36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 187
CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| PETITIONS
|
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1010
| The Family
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| THE BUDGET
|
| Financial Statement of Minister of Finance
|
| Budget motion
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1015
1020
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Mr. Randy White |
1025
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Mr. Randy White |
1030
1035
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1040
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1045
1050
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1055
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1100
1105
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1110
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1115
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1120
1125
1130
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
1135
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
1140
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
1145
1150
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1155
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
1200
1205
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1210
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1215
1220
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1225
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1230
1235
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1240
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1245
1250
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1255
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Mr. Janko Peric |
1300
1305
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1310
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1315
1320
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1325
| Mr. Charlie Power |
1330
1335
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1340
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1345
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1350
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Mr. John McKay |
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| ONWARD WILLOW
|
| Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
| UNITED ALTERNATIVE
|
| Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
1400
| SHERIDAN COLLEGE
|
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| LAKEFIELD HERITAGE
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| 1999 CANADA WINTER GAMES
|
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
| NISGA'A TREATY
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| HIV-AIDS
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
1405
| THE BUDGET
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| PARTI QUEBECOIS
|
| Mr. Nick Discepola |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| CANADIAN ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| DOWNTOWN EAST SIDE COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1410
| KARINE VANASSE
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| UNITED ALTERNATIVE CONVENTION
|
| Mr. John Cannis |
| 1999 CANADA WINTER GAMES
|
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
| PROSTATE CANCER RESEARCH
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1420
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| MILLENIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1425
| COMMODITY PRICES
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| SEA KING HELICOPTERS
|
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1430
| TAXATION
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1435
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Dick Harris |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Dick Harris |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1440
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| LINGUISTIC MINORITIES
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
1445
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| THE SENATE
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
1450
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| THE MAIN ESTIMATES
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
1455
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| PASCAL HUDON
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1500
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
| Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| THE BUDGET
|
| Financial Statement of Minister of Finance
|
| Budget Motion
|
1505
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1510
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1515
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1520
1525
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
1530
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1535
1540
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
1545
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1550
1555
| Mr. Dick Harris |
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1600
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Mr. Robert D. Nault |
1605
1610
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1615
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1620
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
1625
1630
1635
1640
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1645
| Hon. John Manley |
1650
1655
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1700
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Mr. John Finlay |
1705
1710
1715
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Mr. Jim Hart |
1720
| Mr. Jim Hart |
1725
1730
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1735
1740
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1745
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
1750
1755
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1800
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
1805
1810
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1815
1845
(Division 325)
| Amendment negatived
|
1850
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1855
| Employment
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1900
| Fisheries
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
1905
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| National Defence
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1910
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 187
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[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 three
petitions.
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two
petitions today signed by a number of Canadians, including those
from my own riding of Mississauga South.
The first petition has to do with human rights. The petitioners
would like to draw to the attention of the House that abuse of
human rights continues to be rampant around the world in
countries such as Indonesia.
1010
They also point out that Canada continues to be recognized as
the champion of human rights internationally. Therefore the
petitioners call upon Canada to continue to condemn human rights
violations and also to seek to bring to justice those responsible
for such abuses.
THE FAMILY
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition is probably one of my favourite petitions.
It has to do with the family.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for pre-school children
is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society.
They also point out that the Income Tax Act discriminates
against families who choose to provide direct parental care to
pre-school children, the chronically ill, the aged or the
disabled.
The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to eliminate such
tax discrimination and to provide incentives and tax breaks for
families who choose to provide direct parental care for
pre-school children, the chronically ill, the aged or the
disabled.
* * *
[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 the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
THE BUDGET
FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
The House resumed from February 18 consideration of the motion
that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the
government; and of the amendment.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.
It is certainly a pleasure to talk about the pay-more, get-less
budget of this year. I really want to touch on three things.
First, I would like to talk about what I found out from my
constituents this past week, having a week to talk to so many of
them.
Second, I would like to talk about some young people who took
out their paycheques, looked at the reductions on them and
started to ask some pretty serious questions.
Third, I would like to talk about where Canada really sits in
the world and what is happening to our country.
I had the opportunity to talk to four different service clubs,
to a high school, to a senior citizens' home, to a couple of town
hall meetings and to a chamber of commerce. Pretty well
everywhere I went I found a major concern about taxes, about
health care and a real disappointment that here it is again: we
are paying more, we are getting less, our health care system is
in crisis and yet we are being asked to pay more and more taxes
year after year.
They also talked about the dollar and how the dollar was not
worth what it used to be. They talked about how concerned they
were about their jobs, about their initiative and the destruction
of that initiative by a budget such as this.
Canadian productivity is suffering and has been on the decline
now for some 30 years. That is a message to which certainly the
government has failed to react.
There is the loss of brain power. Young people are saying “If
it does not get better I will have to leave this country”. I
can identify with that, having had three of our family leave this
country for that reason.
I have a son who teaches at Princeton. He was a Rhodes scholar
who could not get a job in Canada. I have a daughter who is an
architect in Norway. She could not get a job in Canada. I have
a young daughter who was recruited to Holland. She was offered a
scholarship because she could not get one in Canada.
That is what we are finding. That is the kind of thing we heard
from the young people in high schools and colleges as we
travelled the country.
We talked about paycheques. What are we getting from the
deductions on the paycheques? Again it is pay more, get less.
We have less health care. We have an EI system that is just not
working.
Young people are saying that they cannot even make a claim.
They are asking what the EI deduction is for.
The average employee is paying $350 per year more than what this
system needs. The employer is paying $500. There is a huge
surplus which is thrown into general revenue and 40% or less can
actually collect EI payments. They know that and they are upset
by it.
1015
Canada pension, 9.9%: It has gone up in the last two years and
will go up for the next three. That was socialism of the 1960s
and the state centred system that was to provide everything to
everyone. Young people are saying they do not trust that system
will be there for them and that the costs are just too high.
As far as income tax is concerned, it is pay more and get less.
With bracket creep 2.5 million more Canadians will be in a higher
tax bracket. This mainly affects low and middle income people,
and that is most Canadians.
The result is that young people see no hope in the country.
Small businesses see no reason why they should grow and provide
jobs. There is no incentive because of a budget like the one we
have just seen.
I would like to concentrate on our position in the world. Where
are we in the world? I have been fortunate to have been
travelling for close to 40 years. I have travelled to just about
every country in the world. This past year I have been in
countries like China, India, Pakistan, Paris, London and and
Norway. Everywhere I go I get the feeling that Canada is falling
behind. Canada's influence is not what it used to be. We are in
trouble, no matter how we look at it from an international
perspective.
Last summer I spent two days at the OECD in Paris asking what
was wrong with Canada, what was happening to the country we are
so proud of and want to see prosper? They said, if they had to
summarize it, that there were three issues. One was the debt. No
country can have a debt to GDP ratio like Canada has and expect
to succeed.
Second, we cannot have taxes like we have. We cannot have
corporate and personal taxes at the level we have in Canada and
expect people to have initiative and expect productivity to
increase.
Third, and most important of all, we do not have a plan. Our
government does not know where it is going in three months, in
three years, in thirty years. There is no plan. The government
goes from pillar to post and we get a budget like the one we are
talking about here.
As a result our dollar is dropping. As a result our percentage
of the world GDP is now 2.3%. Twenty years ago it was 5% of the
world GDP. That is a dramatic decline in Canada's influence in
the world.
The Canadian government is in a state of denial. The Liberals
love to brag. They want to keep their spirits high. They allege
that we are the top country in the world based on the UN human
development index, which most experts say is an economic hoax. By
dreaming we are number one, they fail to realize the kind of
economic decline the country is in.
The World Bank says that our standard of living and prosperity
has dropped from third to twelfth place in the past 10 years. We
are the only country in the top 13 industrialized countries that
has undergone such a decline. That hits home and that hits home
hard. Those are hard, cold facts.
Canada has been displaced by nine countries in the last 10
years: Kuwait, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, Norway, Belgium,
Austria, Denmark and the United Arab Emirates.
1020
Let us look at the real indicators of what is happening to us.
We can look at unemployment. Let us compare our unemployment at
8% to 9% to that of our neighbours with whom we compete. They
are at 4.3%. This shows a decline in our economic performance.
We all know that the level of unemployment is higher if we
consider the discouraged unemployed workers who are no longer
searching for jobs and the many involuntary part time workers. In
a healthy economy there is virtually full employment. There are
jobs for everyone and certainly they are full time jobs.
I have mentioned the Canadian dollar. Those who do not realize
what has happened can travel anywhere in the world and see what
they can buy with the Canadian dollar. On taxes, pay more and
get less; $2,020 more in taxes in the last six years. Taxes kill
jobs. Taxes kill incentive.
I could talk about the debt and the size of government, but in
conclusion basically our productivity is falling. Our standard
of living is falling. Our unemployment rate is double that of
our U.S. cousins. As well, we have the highest taxes in the
industrialized world.
The government has nothing to be proud of in the budget. It is
a budget of pay more and get less, and the Canadian public will
suffer from it.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
enjoyed the member's speech very much. Would he care to reflect
on the difference between the economy of Alberta and the economy
of Canada and perhaps draw conclusions about why the economy in
Alberta continues to surge ahead while the economy in Canada
languishes? Our place in the world has diminished over the last
several years.
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, I come from central Alberta
which has seven world scale petrochemical developments. There
are 11 quarter sections of land being developed in housing. There
has been a huge increase in what is happening.
I meet with the executives of those companies. I welcome them
and ask them why they are there. The reasons are low feedstock
costs, less government, and the efficiency and productivity
opportunities in that community. The advantages are obvious.
They could go to the gulf coast. They could go to Saudi Arabia.
However they have chosen Alberta because it is a place where
taxes are low, government interference is much less, and people
have an incentive to do much better. The entrepreneurial spirit
is alive and well in Alberta. I am afraid that what we have here
does nothing but kill it. That is the big problem.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, would the hon. member make clear to those watching and
the few on the other side who are listening today the issue the
government keeps bragging about, that it has balanced the books
and got rid of the deficit?
An hon. member: Yeah.
Mr. Randy White: Already we hear a yeah over there. Would
the member for Red Deer tell us what the cost has been to
Canadian taxpayers? What is the effect of balancing the books
and the bragging that goes on over there?
Mr. Paul Szabo: A million and a half jobs.
Mr. Randy White: One member over there says a million and
a half jobs. I would like the hon. member to reflect the reality
in balancing the books.
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, the government has played a
shell game. There is not a lot of honesty. It is a pretty
deceitful thing to brag about.
EI payments have been overcollected. They have taken close to
$15 billion and thrown them into general revenues.
They have kept their bureaucracy as large as ever. They continue
to shuffle money from one portfolio to another. Money moves back
and forth under one shell, then under another and back to the
other. Basically they have bragged about this and said “Look at
the wonderful job we are doing”.
1025
Business knows and the average taxpayer knows that they are not
better off today. Balancing the budget had to happen, but let us
talk about the $580 billion debt. That debt has not gone away.
The servicing of that debt is $42 billion to $43 billion a year.
Let us think of what we could have if we were able to deal with
that debt effectively. Putting maybe $3 billion a year on that
will take forever.
It is like the OECD said. There is no plan. There is nothing
here to brag about. Until we get that we will not have a
productive country that does not have the figures I talked about.
It is wonderful to get rid of the deficit, but let us talk about
the debt. That is the real issue.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I read a letter from Arthur Friedrich of
Calgary in the National Post who says that he and his wife
are noticing that increasing taxes are preventing them from
getting ahead. As a matter a fact they are going south to the
United States.
He says “If I were cynical I would say the attitude of
successive Canadian governments was to punish success”. Would
you agree with this statement?
The Deputy Speaker: Would he agree with this statement.
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, the real point is that
Canadians are getting extremely discouraged because taxes are so
high. There is no incentive to let businesses grow and provide
more jobs. There is no incentive for our young people to stay
here. That is what we have to turn around.
People are discouraged. They are starting to ask what the
government can do to fix that. That is the big question.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, something came up in the debate a few minutes ago. One
of the few members opposite indicated that about 1.5 million jobs
were created in our society as a result of the Liberal's balanced
budget.
An hon. member: Yeah.
Mr. Randy White: Another member sitting over there is
bragging about that.
I want to put a reality test before us. For example, I heard
the Prime Minister bragging six to eight months ago about how
they had created many jobs. I thought I should check this out.
I checked all the provincial brag sheets, the newspapers and so
on, and each province in turn was saying it created x
number of jobs and that is why it is doing so well, et cetera.
The Prime Minister is claiming that he created all the jobs in
Canada. The provincial premiers are bragging that they created
all the jobs in the country. On and on it goes. In fact the
real job creator in the country is private industry.
I do not understand, for the life of me, why governments make
media announcements indicating that they have created jobs. The
fact of the matter is that it is private industry.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Randy White: As usual they do not like what I am
saying. We will go into that in a moment.
An article appeared in the newspaper today which I want to read
because it contains some important points that I will address
about my situation. Anthony Ostler of Toronto wrote:
I have many beefs about how our country is being run, but having
recently graduated with my MBA from Ivey in 1997, I have seen
dozens of my friends participate in the “brain drain”.
This is truly a depressing sign, as I see the best talent leaving
the country, and much of the mediocre talent remaining. We are
rapidly becoming a second rate country.
1030
This is from one of our young people. “Ironically, my work as
a consultant takes me south of the border for more than half of
the year. However, I am paid in Canada in Canadian dollars and
pay taxes at the highest marginal rate. My colleagues at the
same pay level in the U.S. take home much more than I do as the
highest tax bracket does not kick in for them. So although my
brain is being drained in the U.S., my tax dollars are still in
Canada. One day this may have to change. My parents immigrated
here 35 years ago when Canada was nearing its peak. Maybe I will
have to pursue greener tax pastures elsewhere”.
This is a sad but true unsolicited commentary from a Toronto
individual. I just picked that out of a newspaper, but we can see
that every day in every province.
I remember clearly when I left my home in Nova Scotia 33 years
ago. My mother who is watching today will remember. It was
because there were no opportunities for jobs in Nova Scotia in
1966. Quite frankly, today the situation has not improved after
all those years and successive Liberal governments. In fact, the
situation has gotten worse. I can attest to that fully by having
some of my young relatives live with me in western Canada because
they too, although supported with a higher education from our
universities, go west to get jobs. So things have not really
changed that much which is very sad.
I just came back from London where I did some work with the
opposition and government House leaders, whips, the House of
Lords and others. In order to cut some of my costs, I stayed
with two young people from Canada. They are both recent
graduates of the University of Victoria. They are in England
because they could not get jobs in Canada. These two
well-educated young men are living not where they want to live
but where they have to live. Those who know the cost of living in
England can imagine that their situation there is not the best,
yet they are trying to fend for themselves and exist.
It is quite appalling that members on the other side would stand
and brag about jobs they have created when in fact a lot of this
country's young people are going elsewhere for jobs. The tax
rate is too high. Some hon. members know this. We have to deal
with these issues.
My son is highly qualified as a civil engineer and a digital
animator. He makes cartoons for television shows. He is
attracted to the United States. They want him down there and are
willing to pay him big money. Instead of the taxation rate here
of above 50% for this young fellow, he can go down there and make
much more money at a lower tax rate. This would give him the
ability to pay off his student loans.
It is sad that members on the opposite side would try to present
a facade that says Canada is in great shape because they have
balanced the budget and have created x number of jobs. They
are kidding themselves because this is not the case. I would
doubt very much if any one of the members opposite do not know
some young person who has left Canada because the cost of living
and unbearable tax rate here are driving them south.
When we talk about paying more and getting less, I can only
relate it to my own circumstances and the young people whom I
care very much for who are paying more in this country. This
government has increased the CPP premiums. They are
extraordinary increases. What has the government offered these
young people in return?
Again, my son said to me, “Dad, there is something wrong with
this. Today you get about $8,900 for CPP. These guys have just
raised the rate around 70-some per cent, and they are promising
that I will get about $8,600 30 years from now”. He is an
engineer. He gets out his calculators and his slide rules and he
says there is something wrong with this picture. And there is
something wrong with this picture. It is a facade of this
government.
1035
While it is good that we are dealing in surpluses, it is not
good that the tax rates were raised to get there. While it is
good that there is surplus moneys to pay down the debt and to
draw down the tax rates, it is not good that the government is
spending it on other programs by and large to get votes and get
re-elected.
This Liberal government has got the wrong attitude with this
whole issue. It has a lot to do with that. It should not be
about getting elected again; it should be about the future of our
country. Unfortunately, we have to live with this archaic and
traditional idea that we have to get money in the hands of those
who can get us elected rather than pay down the debt, pay down
the taxes.
There are other things I would have liked to have seen in this
budget. I would have liked to have seen some mediocre attempt at
the very least to deal with the sad drug problem in our country.
I know the government has been talking about a drug strategy, but
actually it is an overlay of the Conservative drug strategy of
1987. Very little, if anything, has been done to address that.
That is a subject for another discussion because I have less than
a minute to tie all this up, but I will be speaking about this
shortly in the House.
Suffice it to say that as one father and one son and somebody
who has seen a lot of young people leave our country, I am
extremely sad to hear government members brag about the jobs the
government has created. It has not created jobs unless it has
been at the cost of the taxpayer. What creates jobs is private
industry with a low tax rate. There are people who want to
invest in our future without having to pay down debt because it
was accumulated as a result of governments giving away money it
could not afford.
I hope in an attempt to continue on with this discussion today
the government will at least listen to what I have said.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened attentively to the member. He made the
comment that we should not be here doing things to get
re-elected, that we should be doing what we believe is right.
I want to remind the House of the words that came from the
opposition during the whole budget preparation period, in
October, November and December. All we heard were comments on
pepper spray, water spray, gossip on airplanes, et cetera. Not
once in the fall did we have a comprehensive debate in the House
on tax reform or what we should do in this year's budget.
Literally this year's budget was prepared by the government with
very little input from the opposition.
My question is very specific. Can we have an undertaking from
the opposition, because this budget has been put to bed other
than a few votes, that maybe over the next few months finally the
Reform Party will get back on to its agenda of comprehensive tax
reform, take it seriously, create some meaningful debate in the
House and stop criticizing for the sake of criticizing?
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, if members on the other
side bothered to listen, our tax plan was $26 billion in tax
relief. The difference is that when we talk, they are not
listening.
Something else that was said here is important to note. This is
not just about budgets in the House of Commons. When we talk
about pepper spray, the APEC hearings and those kinds of issues,
the government lost a minister over that issue. That was an
important issue.
1040
Notwithstanding the comments, the member has to understand, and
I know it is difficult, that there is more to the House of
Commons than just one item. The Liberals' record on taxes has
been abysmal. Their affront on young people in Vancouver at the
APEC hearings has been unacceptable. There are more issues here
than just one but it will take another day for the member to
gravitate to that kind of problem.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member talked about the brain drain. I think it is an
important debate this House should have.
If the member would listen to his own words, he talked about his
own son who is drawn away for what he referred to as big bucks.
That is one of things we found on the finance committee in
looking at this. When someone goes away to get paid a higher
salary, no amount of tax relief will change that. It has to do
with the onus of the responsibility of business and industry
being able to compete globally for the best talent in the world.
Why did the member refer to Canada's tax rate at 50%? He will
know that someone making $30,000 a year pays a tax rate of 25%.
He will know that somebody who makes $60,000 only pays a tax rate
of 30% and someone who makes $90,000 only pays a 40% effective
tax rate—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, we cannot get into some of
these arguments because their thick skulls do not understand.
What I do understand is that there is a 4.3% unemployment rate in
the United States. They have to pay a premium in the United
States to get Canadian workers.
If we had that kind of record in Canada, maybe we would be a
little better off but the government is too damned fast in
raising taxes. That is the problem. The government is slow if
not totally inefficient on paying debt but the Liberals do not
understand it.
What can we say? The only real answer is to get rid of this
government and then manage it on a more efficient basis.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to bring some optimism to this debate on what has been
described as our health care budget.
I will be splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Health.
I am here in my capacity as chair of the government caucus on
post-secondary education and research. Since 1994 it has been
working with members, such as the member from Fredericton who is
here today, and others who will be speaking in this debate, on
behalf of students, universities, colleges, researchers in
hospitals, institutes and schools across Canada.
In discussing this health care budget I will begin by describing
one of the highlights of my life. It was a conversation I and
two or three other people had 19 years ago with Terry Fox. Terry
had completed his 42 klicks for the day. He came into
Peterborough and was talking to us about what he was doing.
Someone asked him why he was raising money for cancer research.
At that time in Peterborough we had problems with cancer care,
driving people a long way to get treatment and that kind of
thing. Of course Terry had no idea of the vast amounts of money
that would eventually be raised in his name, but Terry said he
had decided that the money should go to cancer research. He had
been a patient and the care had been there for him, and even
though perhaps there should be some improvements to it, he knew
that if there was no research in the future there would be people
just like him. They might get good care but they would never be
cured, nor would their disease ever be prevented. Terry Fox
deliberately channelled the money he raised into cancer research.
The cancer societies have been in a fortunate situation in
Canada. All of us every April go out and raise money for cancer
and that goes to care. And many of us participate in the Terry
Fox runs, and that money goes for research.
1045
Research is the foundation of any modern health care system. It
is not an extra, it is not some sort of a luxury. It is an
integral part of any efficient, modern health care system. In
this health care budget we were very fortunate with the financial
circumstances that we were able to transfer more than $11 billion
to the provinces for health care in general for the operation of
hospitals, clinics, long term care facilities, children's health
centres, home care, the prevention and promotion of health care
and that kind of thing. We were able to devote $11 billion in
that direction. At the same time, something that has been going
on since 1994, we were able to devote funds specifically for
health care research.
When medicare was first introduced the focus was on curing
illness with doctors and hospitals. Now good health care is as
much about preventing illness as it is about curing it. Research
generates new insights into human biology and disease processes.
It illuminates the factors that affect the health of people in
communities. It leads to the discovery of new cures, to the
discovery of medical technologies and procedures and it helps us
to tailor the health care system to the needs of Canadians.
This budget invests close to $1.4 billion specifically for
improving information systems, promoting health related research
and innovation, for research into improving first nations and
Inuit health services and for preventing health problems. This
will ensure that our doctors, nurses, administrators and others
have the most up to date knowledge, information, treatments and
cures at their fingertips. It will also allow them to innovate
and learn from each other to the benefit of all Canadians.
These are important investments that will improve Canada's
health care system in the years ahead. The decision to invest in
both what we think of as direct care and in research at the same
time was the only decision that a responsible government could
have made.
One of the most important research announcements in the budget
was the $240 million investment in the new Canadian institutes of
health research, the CIHR. These institutes will bring together
the best researchers and support groups from across Canada in
areas such as aging, arthritis, women's health, cancer and heart
disease.
Last year our government caucus on post-secondary education was
delighted to meet several times with Dr. Henry Friesen, president
of the Medical Research Council and with the presidents of the
other granting councils to discuss this new institute's concept.
Dr. Friesen explained that health research has expanded beyond
its traditional boundaries of simple medical research. The CIHR
will offer a modern framework to bring together all fields of
health research. It will build on the research base of our
universities, health and research centres, teaching hospitals,
federal and provincial governments, and voluntary and private
sectors by supporting and linking researchers in new ways.
In the future research teams representing many disciplines, not
just medical, will be linked by institutes structured along
thematic lines to create a powerful across Canada network of
expertise in areas of importance to us all. These institutes
will not be centralized bricks and mortar facilities. Instead
they will support and link researchers and support groups located
in universities, hospitals and other research centres in
communities all across Canada.
It is very interesting today in modern times to think about what
health research is. We need engineers, not doctors, to make new
joints like elbows, wrists, hips and so on. We need chemists to
develop new drugs, not just medical doctors.
1050
We need telecommunication specialists to develop new techniques
so that x-rays and other medical records can be transmitted
across the country to be interpreted by the best available
people. We need telecommunication experts so that doctors can
diagnose patients who are located thousands of kilometres away.
We need social scientists to track the success and failure rates
of various procedures. We need people to study the best ways of
delivering health care in our communities, social scientists,
statisticians, people of that type.
Modern health care would not be possible without a broad based,
basic research system across all disciplines. That system
requires an education system to bring up the people who can
operate and staff it, an accessible, effective education system.
In this health care budget the federal government, in addition
to the specific health care items which involve huge sums of
money, has once again been able to invest in fundamental research
and education across Canada. This is something that has been
going on from the very first days of this government.
The funding of the granting councils, the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council, the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council as well as the Medical Research Council, was
once again increased. So was the funding to the National
Research Council and the funding to the new Canada Foundation for
Innovation which is providing infrastructure for research in
communities all across Canada.
To give an example of the diversity of research which is
necessary to support a really effective health care system, this
time in the budget there was a fund provided for research into
various aspects of nursing. This fund is an endowment to support
a 10 year nursing research program. This new research initiative
will deal with the changing roles and needs of nursing. This is
so important in all our health institutions.
This fund will be administered by the Canadian Health Services
Research Foundation, a partner to the institutes I mentioned.
This research is an example of focusing on basic health care, the
care that nurses provide, helping to provide it in the most
effective way.
I would like to have seen more support for the SSHRC, for the
NRC and for northern research but the momentum of supporting
basic research in this country has continued in this budget and I
am delighted to see it. I join Nobel Laureate Dr. Michael Smith
who said: “This budget was a tremendous vote of confidence in
the research community of Canada. This is the best federal
budget I've seen in support of academic research”.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. My question to the
hon. member is if the Liberal government is so supportive of
Canada's health care system and sees it as a top priority, why
has it been part of the cut from 50% funding promised when Canada
health care came into effect down to 15%?
If the government believes so much that health care is a
priority, why did it put $2.5 billion into the millennium
scholarship fund which will affect only 6% of post-graduate
students and will not see any benefit until the year 2000? If
health care was such a priority, why did it do that?
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her
questions. I listened to previous negative comments from the
other side of the House that talked about brain drain and now we
hear the millennium scholarship mentioned.
I am talking here about a health care system now and for the
future. Where was the support of the Reform Party for the
millennium scholarship funds which are grants, the first grants
to Canadian students in many decades? Where was the Reform
Party's wholehearted support for the RESPs, the registered
education saving plans, which again include grants for lower and
middle income and high income people so they can support their
children in education?
Where is Reform support, talking about brain drain, for the CFI,
the Canada Foundation for Innovation, for the increases in the
granting councils which I have just mentioned? Where is the
support for the NRC? Where was the support for SchoolNet which
has put all of our elementary schools and all high schools in
Canada way ahead of the United States on the Internet?
1055
That is the support our young people need. Our young people
need the millennium scholarships. Here are hundreds of thousands
of effective grants to get our young people into good schools,
colleges and universities so that they can support the health
care system that I was discussing and not the tax system they are
discussing.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is rather interesting to see the kind of spin the government can
place on this component of the budget. I speak of health care.
I listened to the hon. member. I would ask him if he would not
admit to the House today that even with the billions of dollars
placed back into health care it will simply bring health care
funding up to 1995 levels.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the research and
development aspect the member took with respect to health care.
Is he aware that the two major cost drivers in health care today
are technology and inflation?
If we are going back simply to 1995 levels, if we cannot afford
technology and it cannot be put into place, how will that help
the health care system?
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, as I tried to point out,
this budget is not something that has just appeared. It is not
off the wall. This budget is the culmination of a series of
budgets we have had in which our main concern has been to
struggle with the problem that was left by the Progressive
Conservative Party.
We came in. We did not ask for it but there was a deficit of
$42 billion. We were borrowing almost a $1 billion a week at
that time. From the very first year, this government started
investing in the things I was describing, SchoolNet, health care
for women, pre-natal and post-natal health care and so on.
This budget is a further step, one more step forward to making
Canada an even greater place in the 21st century.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
only have time for a short question. We recently had people
before the finance committee who were extraordinarily critical of
the high tax levels in Canada because they were driving young
graduates out of this country.
Why has this government completely failed to do anything about
high taxes so that we can keep those people in Canada?
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, it is not my place to
discuss the substantial tax cuts in this and previous budgets.
At the same time we are getting the economy in shape and
stimulating job creation and so on, it is the federal
government's responsibility, and fortunately for us the Reform
Party will never have that responsibility, to build the systems
and structures today that will make Canada greater and that will
help our young people today so that they can help us when we are
old.
The negativism from that side is of great concern to me. Let us
have some optimism here.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here this
morning to speak about the budget and the number one issue on the
minds of Canadians, the future of health care. It is an issue
that is very dear to my heart and one that I can speak of from a
unique vantage point.
As a former provincial minister of health, I saw firsthand the
challenges the provinces face in providing quality health care
under difficult financial circumstances. As Parliamentary
Secretary to Minister of Health, I have seen health care
challenges from the national perspective.
I am particularly pleased to be speaking at this time when the
future of medicare has never been brighter, a time when the
federal government is in a strong financial position, a time when
federal dollars will be making a positive difference in the
accessibility of quality health care in this country.
Through sound fiscal management, a downward trend toward lower
taxes, the government's focus on reducing the debt and through a
significant investment in research and development, Canada is
moving forward. This budget will make a real difference in
health and health care in this country.
There was a time not long ago when babies were born at home, not
by choice but because their families could not afford to go to
the doctor. Often care was not sought until it was too late to
save a patient. People died from measles, mumps and chicken pox
because there was no vaccine to prevent or to respond to an
outbreak.
1100
It is good to remember those times. We are reminded of how
fragile the human condition is and of the importance of
protecting Canadian medicare, which protects all of us.
The conditions that I described did not just happen in the
middle ages or even at the turn of the century. I am talking
about this century, the fifties and the early sixties, before
Tommy Douglas advocated the first provincial medicare plan,
before the Liberal government in Ottawa established medicare to
serve all Canadians regardless of their income or their postal
code.
Fifty years ago my husband lost his mother to breast cancer. My
father-in-law lost not only his wife but his business too. Yes,
it cost him dearly.
We only have to look south of the border to see what kind of
system we could have had: one for the rich, another for the poor
and no access for many. We only have to ask Canadians who have
gone south without extra medical coverage, some who have had to
remortgage their homes or take out bank loans because a loved one
was in a car accident or suffered a heart attack while on
vacation.
Yes, we Canadians have taken a lot for granted. We have
expected that a person would get a job when they turned 18 and
would retire from that same job when they turned 65, that there
would always be clean air and clean water and that there would
always be a doctor, a nurse or a hospital nearby when we needed
care. To that extent we have been fortunate in Canada. As the
United Nations reminds us, we live in a country that for the
sixth consecutive year has ranked number one in the world as the
best place to live.
However, in the last decade we have learned a few lessons. We
cannot live on borrowed money forever. We have learned that the
resources of this country are not limitless. Perhaps the
greatest lesson that we have learned is one of individual
responsibility, which ironically is the theme that has been
echoed through the great works of the early philosophers.
Accepting personal responsibility is a hard lesson. But learning
responsibility has been important to all of us; to learn to
appreciate the things we have and what is most important to us,
setting priorities.
There is an old saying which people say whenever they are down
or whenever they are broke: “At least you have your health”.
Aside from their families, I believe what Canadians cherish the
most is their health. They also cherish the quality of health
care which they have come to rely on.
A mother wants to know that there is a doctor in the emergency
room when she brings her sick baby to the hospital. A heart
patient wants to know that there is an operating room available
24 hours a day. A family wants to know that their elderly mother
will have nursing home care when she is too ill, too frail to
look after herself, but wants to remain as independent as
possible for as long as possible.
Our government understands. We understand the importance of not
just preserving medicare, but continuing to make it better. That
is going to take more than just money. That is why the Liberal
government has invested another $11.5 billion in health care over
the next five years. We as a government have a responsibility to
the people of Canada today and in the future.
Part of that responsibility has been to put our own fiscal house
in order and to eliminate the deficit. We know that in times
past it has been very difficult because of that deficit for the
government to be able to act on behalf of Canadians, to put this
country's social programs on a firm fiscal foundation. Without
that foundation, given the challenges of change, Canadian health
care was seen as a house of cards just waiting for a strong wind
to make it collapse.
Today the future is bright. As we go forward into the future we
must never forget the lessons we have learned from the past. We
have learned to stop treating medicare like an illness and
hopefully we will start treating it like a patient. Treating it
like an illness meant that we lurched from crisis to crisis,
never certain of what the future would hold. Ensuring the future
of medicare means that we needed to stop using band-aid
solutions. We needed to look at the overall health of medicare.
We needed to listen to experts. We wanted to listen to
Canadians. Then we had to establish priorities for the future.
1105
That is why our government established the National Forum on
Health. That is why we developed a plan for the future. The
cornerstone of that plan is the recognition that the provinces
have their job to do in renewing and strengthening the delivery
of services. To do that job successfully they need the security
of long term, stable funding from the federal government.
We agreed to provide that guaranteed funding, $11.5 billion for
medicare over a five year period. That is the largest health
transfer payment to the provinces in the past two decades. I
want to emphasize that not even five years ago was this kind of
investment possible. It is possible today because the Liberal
government made the hard choices over the last five years and
took our fiscal responsibility very seriously. Now we are able
to look to the future with confidence.
People are already seeing the differences of additional funding
and what that is making happen in the provinces. The provinces
which have the responsibility for service delivery are already
announcing the re-opening of emergency wards and the provision of
other services which are necessary to secure the health of
Canadians everywhere.
The federal government has a responsibility beyond providing
money. Our responsibility goes beyond just giving the provinces
money and we are taking those responsibilities very seriously.
A key role the federal government plays nationally is working
with our partners to prevent and promote good health. That means
making health information available to Canadians to help them
make the right choices, to inform people, especially our youth,
about the hazards of smoking, drinking and taking drugs, and to
help young families make healthful choices.
This budget will help improve the overall health of Canadians,
particularly Canadians who fall through the cracks because we are
taking an early intervention approach. Rather than waiting to
treat, we are intervening to prevent. We are being proactive.
We are assisting pregnant women. We are also dealing with issues
like contaminated foods before they happen. We are investing
money to strengthen the federal food safety program. Rather than
just spending money after the fact to treat environmental
illnesses, we are being proactive. We are providing management
for the control of toxic substances. Rather than ignoring the
needs of rural Canadians, we are looking at ways to improve
services for rural and remote communities. We want to use
Tele-health and the new technologies that are available.
Three hundred and twenty-eight million dollars is available to
further develop health information systems that will link
together all of those who provide care through national networks.
In these ways the Liberal government is showing leadership in
working with the provinces to re-invent medicare, with an
emphasis on appropriately treating the patient, not just the
disease.
There is much more to do. I believe that Canadian medicare must
adopt an accountable, integrated approach to health care, one
which will bring together hospital resources with all other
health services to meet the needs of our communities. Canadian
medical and scientific professionals must share best practices
and focus on outcomes.
We must move toward a system that breaks down the silos and puts
an end, once and for all, to the turf wars that have plagued
medicare in the past.
Our aim as we move forward into this new era is to work together
and to empower ordinary Canadians. Today medicare in Canada is
stronger than ever thanks to the commitment, in writing, of
provincial governments across this country. We are determined to
create a real system that will be there for all Canadians when
they need it. This budget will help to do that.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have been listening to this debate for some time. The Liberal
government has destroyed our health care system. It has cut $24
billion from health care spending since 1993. When the Canada
Health Act came into existence the federal government agreed to
share 50% of the cost with the provinces. It has now dropped to
15%.
The Liberal government should apologize to Canadians for causing
the health care system to be in the shape it is today.
1110
Canadians now know that it is going to take many years to
rebuild our health care system which was destroyed by this
government.
The Canadian government has put the health care system in this
position. Now it is spending millions of dollars of taxpayers'
money in a damage control campaign. The finance minister—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The parliamentary
secretary has one minute to respond.
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, the big difference
between the Liberal Party and the Reform Party is that we support
the principles of the Canada Health Act. We say no to American
style medicine and no to user fees.
I humbly stand today in this House of Commons, the same House of
Commons that voted unanimously to make the Canada Health Act a
reality in this country. I stand proudly as the member of
parliament for Thornhill, but also as an individual who has
watched this nation build an internationally acclaimed medicare
system for all of us. I have watched the growing pains. I have
watched it falter. But together, with this budget and with the
support of all Canadians, we can assure that Canadian style
medicare will be there for future generations.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder how proud the member is of the fact that 200,000 Canadians
are on waiting lists for health care today. How proud is she of
the fact that 1,400 doctors have left Canada in the last two
years? I wonder how proud is she—and this is a little ironic
given the rhetoric we have heard—of the fact that so many
desperate Canadians who cannot get timely health care are being
forced to go to the United States to seek treatment. Under this
government equal access does not mean equal access to treatment,
it means equal access to a waiting list. How proud is the member
of those facts that have been created by her government?
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, everyone realizes that
there are enormous challenges for change. But the one thing that
we believe in and that we stand for is that we can work together
to ensure that Canadians have timely access to quality health
care. That is what distinguishes us from the Reform Party.
