36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 67
CONTENTS
Wednesday, February 25, 1998
1400
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NAGANO WINTER OLYMPICS
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SASKATCHEWAN WINTER GAMES
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE BUDGET
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Finestone |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE BUDGET
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
1405
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRISONS
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE BUDGET
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Susan Whelan |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE BUDGET
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IRAQ
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
1410
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE BUDGET
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKRUPTCY LEGISLATION
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE BUDGET
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ATLANTIC CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE BUDGET
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Raymond Bonin |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE BUDGET
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1430
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1435
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1440
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1445
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ARMENIA
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE BUDGET
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1450
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1455
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OTTAWA-CARLETON ASSOCIATION FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE BUDGET
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1500
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hansard
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1505
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Statements by Members
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Oral Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1510
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA-TAIWAN PARLIAMENTARY FRIENDSHIP GROUP
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Seniors Benefits
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Goods and Services Tax
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Gasoline Pricing
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Steckle |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right to Life
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
1515
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Housing
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Abortion
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Nudity
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Seniors Benefit
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Emergency Personnel
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1520
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE BUDGET
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Financial Statement of Minister of Finance
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Budget Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1525
1530
1535
1540
1545
1550
1555
1600
1605
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
1610
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1615
1620
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Subamendment
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1635
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1640
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1645
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1700
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
1705
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
1710
1715
1720
1725
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1730
1735
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1740
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1745
1750
1755
1800
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1805
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1810
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1815
1820
1825
1830
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1835
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Banking
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1840
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Spirit of Columbus Platform
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1845
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Construction Industry
|
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
1850
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 67
![](/web/20061116194946im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, February 25, 1998
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
[English]
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Calgary East.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
NAGANO WINTER OLYMPICS
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
pay tribute to two young athletes from my riding of Cambridge who
represented Canada at the Nagano Winter Olympics.
Luke Sauder, a six-year national downhill ski team member and a
regular on the World Cup circuit, gave it his all for Canada in
his trademark crazy Canuck style.
As a member of Canada's 5,000 metre short track relay skating
team, Derrick Campbell helped bring Canada a gold medal in the
last event of the Olympics.
On behalf of the constituents of Cambridge, I congratulate
Derrick and Luke on their tremendous efforts. Their
determination, pride and dignity are what made this Canada's
greatest ever winter Olympic team.
* * *
SASKATCHEWAN WINTER GAMES
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise with considerable pride to speak about a set of games that
are taking place in my hometown of Nipawin, Saskatchewan.
Nipawin is hosting the Saskatchewan winter games with athletes
from all over the province competing. What makes these games
remarkable is the gold medal performance of Nipawin itself.
While Nipawin is a town of only 4,800 people, there are 1,800
athletes, trainers and managers in town for the games, and an
incredible 2,100 volunteers from Nipawin and area working in all
facets of the games.
We look forward to some of the athletes competing this week to
step up to the Olympic standard and carry on in the great
Saskatchewan tradition of gold medalists Sandra Schmirler and her
team, Catriona LeMay Doan, and silver medalist coach Shannon
Miller from Melfort which is in my riding.
Way to go Nipawin. Way to go Saskatchewan athletes. Go for the
gold.
* * *
THE BUDGET
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as Canadians we have much to be proud of today. We have
demonstrated that this federal government has a vision for
tomorrow, a vision that is based on the well-being of its people.
It is a budget that addresses our children, our youth and our
elderly. We have demonstrated a commitment for the protection of
those most in need. We have developed a dynamic millennium
project, an educational plan to ensure Canadians of a leading
role in the new technological society. Our young people are going
to be prepared for the future.
The benefits of this budget are broad and far reaching. It
comes at a most appropriate time, as the Black Community Resource
Centre in the Mount Royal riding celebrates its first anniversary
and as we all celebrate black history month.
While we rejoice in the achievements of the black community
across Canada, we are at the same time able to apply this budget
to one of its important local endeavours in the interests of
black youth and their future.
* * *
[Translation]
MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
McDonald's recently announced the closure of its restaurant in
Saint-Hubert, thus throwing sixty or so employees out of work.
The company claims the closure is justified by financial
reasons. In reality, it is an obvious anti-union measure.
For a year now, McDonald's has been spending tens of thousands
of dollars on lawyers and on public relations, using the biggest
public relations firm in Canada, in order to trample the legitimate
rights of some sixty young people who are working for minimum wage.
