 minutes and one of
the issues down there was the harmonized GST. I predict we are
going to see the NDP rock and roll tonight and increase its seats
massively in the province of Nova Scotia. We will see that in
about an hour and a half.
I want to ask the member to answer very precisely a very precise
question. Was it a mistake on behalf of his party in 1993 to go
across this country and promise to abolish the GST?
We saw what the deputy Prime Minister did. She resigned her seat
and faced a byelection.
1705
Was it a mistake? Does he feel guilty about it? Does he feel
badly about the fact that they told the Canadian people one thing
and are now doing something else?
Was it a mistake to promise to abolish the GST and then to—
Mr. Tom Wappel: We did not promise to abolish it. What
election were you in?
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: I heard the Prime Minister. We can
play clips of the Prime Minister on television where he said
“Elect me and the GST will be gone”. He was going to abolish
the GST. Liberal members have said that also. I heard the
platforms of Liberal candidates in 1993 who said they would
abolish the GST. That is exactly what they said.
Was that a mistake? Please answer the question very honestly
and very straightforwardly. Was it a mistake?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I do not want the member
to put words in my mouth. I did not say at any time that the
solution to the GST issue is to harmonize. What I said is, that
is indeed what happened in some parts of this country,
particularly on the east coast. It is something that has been
rejected in the province of Ontario, which is the largest
province. It does a tremendous amount of business. That is
because the business community has said “Don't make more changes
to the tax system which are going to drive up our costs so we
will have to try to keep up with you”.
I said that if we could lower the rate of the GST, businesses
would like that.
The fact of the matter is that this government did make a
promise and that promise was to eliminate the $42 billion
deficit. We have done that. We have balanced the books. We
have started to pay down the debt and we will start to relieve
the tax burden on Canadians.
It is the Canadian people who have paid the price, who have
suffered and who have worked with this government to abolish the
deficit and start paying down the debt.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a delight to be able to stand and offer my few
comments on Bill C-36, the budget implementation act. I support
the budget and therefore I am quite pleased to support any
legislation to implement it.
I want to describe the budget and the budget implementation act
by using one word, credibility. I want to do so by looking at
history.
I was first elected by the people of the then riding of
Scarborough West to come to this place in 1988. In 1988 we were
in opposition. We listened very carefully to the government of
the day, the Conservative government. I am addressing now
historical fact which can easily be checked by examining the
records and by examining Hansard.
Michael Wilson was the finance minister. At that time, in 1988
and early 1989, there were no Reform members in the House. There
were no Bloc members in the House. Michael Wilson, year after
year, stood and made promises. Year after year those promises
were broken. Year after year he blamed the previous government.
Year after year the debt and the deficit kept growing. What did
the Conservative government do?
In 1986 the general surtax was brought in. What for? To pay
down the deficit and to pay down the debt. Were they successful?
No they were not. The debt and the deficit kept increasing, yet
every year Michael Wilson would stand in his place as finance
minister, except for the year the budget was leaked, and remind
everyone that this year his promises would come true. It was
like shooting fish in a barrel to be in opposition. We knew he
would not fulfil his promises. He had no track record. He had
no credibility. Everything he said did not come to pass.
The Conservative government implemented the general surtax in
1986, which was followed by the GST. Hon. members will remember
that the debate was centred around modernizing the tax system,
getting rid of the old tax. Sure there would be more money
coming in, but what would they do? It would be revenue neutral.
They would only charge sufficient GST to bring in the same amount
of revenue as the old manufacturers' sales tax. If they were
wrong in their calculations—and remember, Mr. Wilson was always
wrong in his calculations—if there was an excess, they would
apply it to reducing the deficit and the debt.
1710
There was a huge excess in the GST coffers. An election was
coming so what did the Progressive Conservatives do? They gave
GST rebates and GST refunds instead of applying that money to the
debt. It was great for the people who got the cheques, but it did
not help reduce the debt. What happened to the debt? It kept
rising. What happened to the deficit? It kept rising.
We campaigned on a number of things in 1993, including getting a
handle on the debt and the deficit. We promised that we would
eliminate the deficit and we were elected. We were given a
mandate to do that, among other things. Lo and behold we had the
Reform Party here. It was not the official opposition, but it
was here. When our finance minister stood and delivered his
first budget he pointed out that he was going to do two-year
rolling targets. He did not want to say things on which he would
be unable to deliver. He only predicted two years into the
future, using very conservative business estimates.
What was the Reform Party's mantra? Of course they have
forgotten about it now. It was very simple. It was “Oh, these
are Liberals. They will never do that. All Liberals ever do is
spend. You cannot believe the Liberals. They will never pay
down the deficit, never mind make inroads on the debt, because
they are Liberals”.
Day after day in question period on the first budget the Reform
Party stood and said “This government has no credibility. They
are Liberals. We do not care who the finance minister is. We do
not care who the Prime Minister is. This government has no
credibility. They are Liberals and they are going to spend us
into bankruptcy”.
What happened? In each budget the finance minister was more
than right. That makes it difficult for members of the
opposition, I admit. It is sure nice to be on this side where
the finance minister says he is going to deliver and he delivers.
In each budget he has delivered he has neither overestimated nor
overspent. He has been measured in his responses.
Conservatives cannot say this because they can hardly throw
stones at their own glass house, but the Reform Party, not having
been in government and not having understood how things worked
realized “Hey, we have been yelling at the Liberals now for
three years saying they are not going to pay down the deficit.
Guess what? They are going to pay down the deficit, so we had
better change tactics. We thought they were going to do things
differently, but maybe they are doing things differently because
now they have changed tactics. What are their tactics now? Their
tactics are to cut taxes”.
The Reform Party was not telling us to cut taxes when we were
cutting the deficit. They were making fun of us that we would
never cut the deficit. This budget shows us that the deficit is
gone. It is gone for good. It was the Liberal Party which got
rid of it and a Liberal finance minister who delivered on
everything he said in the budgets. That is credibility and that
is what we start with in a budget. We start by saying that we
are going to do something and we do it. Then we go beyond that
and do a little more.
What was the Bloc doing throughout all this? Quebec does not
have enough. We can listen to parrots for only so long. The
fact is, we run a country. There are 10 provinces and two
territories, soon to be three territories. We have to divide
everything. We have to run this country equally to make sure
that all Canadians from all provinces and all regions are looked
after as best we can.
Here we have this budget which, like all the other budgets
before it, will come true. Why? Because all the other budgets
have come true and the finance minister has the rolling targets.
What is going to come true? One, no more deficit. What happens
when there is no more deficit? We still have a big debt. Like
everybody who has a big debt we want to pay it down. We are
going to pay it down. How do we know that? Because we have said
we are going to pay it down and each and every one of the
predictions that the finance minister has made in the time he has
been finance minister have come true and these will come true as
well.
That is the Liberal way. It is not about slashing to reduce
things. We have to do things in a measured, orderly way to
reduce the deficit to zero, which has been done, to start
reducing the debt, which is a legitimate goal, as well as to help
ordinary Canadians.
1715
Yes we agree we should cut taxes. I pay too many taxes in my
opinion. Ordinary Canadians want to pay less in taxes. It would
be wonderful if we could cut taxes across the board. What have we
done? We have at least started.
The 1986 general surtax that was brought in by the previous
government has been eliminated for the vast majority of
Canadians. We have come up with some innovations with respect to
helping low and middle income Canadians. We have to start
somewhere. We are not going to start at the top like the Tories
and help the rich first and work down. We are going to start by
helping low and middle income Canadians.
What did we do? Beginning in July of this year the basic
personal exemption will increase. What does that mean? That
means 400,000 low income Canadians will no longer pay any federal
income tax. If some province wants to try and go in there and
pick up the slack and steal some money from these folks they will
have to deal with it at the ballot box.
The 3% general surtax will be eliminated for people with an
income of up to $50,000 and reduced for those with incomes up to
$65,000. What is that going to mean? That is going to mean $1.4
billion dollars in tax relief for 14 million low and middle
income Canadians by the year 1999-2000, 90% of all taxpayers.