The Reform Party's rhetoric does not match its policies. It
would scrap the Canada Health Act. It would bring in user fees
and American style medicine. This party says no. We believe
that by working together we can solve the problems.
Internationally all countries are facing problems. Nobody has
found the perfect answer. We are looking around the world and we
are working together to ensure that Canadian health care will be
there for Canadians when they need it. The provinces, which have
the responsibility for the delivery of services, have committed
to work together and to use their technologies to create a more
integrated and accountable—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Acadie—Bathurst.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it
is pretty hard for me to understand what is going on in the House
and across the country. From 1995 to 1998 the federal government
cut $22 billion from transfers to the provinces. In the next
five years it will invest $12.5 billion. That is half the amount
it cut and it will take five years to do it. How can she say
that we are in the best position we have ever been in when our
parents and our children, when they go to the hospital, are left
in the hallways instead of being given a bed? As a Canadian, how
could she be proud of that?
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is
factually incorrect. With this budget the health portion of the
Canada health and social transfer will be fully restored. That
will also give predictable and stable funding to the provinces
which deliver those services.
When this government took office it faced a $42 billion deficit
and a debt that was out of control. Today the debt and the debt to
GDP ratio are on a downward trend. The tax burden is being
reduced, particularly for the neediest. Also we have been able
to secure social programs. This makes the single largest
commitment to Canadian medicare. Transfers of $11.5 billion over
five years, with $3.5 billion immediately to help the provinces
solve their problems, is the single largest commitment in over
two decades. That is a real commitment and those are the facts.
1115
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased, as a Bloc Quebecois member, and as the sovereignist
member for Lotbinière in particular, to speak today in this
debate on the federal Ontario Liberal budget.
The Paul Martin budget of last February 16 was a slap in the
face to the people of Quebec, a painful one. It is a purely
political budget, as Alain Dubuc, editorial writer for La
Presse, wrote the day after what I would call the worst possible
social injustice toward the Quebec people.
Alain Dubuc is, as hon. members know, not the most sovereignist
editorial writer at La Presse.
He was, however, very clear in describing it as follows “The
budget tabled by the Canadian Minister of Finance is purely
political”.
He went on to say “The budgetary approach in this sixth Martin
budget wallowed in the same quagmire as most actions by the
Chrétien government, the difficulty of making choices and
setting priorities, the lack of focus, concern with the short
term, and political calculation”.
What Mr. Dubuc neglected to say is that this government has
already made up its mind, and that its choice is to promote a
unitary country, a centralizing country, which has been
concentrating its efforts ever since October 1995 on weakening
Quebec.
Quebec is in mourning. Our unemployed are weeping. Our sick
people are in despair, and the middle class is up in arms
against the way this government is acting.
Ontario, however, is jubilant, with Mike Harris heading things
up, because he got the fine sum of $1 billion out of this
government under the social union framework agreement, a
centralizing union that skims off the provinces' powers, which
they have enjoyed since the start of Confederation.
This centralizing union suits to a “T” the current Prime
Minister, who, in the course of his career, has become an expert
in reneging on his word and his signature.
The masks of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Health and
the Prime Minister fell on February 16. The Liberal plot was
revealed, it was a plot against Quebec.
The meeting on February 4 was another example of the repeated
offensives by the Prime Minister against Quebec.
We will recall the patriation of the Constitution in 1982 and
the Meech Lake accord, which was scuttled by this politician, a
loyal apostle of the Trudeauism of the 1970s. And what about
the failed supreme court attempt by the famous chameleon Guy
Bertrand.
Before going on about the budget, I would like to talk about the
fine parade of federal ministers in Quebec last week. This
government was so aware that this budget concerned Quebeckers
that last week it sent two fake Santas in red suits. The people
of Quebec could see, despite the costumes, that what was coming
out of the mouths of these fake Santas was false.
Members should imagine the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
trying to talk about figures. Just as here in the House, no one
understood him.
And the Minister of Finance had the gall to say that his budget
was transparent. Something slipped his mind when he came to
meet Quebeckers last week and that something was Bill C-28. Fine
little bit of tampering to protect his shipping business. In
particular, he forgot to say how he was robbing the employment
insurance fund. There is a word for that, but I cannot say it.
Mr. Bernard Bigras: You can say it is pillage.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Yes, indeed.
1120
On February 19, in Plessisville, which is located in my riding,
the Minister of Human Resources Development hastily met the
local media. He did not meet the unemployed, but the media. The
minister clearly remembered his experience of last year, when he
tried to make fun of the BC mine workers, in Thetford Mines.
Let us talk about what the Liberals have done to help Quebec's
health sector. They just approved the establishment of a medical
police whose sole purpose will be to spy on our health system
and to recommend to federal Liberals a more centralizing
strategy, in order to bring Quebec's health sector under federal
control.
As for employment insurance or, rather, poverty insurance, only
36% of those who contributed now qualify for benefits. Three out
of every four young people have been excluded, while seasonal
workers remain the most affected.
The result of this policy is that people are leaving some of
Quebec's most scenic regions. Members should look at what is
happening in the Gaspé and North Shore areas. The Bloc Quebecois
has made numerous appeals in this House, urging the government
to correct the flaws of the employment insurance reform. What
did the Minister of Finance announce to the unemployed? Nothing.
Absolutely nothing. The minister continues to pump money out of
the employment insurance surpluses and he keeps asking more from
his servant, the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The latter answered the call by setting up a harassment scheme
designed to target Quebec's unemployed.
This quest to get money from the jobless is taking place in the
Quebec riding of Lotbinière, where the minister went and got $6
million. In Quebec, over a period of just eight months, the
minister got $144 million, all this for the benefit of beautiful
Ontario, and also to provide money for the federal government,
so that it can interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
This is the reality.
Let us take a look at the social and economic impacts of that
reform. A very good study done by the Canadian Labour Congress
shows that, from 1993 to 1997, my riding suffered a shortfall of
$12 million. This hurts regional development and it results in
people leaving the regions.
The Minister of Human Resources Development has the nerve to
keep telling us, in the House, that the employment insurance
reform is fair and equitable for Quebeckers.
I have a suggestion.
From now on, so as to better describe what he has been doing
since he was first appointed, the minister should call himself
not the Minister of Human Resources Development, but the
minister of human misery development. Unemployment is a cash
cow for the Liberal government, true or false?
Mr. Yvon Godin: True.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: In the 1999 budget, the government
confirms that it misappropriated the $7 billion EI surplus in
1998-99 and that it intends to repeat the performance with the
anticipated $5 billion surplus in 1999-2000. This surplus is
still being underestimated.
In his 1998 report, the chief actuary, who is a credible
individual, far more so than the Minister of Finance and the
Minister of Human Resources Development—
Mr. Bernard Bigras: He is not a sovereigntist either.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Relying on assumptions similar to those
used by the minister in his budget, the chief actuary estimates
that the annual surplus in 1999 will reach $6.22 billion. And
the shocker: by the end of 1999, the surplus accumulated by
this government in the last few years will have reached $26
billion, all of it lifted right out of the pockets of unemployed
workers, SMEs and the most disadvantaged members of society.
1125
I cannot say what I think of this Liberal government, Mr.
Speaker, because it would be unparliamentary, but I am utterly
disgusted with its arrogance and unfairness.
This government says we made no suggestions. That it does not
know what to do about EI. I have news for it.
Here is what it would have been nice to hear from the Minister
of Finance. There is nothing tricky about it, except that, if
these fair social principles were observed, the Minister of
Finance would lose his cash cow. He would no longer be able to
pay down the deficit and meddle in the affairs of the provinces.
I will list what the Bloc Quebecois would have liked to have
seen in this budget.
First of all, improved eligibility: abolition of the
discrimination toward certain categories of unemployed persons
based on their so-called presence in the labour force, such as
the number of hours required for eligibility; reduction from the
present 700 hours to 300 hours for eligibility for special sick,
maternity and parental benefits.
Second, increase in maximum number of benefit weeks from 45 to
50.
Third, abolition of the so-called intensity rule which imposes a
gradual decrease from 55% to 50% of the benefit level for
claimants making regular use of employment insurance.
Fourth, transparency of the EI account: employment insurance
account distinct from government operations and employment
insurance rate determined solely by the employment insurance
commission.
Fifth, reimbursement of EI contributions to those whose total
insurable earnings are under $5,000.
Sixth, elimination of the rules reducing the amount of benefits:
abolishing the freeze on maximum insurable earnings; restoring
the 52 week base period; calculating benefits on the number of
weeks required to qualify during which earnings were highest;
and allowing people to earn 25% of maximum benefits weekly.
These suggestions have been incorporated into six bills tabled
in this very House. This, in my opinion, would create an
employment insurance program which would be fair and equitable
for the people of Quebec and for all Canadians.
I will now address another issue relating to employment
insurance, fiddling with zones.
This is the greatest invention yet of the federal government for
depriving people of a program to which they are entitled and for
creating an awful mess, like the one we have in my own riding of
Lotbinière.
The Lotbinière county municipality is part of a zone where the
unemployment rate is at 7.2%. As a result, a worker has to have
worked a minimum of 630 hours to qualify for 17 weeks of
benefits. In another region or zone right next to it, and still
within the riding of Lotbinière, that same person would have to
work only 490 hours to qualify for 23 weeks. The Lotbinière
county municipality is at a considerable disadvantage because of
this regional rate and is deprived of any possibility of access
to active job creation measures such as the job creation fund
and the short weeks program.
When the employment insurance plan was created, it was supposed
to help everyone without restriction and regardless of region.
This government found a way to fiddle with the zones and to make
sure that, in Quebec, as in my riding, no one understands. A
person comes to me saying he lives in a certain municipality and
has the right to draw 23 weeks of benefits. In another, he
would be entitled to only 17 weeks. Try to explain that.
1130
This plan is impossible. In this regard, I announce my
intention to launch a vast operation to mobilize all the
socio-economic and community stakeholders in the RCM of
Lotbinière, the community decision makers, to get the Minister
of Human Resources Development to correct his department's
officials.
I will be tabling here in the next few months a complete file
for the Minister of Human Resources Development. I hope he does
not consider it a political action, an action by the Bloc
Quebecois.
It will be an action by the entire population of the RCM of
Lotbinière, which is part of the riding of Lotbinière, a
follow-up operation, a necessary operation. It will be an
operation intended to break this longstanding social inequity.
I would now like to speak about the agriculture section of this
budget: a big improvement over last year. The Minister of
Finance devoted a tiny paragraph to agriculture in his
voluminous 276 page propaganda document. Last year, there was
not a single line, so it is a vast improvement. He announced,
once again, the disaster program the minister of agriculture
announced hastily before Christmas.
This government has had two specialities of late: it announces
programs during recesses and organizes leaks of the
deliberations of parliamentary committees to the media.
For example, last week the Minister of Agriculture announced his
program when all the members of the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food were in Washington to take part in
information sessions organized with American officials and
politicians to prepare future WTO negotiations. What a nice show
of transparency on the minister's part.
Let us hope that, in its dealings with the provinces, this
government will be fair and equitable toward Quebec,
particularly hog farmers, who were saved by the intervention of
the Lucien Bouchard government. If the recent social union
agreement is any indication, we should expect the worst.
Let us now turn our attention to the future WTO negotiations.
Agriculture is the first item on the agenda.
These negotiations are under the supervision of the Minister for
International Trade, who is an Ontarian, with the help of the
Minister of Agriculture, another Ontarian, and of the Minister
of Industry, another Ontarian. It is these three ministers who
will represent Quebec's interests.
Needless to say I am concerned. I am even distressed by the fact
that these Ontarians will make decisions for us Quebeckers. The
social union tells the tale: one billion for beautiful Ontario,
where the vast majority of federal Liberal members come from.
It is time we talk about sovereignty. To the people of
Lotbinière and of Quebec I say we have to mobilize.
We must talk more and more about this blueprint for our society,
this project for the future, this project that gives hope to our
young people, that will ensure Quebeckers' full development,
that will give us the international prominence that we deserve,
and that will finally liberate all Quebeckers from the yoke of
the federal government. That project is Quebec's sovereignty.
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am afraid my French is not very good. It is pretty
rough around the edges. My friend, the member for Lotbinière is
very troubled. Perhaps he could tell me why he is afraid of
anyone from Ontario or from Canada's other provinces.
1135
The member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke would like an answer
from the member for Lotbinière. I think the member for
Lotbinière has a problem. He did not invent sliced bread. I
call on him to explain the equalization payments Quebec
receives, which are over $1 billion. Can he explain that to me?
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, the member has just shown
that information gets distorted when it goes from one side of
the House to the other. There is a psychological barrier in the
House, and the federal Liberals are unable to understand how
unfair they have been to Quebec in the last budget.
The budget contained $1 billion in health transfer payments for
Ontario as opposed to only $150 million for Quebec.
Equalization payments were withheld for three years. With
equalization, normally, if the federal government were fair and
spread its research and development dollars around equitably,
not only would we not have received a cheque, we would have
given one to other provinces.
This government is reducing Quebec to poverty, and I hope that
the members opposite, including Jean Chrétien's valiant
Liberals, will realize it.
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I
missed the start of the hon. member's speech, because I was held
up in committee. What I did hear, however, sounded absurd, and
I wonder how he could say such things here in the House.
If the hon. member for Lotbinière absolutely must work for
separation, let him go to Quebec to do it, let him run
provincially. Here we are working for Canada, working in the
interests of Quebeckers and of all Canadians. That is what the
House of Commons is for, and there is nothing shameful about
receiving a salary from the Government of Canada.
But when reference is made to equalization payments, the social
transfer, Ontario ministers, I would also point out to the hon.
member for Lotbinière that Stéphane Dion is, to the best of my
knowledge, a Quebec MP who is working very hard in the interests
of Quebeckers and Canadians, for one can do both these things.
If he claims that the amounts allocated to Ontario, British
Columbia or Alberta as transfer payments are unfair, then let
him do the calculations.
An hon. member: You have borrowed from the employment insurance
fund.
Mr. Claude Drouin: I wonder why there is shouting from the other
side. We listened to them; let them listen to us. Let them
show us some respect. When it is said that Quebec receives $960
per capita in transfer payments, whereas Ontario receives $836,
is this equitable? No.
In 1990, the previous government asked the three richest
provinces to accept a two-year freeze on transfer payments so as
to give the other provinces, including Quebec, a chance to get
through the recession. That is now past. The governments were
notified that there would be a return to equity as far as
transfers were concerned.
Mr. Bouchard, then a minister in the Conservative government,
had said that this was necessary. Now he claims to have never
heard of such a thing. Odd, since he was there. As for
equalization payments and the unexpected $1.4 billion cheque
given to Quebec, which could give it the possibility of
eliminating its deficit, there is no mention of that.
Mr. Gérard Asselin: We don't want charity. We pay $30 billion in
tax money.
Mr. Claude Drouin: Yes, but we get 29% of Canadian transfer
payments, although we account for 24% of the population. What
do the hon. members across the way have to reply to that? Let
them stop shouting and try to find some solutions to the
problems, instead of always blaming someone else and never
taking a look at themselves in the mirror.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, it makes me laugh to hear the
member saying the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs defends
the interests of Quebeckers. It does not swell my confidence at
all. We have a hard time understanding him, here in the House.
1140
He landed in Quebec last week to try to explain the budget, when
he has a hard time understanding the Canadian Constitution. It
is clear. Education, health and municipalities are provincial.
It is easy to give out figures, as the member for Beauce has
just done. It is easy to treat us as separatists. I know no
Quebeckers who do not want to become increasingly sovereignist
in this province.
When we get taken, as was the case in the recent budget, when we
see the social union, they can talk all they want about
transparency. When were we consulted about investing only $150
million? The Prime Minister did not even honour his signature.
And what about social union: a fine bit of blackmail. “We need
you in the next election. We need you to fight the
sovereignists. We will give you money. A million dollars in
Ontario, a bit to B.C. and to Alberta”. Do people find that
fair and equitable?
These people must be more responsible when they speak in the
House of Commons.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, is my hon. colleague aware of the way the
federal government treats British Columbia and the way it has
closed the only land base in the province that is most likely to
have a major earthquake in an urban area?
Is he aware that British Columbia gets very little in
procurement from the federal government? Is he aware that
British Columbia does not have the representation in the House of
Commons or in the Senate that it should have?
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, it is true that I paid
particularly close attention to the issues of Quebec, but I know
that all the provinces are penalized by the federal government's
actions. I can see the concerns of my colleague from B.C.
Everyone knows the budget was unfair. Everyone understands that
this government is centralizing. Everyone, except the federal
Liberals, understands that this government makes a mockery of
provincial jurisdictions. There is a problem. There are only
some 150 people in Canada who do not understand that there was
nothing for the provinces in this budget and that there was
nothing to promote development.
I support my colleague, and the Bloc Quebecois supports any
cause that defends provincial jurisdictions.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his comments on the budget, many of
which tend to dispel the myth the government is trying to create,
the myth that this is a good news budget, the myth that is being
perpetuated by the government's spending of millions of dollars
to advertise it as a good news budget.
At the end of the day the people in Halifax West and in various
other ridings across the country will ask themselves whether they
have a job, whether they will still have to stand in line for
health care, whether they will get out from under the heavy
student debt load they are experiencing, whether they will have a
place to live, whether they will be getting EI.
One very important issue that was not addressed by the budget
was the question of a national shipbuilding policy for Canada,
which would certainly help the Atlantic provinces with employment
and with economic spin-off. There was a meeting a while back
which involved the parties, but the Liberals did not send anyone
to it. Will the member comment on whether the budget should have
addressed the issue of a national shipbuilding policy?
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, not too long ago, the Bloc
Quebecois supported the unemployed in New Brunswick. This was a
show of solidarity. We realize that the federal system is making
people leave the Atlantic region in droves.
People from that region showed more common sense than
Quebeckers. They got rid of them. They will take care of them at
the next election.
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to participate in the budget debate. I
express gratitude to the people of Fredericton and in fact to all
Canadians for the sacrifice and the patience they have shown in
the last five or six years as we have attempted to deal with the
deficit we inherited upon taking office in 1993.
In order to understand the 1999 budget, we have to go back at
least that far and recognize that in the sixties and seventies,
with all the best and noble intentions, federal and provincial
governments of all political stripes attempted to bring about
regional equity in terms of economic development in Canada.
I would also hasten to add that for the most part most of these
programs worked.
1145
I take some offence to those who would suggest that this entire
exercise that has been characterized as the welfare state has not
been a success. In a vast majority of cases it has been very
successful. But the country's economy did not grow at the rate
that was anticipated, and as a result we were not able to sustain
the rate of growth of some of these social programs. Very quickly
it affected many Canadians in a way we would rather not have
happened, but Canadians understood their responsibility,
Canadians understood what government had to do and they made some
very serious sacrifices. We owe Canadians a debt of thanks.
We have been able to make those programs sustainable into the
next millennium. We have been able to deal with the deficit
which we inherited. The 1999 budget is here and the deficit
dragon has been slain as many have said and we are looking to
reinvest around two fundamental areas. The first fundamental area
around which we must invest is wealth generation. The second is
to determine the appropriate way in which the wealth that is
generated serves the collective and public good.
The government with this budget has demonstrated our position
that economic growth in Canada will accompany a shift away from
what for the last 100 years was almost entirely a resource based
economy to a knowledge based economy. Hence there is a
significant investment in all kinds of research. There is
research around pure science, applied research, information based
research, research in the social sciences and humanities, public
policy and program research. Health research has been mentioned
by any number of speakers to this point. There is also health
care best practices and research into the new demographics and
how we are going to deal with the aging population.
My own constituency of Fredericton has a significant IT industry
employing thousands of engineers, computer programmers and others
in the knowledge based industries, and that is growing every day.
In fact our unemployment rate is 2% better than it was in 1993
and that is in the face of tremendous restraint as a provincial
capital, not only the restraint that was exercised by the federal
government but also a period of restraint by the provincial
government.
I commend the Greater Fredericton Economic Development
Corporation and Jacques Dubé who works with our municipalities,
the province, the cities and municipal councils of Fredericton,
Oromocto and New Maryland, with the chambers of commerce and the
local labour development board, and most important in the face of
the need to invest in knowledge and research, the universities,
UNB and St. Thomas. I also have to pay tribute to ACOA, the
regional economic development agency, for its foresight and good
work. It assists universities on a regular basis in a way which
I think very often is unappreciated by some members of the House.
The best example I can think of as the kind of economic
development opportunities that will spring out of this R and D is
a small project at UNB. It was announced in the last six months.
It was financed through the transitional jobs fund, which has
been characterized in other less flattering ways as a program by
other members of the House. In this case the transitional jobs
fund was used to invest in a metal detection research project at
UNB. When items go through the metal detectors at airports and
other places, it can be done with more sophistication.
Mr. Speaker, I am reminded to mention that I am splitting my
time with the Secretary of State for Science, Research and
Development and Western Economic Diversification.
This project has already created jobs in Fredericton. It
presents a wonderful opportunity for the kind of economic growth
our region needs if we want to move beyond our traditional
position of not being at the national average in numbers of
unemployed and so on.
1150
Our region felt the impact of the last five or six years more
than most because we were so heavily dependent, whether it was on
national defence or transfers from the government. Therefore,
when the federal government went through a period of restraint we
felt it more than anyone else.
It is important for us to take our place in line as we reinvest.
We have dealt with the deficit and are dealing with the debt.
As we reinvest it is very important that our region makes its
case for the kind of investment that will allow us to step away
from the traditional transfers that are so often associated with
Atlantic Canada.
On the question of government spending and the quality of life
issues, it is obvious that the Government of Canada heard
Canadians. That is the reason it has made the significant
investment of $1.5 billion in health care.
I have to remind the House, particularly when I hear members of
the Reform Party and Conservative Party talking about the money
that is being restored is money that was cut earlier, in the 1995
budget where the reduction in transfers to the provinces was
announced, the official opposition had the opportunity to present
a motion of non-confidence in the government. At that time
significant cuts had been announced in terms of correcting the
imbalance between revenues and expenditures.
However it was not the cuts which caused the Reformers to
suggest non-confidence in the government. In fact, at that time
the opposition said that the government did not cut enough. I
remember this specifically because I was the chair of a caucus
committee that was concerned about the CHST and the impact on our
region and on provinces with less resources. Notwithstanding the
current debate in terms of the health care system and so on, when
those decisions were originally taken, we must remember the
position of the opposition at that time.
As we talk about the 1999 budget, in addition to what has been
announced, we have also invested in children through the national
child benefit. We have invested in students through the
millennium scholarship fund. We have invested in research at the
universities through the innovation foundation. We have
increased the CHST, the first time by $1.5 billion and we have
increased it since then by an additional $11.5 billion.
This is important to recognize because when the reductions were
made in 1995 they affected universities, they affected welfare
and they affected health. When we are talking about the money
that has been restored, we have to talk about the money that has
been restored for health, post-secondary education and welfare,
all of this before the 1999 budget which has reinvested a
significant amount of money.
On top of this, we have provided low and medium income tax
relief. We have invested $375 million in the quality of lives of
the members of the armed forces. This is very important to me as
I represent CFB Gagetown in my constituency. We have invested
$400 million in the criminal justice system.
I would like to offer my congratulations to the Minister of
Finance and the Prime Minister for supporting the Minister of
Finance and to all Canadians who have been the source of the
sacrifice and the determination that has allowed this to happen.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
as you probably know, last week the ministers of the crown were
in the province of Quebec rightly correcting distortions Lucien
Bouchard had made, which was to say that with 24% of the
population, Quebec was not getting its fair share of money. These
were absolute distortions. As a matter of fact I would
characterize them as lies that the premier of the province of
Quebec was engaged in. They correctly pointed out that instead
of there being less than 24%, which represents the population, I
believe the number was 32%, 33% or 34%, or whatever it is. They
were correcting the records.
For the benefit of the member, I would also like to correct the
record of the Liberals. At the same time that Bouchard was
putting out those ads, the Minister of Health was putting out ads
talking about how health was the most important thing in the
world to this government. He was putting $3.5 billion in and
$11.5 billion, all of these numbers, but forgetting completely,
and as a matter of fact I charge distorting the truth, the fact
that there has been—
1155
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We are not going to
do from the back door what we cannot do from the front door. I
would invite the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia to put the
question.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, if there has been $16
billion taken out of health care—forget CHST and just talk about
health care—and it will take the government five years to put a
total of $11.5 billion back in, why should this be characterized
as anything different from the kind of advertisements the premier
of the province of Quebec put out?
Hon. Andy Scott: Mr. Speaker, the member is half right; I
think the premier of Quebec was wrong.
The transfers to the provinces around health are very
complicated. Either the hon. member does not understand the
complexity of these transfers or he is involving himself in the
kind of activity he characterized others as being involved in.
We have made a significant shift in the way the provinces
receive the funding from the federal government by way of tax
credits, tax points. Those tax points cannot ever totally deal
with this problem because those parts of the country, such as New
Brunswick, that do not have the same level of economic activity
would not be able to provide the same level of activity as other
richer provinces. That is the reason the system was divided
between tax points and cash transfers when those transfers were
originally announced. That is also the reason that in some
period of time during the course of this, I think it was in 1981,
that the cap was put on the transfers to the richer provinces.
I and the province of New Brunswick have taken the position that
it is time we took those caps off. I am sure the member from
British Columbia would welcome that decision. As for the
transfers, it is a lot more complicated than the hon. member
would have us believe.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member opposite mentioned ACOA and economic development.
ACOA has been a key player in the Canada infrastructure program,
cost shared by the federal government, provinces and
municipalities. This has aided a lot of small communities get
basic infrastructure which they needed.
Can the hon. member tell me why there is nothing in the budget
which would aid the continuation of this program for those vital
infrastructure projects?
Hon. Andy Scott: Mr. Speaker, I would share the member's
enthusiasm for the infrastructure program and ACOA. I only say
the reason the budget did not contain another infrastructure
announcement is that the Government of Canada decided to invest
in health care, which is where Canadians wanted us to invest. I
look forward to the possibility of infrastructure investments in
future budgets.
[Translation]
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development) (Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to make a
few comments on the budget, which I reviewed very closely and
which I discussed with Canadians across the country.
[English]
I made well over 50 calls and talked with well over 200 people
about this budget. I want to share some of their views.
Most people felt that it was really a very balanced approach to
the finances, to handling or managing if you wish, the finances
of the nation. They were pleased with that. Clearly there were
some who would have preferred a little more here or a bit more
there, but overall I think it was fair and objective. If we look
at the newspapers and the people with whom we talked, the report
would be an extremely positive one.
I will briefly make the following points, the first one being
about the tax reductions. Some people have tried to pooh-pooh
them, tried to say that they were too small, too modest. Of
course I would like, as I am sure my colleagues would like, to
pay fewer taxes. But the truth of the matter is that if one
looks at what was done last year, add what was done this year,
when all of that is implemented there will be $16 billion plus
worth of tax reductions.
1200
I want to share with colleagues a very interesting fact. Let us
pretend for a moment that I have the authority to give every
individual tax filer a dollar a day tax break. Most people would
say that is not a whole lot, and it is not really. However, at
the same time there are 15 million taxpayers in the country. If
we were to multiply the $15 million a day by 365 days a year, we
would find the cost to the federal treasury in lost revenue would
be $5.4 billion. That is a whole lot of money. It all depends
on from what end we look at the decision.
Some people have tried to suggest that the transfers for health
are not terribly significant. Of course that is not true. They
are large. They are immense at $11.5 billion over the next five
years. That is a lot of money. A lot of people have not talked
about the $1.4 billion in research which will permit a number of
important initiatives to try to understand better what we get
from the $80 billion expenditure in health in Canada on a yearly
basis. There are significant investments in health which are
seen extremely positively.
The area of science, research and development has not been
talked about a whole lot, a group of programs for which I have
special responsibility. I want to share with my colleagues some
of the comments made with regard to those decisions. I want to
make sure they understand that they are not just coming from me.
I quote from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
of Canada:
[Translation]
The federal government must be congratulated for having made
such a commitment to research and for having paved a new way for
integrated research in health.
[English]
Let us go to another organization, the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada:
NSERC welcomes the 1999 budget decisions. We believe that many
members of the science and engineering community will want to
join me in expressing their appreciation for this vote of public
support and confidence in their activities.
Here is another example with regard to the Networks of Centres
of Excellences, the NCEs, as they are often called:
We are delighted at the 60% increase in the NCE budget. With
this new funding, we will be able to add eight more centres of
excellence.
[Translation]
And what did the AUCC have to say? It stated:
[English]
We are pleased that the federal government has made knowledge and
innovation a key priority for the future.
That is one of the points we must remember. In the budget the
government has built upon previous budgets. For example, in the
1997 budget there was a massive investment of $800 million in the
Canada Foundation for Innovation. Then the budget of last year
added to the granting councils and a number of other initiatives
so we would be doing leading edge research, which is what we are
talking about when we talk about a knowledge based society and a
knowledge based economy.
We are talking about giving Canadians the tools to make sure
they can create jobs; to make sure they can create the quality of
life we now enjoy; to make sure we can increase that quality of
life for all Canadians; and to make sure we keep more of our
youngest, our brightest and our best in Canada.
University of Toronto president, Robert Pichard, had this to
say:
The University of Toronto is very pleased with the federal
budget. This is the third federal budget that has strengthened
our cause. We are very grateful for the new support.
[Translation]
[English]
The Canada Foundation for Innovation said:
These new funds mean that institutions will be able to offer the
necessary working environment to keep our best researchers in
Canada.
1205
It is clear that we have invested heavily in innovation and
knowledge. It is clear that the budget reinforces key measures
taken in previous budgets. I have mentioned those. It is clear
that we have announced an innovation strategy that reinforces key
building blocks for renewing Canada's knowledge based economy.
The key building blocks are there for improving that which we
have, renewing Canada's knowledge base, clearly investing in
research and development and innovation, and supporting the
commercialization of knowledge.
The budget sets a direction for reducing our level of taxes to
make Canada a location of choice for knowledge workers to live
and to work. It does not provide all of the answers, but it
takes a number of positive steps in the right direction.
Let us talk about the $1.8 billion invested in science, research
and technology. Creating knowledge, what have we done in that
area? We have invested in the Canadian Foundation for
Innovation. We have invested in the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council. We have invested in the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council. As well we have
invested in the National Research Council.
[Translation]
Investments are also being made in the areas of research and
development and biotechnology.
[English]
Let us look at the second category of disseminating knowledge.
We have invested $60 million in Smart Communities and $60 million
in GeoConnections. Let us talk about commercialization
knowledge.
[Translation]
There is the commercialization of knowledge: centres of
excellence networks, $90 million; Technology Partnerships
Canada, $150 million; Business Development Bank of Canada, $50
million; Canadian Space Agency, $430 million to stabilize the
agency.
[English]
Let us talk about supporting le soutien de l'emploi, surtout
chez les jeunes. We have the youth employment strategy at $465
million and the Canada jobs fund at $110 million.
We have made the right investments for Canadians in order to
make sure that we create the jobs and the quality of life that
they expect as a result of government working in partnership with
others.
[Translation]
The budget provides considerable reinforcement for the key
measures in the last three budgets to boost productivity,
encourage innovation, and improve the well-being of Canadians in
a knowledge-based global economy.
The keys to improving productivity have always been capital
investment, innovative entrepreneurial spirit, and an
increasingly skilled workforce.
In conclusion, I will just mention that there is also
considerable funding for minorities, who will now be in a better
position to build on what they have. The country that can
provide its people with better tools, including the necessary
training, will be a world leader.
[English]
The budget is about providing Canadians with the appropriate
tools, including the training and education required and the
climate to succeed in a knowledge based economy. The country
that best provides these tools including the necessary training
and education will be a leader in the 21st century.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
budget '99 did not give any meaningful tax relief to
Canadians.
In fact the budget discriminated against parents who chose to
stay home to take care of their children. The budget did not
make any significant efforts to pay off the debt. The budget did
not do anything for small businesses. They are completely left
out of the loop in the budget. The government's $24 billion in
cuts since 1993 have caused the destruction of our health care
system.
Will the hon. member ask his government to cancel the damage
control ad that is running in the newspaper, wasting millions of
Canadian taxpayer dollars? Is this not simply an ad to hide a
pay more, get less budget?
This ad denies Canadians the right to know or the right to
express themselves. It is a campaign to deny that the budget
destroys health care. Will the member ask his government to stop
that ad?
1210
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague
for the question. I would have hoped he might have been a bit
more objective. Clearly the government has a responsibility to
inform Canadians with regard to the programs it has and to the
decisions it has made in the budget. That is exactly what is
happening.
With regard to the comments about destroying the health care
system, this is absolute nonsense. We had a $42 billion deficit
when we came into power. That has been eradicated. What has
been the major investment that has been undertaken subsequent to
that? It has been in health with $11.5 billion dollars in
transfer over five years to the provinces. There will be $1.4
billion to undertake research which will improve the quality of
health care for all Canadians throughout the nation.
With respect to the other comments that he made, particularly
the reduction of taxes, I indicated how superficial the Reform
Party agreement is. If we gave a dollar a day tax reduction to
the 15 million Canadians who file taxes, it would cost the
government $15 million a day. In one year it would cost $5.4
billion. Does Reform not get it?
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
first, I am sure the hon. member recognizes that the deficit was
put there by previous Liberal governments. I know he will take
responsibility for that.
I would like to quickly touch on two issues. One is the $5.4
billion per year. I assume if a dollar a day per taxpayer adds
up to $5.4 billion per year the hon. member recognizes that when
his government charges a dollar a day to the taxpayers of Canada
it also generates revenue of $5.4 billion per year, which it has
been increasing and not decreasing over the last five years.
I have a question about research and development. I give full
marks for the dollars being put back into the budget for research
and development. Would he touch on the Canadian aerospace funds
of $400 million which were recently detailed in the WTO report as
being an illegal subsidy to Canadian aerospace?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I have three points
to make. I would have hoped my colleague from the Conservative
Party would have been a bit clearer and more precise than my
colleague from the Reform Party.
Over nine years the Tories let the debt climb to almost $600
billion; they almost tripled it in nine years. When we came into
power in 1993 the debt was $190 billion. It took us about four
years to get it down to zero. He wants to forget that, but I
will not let him forget and neither will my colleagues.
With regard to the TPC he should know that we are following the
interim report very closely. We want to make sure that we
respond in an appropriate kind of manner. I assure my colleague
that we will do so.
With regard to the overall investments in science, research and
technology, this is good news for all Canadians: young Canadians
and people who want to stay in Canada. This is good news for
Manitoba. This is good news for every province and each of the
three territories.
I hope my colleague will stand and applaud the government's
decisions in that area as well as decisions in other areas such
as gradual tax reductions which will accumulate and will
translate into significant savings. We are not pie in the sky.
We will not promise something we cannot sustain and then have to
remove. We will do it step by step and we will get there just
like we did with the elimination of the deficit.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
while the Tory members and the Liberal members are arguing with
each other about whose to blame, I can categorically say that
they are both to blame for the sorry state of affairs in Canada
today. I will be sharing my time in debating the budget with the
member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Since the Liberal government came to power 500,000 more Canadian
children have slipped below the poverty line. Those figures are
shocking.
1215
In the budget we are debating today the finance minister
announced $300 million for the national child tax benefit. I
know there are some members from the government who will argue
that this was a noble gesture, but we have to say it is one that
does absolutely nothing to address the fundamental flaws in the
benefit systems, namely that it is not indexed to inflation and
it does nothing to assist the poorest of the poor, kids and
parents who are on welfare.
This last policy is in keeping with a continual bashing of poor
people by this government and the government before it. It is
really abysmal that the last time a federal budget increased
support for families on social assistance was in 1985.
Deindexing of the child tax benefit means that the value of the
child benefit declines in real terms by 3% each year. It really
allows the government to get away with saying that it is actually
increasing dollars to kids in working poor families while knowing
full well that those dollars will be recouped. It is part of a
culture of deception, a culture that has been cultivated by the
finance minister and by this government. This budget fails
Canadian children again.
This budget also fails the homeless. The federal budget is a
national disgrace on housing and homelessness. Not a single
penny has been allocated for new spending and this means no new
social housing units this year and no money for homelessness
initiatives.
A serious federal response to this disaster requires money to be
put on the table. This budget was the ideal time for the federal
government to show us it is ready to take on this issue.
In January and February of this year I visited large urban
centres and smaller communities across Canada to see for myself
the consequences of deliberate public policies that leave Canada
with the dubious distinction of being the only industrialized
country in the world without a national housing strategy. What I
saw, what I heard and what I experienced shocked me and should
shock the finance minister, as the issue of growing poverty and
homelessness becomes even more visible and more tragic as more
people die.
In every community I visited I was struck by three basic issues,
the lack of adequate incomes and high rents that drive people
into poverty, the impact of the lack of new social housing
construction, and the desperate need to improve and maintain the
standard of low income market housing starts.
This budget was an opportunity for the finance minister to
recall his own words in 1990. I will recall those words for him.