One of the young workers who lost his job for having tried to
gain recognition of his rights summarized the situation very aptly
“Just because we make hamburgers, that doesn't mean we don't
deserve respect”. Basically, McDonald's scandalous anti-union
attitude is sending a clear message to young people, giving them a
choice between exploitation and unemployment.
McDonald's says “You deserve a break today”, but do its
workers not also deserve a break?
* * *
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, many people and organizations have raised some very
serious questions about Canada's involvement in negotiations on the
multilateral agreement on investment.
I would like to congratulate the Minister of International
Trade, who has announced that public consultations will be held on
the draft agreement. He also stated that he had set ironclad
conditions for Canada's signature, in areas such as health care,
social programs, education, culture, aboriginal peoples, labour and
environmental standards, and supply management.
The minister also pointed out that Canada would sign only when
satisfied with the conditions set and the exemptions obtained, and
would, if necessary, not sign at all.
This is an illustration of the government's sensitivity to the
representations made to it, and offers an opportunity for the
people and groups concerned to make their points of view known
democratically within a public debate.
* * *
[English]
THE BUDGET
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, congratulations to the Minister of Finance on his
budget which underlines Canada's ongoing commitment to the land
mine cause.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs in the interest of international
social justice and humanity took the lead in having 123 countries
sign the treaty banning anti-personnel land mines.
Once again a Liberal minister has made us proud. In yesterday's
budget he announced we would provide $100 million over the next
five years to help meet the goals of the treaty, one of which has
greatly expanded humanitarian assistance for land mine victims to
help with their medical care and to help rebuild their lives.
I firmly believe that to sign and ratify this treaty was
important but not enough. In order to make it meaningful and not
just principles on paper, we had to put our money where our mouth
was, and we did.
Canada continues to play a prominent role in promoting and
strengthening humanitarian initiatives. I applaud the minister
for enabling us to make a difference.
* * *
1405
PRISONS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
spent much of the past four years touring prisons throughout this
country.
Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Eating your way around the—
Miss Deborah Grey: That is not even cute.
Mr. Myron Thompson: These facilities provide convicts
with three square meals a day, complete medical and dental care,
big screen TVs, rumpus rooms, and now at Ferndale there is the
possibility of a golf driving range.
Although it is good to see that a convicted murderer can reduce
his handicap while behind bars, in the real world I have met
hundreds of families that cannot provide the basic necessities
for their children. Last week when I was at Drumheller
Institution I met six inmates marinating a beautiful Alberta rib
eye steak.
What I would like this government to explain to the needy
children of this country is: why convicts eat steak when they
cannot afford macaroni; why inmates get free education and the
poor have to wait to win the millennium scholarship lottery; why
a low income family cannot afford to take its children to the
dentist, but the dentist will pay a house call to Millhaven; and
why our seniors suffer from poor health but convicts can have a
sex change on demand.
Tell me Liberal Party, what is wrong with this picture?
* * *
THE BUDGET
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the Minister of Finance. The 1998 budget will
provide increased funding of more than $400 million over the next
three years to the granting councils which provide crucial
support for our Canadian researchers, university professors and
post-graduate students. By 2001 these budgets will be at their
highest level ever in Canadian history.
All Canadians will benefit directly from this initiative. This
increased investment in basic funded research to the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council, and the Medical Research
Council illustrates our government's serious commitment to
transforming Canada into a strong knowledge based economy now and
into the new millennium.
Yesterday Dr. Paul Davenport, the chairman of the Association of
Universities and Colleges of Canada stated “The increased
investment in research will help generate growth and jobs, create
new products and processes and improve our ability to compete
globally. This budget provides an excellent start if Canada is
to close the research gap with its international competitors”.
Now Canadian researchers, the best and brightest, can realize
their dreams and fulfil their promise right here at home in
Canada.
* * *
THE BUDGET
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday we were able to announce the end of the
deficit. The finance minister rose to tell us that we have and
will continue to balance the budget.
The budget reflects the priorities of my community of
Guelph—Wellington. Ninety per cent of all taxpayers will
receive a reduction in taxes. Eighty per cent of the budget is
made up of education and health care. This is in keeping with
what all Canadians have told us their priorities are.
The students of Guelph—Wellington will be helped. Transfer
payments to the provinces will be increased and more money will
go to research and development. I am especially pleased to see
the contract payment system become mandatory.