While we are doing this we are paying down the debt. The
deficit is gone. We are paying down the debt. We are doing what
the Reform Party wants and what most Canadians who have any
common sense when running their own families do, and that is
starting to pay down the debt. But we are also starting to give
tax relief.
Because this budget has credibility and because the finance
minister has credibility, I know that in budgets to come there
will be more tax relief and greater debt payment. That is why I
am pleased to support this budget.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of all,
I appreciate the summary of the financial history of Canada.
However, I think the hon. member went back too far. Going back to
1984 would have been sufficient. We would have heard of a former
Prime Minister, namely Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who led a Liberal
government for twenty years or so. We are too young to go back as
far as the member did.
In 1984, the Canadian debt—and that was before the
Conservatives took office—was $187 billion. The Liberals are
ones who had been in power. They were originally responsible for
the Canadian debt.
When the Liberals took over from the Conservatives in 1993, the
debt was $500 billion. Today, the accumulated debt has reached
$585 billion. This means that, between 1993 and 1997, the Liberal
government has let the debt grow, just from accrued interests of
course, because it is not doing anything any more. If the debt
continues to grow when there is no spending, it has to be from
accrued interests.
I would like the hon. member to comment on this. When the
Liberal Party was in the opposition, it voted against the GST and
free trade. If it had not made cuts in transfer payments to the
provinces and in employment insurance, if it had acted on the
auditor general's recommendations, I think it would have achieved
a zero deficit just the same.
[English]
Mr. Tom Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question.
I only had 10 minutes so I could only go back to 1988. If I
have the consent of the House I could go back to 1867 if hon.
members would like to hear it.
When I was in opposition I did not vote for the GST. The
Liberal Party fought the GST every step of the way. I was the
revenue critic for the Liberal Party at that time. I went across
the country advising businesses not to pay the GST until the law
was actually passed. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that the
Conservative government was trying to collect the tax months
before the legislation went through the Senate and indeed
received royal assent.
Let us talk common sense. Of course the accumulated debt
increased from $500 million to $585 million during the three
years that we were in our original mandate. Why? Because we were
still paying down the deficit. We cannot pay down the debt until
we get rid of the deficit. We have gotten rid of the deficit.
Now we will see the figures go down.
1720
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am going
to stand here and do exactly what the hon. member asked us to do,
which is to congratulate him. I am going to congratulate him and
the Minister of Finance. Why am I doing that? Because they
finally opened their ears and heard the Canadian people.
I do not think that if he were truly honest he would exclude the
Reform Party's influence in this. We are the ones who came here
and for the first time in over 30 years it became respectable to
talk about governments becoming smaller, spending less and
getting the fiscal house in order.
The thing I take exception to is that the Liberals try to pass
it off as if we are already out of the woods. The fact of the
matter is, now that we are in tax time, for every $1,000
taxpayers send to Ottawa, $300 is for interest. There is a lot
of urgency to reducing and paying off the debt so that we can
start cutting those interest payments, so that we can reduce
taxes and have money to spend on the programs we value.
The finance minister keeps setting these loosey goosey targets.
The present target is to pay off the debt in 200 years. That is
$600 billion at the present target of $3 billion a year and 200
years is not good enough.
Mr. Tom Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I always listen carefully to
the member for Elk Island but he lost me in that last comment. We
will pay the debt down as fast as we possibly can in a measured
way. It may take time. It took time to accumulate. We cannot do
it overnight but it is going to be paid down. It is going to be
paid down over successive governments with successive finances.
I appreciate the member's honesty in congratulating us.
Obviously we listen to Canadians but I can tell the hon. member
that when there was only one Reform member, the hon. member from
Beaver River, even before that we were already talking about this
in caucus.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, on February 24
this year the finance minister brought in the first deficit free
federal budget in 28 years. It is a budget balanced on the backs
of taxpayers, the unemployed and the provinces.
The Liberal government has been able to sell itself to Canadians
on this balanced budget yet it is due to the efforts of all
levels of government and individual Canadians over the last 15
years that this has finally happened.
The finance minister should have sent a message of growth for
the economy and hope for Canadians by delivering broad based tax
cuts. We know now about his priorities. Broad based tax relief
is off the table and massive Liberal spending is back.
The Liberal government has once again broken its promise. During
the election it campaigned on the promise that the surplus would
be spent in two parts, 50% to new spending and the other 50% to
debt and tax relief.
The 1998 budget had no economic plan, no plan for growth, no
targets for employment, no targets for job creation, no targets
for tax reductions and no targets for debt reductions. The only
visible target the government has put forward is that of
spending. This is a budget from a government that has lost sight
of the real needs of Canadians.
Last month's budget made one thing very obvious. The Liberal
government is trying desperately to correct the problems it has
created by past policies. An example would be the Minister of
Finance's sudden attention to and concern for students. Suddenly
the Minister of Finance has a plan to help students, a plan
designed to offset the effects of his cuts to the provinces, a
plan that causes tuition fees to rise too high in the first
place.
The Canadian millennium scholarship fund, the pet project of the
Prime Minister, is getting a lot of attention. It sounds
wonderful but consider just how wonderful it really is. Here are
the specifics. The fund is $2.5 billion. There are 100,000
scholarships. Students can receive an average of $3,000 each
year with a cap of $15,000 over four years. The only stipulation
is that the students will have to wait for two more years before
they will see any of the money.
When will the government realize that the students face debt
problems today? Dangling a carrot in front of them and then
saying wait until the year 2000 just does not cut it. A student
who appeared on the CBC national news in February put it best.
This particular student was quoted as saying “Of course they
balanced the budget and that is why I have a debt of $30,000”.
1725
The issue of student debt should be one of utmost importance to
all Canadians. Student debt does not just affect all students.
It is an impediment to sustained economic growth in our country.
Canada simply cannot afford to have a sufficient portion of its
young people so heavily burdened by debt.
The cuts by the Minister of Finance to transfer payments for
post-secondary education have forced provincial governments to
cut funding to colleges and universities. In turn these
institutions have no alternative but to raise tuition fees on the
backs of students. As a consequence student debt has risen
dramatically.
In 1993 the average student graduated with a debt load of
$9,000. Today a student graduates with a debt of $25,000 to
$30,000.
The Liberal government thinks that by involving its millennium
scholarship endowment fund it is solving the student debt
problem. While it may put some additional funds in the pockets
of some students, on the whole it is not the answer to this
crisis. Let me explain.
The scholarship only helps a very small limited number of
students, approximately 3% to 4% of those going to universities
and colleges. The scholarship does not address the structural
problems such as cuts to transfers and the cost of obtaining an
education. These are the root causes. These are the issues that
need to be directly addressed by the federal government.
Young Canadians want to work. They want to work in Canada. The
challenge for this government is to create employment
opportunities. This is done by giving them a fair start in life.
This means making education affordable, implementing responsible
fiscal policies, offering a competitive tax system that will
allow Canadians to spend and save.
Let me remind the House that transfers to the provinces
increased by $6 billion under the previous Progressive
Conservative government. Since the Liberal government took power
in 1993, the transfers to the provinces have decreased by $6
billion. We now see the repercussions of these decisions.
We have been advocating tax cuts for Canadians as a primary task
for government. Recently Canadians were hit with increases to
the Canada pension plan with still no substantial offsetting
relief in the EI premiums.
The government continues to collect $6 billion annually from
excessively high unemployment insurance premiums. May I remind
the House that the current EI premiums are at $2.70 and it is
recommended that at $2 this program could be sustainable even in
a recession.
Sure the budget was balanced. The important part is how. I have
answered that. On the backs of each other. Many Canadians have
faced higher taxes and have lost their jobs. Businesses are
closing due to the economic environment. Canadians have
experienced the effects of cuts to our health and education
system and have been offered no reasonable relief. Working
Canadians have seen their personal disposable income decline by
1.3% since 1993.
Overall we just need to look to our neighbours to the south to
see the incredible difference in tax levels, unemployment figures
and job opportunities. Brain drain, high taxes, high student
debt, high unemployment, lack of job opportunities all go hand in
hand. One feeds on the other.