Then in official opposition as chair of the Liberal Party's task
force on housing, the now finance minister condemned the Tory
government for doing nothing while the housing crisis continued
to grow out of control: “The government sits there and does
nothing. It refuses to apply the urgent measures that are
required to rebirth this deteriorating situation. The lack of
affordable housing contributes to and accelerates the cycle of
poverty which is reprehensible in a society as rich as ours”.
Three years later the finance minister steamrolled his own
report and in its place introduced a budget that slashed all
federal funding for the creation of new social housing. That
single act alone meant that 75,000 new social housing units that
had been targeted for construction were never built. This was a
decision that has now denied tens of thousands of families the
right to decent and affordable housing.
This budget comes at a time when Canada is facing one of its
largest national disasters in its history. The big city mayors,
the city councils of Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa-Carleton, Nepean,
over 400 organizations and 1,200 individuals have recognized the
homelessness crisis in Canada as a national disaster. However, in
no way does this budget even begin to address this disaster,
thereby condemning hundreds of thousands of people to struggle in
misery, even risking death, without federal relief.
This budget also comes at a time when the Prime Minister has
been invited numerous times by the mayor of Toronto, the Toronto
Star, the Toronto disaster relief committee, and the leader
of the NDP to tour the disaster in the city of Toronto and to see
with his own eyes the destruction it has wrought on Canadians.
Even though it is the Prime Minister's responsibility to review
the disaster that is the direct result of his government's
policies, he has not apparently had the time nor the commitment
to do this.
1220
Maybe if the Prime Minister or the finance minister saw the
crisis firsthand like I have done, they would be moved to action.
Anything less, and this budget is much less, is a devastating
shame.
The budget also fails Canadians on health care. Let us put the
so-called health budget in perspective. Liberal cuts to the
Canadian health and social transfer since 1995 now amount to
$21.5 billion. More than half of that was in health care
funding.
This year the budget puts back only $2 billion, not exactly the
cause for celebration that we have been led to believe. Members
of the government keep repeating $11.5 billion. That is what they
want us to remember about this budget.
What they want us to forget is that $11.5 billion is spread out
over five years and only puts back half of what has been taken
out. It gets worse. We will not get the ongoing benefit of the
$11.5 billion because it is not cumulative.
By the end of the next five years, only $2.5 billion will have
been permanently added to the transfer. It is like a wage bonus
instead of a wage increase. It is a one time fix that really
leaves us no further ahead.
In fact, the federal share of health spending is not going to
change significantly either. This is a real measure of what has
happened in terms of public policy around health care.
When medicare began, the federal-provincial ratio was 50%
federal dollars and 50% provincial dollars. When the Liberals
came to power, the federal share dropped to 18%. Now it is down
to 11%.
In five years after this so-called reinvestment in health care,
we will only be back up to 12.5%. We have to ask how much clout
will 12.5% buy with provinces that are sliding toward two tier
health care.
Overall this budget, despite being characterized as a good news
budget, actually widens the gap between the rich and the poor.
Information from the National Anti-Poverty Organization has made
it clear that if we look at two single people, one earning
$15,000 and one earning $100,000 and apply the so-called tax
relief measures in this budget, in actual fact the gap between
their incomes will actually increase by $658. It is very clear
that this budget is actually increasing inequality.
On education as well this budget gets a failing grade. I was at
a community college in Vancouver, Langara Community College, just
the other day talking to students. They asked me whether there
was anything in this budget that would help students with the
incredible student debtload they have.
I searched high and low. I went through every page. There is
not a single item in this budget that will assist students in
Canada who are now reeling and suffering from high tuition fees
and student debt.
Even the Canadian Council on Social Development gives this
budget an F, a failing grade, when it comes to post-secondary
education.
This budget has also failed unemployed workers who are still
suffering from the massive cutbacks to the unemployment insurance
program while the $20 billion surplus sits there.
We want to say to the government that this budget has failed
Canadians who are most in need. I heard a Liberal member earlier
talk about the sacrifices that have been made.
There are people in my riding of Vancouver East who are still
hurting, who are still unemployed, who are still on the street,
who are still suffering from high student debt. There is nothing
in this budget that will help those people.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
want to first of all congratulate and commend my hon. colleague
for her very relevant remarks on this budget.
She mentioned the gap widening between the rich and the poor.
She talked about how this budget affects those who are most in
need.
A small community in my riding of Halifax West, a black
community called Upper Hammonds Plains, is adjacent to a large
water supply which is the water supply for Halifax and Dartmouth.
The water supply runs right past this community. In fact, land
was taken from this community to make this water supply
available.
These people do not get water. Seniors, young people, people
within the community cannot get water unless they pay an
astronomical price to hook up. Yet this budget could have
resolved that kind of problem by putting money into an
infrastructure program that would enable a project to go ahead to
give water to this community.
This is another example of how this budget has not really dealt
with the very real problems of people within communities that are
necessary to be dealt with in order for people to progress.
Would the hon. member agree that programs of this nature should
have been included in the budget programs aiming at the homeless,
seniors, young people and so forth?
1225
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, it is true that one can go
to any community in Canada and see very critical situations where
local communities have devised the solutions that are necessary
but which lack, in many cases, the federal resources such as an
infrastructure program. The Federation of Canadian
Municipalities has been calling for a nationally shared
infrastructure program to do exactly the kinds of things the
member describes.
I also visited communities in the far north of Manitoba with my
colleague from Churchill. These communities basically had people
living in homes with no sewage or water hook-up. It is
unbelievable to think that this still exists in Canada today.
I would agree with the hon. member that these kinds of basic
necessities are things that should have been addressed not only
in this budget, but because of the massive cutbacks that we have
seen since 1993 we now have a crisis situation in many of these
smaller communities and certainly in the larger cities as well.
We still see people who are trying to get by even without the
very daily essentials of shelter, water, adequate housing,
adequate income, food and so on.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate my colleague from Vancouver, who toured the country
and who has seen first hand how this government has hurt the
homeless.
The EI changes mean that 800,000 Canadians no longer qualify for
benefits. How many children go to school hungry? British
Columbia has lost $1.8 billion in EI benefits over the last four
years.
What impression did my colleague form in touring the country? I
would like to know if the comments I heard about employment
insurance were similar to those she heard, both from those who
no longer qualified for EI benefits and from the homeless.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, in our travels across
Canada and looking at emergency shelters, talking to activists
and people living in shelters or on the street, I talked to them
about homelessness and housing. My colleague talked to
unemployed workers who were suffering because of the EI cutbacks.
We heard much the same thing. I talked to unemployed
construction workers who were living in emergency shelters
because their last unemployment insurance cheque had run out.
They were now waiting to go on welfare because they had no
housing.
Surprisingly, I also talked to employed construction workers who
were living in emergency shelters in Toronto. They found the
rents were too high for their low wages. Because they were
involved in short term work, they knew they would not qualify for
EI and would then face with a situation where they could not
afford adequate housing because of the unaffordable rents.
The cutbacks to the EI program are directly contributing to the
increase in poverty and homelessness in Canada. If anyone does
not believe that they should visit a shelter and talk to people
to find out what the reality is.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the
1999 federal government budget which I and my colleagues believe
is increasingly being recognized more for its usefulness as a
public relations tool than for its substantive impact on the
lives of Canadians.
I want to begin by following up on the comments made by a
colleague of mine, the Liberal member for Saint Boniface, who
tried to suggest that it was perfectly legitimate for this
government to spend $3.6 million advertising this budget on the
grounds that it was providing some sort of public service to
Canadians.
I would urge all members across the way to look at the ads,
listen to the radio ads and tell me where there is any element of
public service. It is absolutely clear that the expenditure of
$3.6 million does nothing more than provide a public relations
exercise for this government to deal with its political crisis.
It is sheer propaganda. There is no public service in those ads.
1230
I ask the question: Is it not obvious that these ads are
necessary because the government failed to convince Canadians
that this truly was a health care budget? Is it the case that
Canadians, and particularly Manitobans, are seeing through this
government's propaganda and in fact recognizing that the Liberals
are putting back a little bit of what they took out of our health
care system and acknowledging that we are in this crisis today in
large measure because of Liberal government policy to begin with?
My question today and every day will be: Will the government
put all of the money that is available for health care into
patient care and not into propaganda?
There are two criteria by which one must address any federal
budget. The first is to ask the question: Does the budget serve
as a road map for achieving the stated objectives and goals of the
government? The dilemma for the government is: How does it map
out a strategy if it has not been able to recognize the critical
nature of the health care system or to recognize its own
responsibility and culpability in the chaos that we are now
finding in our health care system right across this country?
I do not need to remind my colleagues in the House that it was
just a couple of months ago that members on the Liberal benches
stood in the House and suggested that there was not a crisis in
our health care system. They ridiculed members in my caucus and,
by implication, all Canadians who were raising concerns about the
crisis that we were finding in health care systems from one end
of this country to the other.
There is no question that all across Canada—and Canadians know
this—years of federal neglect and cutbacks have taken their
toll. But the fact that the Liberal government felt compelled to
come up with a so-called health budget resulted from the cries
and pleas of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who faxed, who
wrote, who spoke out, who yelled from the rooftops about the
impact of federal Liberal decisions on our health care system.
It was only with constant public and political pressure, and a
relentless stream of individual horror stories, that the
government finally was forced to at least acknowledge some of the
problems at play in Canada's health care system and to put some
money back into health care.
The other criteria by which one must analyse any federal budget
is to ask whether the budget seeks to improve the lives of
Canadians. How does it shape the economic and social realities
of its citizens? The main purpose of a budget is to show
Canadians what are its values, what are its priorities and it
makes political choices based on those priorities and values.
When a government then chooses a tax break of $8,000 for a
millionaire and does nothing for a single parent on social
assistance, it shows that its values are fundamentally one sided.
When it engages in incredible hoopla about a health care budget
but fails to address the long term survival of Canada's health
care system, it shows that the priorities of the government are
shortsighted and politically motivated.
Canadians have now had a chance to look closely at this
so-called health budget. In their reflection I think they bring
to mind that old saying “If you are starving you do not refuse a
meal”. The fact that there is money for health care is
certainly an improvement after years of cuts. I will acknowledge
that and my colleagues have acknowledged that. Health
researchers have indicated that they are pleased there is some
additional money for them. Nurses, although still worried about
how they will survive in their jobs, have acknowledged that at
least the government is prepared to spend a little money to look
into the problems of the profession.
1235
However, after all is said and done, it is clear to Canadians
with every day that passes that there is very little in this
budget to ensure the preservation and strengthening of medicare
in this country. There is absolutely no attempt to look at and
address the root causes of ill health and there was not even a
signal that this government is prepared to keep up to its
promises around a national home care plan and a national drug
plan, both of which are desperately needed in this country today.
What is so striking about this budget, when we strip away all
the hype, is just how little it offers. This is truly a lesson
in underachievement. It may solve the Liberals' political
crisis, but it does not come close to solving the Canadian health
care crisis.
If there ever was an opportunity to take dramatic steps to set
things right after the damage this government has done, this was
it. The deficit was gone and enough surplus money was there to
make a difference. But instead, by holding back, Canadians will
have to wait five years just to return to where they were on
health care in 1995.
Let us for a second put the health budget in perspective.
Liberal cuts to the Canada health and social transfer since 1995
now amount to $21.5 billion and more than half of that is in
health funding. This year the budget puts back only $2 billion,
not quite the cause for celebration we have been led to believe.
Members of the government keep repeating $11.5 billion. That is
what they want us to remember about the budget. What they want
us to forget is that the $11.5 billion is spread over five years.
It gets worse. We will not get the ongoing benefit of the $11.5
billion because it is not cumulative. By the end of the next
five years only $2.5 billion will have been permanently added to
the transfer. It is like a wage bonus, instead of a wage
increase. It is a one time fix that leaves us no further ahead.
Where does that put us in terms of the federal share of health
care spending in this country? Where does that put us from the
days when it used to be 50:50 federal-provincial cost sharing?
Where does it put us in terms of when this government took over
in 1993, holding an 18% share of health care spending in this
country? At the end of five years this budget, by all accounts,
will get us up to 12.5% of all health care spending.
I remind all members opposite of the advice of their former
adviser, Tom Kent, who said that it is absolutely imperative as a
starting point for the federal share to get as quickly as
possible up to 25%. Only then will we have the ability to ensure
that medicare is preserved, strengthened and enhanced.
The government has made a small step toward accepting the blame
for the health care crisis that it has contributed to. There is
some repentance in this budget.
Our challenge to all members of the Liberal government is to
develop policies, think creatively and pursue noble goals around
actually preserving our medicare model. It will not happen at
this rate. The private control of health care is increasing at a
rapid rate. Members across the way, especially those from
Ontario, will know what has happened to the home care system in
that province and how big, private owned American companies like
Olsten are taking over the health care system.
I urge members opposite to join with us in preserving medicare
and ensuring that the principles of medicare are applied to the
whole continuum of care.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
commend my hon. colleague for her very important remarks
concerning the budget.
One important point that she raised with respect to the budget
was, as a measurement, one should ask the question: Does it seek
to improve the lives of Canadians? I think that is a very
important point. We know that over the past number of years the
government has been taking a very close look at equal pay for
work of equal value.
There have been a lot of studies and negotiations and a decision
was rendered in terms of certain occupational categories to show
that the people in those categories were not being paid properly
and yet the government insists on not correcting that situation.
1240
I did not see anything in the budget which would work toward
improving the lives of those Canadians who have been underpaid, a
lot of them female in a lot of the categories. I did not see
anything in the budget that would help to improve the lives of
those Canadians.
Would the hon. member care to comment on my observations in that
regard?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
question from my colleague. It is a very important issue.
One has to ask the question: How can this be called a health
care budget when there is nothing in it to deal with the economic
and social disparities in our society which contribute to ill
health, disease and poor quality of life? How can it be
fathomed, this being a federal health budget, when we have third
world conditions on reserves and when a reserve such as God's
Lake Narrows in my province of Manitoba has just reported 12
cases of TB? That certainly is an important issue that the
government has failed to address. There must be a focus on
disease prevention and health promotion.
The other issue my colleague raised concerned economic
disparities. As the gap grows between the rich and the poor and
those at the low end of the wage scale do not see any benefit and
are not able to improve their quality of life or even their
ability to survive on a day to day basis, how does that affect
their health? We know from study after study that money may not
buy happiness, but it certainly does buy health. We know that
when one's income improves, one's health also improves.
Our concern with the budget is not only its failure to
acknowledge that, but that it actually worsens the situation by
not dealing with unemployment, by not dealing with wage
inequities, by not dealing with homelessness, by not dealing with
poverty and by not dealing with deplorable living conditions on
and off reserves in the country. This government is actually
contributing to ill health and the spread of disease in the
country and it is not doing one thing to build a healthier
society over the long term.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Cambridge.
I take this opportunity to compare the content of the 1999
budget with the results of my pre-budget consultations. In doing
so I challenge the opposition's thesis that this is a budget
which ignores the priorities of Canadians and does not address
the concerns and issues facing Canadians today.
During August, September and October I held numerous meetings
with various groups of constituents, including local business
representatives, community activists, a local Rotary chapter,
members of the Women Entrepreneurs of Canada and an arts focus
group.
In addition, I solicited input for the budget from constituents
through my summer householder and I received numerous calls and
letters with additional suggestions.
At all of my consultations I distributed two budget charts. One
chart clearly demonstrated that for the 1998-99 financial year
the interest payment was estimated at $44 billion. Moreover, the
chart also clearly indicated that an operating surplus of $47
billion existed prior to the interest payment.
Budget chart number two analyzed interest rate sensitivity and
showed how significantly the interest expense increased with
minor increases in interest rates. An increase from 7.2% to 7.5%
triggered an additional charge of $1.7 billion.
I am pleased to report that my consultations produced the
following results.
First, paying down the debt was the recommendation most often
made. Virtually everyone thought that some form of action was
necessary. Many constituents felt that paying down the debt was
the best way of reducing future interest expenses. Constituents
also noted that our current debt level leaves us vulnerable to a
recession and rising interest rates.
1245
Second and on the other hand, very few argue that debt reduction
should be the government's singular priority. Most felt that we
should be able to reduce debt and address one or more other
needs. A close second to paying down the debt was restoring
funding to health care with increased emphasis on preventive and
home care approaches. The great majority called for the federal
government to restore the health care component of the provincial
transfers. Constituents specifically noted the reduction in the
number of hospital beds, the waiting time for emergency treatment
and that the waiting lists for surgery had become intolerable
especially in the province of Ontario. Constituents also felt
that the health care system needed more innovation and
flexibility.
A week or so before the budget I met with a constituent of mine,
Mr. Sam Dionofio, a member of the executive committee of the
volunteer board of the Heart and Stroke Foundation. He
encouraged me to support funding for the Canadian institutes of
health research which in turn would greatly enhance
cardiovascular and cerebrovascular health research. He advised
me that the Canadian institutes of health research represents an
opportunity to greatly expand Canada's health research efforts
and Canadian productivity. It would ensure that our health
research capacity is strengthened relative to the changing global
environment and he urged me to note that health research
represents an investment in our future and economic well-being.
While debt repayment was also cited as a priority the previous
year, this year health care priority and health care spending
showed a marked increase as a concern by my constituents.
Third and interestingly enough, there was no widespread call for
major tax cuts but a reduction of almost every tax was more or
less mentioned once or twice. However, most constituents felt
that if the government were to cut taxes, the greatest consensus
was for general tax relief for low income people. Other tax
changes included cutting employment insurance premiums. I was
delighted to see that the top priorities of my constituents were
also the top priorities of the government and that they were
addressed in the 1999 budget.
The 1999 budget takes action on three fronts. First, it
maintains sound economic and financial management. Second, it
invests in key economic and social priorities. Third, it
provides tax relief and improves tax fairness.
The budget acknowledges that strong economic growth and a
reduced debt burden better enable the government to fight tax
relief and thereby make key investments. This is why the 1999
budget confirms that the era of deficit financing is over and
that the government will continue to deliver balanced budgets or
better again this year, in 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. This will
be only the third time since Confederation that the federal
government has been deficit free for at least four consecutive
years.
The budget goes even further. It acknowledges that another key
issue for any nation is its national debt. Last year Canada's
debt to GDP ratio saw its largest single yearly decline since
1956-57, from 70.3% to 66.9%. In the current fiscal year of
1998-99 it should still fall to about 65.3%. By 2000-01 the debt
ratio should be down to just under 62%. This progress on debt
reduction brings with it real bottom line benefits to Canadians.
In 1995-96 when the debt to GDP ratio was at its peak, 36 cents
out of every federal revenue dollar went to paying interest on
the debt. Last year with the debt ratio dropping, the portion of
each revenue dollar servicing the debt fell to 27 cents. What
does this mean to Canadians? It means that we are freeing up
moneys to strengthen health care, access to knowledge, to provide
needed tax relief, to fight child poverty and to invest in a more
productive economy.
The government is committed to keeping the debt to GDP ratio on
a downward path. A key element of this strategy is a debt
repayment plan.
1250
The government will continue to present a fiscal plan which will
include a contingency reserve as a buffer against unexpected
financial pressures. The current plan contains a contingency
reserve of $3 billion each year. When that contingency reserve
is not needed, such as last year, it will go directly to paying
down the public debt.
Second, I wish to address the budget's investment in key
economic and social priorities by investing in health care,
research and innovation and other key areas to improve Canadians'
ability to work and to improve their quality of life. Action to
sustain and strengthen health care is a key priority of this
government and a central initiative of the 1999 budget.
The budget announced that the provinces and territories will
receive from the federal government an additional $11.5 billion
over the next five years specifically for health care. This
funding marks the largest investment this government has ever
made. This investment is helping our provinces deal with
Canadians' concerns about health care, waiting lists, crowded
emergency rooms and diagnostic services.
However, the commitment to strengthening health care does not
stop there. Among other things, the budget announced that the
federal government will further invest in research and health
problem prevention. Specifically, funding for health research
and innovation was increased by $500 million. Of these moneys
the budget set aside $240 million to support the Canadian
institutes of health research, the innovative proposal developed
to integrate health research relayed to me by my constituent, Mr.
Dionofvio. The proposal was wholeheartedly supported by the
Heart and Stroke Foundation.
Last but not least, the budget also invests $287 million to
improve efforts to prevent health problems from occurring. One
of these initiatives includes $75 million to the Canadian
prenatal nutrition program to help high risk pregnant women to
have healthy babies. In the past the Women's Health Centre and
the Parkdale parents primary prevention program at St. Joseph's
Hospital in my riding have been beneficiaries of this program
which, in turn, has benefited new born babies ensuring that they
have a healthier start in life.
I conclude by quoting a statement made by the Minister of
Finance when he visited my riding in November: “We understand
where our priorities lie. We will balance the books and we will
pay down the debt, but we will do so much more. This great
nation is more than a balance sheet”.
I believe that the 1999 budget not only attains the goals noted
in the Minister of Finance's statement but it also embodies the
spirit of that statement. We are building today for a better
tomorrow.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a couple of quick questions for the hon. member.
Yesterday Stats Canada came out with a report that said personal
incomes grew last year at one of the fastest paces of this
decade. We applaud that. But it still was not enough to keep up
with the even faster rate at which governments are pulling money
out of Canadian pockets.
I would like her to respond to what Stats Canada has said. Also,
in 1993 when we came to this parliament it was announced that we
had to do something. There were 1 million children living in
poverty. Now we have 1.5 million. These miracle workers over
there have not solved that problem. Will this be the budget of
budgets that will take care of those difficulties? I would like
her response.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for quoting me some statistics. I would like to quote him some
statistics as well.
It seems that in 1998 453,000 jobs were created. Another 87,000
jobs were created in January. Unemployment is down to 7.8%. I
submit that the plan put in place by this government in the last
budget and since 1993 has been working. The statistics prove it.
With respect to child poverty, this government is to be
commended for what it has done. In the 1997 budget $8.5 million
was put into the Canada child tax benefit. In last year's budget
there was another $8.5 million for a total of $17 million. In
the 1999 budget there is another $300 million for low income
families and children.
1255
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have great respect for the previous speaker from the
Liberal Party and I have a very simple question.
Does the member know how much was in the EI surplus or how much
is in it and can she tell the House, in her opinion, where it is?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. I have the same great respect for him as he
has for me.
I point out to my hon. colleague across the way that there is no
surplus. I suggest the member look at the budget sheets we have.
Income goes in under the consolidated revenue fund and expenses
are made. There is no surplus fund. There is no reserve fund. I
believe the media feed these things that are not true. It does
not exist and has not existed since 1986. One of the concerns
noted by my constituents is to bring EI rates down and they have
actually come down.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member mentioned in her dissertation the effect that
interest rates have on the deficit and the paying off of the debt
and the deficit. Is the member aware that the Canadian Bond
Rating Service has criticized the last budget as being heavy on
spending and light on tax and debt relief? In fact, that could
reflect an increase in interest rates and this government
obviously would then have to pay more money in order to service
the debt.
I would like to have the member indicate what the long term plan
of the government is to retiring that debt. We see a contingency
fund of $3 billion that will be used to retire the debt only if
it is not used for something else. Perhaps the member would like
to answer those two questions regarding interest rates and the
contingency plan.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, not being an economic
expert I cannot really comment on the bond ratings. One of the
things this government is trying to do through our debt payment
plan, which I noted during my discourse, is reduce the debt to
keep interest rates down. That is the way to keep them down.
One of the fears mentioned by my constituents was that by not
paying down that debt, by not paying attention to that debt, we
will have a problem and we will be subject to interest rates
going up. The interest rate sensitivity is important and it is
also equally important that we continue to pay down that debt.
Again, I think this plan of action the government has speaks for
itself: 7.8% unemployment and more jobs created in this country
than in any other G-7 country. I submit the Minister of Finance
is on the right track.
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to address the budget tabled on February 16 by the hon.
Minister of Finance.
I begin by congratulating the hon. minister on his sixth budget.
This is a budget that once again confirms that the era of
deficit financing is over. This is the second year in a row for
a balanced budget. The minister should be particularly proud of
his accomplishment given that this has not been done since
1951-52. The Minister of Finance also deserves credit for
listening to Canadians and for his strong leadership on this
issue.
This budget incorporates many suggestions made by constituents
from my riding of Cambridge who are members of my community
advisory council. In particular, the minister has listened to
their suggestions about how to address the health care crisis,
the need for greater accountability in health care and the need
for tax relief.
When the Liberal government took office in 1993, we inherited a
$42 billion deficit and in just four years we had moved to a $3.5
billion surplus. Today with another surplus we are starting to
see the results of the deficit battle and we are working to
improve the quality of life for all Canadians in three key areas,
health care, knowledge and innovation, and tax relief.
The first and the largest investment, I should say reinvestment,
is in our health care system. Medicare is one of our most
cherished social programs.
It guarantees to all Canadians regardless of their financial
means equal access to high quality care services based on need,
not ability to pay.
1300
As members of my community advisory council have told me, the
number one priority of our health care system should be to heal
people. In order to do that it is vital that we identify
priorities and spend resources responsibly. That is why this
budget announced that the provinces and territories will receive
$11.5 billion. There will be a $3.5 billion immediate one time
supplement with a remaining $8 billion to be provided over the
next four years. This is an investment to help provinces, and
communities like Cambridge, deal with immediate health care
concerns, waiting lists, crowded emergency rooms and diagnostic
services.
The commitment to strengthen health care does not end there.
The 1999 budget also announced that the government would further
invest about $1.4 billion in health information systems,
research, first nations and Inuit health services, and health
problem prevention.
Of course good health and effective health care are much more
than an issue of hospitals and clinics. Canadians want and
deserve to know how their health care dollars are being spent and
with what results. They want more accountability. This budget
will help to deliver that by investing nearly $330 million in
health information initiatives such as building a national health
surveillance network to electronically link laboratories and
public health offices across the country; by establishing a
Canada health network, accessible by computer and telephone; and
by providing better reports on the health of Canadians and the
functioning of the health system.
Further, this budget invests $287 million to improve efforts to
prevent health problems from occurring. These initiatives
include: the Canada prenatal nutrition program; modernizing and
strengthening the federal food safety program; improving the
management and control of toxic substances in the environment, in
food and in drinking water; continuing to explore innovative
approaches in the area of rural and community health; and
combating diabetes.
This budget also makes a significant $550 million cash infusion
into funding for health research and innovation.
I have already outlined the government's significant investment
in health and medical research. The budget also takes additional
steps to promote knowledge and innovation with a $1.8 billion
investment over this fiscal year and the next three years.
Included in this $1.8 billion will be an additional $200 million
for the Canada Foundation for Innovation to support world class
research infrastructure in the areas of health, the environment,
science and engineering; $60 million to establish one smart
community demonstration project in each province; $60 million for
the GeoConnections initiative; and an additional $90 million for
the networks of centres of excellence.
The final two elements of this budget's investment in knowledge
and innovation are especially relevant to many businesses in my
riding of Cambridge. This government understands the benefits of
investing in knowledge and innovation.
The third most important element of the 1999 budget is tax
relief. Our government is committed to substantially reducing
taxes as and when we can and in the fairest way possible. This
budget proves that. However, we must not forget that for tax
relief to be permanent, it must be affordable and not jeopardize
the soundness of Canada's finances. As resources become
available, the government will provide as much tax relief as
possible. This will occur year after year with each budget
building on the progress made this year and the years before.
This is the responsible way.
1305
Canada is doing well. We are deficit free. Our unemployment
rate while still too high at 7.8% is the lowest it has been since
1990. We are outpacing the rate of job creation in any other G-7
country: 368,000 jobs in 1997 and 453,000 in 1998 and there are
additional measures in this budget that will continue this trend.
We are staying the course. We are investing in key national
priorities such as health care, job creation and tax relief. We
are continuing to pay down our national debt. We are providing a
balanced approach to government and fiscal management and
Canadians are starting to see the results.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member in his comments made reference to the many
suggestions received by his constituents prior to the budget. The
hon. member who spoke before him made the same comment. I
certainly want to commend them on that very important aspect of a
parliamentarian's work, that is, consulting with constituents and
getting that kind of input.
I notice that certain statistics were cited about jobs that were
created. We all know that statistics can be interpreted and
phrased in a way to say what we want them to say. I tend to look
at what is really happening in the area.
When I look at my riding of Halifax West and in other parts of
my province, I see industries closing down. The Volvo plant was
shut down in Halifax which put many people out of work. In Cape
Breton there is the Devco situation and the phasing out of the
mine which is putting people out of work.
We end up with a vicious circle. People are out of work. I do
not see in the budget any real commitment to have a plan to
offset those kinds of disadvantages. We get a circle where people
become unemployed and it is difficult for them to get EI because
the criteria are much more strict than it used to be. It is
difficult to get training. This perhaps leads to health problems,
depression, family breakdown. We are right back to needing
additional health care and additional services to carry on to
meet the needs of the people who suffer from being unemployed.
Any money that was put in to this great health budget is very
quickly eaten up, to the point where we are worse off than we
were before if we do not tackle the industry problems and those
kinds of issues.
I ask the hon. member, what is being done? What concrete
measures have been taken to offset the kinds of problems I cited
that lead to unemployment and a downturn in the economy in my
area?
Mr. Janko Peric: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon.
member for that question.
I remember that way back my community of Cambridge was
considered to be the shoe industry capital of Canada. The shoe
industry died out and the high technology industry moved in. Only
five years ago the unemployment rate was 11.2% and today it is
7.8%, but it is still too high. Fortunately for my community the
high technology industry is growing and prospering. I understand
the situation is not the same in other parts of the country.
With this fiscal approach to economic growth, I believe that the
private sector will continue to create jobs. Hopefully jobs will
be created in the hon. member's community as well.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, would the hon. member not admit that what the federal
government has done over the past five or six years is to
download its responsibilities for Canadians in various social
services to the provinces, and because of the belt tightening by
the federal government the provinces have now had to download
their responsibilities to the municipalities?
I do not believe there is a municipality in Canada that has not
suffered from a lack of provincial funding in terms of municipal
services. The provinces turn around and say that it is because of
a lack of federal funding for the various concerns, whether it be
infrastructure, education or health.
Would the member not agree that that was basically the premise of
the federal government?
1310
Would he not agree that the $7 billion for this year alone taken
from unemployed workers and employers who also pay that premium,
money that does not belong to the federal government, is really
the basis for the surplus of this budget?
Mr. Janko Peric: Mr. Speaker, before I was elected, I
worked in a factory in the automotive industry. I contributed to
the unemployment fund. I was lucky that in 25 years I did not
draw from that fund for a very long time.
Maybe the member remembers the fiscal situation of this nation
in 1993 and can compare it to the situation today. He should
recognize there is a confidence among Canadians in this
government.
I do not want to point fingers at any government of the past 30
years. We as a society enjoyed life and handouts, but the time
has come when we cannot afford to hand out and spend, spend and
spend. Today we have to be fiscally responsible and accountable,
not just to ourselves but to our children and their children.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, before
beginning, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my
time with the hon. member for St. John's West.
I rise today to voice my disappointment, and that of the people
of Madawaska—Restigouche, in the most recent federal budget. The
government's intention was to pull the wool over Canadians'
eyes, but most of them have seen through it to what the
government really had in mind.
The chronic unemployment problem in a number of this country's
regions remains unchanged. The excessive tax burden remains
unchanged. The battle against poverty remains unchanged.
The issues around proper use of the employment insurance fund
remain unchanged.
And if this is supposed to be a health budget, as the government
expects us to believe, I would like to have it explained to me
how restoring funding to its 1996 level can be a cause for
celebration for the Liberals. Since 1993, the Liberals have cut
only 9.4% in government program expenditures, while they have
slashed 34.2% from transfer payments for health.
In other words, 57.5% of program cuts made by the Liberals have
been made at the expense of the old and the sick. Hospitals are
short-staffed and waiting lists for treatment continue to grow.
The provinces cannot improve this situation unless there is a
real reinjection of federal funds into the health system.
What did this government offer them, in its budget? The
Liberals will reinject $11.5 billion into provincial transfers
for health care and education over the next five years. Of
this, $3.5 billion will be paid immediately in the Canada
transfer for health and social programs as a one time additional
payment, and the provinces can use it up within the next three
years.
The votes accounted for in 1998-99 will be placed in trust until
the CHST legislation is passed. It is a shell game. The other
votes will be paid out in stages. The floor is raised to $15
billion and will stay there.
Despite all the Liberal fanfare, spending on health care will
reach only 1996 levels.
The financial commitment over five years contains no indexation
mechanism taking inflation and demographic changes into account
leading to an annual increase of some $3 billion for health care
costs, totalling $80 billion annually.
1315
An overall plan is needed to get the health care system working
again. Unable to establish priorities and a long term plan, the
Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance have managed to
balance their budget on the backs of workers, the poor, the sick
and the old.
They are now trying to care for the sick, left through their
fault on a waiting list, by putting a band aid on them. Workers
and Canadian businesses were hoping for more of a break in this
federal budget.
Unfortunately, all they got was the usual Liberal rhetoric. The
government is going to take away $3 and give them back $1, for
their own good.
It is as though the government thinks that it can fool Canadians
and that Canadian workers and businesses do not understand that
the money now being spent by the government is coming out of the
EI fund.
In this regard, the Minister of Human Resources Development
seems to be seeing the light. A few weeks ago, the Journal de
Montréal reported what the minister thought about the EI fund.
In a burst of frankness, he admitted that the $20 billion
surplus in the fund was actually an illusion because it had
already been spent. He expressed his doubts about how the fund
had been used and recommended that there be a public debate on
the issue.
Although they are only a beginning, I applaud the minister's
reflections and hope he has the courage to defend them in
cabinet, because the pillage cannot go on. The Liberals
continue to think that they know better than Canadian taxpayers
how to spend the money the latter have earned by the sweat of
their brow. The government can increase the basic personal
exemption by $500 and look for praise, but the reality is that
it could have done much better.
Since the 1997 election campaign, my colleagues and I have
maintained that the basic personal exemption could be increased
to $10,000, instead of the meagre $7,131 proposed by the
Minister of Finance and his government. This would have given
all Canadians some long-awaited tax relief and would have meant
that 2 million low income Canadians no longer had to pay income
tax. These 2 million Canadians could have breathed a little
easier and put more food on the table.
If raised to $10,000, the basic personal exemption would have
left a single person with $700 more, and a married person or
single parent with $1,500 more. What a pity that this will not
happen.
The federal government's hike in Canada pension plan
contributions in 1997 will add $120 in taxes on the Canada
pension plan in 1999. Net social security taxes have increased
$60 in 1999. Because the improved basic personal exemption
takes effect only on July 1, 1999, an individual with an income
of $39,000 will have to pay $3 more in federal taxes in 1999.
And the federal government calls this a tax decrease.
The government is refusing to lighten the tax burden that is
crushing Canadian workers and making the Canadian economy less
competitive.
High taxes penalize initiative, are a hindrance to job creating
investment and encourage highly skilled Canadians to move on to
greener pastures.
[English]
Indeed Canadians have not been duped by this smoke and mirror
budget. What has been handed down has fallen short on what was
needed for low income Canadians, taxpayers and workers.
Canadians can take heart, however, that some of their elected
officials are listening to them and are willing to offer them the
much needed relief they deserve.
1320
Unfortunately they will have to wait another few years to tell
the Liberals just what they think of their so-called good news
budget. Meanwhile, we as Progressive Conservatives will continue
to listen, to consult and to put forward positive solutions in
terms of economic development, taxation relief and social
programs.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member used a term that was quite relevant when he talked
about the budget being a smoke and mirror budget.
I say that because I think about the very practical problems
which could have been addressed in the budget, one being support
for Halifax's bid for a piece of the pie with respect to becoming
a superport. Here we are on the brink of making history. We
stand at a point where we can benefit not only the Atlantic area
but all of Canada by Halifax being properly supported to win the
bid to handle the post-Panamax ships. Yet there is nothing in
the budget that made any real commitment to that.
The closest I have seen was just the other day in an article in
the paper saying that the federal minister promised support if
metro won the bid. I do not feel that businessmen go on the if
prospect. If there had been a firm commitment stating some
amount that was reasonable and tangible—surely we have experts
who can figure out exactly what it would cost for our port to be
upgraded to handle these ships—we would stand a much better
chance of gaining that bid. Other areas have done it. I think
New York has put a price on what it would cost for it to fix up
its harbour but we say we cannot do so.
Does the hon. member agree with me that the budget has been very
deficient in nailing down concrete specific action which would
encourage economic development not only in Atlantic Canada but
right across the country?
Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question. He hit it right on the nose when he said the
government had no plan.
Certainly with the recent closure of Devco in Nova Scotia one
would have thought the Liberal government would have had a
parallel plan like we did when the base was closed in Summerside
and the GST centre was opened.
Unfortunately the long term plan of the government is not in
place and there was no announcement for these workers. The
superport would certainly have been great compensation for this
closure.
We can look at the budget and what it says about the $11.5
billion for health care in the next five years. It is an
important factor. The member has probably heard a lot about it
in his own riding. People are on waiting lists, waiting for
serious operations. Nurses and other workers are overworked. The
$11.5 billion in five years will take us back to the point where
we were in 1996.