This government has listened and acted. Thank you
Guelph—Wellington and Canada for making this possible. Balancing
the budget has not been easy, but with compassion and
determination, together we have done it.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians, in particular Albertans, will be forgiven if they are
sceptical about yesterday's budget promises. Only those with
short memories have forgotten the Prime Minister's 1990
commitment that “the Liberal government in two years will make
the Senate elected”.
This same Liberal leader can now boast the longest unbroken
string of Senate patronage appointments in history. It is time
to cut that string. Albertans are tired of waiting and they are
demanding the right to choose their senators. After all it is
their tax dollars he has used to fund this $50 million a year
patronage haven.
An Alberta senator has offered to resign his seat if the Prime
Minister would appoint an elected senator. This mechanism is in
place in Alberta and we can hold a vote as soon as there are
municipal elections this fall. This Calgarian recognizes the need
for an effective Senate and is willing to put his prized seat on
the line.
When will the Prime Minister live up to his promise of an
elected Senate?
* * *
[Translation]
IRAQ
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): It was with great relief
that we learned, last weekend, of the agreement reached between
Iraq and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, which headed off the
worst-case scenario of war.
The Bloc Quebecois has always been in favour of a diplomatic
solution. Circumstances have proved it right. Not only is this
agreement a victory for peace, but it is the best solution for the
Iraqi people, who ask for one thing, and one thing only: to be able
to live in peace.
1410
The Bloc Quebecois is particularly pleased with the outcome of
this crisis, because the UN victory has given a new breath of
credibility to an institution that is essential to good world
order.
In conclusion, in my own name and on behalf of my colleagues
in the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to congratulate the man, the humanist
and the great diplomat behind this agreement, Kofi Annan.
* * *
[English]
THE BUDGET
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the finance minister began by thanking the people of
Canada for their hard work in bringing us to the historic budget
that was announced yesterday.
Today I would like to add my thanks and mention specifically
Katherine Kowalchuk, the president of the University of Manitoba
Students Union, and the students at the University of Manitoba
and students across the country who worked so hard with members
of this House on the human resources development committee in
drafting a series of recommendations. I am very pleased to say
they were translated into statements in yesterday's budget, and
shortly into laws in this House.
Congratulations to the finance minister. Congratulations to
students across this country for the hard work they have done in
developing a system that will allow them to manage their debt.
* * *
BANKRUPTCY LEGISLATION
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, you
might ask what a recent graduate in Regina who was forced into
bankruptcy because of student loans has in common with the
Minister of Finance. Neither of them believes yesterday's budget
will really help students in debt.
Today I heard from a woman in Regina who was forced into
bankruptcy largely due to cuts in education funding. She is one
of the people the Minister of Finance claims to help in his
budget.
But while the minister's speech was filled with rhetoric about
the opportunity to learn, behind the scenes there are cynical
plans to change bankruptcy legislation to protect the banks
rather than students.
Students want to ask the Minister of Finance why he is sticking
up for the banks at the expense of students by changing the
bankruptcy legislation. Shame on the Minister of Finance.
* * *
[Translation]
THE BUDGET
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, in his budget speech, the Minister of Finance announced
an important measure for young Canadians that will help reduce the
high level of student indebtedness.
Taxpayers who are repaying their student loans will receive
assistance from the federal government. For instance, a student
repaying a loan of $25,000, or $3,800 a year, will be entitled to
a federal and provincial tax credit of $530, representing 17% of
the $2,125 in interest.
This measure shows that the federal government is listening to
young people struggling to repay student loans.
Under no circumstances does our government wish to see student
indebtedness jeopardizing the future of our young people.
This measure shows the Liberal government's desire to improve
the quality of life of Canadian citizens, young people in
particular, as they undertake or pursue job training.
* * *
[English]
ATLANTIC CANADA
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, not all
Canadians are experiencing the economic prosperity the government
loves to brag about. Many Atlantic Canadians are hurting and
hurting badly. No place in Canada is hurting more than Atlantic
Canada.
The Liberals did not get the message in last June's election.
Regrettably they have not responded to the real needs of Atlantic
Canadians. The numbers speak for themselves. There are record
numbers of unemployed. Record numbers of Atlantic Canadians are
moving to other parts of Canada and regrettably to other parts of
the world to seek opportunities.