In the budget the basic personal tax credit was raised by only
$500 to $6,956. The PC government would have taken advantage of
this balanced budget opportunity to give every Canadian a
significant tax break by raising this credit to $10,000.
While we are pleased that the government decided to cut the 3%
general surtax for low and middle income Canadians, unfortunately
the Liberals missed the opportunity to make this tax relief broad
based. Again we must keep young Canadians in Canada and give
them the opportunity their parents had. It is crucial that we
solve the alarming trend that we know as brain drain.
Another important issue the government did not address in this
budget is the year 2000. We just heard in the industry committee
that as high as 30% of the industries in Canada could go bankrupt
or out of business in the year 2000. I have been quoting—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If the hon. member
for Markham would excuse me, the time for debate on this bill
today has expired. When the bill comes back to the House again
the hon. member will have three minutes on debate plus questions
and comments of five minutes.
[Translation]
BILL C-36—NOTICE OF TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was not possible, unfortunatly,
to reach an agreement pursuant to Standing Orders 78(1) and 78(2)
with respect to the proceedings at second reading of Bill C-36, an
act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
Parliament on February 24, 1998.
1730
Pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that, at the
next sitting of the House, a minister of the crown will be moving
a time allocation motion for the purpose of allotting a specified
number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of
proceedings at that stage.
Some hon. members: Shame.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.30 p.m.
the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP) moved:
That, in
the opinion of this House, the government should consider
implementing a tax credit or tax rebate that would
compensate parents for the substantial costs of enrolling
their children in youth activities.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my private member's motion which we are
debating reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider implementing a tax credit or tax rebate that would
compensate parents for the substantial costs of enrolling their
children in youth activities.
The intent of this motion is to provide a tax credit or rebate
to parents to help defray the costs of a variety of programs such
as recreational and academic; summer camps; sports teams; fees
for hockey, soccer, baseball, et cetera; music or band programs,
theatre or artist programs; camping and outdoor clubs; scouts,
girl guides, et cetera. Obviously it is only a motion. It is
not a bill. Any particular tax rebate program like this might
have to be more specific as to what was included and what was
excluded.
The point I am making through the motion is that parents are
under increasing pressure to be able to fund and to pay for the
many programs they would like to have their children enrolled in.
They are being hit from all sides in this respect.
Parents face new and growing costs to keep their kids in school
and in community club youth programs. If we talk to people who
have children, they say that one of the features of parental life
these days is fundraising. Parents always have chocolate bars on
the dining room table. Their relatives are afraid to come over
because they do not know what they are trying to sell them next,
whether it is chocolate bars or this, that or the other to fund
various programs at school.
Kids are marketing things at the door such as Christmas cards
and various other things in order to get extra resources to buy
things that I frankly think should be paid for by the school
through the public treasury and the funding of our public
education system through the tax system. That is happening less
and less.
Parents are being asked, either by the school or by the various
other programs their children are enrolled in, to engage more and
more in either the payment of extra fees or the raising of extra
money through fundraising.
Schools are feeling the broad range of cuts by federal and
provincial governments with respect to education and youth
programs. There has been a lot of downloading from the federal
government to provincial governments, to school boards and to
municipalities. We see the elimination or the reduction of a lot
of youth programming.
1735
This is not a problem that would be addressed in particular by
what I am speaking about tonight. For instance, I have learned
that in my own community the city of Winnipeg wants the community
clubs to take over wading pools. The community clubs are already
volunteer organizations. They are already stretched, yet this
level of government expects volunteers to take over a program
that is very important to a lot of children during our hot
summers. Even though it gets cold in Winnipeg, it gets hot in
the summer and wading pools are very important. That is another
matter which has to do with the reduction of program funding.
There is also the problem of extra fees which the motion
addresses in particular that are more and more expected of
parents. They are required to pay extra amounts to provide their
children with these positive experiences. The government should
look at a way to recognize the value of children being enrolled
in these kinds of programs. We should not have a society in
which any child is prevented from being enrolled in these
programs by virtue of the fact that parents feel they cannot
afford it.
We need to encourage youth to engage in these kinds of positive
activities. In parliament quite appropriately we spend an awful
lot of time talking about the Young Offenders Act and the more
punitive dimension of how to deal with youth crime. We also need
to spend more time talking about the other half of the equation,
which is making sure that we provide opportunities for positive
learning activities that play a preventive role in dealing with
the root problems of youth crime, or at least dealing with
elements of the root problems of youth crime.
The experience of many people over the years has been that
involvement in an organization which demands of a young person a
great deal of time, energy and commitment keeps them from having
time on their hands. It keeps them from the temptation to become
involved in other things that are less wholesome. Much is to be
said for youth being involved in these kinds of programs and
activities.
There is merit in the government looking at ways in which it
might extend more support in this regard than it does now. We
need to break the cycle of youth crime, and I believe that
healthy youth programs contribute to the maintenance and
development of cohesive and safe communities. The evidence on
that is pretty convincing.
The motion will not pass because it is not a votable motion, but
I hope the government would consider what members of Parliament
have to say and will look to incorporating some of the
suggestions made today, not just by me but perhaps by others,
into any kind of comprehensive strategy for youth in Canada.
If the government were to implement such a policy, it might want
to look at how the tax rebate could be designed to give a bigger
break to middle and low income Canadians who need it more than
others. There might be some kind of ceiling on it. It does not
necessarily have to be available to everybody.
Such programs have been instituted in other jurisdictions. In
Minnesota, for instance, an educational tax credit and deduction
was brought in to assist parents in this way. It is not
identical to what I have in mind, but I am just saying there are
examples of how this can be done. I recommend that the
government have a look at that. It may see elements of a
solution in what has been done in that state.
It is time for all levels of government to look at how we can
begin to rebuild our educational and recreational programming
because they have taken a beating over the last 10 years or so.
We need to begin to invest in our children's future again.
I think this is one of the ways we can do it. We could recognize
the expense many families have in order to provide these kinds of
experiences for their children. This measure would go a long way
toward doing that.
1740
I have a few other points I would like to put on the record. I
have been very disturbed, for instance, in my own riding by the
way the community clubs have been treated by Revenue Canada.
A community club in my riding was audited, assessed and told
that there had been certain hockey fees on which it was supposed
to be charging GST. The club did not know it was supposed to be
charging GST in this category of program. The next thing we
know, it is told that it owed Revenue Canada something in the
neighbourhood of $10,000.
This is a community club run by volunteers. I do not know how
many other community clubs across the country have been affected
in this way. It seems to me that if Revenue Canada wants to
instruct the club by telling it that it has been doing this wrong
and from here on it it needs to charge GST, that is fair enough.
However, for Revenue Canada to tell the club, a volunteer
organization where people are working nights and weekends to help
make that club a success, that it owes $10,000 and interest is
not a very wise policy when at the same time we are talking about
the Young Offenders Act and what we can do about youth crime.
Here we have a community club that is doing its best to keep as
many kids active in sports and on the ice instead of on the
street, and it is being told it made a mistake and it has to pay
through the nose. I think that should have been waived.
We have had some success in waiving the interest but personally
I think the whole thing should have been waived. I believe we
need to look for other ways to encourage community clubs and
other groups involved in youth programming rather than make them
vulnerable to the kind of situation Park City West Community
Centre in Transcona found itself in.
I look forward to the comments of other members on my
suggestion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Finance.
An hon. member: This will be good.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member across
the way for saying “this will be good”. I hope he appreciates
that.
I am pleased to speak to this private member's motion. It
certainly reflects a concern for children and families, which is
commendable and which the government fully shares. That
philosophy was reaffirmed in last fall's Speech from the Throne
which stated:
One of our objectives as a country should be to ensure that all
Canadian children have the best possible opportunity to develop
their full potential.
That objective may appear in harmony with today's motion which
suggests that government consider providing tax relief for
parents who enrol their children in youth activities. While the
intent is admirable, I am afraid the motion fails some important
tests both in terms of priority and practicality.