We must take into account the aging population and inflation.
Just to show how the government's long term plan works, $3
billion a year times five years is $15 billion. Since 1996 we
have had a very large shortfall, but certainly the government has
no long term plan. Unfortunately that is the case for Nova
Scotia as well.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member referred to the cash transfers that we outlined in the
budget. I think he misspoke himself with regard to the $3.5
billion which is presently available to all provinces. It has
been paid into a trust to permit that very thing. They are not
separate.
Is the member aware of the tax point consequences with regard to
overall health transfers to the provinces? Is he familiar with
those and that in fact the amounts he is talking about have not
taken into account the increase in tax revenue the provinces are
getting because they have taxing authority?
1325
Mr. Jean Dubé: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I take them into
account. I know about tax points. I would like to bring to the
attention of the hon. member that the day after the budget
presentation the Liberal finance minister of New Brunswick
applauded the budget. After we reacted to it, a couple of days
later the same finance minister said that there would be
shortfalls in New Brunswick.
There are shortfalls in the budget for New Brunswick as far as
transfers are concerned. There are shortfalls as far as health
care is concerned. If we read the fine print in the budget, we
see that in five years we will be back at the same place where we
were in 1996.
The member may call this a good budget, but unfortunately there
are people who are still waiting for a good budget.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
join with my colleagues in congratulating the hon. member for
Madawaska—Restigouche on his insightful remarks and thanking him
for sharing his time with me.
I am pleased to participate today in the budget debate that
pretends to repair some of the damages inflicted by the Liberal
government on our health care system. In reality it only offers
empty platitudes and grossly inadequate action to address the
very serious problems in the Canadian health care system.
Some might find it convenient for their own partisan political
reasons to characterize the budget as the health care budget,
despite the fact that it represents only nominal measures to
compensate for the savage cuts the government and the finance
minister have made to transfers to the provinces for health,
education and social assistance.
I would like to be able to stand here and praise a budget that
actually does something for Newfoundland and Labrador. Instead,
the budget is devastating to the province of Newfoundland and
Labrador. Not only does it not transfer adequate money back to
the health care and education systems, but it does not do
anything for the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. With its
equalization changed to a per capita basis, the government has
actually made it unbelievably difficult for Newfoundlanders to
stay in Newfoundland and to expect reasonable levels of Canadian
service.
In the brief time I have I will compare two budgets: the budget
of last year which was the education budget and the budget of
this year which is the health care budget. We were reminded by
the Liberal fanfare of last year's budget that they had the
education budget even though it accomplished precious little to
actually improve the situation of students. Members opposite
appear to be of the opinion that they have made the lives of
students easier. Nothing could be further from the truth. If
government members were actually listening to their constituents
and listening to students they would know that every increase in
tuition fees and student debt load makes it almost impossible for
low income students to receive a higher education.
What did that higher education, post-secondary budget of last
year do for education in Canada? Did it make education more
accessible for students? The bottom line according to the
Canadian Federation of Students is that the so-called education
budget did very little to help students. Personal debts for
graduating students are comparable to the size of mortgages and
the money announced for the new millennium scholarship program
will help only seven out of every one hundred students if and
when it ever comes into place.
The reality is that the deep gouging in the federal transfers by
the government have created a higher education system that is
almost impossible for students to attain. These are the facts
surrounding the budget which the Minister of Finance claimed
would take important steps toward repairing the damage done in
post-secondary education.
If his budget of last year for post-secondary education was such
a failure in helping students, how can we expect the results of
the health care budget of this year to perform? After years of
Liberal cutbacks in transfers to the provinces, transfers they
pay for health care, education and social assistance, many of the
problems are of such a magnitude that they cannot be fixed by
short term approaches.
There is a crisis in the emergency wards across Canada. There
is probably not a member of the House of Commons, not a member of
a provincial legislature, not a doctor, not a nurse, not a
nursing assistant who does not have a terrible story to tell
about the damage that has been done to our health care system.
When I was home the other day I met a lady who is now in her
mid-eighties. I spoke with her husband for a while. He told me
that she would have to wait nine to twelve months to get a simple
cataract operation done in St. John's, Newfoundland.
That might not sound bad to the Minister of Finance or to the
Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker, but if your mother or your aunt
or one of your family had to spend the next nine, ten or twelve
months of their lives not being able to pour a cup of tea for
themselves or not being able to walk across the kitchen, you
would have to say that there is something seriously wrong with
the Canadian health care system.
1330
The Liberals claim in this budget that they will put back $11.5
billion in cash transfers to the provinces for health over the
next five years. In other words, they are going to cap the
transfers at $15 billion. Despite the Liberal fanfare about the
would-be health care budget, health care spending at that point
will only be back to 1996 levels, which we know were atrocious.
After the five year financial commitment, which comes with no
escalator clauses and does not take into account the fact that
inflation and demographic changes are going to add about $3
billion a year to Canada's health care bill, on an accumulative
basis the Liberals will have cut $17 billion from transfers to
the provinces. They have put very little of that back with this
budget.
There needs to be a comprehensive plan for the rehabilitation of
the health care system. The lack of priorities shown by the
Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and the absence of any
apparent long term plan led them to balance the budget on the
backs of Canadian workers, the poor, the sick and the elderly.
Now they are trying to use a band-aid to cure a health care
system which they themselves have put on the critical list. We
all hope it is not too late to undo the damage done to the health
care system by the billions of dollars of cuts made by the
Liberal government. The inadequate measures that this government
is offering in place of any kind of serious long term plan do not
give anyone much real hope, faith or confidence that this is
about to be done.
The provincial reaction from the Liberal government of
Newfoundland and Labrador is that there are some really important
questions which the Minister of Finance has failed to answer
satisfactorily. Some of these questions are of particular
interest to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now we have
two levels of Liberals, two levels of government telling us two
different stories. One thing that has become clear is that the
net effect on the transfers to the province of Newfoundland and
Labrador will be substantially less than the finance minister
indicated in his budget. His counterpart, the minister of
finance for Newfoundland, calls the measures included in the
federal budget laughable.
The numbers cited repeatedly by the Minister of Veterans
Affairs, who represents Newfoundland in the federal cabinet, have
been challenged by the media and by the Liberal government.
Specifically with regard to the impact of these transfers on
health care, let us look at the reaction of the provincial
minister of health, again a Liberal minister. I would like to
remind my colleagues that she says the province is going to take
a very hard hit, that this federal budget creates a two tier
health care system and that it is not good enough. That is the
Liberal minister of health for Newfoundland talking about a two
tier health care system.
It is not the two tier health care system that so many speak of
for the rich and poor. This is a two tier system in which for
certain essential medical services people in Newfoundland and
Labrador will have to go to Toronto or some other part of Canada.
There will be two tiers of health care in Canada: one for the
poorer provinces and one for the rich provinces. As the Liberal
minister of health for Newfoundland says, that is simply not good
enough.
Another factor in this budget is the changing of equalization to
a per capita system. Is that going to help the poorer provinces
of Canada? Nothing could be further from the truth. The change
to an equalized system, pushed by the Ontario caucus of this
Liberal government so that people in Ontario receive the same on
a per capita basis as people in Newfoundland and Labrador, is not
the idea of equalization. Equalization is one of the fundamental
tenets on which Confederation is based. It says that money will
be taken from the rich and well to do parts of Canada so there
will be equal services in all parts of Canada. What really has
happened here is that the poorer we are the less money we get and
we are still supposed to supply a first class health care system.
How can we do it without money?
This budget, if nothing else, has destroyed one of the
fundamental principles of Confederation: the fact that the rich,
the well off and the well to do are to help those in Canada who
are not as rich or as well to do. What it means in Newfoundland
on a per capita basis, because our economy has not been helped,
because so many things in the province and in this country are
not helping the regions of Canada, is that in the last three
years it has lost 30,000 people.
Those 30,000 people will not be on our rolls for the transfers
from the Government of Canada to the province of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
1335
How will that benefit health care in Newfoundland? How will
that give us a better system? We would love the Minister of
Finance to visit Newfoundland, talk to his old colleague and
friend Brian Tobin, and explain to him, the premier of the
province, how this is supposed to be beneficial to us.
In Newfoundland we look at it in some ways as being another
resettlement program which was created to resettle some of the
smaller communities in Newfoundland during the sixties and
seventies by a former Liberal government. In effect, this
budget, with its equalization changes, will resettle a lot of
Newfoundlanders to other parts of Canada.
I hope this budget is more successful at solving health care
problems than the education budget of last year was at solving
education problems. I can only say that our caucus and my
colleagues on this side of the House are very skeptical. On
behalf of the government and the people of Newfoundland, I say
that we are downright suspicious that this will do anything for
the health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member referred to a two tier health care system. I am sure
he will know that under the principles of the Canada Health Act
we have a universal, accessible, affordable, comprehensive and
publicly administered health system which means that every
Canadian is entitled to a health care system which is the same no
matter where they are in Canada.
The member seems to be talking about this raising or lifting of
the ceiling for Ontario and B.C., because they have been getting
less than their share, as somehow taking away from Newfoundland.
It does not.
Does he not believe that each and every Canadian should get the
same contribution to their health care? Is everybody not getting
the same, equally?
Mr. Charlie Power: Mr. Speaker, obviously the member does
not understand the function of equalization. The function of
equalization is for the well to do provinces of Canada.
Mr. Paul Szabo: The CHST is not equalization. You don't
understand.
Mr. Charlie Power: The transfer payments are meant for
health, education and social services.
As equalization is changed so that everyone gets treated fairly
across the country on a per capita basis there will be regions
of Canada which simply will not have the funds to deliver equal
and adequate health care, or what the member refers to as
universal, affordable and high quality health care. It is simply
not going to happen in the poorer regions of this country. There
is no way to do it without money.
This budget was supposed to put money back into the health care
system, but in Newfoundland that simply will not happen. The
Liberal minister of health for Newfoundland, as well as the
Liberal premier, who has so much in common with the finance
minister, knows that we will have a worse health care system
rather than a better one in Newfoundland and Labrador as a result
of this budget.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I certainly have a great deal of sympathy with my
colleague from Newfoundland in that he has outlined some distinct
problems that province is having.
Those in my area were very disappointed with this budget. With
our paved roads going back to dirt roads and with our railways
being abandoned for hundreds of miles, the word transportation or
roads was not mentioned. From a province which probably pays
more money on a per capita basis in fuel tax, we got zip.
If it is true that there is a two tier system, how many tiers
will there be if the present rate of funding continues?
Mr. Charlie Power: Mr. Speaker, in reality what is
happening in this country, and this budget has done nothing to
alleviate it, is that many tiers of service are being created.
The idea of Canada, the idea of Confederation, the idea of
sharing, the idea that the rich can help the poorer provinces is
simply no longer a part of this government's priorities.
There is an Ontario dominated caucus with Ontario dominated
priorities. All I can say is that we are going to have a two
tier health care system in Newfoundland. We have a two tier
system of job creation. We have a two tier system of highways in
Newfoundland. All I can see with this government's philosophy is
a continuation in the deterioration of the fairness that used to
be a fundamental part of Canada.
1340
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a quick question for my hon. colleague from the
beautiful province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Would he not agree that if the government wanted to give tax
breaks or tax concessions to the majority of Canadians that a 1%
reduction in the GST-HST, as we have in our province, would be a
great start to reducing the tax burden on average Canadians?
Mr. Charlie Power: Mr. Speaker, it would be an excellent
idea to reduce the GST or HST, but that is not going to happen as
long as we have a Liberal government that is so enamoured with
the GST-HST system.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted to participate in this debate and to focus on health
care. I would like to say to my friends from the fifth party who
are dispensing advice on the budget that it is like learning fire
prevention from an arsonist.
Given the fact that they left us with a $42 billion deficit, I
cannot really believe that we can take some of their comments
very seriously. I would point out to members of the fifth party
when they talk about 1995 levels that we are talking not about
borrowed money. This $11.5 billion is not borrowed money. I ask
members to keep that in mind.
This government has continued to build on the strong fiscal
foundation that was first started in 1993. Our economic house
was in a serious state of disrepair. Our financial house was
sinking with a $42 billion deficit, unemployment which had gone
through the roof and investor confidence that was sluggish. The
government rolled up its sleeves and presented to Canadians the
state of our financial affairs. Canadians rallied to the cause.
They understood that large deficits and astronomical debt would
cripple Canada for generations to come.
Governing means that one has to establish priorities and has to
work with all sectors of society to rebuild our economy. The
1999 budget continues to build on the sound and prudent fiscal
management that the Minister of Finance has put into place over
the past five years.
Canadians embraced the deficit reduction strategies of the
government. Together we have been able to eliminate the deficit,
bring in two balanced budgets and forecast two more balanced
budgets. In 1998-99 Canada will balance the books or better. It
is the first time since 1951-52 that the government has been
deficit free for two consecutive years.
The Government of Canada has recorded four consecutive balanced
budgets, which is only the third time since Confederation.
Canada is the only G-7 nation to do so with a strong fiscal
discipline to help Canada get into a position to focus again on
the priorities that matter to Canadians.
Today I would like to focus on one of those priorities and that
is health care. Investing in Canadians and in the future of
health care is the cornerstone of this budget. Our publicly
funded health care system is one of the key elements that defines
our identity. Canadians point with pride to this particular
social program. It is a policy that has helped to shape our
quality of life as a nation.
Canadians have been increasingly worried about the future of
health care. They are worried that this comprehensive program
will not be there when they need it. Canadians told us that they
want a health care system that will be able to meet the needs and
the challenges of the 21st century.
The Canadian government, working in partnership with the
provinces and territories and the volunteer sector, provides
leadership in developing policies, enforcing health regulations,
promoting disease prevention, enhancing healthy living and in
strengthening and securing our health care system.
The government provides funding for provincial and territorial
health systems throughout Canada through the health and social
transfer, the CHST. This budget provided the largest single new
investment in health care, $11.5 billion over five years for the
health of Canadians. Again, it was not borrowed money.
In addition to these increased transfers this budget injected
$1.4 billion over three years into a number of important health
initiatives.
The recent federal, provincial and territorial health agreement
reaffirmed all government support for the five principles of the
Canada Health Act: universality, comprehensiveness,
accessibility, portability and public administration.
1345
This budget provides through future increases in the CHST $8
billion, an additional $3.5 billion as an immediate one time
supplement that the provinces will have the flexibility to draw
down on according to their needs, according to their own
priorities.
For provinces like Ontario this budget proposes to eliminate
provincial disparities of CHST allocation over the next three
years. The provinces will then receive identical per capita CHST
entitlements.
Further, investments in the health of Canadians this year and
over the next three years include developing and improving health
information systems to assist in establishing a more integrated,
effective and appropriate system of health care.
In a round table I had in my riding last year on this with the
Minister of Health, that was the very important issue that was
brought to the fore. I am very pleased to see the minister
responding in this way.
Areas of other investment include the Canadian institutes for
health information, the Canadian health network, the Canadian
healthy infoway and Health Canada information, improving
accountability.
If we examine the Canadian health network as an example, this
network will provide Canadians with one stop shopping for
credible, current information on health promotion and disease,
prevention, self-care and the performance of the health system.
In my riding of Oak Ridges hospitals such as York Central
Hospital and Markham—Stouffville Hospital will benefit from
these initiatives.
In fast growing communities like Richmond Hill, the tools have
been given to address issues related to the ever increasing
demands on our health care system.
York Central Hospital has told me that the federal budget is
indeed good news, that it is a positive step that will help it
relieve the increasing pressures to meet the growing health care
needs of our rapidly growing community.
I point out, as did the member for Don Valley East, that the
health care budget is a step in the right direction on a long
term approach to working with our partners, the provincial and
municipal governments, on one of the causes of homelessness.
Many people who live with mental illness are homeless because
they were discharged from institutions like hospitals. By
targeting health care in this budget, by providing the provinces
with more money for health, we are dealing with this issue.
I congratulate the Minister of Finance for listening to
Canadians and for providing the necessary dollars to make sure we
continue to have the best health care system in the world.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to my colleague's speech with interest. It has a common
theme. Liberal members always want to talk about what it will be
like in the future. They never talk about their record.
Let us talk about their record for a second. Here is the
Liberal record. Liberals cut $21 billion out of health care. Now
they want us to give them credit for putting $11.5 billion back
in over five years.
Fourteen hundred doctors left Canada in the last two years. Two
hundred thousand people are on waiting lists and people in record
numbers have to go to the United States for American health care
because this government does not give Canadians proper health
care. What does the member have to say about that abysmal record?
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, I referred to members of
the fifth party as taking advice on fire prevention from an
arsonist. Listening to the official opposition, it is like asking
a pyromaniac to hold the matches for safekeeping.
Our record speaks for itself. Very clearly we have done the
job. That party would dismantle the health care system in this
country. That party would take apart the very foundation that
Canadians have in place.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I would point out facts to the
opposition members if they would stop heckling over there and
listen for a minute but unfortunately they are not very good
listeners. They like to prevaricate the truth but they do not
like to listen to the real facts.
We are doing the job. We are continuing to do the job. In
terms of providing the necessary health care, we have given the
provinces and the territories the tools to do the job.
I would defy members of the opposition to put their health
proposals on the table in comparison to this government's.
1350
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I ask
the hon. member what his views are with respect to the money
allocated in the budget to the military.
As members know, a very extensive report was done by the
Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs
detailing quality of life issues for our military. Recently we
have seen stories coming out in the media about the terrible
experiences that many families have had with respect to
inadequate housing and the effects of moving from one place to
the other.
It kind of bothers me when I see that the amount that was
allocated is $525 million over three years when the minister's
own minimum estimate was $700 million. Then we see the
government still giving out money for things like a company
producing a dumb blonde joke book. That speaks for itself.
What is the member's view with respect to the help that has been
given to the military in this budget?
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. I certainly applaud the government's moving in
the right direction with regard to the money for our military.
Governments are elected usually from four to five years and they
cannot do everything in one budget. It is a major step toward
improving the quality of life for armed services personnel. It
is clearly $525 million better than we had before this budget.
It clearly addresses many of the issues that the standing
committee reported on. The Minister of National Defence has done
an excellent job in listening to those concerns, providing those
concerns to the Minister of Finance and clearly we are on the
right road.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the hon. member a question with respect to the
impact on Ontario. In Ontario the impact of the budget is that
first of all Ontario will receive its share of $3.5 billion. In
addition there is a per capita amount that will affect both B.C.,
Alberta and Ontario. In addition there is a further $2 billion,
of which Ontario's share is approximately 40%.
I would be interested in knowing the hon. member's response to
all of that money that is to flow to Ontario and how it should
impact on a variety of issues.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for the question. It is clearly outlined that in the most
populous province in the country there has obviously been
provincial restructuring of hospitals, et cetera, and these
dollars will be extremely important to making sure that residents
who live in Ontario will be able to get the kind of health care
they need.
Again, in conjunction with the provinces, there is no question
that these dollars will obviously be used by the provinces
effectively. The Ontario government, having signed the health
accord, has committed to making sure that the issue of chronic
care beds that are needed and reducing the waiting period for ER
as an example will be dealt with.
We hear the Premier of Ontario telling us that this is a good
budget and therefore he likes where these priorities are going.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to speak on budget '99 which has as its
theme building today for a better tomorrow; yes, a better
tomorrow for our adults and youths of today and for our fellow
citizens yet to be born in anticipation of the coming century of
the new millennium.
In today's news Statistics Canada reported that the Canadian
economy for the whole of 1998 grew at the rate of 3%, turning in
one of its best quarters of the decade at 4.6%.
For individual Canadians today's news reports that the
disposable income for the whole year, when adjusted for
inflation, was up 1.5% from 1997, a real gain in real income.
It is this type of economic growth that the federal government
is committed to sustain and surpass. Indeed it is a key goal of
the government to create a strong economy that generates well
paying jobs and ensures a higher standard of living for all
Canadians.
That is why budget '99 will invest more than $1.8 billion over
the remainder of this fiscal year and the next three years in
advanced research, in innovation, in the information highway and
in support of employment.
Before I focus on these budgetary items, let me at once say how
extremely pleased my constituents of Winnipeg North—St. Paul
received the news that among these other items, budget '99 is a
health budget as well.
1355
An additional $11.5 billion, $3.5 billion of which is an
immediate one time supplement available this fiscal year, has
been earmarked specifically to the health care system over the
next five years, over and above the $12.5 billion cash floor
presently in the Canada health and social transfers. This is a
truly substantial amount that has been welcomed by provincial
governments whether of the NDP or Tory banners.
This additional allocation translates to $425 million over five
years for my home province of Manitoba. This health component of
the budget reflects more than the amount itself. It reflects the
common vision that all premiers and territorial leaders confirm
as undertakings they had previously given in an exchange of
correspondence with the Prime Minister at the first ministers
meeting on February 4, 12 days before the budget was announced.
It reflects their undertakings that they remain committed to the
five principles of medicare, universality, portability,
accessibility, comprehensiveness and public administration. It
reflects the common vision that they achieved in the framework
for social union signed shortly before the budget was announced,
that all levels of government, federal, provincial and
territorial, would make themselves accountable to Canadians in an
open and transparent manner.
This common vision includes the belief that research is at the
core of a quality health care system, a system that will improve
care and treatment, prevention certainly and hopefully a cure. It
is about our hope as Canadians that a woman will overcome the
tragedy of breast cancer and a man the tragedy of prostrate
malignancies, that a grandfather and a grandmother will be spared
premature loss of memory and that a son and daughter will regain
nerve functions following a devastating accident or injury.
Hence, budget `99 has also earmarked a substantial amount for
health research, $25 million to create a new research fund
henceforth to be called the nurses using research and service
evaluations, or NURSE fund for short.
This new initiative is to enhance the leadership role that
nurses deserve to play in the health care system now and in the
future. Also there is $35 million to the Canada health services
research foundation.
In each of the next three years the Medical Research Council and
Health Canada's national health research and development program
will see an increase of $27.5 million and $2.5 million,
respectively, to their annual budgets. This new allocation is to
provide immediate support for advanced health research.
The Speaker: The member still has five and a half
minutes but it is almost 2 o'clock.
[Translation]
We must now proceed to Statements by Members, but you will have
the floor when we resume debate.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
ONWARD WILLOW
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Onward Willow Better Beginnings is an excellent example
of neighbours working together to build a better community.
Onward Willow offers a number of services to help recent
immigrants adjust to life in Canada. Its dedicated volunteers
help new Canadians to learn English as well as locate proper
clothes and furnishings. Onward Willow also helps low income
families with its coat exchange and breakfast programs for
children in area schools.
Most important, Onward Willow helps our newest residents to
really become a part of the community because it creates an
opportunity for them to meet their neighbours. It has greatly
contributed to Guelph—Wellington's sense of civic and national
pride by teaching its participants that they are welcome and that
they do belong.
I congratulate Onward Willow Better Beginnings for its success
as a community organization and to thank its volunteers for
giving so much of themselves. Together there is no end to what
we can accomplish.
* * *
UNITED ALTERNATIVE
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
united alternative conference was a smashing success and if we
want proof, look at all the howling yesterday from worried
Ontario Liberal MPs.
Fifteen hundred delegates from every province have risen up and
returned to their ridings to begin the work of saving our country
from big government and judicial activism.
Unfortunately every noble revolution has its martyrs. Paul
Barnes, the president of Nova Scotia's PC youth, has been
expelled from the PC party because he chose to come to the UA
with an open mind.
Two other bright young Atlantic Canadians, Kevin Lacey and
Clinton Deveaux, have felt the heat too. Barnes, Lacey and
Deveaux were among 300 young people from coast to coast attending
the conference.
1400
Young Canadians need a government that will lower their taxes.
They need a criminal justice system that will protect them, not
the criminals.
I salute Paul Barnes, Clinton Desveaux and Kevin Lacey for
having the courage and the conviction to help build a better
Canada.
* * *
SHERIDAN COLLEGE
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, job
creation and training have been a central part of the
government's agenda since 1993. The latest employment figures
speak to our ability as a government to create the proper
framework for Canadians to experience the dignity of work.
In Oakville, co-operation between government and the private
sector has led to the creation of an innovative partnership among
Sheridan College, the Gross Machinery Group and the Government of
Canada.
Designed to meet the needs of the 21st century, Sheridan's
computer numerical control centre offers industry based training
for programmers, setters, operators and technical staff. This
program is a highly efficient way to prepare individuals to meet
the skills level required by today's job market. The college's
new centre of excellence demonstrates our government's
willingness to help Canadian manufacturing companies in their
quest to compete on international markets.
By doing so, we also contribute to the creation of a dynamic and
productive future for all Canadians.
* * *
LAKEFIELD HERITAGE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to recognize publications like Lakefield a look at its
history, published by Lakefield Heritage, co-ordinating editor
Gordon Young.
This is a comprehensive book documenting life in the village of
Lakefield from 10,000 years ago to the present day. This is a
village known for its literary traditions.
The book was supported by local individuals and families and by
many businesses, including Lakefield Research and Trentway-Wagar.
We should do all we can to encourage communities to document
their heritage like this. History at this level is the history
of those very individuals who built this nation. Books like this
cement our sense of being Canadian.
Congratulations and thanks to Gordon Young and his colleagues,
and to grassroots authors and publishers across Canada.
* * *
1999 CANADA WINTER GAMES
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to take this opportunity to provide an update at the
midpoint of the Canada Winter Games taking place in Corner Brook
and nearby communities in Newfoundland.
Following the first week of competition, local volunteers did a
masterful job. Despite difficult weather conditions they
arranged transportation for over 1,600 athletes, coaches and
officials to leave Corner Brook while a similar number were
arriving for the second week of action.
After week one, Ontario leads the medal standings and the race
for the Canada Games flag. Manitoba leads British Columbia for
the Centennial Cup which is awarded to the province showing the
greatest improvement in its results from the previous Canada
Winter Games.
These games are a celebration shaped by the vision of the host
community and animated by the thrill of competition and the pride
of athletes striving to achieve their personal best. The
experience changes the lives of thousands of young athletes and
the life of the host city and surrounding region.
I know that all hon. members and Canadians everywhere join me in
congratulating the participants and organizers in Corner Brook on
their outstanding efforts—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Delta—South Richmond.
* * *
NISGA'A TREATY
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Vancouver Island North residents gave the Nisga'a treaty
an overwhelming thumbs down on the weekend, echoing the results
of two previous grassroots plebiscites this year. More than 97%
of the voters rejected the treaty as it now stands. Only two and
one-half per cent of the voters, 76 people, supported the deal.
People are concerned about this treaty. Saturday's turnout
represented 25% of the people who voted in the last provincial
election in the North Island constituency.
British Columbians are fed up with the federal and provincial
governments misrepresenting the terms of this treaty. They know
that the real cost of the Nisga'a deal is almost three times what
their governments claim the cost to be.
British Columbians know that because government underestimated
the value of lands and resources the province is contributing to
the deal, they will get stuck with 75% of the bill.
The people most affected by this deal have spoken. Is the
Liberal travelling road show to the west listening? Is this
government listening?
* * *
HIV-AIDS
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
week I was honoured to attend the review of the draft handbook
for legislators on HIV and AIDS, law and human rights in Geneva
on behalf of the IPU Canadian group.
The conference was attended by legislators from France,
Switzerland, Kenya, Botswana, Côte d'Ivoire, Guatemala, India,
Russia and England, who were all dedicated to develop a handbook
for parliamentarians with respect to AIDS legislation in a human
rights context.
The handbook will share best practices and will be a resource
for countries developing legislation so they will know and can
use what works in other countries and emphasize the need for
ongoing evaluation.
I would like to thank the hon. member for Mount Royal, Barbara
Reynolds and Serge Pelletier from the IPU for making this
experience possible.
1405
I would like to thank Nina Arron of Health Canada, Elissa Lieff
and Patricia Lindsay of the Department of Justice and Carol
Vlassoff of CIDA for taking the time to share their insights and
expertise with me prior to the meeting. They are inspirational
and passionate examples of the best of our public service.
The meeting reinforced how proud I am to be a Canadian. Our AIDS
strategy and our approach to human rights are respected
throughout the world.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Québec.
* * *
[Translation]
THE BUDGET
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the last
Liberal budget confirmed the inability of the technocrat who
acts as Minister of Human Resources Development to protect the
poor in our society.
A budget that provides an annual tax reduction of $2,123 to a
person earning $250,000, compared to a measly $115 for someone
earning $30,000 shows nothing but contempt for democracy and
fairness, and is shameful.
How did the Minister of Finance manage to grant such reductions
to his rich friends after having targeted for five years the
poor, the students and those on welfare, and after shamelessly
dipping into the employment insurance fund? Words are not strong
enough to condemn the contempt shown by this government toward
the poor.
The Bloc Quebecois demands that the Liberal government use the
EI surpluses to improve a system that has reduced hundreds of
thousands of honest workers to poverty.
* * *
PARTI QUEBECOIS
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Parti Quebecois could not have found a worse ally to put the
referendum issue back into the forefront.
Last week, the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste stated loud and clear
that it intends to play a key role in the process to bring the
issue of sovereignty back into the limelight.
With friends like the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste, the Parti
Quebecois does not need enemies. And with former premier Jacques
Parizeau, whose dogmatic position in favour of unconditional
separation is well known, the next referendum campaign should be
interesting to say the least.
Sovereignists do not realize that Quebeckers do not want to
separate. They do not want Quebec to separate from the rest of
Canada and they do not want a referendum on this issue.
Quebeckers deserve referendum peace. They deserve a government
that looks after the economy, instead of thinking up referendum
questions.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Arthur
Friedrich of Calgary and his family are carrying out a very
effective tax revolt. They are packing up and moving to the
United States. He was a Liberal supporter and worked on the
heritage minister's election campaign but sadly, he is now giving
up on Canada because of taxes.
He comments that if he were cynical he would say that the
government's attitude is to punish success. Mr. Friedrich and
his wife scrimped and saved to build professional careers and
security for their family but found that they were bludgeoned
with more taxes every time they got a pay raise.
He said “I see my investments and pension evaporating before my
eyes and the government doesn't seem to care. As a former
Liberal, the decline of Canada is a bitter pill to swallow. I
deeply wish things were different. I like Canada and I had
really wanted to stay, but I no longer see any future for my
children in this land”.
Does that not say it all.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week, the
Bank of Canada said that the Canadian economy had performed
better than expected in 1998.
Yesterday, Statistics Canada said that Canada's GDP had gone up
by 1.1% in the fourth quarter of 1998.
Such results are not mere chance. The good news delivered in
the last federal budget and the good news delivered by
Statistics Canada reflect the good economic and financial
management of the country.
This is an encouraging sign from the economic sector that sends
a message to sovereignists to quit pushing so hard for Quebec's
separation from the rest of Canada.
The sovereignists' message undercuts the efforts of those doing
everything they can to keep the country together and encourage
investors and consumers to continue working for the betterment
of this wonderful country called Canada.
* * *
[English]
DOWNTOWN EAST SIDE COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, $5
million over five years for the downtown east side community
revitalization program was recently announced by the federal
government. It is critical that the downtown east side benefit
from this announcement as there is a crisis in the lack of
adequate housing, treatment facilities, income support and
employment.
If the federal government is surprised by the skepticism from
the local community, it is because we have witnessed the dire
consequences of federal cuts, the elimination of federal funding
for non-profit affordable housing and EI cutbacks.
1410
We are told these funds will open an office and study ways to
bring people together and solve safety concerns. Instead of jobs
for social facilitators, we need to ensure that these funds are
used for addiction treatment programs, improving social
conditions and improved housing.
Will the government make a commitment to these basic needs?
Will the federal government make it clear that the focus will be
on programs and services that will directly benefit those in need
who live in the downtown east side?
* * *
[Translation]
KARINE VANASSE
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
pay tribute to a talented new actress from Drummondville, Karine
Vanasse.
Karine plays Hanna in Léo Pool's film, Emporte-moi, which is
entered in the Berlin film festival. In the film, which also
features Pascale Bussières, Karine delivers a very mature
performance and shows an impressive mastery of her art.
Upon completion of this film, the talented 15-year-old was chosen
to co-host a television program for young people called Les
Débrouillards with Grégory Charles, another actor from my
riding.
I wish Karine many other experiences such as this one. She can
now count herself among the artists helping to bring Quebec's
culture to the world stage.
Bravo, Karine, and thank you.
* * *
[English]
UNITED ALTERNATIVE CONVENTION
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as I was flipping through the channels on my television this past
Saturday, what did I see but Rodrique Biron as a prominent
speaker at the united alternative love-in. Not only was he given
a high profile job, that of introducing the leader of the Reform
Party, but in his speech he emphasized strongly how he was a
card-carrying member of the PQ and BQ, two movements committed to
the breakup of our country. He was received, let me say, with a
standing ovation. What hypocrisy. Not long ago, we must
remember, the Reform Party said no more prime ministers from
Quebec.
In my view the Reform Party has not yet realized that we have an
electorate that is sophisticated and tuned in to government and
specific party initiatives and policies. With the Reform Party's
antics and outrageous statements it seems it certainly has the
knack for underestimating the public's intelligence.
All I have to say, Mr. Speaker, is you can change the clothes,
you can do the makeover, but you cannot change the person. Reform
is Reform is Reform, otherwise known as the flat earth party.
* * *
1999 CANADA WINTER GAMES
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
1999 Canada Winter Games are being hosted in the city of Corner
Brook in my home province.
The Canada games see our nation's finest young athletes
represent their respective provinces and territories as they test
their abilities in sporting competition.
I am pleased to stand today in the House and acknowledge the
extraordinary accomplishments of one Newfoundlander who has
distinguished himself with an exceptional performance at these
games. Twenty-one year old Lee Churchill, a native of Hodge's
Cove, Trinity Bay, has become a hero in Newfoundland and Labrador
for capturing an amazing three gold medals in cross-country
skiing. Over four days of competition, Mr. Churchill has
single-handedly exceeded the highest number of gold medals ever
won by the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I ask my colleagues in the House of Commons to join with me in
congratulating Mr. Churchill and indeed all the athletes who are
in Corner Brook.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this past week Reform members have had the unbelievable gall to
suggest in the House that the government is less than fully
committed to Canada's publicly funded health care system. Reform
must be thinking of its own pathetic history when it comes to
health care.
Let us examine for a quick moment the record to see which party
has been demanding that Canada adopt the two tier American style
commercialized health care system. Which party's most recent
policy book calls for “the complete rearrangement of the costs
of health care insurance, such as basic deductibles, medisave
accounts, choice of insurance coverage, and complete coverage for
catastrophic illness”? Reform of course. Which party's leader
has said that “we want to remove those sections of the Canada
Health Act that deny provinces the flexibility to require some
Canadians to pay at least a portion of their health costs”?
Reform.
* * *
PROSTATE CANCER RESEARCH
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
the past year, thousands of men and women wrote letters to the
Minister of Health asking for more funding for prostate cancer
research. Unfortunately instead of acknowledging the efforts of
those dedicated people, the minister told a media conference in
Vancouver last week that the four Liberal MPs in attendance
deserved the credit for the increase in prostate cancer research
funding.
The people who worked so hard to make this funding a reality do
not appreciate being told that a bunch of Liberal trained seal
party hacks made it happen. So I am doing what the minister
should have done. I am acknowledging the dedication and resolve
of those who successfully lobbied the minister to loosen the
purse strings.
To the members of prostate cancer support groups across Canada
and on behalf of every Canadian family affected by prostate
cancer, I extend a sincere thank you to you for your efforts. It
was because of you that more prostate cancer research funding was
made available.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday Statistics Canada restated the obvious that
taxes are up yet again thanks to the Liberal government. The
Prime Minister cranked up income taxes and payroll taxes by a
whopping 6% in one year so that even when the economy grows it is
the government's income that grows faster than the taxpayers'
income.
Why did the Prime Minister tax away most of the income increases
that Canadians managed to earn last year?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, because the economy is performing very well we are
having the benefit of having an economy that is well managed and
the revenues are coming accordingly. That gave the government
the opportunity over the last two budgets to reduce income taxes
by $16 billion over a period of three years. There have been
major tax cuts since we have been here.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian economy did not grow by 6% last year. The
disposable income of Canadians did not grow by 6% last year. The
average Canadian did not get a 6% increase in income last year.
Yet the government takes 6% more in income and payroll taxes from
those Canadians.
Why did the Prime Minister insist on a 6% higher tax collection
last year with even higher taxes to follow in 1999?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, since we have been the government we have managed the
economy in a way that we have managed to reduce the deficit from
$42 billion to zero. Now the big problem is that this government
has managed the economy so well that people are worried that we
might have more money in the coffers than predicted.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the record of this government is collecting $42 billion
more in taxes this year than it collected when it came to office.
The worst part of it is who is being hit the hardest. It is not
the high income Canadians. It is the poorer families.