We are looking at a record high rate of unemployment in Atlantic
Canada. The Liberals have done nothing about it since taking
office. With their failure to respond they are crippling the
economy of Atlantic Canada. But what else could we expect from a
government that was elected with no plan for Atlantic Canada?
Yesterday's budget reaffirms this.
* * *
[Translation]
THE BUDGET
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian government wants to create jobs for young people.
The finance minister's budget announced tax relief for those
hiring young people. This measure was favourably received by
young people looking for a job and wanting to get off to a good
start in life.
This measure is part of a strategy to support youth
employment. It consists of eliminating employment insurance
premiums for employers who hire young people between the ages of 18
and 24, effective January 1999.
This age group is particularly vulnerable to more difficult
economic situations.
We hope this measure will put an end to the vicious cycle of young
people unable to find work because they lack experience that they
cannot acquire until they find work.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
THE BUDGET
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what a disappointment. For the first time in a
generation a Prime Minister could have charted a new course for
our country. He could have set us on the path to debt reduction
and tax relief but he blew it. Canada's debt: $583 billion this
year, $583 billion next year, $583 billion in the year 2000.
Why does debt reduction always come last with Liberal
governments?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for the Liberal government it is very important to note
that the Leader of the Opposition in the last campaign promised
to balance the budget by March 31, 1999. So he would not have
even been able to talk about debt reduction at this moment.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition has come into this House many
times and has always said we were not preoccupied by debt
reduction and tax reduction. But I would like him to go to the
budget book and on page 17 it says that with the programs—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government did not balance the budget; the taxpayers
did. Over the next three years this government is going to take
$48 billion more in tax revenues out of the pockets of those
taxpayers. It gives the taxpayers a pittance in tax relief and
collects $48 billion more in tax revenue.
Why do Canadians still pay the highest personal income taxes in
the free world?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know that he knows that that is not true. Anyone who
reads a little bit about the economy of the world knows that that
is not true.
To go back to the question of debt and taxes, it is in front of
the hon. member's eyes on page 17. For the next four years it
states what will happen, and it will not be as good as we would
like it to be. Sixty percent of what will happen will go for tax
reduction and debt reduction and 40% for new spending. Really, we
have to go to 50:50.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if I wanted the truth, I would not read out of that
book.
Who got us into this mess? It was the spenders, the big Tory
spenders, the big Liberal spenders who got us into this mess. Who
got us out of this deficit? It was the savers. It was the
taxpayers, the hardworking taxpayers. Yet in yesterday's budget,
the surplus was given to the spenders and the taxpayers got
little or nothing.
Why does the Prime Minister always at the end of the day reward
the spenders rather than the taxpayers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, turn to page 17. I am rewarding those who want tax
relief and debt reduction. Yes, there is more revenue than
expected because we had the right policies to make sure that the
interest rates were low and that our exports were very good. That
is why Canadians are making more money and they keep more money,
and of course they help us to balance the budget. It is as clear
as that.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberals have taken out the taxpayers' chequebook again. Just
when we thought that taxpayers had some rights, just when we
thought that the Prime Minister would do the responsible thing
and start paying down the debt, he popped the cork on the
spending champagne, and that is wrong. The tiny token tax cut was
more than swallowed up by the CPP increases that they instituted
at the beginning of this year.
We had a surplus yesterday. Just how is it that that surplus
got sucked up so soon?
1420
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, they should know, according to the budget of yesterday,
that the government will have paid back $12 billion of market
debt in 1997-98. This is the debt whiche we have to collect
money to pay interest on. They should know that.
In fact, yes, we have balanced the books one year earlier than
they were to do it. It is going to be balanced next year and the
year after. At the same time we will continue to care for the
people who need help in Canada.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister talks about paying down market debt. That is
like bragging because I have paid off my Visa with my MasterCard.
Last year Canadians paid $161 billion in taxes, including the
huge CPP tax hikes. This year we will pay $167 billion. By the
turn of the century, in the year 2000, it will be going up to
$173 billion: $161 billion, $167 billion, $173 billion. It is
going up, up and away.
Just how is it that the Prime Minister can explain this is
spelled tax relief?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very painful for opposition members. They should
relax a bit. It is a time to rejoice. We have balanced the
books in Canada.
I would like to read a comment that will be appreciated by
everybody in the House:
It does make it hard to criticize. It's a significant financial
accomplishment. I am not going to argue a balanced budget isn't
good.