To explain, I want to begin by reminding the House that the
federal tax system already provides significant assistance to low
and middle income families with children through the Canada child
tax benefit. It represents an investment of over $5 billion a
year and is growing dramatically. In the last two budgets the
government dramatically increased the annual assistance provided
to low and middle income families through the child tax benefit.
Since July 1997 over 720,000 low income working families have
received increased benefits as a result of restructuring and
enriching the working income supplement. Overall benefits have
increased by $850 million over three years.
Again, as announced in the 1998 budget, the government will add
a further $425 million in July 1999 and another $425 million in
July 2000.
I want to step back to Motion No. 306 and the issue of
priorities. First, the government's dramatic fiscal progress and
our capacity for new investment are still quite limited. We must
make sure that investments including tax cuts meet the key
priority of doing the most good for those with the greatest need.
The child tax benefit does this by targeting aid to low and
middle income families. However, today's motion would represent
a new and costly tax break and one that could provide the
greatest share of the benefit to affluent families, in fact those
who need it least.
1745
Of course the cost of this motion would depend on the parameters
applied such as the level of credit or the number of children for
which it could be claimed. However, let me give a mid-case
scenario as an example.
Let us assume for the moment a thousand dollar tax credit at a
rate of 17%. In other words, a tax benefit of $170 for each
eligible child is in place. If this was claimed by the parents
of just half of all Canadian children, the cost would be about
$570 million a year. That is a substantial amount of money.
A practical problem with this motion is the following. How
should we define appropriate youth activities? Should the
government be subsidizing golf or tennis lessons? Where do we
draw the line between personal development and leisure?
Remember, parents of modest means can use the child tax benefit
to help their children undertake youth activities if they feel
that this is a good use of their family resources.
It reflects an important aspect of our tax policy and operating
philosophy. We feel it is parents who are best placed to decide
how the financial resources of their family should be allocated.
By creating a special tax break just for youth activities, it is
the government that is determining family priorities.
Let me step back to the issue of what would qualify as an
appropriate youth activity. Consider the administrative problems
and costs of determining eligible activities requiring parents to
provide receipts, and then processing these claims, all on top of
a tax system which I am sure the hon. member opposite would agree
most people already find quite complex and time consuming.
On the issue of what would be an eligible youth activity, there
is a final point that I would like to make. The government
already provides real tax assistance to many activities that
would clearly qualify under the hon. member's motion.
Boy Scouts and Girl Guides, for example, are done through the
tax exempt status of charitable or non-profit organizations.
Because they are income tax exempt, they are able to offer their
programs to members at a lower cost, making them accessible to
the widest range of Canadians. It appears to me that this is an
efficient, effective and fair method of meeting the same
fundamental goal in today's motion.
In conclusion, it should be clear why this House cannot endorse
today's motion. First, it would be a very costly addition to our
already expanding program of tax assistance to families with
children.
Also, it would provide assistance to many families that need it
least without giving real aid to Canadian children and families
in real jeopardy. Then it would be costly and difficult to
administer.
Finally, the motion ignores the fact that there is a form of tax
assistance, exemption for charitable and non-profit
organizations, that already helps many youth activities and the
involvement of children.
Considering this, we should have no hesitation in rejecting
today's well intentioned but flawed motion. As I pointed out,
government provides over $5 billion of assistance to families
with children and is enriching that assistance.
This is a better way to help children than that proposed in this
motion.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise in debate on Motion No. 306. I want to
commend the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona for what is a well
intentioned and commendable effort.
His objective clearly is to provide some form of tax relief for
families in need to assist them in making choices for their
families with respect to youth activities.
First of all, I see several technical flaws with the motion. For
instance, the motion fails to define what constitutes youth
activities, fails to define youth. There is no standard
definition of youth in any of the tax statutes.
The cost of this tax expenditure is nowhere defined in the
motion. Therefore while I think it is well intentioned, the
motion itself has not been well thought out.
My principal objection is that the motion seeks to make choices
for parents by defining exactly what kind of activities they can
use to reduce their taxes payable. I think this is entirely the
wrong approach.
The hon. member has touched on a very real problem. Families
with children have experienced a shrinking disposable income now
for over 15 years in this country.
1750
Year after year they find there is less money at the end of the
day in their bank accounts, in their wallets and in their cheque
books to fund the kinds of important activities for their
children and families, activities that supplement the basic
education of children in the school system.
He is right in pointing out the plethora of fundraising
activities which families find themselves participating in to
finance recreational programs and other educational athletic
programs and so forth. But the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona suggested during his remarks that instead of
Girl Guides and minor hockey teams going out and raising these
moneys by selling chocolate bars and cookies, the funding for
these programs should come from the public treasury.
With all due respect to the hon. member, there actually is some
value in young people learning that there is no such thing as a
free lunch. To suggest that Girl Guides should apply to the
federal government for a grant as opposed to going out and trying
to sell their wares, to learn about the free enterprise system,
to learn about charity and learn about the reliance on other
people's good will is misguided indeed.
My principal objection is that the motion seeks to apply a
band-aid where radical surgery is needed with respect to the
taxation faced by Canadian families. Canadian families on
average now spend more on taxation than they do on food, shelter
and clothing combined. As I have said in this place many times,
I think quite frankly such a tax burden is morally questionable,
a burden that consumes more than the basic necessities of an
average family. The family tax index which calculates the total
burden of all direct and indirect taxes on average families
suggests that the average Canadian family spends over 40% of its
annual income on taxation to the three levels of government.
Just last week the C.D. Howe Institute released a new study which
suggested that the average marginal tax rate faced by Canadian
families was over 53%. Essentially what we have done in this
Parliament and in this country is create a situation where
families are working harder and harder. We have more two income
families leaving children at home alone in the young formative
years in order to go out into the workforce to pay for the taxes
that have been levied on them by politicians in this place.
The solution to that problem, the solution to the frustration
faced by so many families in financing the basic needs of their
children is not to use the tax code as an instrument of social
engineering. It is not for politicians in this legislature or
any other legislative assembly to pick and choose which
activities are more deserving of exemption from taxation than
others. Picking and choosing certain activities is a form of
social engineering. What we ought to strive to do in this
Parliament is to let families make the choices that they need to
make according to their own priorities. It is the principle of
choice, it is the principle of freedom which ought to animate all
the decisions we make in this place, particularly with respect to
the tax system.
The Income Tax Act was introduced in this place as a temporary
war tax act in 1917 to finance the needs of the then Dominion of
Canada during the great war. It was a temporary act which
totalled 12 pages. It read 12 pages in length. Today's Income
Tax Act now numbers over 1,300 pages and includes several hundred
more pages of associated regulations which deal with the
application of this hugely complicated tax code.
We now employ over 43,000 bureaucrats in the Department of
National Revenue to administer that 13,000 page tax code.
1755
It took 43,000 bureaucrats to administer a tax code so complex
and so lengthy that no person in this country understands it. I
dare say those of us here who write those tax laws have never
read a substantial portion let along the entire Income Tax Act. I
suggest that even the most expert tax authorities in this country
do not have a comprehensive understanding of the behemoth, the
monster we have created in the Income Tax Act.
The reason this tax code grows and grows is well intentioned but
ultimately shortsighted efforts like the motion before us today.
Parliamentarians and governments have sought to use the tax code
as an instrument of social engineering, placing level on level
and layer on layer of complexity to create innumerable
deductions, exemptions, credits, write-offs and loopholes in the
system. Each one of these creates new complexities within the
legislation which requires more bureaucrats to administer it.
This creates a greater need for private sector tax practitioners
to interpret it and apply it. Meanwhile the poor bedraggled
taxpayer at the end of the year is faced with an incomprehensible
requirement.
It is interesting that we are discussing this as we approach the
end of the tax year. Millions of Canadian families are going to
be sitting around their kitchen tables late at night with their
pocket calculators, pencils and their reams of paper trying to
understand this byzantine, incomprehensible, opaque tax code we
have imposed on them because of the innumerable regulations,
exemptions, deductions and credits which have been inspired by
motions like the one before us today.