In British Columbia a family with two children and earning only
$25,000 will pay a 70% tax on every extra dollar of income it
earns. If the Prime Minister is not embarrassed by the highest
taxes ever charged in Canada, is he not embarrassed by the fact
that he is taking those taxes for the most part from the poorest
Canadians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have managed the economy in a way that, for example,
this year the spending of the government will be 12% of GDP. That
is the lowest in 50 years. We have managed to have more revenues
because we have 1.6 million more Canadians who are working who
did not have jobs when we were elected in 1993.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
year the government went $7.6 billion over budget in its
spending. StatsCan has confirmed it. Canadians are now paying
the highest taxes that they have ever paid in history. Out of
all those people who are paying extraordinarily high taxes it is
single income families that are paying the most proportionately.
Why do the Prime Minister and his government discriminate
against single income families?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since we took
office, even though we were running a huge deficit, reducing
taxes has been one of our priorities. Even when we were in
deficit we started by selective tax cuts for Canadians with
disabilities, for the charitable and voluntary sector, for
students. The most massive tax cut of all for lower income
Canadians was the child tax benefit going to low income working
families, $2 billion with this budget.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
earth to the minister. If they are cutting taxes, why does
StatsCan say that they are now at record high levels? Why is the
minister running away from the question?
1420
Why is this government discriminating against single income
families? Why is a family making $50,000 paying $4,000 more in
taxes than a dual income family?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the facts are
that from day one personal income tax reductions have been an
important part of our government's fiscal plan. With this budget
a two income family earning $50,000 with two children gets a 15%
decrease in its income taxes. The same family with a $30,000
income pays zero federal income taxes. The same family with a
$20,000 income gets a federal tax credit of $3,600. This is our
commitment to the Canadian middle class.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Human Resources Development said yesterday that the
unanimous resolution of the Quebec National Assembly would
resolve the matter of the millennium scholarships. This
resolution asked the government to negotiate government to
government.
How can the minister stubbornly refuse to respond to Quebec's
demand and to negotiate government to government on this matter?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Liberal Party of
Quebec made an extremely constructive suggestion, and we
welcomed it.
I can see that the Bloc Quebecois is still blocking and trying
to penalize Quebec students when what we want is to make sure
that they have easier access to higher education.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that
is not what the resolution he said he is referring to says. The
millennium scholarships represent a political decision to ensure
visibility.
How can the minister say such a thing, namely, that he is
prepared to negotiate, when he wants to send an official, when
he himself refuses to assume his political responsibilities,
because it is a political matter?
How can he refuse to negotiate government to government and hide
behind Jean Monty, who should concentrate on settling the
problems at Bell Canada, where he is cutting jobs, rather than
getting involved in the millennium scholarships?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the president of Bell
Canada would welcome the advice of the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois, who himself needed another advisor to tell him what
to do in the coming year, in the person of the former premier of
Quebec.
I can assure you of one thing. The three principles of the
resolution passed in the Quebec National Assembly, as the Prime
Minister of Canada wrote to Mr. Bouchard, may be met for the
greater benefit of students in Quebec.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in his response
to the Quebec Minister of Education's offer to negotiate, the
Minister of Human Resources Development says he is prepared to
negotiate any program whatsoever with him, yet he persists in
refusing to discuss the millennium scholarships.
How can the minister justify his readiness to discuss any
program with the government of Quebec, with the exception of the
millennium scholarships for which he claims he wishes to
delegate departmental employees to hold discussions with Quebec?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, legislation
creating the foundation, an independent body, was enacted.
Second, Minister Legault's letter called for us to ignore the
National Assembly resolution and went back to the demand for
opting out with entitlement to compensation, which is not part
of the National Assembly resolution.
The preference was to ignore the principles of the National
Assembly resolution, and to revisit the question of the right to
withdraw with full compensation. This was negotiated last
Spring, and we know what the results were.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the
minister refuse to negotiate with the Quebec Minister of
Education on the millennium scholarships, when he himself
confirmed yesterday that he was speaking with the Quebec Liberal
Party?
Is the minister not placing himself in a delicate position by
speaking with the opposition rather than the government?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we know very well that the Bloc
gets its orders from the government every morning, and there is
no complaint about that here in the House. It is perfectly
normal for parties to speak to each other. If I did not speak
with the leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec I would be
faulted for that.
1425
What is at stake here is to give Quebec students access to the
millennium scholarships. I want to adopt a constructive
attitude. A pathway opened up yesterday and I very much hope
that Mr. Legault is going to accept the opening offered
yesterday by the Liberal Party of Quebec.
* * *
[English]
COMMODITY PRICES
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
address my question to the Prime Minister.
The agriculture minister, the finance minister and others have
expressed concern about low commodity prices, and rightly so.
Now the World Bank has confirmed that real commodity prices are
likely to remain below 1997 levels for at least 10 years.
This means the crisis in farming, in forestry and in mining
communities is not going away. Does the Prime Minister share
these concerns? Will he consider convening a national summit to
tackle the crisis?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada has worked very hard to make sure that the
commodity industry faces the situation in a very good way. We
have increased the productivity of that sector and we have
managed to keep exporting.
One of the reasons we are on Team Canada is to sell a lot of the
commodities. We were criticized by the NDP for doing the mission
which tries to sell Canadian commodities.
On the other side too, the commodity sector is not as viable as
it was before. Exports used to be 60% in commodities and now it
is—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
fact of the matter is Canada is the most vulnerable of the
G-7 countries to this crisis.
Does the Prime Minister recognize that low commodity prices
continuing for at least 10 years will have a disastrous impact on
communities that are dependent on agriculture, forestry and
mining? Will the Prime Minister show some leadership here? Will
he convene a national summit to work together toward solutions
with those affected by the problem?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the leader of the NDP has awakened to the intensely
competitive global marketplace.
In a news release today she said the only answer is for
Canadians to work together to find solutions. That is exactly
what we have been doing as a government since 1993. We are
fighting for fair access in markets around the world.
Team Canada trade missions take advantage of that access. We
have more research and development, more diversification, more
value added economic growth. Canadian dependency on raw
commodities has been cut from over 60% in 1980 to about 35%
today.
The nation has been rid of its deficit and we already—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Compton—Stanstead.
* * *
SEA KING HELICOPTERS
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Sea Kings are so old that they have to be reskinned and
ribbed, refloored and re-engined. Families are dependent on long
term maintenance as a safety measure to protect their loved ones
flying Sea Kings. The minister keeps saying we will not fly
unsafe aircraft but his words differ from his actions.
Will the minister ensure that the money taken for the Persian
excursion is immediately restored to Sea King maintenance so that
pilots and their families can sleep at night?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will not fly an aircraft that is not
safe to fly. We have a very high maintenance level. We are not
robbing it from some other accounts that deprive the military of
proper training or anything of that sort.
We recognize that while we well maintain the Sea Kings, they are
getting on in years and will need replacement soon. We are in
the process of developing a strategy with respect to their
replacement.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the minister should change his lines as they are no longer
credible. Considering that we had another safety incident
yesterday with the Sea Kings, that brings the total to nine in
the last month that we know about.
Will the minister not admit that it was a mistake to cut funds
out of the maintenance budget of our 35 year old Sea Kings that
will now have to fly for another six to eight years, especially
when the minister has no intention of even initiating the
maritime helicopter program?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do not cut funds that are necessary
for the proper maintenance of any of our equipment.
1430
We have, as has any aircraft operator, maintenance difficulties
from time to time, service requirements. Whether it is new
aircraft or old aircraft we will continue to provide a very high
level of maintenance because we want to ensure that our personnel
are in fact safe when they fly these aircraft.
* * *
TAXATION
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if
you want the real facts you go to Stats Canada and not to the
minister.
Take two Canadian families that earn $50,000 a year. In one
family both parents work outside the home and in the other, one
parent stays home with the kids. One would think they would pay
the same amount of taxes, right? No, in fact they do not. The
family that has one parent stay at home pays $4,000 more a year
in taxes.
Why does the Prime Minister think that is fair? How does the
Prime Minister think that is fair?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have to
recognize that during the process of reducing taxes we have
recognized a number of the disparities. Let me recite them for
the member.
Where we have a single earner family we have a spousal credit of
$1,500. In addition, we have the age credit, the pension credit,
the disability credit and the medical credit that can be claimed.
With the child tax benefit we give $1,340 more to a single
earner than to a double earning family. On top of that, a single
earner can contribute up to $13,500 to the RRSP of a spouse.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in spite of all the credits that the minister brags about, these
people are still paying $4,000 a year more in federal tax and the
minister is clawing back that money off the child tax credit.
The point is that last year single income families paid 92% more
federal tax than dual income families. Under the 1999 budget
that discrimination gets even worse. Families with a stay at
home parent pay more than double the federal tax of a two income
family regardless of what he says about credits. Families are
having to live on credit now.
Why does the government continue to discriminate against single
income families?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have from day
one recognized the overly onerous burden of the personal income
tax and we have continually, in every budget, taken measures to
reduce it.
Unfortunately we cannot afford the $25 billion in fiscal goodies
promised to us by the Reform Party with a $9 billion black hole
without telling us where it will come from.
If we were to undertake to introduce the Reform budget, the
bonding agencies would just simply laugh at us.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the unanimous
resolution passed by the National Assembly regarding the
millennium scholarships provides essentially three things:
first, Quebec's share will be determined by using demographic
data; second, Quebec will select the students who will get the
scholarships; and, third, the scholarships will be awarded while
avoiding any duplication and ensuring the necessary visibility
for the government.
Is this not a reasonable position, and will the minister come to
the table and sign this with the Quebec Minister of Education?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the
former Bloc Quebecois leader recognizes the content of the
National Assembly's resolution. It is absolutely reasonable and
I believe we will easily reach an agreement with the Quebec
government and the foundation that will benefit Quebec students.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the
minister really wants Quebec students to benefit from it, I
should remind him, in an absolutely reasonable manner, that, on
February 15, the Quebec Minister of Education asked to meet him
to negotiate on the basis of that resolution, to sign an
agreement and to settle the issue.
If the minister is serious about settling the issue, will he do
the reasonable thing, assume his political responsibilities, sit
down with Quebec officials, sign an agreement and thus allow
Quebec students to benefit from the program?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in his letter, Mr. Legault asked
for government to government negotiations based on the right to
opt out with full compensation for the Quebec government. What
the member for Roberval is saying has nothing to do with that.
The Prime Minister himself wrote to Mr. Bouchard to confirm that
the legislation makes it possible to meet the resolution's three
reasonable objectives.
In a press conference held on January 25, Mr. Monty said he was
fully prepared to meet the three objectives and the principles
set forth in the resolution. So things are moving along.
* * *
1435
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister has had two days to answer questions from
our party about single income versus dual income families.
The fact is that since day one the government has discriminated
against single income families. The single income family will
pay more than double in taxes what a dual income family making
the same income will pay in this year's budget.
Why does the government continue to discriminate against single
income families in Canada?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one thing we
have to recognize is that if two members of a particular family
are both working, first of all they are putting in twice the
working hours.
They also have close to twice the expenses: the work related
expenses of clothes and travel and the expenses of not having
someone at home doing the housework. There are added expenses
with more than one person in a household working.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure all the mothers who are staying home
looking after their families will be very happy with the
minister's remarks.
The fact is women who stay home to look after their families and
parents who stay at home work as hard as those who are in the
workforce, but the government does not give them one bit of
credit for it. As a matter of fact it charges them for the
sacrifice they make to stay home to look after their families.
What kind of government has that little respect for stay at home
parents?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we recognize
there are many reductions that still have to be made to the
personal income tax system. These reforms we began from the very
first day that we took office.
We have a progressive tax system under which if you earn in a
much higher bracket you are naturally going to pay more money. We
recognized this in the last budget when we said that for the
child tax benefit you pay $13.40 less.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister, if he
wishes, may finish his response.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We will hear the minister.
Hon. Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, having dealt conclusively
with this issue, I feel there is nothing more to add.
* * *
[Translation]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a
number of regrettable cases of immigrants being threatened with
deportation have been brought to public attention by the media.
The fact that the reports provided to the minister are
apparently incorrect would indicate that her officials are
mocking her.
Should we not be concerned about cases such as the Castillo
family case, in which Immigration Canada wants to deport someone
who has been living in Canada for over 17 years? Is this not an
inhuman, heartless and irresponsible act?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while I cannot comment on a
specific case before this House, let me say that the Immigration
Act contains all the provisions necessary to accede to certain
applications for humanitarian or compassionate reasons.
When these people live in Quebec, these applications are
considered in conjunction with the Government of Quebec. I can
therefore provide assurance that all the mechanisms are in place
to process this sort of application.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would remind the minister that deportation is the federal
government's responsibility.
Instead of repeating her officials' arguments here, should the
minister not be more proactive and use the powers she has under
the law to take humanitarian action in these cases, in which
common sense should dictate her conduct?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members are surely aware that
we have here in Canada an immigration and refugee protection
system, which is one of the most generous in the world. It is
so recognized internationally.
I repeat. The Immigration Act provides the mechanisms needed to
deal with these situations.
* * *
1440
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
for years it has been a mystery to Canadian families why the tax
system discriminates against those who make the sacrifice of
forgoing a second income to have a parent stay home and raise the
children but now, lo and behold, we have found the government's
answer.
It believes families that decide to keep a parent at home to
raise the kids are not working. Let me tell the secretary of
state that stay at home parents work harder than many people who
are generating income and they deserve recognition in the tax
code.
How can the government continue to justify a tax system that
tells stay at home parents they are second class citizens?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have from the
beginning of the process of individual tax reform recognized very
strongly the role that a stay at home spouse can play in a
family.
This is why under the child tax benefits we have a $1,340
benefit that is not otherwise available. This is why under our
system it is possible for a single worker in a family to
contribute up to $13,500 to an RRSP for a non-working spouse.
This is part of our philosophy.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal philosophy is to say to people who decide to keep a
parent at home and forgo a second income, to make an economic
sacrifice, to do what they think is best by their children, that
they will be discriminated against and have to pay more taxes
than a family with more income. It makes no sense. It simply is
not fair.
The House recognized that in the last parliament when it passed
a Liberal member's motion to stop tax discrimination against
single income families. When will the government begin to
address this gross inequity and level the playing field for
families that make sacrifices for their kids?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we on this side
of the House recognize that we have further reductions in
personal income tax to make. This has been part of our
philosophy from day one when we took office. This is why we have
targeted it in areas of priority.
We recognize that we do not have unlimited funds to do
everything that we might like to do. We have had to be prudent
in our tax cuts. We have made many spending cuts, going down to
record low levels as the Prime Minister has pointed out. These
have been tough choices that we have had to make on behalf of
Canadians. We are committed to ongoing cuts to personal income
tax and we will make—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Human Resources Development told us that Quebec's
Minister of Education wrote him on February 15 about the right
to withdraw with full compensation.
But nowhere in this letter is there any mention of the right to
withdraw with full compensation. What is does contain is the
following “I am therefore pleased about this overture and
request a meeting with you at the earliest possible date for the
purpose of government-to-government negotiations, in accordance
with the motion passed by the National Assembly”.
Why has the minister misrepresented the contents of this letter?
Why is he refusing to negotiate on the basis of this motion?
It is a matter of good faith.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I referred to the position taken
by Mr. Legault in his letter and in the public statements he
made, where he clearly returned to it.
However, I am very pleased that the Bloc Quebecois is moving
away from the right to withdraw with full compensation. This is
the first time the Bloc Quebecois has admitted that that is not
necessarily the route to take.
Yesterday, I was open—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask members to listen to
the answer. It is easier that way. The hon. Minister of Human
Resources Development still has some time left.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The minister only has a few seconds
left.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of
Canada and the chairman of the foundation, Jean Monty, assured
us that we could resolve this dispute with the Government of
Quebec with respect to the resolution by Quebec's National
Assembly.
* * *
LINGUISTIC MINORITIES
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Since the early nineties, Canada's official languages minorities
have been hit by major cuts made by various governments.
1445
Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us how the
announcement she made in Moncton this morning will correct a
difficult situation for official language minorities?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I announced this morning
that the Government of Canada, which includes all the members of
cabinet and the members of parliament, will invest an additional
$70 million a year, precisely to help Canadians who are part of
a minority.
This was a commitment made by the Prime Minister, who has always
worked to build a country that believes in respecting cultural
diversity.
[English]
The Prime Minister's belief in cultural diversity is being
delivered by this $70 million annual addition to the official
languages budget.
* * *
THE SENATE
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister about his
constitutional responsibility to appoint senators. There are now
three vacancies in the Senate and depending upon court
proceedings there may be a couple of others. The legitimacy of
the Senate is now in tatters.
Would the Prime Minister consider a pause or a freeze on the
appointment of senators for a few weeks or months and instead
appoint someone from his own party to consult with members of the
opposition parties to see if we could find a consensus on what to
do with the Senate in this parliament?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think I will receive with pleasure the application of
the hon. member.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is not applying and never would.
When the Prime Minister was the member from Shawinigan back on
March 5, 1985, he asked the following question to the then prime
minister. He said “Mr. Speaker, I am a bit appalled by the
attitude of the Prime Minister. He is the Prime Minister and if
he wants to abolish the Senate he has enough members to do it.
He does not want to have to play games with us or anybody in this
House and he should not cop out like that”.
In light of that, will the Prime Minister accept his own advice,
show some leadership, and appoint someone from his own party to
consult with the opposition to try to find a consensus as to what
to do with the other place?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we voted for a complete reform of the Senate. Some
people opposed the Charlottetown agreement when we wanted to have
an elected Senate.
I am very proud of the quality of the people I have appointed to
the Senate since I have become Prime Minister and I am very proud
that I named more women than men for the first time in the
history of Canada.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, from some of the answers we have heard today it is no
wonder that Canadians continue to express their lack of
confidence in this government's tax schemes. The reality at tax
time for most Canadians is no money for RRSPs.
How can Canadians—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for
Battlefords—Lloydminster.
Mr. Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, the reality at tax time for
most Canadians is no money for RRSPs.
How can Canadians save for their future when this government's
high taxes drive them to the poor house today?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have
consistently, as I have said, in every budget reduced income
taxes. This has been part of our quest and we have achieved it.
Let me point out that our priority has been low and middle
income Canadians. They are the ones who need it most. That is
why in the last two budgets we have taken 600,000 Canadians right
off the tax rolls.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if we forget the phoney rhetoric and forget the Liberal
spin on a lot of this, the reality is that RRSP contributions are
shrinking.
How can Canadians take charge of their own future when the
government's tax gouge keeps putting them in the poor house?
What kind of help is that?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have very
generous limits right now and there have been suggestions that we
be allowed to increase them in the future.
1450
In terms of providing a secure and dignified retirement for
Canadians, it was our government that came to grips with the
Canada pension plan and together with the provinces put it on a
solid footing.
The party across the way wanted to destroy the Canada pension
plan and leave retired seniors to their own means.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development finally
answered an extremely simple question about the election process
for the Caldwell First Nation.
It should be noted that Chief Johnson, a custom chief, has not
consulted all band members and the minister did not consult the
citizens of Blenheim Kent-Essex about the Caldwell Reserve until
after the issue received significant amounts of publicity.
Lack of consultation always leads to confrontation. Why did the
minister choose this route?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the route taken was to
consult with the community, to talk with them about their
legitimate concerns with regard to the negotiated settlement with
the Caldwell.
The chief is working with his community. We are talking with
other members of the Chatham-Kent area and I believe we will,
with the best interests of everyone at stake, find a negotiated
resolution to this very important issue.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is aware that in other parts of Canada consultation with
local municipal units always takes place whenever there are
reserve lands that are coming out of an existing municipal unit.
In some cases compensation is even provided for lost municipal
revenues. It works in Manitoba. It works in other provinces.
Why did the minister not consult with the local Blenheim
municipality prior to her unilateral decision that the new
Caldwell reserve would be placed in the Blenheim municipality?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the rhetoric in this
question is full of holes, but I would ask the hon. member why,
when he visited Chatham-Kent, did he not ask or sit down with the
chief himself?
* * *
THE MAIN ESTIMATES
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the estimates came out yesterday and guess what?
Spending is up a whopping $8 billion for the next year.
Let us see what some of this money is being spent on. The human
rights tribunal which, according to the auditor general already
has trouble managing its money, doubles its budget from $2
million to $4 million.
The Senate, with two convicted senators, gets another $2
million, a 6% increase—
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to go to his
question.
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian television
fund is getting its budget doubled from $50 million to $100
million. Is this why Canadians who are scratching for rent and
groceries cannot get tax relief?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the main reasons for the increases are $800 million for
employment insurance benefits, $900 million for the Canada health
and social transfer and $800 million for equalization payments.
These are the increases that we are putting into the budget this
year in the estimates. They are there to serve the needs of
Canadians.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, with the estimates out and this government back to big
spending Canadians need to know where the tax cuts are coming.
Are the increases always going to be there? Is this $8 billion
in new spending the reason Canadians will not get real tax relief
now? We need to know.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the feeling my hon. colleague misunderstands the purpose
of the estimates.
What the estimates indicate is what the money is being spent on
and in this case the increases that have taken place, the
increases that are in the budget, the increases which they can
look at and vote on, are all increases that benefit Canadians.
Whether they are equalization payments or health transfers, they
are for the benefit of Canadians.
My colleague is nitpicking. The really important expenditures
he seems to forget or not know about.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, good nutrition is required for individuals to reach
their full physical and intellectual potential.
Since March is nutrition month, could the Minister of Health
tell Canadians what the budget has done to improve the
nutritional health of mothers and newborns?
1455
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the budget of two weeks ago did more than simply commit $11.5
billion to health care to help turn around the situation and
restore the confidence of Canadians. We also recognize the
importance of preventing illness and health promotion. For that
reason the budget committed $75 million over the next three years
to increase the scope of our program for prenatal nutrition for
pregnant women and the health of their babies.
There are about 20,000 women now who are served by this program
and that will go to 35,000 women throughout the country because
of this increase.
This government believes strongly in preventing illness.
* * *
[Translation]
PASCAL HUDON
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
In early January, Pascal Hudon was arrested in Mexico and found
to be in possession of Mayan pottery. Although this young
Quebecker is far from being a trafficker in art objects, the
Canadian government was slow to react, and a consul was sent
only last weekend.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs give us a report on what
measures of diplomatic protection have been provided by the
consul, and on the conditions under which this Quebec national
is being detained?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we made immediate contact with the family. We
operated quickly to talk with Mr. Hudon. He was not willing to
receive us at the first instance. We are now in direct contact
with him. We have raised the issue with the Mexican authorities.
We have raised the issue to make sure that he gets proper medical
treatment in the penitentiary. The ambassador has already
written to Mexican counterparts to ensure that the sentencing of
the courts is properly defined.
We are providing fully applicable consulate services to Mr.
Hudon and we will make sure that his rights are protected.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
this government has given responsibility for part II of the
Employment Insurance Act to the province of New Brunswick.
Unfortunately, it did not impose any conditions on the
provincial government before transferring the funds. It ought
to have made sure that the programs provided by the province met
the needs of the unemployed.
Today, we find ourselves with a program set up by the province
with federal funding which does not meet the needs of all the
“gappers”.
Is this government going to finally assume its responsibility
for the unemployed and transfer additional funds, this time
making sure that all the “gappers” are going to get help? There
are critical situations in New Brunswick, with a provincial
government which—
The Speaker: The Minister of Human Resources Development.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the
hon. NDP member, who acknowledges the excellent job done by our
government last year in helping the government of New Brunswick
to truly solve the problem of the “gappers”.
In fact, their numbers in New Brunswick have dropped from 7,500
down to fewer than 2,000, thanks to the co-ordinated efforts of
the Government of Canada and the Government of New Brunswick.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we heard earlier from the Secretary of State for International
Financial Institutions the specious claim that the government
claims to be taking 600,000 people off the tax rolls through tax
policy changes in this budget. But he seems to have forgotten in
his new Liberal math that 1.2 million taxpayers were added to the
tax rolls since 1993 because of bracket creep and that another
300,000 will be added back on in the next two years as a result
of bracket creep.
How does he come up with this specious figure when in fact
900,000 people will be paying taxes in 2001 who were not when
this government came to power?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we took
office, unemployment was at 11.4%. Today it is at 7.8%.
It is very simple mathematics. When a person is working they
are able to pay taxes. The person who is unemployed does not pay
taxes. We are very proud of our job creation record.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
last week the agriculture committee travelled to Washington and
it did not take very long for the committee to realize that there
is a very strange relationship between Americans and Canadians
when it comes to agricultural trade.
According to U.S. officials, they have targeted supply
management as a deal breaker in the next round of negotiations.
The Canadian Wheat Board is still in their sights.
Recognizing that open market access is very necessary for
Canadian agricultural trade, is the agriculture minister prepared
to sacrifice supply management or sacrifice market access to
other agricultural commodities?
1500
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no we are not prepared to sacrifice
supply management. We are working very hard with the industry. I
meet every week with sectors of the industry. We are going to put
together in co-operation with the industry and the provinces, a
strong, unified and credible approach to be in position to go
into the next round of WTO meetings.
* * *
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, research and innovation are key to the excellence of
Canada's health care system and to the prosperity of our nation.
Could the Secretary of State for Science, Research and
Development tell the House how the 1999 budget will prevent the
loss of our medical, nursing and basic research scientists who
leave Canada?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development)(Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have taken several positive steps. We are building
on the past: the Canadian Foundation for Innovation in 1997; the
Canadian millennium scholarship fund in 1998; $1.8 billion in
investments in science and technology this year; the centres of
excellence, the granting councils, the National Research Council,
the Canadian Foundation for Innovation; $1.5 billion in health
research, prenatal programs and research and for nurses doing
research to enhance health care.
We want to keep our brightest and our best in Canada. We want
to make Canada the place of choice for knowledge based workers.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Osama Faqueeh,
Minister of Commerce of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[Translation]
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during Oral Question Period, I
spoke of the letter from Mr. Legault, which referred to the
right to opt out. I was referring to his press release of a few
days later and not to his letter.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
THE BUDGET
FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House
approves in general the budgetary policy of the government; and
of the amendment.
1505
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I was indicating when debate was interrupted for
question period, budget '99 has allocated $30 million for the
Medical Research Council and Health Canada's national health
research and development program for each of the next three
years. This new allocation is to provide immediate support for
advanced health research.
For example, at the University of Manitoba, researchers are
working to reduce the 30% rejection rate for kidney transplants.
Moreover, $65 million is initially set aside in the year 2000-01
to support the launch of the envisioned Canadian institutes of
health research, an amount that will be increased to $175 million
the year thereafter.
The combination of all the initiatives announced in budget '99
is to increase the funding for health research, both medical and
nursing, by $550 million over the remainder of this fiscal year
and the coming next three years.
Let me now return to the component of the budget that focuses on
creation, dissemination, sharing and the application of knowledge
as it impacts the economy, and on the component of the budget
that supports employment.
Over the next three years $465 million has been earmarked for
the youth employment strategy and another $110 million per year
for the Canada jobs fund. These two particular strategic funds
alone will help ensure a bright future for our youth as well as
attend to the employment needs of our adults of today.
First, to help create knowledge, the federal government has
earmarked the following budgetary amounts: $200 million to the
Canada Foundation for Innovation; $75 million to the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council; $15 million to the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council; $31 million to
the National Research Council; and $55 million for biotechnology
research and development by federal science based departments and
agencies. These amounts total $376 million for initiatives to
create knowledge.
Second, to help disseminate and share the created knowledge,
budget '99 has allocated the following amounts: $60 million to
smart communities to establish demonstration projects that
promote the effective use of information technologies in such
areas as education and lifelong learning, government services,
business and industry, employment, library and information
services, transportation and culture; and $60 million to
GeoConnections to make available to the information highway
comprehensive and integrated data about Canada's geography,
environment, people and resources.
Third, to commercialize knowledge so as to reap the economic and
social benefits for all Canadians, budget '99 has allocated the
following amounts: $90 million to the networks of centres of
excellence; $150 million to technology partnerships Canada; $50
million to the Business Development Bank of Canada to expand
financing for small and medium size knowledge based and export
oriented businesses; and $430 million to the Canadian Space
Agency.
Budget '99 is indeed the best budget of them all. These
initiatives in budget '99 are the products of the determination,
will and sacrifice that Canadians have collectively shared since
1993 when they entrusted this government to change their despair
to hope, their pessimism to optimism, their doubt to a renewed
sense of confidence.
I am humbly proud to be part of this government's team that
worked with Canadians to succeed in eliminating the national
deficit, balancing the books of the nation and reducing the
national debt and personal income taxes.
I am proud to be part of this government that believes we have
achieved what we have achieved not because of any single value we
have pursued, but because of the many values we have advanced
together, because of the sharing and openness we have shown to
each other as fellow citizens.
I am proud to be part of this government team that working with
Canadians is truly building today for a better tomorrow.
1510
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
have known for a number of years that the federal government is
making surpluses. A round of extravagant spending has begun.
Thus, The Minister of Human Resources Development, with the help
of the enforcement assistance fund, provided $35,000 for a study
on the establishment of a technological company in the Asbestos
RCM. This financial assistance to one person represents and
will always represent structural duplication, because there
existed and still exists a federally funded CFDC, a community
futures development corporation and a Government of Quebec
funded CLD.
How can the member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul justify his
government's use of the surplus in the employment insurance
fund, which, by the way, should be set aside solely for future
users, that is, the unemployed? How can he justify his
government's spending $35,000 to duplicate structures?
Why, for example, did he not give this money to the very
responsible diversification committee in the Asbestos RCM,
chaired by Jacques Lussier? Or why did he not give it to the
community futures development corporation, chaired by Raymond
Simon, the mayor of Pontbriand, a corporation governed by the
federal government, or to the CLD, headed by Rivard Beaudoin?
The awarding of this $35,000 to a single individual, who spent
barely five months on his study, represents high class social
assistance.
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I have noted that in
the question the hon. member has not really doubted the merit of
the study. He has only raised grave doubts as to the duplication
of the efforts. In other words, it appears to be more about a
wounded ego than anything else. On that note I would say that
unless he says that it was not a good study, that type of
question should not merit an answer at this time.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Winnipeg North—St.
Paul, if he feels this budget is so good and he was doing a lot
of bragging about it in his speech, why did the government feel
it had to spend $3.6 million to advertise it and engage in its
public relations?
I would hope the member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul is as
concerned as we are about the $500,000 the Manitoba Conservative
government is spending on feel good health care ads.
I wonder if the member will join with us in condemning both the
Manitoba Conservatives and the federal Liberals for wasting
public money to engage in self-serving ads. Would he not agree
that every penny available should go into the care of patients
and not into propaganda?
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I should note that the
member opposite was a member of the provincial legislature. At
that time if at any time the provincial government she was part
of did not inform Manitobans on the government's programs, then I
would say she would have a legitimate basis to pose that
question.
On the substance, it is our duty as a federal government to
inform Canadians of the budget. How can we not be proud of $11.5
billion for the health care system as new money over and above
the $12.5 billion that is presently there? Even the NDP premier
of Saskatchewan applauded budget '99.
1515
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I question the hon. member with respect to this
budget and his government's priorities when it comes to law and
order in this country.
We know they have a record of late of being very soft on crime.
We are still waiting for the tabling of the Young Offenders Act.
We know there have been massive cuts to the organized crime
budget. We know the RCMP computer system is rusting out, yet
millions and millions have been pumped into a useless gun
registry system.
Why has this government set such a low priority for law
enforcement in this country?
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, I
think we have allocated sufficiently in this budget for the law
enforcement agency of Canada.
The gun control law is now part of the law of the country, part
of the rule of law. I hope the member opposite will obey the
rule of law.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish I could say it was a great pleasure for me to
rise today to address this budget. This budget is a disaster, as
every Canadian is learning. I am sure hon. members opposite will
be riveted by the speech I am about to deliver. Maybe they will
be quiet enough to hear it.
I start this afternoon by focusing on the beginning of the
finance minister's rather lengthy budget speech: “A budget
always brings its own special vocabulary. We talk in the
language of rates and ratios, of percentages and decimals, of
accounting methods and measures. What all this obscures is what
budgets should be about. It is to make the lives of Canadians
better. It is to improve their standard of living”.
What the finance minister is obscuring is that the rates, ratios
and numbers do not lie. The numbers are his undoing. His
accounting practices are unorthodox and are not even supported by
the auditor general. The numbers show clearly that increases in
payroll taxes and bracket creep have not been offset by his
minuscule tax cut.
In short, this is what budgets should be all about. They should
be about being straight with Canadians. They should be about
telling them the whole story or, as Paul Harvey says, at least
the rest of the story.
Do not take my word for it. Neville Nankivell calls this budget
“a clunker, disappointing and miserly in its approach to
reducing what are the highest overall taxes of any major
economy”.
According to Diane Francis of the National Post: “The
latest budget is a big con job designed to hoodwink Canadians
into believing that health care costs are why they cannot get the
dramatic tax cuts they deserve. The fact is Canadian taxes are
excessive due to unbridled public spending on non-health items.
Canadians are being taxed to death and this budget is insulting
to taxpayers by perpetuating myths”.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business calls the budget
“disappointing and a missed opportunity”.
The government is spending a lot of money advertising this
budget, as my colleague just pointed out, but it is not being
straight with Canadians. My constituents voted to re-elect me
because I call them as I see them. I would like to clarify for
Canadians facts and fiction, or the myths and realities of this
budget.
The finance minister made choices in his budget and the
consequences of those choices need to be explained to Canadian
families.
Myth number one is that the Liberals have not increased taxes.
In fact, we are to believe we just got a tax cut. Unfortunately
even Canadian Airlines is perpetuating this myth.
Reality number one is that Canadian taxpayers will pay $2,020
more in taxes in 1999 than they did in 1993. That is $42 billion
more, 42 thousand million dollars more. That is a tax hike of
34%, the highest tax increase in the world. That is the reality.
That is a five year period but even if a comparison with 1999 to
last year is made, Canadians will still be paying more in taxes
due to mammoth increases in CPP premiums and of course because of
bracket creep.
1520
Myth number two is that Canadians' taxes are higher in order to
pay for universal health care. Reality number two is the latest
OECD health data report reveals that the United States spends 90%
more on each citizen on public health care than Canada does.
Even with the so-called reinvestment in health care, Canadians
are getting $4.3 billion less in health care spending from these
Liberals.
When we take health care spending out of the picture Canadian
taxes are double the rate of the Americans. The reality is that
health care has nothing to do with the exorbitant taxes being
charged by this bunch of Liberals across the way.
We have to love myth number three, that excessive taxes do not
harm Canadian businesses or the economy. Just ask the industry
minister. According to him, high taxes are good for business.
Reality number three is Canada's taxes are double that of the
U.S. and, surprise, our unemployment rate is nearly double that
of the United States. Coincidence? I think not. Payroll taxes
and user fees have taxed small businesses, the engine of job
creation, out of prosperity into a daily struggle just to
survive.
One small example of this government's lame brain policies is
the recent change to T-4 slips. It used to fit four forms on a
page which could be sent out in a standard letter sized envelope.
The geniuses at Revenue Canada decided to change that format.
Now only three forms fit to a page and due to their new and
improved size, they require larger envelopes. Members are
probably saying big deal, so they need new envelopes. The
postage for these new envelopes is 90 cents instead of the 46
cents it cost for the old form. That is just one small example
of how this government nickels and dimes small business people.
Myth number four is that the finance minister says his budget
will give substantial tax relief to low income Canadians, in fact
it will more than cover bracket creep for all Canadians. Reality
number four is the minuscule tax cut given to low income
Canadians is only half the amount of money they would receive if
the finance minister would index personal income taxes. In 1980
a person making $10,505 paid no income tax. Now that same person
pays taxes on only $6,496. Britain does not start taxing until
$9,000 and the U.S. not until $9,500. No wonder our best and
brightest are fleeing the country. Is there a pattern developing
with this?
Myth number five is that the Liberals have been prudent—they
love that word—and have balanced the budget by cutting costs and
responsible priorizing. Reality number five is the single
largest expenditure in this budget is interest on the national
debt, which has grown by over $130 billion since 1993. The
Liberals reduced 70% of the deficit by raising taxes while only
cutting costs by 2%. The finance minister also got a break from
lower international interest rates. The reality is this budget
was balanced by charging Canadians more taxes and giving them
less in return. That is neither prudent nor responsible. It is
shameful.
Myth number six is that Canadians are better off today than they
were before the Liberals took over in 1993. Reality number six
is Canadians are worse off today than they were in 1993. I take
no joy in saying that. There is no victory for the official
opposition in that statement. This government has failed
Canadians. It uses smoke and mirrors to manipulate the truth so
Canadians will feel better about themselves and blindly spend
more money so government revenues will climb even higher.
The numbers the finance minister says obscure what is important
about a budget are all that is important about a budget. I will
list them so members can see for themselves why the finance
minister wants to avoid them. Canadians are paying $900 million
more in income tax through bracket creep. Canadians are paying
$1.14 billion more in CPP premiums just to receive less in
benefits when they retire; in simpler terms, paying more, getting
less. Canadians are paying $42 billion more in taxes in 1999
than they were in 1993.