That was stated in the Calgary Herald by a guy named—no,
I cannot name his name—the member of Parliament for Medicine
Hat.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on February 21, Roy Romanow wrote the following to the Prime
Minister: “The premiers unanimously agree that the federal
government's top budget priority should be to increase funding
for the Canada health and social transfer”.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that, while the opportunity was
there, the budget completely ignored the genuine needs of Canadians and
Quebeckers, as expressed in the unanimous request by the 10 premiers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday in his speech, the Minister of Finance read the press release
that followed the premiers' meeting in December. The premiers were
telling us to look after students, by ensuring that their debt levels
are reduced and helping them graduate from high school and university.
That is what the premiers asked for.
We have listened to them and done what had to be done, that is, to
ensure that young people in Canada and Quebec are better prepared for
the 21st century.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance should have read the premiers' letter explaining
their press release. He might have understood what they were asking for.
When the government made cuts to curb its deficit, transfer
payments to the provinces were the hardest hit and this had an impact on
the health and education systems across Canada and Quebec.
Now that budget surpluses are being generated, why did the Prime
Minister make the deliberate choice not to give back the money stolen
from the provinces, preferring instead to use this money to try to go
down in history as the first Canadian government leader to—
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
was happy to hear young Quebeckers say, yesterday, they were pleased to
see that the government got its priorities straight.
This has always been a concern of the federal government, but Bloc
Quebecois members are not telling young Quebeckers that the money for
the grants and loans they are getting right now comes from transfer
payments to the provinces and that this money comes from the federal
government. And we have decided to give them more.
1425
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I guess
we did not watch the same television channel, because we heard just the
opposite on the news.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: He was watching cartoons, as usual.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yesterday, the Minister of Finance delivered yet
another budget full of hidden data. Jean-Luc Landry, the president of
Bolton Tremblay, said that the minister was clearly hiding surpluses.
Given that the Minister of Finance was off by $15 billion last year
and by $17 billion this year in his deficit forecasts, what does he have
to say to this financial analyst who said, as we do, that the budget is
again full of hidden data this year?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
fact that the Minister of Finance is doing better than he anticipated is
not a big problem for the Prime Minister.
So much the better if people think the minister will do better in
the coming year than he is predicting, because we all know that he is
such a humble person.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
essentially being told that we have to be cautious.
If so, what does the finance minister have to say to Alain Dubuc,
an editorial writer for La Presse who usually approves of his policies,
but who said that, in this case, the minister is cautious to the point
of deceit?
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, we all have to be more careful in our
choice of words. The Minister of Finance may reply to the question.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
thanks to the cautiousness shown in yesterday's budget that we will
tackle the debt, lower taxes and invest in our young people.
It is thanks to this cautiousness that we managed to balance the
budget, that Canada experienced the most spectacular turnaround of all
G-7 countries, and that we succeeded. We will continue to be cautious.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, less
than a week ago the finance minister, coming out of the G-7,
assured us that his budget would tackle unemployment. It turns
out that he was being somewhat liberal with the truth. He
jettisoned his jobs commitment while crossing the Atlantic Ocean.
With inflation below 1% we see firm targets for inflation. With
unemployment still hovering around 9% we see no targets for jobs.
How can the finance minister take no responsibility for 1.4
million Canadians remaining unemployed well into the next
millennium?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the economic policies of the government have been very
good. We have created one million new jobs in the last four
years.
In order to do that we had to have a good economy. To have low
interest rates and job creation in the nation we need to do what
we have done.
We have balanced our books. The economy of Canada is very
competitive. That is the way to create jobs. That is why we
agree that the main preoccupation of the government is to have a
set of economic policies that will create jobs across the whole
economy, not only put people—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister has told Canadians that the hardest thing he
ever had to do was cut health care. It is hard to believe this
is the same finance minister who, despite a $6.5 billion surplus,
could not find one extra dollar this year for health care
transfers. If he just kept his promise to spend 50% of the
surplus on vital services, we could have shored up health care.
My question is for the Prime Minister. What happened to his
promise?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the House of Commons is dealing with a bill which will
increase by $1.5 billion the floor for transfer payments to the
provinces.
It is a bill that the House has not voted on yet.
1430
Even before the budget we had money for health care and transfer
payments. It seems to me that the leader of the NDP does not
follow very closely what is going on in the House.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker,
neither does the Prime Minister tell the whole story. Seven out
of ten provinces, including Nova Scotia, will be cut in health
care and education over the next few years.