What my colleagues and I in the Reform caucus propose to do is
rather than carving out little loopholes in the tax code, as the
hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona proposes, we propose to
deliver general tax relief to all Canadian families. This will
enable them to make choices about how to dispose of their scarce
income. We would do this by raising the basic personal exemption
to $7,900 not for some families like this government has proposed
but for all families. We would raise the spousal amount to
$7,900.
We would convert the current child care tax deduction which
discriminates against traditional families to a refundable credit
available to all families. In sum, we would deliver $2,000 of
tax relief for the average Canadian family. This would be
appreciably greater for low income families with children at
home. Let families make the decisions by allowing them to keep
more of the money they have earned rather than taking it from
them and using the tax code to engineer social outcomes.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to the motion
brought forward by the member for Winnipeg Transcona. I will
repeat it so it is fresh in our minds: “That, in the opinion of
this House, the government should consider implementing a tax
credit or tax rebate that would compensate parents for the
substantial costs of enrolling their children in youth
activities”.
I think an element is missing from our tax system, from our
wealth distribution system, that could be useful to our society
in that it could prevent certain tragic situations. Let me
explain.
We are talking about youth activities. We can think of anything
that can complement family education: piano lessons, violin
lessons, participation in sports like judo, hockey, baseball, all
those things that complement a child's education. The discipline
that a child will acquire by taking piano lessons for many years,
for example, the fact that he or she will learn that it takes a
lot of work to become a good pianist and that results cannot be
achieved without effort, all this will help that child through
his or her whole life. I think the motion before us would help us
reach that goal.
1800
When the Liberals tell me that we cannot afford that, I say that
we have a tax system that provides credits for professional
hockey teams, and as long as businesses can benefit from tax
deductions for that kind of thing, we should provide a deduction
for parents who have to pay for their kids to take piano lessons,
to play hockey or to participate in other types of educational
activities.
The government cannot, on the one hand, agree to deduct money
for professional hockey teams and, on the other hand, claim that
it is not possible to change our tax system to meet such needs.
The other element is that these costs can sometimes be
considerable. For example, a family with three children could
spend several thousands of dollars per year on such courses. With
a tax credit, the costs involved would be less for each family,
and it could allow some children to take courses that their
families would otherwise not be able to afford.
Earlier, the Reform Party member mentioned that this is the time
of the year when people prepare their tax return and that they do
not want to be stuck with an additional credit. I happen to see
things very differently. There are parents who have kept receipts
for such costs, for youth activities that are not tax deductible.
These people would be very happy if they could get a deduction
for such costs. These are positive and useful activities that
benefit children.
Another important element is that it would promote volunteer
work. In all these organizations, there are volunteers who put in
several hours every week. In the municipality of La Pocatière,
which is located in my riding, there is a judo club and some
music schools where piano and violin teachers do a lot of
volunteer work. If we could increase the number of students by
reducing costs, it would promote and recognize the volunteer work
done by these people.
It would also encourage new initiatives.
Again, last year, a music teacher came to see me about starting
a music class in a school in Saint-Alexandre-de-Kamouraska at the
primary level.
There is the cost evaluation. Obviously this is not easy.
Contributions must be sought from parents and from institutions.
If there had been such a tax measure, it would have been an
incentive for this new kind of initiative. I think that this
sort of effort would be beneficial, and an investment in society.>
I think this is very important. We should be investing in these
activities so that fewer young people get off on the wrong foot.
The best way to prevent juvenile delinquency is to make
activities available to young people that give them a chance to
develop their potential so that they can decide what they want
to do with their lives.
If the traditional educational system does not give them this
opportunity, this kind of activity can help them to discover
interests and demonstrate their potential.
If we look at it in terms of investment, it is no longer simply
an expenditure, as the Liberal member was saying earlier. I am
extremely surprised, but this is becoming more and more of a
reality: the Liberal Party and the Reform Party have similar
views on this issue.
For example, the Liberal and Reform members
tell us this will be complicated. They wonder how youth activity
will be defined, and if it will not create additional
bureaucracy. I think this is hiding behind the principle itself.
What they are actually saying is that they do not want
equalizing measures in our society.
They want everyone to have fewer and fewer equal opportunities,
when the member's very motion says:
The member for Winnipeg—Transcona did not have to write today's
Income Tax Act. He is merely drawing the House's attention to
the relevance of doing something along these lines. I would have
expected the government's attitude to be more one of being
willing to consider this motion, to see what can be done.
In today's society, what can we do to give everyone a more equal
opportunity?
1805
How, for instance, will we ensure that the children of parents
with low income will enjoy this sort of benefit? This sort of
consideration can be examined in committee. Legislation may
have to be amended as a result.
We already have a tax credit for charitable donations. I think
we could quickly and precisely link the sort of tax credit sought
in the member's motion to the existing tax credits for charities.
This way parents could be strongly encouraged to ensure their
children will participate in such activities.
Parents who, at supper time, are organizing the week's courses
and setting their own schedules up accordingly, will not say, as
the Reform member did earlier, that this is not a matter for the
government.
Under such circumstances, parents who have an opportunity to give
their children more training will do so. They must also have
equal opportunity, because in recent years there has been more
pressure on taxpayers and particularly on parents in terms of
family income. Would this not be a way to distribute wealth
better?
Productivity in society has increased a lot in recent years.
Banks for one are making huge profits. We are looking for ways
to redistribute this increased productivity in society.
Would it not be a drop in the bucket, but nevertheless
significant and valid to say that one way the government could
ensure gains in productivity are returned to the people would be
through this tax credit or a remittance of taxes to parents
wanting their children to fully benefit from activities for
youth.
I think all Canadians—children, parents or the agencies
providing the services—would find that this was a fair and
important act. I encourage the House to consider this sort of
argument.
While the motion is not votable, I hope the government, in
response to the arguments raised here, will pay attention and
include such action in the next budget.
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
take part today in the debate on the motion by my colleague for
Winnipeg—Transcona. As my party's spokesperson on policies for
children, I am greatly interested in everything relating to
children's lives.
I must, however, admit that I am confused as to the content and
scope of this motion. First of all, I believe it is essential to
know what age group is targeted. Young children or adolescents?
The answer to this will certainly have an impact on the extent
of the activities addressed by the motion.
I wonder also about the activities eligible for the tax credit.
Is the NDP member referring to hockey, ballet lessons, piano
lessons? I do not know the answer but I do feel more
clarification is required.
Perhaps the NDP member could inform us as to how the institutions
or organizations providing these activities for youth would be
accredited. What, for example, are the criteria for determining
that this or that body is accredited to issue tax receipts? Is
it limited to not-for-profit organizations? Are private sector
institutions included? What are the criteria for obtaining the
status of a tax receipt-issuing institution? Once again, the
answers will have a definite influence on the impact of the
motion.
Just think for a moment about the efforts and resources required
to set up such an initiative. Would the government structure be
even more complex than at present?
As well, the additional costs institutions will have to meet in
preparing and issuing tax receipts will have a negative impact on
the charge for activities. Prices will go up, and fewer families
will be able to take part.
Is the primary objective of the motion not to encourage more
parents to enrol their children in youth activities?
Unlike the NDP, our party seeks solutions that will lighten the
structure of government, and cut down on red tape.
1810
The Progressive Conservative Party believes that the top
priority is to implement an economic growth program. We also
believe that tax relief should take the form of substantial
personal income tax reductions. Taxes are too high in Canada.
They kill initiative, they slow down and divert potential
job-creating investments.
Our priority is to put more money back into the pockets of
taxpayers; they will know better than the government what it
should be spent on, be it on registered education savings plans
or what not.
The government must also develop a job creation strategy, not a
strategy to subsidize piano lessons. This is a matter of
priority.
Instead of the NDP government-pays-all approach, we are in favour
of a co-operative approach with the private sector.
For example, sports teams could have corporate sponsors taking
on the costs associated with buying equipment in exchange for
displaying their corporate logo on the players' shirts. This kind
of co-operative approach has proven successful so far.