1525
The national debt has risen by $130 billion since 1993. Balanced
budgets are the result of excessive tax hikes and onerous cost
recovery schemes. Canadians are receiving $4.3 billion less in
federal health care in 1999 than in 1993; paying more, getting
less.
This budget was supposed to make the lives of Canadians better.
It was supposed to increase their standard of living. These are
the finance minister's own words so he must admit that he has
failed, for Canadians are being forced to pay more and get less.
We pay more taxes and get less health care. This is obviously
reversed.
I quote once again Diane Francis who hits the nail right on the
head, despite the cries of protest from the other side, when she
says: “Ottawa should be forced to work backward. Taxpayers
should demand back the billions Ottawa has over collected since
1993 in the form of pro rata tax cuts, to repay the unfair
deindexing in an era of non inflation. After all, working
backward while paying for essentials is exactly how Canadian
households and business must conduct their financial affairs.
Canadians struggle to pay escalating taxes, rents, food and other
expenses. Why hasn't Ottawa ever suffered? Because it does not
have to. That's why this budget is a national insult”.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we get to
questions and comments I wanted to confirm with the hon. member
for Prince George—Peace River that he was splitting his time. Is
that correct?
Mr. Jay Hill: Yes.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
those who were listening to the speech probably heard the message
from the member that Canadians are paying higher taxes.
I quickly wrote down what I saw in the last couple of budgets. I
saw an increase in the child care expense deduction from $5,000
to $7,000 for those who provide child care for preschool
children. I saw a total elimination of the 3% surtax that was
intended for deficit elimination. I saw a $675 increase in the
basic amount of the non-refundable tax credit for all Canadians.
I also saw that 600,000 Canadians were no longer paying tax.
On top of that, and the member has not taken it into account, I
saw the government provide each and every Canadian with the
opportunity to invest in RESPs for their children's education,
another $400 a year annual credit.
I also saw a $1.7 billion increase in the non-taxable child tax
benefit. I could go on but being an accountant I sat down and I
calculated that Canadians in fact are paying less in taxes and
getting more non-taxable benefits than they ever have since 1993.
What does the member mean by bracket creep? Does he understand?
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the
hon. member should ask that question. I asked the question who
is the bracket creep some four years ago. I wanted someone on
the other side to take responsibility. Someone on the other side
has to be this fellow, this mystery man named bracket creep that
keeps ripping more and more taxes out of Canadian pocket books.
The fact is bracket creep sees that people are taxed more and
more heavily because it is not indexed to inflation. Taxes are
not indexed to inflation and therefore people are put into a
higher bracket and taxed more heavily. This results in more and
more revenue flowing into government coffers.
The hon. member mentioned the tax credit for child care for
preschool children. It is interesting that the member raised
that issue.
Mr. Speaker, I see you are on the edge of your seat. Are you
having a problem? Maybe the House could help you out with it. I
am not sure what the problem is.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The problem is we
have another question coming.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to
remind my colleague from Prince George—Peace River that his
Reform Party health critic said that the $50 million designated
for rural health care is an excellent investment by this
government.
We are investing in Canadians, rural Canadians. I know this
member represents a rural part of Canada. So these moneys along
with telehealth and telehomecare will make a great difference.
Does the member for Prince George—Peace River agree with his
colleague from Macleod?
1530
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, are you going to give me
enough time to adequately respond this time? Or, are you going
to be on the edge of your seat the whole time I am standing here
and make me nervous about how much time I have left to respond?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member of
Prince George—Peace River has a minute and 30 seconds and it is
counting down.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, in that case I will try to be
brief. Obviously the Liberals must get something right in their
budget. Some small part of their budget must do some good for
Canadians. That does not overcome the sad fact that the Canadian
people are the ones who are paying over and over again for every
small increase in health care or whatever.
We have said repeatedly in this place for five long years that
the government has never got its priorities right about spending.
It would have much more money to invest, as it likes to call it,
in health care if it would quit spending money so foolishly and
quit going over budget all the time like it is doing again in
1999.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. In his speech the member referred to the Department of
Revenue Canada as geniuses. I think he would like to correct the
record on that. He tried to say that was a reality and we all
know that is a myth.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, if that was a point of order I
need my cowboy hat.
The fact of the matter is that I was being very sarcastic in
referring to Revenue Canada as geniuses. If those geniuses over
there cannot figure out then they are not geniuses.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I do not know how to match that enlightened exchange. I left my
cowboy boots off but I will do my best to get into this pay more,
get less budget.
I am shocked and appalled at some of my hon. friends opposite
who purport to know what wealth creation is all about. They know
how to balance a budget and to meet a payroll. One of my friends
from Mississauga South claims to be an accountant. My
condolences to him.
These people should know how to read a set of financial
documents. They should be able to understand what a surplus is,
what a deficit is, what a tax is and what a spending increase is.
Apparently they do not.
I have spent the last several years of my life studying public
finance. I may not be any great expert, but I can say that the
budget document presented to this place by the finance minister
three weeks ago was not a budget. When it comes to presenting in
a transparent fashion the public finances of the country the
budget was a joke. No serious financial analyst in the country
would give the budget a unqualified grade in terms of the
transparency of its reporting of public spending and government
taxing.
That has to be the starting point of this debate. Even though
most laymen do not want to spend much time sifting through the
details and the numbers to come to the bottom line, the reality
is that we as parliamentarians must be able to read that document
and understand what the heck is going on in terms of spending,
taxing, debt borrowing and debt.
We cannot do that because the finance minister has become the
laughing stock of public accounting. He included spending in
this year's budget that will happen two years from now. In some
areas of this year's budget he included spending that happened
two years ago. He called spending increases like the child tax
credit entitlement a tax cut. There are some tax increases which
he calls spending cuts. As a starting point, it is virtually
impossible to get to the bottom of what the budget is all about.
We as the opposition do not have to make an argument about the
fact that the budget will actually increase the taxes of
Canadians and will result in fewer government services than was
the case in 1993. We do not have to make that case because
people know it intuitively. They know it through their
experience.
1535
People know they are paying more taxes now than they ever have
before in their lives because of the irresponsible fiscal
policies of the government. They know that the standard of
health care which they receive is at a lower level than they can
ever remember.
We do not have to make a political argument to the 186,000
Canadians who stand today on waiting lines for essential health
care services. We do not have to make a political argument to
the 1.2 million low income Canadians paying taxes today who were
not paying taxes when the government came to power in 1993. We
do not have to make a political argument about the effect of the
budget and its predecessor budgets on middle class single income
earner families that are paying more and more and more year after
year, even though they are working harder and trying to play by
the rules.
We do not have to make that argument because they see it on
their paycheques. They see it when they go to the emergency
rooms. They see the deterioration of public service as a result
of the government's misplaced spending priorities. They see that
they are struggling harder and harder just to get by. It really
is not a question of making a political argument.
I heard the member for Mississauga South just now and earlier
during question period the hon. Secretary of State for
International Financial Institutions suggest that among other
things the budget would somehow take 600,000 low income Canadians
off the tax rolls by allegedly raising the basic personal
exemption.
Again, as I pointed out in question period, with the new Liberal
math they forget to tell us the whole story. Part of the story
is that since 1993, 1.2 million low income Canadians, those who
can least afford it, many of whom are under the poverty line,
single mothers and single parents struggling to get by or seniors
on fixed incomes, have seen themselves pushed on to the tax rolls
by the government's pernicious back door tax grab called bracket
creep, by the pernicious tax on inflation.
If these people get a cost of living adjustment in their pension
cheques or their minimum wage income from working in the labour
force, if they get an automatic COLA, a cost of living
adjustment, they end up paying taxes not because they are making
more in real terms—they are making the same in real terms—but
because the government decides to generate more revenue to
finance its insatiable appetite for spending in a way that is not
transparent, in a way that Canadians cannot see it and in a way
that parliament cannot approve it.
In a study released last week by the Canadian Taxpayers
Federation, an organization with which I have some familiarity,
it was reported that since 1986, since the then Progressive
Conservative government brought in bracket creep and deindexed
the tax system with respect to any inflation under 3%, the
government has generated an annual revenue haul of $12 billion.
That is just as a result of bracket creep. Next year Canadians
will end up paying $1,300 more than they did before as a result
of the consequence of bracket creep.
The government has added 1.2 million people on to the tax rolls.
It has pushed millions of modest income Canadians into higher tax
brackets. Then it claims, lo and behold, that by some absolutely
token adjustment in the basic personal exemption in the budget it
will be lifting 600,000 Canadians off the tax rolls.
Government members forget to tell us that they have not indexed
the tax system to inflation. They have not eliminated the
pernicious tax grab called bracket creep. It continues its nasty
work of increasing taxes on Canadians so that 300,000 more
Canadians will be paying taxes two years from now as a result of
the effects of bracket creep.
Let us just do some simple math here. Liberals may have to get
out their calculators to follow it. If we take the 1.2 million
people the Liberals have added to the tax rolls since 1993 and
subtract their figure of the number of people who will be taken
off the tax rolls as a result of the increase in the personal
exemption, we end up with a net of 600,000. If we add to that
600,000 new taxpayers the 300,000 who will end up back on the tax
rolls as a result of bracket creep, what is the net number? Maybe
some of my friends opposite could not follow the math, but
900,000 low income Canadians will be paying taxes two years from
now.
These are the Canadians the government claims to speak for in
terms of those who need the most help from society.
1540
I do not need to make the argument because grassroots Canadians
make it every day. As revenue critic I get flooded with letters
from people who tell me about it. For example, a constituent of
mine, James Mitchell, e-mailed me recently to say:
I just read about the federal Liberal budget. I am married, have
two small children. My wife has chosen not to work but to stay
at home and raise them. I make $80,000, which is sort of a
middle class income, and therefore the government treats me as a
cash cow. As an employee I have no deductions. My wife has been
forced to dip into RRSPs. I don't get a tax credit for her or
for our children. We are living from paycheque to paycheque and
have no savings. I am appalled that the Liberal view is to spend
instead of reduce taxes. While I was born and raised in Calgary
I feel that there is no hope in this country for a family like
ours. I am now making plans regrettably to move to the United
States where I will be able to save for my future and provide for
the education of my two children and at the same time maintain
and improve my standard of living.
That is a tragedy, a tragedy that was reiterated by Arthur
Friedrich who wrote to the National Post yesterday. He is
a steelworker who indicates that at one point he was a campaign
worker for the minister of heritage. He says that he will be
moving to the United States as well. He started work as a
steelworker. He goes through his family's fiscal situation and
winds up by saying that he is being bludgeoned by the tax system
and deeply wishes that things were different. “I like Canada
and really wanted to stay, but I no longer see any future for my
children in this land”. This is the tragedy of the Liberal
government's pay more, get less approach to fiscal mismanagement,
and it must end.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon.
member from Calgary.
We are all allowed to make mistakes. Reformers brought forward
their budget for one or two years. I believe it has been here
for a few years. I wonder out loud why they are no longer
bringing forth a budget document or, if they have one, why they
are hiding it. It was a great idea to have this shadow budget
until the world collapsed on them.
In their budget the Reformers would slash and burn and sacrifice
the future of Canadians. They would sacrifice health care of
Canadians. It is not fair for them to turn their backs on our
seniors, our youth and our unemployed just for the sake of tax
cuts to make some certain area of the country more wealthy.
We on this side of the House believe in our country and in its
citizens. Reformers almost made a mockery of my saying that we
invest in our country and in our people.
I ask the hon. member the same question I asked another member.
He is a person who represents a very urban area. The budget
offers many possibilities of funding programs for people in
remote areas of the country and in rural Canada. When I stand in
the House I am speaking for all people in the country. I want to
represent all people in the country. What about the $50 million
designated for rural Canada which the Reform Party health critic
says is an excellent program? Does the hon. member believe in
it?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question.
I can advise the member that unlike any other opposition party,
at least in my political lifetime, the Reform Party has year
after year presented a detailed alternative to the government's
fiscal plan.
If the member would like it, he can get it from the website at
www.reform.ca or by writing me postage free at the House of
Commons. The document he would be looking for is called “Taxes
and Health Care: A Prebudget Submission of the Official
Opposition”. We go through in some great detail the kind of
choices we would make.
Yes, we would spend more on health care, more than the
government has. We would completely replace the $16 billion
cumulatively that has been taken out of the health care system by
the hardhearted misplaced priorities of the government. We would
do it not by raising overall spending.
1545
Liberals cannot imagine. They say how can you increase one
program without increasing overall spending? It is magic. The
word is called priorities. We think health care is a higher
priority than the kind of corporate welfare that was increased in
this budget by grants, subsidies and loans to corporations, their
friends in the big corporations.
We think health care could be increased not by increasing
overall spending but by cutting low priority spending and the
kind of pork barrel ministry of the minister of heritage and by
reducing subsidies to bloated crown corporations and by
privatizing redundant crown corporations that can operate more
efficiently in the private sector and by eliminating grants and
handouts to interest groups.
Billions could be saved, taken from low priority wasteful pork
barrel spending and put into the high priority program area of
health care.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the member has not been very clear about his solutions
to the problems of the health care system today.
Given all the comments of his colleagues around support for a
parallel private health care system, support for core and
non-core health services being available outside medicare, what
is the position of the member's party with respect to support for
for-profit companies? What does the Reform Party think about
money from the federal budget going into a province like Ontario
to fund, to line the pockets of large American based corporations
like Olsten to provide home care?
What is the real position of the Reform Party when it comes to
the steady slide toward an Americanized two tier health care
system?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, our position is that we
support a universal, accessible, publicly administered health
care system that is administered by the provinces with national
standards agreed on by the provinces in a co-operative fashion.
What we are opposed to is the kind of multi-tier health care
system that governments like this federal Liberal government and
the NDP governments in Saskatchewan and British Columbia have
given us which have forced Canadians on to these waiting lists in
such a way that if they want to get their critical care tended to
they now feel they have to take their private dollars and go to
private clinics in the United States.
That is wrong. That kind of two tier NDP style health care
should come to an end by properly protecting the public system.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened carefully to the members for Prince
George—Peace River and for Calgary Southeast. The member for
Prince George—Peace River said tell the story, tell the whole
story, we are not shooting straight.
I listened to the member for Calgary Southeast. Not once in his
remarks did he offer any constructive alternative. Leadership is
all about dealing in hope. The reality that Canadians surely
understand is that six years ago we had an unemployment situation
of 11.4% when we assumed power. When this budget was announced
it was 7.8%.
I am not proud. None of us are proud of that 7.8%, especially
in remote areas of our country where we have unemployment numbers
far in excess of that and especially the huge numbers related to
youth unemployment.
Let us be candid. We cannot be proud of those numbers. When we
talk about dealing in hope, we talk about where we were six years
ago and where we are heading. What is the trajectory of where
this government's financial plan is headed? I believe the
Minister of Finance has the trajectory going the right way.
Very few Canadians realize that one of the things we have had to
do in order to create an economic climate that would cause
businesses to invest in Canada and those businesses here to
further invest was create a climate of stability, a climate where
those jobs that have been created in the last few years, almost a
million and a half, would remain.
1550
That does not happen unless the expenditure plan of this
government came under some control. Quite frankly I am surprised
that the Reform Party does not take credit for this. The reality
is that because of the pressure of Reform in the last six years
in my humble opinion the cuts around here have been so drastic in
so many areas. This was done all in the name of putting the
fiscal framework of this country back together. I think quite
frankly that we have gone in many cases away too far with the
fiscal discipline in this place.
In this budget we are just beginning to see a return to a
sensitivity toward some of those things that really built this
nation. We are beginning to replenish the health care system in
this country.
By the way, I say quite openly, I still think we have a long way
to go. The reality is we had to do it in the context where at
the same time we could keep the economic confidence of this
country moving forward. We all know how fragile economic
confidence is. I think the Minister of Finance has been faced
with a very tough balancing act. He has had to get that
trajectory of fiscal responsibility going the right way but at
the same time we all know that average Canadians, low income
Canadians and seniors have carried an awful lot of economic pain
on their backs.
As I said earlier in my remarks, today is the day when we should
be dealing in some hope. The member for Calgary Southeast should
have stood here today and acknowledged the fact that the fiscal
framework was heading in the right direction.
I agree with the member for Calgary Southeast when it comes to
comprehensive tax reform. I totally agree. I think this is one
issue for parliamentarians in all parties. The separatists have
already said in committee if they ever did become a separate
country the first thing they would do is have comprehensive tax
reform. I believe the economy is going so well now, even though
there are better times still needed, that separatism is almost
dead.
I spent last week in Quebec City and it is hard to find a
separatist. They are all coming home. They are all coming back
to the reality that Canada is a much better place whole than
divided. That to me comes from an economic climate that is
improving.
I stand in the House today satisfied that we are heading in the
right direction. Do we have to do more? Yes. We have to do a
lot more, especially in Atlantic Canada. We have too many young
people in Atlantic Canada who have absolutely no work and there
does not seem to be any opportunity for work.
I know the Reform Party calls it, not patronage, but pork
barrelling. I would be proud to push, press, prod the Minister of
Industry to move some of that innovation money to Atlantic Canada
where those highly educated young Atlantic Canadians could get
involved in computer programming, creativity, computer
manufacturing and become a leadership section of Canada in the
whole realm of information technology. Would I take $1 billion
and move it to Atlantic Canada and reinforce that sector out of
the information technology fund, the knowledge based fund? I
would do it in a second.
I know the Reform Party calls that pork barrelling. I do not
call it pork barrelling when we see a region of this country that
needs extraordinary help because its natural resource fell away
from it through no fault of its own. That is what I would do
about that problem of youth unemployment in Atlantic Canada.
1555
I say to the members across the way that we still have a long
way to go, but the fact of the matter is we are seeing all kinds
of hope right now. The fiscal framework is moving in the right
direction. The health plan is being replenished. There are
actually little sparks of hope for comprehensive tax reform in
this budget. There was at least an attempt by the Minister of
Finance to get lower income Canadians off the tax rolls. It did
not go far enough in my opinion, but those are the kinds of
things that a constructive opposition would acknowledge and then
complement with some specific ideas of its own.
So far here today I can honestly say that all I have heard have
been dealers in gloom. That is not leadership. They should be
dealers in hope and they failed that test today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There seems to be a
lot of interest in questions and comments, so we will keep our
questions and comments to one minute on the question and one
minute on the response.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the hope the member talks about should be the hope
of the millions of Canadians who have been driven into the ground
by the oppressive tax regime of this Liberal government. That is
the hope the Reform Party holds out for Canadians, that some day
when this government is replaced by a fiscally responsible
government, by a government that recognizes the hard work and the
sacrifice made by hardworking Canadians, we will give them the
tax relief this government will not.
We want to talk not in rhetoric as the previous members did but
in facts. Let us look at the Liberal record since 1993.
Since 1993 the average working Canadian has seen his paycheque
decrease by over $2,200 in increased taxes, increased taxes per
Canadian worker.
The average Canadian household has seen a decrease in disposable
income by over $4,000. That is over $4,000 that families cannot
spend on food and clothing and education, let alone try to save
any money.
We have also seen the overall taxes increased by this government
by 40—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Broadview—Greenwood.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, it is not rhetoric. I
say this humbly to Canadians that we came to the responsibility,
the trust for this government with 11.4% unemployment and it has
been reduced to 7.8%.
There has been a cost to Canadians to create that economic
climate to maintain jobs, plus the 1.5 million that had been
created. There has been a cost. The member is right. I have
acknowledged that he is right. One of the single biggest issues
that we have to face as a whole parliament is comprehensive tax
reform. In the process of getting there, do not knock the hope
that we are moving in the right direction. That is a very
principal point.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a
little under a year ago, during a question period in the House,
the then leader of the Conservative Party, Jean Charest, today
the ally of the member for Broadview—Greenwood, said that any
problems in health care and in Canada's hospitals were the fault
of the Prime Minister of Canada.
Does the member for Broadview—Greenwood realize that, since the
Liberal Party has been in office, it has cut $41 million in
health care alone in the Chaudière—Appalaches? The Eastern
Townships region, where the riding of my colleague, the member
for Sherbrooke, is located, has also been cut $41 million.
1600
For the Lac-Mégantic hospital, this represents $1.8 million; for
the Asbestos Region hospital, it represents $8.7 million; and
for Bernierville's Saint-Julien hospital, it represents $5.6
million. The Liberals are the ones responsible for the mess in
the health care system.
Since the Liberal Party came to office, it has cut no less than
$33 billion in health care, up to the year 2003. Is that cause
for hope?
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is the party
of hope. The Bloc Quebecois is the party of despair.
[English]
We know very well what our challenge is in Quebec. Our
challenge is to show Quebeckers that it is better to be a part of
the whole of Canada than trying to fight and be an island alone
by itself.
After spending the last week in Quebec I can say to members
opposite that their joust about being separate from Canada is
over. I talked to hundreds of Quebeckers last week and
separatism is dead, and sovereignty association is not far away
from being dead.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have a lot of respect for this member as the most outspoken
advocate of comprehensive tax reform in this place, but I want to
ask the member to be honest with us.
He says that he is satisfied with this tiny, little increase in
the basic personal exemption when what we continue to see in
budget after budget are more loopholes, more complexity, more
compliance costs and a more Byzantine tax code year after year.
Does he not think it is time we started—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Broadview—Greenwood.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, the day the member for
Calgary Southeast was elected to this Chamber I actually
celebrated his victory because I thought from day one that when
he got here he would press all of us to get into comprehensive
tax reform.
He should have been doing that three months before the budget.
Instead we played around with pepper spray and gossipy
conversations on airplanes.
I pray that this member, who understands tax reform better than
all of us put together, will make it his personal mission in the
next six months that we get on to comprehensive tax reform so
that it is part of the next budget.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Broadview—Greenwood
who has been a seatmate of mine for 11 years now. Since we
entered this debate some 11 years ago a lot of changes have
occurred.
I know that the member for Calgary Southeast is quite new to
this place, so he may have forgotten who he used to vote for
before the Reform Party came along. I am sure he would like to
tell us sometime who he used to vote for before he decided to
create his own party. Now he is going to try to create another
one because he is not happy with the one he has.
I am a little disturbed that he cannot seem to get his parties
right, but he does know that the party he voted for when I was in
opposition with my colleagues here on that side was a government
that racked up a huge deficit.
When we first got to this place some 11 years ago, as the member
for Broadview—Greenwood said, Canadians had absolutely no hope.
Everywhere I went in Kenora—Rainy River, one of the largest
rural ridings in Canada, probably one of the largest pieces of
geography for one member to represent in all of North America,
everyone was very down and out and very depressed about where we
were going as a country. I can understand why because there were
no choices, no options.
Last year was the first time in my voting life that I voted for
a government that had a balanced budget. Imagine that. I am not
exactly a young man, but the fact remains that I have never voted
for a government that had a balanced budget.
1605
What did the pundits say last year? Not much. They had a real
tough time saying congratulations to the Canadian government for
starting to get its fiscal house in order and starting to show
some understanding of how the country should be run.
This year we had a second balanced budget. Of course the right
wing pundits were out there saying “That is not good enough. You
have got two balanced budgets for the first time in 50 years, but
you have got to start getting your act together. The country is
going to fall apart because you did not cut enough, you did not
do enough in debt reduction and you are starting to spend
money”.
Here are the criticisms that I have heard so far about the
budget. This is a very telling tale. The criticism of this
budget is that we did not spend enough on health care, we did not
cut taxes enough and we did not reduce the debt enough. That is
the kind of criticism that I think is exceptionally well placed
because when I first got here these debates did not occur. We
were so confused as a country, wondering whether we were ever
going to get out of the quagmire we were in, that we could not
even criticize how much debt we paid down or how big a tax cut we
would have. We were wondering whether we were going to be a
third world country soon because of what we were doing.
Now we are at the point where we can see some hope. Canadians
are showing that. We are having debates now, serious debates
about where we are going. The fact is that we have balanced
budgets.
We now have a discussion about the fact that unemployment has
gone from 11.4% to 7.8%. When we first got here, if unemployment
had been at 7.8%, we would have been dancing in the streets. Now
we are being criticized that that is not good enough because the
Americans have 4.5% unemployment.
I think that is a great debate because my riding is a big rural
riding. I wish my friend from Prince George—Bulkley Valley was
here because, quite frankly, I am quite concerned about this
whole debate of tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts over there from
rural members of the Reform.
One of the parts that interests me about the budget is the
flexibility to build a nation. Where I come from building a
nation means building infrastructure. Without government there
would be no infrastructure. We can bet in Kenora—Rainy River,
where three-quarters of my riding has absolutely no roads, no
infrastructure at all, that that is a great potential for the
future of our young generation. If we keep talking only about
how much tax we have, are we ever going to get to building a
nation? That is what I want to do in rural parts of Canada.
I would like to spend billions of dollars on a national highway
program, a national infrastructure program part two, so that we
can start putting money where it really belongs so our kids will
have a future.
If I had my way I would rather pay the debt down than make tax
cuts because I have no sense of urgency to help Conrad Black who
is one of the people responsible for the big taxes and the big
debt we have in this country. It was his newspapers that were
all supporting of Mulroney and his crew when they kept racking it
up and up.
I understand why members of the Reform Party jumped ship. I
would have jumped ship too if I had to sit there every day and
try to explain as a right winger why somebody who was supposedly
right wing could not get their fiscal house in order.
The next issue really is the future. We have been through the
past as opposition members. We have now seen our government,
since 1993, go from a $42 billion deficit down to balanced
budgets, with a commitment for two more. We are now entering
into a very key time in our country's development.
As I said to the electorate of Kenora—Rainy River in 1993 when
I ran for the second time, I see this as a ten year program. It
is going to take us one term to clean up the mess. It is going
to take us another term to start to build a nation. We are now
doing that. We are basically going on our seventh year. I think
it is important now that the debate start to get away from the
nonsense of whether there is a little scandal here in the shower
or whether there is APEC or whether there is this or that. I
think we need to start talking about where we want this country
to go.
Let me give members an example of what I mean. One of the
issues that I have discussed with the Minister of Health is the
issue of rural health. Some people in this place talk about
lineups. Some people talk about emergency procedures.
Where I come from we have neither. We do not have lineups
because we do not have hospitals. We do not have emergency
procedures because we do not have doctors. This is not about
rich and poor, this is about rural and urban. We need a national
rural health care plan in Canada. The $50 million that the
minister put in was all based on rural caucus asking this
government to start recognizing the needs of rural Canada and
ways that we could treat rural Canada differently because of the
geography that we live in.
1610
I was quite amazed that my colleague from Prince George—Peace
River would even suggest that his main priority as a rural
Canadian is to have tax cuts. I was in his riding two years ago.
His infrastucture needs and his abilities to create an economy
are the same as mine. He is a long way from getting where he
wants to go.
Let us start talking about hope. Hope is the ability of
governments to have flexibility. It is the ability of
governments to decide what their priorities are.
We know where the Reform Party is at. It is at the point where
it says it needs to recreate itself because it is not getting to
where Canadians want it to be as a good alterative because it
does not reflect the values of Canadians. Perhaps Reform members
should think twice about why there are certain little areas that
they are plugging into and start thinking about the huge picture,
the vision of the nation as a whole. Then they would become a
good alternative to this government if it got off track. But so
far it has been on track.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Never an alternative.
Mr. Robert D. Nault: The lone Tory who is here says
never. I am not too worried about that, quite frankly. But I
really think that the government itself needs to be pushed on the
vision of what Canada should look like.
We are having to do it ourselves internally because Reform
members spend their time trying to figure out: “Here is one
couple, they get this. Here is another couple, they get that”.
Can we imagine what the people at home are thinking? They just
do not get it.
Let us get real. Let us get serious about why they are in
opposition. I really would like to see them focus on the issues
that Canadians put them there for.
The thing that is important to me is the vision of the Liberal
Party. I have urged the ministers involved, now that we have our
fiscal house in order, to put together the vision for the new
millennium. Our vision is going to carry us for about 50 years
if it is a good vision, as the visions of past generations have
done.
I think the Minister of Finance has done an excellent job of
starting that process, of putting us in line to have this great
debate. I look forward to the debate. I look forward to the
different visions because in the end Canadians will decide. So
far they have bought the Liberal Party's vision and have said to
the other parties “No thanks. We don't agree with you. We
think you are way off base”.
Let us get into the next phase. The next few budgets will
really define where we go as Canadians.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this member says that Canadians have bought into this
government's vision. Let me remind him of one thing. This
government won 100% of the power in the last election with 38% of
the vote. The lowest plurality in Canadian history resulted in a
majority government. It lost the election in eight of the ten
provinces and it won 101 of the 103 seats in Ontario with less
than half of the vote. If that is Canadians buying into this
vision, then I would like to see what he really means.
The member suggested that I was voting for the Tory government
before I became a Reform MP. I can advise him that I was on the
national policy committee of the Liberal Party of Canada as a
supporter of John Turner because I was disgusted with the fiscal
irresponsibility of the then Tory government. I became equally
disgusted with the fiscal irresponsibility of this Liberal
government. That is why I came to Reform.
This member then tells us that Conrad Black is to blame for the
deficit. He did not own any Canadian papers back in those days.
I wish he—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Kenora—Rainy River.
Mr. Robert D. Nault: Mr. Speaker, I was not blaming
Conrad Black. I was just suggesting to the folks who are writing
the articles in the National Post that they should be a
little more in depth.
1615
One of the people I like is an editorial writer by the name of
Mr. Fisher. Everybody knows that when we read the columns by the
dean of the writers around this place, there is some research to
them. But when we read the National Post we get the sense
that if we just cut taxes, everything would be happy around here.
I only wanted to make it clear to the member that I understand
he had to jump parties in order to get elected. God bless him,
he is here. But I do not think he has made much of a difference
or a dint so far. Do not blame Ontario, which is a large portion
of the Canadian population, that they voted for one party
massively because they could not buy into the nonsense of the
Reform Party.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I find it kind of funny that the two members
opposite would talk about a common theme, namely hope. These are
two government members who have contributed to killing hope.
The first one, the member for Broadview—Greenwood, said there
were few separatists left in Quebec. I would like to reassure
him. Perhaps he did not go to the right places. I will introduce
him to some. I can also assure him that we can manage our own
affairs and chew gum at the same time.
I have a question for the last member who spoke, because he
played a role in the employment insurance reform.
If the government wants to give people hope, it ought to see to
it that they have food on the table, as the hon. member for
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac often points out.
You should look at what your government is doing in its budget
to restore hope in the fisheries, which comes under its
jurisdiction, particularly as regards the issue of catches.
Instead of interfereing in a jurisdiction that is not yours,
namely health, what did you do?
[English]
And what do we have in answer to the fishermen from Newfoundland
now? What can we do for them? What kind of hope can they have?
If the member can answer that, the fishermen in Gaspé will
understand.
Mr. Robert D. Nault: Mr. Speaker, yes I did speak of hope
and I am a supporter of the EI reforms that were made and this is
why. There was a necessity in this country to deal with
behavioural change. I do not for a minute think it is acceptable
for members of parliament to suggest to their electorate that it
is okay to be on unemployment insurance, that it is a good thing
to be on unemployment insurance, that people can work for two or
three months a year in the fishery and then spend the rest of the
year on EI and say that that is good enough.
The whole objective of EI reform was to bring in behavioural
change so people would say to themselves “Maybe now that my
children are growing up I may not be able to do anything about it
but maybe I can move them into industries where there is more
potential”. We will be proactive enough. That is why we have
the regional development programs in Quebec, ACOA in Atlantic
Canada, WED in the west, FedNor in Ontario. The whole objective
is to help people. That is what this is all about.
Let me remind the member that the federation has given Quebec $8
billion to $10 billion more than it gives back to the federation.
This country is working because it is sharing its resources to
help have not regions. I do not think the separatists are going
to get away with this continued—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for
Brandon—Souris has 30 seconds with a 30 second response.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
takes me longer than that to clear my throat.
I was all caught up in this visionary concept that the member
for Rainy River and the Liberal Party bring to this country.
However, I was not quite that caught up with it because one of
the parts of their vision was to rip up the free trade deal that
was put in place by a previous government. A part of their vision
obviously is to put health care back to 1995 levels. Is that the
part of the vision the member from the Liberal Party embraces, to
scrap the free trade agreement and bring health care back to the
1995 level where we should be well ahead of it in the year 2003?
Mr. Robert D. Nault: Mr. Speaker, in 1993 we did not run
to scrap the free trade agreement; it was the election before
that. I know the member was probably busy running Brandon so he
did not have time to keep an eye on it. In 1993 we ran on the
fact that we needed to make some improvements to the free trade
agreement and that is exactly what we did. But let me tell the
member very quickly that $42 billion are 42 billion reasons why
there are very few of those members left on that side.
1620
I sat over there when the Tories sat over here. Day after day we
tried to warn them about what was going on in the countryside.
Day after day they kept increasing this front bench. There were
over 40 cabinet members all looking for cash. No wonder we were
in such big trouble. That is the kind—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Questions and
comments, the hon. member for Wild Rose, 30 seconds.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
the hon. member talks about 7.5% unemployment, why does he never
talk about the 70%, 80% and 90% unemployment in the aboriginal
communities? Why do the Liberals not mention that?
Why do the Liberals not talk about the poverty of children?
There were a million children in poverty when this government
came to power and now there are a million and a half. Why do the
Liberals not do something about that? They should sell their
Challenger jets and give the money to the Children's Aid Society.
Quit giving away free flags. The Liberals should start thinking
about the dumb things they are doing with money. They never talk
about the dumb things they do. They should start mentioning a
few of those things. Look at the public accounts.
Mr. Robert D. Nault: Mr. Speaker, let me make it very
clear to the member, I represent 51 first nations so I do not
need a lecture from him on the needs of aboriginal people. I
have forgotten more about aboriginal policy and politics than he
will ever know.
If the member really cared about aboriginal people, he would
start by supporting C-49. C-49 which we voted on yesterday is a
good move for economic development to get people out of poverty
in those first nations. What does he do? He plays the game of
oh, there are a couple of women who are going to be upset about
this, or they might have some rights that the municipalities or
provinces already take for granted so we cannot do that because
natives are not capable of looking after themselves.
From my experience with the first nations communities that I
represent, if we keep on the track that this government has set
out to build a partnership, we will see the unemployment rates in
those communities go down. If they take on the municipal vision
of the Reform Party, they will go backward. That is why there is
not one aboriginal in my region who will ever vote Reform as long
as the party is around.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
pleasure and a great deal of interest to be sure that I rise
today to participate in the budget debate in this House.
True to form, the Liberal government has once again tried to
convince the public that it is the grand champion as far as
money management is concerned. I have some doubts about this,
and I would like to demonstrate that this is, in fact, a vast
coverup operation to justify the directions being taken by a
government that never stops meddling in areas that do not belong
to it.
First of all, the ones really responsible for balancing the
budget, the ones that merit congratulation, are the people of
Canada.
The Minister of Finance may well take advantage of any and all
opportunities to tell people that he has worked miracles with
Canada's finances, but we are nobody's fool. Everyone knows
very well that it is the middle class taxpayers and the
unemployed who have done the job, the people who keep seeing a
bigger and bigger chunk of their paycheques disappear, not the
Minister of Finance.
On a first examination of this year's budget, it would be easy
to buy into the minister's announcement that he will be reducing
the cuts by $9 billion over the next three years, to $33 billion
rather than $42 billion. Nevertheless, these are still cuts
imposed on the provinces, and there is no cause for celebration.
However, things are not all that rosy, for roses have thorns.
The Liberal government is taking advantage of the awkward
situation in which it has placed the provinces to force a whole
new round of interference on them in exchange for a certain
increase in transfers. After depriving the provinces of
billions of dollars for health care, the Liberals want to spend
hundreds of millions in statistics and on paper.
This Minister of Finance has nothing to crow about because, as
the auditor general pointed out in his report last April, he
does not meet accounting standards and juggles financial
statements to achieve his ends.
1625
Since 1994, the Liberal government has been making bigger and
bigger mistakes in its deficit and surplus forecasts. In the
1999 budget, the Minister of Finance continues his juggling,
despite the warnings of the auditor general.
We in the Bloc Quebecois have revealed the real figures. While
the Minister of Finance is predicting no surpluses for the next
three fiscal years, we can say that the reality of the matter
will be quite different. For 1999-2000, surpluses should be on
the order of $15 billion, whereas for 2000-01, they will be
around $20 billion.
That having been said, although the Minister of Finance had
ample funds to introduce intelligent measures in response to the
terrible job, health and poverty problems, he chose not to.
Since 1994, there is no doubt that the public has paid dearly
for the terrible cuts in health, education and social
assistance. Unemployed workers saw their EI benefits drop or
disappear entirely because of tighter eligibility criteria. And
I will not mention the recovery quotas imposed by the Minister
of Human Resources Development on his employees.
All these sacrifices generated several billions of dollars for
the EI fund and it is these surpluses in part that were used to
lower the deficit.
When we know that the government has not put one red cent into
the EI fund since 1990, that the fund is growing at the
astonishing rate of $2.5 million an hour, and that six persons
in ten do not qualify for benefits, it is simply scandalous to
see the Minister of Finance dipping into the fund whenever he
wants.
The economy in the Sherbrooke region is down $23 million since
the reform. Another thing to consider when looking for who is
really behind the reduced deficit is the increase in government
revenues. It is the taxpayers who, since 1994, have enabled the
government to increase its revenues by contributing 56% of the
increase in tax revenues and 14% through the GST, which, by the
way, the Liberals promised to scrap in 1993.
At the end of 1993-94, when the Liberal government took office,
Quebeckers and Canadians paid $51.4 billion in personal income
taxes. By the end of the year 1999-2000, they will be paying $75
billion per year. This is an increase of $24 billion or 46%, and
it amounts to $654 per capita.
The budget did not change anything. Quebeckers and Canadians are
always paying more for less. Once again, the government is
collecting money from ordinary people. Even if salares increase
from year to year, the mere fact that the government has not
indexed tax rates and tax credits since 1986 means that people
have less money in their pockets.
Take the case of a person who, in 1986, had two children and was
earning $25,800. Because of the cost of living increase, that
person's salary was $35,400 in 1996.
However, this does not mean that person is earning more. First,
the fact that the tax on the additional income was not indexed
means that the person now has $3,790 less in disposable income
than in 1986. Also, since the GST credit was not indexed,
another $944 is gone. Then, because the federal family allowance
was not indexed, another $544 has disappeared. Non-indexation of
the child tax benefit means an additional shortfall of $602.
Finally, we must take into account the child benefit, which
still existed in 1986 and which represents a further drop of
$1,157.
1630
I did the calculations and a person who earned $25,800 in 1986
and who is now making $35,400 has $7,047 less than in 1986. So,
under this federal system, a middle class worker must constantly
pay but is always getting less for his money.
We would have expected the minister to use the surpluses to
tackle urgent issues, such as job creation, the fight against
poverty and the funding of social programs, which he, along with
his colleagues, dismantled. But no. True to himself, the
Minister of Finance chose instead to help the wealthiest people
in our society.
Furthermore, the government is wasting billions of dollars in
inadequate and mismanaged programs. We need only think of the
grants and contributions it makes through various departments
such as Industry Canada or Heritage Canada, without any follow-up
to show that our friends opposite are incapable of properly
managing public funds.
Another example of the Liberal government's laxness are the
renovations to the buildings on Parliament Hill, which will cost
Quebec and Canadian taxpayers $1.4 billion. A fine priority
when we consider all the problems in society.
I could go on at length about the irregularities the Liberal
government allows to go on, but the list is too long. I will
have the opportunity to come back to it and unmask the guilty.
And I will do just that.
I will return to those that the millionaire Minister of Finance
has looked after in his budget, that is, society's most well
off. The minister, in his magnanimity, has chosen to eliminate
the 3% surtax on those with incomes over $60,000. This means
that someone earning $250,000 will be entitled to $3,800 in tax
savings this year. People earning $120,000 will get about $700,
whereas taxpayers with an average income of $50,000 will save
only $350.
The majority of people, who earn on average only $30,000, will
save a meagre $90. The minister is far from fair.
This sixth budget of the Minister of Finance will go down in
history, because the people of Quebec will long remember the
bitter taste it left them. This year's budget is an insult to
the people of Quebec.
All the Minister of Finance has accomplished with his many
cavalier measures is to show the public what really lies behind
the masks of the Liberal cabinet members from Quebec.
How can these federal ministers from Quebec claim to represent
their constituents? I wonder, because what they have allowed to
happen is unacceptable. Why did these people stand by while
Quebec was once again given the short end?
The infamous social union agreement that the Prime Minister and
his sidekick the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs tried to
get the Government of Quebec to endorse is completely
ridiculous. Although Quebec did not sign the agreement, the
Minister of Finance used this piece of paper to amend the
already tenuous balance of the social transfer formula as he
wished and with no advance warning.
This government decided unilaterally that it would change the
rules of the game this year. In the past, federal transfer
payments for health were based on a traditional formula, but
now, without warning, it has been decided that population will
be the criterion.
Not surprisingly, the result of these changes is that the
richest provinces will now suddenly get the biggest slice of the
federal transfer pie. No wonder the Premier of Quebec found
himself on his own at the February 4 first ministers meeting.
The government had just negotiated an agreement, to his
detriment, with Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta that would
mean a big pay-off for them.
It is clearer now why these three provinces were such staunch
defenders of the social union. For the upcoming fiscal year,
Ontario will get $1 billion of the CHST, British Columbia $400
million and Albert $300 million. What will Quebec get? A
paltry $150 million. It is ridiculous.
1635
The Minister of Finance would have us believe that Quebec is
benefiting from the federal government's generosity through
equalization. I remind the minister that the equalization
program has been in place for a long time and that its purpose
is to give provincial governments adequate revenues to enable
them to provide public services at reasonably comparable quality
and tax levels.
The $1.4 billion that the federal government is sending to
Quebec was owed to us, because the calculations for previous
years were erroneous. The federal government is sending $1.4
billion after depriving us of $6.5 billion since 1994. I say the
minister could have done better, much better.
And members should not try to tell me that we are getting more
than our fair share. Since 1994, 39% of the cuts made by the
Minister of Finance to social transfers have affected Quebec,
compared to only 32% in the case of Ontario. Once again, the
Minister of Finance does not seem very fair.
But the real issue is why these equalization payments are made
to us, and not to other provinces, such as Ontario. The answer
is simple: it is because Quebec's economy is weaker than the
economy in Ontario, which has always enjoyed preferential
treatment on the part of the federal government. If Quebec got
its fair share of federal investments, it would more than likely
not receive equalization payments.
As we know, Quebec is only getting 20% of the federal
government's current spending in goods and services, only 18% of
the federal funding to businesses, and only 14% of the federal
money invested in research and development. I would be remiss if
I did not also mention the $2 billion the federal government
owes to Quebec for harmonizing the GST. Members can imagine the
difference all these billions could make in Quebec.
The reason I said this budget would go down in history is
simple: this budget is the last straw when it comes to the
arrogance displayed by the federal government toward Quebec.
After intruding in education last year with its millennium
scholarships, this government is doing the same thing again this
year in health.
Ottawa will therefore be injecting $1.4 billion into health,
although this is still a provincial jurisdiction. What
conclusion can one come to about such measures, which do nothing
but duplicate services Quebec is already offering to the
population? What a fine waste of time, money and energy.
Having cut billions of dollars from transfer payments, having
smothered the provinces, which were already busy tidying up
their own finances. and did not need any additional burden, and
having provoked an unprecedented crisis in the health field, the
Minister of Finance and his colleague the Minister of Health
have piled arrogance on top of arrogance, by imposing their
views upon the health sector.
This budget contains in particular $328 million for health
information systems. However, I would like to know how such a
measure will make it possible to shorten the waiting time in our
constantly overburdened emergency departments.
Creation of the national health surveillance network with its
budget of $190 million over the next three years, is another
example of inappropriate and pointless spending, for such a
network dealing with the detection of serious illnesses and the
electronic linking of Canadian laboratories will not respond to
the real and crying needs of the health care system in Quebec.
Creation of the Canada health network, telehealth and
telehomecare are other measures dreamed up by the federal
government to create still more administrative structures it can
control from Ottawa. People will understand that this is
obviously part of the Liberal plan to satisfy their unquenchable
thirst for visibility.
The Canadian institute for health information is another
institution that will receive funds to report periodically on
the health of Canadians and their health system, specifically on
waiting lists, and the doctors and specialist assignments and
the most effective courses of treatment.
According to the federal government, this funding will promote a
better accounting of health care. While all the provinces
rejected the annual health care report card, the government is
doing indirectly what it cannot do directly under the
Constitution.
1640
Another example of what the federal government has come up with
to waste public money, and we know it does not lack for ideas in
this area, is the famous research and evaluation fund for
nursing staff, which will conduct research in the amount of $25
million over the next ten years to, among other things, come up
with solutions to the challenges to nursing staff in the coming
decade. But what exactly does this have to do with the federal
government, I wonder?
Finally, we can add to this dismal list of federal interference
the amount of $75 million to be spent over the next three years
on prenatal nutrition programs, and the $50 million, again over
the next three years, to find ways to attract doctors to rural
areas.
After thoroughly reviewing the budget, it is clear to me that
the Minister of Finance is trying to make us believe that this
is a budget that is fair to all Quebeckers and Canadians.
However, this is not the case.
This budget is a gift to the privileged in our society, whether
they are individuals or rich provinces, at the expense of the
unemployed and the poor. Moreover, as members will have noticed,
the Liberal government is doing something with this budget that
it has no right to do, that is to ignore the Constitution and
once again get involved in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Quebeckers are no fools. Our determination to take control our
own destiny is strengthened when we see the real nature of the
federal government.
Earlier, the member for Broadview—Greenwood said he did not think
there were many separatists in Quebec any more. He is right.
There are not many separatists in Quebec, but there are more and
more sovereignists, particularly as a result of the Liberal
government's budget.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): 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 Acadie—Bathurst, Employment; the hon. member for
Delta—South Richmond, Fisheries; the hon. member for Winnipeg
North Centre, National Defence.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my colleague from the Bloc for his speech and have a
question that has to do with the social union.
Actually it has to do with the health care expenditures the
government made in the budget which were nowhere near what it
took out. Nevertheless it did put some back in. It also has to
do with the fact that Quebec did not sign the social union. I
think the reason it refused to sign the social union was a good
one. The reason it refused to sign was that the federal
government refused to give up any of its authority which under
the Constitution does not really belong to it.
The federal government keeps asserting its spending power and in
so doing effectively blackmails the provinces into accepting
money that initially comes from people in the provinces. If a
province did not accept the money it would simply go to another
province. We are in a situation where effectively the provinces
have to accept the rules of the federal government or they will
be denied money and will not be doing the job that they should be
doing for their constituents.
Would my colleague from the Bloc agree with that analysis and
that it is time for a more co-operative approach to dealing with
programs like health care that fall into provincial jurisdiction?
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Cardin: Mr. Speaker, indeed the Government of Quebec,
which did not sign the social union agreement along with the
other provinces, was soundly punished for this. According to
the federal budget, social transfers are made on a per capita
basis, but if one looks at the reality, there is $150 million
for Quebec and about $900 million for Ontario.
Doing the math, this must mean Ontario has a population of some
42 million, since Quebec has approximately 7 million. So it can
already been seen that, where the social transfer is concerned,
and they speak of payments according to population, the figures
do not balance out.
Health is a provincial area of jurisdiction. It is one Quebec
is capable of managing properly.
While Quebec, and a number of other provinces, were concluding
that health reform was necessary, the federal government was
brutally slashing health funding, which pretty well hamstrung
all the efforts the provinces and Quebec were putting into
health.
1645
Now, with all these surpluses in its coffers, the federal
government is trying to interfere in all manner of areas in
which it has no business, seeking any excuse, seeking to justify
its existence. As far as I am concerned, however, the federal
government no longer has any reason to exist.
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very happy to rise to take part in this budget
debate, however sad that example of the Reform from Alberta
cozying up to the separatists may have made me. It is surprising
that the comparison the Bloc did not make was to the fair share
that Alberta received in this budget as well which was so warmly
received by Mr. Klein.
[Translation]
Under the leadership of our Prime Minister, the federal
government has now created conditions where Canadians can be
optimistic about the future. After years of difficult choices,
the finances of the nation are now solid and the government can
act on those things that matter to Canadians.
By far the greatest priority for Canadians is the strength of
our public health care system. Over the next five years, an
additional $11.5 billion will be transferred to the provinces to
be used in meeting the health care standards that Canadians have
a right to expect.
In my own province of Ontario, an increase of almost $4.4
billion will go into health care.
[English]
Health care is an obvious element of our quality of life and our
quality of life is clearly dependent on our standard of living.
The question is how can we maintain or, better still, how can we
improve our living standards in Canada?
Since 1987 we have done okay. Our standard of living has grown
by 7%. However, when we look at our American neighbours we see
that in the same time they have increased their standard of
living by 17%.
To understand why this has happened we need to look at the
productivity growth rates that we have realized in Canada over
that period of time. Productivity, the measure of the efficiency
with which people, capital, resources and ideas are combined, is
the most important determinant of our standard of living.
Unfortunately over the last 25 years Canada has had the lowest
rate of productivity growth in the G-7.
If productivity in Canada had grown by 1.2% per year faster,
which is the gap between the average U.S. and Canadian growth
rates, our per capita income would have been $7,000 per year
higher than it is.
It is no wonder that last fall the finance committee of this
House warned that the slower rate of productivity growth is a
cause for real concern for Canadians.
[Translation]
According to an Ekos survey, 82% of Canadians believe that
increasing Canada's economic productivity is essential to
improving our standard of living. Canadians understand the
challenge. With time and a concerted effort, the government and
the private sector acting in partnership can make sure that all
Canadians see an increase in their wealth.
We have a strong foundation from which we can work. The broad
economic conditions of the country are coming together. Last
year this government recorded the first budgetary surplus in 28
years. Our inflation rate has been the lowest in more than a
generation and interest rates are low.
And on the employment front, Canada is creating jobs at a rate
unequalled in the G-7.
[English]
Canadians have demonstrated that when they put their minds to a
task, as they did to eliminating the deficit, they can achieve
their goals. This aptitude will stand us in good stead for the
productivity challenge to which we must now turn our minds.
In terms of the nation's accumulated debt, first of all, the
government acknowledges that debt is simply too large. The
Minister of Finance has confirmed that we will make greater and
greater inroads on the debt and in this fiscal year alone the
debt to GDP ratio should drop to 65.3%.
In the last two years we have seen the retirement of $20 billion
of market debt.
1650
Second, Canada's overall tax burden ranks about the average
among the G-7, but the reality is that it is higher than that in
the United States which is our major competitor. In the budget
the government set out its plan for tax relief, that it needs to
be fair, it needs to be focused on the individual and it needs to
be sustainable or permanent. Taken together, the 1998 and 1999
budgets provide tax relief totalling $16.5 billion over three
years.
Third, stronger productivity growth will require stronger
business investment in technology, machinery and equipment.
Four, we need more foreign investment in Canada because it can
bring new technology and ideas.
[Translation]
Fifth, Canadians must take more chances, innovate more often and
bring our ideas to market. The government's decision to invest
an additional $50 million in technology partnerships Canada
signals that we understand innovation is a strong determinant of
productivity growth.
Still though, Canada's private sector spends less on research
and development as a share of its GDP, despite our more generous
R&D; tax incentives. Fewer than 1% of Canadian firms perform any
R&D.;
Moreover, not enough Canadian ideas are commercialized in
Canada.
Sixth, while the World Economic Forum ranks Canada first in
knowledge workers, we are not following through with on the job
training.
Seventh, our exports are concentrated in too few firms.
Taken together, training, trade and R&D;, the World Economic
Forum ranks Canadian businesses as 15th in terms of company
operations and strategy. And that ranking is dependent on too
few firms.
The government started down the productivity path with a program
called “Building a More Innovative Economy” in 1994 and has
broadened its strategy with the last federal budget.
In 1997, the Canada Foundation for Innovation was created with
an $800 million dollar investment from the federal government.
The foundation's mandate is to fund new and modernized research
infrastructure. This budget will increase that investment by an
additional $200 million.
[English]
To ensure that our research infrastructure is fully utilized by
the brightest minds in the country the government has further
increased its total support to the research granting councils and
to the National Research Council by more than $120 million. We
are accelerating our efforts to disseminate knowledge. The
budget will broaden access to the information highway with $60
million for the smart communities demonstration projects. Our
networks of centres of excellence have brought together the best
of our brains in a uniquely Canadians way that creates ideas like
sparks off a flint. I want to see those sparks ignite and blaze
in as many productive paths as possible.
That is why the government has invested an additional $90
million in the networks of centres of excellence. Moreover, by
investing an additional $430 million over the next three years in
the Canadian Space Agency and thereafter stabilizing its annual
budget of $300 million, the government has determined that
Canadians will participate in exploring the space frontier.
When Canadians compete with the best in the world we can win. We
can come out ahead. It happened in the automotive sector, the
pharmaceutical sector, the aerospace and biotechnology sectors.
Our investments in education, training and technology pay
important dividends in jobs and growth.
As we look to the 21st century we can pull that same resolve
together as a nation to address the productivity challenges that
are core to high quality accessible health care, a strong
educational system, second to none, a society that provides real
opportunities for youth and security for their parents and
grandparents.
1655
This budget is a further step in implementing the long term plan
that we began to set out in 1994. Success is a journey, not a
destination. With this budget, we continue our progress on the
road of success.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is a lot of
interest so we will ask everyone to keep their questions and
comments to one minute.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
quoted all sorts of figures the budget has miraculously put at
the service of the general public for industry, research and
technology. However, I would like to tell him about other
figures.
In 1992, there were 1,218,000 Canadian children living in
poverty. By 1996, that number had climbed to 1,481,000, an
increase of 263,000 since this government came to office.
In 1992, 564,000 people over 65 were living in poverty, compared
to 655,000 in 1996, that is 91,000 more.
In 1992, there were 991,000 families living in poverty, compared
to 1,230,000 in 1996, an increase of 239,000 since this
government took office. These figures are from the National
Council of Welfare, which is the government's advisory council.
The government may say that $300 million will be given through
the child tax benefit—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to interrupt,
but the hon. member's time has expired.
Hon. John Manley: Mr. Speaker, clearly, the hon. member is
ignoring the fact that we created over one and a half million
jobs since we were elected in 1993.
She is also ignoring, and this is part of the Bloc Quebecois'
philosophy, the creation of wealth. She is ignoring the
challenges of productivity. She thinks we can find solutions to
the problems by handing money around everywhere.
We must find the solution to creating wealth here in Canada.
This is how we intend to proceed, to create jobs, to achieve
success.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister went on and on about how productivity is a problem in
Canada. He is right. We do have a problem with being productive
and keeping up with the Americans.
The minister pointed out there has been job growth. He failed
to mention that it is part time job growth, the self-employed.
The Americans have produced all kinds of full time jobs but
Canada has not.
He went on and on about all the programs that he had initiated
and about all the spending they were going to do. Noticeably
absent from his speech was any emphasis at all on our record high
taxes.
Does the minister make the connection between record high taxes
and our lack of productivity? Does he still believe that high
taxes actually increase productivity like he said just before
Christmas?
Hon. John Manley: Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to hear
the errors of statement coming from the member for Medicine Hat.
Number one, of course I spoke about taxes. Perhaps he missed
that point of my speech. I said that they were higher than in
the United States. If taxes are the only issue with respect to
productivity, perhaps the hon. member for Medicine Hat can
explain why, with higher tax rates, countries like France and
Germany have achieved higher levels of productivity growth.
Goodness, that is hard to understand.
Second, what I do not understand about Reformers is that we hear
them every day saying they want more spending on health care,
more spending on crime control, more spending on defence. They
have a bigger list of more spending items than you can shake a
stick at.
At the same time, somehow or other they think we will pay down
the debt and lower taxes as well. I understand why they need to
start a new party. The arithmetic in their old party just does
not add up.
1700
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, would the
minister agree that the debt has been paid down on the backs of
unemployed workers and by means of the EI fund?
The minister gives wonderful statistics with respect to
unemployment, saying that it has gone from 11% to 7.8%. However,
the government never explains why there has been an increase in
the number of food banks in Canada and what the statistics on
them are now.
The government never tells us how many 25 and 30 year-olds are
obliged to continue to live with their parents and how their
parents have to support them.
These are the figures I would like the minister to give us, for
these are the figures that really count and that are on the
minds of Canadians.
[English]
Hon. John Manley: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing as
unreformed as a New Democrat from outside Ontario where they
never had to face the prospects of governing.
What underlies that question is a complete inability to do the
arithmetic which drove the country to the point of bankruptcy in
1993, led by the province of Ontario where the New Democrats for
five years spent their way into oblivion.
We have created the conditions by creating jobs, by seeing job
creation expand and by seeing people go back to work. There are
more people working in Canada today than at any time in our
entire history.
What the NDP needs to understand and what the member needs to
understand is that once we get to the basic problem of creating
prosperity in society, problems that are solved by getting people
to work, by increasing our productivity, by being competitive, by
contributing to the factors that make the quality of life here
the best in the world, we get to the source of the problems that
he wants to talk about. We cannot solve one without dealing with
the other.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister questioned everybody's arithmetic in the House today
except his own. He mentioned that the debt was going down, that
they had been paid it down by $20 million.
An hon. member: Billion.
Mr. Rick Casson: Yes, $20 billion. I apologize. I see
the dollar figure on the debt stays exactly the same for the next
three years; not one dollar less than it is this year.
How can he say there are $20 billion less of debt and in his own
books it is the same for the next three years? That is funny
arithmetic.
Hon. John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have
that question because if the hon. member does not understand it
probably a lot of Canadians have not understood as well that the
way we declare our deficits is a very cautious method. In other
words, we take into account all the accrued liabilities from
pensions which are not due in the current year. That means we
accrue debts that actually do not require us to outlay cash.
What I said is that over the last two years our market debt, in
other words what we have actually gone to the markets and
actually borrowed from the bankers of the world, has been reduced
by $20 billion. That is not small change in my books.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We are over time but
there seems to be an awful lot of interest in continuing.
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I raise on a point of
order. I think you would find unanimous consent to stretch
question and answer period for another 10 minutes for the
Minister of Industry.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for South
Surrey—White Rock—Langley has requested unanimous consent of
the House to extend the period of question and answers by 10
minutes. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to stand before you to share my thoughts on the budget delivered
by the Minister of Finance. You and I may share them alone, Sir;
no one else is paying any attention.
Over the next few minutes I will analyse a number of different
aspects of the budget. I will focus on health care and look at
economic conditions and tax cuts.
Oxford County is like many other rural regions of the country.
It is made up of people who work hard for a living, raise their
families and try to give something back to their community.
My constituents have told me in the past that they want the
government to get its fiscal house in order. Each year after the
budget they have said to me: “Good work, Finlay, but we need to
go further and reduce the national debt”. I have received many
letters over the past five and a half years from constituents who
wanted a zero deficit but also wanted the essential programs
protected and preserved.
1705
At times our task seems impossible. As a new MP at the time of
the 1994 budget, I looked at our previous $42 billion deficit and
worried about the fiscal legacy we were about to leave our
children and grandchildren. It was not a task I looked forward
to. Nor, I imagine, did any member of the House at that time.
We conquered the deficit. No matter what the future holds for
our Minister of Finance—some would say he has an exciting future
ahead of him—he will be known as the man who led Canada away
from the economic abyss to a future filled with potential for all
Canadians.
The 1999 federal budget builds upon our past budgets not only in
terms of tax cuts and fiscal balance but by ensuring that
Canada's most important social program, health care, has been
protected and preserved.
This was the message I was very happy to carry to the municipal
councils in the town of Tillsonburg in Zorra township during the
House recess last week. I look forward to discussing it with
health care providers and hospital administrators throughout
Oxford.
During the recent united alternative convention we did not hear
the demagogues of the right talk about private health care
although I am sure many espoused it in private. Why would they
not espouse this basic tenet of Conservative philosophy? It is
because they know Canadians believe that universal access to high
quality, affordable health care is essential to Canada's quality
of life. It is something that defines us as a nation.
Members may ask what the federal government has done to protect
medicare in the budget. Through substantial funding increases
and strategic investment the budget is about using the resources
freed up by balancing the budget to strengthen and modernize
medicare so that it can cope with emerging demands and adopt new
technologies to meet the needs of Canadians.
Not only does the federal Liberal government commit a minimum
increase of $11.5 billion over the next five years to the Canada
health and social transfer to the provinces. It also allocates
an additional $1.4 billion over the remainder of this fiscal year
and the next three fiscal years to our health care system.
This funding includes the following: $328 million to improve
public access to high quality health care information and to
better inform Canadians about the performance of their health
care system, consistent with the social union framework agreed to
by all the provinces; $240 million to support the development of
the Canadian Institute of Health Research; $150 million in
additional funding for health related research for the advanced
research granting councils, the National Research Council and
Health Canada; an additional $200 million for the Canada
Foundation for Innovation; $190 million to better meet the health
needs of first nations and Inuit communities; and $287 million to
improve prenatal nutrition, food safety, toxic substances
control, to foster innovation in rural and community health, and
to combat diabetes.
I am proud to call the 1999 federal budget a health care budget.
It was accomplished through the sacrifice of Canadians from coast
to coast and it builds upon the success of the government's
deficit fighting efforts.
I can look my constituents in the eye and tell them that our
most essential social program has been strengthened and preserved
for our collective future. I only hope that the provincial Tory
government in Ontario will ensure that rural regions like Oxford
see the full benefits of this funding increase through improved
service and quality of care.
The budget is about more than health care. It is also a record
of achievement which seeks to build a better economy for
Canadians. When the government took office, the national deficit
stood at an all time high of $42 billion. No federal government,
either Liberal or Conservative, had delivered a balanced budget
in almost a generation.
1710
Tough fiscal medicine, economic growth and job creation have
combined to eliminate the deficit and give Canadians a balanced
or a better budget for two years in a row. This is significant
because it is the first time since the government of Louis St.
Laurent that the federal government has been deficit free for two
consecutive years.
As the minister pointed out in his speech, the government is
committed to further balanced budgets or better in 1999-2000 and
2000-01. This will make only the third time since Confederation
that the Government of Canada has recorded four consecutive
balanced budgets. It is a legacy I am very happy to hand over to
my children and grandchildren.
Balanced budgets have provided room for the government to
provide tax cuts to Canadians. We recognize that tax relief and
tax fairness are essential to improving the Canadian standard of
living. As I have said before, we can only provide tax cuts that
we can afford and that are sustainable. It makes no sense to
provide tax cuts one year and then revoke them the next, or to
butcher a program as Reform proposes every time the economy goes
into a tailspin. Our approach is balanced. It is moderate and
it is sustainable.
Let me quickly summarize the tax cuts in the budget. The basic
personal exemption will be increased by $175 to a total of $675.
This extends to all taxpayers along with last year's increase of
$500 to low income Canadians. As of July 1 the 3% surtax on
personal income will be eliminated for all Canadians.
What does this mean to average Canadian taxpayers? It means
that single taxpayers earning $20,000 or less will see their
taxes reduced by at least 10%. Typical one earner families with
two children and incomes of $30,000 or less will pay no net
federal income tax. Families with incomes of $45,000 or less
will have their taxes reduced by a minimum of 10%. Every
Canadian can look forward to a tax cut and 600,000 lower income
Canadians will no longer pay any federal income tax at all. That
is an increase of 200,000 over last year.
Farmers across Canada were also happy to see in the budget the
federal commitment to producers suffering from the income crisis
they faced this past year. The federal government in the budget
committed to paying 100% of the cost of the agriculture income
disaster assistance program in the first year, up to $600
million. The provinces will fund the major part of the program
in the second year, resulting in a 60:40 cost sharing ratio over
the two years.
I assure the House that there are many farmers in Oxford County
waiting anxiously for this assistance. It is heartening to see
that the government has found a way to furnish assistance and to
seek out the funding necessary to provide an essential part of
our economy when it is needed. It is also encouraging to see
that all the provinces but one have co-operated, and we hope that
one will be onboard before too long. Some economic turmoil
cannot be forecast but the government has proven that it can
react proactively to ensure those affected suffer as little as
possible.
There is much more about the budget that I applaud like the
funding for innovation and research, but I will now close with
some words from my favourite playwright, William Shakespeare. In
the last scene of As You Like It the Duke says:
In 10 months we will enter a new millennium. Canada is ready
to—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. I am
afraid I will have to interrupt the member.
1715
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker,
the member for Oxford's usual lack of courage is clearly in
evidence here when he says he will vote for the Minister of
Finance's budget. He is not as brave as the member for York
South—Weston who voted against the Minister of Finance's budget
because his party refused to keep its promise to abolish the
GST. He was kicked out of the party and his constituents
rewarded him in 1997 by re-electing him to office.
What the member for Oxford failed to point out is that, of the
100% of workers who pay EI premiums, only 41% qualify for
benefits. The $20 billion surplus was used to balance the
budget, and that is the fact of the matter.
In addition, his government will have cut health care by $33
billion by 2003. He does not tell us that. The government says
that it will add a few billion dollars, but it has already cut
$42 billion. The member for Oxford lacks courage and will fall
to his knees and vote for the budget.
[English]
Mr. John Finlay: Madam Speaker, I am not sure how the GST
got in here. I did not promise to get rid of the GST, and many of
us on this side of the House did not. I remind the member that
when he is talking about debt, when we took office 36 cents of
every revenue dollar went to service the debt. We used to have
that day in July or August which was the day when we finished
paying. Now that is 27 cents on every revenue dollar, which is a
25% increase and which accounts a great deal for our being to put
more money into the programs that Canadians want and need.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments. He
mentioned the disaster relief program for farmers across the
country. I am from Okanagan—Coquihalla and we have an orchard
industry that brings to the Okanagan Valley some $700 million a
year which we are very proud of. I think now and then all
Canadians enjoy B.C. apples. That has been a tradition across
the country. We are well known for our high quality products.
In the last two years our orchardists have been ravished with
disastrous weather, crop failures and a number of situations. The
member with a lot of pride defended the program in this budget
that has been set up for the agricultural industry.
I would like to ask the member if all people in the agricultural
industry are so happy about the process that has been set up why
then did tree fruit growers in the Okanagan Valley announce
yesterday that they plan to cut down their apple trees in the
Okanagan Valley, destroying a complete industry, on March 15?
Could the member please give the orchardists in the Okanagan
Valley some encouragement that this process and relief program
will come sooner than sometime in July or August and that relief
will be immediate for these people who are suffering a great
deal.
Mr. John Finlay: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague makes
an excellent point. I was happy to have visited that area of
British Columbia last fall. I talked to some of the apple
growers. I know that prices were a concern and I know that
weather was a concern.
This is a disaster relief program that we are talking about. As
I understand it, any agriculturalist can apply for the relief.
The methods and the application forms will be on websites by
Friday this week. The hard copy should be ready in a couple of
weeks. Although the minister is unable to say exactly what it
will be, the turnaround time will certainly be earlier than July.
1720
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
to respond briefly to the member's comments, it has been
announced that the orchardists will have to wait until after they
get their income tax returns which could be considerably down the
road.
I rise on behalf of the people of Okanagan—Coquihalla to take
part in this debate on the Liberal government's pay more and get
less budget. I say pay more and get less because Canadians are
paying more in taxes but getting less in services like health
care than they were before the Liberals took office in 1993.
They are paying more and getting less and that has been a
consistent theme by this Liberal government.
There have been a lot of excellent speeches today on health care
and taxes from the official opposition and other members, but I
have chosen to spend my time on a national institution, a very
proud institution, the Canadian Armed Forces.
Recently while conducting some research in my office I came
across a lead story from the Globe and Mail. The date of
article was February 28, 1951. The article was entitled
“Canadians jubilant over orders to go to Korea”. This article
detailed the decision of the Canadian government to contribute
significant troops to the conflict in Korea.
The articled stated that Canadian soldiers were excited because
they were proud and indeed Canadians from coast to coast to coast
were proud of the contribution the Canadian Armed Forces could
make to the Korean conflict.
The other article I point out was also from the Globe and
Mail, dated February 21, 1959. The article announced
Diefenbaker's decision to scrap the Avro Arrow project due to
budgetary considerations. In another article that day by the
Globe and Mail there was an editorial deploring the
decision to force the Canadian government to purchase high tech
equipment from the United States.
These two articles reminded me that in the 1950s Canada had a
significant military establishment for a middle power, a place
that we should hold today on the international scene.
The decision to scrap the Avro Arrow cost Canadians 13,800 jobs
mainly in the province of Ontario. The Globe and Mail
pointed out that despite the cost of the Avro Arrow program,
these 13,800 workers were Canadian taxpayers. The money spent on
the project would remain here in Canada.
The editorial concluded by stating: “And now what? Now the
brilliant array of engineering and technical talent which built
up this great Canadian industry will be dissipated. Now these
highly trained men and women, the one national asset, will
probably go”. The editorial asks where. The answer was to the
United States. They did go and they formed the backbone of NASA.
Their exit from Canada foreshadowed today's brain drain of
skilled workers who are leaving Canada due to high taxes in this
country.
I bring up these two historic issues of the Globe and Mail
not to reopen the debates on the decision to send troops to Korea
or to scrap the Avro Arrow but to point out that Canada in the
1950s was taken seriously as a middle power. We had a serious
military establishment, one that we as Canadians were very proud
of.
When the call came in 1951 we were ready to go, not to maintain
the peace but to fight a war. Our armed forces totalled 120,000
personnel. We contributed a brigade group, ships and aircraft to
the UN sanctioned war in Korea. By 1959 we had a serious
aerospace industry providing Canada with its defence
requirements. Defence was taken seriously enough that the
defence spending budget accounted for 20% of federal spending.
During the 1950s and into the 1960s our armed forces
contribution to peace and security helped earn Canada a premier
place among the world's nations.
By the 1970s this started to change with the election of another
Liberal government, Pierre Elliot Trudeau's government. I
remember those days well because I was a young leading seaman in
the Canadian Armed Forces serving on a Canadian destroyer escort.
I watched firsthand as Trudeau's cuts did devastation on the
Canadian Armed Forces.
1725
By the late 1970s our soldiers were the best paid in the world.
However, I remember numerous incidents where our ships were
docked in Halifax and Esquimalt due to a lack of fuel. To make
matters worse, training was hampered due to a lack of ammunition.
Under today's current Liberal regime things are much worse.
Since 1993 the defence budget has been slashed by an additional
28% while the demands placed on our troops in the Canadian Armed
Forces have increased.
At just over $9 billion defence spending accounts for only 6% of
the federal spending, down from 20% in the 1950s and a minuscule
expenditure compared to the $42.5 billion spent each year paying
interest on the national debt.
Canadian defence expenditures account for 1.1% of GDP while the
average defence expenditure for our NATO allies is 2.4% of their
GDP. Again, we are out of whack completely when we spend 1.1% on
defence spending.
The result of this Liberal government's cuts to defence spending
has been dramatic. We have seen our troops drop to 60,000 from
73,000 in 1993. We find it impossible to meet Canada's stated
defence policy objectives. Hardest hit is our army, our land
forces. Most army units are manned at only 65% of their
authorized strength. Despite the Canadian population hovering
somewhere around 30 million we can barely muster 800 troops to
send to Kosovo. Even then they will be poorly armed.
In April 1998 the Auditor General of Canada reported to the
House of Commons on the state of the Canadian Armed Forces
equipment and expressed grave concern about the deterioration of
equipment that was preventing our forces from fulfilling Canada's
defence policies. In terms of the army the auditor general
pointed out that operationally it had not kept pace with
technology to modernize equipment, leaving it vulnerable to
threats. Its infantry and armour could be detected, engaged and
defeated long before our personnel even knew the enemy was
present.
This cannot be taken lightly. The auditor general has
unequivocally stated that the money for capital funding would
decrease even further due to the high maintenance and operating
costs of servicing aging equipment, as we see daily with stories
about our Sea King and Labrador helicopters, the Aurora aircraft,
but enough of the facts and figures.
Canadians know that this Liberal government has decimated the
Canadian Armed Forces, leaving Canada at best a freeloader on the
backs of our allies and at worst utterly incapable of fulfilling
our defence policy objectives, including protecting our own
sovereignty. This is a national embarrassment, a disgrace not
only to our troops but a disgrace for this government.
Providing for the defence of its citizens is one of the prime
responsibilities of any federal government. Here as in other
areas the Liberals have failed.
For decades now the Canadian forces have done more for Canada
than meet the call to arms. They have been a national
institution that cannot be ignored, a national institution that
should be used by this federal government to build unity from
coast to coast with our militia units, with our reserve force and
with the pride that our service people serve with around the
world.
We do feel that pride: Canada's World War I victory at Vimy
Ridge, our role defeating Nazi Germany, Italy and in France in
World War II, our record as premier peacekeepers around the
world. Notice I said “our”, our victory, our role, our record.
They are our armed forces, our Canadian Armed Forces. Despite
the best efforts of the Liberals Canadians are proud of the men
and women who serve in our forces.
I urge the Liberal government not to ignore the Canadian Armed
Forces. The minor and minuscule increases are not enough to keep
our combat capable forces in place today.
1730
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is
a pleasure to rise today to address the latest version of the
Liberal budget on behalf of the citizens of Lethbridge. I have
been looking forward to this chance to chronicle the assault of
this government on the Canadian taxpayer, the unfortunate soul
who is paying more but getting less.
This is now the sixth straight time that Canadian taxpayers have
had to suffer through a Liberal budget. For the last six years,
Canadians have endured slash and burn budget cuts that have
devastated health and social transfers.