It is not a priority for the government to interfere in this
area. Many others require attention. Eliminating child poverty
and adequate funding for health care are priorities.
Public funding should indeed be restored to the level necessary
to ensure health care. Other steps could be taken to alleviate
the taxpayers' burden, including full indexation of the child
benefit and personal income tax brackets as well as reducing
employment insurance premiums.
As long as there are children living in poverty, sick people who
are not receiving adequate treatment, needy seniors and
unemployed workers, we in the PC caucus will be there to defend
their interests.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to add my comments
to the record regarding this very important motion by my
colleague, the member for Winnipeg Transcona. It was a privilege
to second this motion.
We are often preoccupied in this House dealing with very serious
problems in our society, the high unemployment of young people,
the lack of opportunities for our youth to use their talents to
their fullest, the burden on families, parents and communities to
address the recreational needs of young people. Clearly if we in
this House intend to find meaningful solutions to the problems of
unemployment among young people, to the problems of a sense of
feeling hopeless and helpless, to the problems of pursuing less
than desirable activities in the areas of delinquency and crime
and membership in gangs, we have to provide the services and
recognize the needs that will deter young people from undesirable
activities.
My riding is probably no different from those of many in this
House. It is an area of very high unemployment, very high
poverty, with a crying need from parents everywhere for
governments to address those issues. It is a cry for help, not
for charity, not for handouts but a cry for parents to help
themselves deal with the concerns they are facing on a daily
basis.
My community is probably not unlike those of many others in this
Chamber in terms of the lack of adequate recreational facilities
and supports. It is interesting on every turn that those
community centres that were providing opportunities for young
people to be involved are being shut down, inadequately
resourced, without responsible action taken on the part of any
level of government.
My intention today in support of this motion is threefold.
First, if we are serious about the issues that we grapple with on
a daily basis then surely as members of the federal Parliament
putting pressure on the government we can effect some changes at
the fiscal level in our taxation system that will be a meaningful
contribution to the debate.
1815
The second purpose is to say that the federal government also
has a role to support community efforts through co-operative
financial efforts, through provincial-municipal co-operation in
terms of recreational facilities.
There is a centre sitting idle in my community. It used to be
the north YM-YWCA in Winnipeg. That organization ran out of the
funds it needed to stay open. No level of government was
prepared to fill the gap, to find a way to ensure that centre
could be reopened. It would have given young people a meaningful
place to fulfil their need for leisure recreation and to apply
their talents. It was a project, an idea and a need that was not
met by the federal-provincial infrastructure program.
We in this House tend to raise our voices about problems with
young people involved in crime and gangs. Surely the federal
government has a role to work, to listen and to address those
needs. It can work hand in hand with provincial and municipal
governments to find ways to open facilities that mean something
to young people, not to close them. They can find ways to put
programs in place which truly address the wishes and desires of
our young people.
My hope today is for us to think in terms of the needs of
families and parents who deal daily with the dilemma of trying to
ensure their children are occupied and are busy enjoying life,
that they are not lured on to streets into undesirable
activities. We in Parliament can play a real role.
The motion proposed by the member for Winnipeg—Transcona is a
very good place to start. It will help to deal with the
tremendous burden families have of trying to find the necessary
funds for their kids to participate in often costly recreational
activities. Often the costs are beyond the reach of many
parents. Certainly many parents in my own constituency do not
have the economic wherewithal to pay for hockey equipment, to pay
the fees, to drive their kids to and from activities. They must
juggle their demands as workers with the need to be very caring
and attentive parents.
It is a tremendous need which needs to be addressed. This is a
good place to start. I ask all members to give serious
consideration to supporting this motion.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted to speak on this motion. It is put forward by an NDP
member, although I do not like to say that because this is
private members' business and when we deal with private members'
business we should take the political designations out of it.
I have had occasion to get to know the member. I am impressed
with his sincerity and his genuine desire to help families and to
help people who are facing tremendous financial stresses and
pressures in our country nowadays. I dislike having to say that
I like this member, I like his ideas, I like his general
principles and then immediately say that I am going to speak
against his motion. I must do that for a very simple reason.
The member has proposed a motion that would selectively give
assistance to families that are raising children. The motion
states that the House “should consider implementing a tax
credit or tax rebate that would compensate parents for the
substantial costs of enrolling their children in youth
activities”.
1820
There is such a wide range of activities that our children
engage in. Are we talking about summer camps? Are we talking
about sports and music lessons, which have already been
mentioned?
Another example of where the costs are tremendous is in
providing an education for our children and teenagers. Are we
going to extend a tax credit to people who choose to enroll their
children in private schools, as my wife and I did? We had
specific reasons for that and it took a considerable sacrifice on
our part to do it. However, I do not regret it for a moment. It
was money that was very well invested.
The truth is that we paid for those tuition fees with after tax
dollars because the income tax system does not permit a deduction
of those fees. If I were to speak in favour of this motion, then
I would say that should also be included. For example, to pay an
annual tuition of $4,000 a year for my young boys to attend the
school of their choice and our choice, that $4,000 tuition
required that I earn about $8,000.
My colleague from Calgary mentioned that the marginal tax rate
is over 50% in Canada. This means I would have to earn over
$8,000 in order to write a $4,000 cheque to the school. This
would be a tremendously high proportion of a family's income.
That extends to every area.
I then think of my children as young people on their way to
university and college. It cost quite a bit of money to provide
them with either transportation and room and board at home or
with housing and tuition, the cost of books and cost of clothing,
all of those costs, while they were students. According to our
Income Tax Act, those costs were not deductible even though for
us to help our guys, because they could not get a job or got a
poorly paying job with few hours, we had to subsidize their
education. It was fairly costly.
I would also like to commend my children for working very hard
and very long hours in order to earn as much as they could. Here
again, should that be with after tax dollars when we start paying
$8,000 a year to educate a young person in college or university?
I would think that if we are going to provide deductions for
hockey lessons and trombone lessons so that one day when they are
prime minister they can provide some music, it should surely be
acceptable to provide deductions to the parents or other
relatives who are actually paying the fees to further the
education of these young people.
I would like to propose something which is actually much better.
Instead of introducing into the Income Tax Act new provisions,
new categories where the items can be either deducted from income
or entered as a tax credit eligibility, it would be much superior
for us to simply try to get rid of our debt so that we can stop
charging 30 cents on every $1 for interest. We thereby would
provide tax relief to all Canadians at all levels with more
disposable income. We could all use it.
It would help our economy. It would help our students and young
people. It would help all of the families if we had a reduced
tax load.
More of them would be able to have jobs. More of them would then
add to the economy. They would have a higher disposable income
and more money in their pockets in order to provide for the needs
of their families, whatever those needs are, the actual explicit
expenditures they encounter or indirect ones.
1825
Many families nowadays are really struggling. We have heard
many times in this House that in order to have a balanced budget
in the home both parents must work. As a result we have the
social needs of the children, their parenting needs and also the
tax needs to provide for the ability to look for day care or
whatever is needed for the children, many of these things. The
government should be out of the tax picture.
I would love it if in this country parents could have a free
choice as to where they use their money for educating, training,
or providing recreation for their children. Certainly they
should have the choice of whether or not they want to actually
parent their children themselves or hire others to do it. There
are too many people who because of our excessively high rate of
taxation simply do not have that choice. We are slaves to our
tax system.
The member for Winnipeg—Transcona mentioned in his speech, and
I have had the same experience, that charitable organizations
have to charge the GST on the different functions they do to try
to raise money to behave in a charitable way in their community.
I do not know how this government can do that and still have any
collective conscience.
I do not know how the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister
and all those individual Liberal members over there can sleep at
night knowing that what they are doing is wrenching every dollar
they can from Canadians in order to provide for the things that
they value. It gives them such a sense of power to be able to tax
Canadians and then decide where they will give it back.
We have noticed lately that if these people are good Liberal
members with a paid up membership they are more likely to be
eligible to receive a government appointment and things like
that. It is unconscionable.
Whenever I think of voting for a bill that spends money or of
approving an expenditure of a committee, I like to think in my
mind of any family back in my riding whose whole annual tax bill
in some cases will go to provide for that expenditure. We need
to become much more conscious here of the burden we are putting
on people.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac will have two minutes.
[Translation]
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
thank you for giving me these two minutes. This is a very
important issue.
I was a single mother for a long time. My son played hockey and
it was always an additional cost in my budget. I always had to
find ways to pay for registration fees, equipment, etc. All these
things cost money.
I support the motion, but I am somewhat concerned by what the
Reform Party member says about our taxes. It is true that
Canadians pay a lot of taxes.
We often hear that the government should reduce taxes, but the
Reform Party never talks about the big corporations that do not
pay their fair share. Reform always says that ordinary people pay
too much taxes and it is true.
However, I was very concerned when I heard the hon. member say
that the government should stop collecting taxes. This really
concerns me. As we know, they want to give up our national
programs, which are so important in this country, such as our
health care program.
1830
We invest in post-secondary education. We have social assistance
for those who have nothing. We should think twice when Reform
talks about taxes. What is its real objective?
We pay taxes for one reason: to get services. Americans may pay
less taxes, but look at how much it costs when a mother delivers
a baby, or when someone seeks medical help for a bout of the flu.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
DISEASED SHEEP
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
February 20 in this House I asked a pertinent question of the
Hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food concerning the sheep
disease scrapie.
Before proceeding, I would like to reassure all of the members of
this House that scrapie does not cause any human health problems.
The problem that it does cause is for the farmer, as generally
the whole flock has to be destroyed.
In the few minutes available to me, I would like to touch on the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency, on carcass disposal procedures,
and on compensation.
First of all, the new food inspection agency. It must be kept in
mind that this agency was created out of thin air by this
government. Since it began operations on January 1, 1997, barely
16 months ago—call it happenstance if you will—the number of flocks
infected by scrapie has been rising to such an extent that one
wonders whether the cuts affecting inspection do not bear a
direct relationship to that increase. The reason I say this is
that, when the flock at the Lennoxville research station in the
riding of Sherbrooke was dispersed, the government saw fit to
release sheep infected with scrapie into circulation.
That is serious.
The agency must now be asking serious questions as to how the
carcasses were disposed of on February 16, five weeks ago. An
order was passed here in Ottawa to have the agency pay the costs
of this disposal. I thought the carcasses were to be incinerated
but I was wrong. Since the decision was made to pay, the
carcasses are being collected by the thousands and deposited in
regional landfill sites. Often this creates problems with runoff
water, and our government tolerates or organizes this sort of
animal disposal.
Finally, compensation falls far short. The government must sit
down with the sheep producers. In this regard, I would like to
pay tribute to the availability and especially the knowledge of
three producers.
They are Georges Pharand, Réjean Raymond and Giovanni Lebel, all
from the lower St. Lawrence. They met in camera with the
Standing Committee on Agriculture and were no doubt a valuable
source of information for all committee members.
1835
I am obviously impatient to hear the government's response to
these three questions.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, scrapie is a
naturally occurring disease that has been around for over 200
years.
The present scrapie program in Canada is one of the best in the
world. It was launched in 1945. There is no known link between
scrapie and human diseases. There is therefore no reason to
alarm the public.
All animals that show clinical symptoms of scrapie or are felt to
present a high risk of contracting the disease are ordered
destroyed under the supervision of the Canada Food Inspection
Agency. The carcasses of such animals are incinerated or
buried.
Farmers are compensated for the animals ordered destroyed under
the Health of Animals Act.
In addition, recent amendments to the regulations now guarantee
payment of compensation for the associated costs of disposal.
Compensation encourages owners to report diseases and to play an
active role in the fight against them, as well as in the efforts
to track down their origins. Responsibility for maintaining
consumer confidence in access to international markets rests
with farmers, the industry and the government.
Canada's scrapie program is recognized as one of the most
rigorous in the world. We will continue to work closely with
the industry to combat this disease.
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to go into more
detail about the question I raised in this House on March 10
regarding home care. I am hoping that this forum will finally
result in some answers from the Liberals and some assurances that
their government is standing up for medicare.
There is a clear sense of urgency about the issue of health care
and about the need for home care. There is not a Canadian
anywhere who has not experienced personally and directly problems
stemming from the inadequacies of our health care system or who
does not know someone who has experienced some horrible situation
in our health care system. They know we have a health care
crisis.
They want this government to provide more than words and more
than election promises. They are desperately looking for federal
leadership, for a role by this government to preserve and
strengthen medicare. They do not want anything to do with the
kind of leadership, if we can call it that, being offered by the
Reform Party. They reject totally the Reform policy, articulated
so clearly yesterday, to establish a parallel private, for profit
two tier health care system. They reject absolutely that kind of
system. They want to see this government act now and act quickly
to prevent that kind of idea from gaining any ground.
Canadians deeply care about medicare. They want to see medicare
preserved and strengthened. They believe in a universally
accessible, publicly administered, single payer health care
system. They know it requires certain things on the part of this
government. It requires a reversal of the trend that we have seen
over the last few years of government offloading and cutbacks.
They know it requires a commitment to reinvest in health care,
especially at a time of budgetary surplus. They know it requires
new and innovative directions to health care like home care.
I submit to this government but specifically to the Minister of
Health that his argument that we need more time to study home
care before this government is prepared to act is completely
misplaced and a fallacious argument. We have no shortage of
studies, experience and examples about home care, how it can work
and the kind of benefits it will achieve.
What we need is action now. We need money on the table.
1840
There are several reasons why home care is so critical right
now. It will help to address the current crisis in our hospital
system because if we do not have home care, people stay longer in
hospitals. We know it is a cost effective method. We know that
it is a responsible public policy responding to an aging
population. We know it will take pressure off the families and
particularly women who are left with the primary care of parents
and aging relatives. We know it will stop the emergence of
privatization in the home care field and we know that it will
create jobs and create a boom for our economy.
In conclusion, it is absolutely clear that the best health
system in the world did not just create itself. It took
leadership and vision. We need that leadership and vision from
the Liberal government now to preserve health care, to strengthen
medicare and ensure that we have a national home care plan as
soon as possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, some
people are wondering why the government is not investing in home
care today if it is so urgent.
The government knows full well that Canadians need help to
provide care at home and in the community. That is why, in the
last budget, it gave back $1.5 billion in transfer payments to
the provinces for this year and that is also why, in the 1998
budget, it increased tax relief for caregivers, as promised.
Finally, it is why the government has invited Canadians as well
as experts in home care from across Canada to meet in Halifax
last week to discuss the measures that should be taken with
regard to home care.
The message from the national conference on home care was very
clear. Delegates agreed that a national approach is required in
the area of home care. Participants at the conference have asked
us to find the best solutions, not only the quickest. They want
us to do things right.
The government started to work on that last year in response to
recommendations by the National Forum on Health. We responded
immediately by creating, for a period of three years, the
federal-provincial-territorial fund for health services
adjustment. Home care is one of four priority areas for
evaluation and innovative projects.
We know that the provinces and territories provide home care
services to their residents. However, we have a variety of
standards, services, eligibility criterias, user fees and funding
levels across the country. It is a complex situation.
There is a lot more work to be done. We have to form a
partnership with the provinces, hold further consultations with
Canadians, define priorities, develop a plan and make careful
investments to reach our goal. We are planning to do that over
the next 12 to 18 months. That is what we will do.
[English]
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the House for its indulgence in permitting me to
speak while seated as a result of my recent injuries.
It was on December 11, 1997, the day after international human
rights day, that I posed a question to the Prime Minister
concerning the role of the Prime Minister's office during the
recent APEC summit in my home city of Vancouver, British
Columbia.
I spoke of deep concerns about the events that took place in the
time leading up to the summit as well of course as the events
that took place during the summit itself.
During the lead-up to the APEC leaders summit which was held in
Vancouver at the end of November 1997 it was very clear that the
Liberal government refused to put human rights on the agenda of
the meeting despite pleas from my colleagues in the New
Democratic Party and NGO delegates across Canada to do so.