The Liberals have downsized our armed forces as my colleague
just mentioned to a hollow shell, sacrificed environmental
protection, tightened and restricted EI benefits, reduced
portions of our national highway system to gravel, and worst of
all, increased taxation revenues. Simply put, taxpayers in
Canada have been paying more but they have definitely been
getting less.
When this government took office in 1993, Canadians were paying
$51.4 billion in personal income tax for the year. At the end of
this year, personal income taxes will have risen 46% to $75
billion, an increase of $24 billion. This is an increase of $650
for every Canadian. This shell game which has been foisted on
Canadians by the finance minister has forced Canadians to pay
personal income taxes that are 56% higher than the G-7 average.
Of course, we can forget the infamous promise to scrap the GST.
We heard a bit about that today. When the Liberals took over,
Canadians were paying $15.7 billion in GST per year. By this
year's end, Canadians will be paying $21.6 billion, an increase
of $5.9 billion, or about 38%. That translates into about $156
more per Canadian for a tax that this government promised to
abolish.
As if these increases were not bad enough, the government is set
to hike CPP premiums by 73% over the next six years. Sadly, the
former chief actuary of the CPP, before he was fired for not
singing from the Liberal song sheet, estimated that this increase
would likely not even be enough to save the plan.
To top it all off, the government has added insult to injury by
ripping off taxpayers by overcharging them on their EI premiums.
According to the chief auditor for this program, the government
has been overtaxing Canadian workers by an average of 37% for the
last five years. Canadians now pay more of their hard earned
money for a plan that delivers them fewer benefits, that is, if
they even qualify under the strict new rules.
This is the sad truth that the Liberal government refuses to
tell. The Liberals hide behind their sleight of hand accounting
practices, practices the Auditor General of Canada does not
approve of. They hide behind their spin doctors and their
rhetoric machines. They boast about EI reductions but say
nothing about CPP hikes.
When the Liberals took over the reins of government from their
partners, the tax and spend previous government, total federal
tax revenues were $94.3 billion and total government revenues
totalled $107.3 billion. At the end of this year, the federal
tax revenues will top $131 billion, an increase of $36.8 billion
and total government revenues will be $149.4 billion, an increase
of $42 billion. Members opposite can claim that the government is
raking in these record revenues because of the strong economy,
and they do. But how do they explain that when the economy only
grew by 3%, government revenues grew by 8%?
I think I have made myself perfectly clear. Canadians are
paying more than they ever have before and they are getting less.
What are they receiving for these astronomical increases in
taxes? What do they have?
They have a two tier health system. The health care system that
Canadians have come to rely on is under siege. Waiting lists
have increased 8.5% in one year to over 187,000 in 1997. Almost
200,000 people in Canada are waiting for health care services.
The waiting time to see a specialist has increased 38% and the
number of hospital beds have decreased by 25% in some provinces.
My own daughter in Edmonton with a severely broken ankle waited
42 hours for surgery to repair it just a month ago.
In 1993 when the Liberals first took power, CHST payments were
about $1,453 per taxpayer.
But today after this budget, these payments per taxpayer have
dropped to $1,005. That is a drop of 31%. So Canadians are
paying more and getting less.
1735
The government has announced with great fanfare that it is
putting back $11.5 billion over five years into the transfer
payments for health care. But if we look at the Liberal record
at the end of this five years, we will see that cumulative CHST
reductions will total $50 billion by the end of the five years.
The Liberal government has taken $5 and it will give $1 back.
This budget was to be the cure to what was ailing the health
care system, but Canadians are still paying more and getting
less. They are paying more for out of pocket medical expenses
and will be getting $4.3 billion less in health care in 1999 than
they did in 1993. That is the legacy of this government.
Our soldiers have suffered. The Canadian armed forces, the
brave men and women who have dedicated themselves to their
country, those who are willing to put their lives on the line,
have borne the brunt of the government's politics. These
politics have put the well-being of our troops at risk. The
defence policies of the government have led to a serious
deterioration in the morale of this once proud force. It has
left the armed forces with equipment that is 20 to 40 years old.
It has cut personnel levels by almost 25% and has threatened to
cut even more to balance the books.
The effects of the government's cuts have cost the defence
department about $7.8 billion since 1993-94 and now the finance
minister offers a pitiful $175 million per year. It is an insult
to treat our soldiers with such disrespect. They deserve more,
not less.
Nothing seems sacred to the government. With this budget the
Liberal track record on the environment went from bad to worse.
Across the country contaminated sites sit like a cancer on the
land. These sites are affecting the health of Canadians, yet the
government refuses to take a leadership role in their cleanup.
Look at Sydney, Nova Scotia, the tar ponds. Nothing has been
done. Lots of talk but no action. We are paying lots and
getting nothing.
In six years the government has not made any serious effort to
protect our endangered species through legislation despite its
international commitments.
In May 1998 the environment committee released a report that
outlined the serious deficiencies in the enforcement capabilities
of Environment Canada. Funding levels have been cut to the point
where enforcement officials are stretched so thin that they are
falling behind in training and cannot enforce many of the
increasing number of environmental regulations.
It is beyond belief that when the government was sitting on a
$10 billion surplus it did not take the environment more
seriously. Contrary to what the finance minister may think, the
environment cannot survive on empty promises of relief for next
year. Time is running out now.
I think the point has been made. Canadians are definitely
paying more and they are getting less. They are paying $2,000
more in taxes since the government took office and they are
getting at least $1,500 less for health and other services.
Another fact is the savings that Canadians have are dwindling.
Canadians are unable to put any money away and they are starting
to use their savings just to get by from day to day. Canadians
do not deserve this. They bore the burden of the deficit cutting
and deserve to share in the benefits. Nine out of ten Canadians
say they want tax relief, not new spending, as their number one
priority.
A Reform government would deliver comprehensive tax reform
beginning with $26 billion in total tax relief phased in over
three years. These reforms would simplify the tax system and,
combined with the elimination of marriage and child care
penalties, will deliver thousands of dollars per year back into
the pockets of the average Canadian family of four.
Our health care is on life support and needs a major federal
cash infusion. Reform would deliver immediately $2 billion to
boost federal transfer payments. Wasteful government spending in
other areas would be eliminated to give health care the priority
it rightly deserves and Canadians are demanding.
Canada needs a reliable health care system with stable funding,
funding that does not wildly fluctuate from year to year. Reform
would also right the injustice done to Canadians like Joey Haché
and compensate all victims of the hepatitis C tainted blood
system. This is not a question of money, it is a question of
fairness and a question of equality for all Canadians. It is
doing the right thing.
Our soldiers earned our respect. A $1 billion increase in
defence spending would equip our soldiers with the tools they
need to do the jobs that we ask them to do.
Reform would introduce a credible plan for reducing the size of
our national debt. The debt will consume $43.5 billion in
interest payments alone this year, robbing Canadians of funding
for programs that they really need.
As they say, the proof is in the pudding. Under this government
Canadians will continue to pay more and get less.
1740
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, in my constituency a number of
businesses are choosing to leave Canada because of the high tax
program of the Liberal government. They are going down to the
states because their investment is a little more secure down
there and the tax rates are lower. Students are taking jobs in
the states because of the high taxes they would pay on income
here in Canada.
The hon. member's riding is very close to the American border. I
am wondering if he also is finding that it is a trend in today's
society for businesses and young people to move down to the
United States where the tax rates are much better?
Mr. Rick Casson: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for
that question. It is interesting that just last week while I was
in the constituency a young man came to me. He has been offered
a job in the states. This young man has been looking for a job
in Canada, but he can get a job in Nebraska. The benefits are
better, the pay is better, the take home pay is much more, and
the prospects are better for him.
I have come across a document. The National Post published
some headings from e-mails it received from Canadians about the
budget. I would like to let members know how Canadians feel about
this. These are the headings from e-mails received at the paper:
Taxed to death and back. The non-stop robbery. Bludgeoned dry.
Feeling milked dry. Overtaxed. Tax depression. Taxpayer ready
to revolt. Tired of no value for my taxes. Drowning in taxes.
Lament decay of incentives. How dry I am. Bludget:Bloodget.
Excessive taxation. Milked and bludgeoned. Support for a tax
revolt. The bludgeoning of taxpayers. Milked and fed up. Ottawa
bludgeons. The tax bite. Hate this country and government. I
have the bludget blues. Taxed into oblivion. Bludget alias big
joke.
That is not coming from this side of the House. That is coming
from Canadians across the country. That is how Canadians feel.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to my colleague across the way. Chicken
Little obviously is alive and well and the sky is falling.
When we listen to the opposition we hear that there have been no
tax cuts. One of the things I find very disturbing in this House
is that clearly the acoustics on that side are not very good.
That side is not listening to the fact that we have been reducing
taxes.
I indicated earlier in the day that when we talked about the
$11.5 billion in terms of health care, it was not borrowed money.
Those guys are into the borrowed money scheme. We are not into
borrowed money. We are going to pay as we go.
If the member would read the tax information with regard to the
budget, he would clearly see that in order to have sustainable
tax cuts, we have to be in the black. We have to have the money.
Clearly we are not prepared to finance tax cuts that are not
doable. That is what we have been doing. We have been doing over
$16.7 billion in terms of tax cuts in the last two budgets alone.
Listen to the information.
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, one thing that has to be
done before there is any credibility is to take care of expenses.
This government has refused to cap its expenses. The finance
minister, the tax minister every year, comes up with more places
to spend the money. The Liberals do not want a surplus Canadians
can look at.
Let us not talk about what we think.
Let us talk about the Canadian Bond Rating Service report which
notes:
—that budget 1999 includes a greater resource allocation towards
expenditure priorities with fewer tax and debt reduction
incentives. In fact, the government has made no direct or
specific commitment towards debt reduction other than to allocate
its residual surplus after spending goals have been met.
1745
There is no plan. The debt will continue.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one
cannot believe one's eyes when reading the Reform amendment
before us today which urges the House to reject the budget. The
members for Calgary Southeast and Medicine Hat are recommending
in their amendment a rejection of an increase of $11.5 billion in
health care over the next five years.
The leader of the Reform Party, with his amendment, further
recommends rejection of the following: Canadian opportunities
strategy, $1.8 billion; Canada Foundation for Innovation, $200
million; and National Sciences and Engineering Research Council,
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the National
Research Council, $176 million.
The Reform Party with its amendment today also recommends the
rejection of $96 million toward the establishment of small
communities. It rejects $75 million toward Canada prenatal
nutrition programs; $150 million toward technology partnerships;
$50 million to expand rural and community health; $795 million
for the youth employment fund and the Canada jobs fund; and $42
million for improving management and control of toxic substances.
It also rejects some tax relief, some $1.5 billion this year;
$2.8 billion next year; and $3.4 billion in the year 2001-02.
This is what the Reform Party is advocating today with its
amendment on which we will vote shortly.
Having outlined the sham of the Reform Party position with
respect to what it would like Canadians to be denied by its
amendment, which does not take into account the positive aspects
of the budget, one must also say a word of caution on the fanatic
belief of the Reform Party in lowering taxes.
When taxes are lowered services are lowered. When taxes are
lowered there is a longer wait for services. When taxes are
lowered there are poorer services. When taxes are lowered good
programs for youth, seniors, underprivileged, housing, et cetera,
are cancelled. When taxes are lowered university tuition costs
are increased. When taxes are lowered the waiting list for child
care is increased. When taxes are lowered laws cannot be
properly enforced. Water and air quality, to give an example,
suffer as a consequence, and human health does too.
It is foolish to believe that lowering taxes leads to better
standards of living. Actually the reverse is the reality and
Canada, with its level of taxation, is considered by foreigners
the country in which they want to live and visit as shown by our
immigration statistics.
A few months ago the national Liberal caucus committee on
sustainable development, chaired by the hon. member for
Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, recognized the significant
relationship between human health and a healthy environment and
produced a document in which it says that human health is
directly affected by the state of our environment.
1750
The document concluded by quoting the Ontario Medical
Association in a press release dated May 13, 1997, in which it
said that air pollution was a public health crisis, drawing
attention to the fact that it called for stringent action on smog
causing emissions and other matters.
In the budget we find that the elements related to health could
lead to the paving of the way for the next budget, namely a
budget that could possibly take place in February of next year
and could be devoted to the environment and sustainable
development. When we start dealing with health we inevitably
find our way to the roots of good health and proper public health
and, therefore, to the basic elements of the way in which we
approach the environment.
Having established the possibility of a future budget on the
environment it is desirable to provide some input to the
government on the question of expanding the concept of
environmental protection to embrace the broader idea of
sustainable development.
It would be desirable that a budget on the environment and
sustainable development would examine the present capacity of the
federal government to enforce its own laws and to launch at the
same time programs that would permit an improvement in the
performance of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans,
Environment Canada, Transport Canada and the Department of
Agriculture and Agri-Food in the name of public interest.
It would be a budget that would look at Canada's international
commitments related to environmental protection and sustainable
development. It would look at our implementation of agenda 21 as
stemming from Rio, our commitments under the Basel convention,
our commitments through the Kyoto agreement on climate change,
and determine which are the fiscal and taxation measures that are
facilitating our move toward the reduction of climate endangering
emissions and the removal of tax incentives that stand in the
way.
It would be a budget that would look at the sustainability of
our natural resources particularly in the fishery and forests. It
would look to our ability to compete through the function of
energy efficiency because through a higher energy efficiency than
the one we have achieved so far we could also be more
competitive.
The next budget of the Government of Canada, if it devotes and
focuses its attention on the environment and sustainable
development, would be one that would put into practice the
document that was published in 1995 under the heading “Turning
Talk Into Action”. In that document the Government of Canada
expresses the firm belief that our economic health depends on our
environmental health. It is believed that the federal government
can help shape a better future for all Canadians, a future
characterized by sustainable development.
In that same document, which was signed by 21 cabinet ministers
and by the Prime Minister, the following statement was made:
This is why we want to play a leadership role in turning
sustainable development thinking into action. This is why we are
now taking the next step of establishing a framework in which
environmental and economic signals point the same way.
We have to achieve that plateau of pointing in the same way. A
framework which integrates sustainable development into the
workings of the federal government is one this document espouses
right across the board. It concludes by saying that the
Government of Canada is committed to getting government right by
making government greener. “This is our commitment to
Canadians”, the document concludes.
I welcome the opportunity of presenting this intervention and
expressly hope that the next budget will be on environmental
protection and sustainable development.
1755
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member feel that the
government has given the right priority to environmental issues?
Unless I missed something there was no indication in the budget
that the government had any concerns about the environmental
issues facing the country.
Hon. Charles Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question.
The government has given priority in the budget to health issues.
Evidently health is intimately connected to environmental issues.
The allocation of $11.5 billion to health is a good foundation on
which to build an approach to environmental issues in the next
budget.
I regret to note that the Reform Party amendment before us urges
the rejection of the allocation of $11.5 billion to health which
the budget has launched. For the life of me I cannot understand
why the Reform Party is taking such dog in the manger position
instead of supporting the very fact that the government is
injecting a substantial amount of money into health over the next
few years. It should support this measure and it should indicate
to its constituents that this is a good move in the right
direction.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member led us to believe that he understands that lowering
taxes is bad for Canadians. He said something to effect that if
we lower taxes we will then have to lower services for Canadians.
Does he not realize that the interest charges on the $600
billion that we owe would provide tremendous amounts of programs
for Canadians? As a matter a fact, it would be $44 billion or
$45 billion worth each year.
How would he address that? Would he mind clearing that up for
me? Would lower taxes in his opinion be bad for Canadians?
Hon. Charles Caccia: Mr. Speaker, there is a lack of
knowledge of economic realities on the part of the hon. member
and his party that requires further education.
I will put it this way. The Reform Party fails to understand
the fact that the debt as the economy expands remains the same
and proportionally becomes smaller and smaller as years go by.
Therefore the debt is no longer an economic preoccupation.
The preoccupation of the government is the right one, namely by
putting its money into health, education, technological
development and research to provide the foundation for a positive
economic future, not by looking backward in terms of reducing the
debt which in proportion to the total national wealth is becoming
smaller and smaller.
Liberals believe that the role of the government is to make
investments and not to make the banks happy.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member is saying that the danger of reducing taxes is that
programs would have to be cut.
Would he agree with me that cutting employment insurance has
hurt working people? My question is very simple.
Hon. Charles Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the
hon. member.
1800
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is slightly humbling to speak after the valiant
veteran from Davenport but I will intercede on behalf of my
colleagues in the House to bear with me for eight or ten minutes
as I give a dissertation of the great qualities of this 1999
budget that the wonderful Liberal Party has brought forward.
It may come as no surprise to my colleagues that I stand in
support of this Liberal government's 1999 budget which will
increase prosperity and lead Canadians into a new world economy
for a new century.
At the beginning of this century the prosperity of the Canadian
economy was of course dependent on entering a world economic
environment that provided funds for investment and markets for
exports. One hundred years later, after Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who
was responsible for this rather profound and provident policy,
this current Liberal government is continuing to keep Canada at
the forefront as one of the top industrial nations in the world.
For my constituents in the great riding of
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, the 1999 budget represents a
continued commitment to the military and the revered Liberal
institution of universal health care which some of the members
opposite want to eviscerate.
Increased tax cuts will also improve everyone's standard of
living, including the hon. member from Sleepy Hollow opposite,
and create the foundation for much needed economic growth and
development not only in the great upper Ottawa valley but
throughout this tremendous country called Canada.
It was clearly evident to this Liberal government after
consultations with Canadian from coast to coast to coast that
health care should be the number one priority in this budget.
Without a doubt health care was our number one priority and, I
might be so bold, it should be the number one priority for some
of the members opposite because I think some of them should
indulge in good health. I know we have on occasion a boxer over
there and a former professional athlete, but I think that was
something like 40 or 50 years ago.
On this health care issue we have given back over $11.5 billion.
This was hard earned money Canadians really needed and really
wanted. They stuck with us. The Liberals won the election in
1993. Thank goodness we did because this country was going
nowhere fast, hitting the wall because the Conservative
government left us with an astronomical $42 billion a year annual
deficit. We had to eradicate that deficit.
How did we do that? We did that in consultation with all
Canadians. They agreed with that. We were honest with them, we
were truthful with them. We said when we have balanced the books
without a doubt we will put that money back to where we believe
it is most needed and health care is the number one issue. We
have given that $11.5 billion back. As a matter of fact, the
funding now in 1999 is higher than it was in 1990.
In the province of Ontario some people have tried to somehow
extrapolate that it is the federal government's fault for
closures of hospitals and the downsizing of the health care
portfolio. Everyone knows that the provincial Tory government in
Ontario must have been cerebrally incapable of understanding
basic economics that if it gives 30% tax cuts which amounted in
Ontario to about $4.5 billion it will have to find the money
somewhere else or make dramatic cuts. In the province of Ontario
those dramatic cuts came in the health care field. That
government should never have done that until it balanced the
books.
We have now balanced the books in two consecutive years. That
has not been done since 1952. This Liberal government has done
that. We have done it in a fair and equitable manner. Now we
have decided to give back.
1805
Another important area where we must give money back is to the
military which we have done to the tune of $175 million a year
for the next four to five years. Hopefully, as long as we keep
balancing the books, which rest assured we will do, we can
continue this.
Reformers just talked about this. They talked the big line in
their no start or fresh start, whatever they call it, that they
were going to balance the books in 2000. We on this side of the
House did it in 1998.
There is an old axiom in life that talk is cheap. I think they
are just blowing smoke. I do not think they ever had the will
power or the capacity to actually balance the books. We did it.
When they are yelling, screaming and making rather inappropriate
and intemperate remarks, it is probably just blatant jealously
that we actually could do something that they could not.
We have balanced the books for two consecutive years. It has
not been done since 1952. We have given money back to the
military. I have a great military establishment in my riding,
CFB Petawawa. We are looking after those people because the
quality of life for the military certainly was not there.
Unquestionably it needed more money and we have delivered.
I know the hon. member opposite wants to talk about taxes,
lowering taxes. We have lowered taxes. Six hundred thousand
Canadians are no longer on the tax roll. If the hon. member for
Wild Rose makes a big salary then he has to pay his taxes. He
should look after the poor people. My goodness, go on a diet and
you will not have to spend so much money.
We got rid of the 3% surtax that was an egregious tax brought in
by the former Conservative government. It made a dramatic mess
of the economy. We spent the last six years trying to clean up
the mess it made and, I might add, we are doing a remarkable job.
I quoted Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He was one of our great prime
ministers. I want the members opposite to pay strict attention
to this. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said that liberalism is inherent in
the very essence of our nature. It is the desire of happiness
with which we are all born into the world. We constantly
gravitate toward an ideal which we never attain. We dream of
good but never realize the best. And thus it will be as long as
people are what they are. As long as their immortal soul
inhabits a mortal body their desires will always be vaster than
their dreams.
Our desire on this side of the House is that as we move into a
new millennium we follow that Laurier legacy. We will thrive and
survive under a Prime Minister who knows what has to be done and
goes ahead and does it and with a government that is caring and
compassionate for all Canadians.
We are leading a national effort, this Liberal Party, an effort
which will spread to all sectors of society, to equip Canadians
to compete in a changing world, a new world for a new millennium,
I say to the member for Wild Rose. That is why we are investing
in knowledge, innovation, research and development. It will mean
expanding opportunities for not only ourselves but for our
children and for the hon. member's great, great-grandchildren
because I am sure he has some.
Twenty years from now in the year 2020 it will be our children,
my children, not the hon. members' great, great-grandchildren,
who will be leading the great riding of
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and leading Canada into the 21st
century. They are our future. They will be looking after us in
our old age.
The future belongs to societies whose economies are sound, whose
children are well prepared and which invest in knowledge,
innovation and education. However, these changes cannot be
achieved by the federal government alone. They require a
partnership at all levels of government, the public sector, the
private sector, the trade unions, the volunteers and even members
opposite, although sometimes we would not need their input to
tell you the truth.
This 1999 budget and future budgets will take us into the future
and into a new millennium.
1810
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On questions and
comments there is a lot of interest. We will keep strictly to 35
seconds, the same as question period.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have not quite got to great-grandchildren but I am working on
it.
Do hon. members believe in miracles? I do because I have seen
one. In 1993 when I came to the House of Commons I went to this
gentleman's riding at least half a dozen times and he showed up
at all my meetings three or four times. He was an independent
then and gosh he liked the things I was saying. He used to shake
my hand and say way to go, young fellow. All of a sudden he
shows up here and lo and behold he is a Liberal.
There is $11.5 billion put back into health care after stripping
out about $20 billion. Of course the $11.5 billion is over five
years. The $2.5 billion I understand—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Sorry, that is the
member's 35 seconds.
Mr. Hec Clouthier: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon.
member's question, I do not know about the post office but I will
send him over some Viagra if he wants to have some great,
great-grandchildren.
As far as appearing in my riding, the people in my riding had
never seen a buffalo from out west. I am used to seeing moose,
so I went to every meeting that the hon. member was at because I
wanted to explain that is a buffalo from out west and not a
gentle moose from my riding.
I know about the $11.5 billion.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I do not know
whether the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke thinks coast to
coast means going from Lake Ontario to Lake Huron. I can tell
him it means going from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
In 1969, the federal government paid 50% of health care costs
across the country, in each province. In New Brunswick, there
is a Liberal government; in Nova Scotia, there is also a Liberal
government; in Newfoundland, there is another Liberal
government. And yet, they still cut health care.
I would like our colleague to tell us about the Liberals
currently in power, who have cut. What sort of government are
they, these Liberals?
Mr. Hec Clouthier: Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague to calm
down. There is a problem here, because it was the Liberal Party
that introduced health care. That should not be forgotten. It
is our party, the Liberal Party.
What my colleague has said is terrible; it is not correct. The
Liberal Party has always thought about the health of the people,
of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to put a question to my colleague.
I understand his enthusiasm. If we look at what Ontario got, $1
billion, with $150 million for Quebec, I understand his
happiness, like that of most of his colleagues from Ontario.
However, I would like to know if he is aware of the Constitution
of Canada. All the budget did was encourage interference in
provincial jurisdictions. Does the hon. member really know his
Constitution?
Mr. Hec Clouthier: Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleague to tell the
people of Quebec the truth.
The truth is that several billion dollars in equalization
payments are leaving Ottawa for the Province of Quebec. It wins
all the time with equalization payments. We must be careful and
tell people the truth. Is he afraid to do so?
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member made a comment about the Liberal government being
caring and compassionate. I wonder if the member may wish to
expand on that a bit and talk about his caring and compassionate
government as it refers to hepatitis C, as it refers to the
gutting and the destroying of the health care system in this
country and perhaps the caring and compassionate Liberal
government when it chased our children from this country to the
United States because of an overburdened taxation system.
1815
Mr. Hec Clouthier: Mr. Speaker, I stand unequivocally by
my statements.
On caring and compassionate, I would like to ask the hon. member
opposite, does he call a party that doubles the national debt in
a nine year term caring and compassionate? Let us get serious
here.
There is more than one big moose out west. There is another big
moose and you are all heading to the stampede in the wrong
direction.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): This brings an end
to the debate. I know we do not want to put this behind us but
it being 6.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings
and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the
amendment now before the House.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1845
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bigras
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Loubier
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Matthews
| McDonough
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Pankiw
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Vautour
| Vellacott
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver) – 108
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 147
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Canuel
| de Savoye
| DeVillers
|
Graham
| Grose
| Longfield
| Marceau
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| Ménard
| Perron
| Sauvageau
|
Turp
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.
1850
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I wonder if I might ask the indulgence of the House for a moment
and ask you if we might include the member for Mississauga East
on the government side of the tally on the vote previously taken.
The member was present but was missed by way of oversight or
otherwise.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The chief government
whip has asked that the member for Mississauga East be tallied as
voting with the government.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1855
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to speak about the question I asked on December 8, 1998.
People sometimes wonder why those of us on this side of the
House lose our voices. It is because we have to speak up loudly
on certain issues. On the other side, they do not seem to
understand the problem they have created for Canadians.
In 1994, after the Liberals were elected, 61% of the unemployed
could qualify for benefits. That number has dropped to 38%. Even
the United Nations blamed the Liberal government for its cuts in
employment insurance.
I asked a question to the Deputy Prime Minister, and got the
following response from the parliamentary secretary:
What is referred to here is the number of people qualifying for
employment insurance. I continue with the response:
The correct number is not 78%.
It has gone down to less than 36%, because the 78% is 78% of
36%. That is the correct number.
I cannot understand how my colleague over there can stand up and
state that 78% of Canadians can qualify for employment
insurance, with all the cuts that have been made.
In order to receive maternity benefits, a woman has to have
accumulated 700 hours. A person who becomes sick needs 700
hours, and a newcomer on the workforce 910 hours. That is what
I tried to explain in the House, that the cuts in employment
insurance have resulted in only 36% of people paying into
employment insurance being able to draw benefits.
I have travelled across the country, province by province. I
have even gone to Whitehorse in the Yukon. I have heard the
horror stories resulting from the cuts that are affecting people
throughout the country. It happens not only in the Atlantic
region, but in Regina, Winnipeg, Nanaimo, Vancouver, Prince
George, Whitehorse and Windsor, in the riding of the Deputy
Prime Minister, where people working in the automotive industry
are suffering from the cuts to employment insurance.
How is it that, on the other side of the House, the member can
rise and say that 78% of Canadians qualify for benefits? She
then turns around and says that these are people who have not
worked. Does she think we are crazy or what? We know that
people who have not worked do not qualify for employment
insurance. These are not the people we are talking about. We
are talking about those who have worked.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Yvon Godin: I say to my colleague, that on Prince Edward
Island, it is the same thing. They cut thousands of people in
this province, and they are not very proud of you. I know
because I went there.
These are the mistruths that are spouted in this House, because
when the hon. member says I am not speaking the truth and that
78% of Canadians qualify for benefits, I say that is not true.
Only 36% of those who contribute to employment insurance receive
it. That is the problem.
I would hope my colleague understands the figures. If she does
not, maybe it is time she went back to school.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government has been saying since October, and I reaffirm today,
that the best available information from Statistics Canada shows
that 78% of unemployed Canadians who have lost or quit a job with
just cause were eligible for EI benefits. This 78% is based on a
new survey by Statistics Canada specifically designed to answer
questions about EI coverage. Indeed the survey is called the
Employment Insurance Coverage Survey.
A study released by the department in the fall concludes that
the BU ratio, which is the number the member opposite chooses to
use, that is the 42%, is the indicator used by the member to
confuse and frighten workers but is not, I repeat not, a good
indicator of coverage effectiveness by the EI system because it
includes all unemployed Canadians irrespective of their
attachment to the labour market or whether they have paid into
the EI program or not.
Does the hon. member suggest that all unemployed Canadians
should automatically receive EI? For example, should someone who
has never worked a day in his or her life be entitled to EI?
Should someone who decides to quit a job in order to go back to
school be entitled to EI?
If someone is self-employed and does not pay premiums, should he
or she be entitled to EI? If someone is being paid severance
pay, should he or she receive EI at the same time?
1900
Unemployed Canadians who need help and who are not eligible for
EI are supported by a range of other programs such as the youth
employment strategy, the Canadian opportunities strategy, the
transitional jobs fund, the post-TAGS program, other active
employment measures which help people get the skills they need to
get back to work, and the new hires program which helps employers
to hire more young Canadians.
FISHERIES
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on December 2, I asked the minister of fisheries why he
authorized a fishery for his friend and campaign contributor
which resulted in a kill of 30,000 coho in a no-kill zone, a
number the government questioned in error. I was outraged by the
kill and DFO bureaucrats were alarmed.
Ottawa warned north coast managers in Prince Rupert that the
more that becomes known of the coho kill the bigger the issue
would become. I could not agree more.
On May 21 last the minister announced that coho stocks were in
crisis, some bordering on extinction. There were to be no
fisheries directed at coho anywhere on the coast by any fishermen
and a zero retention of coho caught in other fisheries.
On June 19 the coast was divided into red and yellow zones. In
red zones there was to be zero mortality of coho. Nevertheless,
in red zones there were to be a number of small, highly
restricted, experimental recreational fisheries. Such a fishery
was authorized in the Dixon Entrance on the north coast of the
Queen Charlottes. Problems became apparent immediately.
In a weekly coho report dated June 24 officials issued a warning
to the minister:
Nevertheless, a promised observer program to monitor the fishery
was not put in place until halfway through the season and when
they were hired there were only four of them for six fishing
areas. The July 29 report indicated for area one that coho
abundance was high throughout Dixon Entrance and that it did not
matter where one went or what they did, coho were being caught.
The coho encounter rate was estimated to be 11 to 1 at Langara
Island, although they acknowledged that many believed it to be
much higher. The August 5 report indicated that in area three at
Dundas Island East monitors were reporting an encounter rate of
20 coho caught for every chinook taken.
The August 12 report indicated that area one lodges continued to
be fully operational with about 320 anglers per day. It reported
coho encounters were a continual occurrence, noting that unguided
vessels were remaining in areas where coho abundance was high.
It also noted that there continued to be reports that some
fishermen were not treating the coho well when releasing which
could be increasing mortality. Area one coho encounters were
then estimated at 80,000. The report goes on to estimate that
area three coho encounters were 142 coho for every chinook
caught.
The minister had promised that the fishery would be closed if
there were coho mortality. There was a continuous coho kill that
reached alarming proportions, yet he took no action.
On the north coast of the Charlottes the minister was not
interested in conservation. He was only interested in providing
a special opening for the lodge based fishery operated by his
friends.
Last summer DFO scientists undertook a special mortality study
on recreational catch and release for coho. Scientists found a
mortality rate of slightly more than 25% for coho caught in
recreational fisheries.
In estimating a 30,000 coho kill in the waters of the north
coast and the Queen Charlottes, I used a coho-chinook encounter
rate of 10 to 1, not the 142 to 1 documented in area three or
even the 11 to 1 documented at Langara Island. I also used a
mortality rate of 10%, not the 25% rate DFO scientists found in
their study. A minimum of 30,000 coho were killed in this
no-kill zone.
The question remains. What does no kill mean to the minister?
Does it mean that only his friends and campaign contributors can
go fishing?
1905
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member was
quite wrong in his preamble and quite wrong in his last
statement. The minister has made it very clear that he believes
in conservation and protecting the fisheries.
Just to establish some of the facts, harvest management plans
for Pacific salmon in 1998 were based on two conservation
objectives: zero fishing mortality for upper Skeena and Thompson
River coho salmon stocks, and where these stocks were not
prevalent, only selective fisheries which clearly demonstrated
that the risk of coho bycatch would be minimal were permitted.
The sport fishery that the hon. member for Delta—South Richmond
is concerned about is at Langara Island in the Queen Charlotte
Islands. This fishery was designated an experimental pilot sport
fishery for chinook salmon. There was non-retention of coho.
Even though fishers could not keep the coho they encountered,
departmental scientists accounted for a portion of the coho that
may have died after being released.
Two methods were used to estimate the number of coho encountered
in this sport fishery: a creel survey estimate by the Haida
first nations and an estimate by departmental patrolmen.
Using an accepted mortality rate of 10%, it was estimated that
coho mortalities ranged from 4,500 to 13,100, far less than the
member is accusing us of. Even using a significantly higher rate
of 20%, the estimated mortality of Skeena coho from the
experimental sport fishery at Langara Island was only .4%. This
is considerably less than the mortality resulting from the north
coast commercial fishery which was estimated to be 2% to 3%.
These successes are a direct result of the management policies
introduced in 1998 and reflect our commitment to conservation. We
intend to put fish first, and the minister is certainly doing
that.
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to go into more
detail regarding my question to the Minister of National Defence
on February 4 when I raised concerns about the governments
administration of the Anthrax vaccine to members of Canada's
armed forces in the Persian Gulf last spring.
Details of this matter came to light as a result of the
treatment of Sergeant Michael Kipling of Winnipeg who refused to
submit to the Anthrax vaccination last March. He was
subsequently sent home, cited for breach of the National Defence
Act and is now awaiting a court martial.
It is our view that Sergeant Kipling had every right to refuse
the Anthrax vaccination and that his case has revealed serious
negligence by the Canadian government in the administration of
the vaccine generally.
We have several concerns, which are as follows.
The Canadian government did not take the proper safety
precautions to ensure the vaccine given to the troops was safe.
We know from the FDA in the United States that the company which
produced the vaccine relabelled an outdated lot of drugs. That is
particularly interesting since today it is our understanding that
there is no viable vial of Anthrax vaccine left in the country.
The Canadian government did not test the vaccine itself and
relied on the testing done by the company itself.
There was no independent testing done. Mitretek simply used the
results of the tests by the company in question.
The FDA in the United States has shown that there have been no
studies done on the long term effects of this drug.
The Anthrax vaccination has been linked to the gulf war syndrome
yet this country continues to dismiss, and is probably the only
country in the world to dismiss, this syndrome and reduce it to a
matter of stress on the part of the troops.
The lack of involvement by the health protection branch was
noticeable and nothing was done to certify the vaccine. It is
just another indication that the government is reducing its
regulatory responsibilities and dismantling the health protection
branch.
We have several recommendations. One, that the government
investigate the administration of the anthrax vaccine. Two, that
it initiate a review of the policies vis-à-vis vaccinations to
allow for some method of waiver and some choice. Three, that
there be an involvement of the health protection branch to get a
scientific assessment of this vaccination and any other
inoculation used on our troops. Four, that the government stay
the charges and stop the court martial proceedings involving
Sergeant Michael Kipling.
Sergeant Kipling has had an exemplary record during his 26 years
of service in the Canadian armed forces. He raised serious
concerns about the health and safety of the Anthrax vaccination.
It would seem to us that, given his safety concerns, given the
facts we have learned subsequently about the case and all the
circumstance involved in this issue, surely it is unfair for the
government to proceed with a court martial for Sergeant Michael
Kipling.
1910
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the anthrax vaccine
administered to members of the Canadian forces deployed in the
Gulf had not expired.
It was tested according to U.S. Food and Drug Administration
directives in 1996 and its expiry date extended to 1999. Before
it was used to vaccinate Canadian and American troops, it was
also tested for strength, safety, sterility and purity.
The U.S. defence department asked Mitretek, an independent
American firm, to supervise testing and to audit the results of
testing by the manufacturer, Michigan Biologic Products
Institute, in January and March 1998.
Finally, the vaccine we received was again tested on the orders
of the U.S. defence department, in accordance with FDA
directives. These additional tests confirmed that the vaccine
was both safe and effective.
The vast majority of those vaccinated against anthrax suffered
no ill effects. A very few experienced a small local reaction,
comparable to that caused by other vaccines currently used in
Canada.
[English]
Our policy for pharmaceuticals is to obtain from Health Canada
approval to import, store and distribute vaccines licensed in
other countries but not in Canada before DND gives them to our
personnel. This is exactly what we did with regard to the
anthrax vaccine last year.
We must remember the operation in the gulf was potentially
dangerous. The government has worked in good faith and in the
best interests of the men and women of the Canadian forces to
provide them with the best protection possible.
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 7.12 p.m.)