Its lack of funding for the people's summit for NGO delegates to
travel from Asia demonstrated that the government was determined
to stifle any dissenting opinions about the role of APEC in
promoting human rights, environmental, labour and social
standards.
For example, rather than bar Indonesian dictator General Suharto
as a war criminal under Canadian immigration law, the Liberal
government arranged to meet with him in Indonesia prior to the
summit and assure him that his security concerns would be
addressed.
1845
We saw during the APEC summit exactly how that promise to
General Suharto was kept. Who could forget the images on
television of peaceful protesters being pepper sprayed by the
RCMP as the motorcades with Suharto and other known human rights
abusers drove by?
One of the eye witness accounts from a UBC student, Darren Lund,
said it all. He said that it was blatant that excessive force
was used against peaceful students. He witnessed as police
emptied over 20 large canisters of pepper spray indiscriminately
into the crowd. He thought it was a shameful way to show
students how economic and corporate interest can supersede
fundamental human rights.
There were many other violations. Protesters were detained
without charge and forced to sign release conditions that
abrogated their right to protest by saying they would not return
to UBC during the APEC meetings.
There is the case of Jaggi Singh, who was arrested while walking
with his friends to the student union building at UBC. He was
forced to the ground by a plain clothes policeman, thrown into an
unmarked car with tinted windows and driven away to a detention
centre in the outskirts of the city. It sounds more like
Argentina in the 1970s than Canada in the 1990s.
Women protesters were being singled out for strip searches in
prison. Police forcibly removed the Tibetan flag that was flying
at the graduate students' centre. Aboriginal Musquem Chief Gail
Sparrow was prevented from speaking on human rights, and law
student Craig Jones was arrested for peacefully holding signs
that read “free speech”, “democracy” and “human rights”,
even though they were posted outside the APEC restricted security
zone.
I call today on our government to order an independent public
inquiry into these very serious events. An inquiry by the RCMP
Public Complaints Commission is not enough. Certainly it can
look into the complaints against the RCMP, but we must look into
the role that the Prime Minister's Office played, for example, in
interfering directly in the agreement that was arrived at between
the University of British Columbia and those who were involved in
the RCMP in organizing this meeting.
Finally, as former MP Marion Dewar said, in this, the 50th
anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, pepper
spraying protesters is no way for Canada to demonstrate
leadership.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to the
hon. member's question I would like to essentially put things in
the proper perspective first.
The APEC conference and the security evolving around the APEC
conference was one of the largest events in Canadian history. It
involved over 3,000 police officers.
As international law dictates, it also involved Canada having a
responsibility to protect the 18 heads of state who were
attending the conference.
To that end, there were clearly defined zones for the
demonstrators to freely demonstrate in public view of the 18
heads of state who were attending.
There were numerous complaints received since that incident and
those complaints have been addressed directly to the Public
Complaints Commission.
The Public Complaints Commission, as we know, is an independent
administrative tribunal. It also has civilian members on it.
They have the power to review all the complaints. They have the
power to even conduct investigations and hold hearings. We look
forward to those hearings.
On December 3, the Chair, Shirley Heafey, began the
investigation into the RCMP's actions. On February 20, 1998, she
also indicated that there would be a public interest hearing,
which the member is calling for.
The hearings will start on April 14, 1998. We have every
confidence that the Public Complaints Commission will do its job,
that it will investigate everything it feels is necessary to
investigate. We await the report.
In view of that report and the investigation that is ongoing, I
would like to limit my comments at this stage.
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the minister of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
is sacrificing Canadians' health, environment and economic
well-being to benefit the activities of large oil companies.
The minister's weak response in the House last week was a
pathetic attempt to answer the question I had put forth, asking
if he would commit to implementing the Gold report
recommendations and say no to retroactive fees.
By dodging this vital question, which affects the protection of
Canada's waters from oil and chemical spills, the minister
demonstrated to all Canadians why the problem associated with the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans is not limited to the
bureaucracy itself.
This is a minister whose discretionary powers are used to
circumvent the protection of fish habitat and ignore Fisheries
Act regulations.
1850
His decisions regarding the Cheviot mine and lack of action in
the New Brunswick aquaculture are a testament to the minister's
absolute disregard for environmental matters. The bottom line is
that he is ignoring a panel of inquiry by not implementing the
panel's recommendations.
Presently the DFO is determining the bulk oil cargo fee, which
is designed to extract funds from oil companies to clean up their
spills. A handful of major oil companies presently profit from
the bulk oil cargo fee by laundering their fee through their own
certified response organizations.
Moreover, the oiled wildlife response organizations
subcontracted by the certified response organizations have no
guaranteed funding to provide essential environmental and safety
services, while the certified response organizations
automatically receive the bulk oil cargo fee whether or not they
perform the duties expected of them.
The Canadian Coast Guard is unable or unwilling to monitor the
establishment, collection and allocation of the fee on an
equitable basis. Furthermore, the DFO consistently refuses to
publish reports on the fee structure and to consult the principal
stakeholders involved in the bulk oil cargo fee.
What is worse, the certified response organizations receive
guaranteed funding and make a great profit from it without
providing the service. In some cases they state they can provide
the service but end up utilizing expert organizations such as
Maritime Atlantic Wildlife to carry out the service.
In addition, the certified response organizations claim that
oiled wildlife response is not part of their mandate so they can
pocket more money at the expense of both the environment and
inevitably the taxpayer.
As a result of such activities, I propose that the DFO take
immediate action toward the following three points: the creation
of a non-profit, independent, national oil spill agency that
would determine the fee structure, collect the fee, specify a
fixed percentage for the other parties according to the need,
such as oiled wildlife response organizations, and monitor the
oil spill response organizations; forbid oil companies from
owning any share in certified response organizations; and forbid
non-Canadian owned response organizations from benefiting from
the bulk oil cargo fee.
Over the last 31 months the fairness and equity of the bulk oil
cargo fee have been well analysed. The overwhelming view of both
government and independent studies demonstrate there are serious
legal and viability problems. It is also the view of many
including myself that it was the Tories who were responsible for
creating this collusive, monopolistic practice by putting the
interest of corporate greed ahead of fundamental principles.
Today I ask the Liberals to stop putting the interests of oil
companies' pocketbooks ahead of the health of Canadians, our
environment and our economic well-being.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the current
oil spill preparedness and response regime was put in place by
the previous government to supplement the Canadian Coast Guard's
existing capacity to respond to a major oil spill anywhere in
Canadian waters.
The hon. member can be assured that Canada's preparedness
capacity has been significantly increased since the
Nestucca and Exxon Valdez spills of 1989, with teams
and equipment in place in all regions capable of responding to
spills of up to 10,000 tonnes. That is more than 10 times the
size of the Nestucca spill.
Further, in the event of a catastrophic spill, equipment and
personnel would be moved in from other regions and from other
countries to protect our marine environment.
The government strongly supports the principle that the
potential polluter pays the cost of the preparedness system. This
means that those who transport oil in Canadian waters must pay a
fee to cover the cost of equipment and infrastructure that stand
ready to combat a spill should one occur.
After extensive consultation, industry stakeholders agreed on
the basic structure of a business based regime that would ensure
that all potential polluters shared these costs.
1855
Some major oil companies then invested approximately $50 million
in response organizations in order to put this preparedness
system in place. No other companies made that investment.
However, all potential polluters have an obligation to pay their
share of the system.
The gold panel made a number of sweeping recommendations on the
governance of the regime along with a different approach for
deriving fees. Taken as a whole these recommendations constitute
a complete reworking of the existing regime.
The minister accepts the panel's concern but has an obligation
to consult with the stakeholders who worked with the government
in creating the regime rather than imposing the new system
proposed by the panel. A decision by the Ministry of Fisheries
and Oceans on fees is now imminent.
Our goal is to create an integrated public and private sector
system where prevention is encouraged, preparedness is required
and the best possible response is available in all Canadian
waters in the event of a spill.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.56 p.m.)