The Prime Minister said in question period that you “should
relax—. It is time to rejoice”. I wonder whether this is the
message he is delivering to unemployed Canadians or to young
children in poverty, more of them being in poverty since he was
elected.
[Translation]
I would like to know what kind of logic the government is
using to conclude that it cannot afford to reduce taxes, yet it
found the money to spend on this new program.
Where is the logic in not cutting taxes?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in the budget we announced several tax cuts, including the 3%
surtax which the Conservatives implemented to lower a deficit that
continued to grow.
The Minister of Finance has just removed that 3% and he has
made other tax reductions for lower income people, because it is
our belief that the first tax reductions must go, first and
foremost, to those most in need of them.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, let us
set the record straight. That 3% has not been removed. It is still
there for the middle class, among others.
[English]
I would like to ask a precise question. In the budget documents
the Prime Minister claims that a Canadian earning $35,000 a year
will get a total tax cut of $450 over the next three years.
What he does not say is that the same Canadian will see his or
her CPP premiums go up by $574 over the same period. Only a
Liberal would confuse a tax grab with a tax cut.
Could he explain to Canadians who are earning $35,000 how they
will get any relief at all?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I say to Canadians in that situation that the level of
UI payments that were increased year after year by the Tories who
charged up to $3.30 are now down to $2.70 this year, starting
January 1.
We reduced it by $1.4 billion. We reduced the increase of the
Conservatives this year again, in a field where they showed what
terrible managers they were.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
duty bound to point out that the Conservatives supported the huge
hike in CPP premiums in Bill C-2.
In the 1995, 1996 and 1997 budgets the finance minister claimed
that the $3 billion contingency fund would not be used for new
spending. That is what he said. He said “The contingency
reserve is not a source of funding for new policy initiatives”.
In yesterday's budget the minister reneged on that promise and
blew the entire contingency fund on new spending. Why should we
believe the minister's word today when he already—
The Speaker: The Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his statement. Last week we
had the full monte. This week we have the true monte.
Let me simply point out that we did not use the contingency
reserve for new spending. The reason we were able to bring in
the first balanced budget in 30 years is that it was used to
reduce the deficit.
1435
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, now
we are just waiting for a Paul that tells the truth.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to withdraw
those words, please.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw.
The 1997 budget states “the contingency reserve is not a source
of funding for new policy initiatives”. This just does not
square with the actions of the government.
In fact, in this year's budget the government spent the entire
contingency fund on new spending and the whole debt repayment
program is premised on the contingency fund going to debt.
How does he square his actions of yesterday with his words of
today?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the hon. member should go back to the research
department. Let me be very clear.
The contingency reserve was used to lower the deficit. In fact,
it was used to eliminate the deficit. The spending in the budget
for students to which the Reform Party objects and the spending
in the budget for children in poor families to which the Reform
Party objects did not come out of the contingency reserve.
I will explain it many times but I would hope I could get
through just once.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has announced that Yves Landry, the president of Chrysler
Canada, will be the chairman of the Canadian millennium scholarship
fund.
My question is for the Prime Minister. When he approached Mr.
Landry, did the Prime Minister tell him that this intervention in
the field of education was raising hackles in Quebec and that
everyone involved—students, the academic community and
federalists and sovereignists alike—strongly opposed the federal
government's intrusion into an area of provincial jurisdiction?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I had the privilege and the pleasure of speaking with Mr. Landry,
who understands very well, as we do on this side, the importance of
investing in the future of young people throughout Canada,
including Quebec. Education is the key to young people's future.
Mr. Landry is highly respected and successful. He will do an
excellent job as the chairman of this foundation, and young people
across Canada will benefit.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, everyone
respects Mr. Landry. We have little doubt of his interest in
education.
However, did the Prime Minister—and this is my question—tell
the new chairman of the Canadian millennium scholarship fund that
the position he was appointing him to would put him between a
rock and a hard place, that is, at the heart of a potential
federal-provincial battle, because no one in Quebec wants Ottawa
involved in education?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I hope Mr. Landry will realize that Philippe Leclerc, the president
of the Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec, said this budget
put young people's priorities in the forefront.
I hope the hon. member will understand the remarks of Mario
Dumont—who is not necessarily one of my greatest friends. He
said: “Lucien Bouchard would really like the next election campaign
to be run on the back of the federal government, but this attitude
of confrontation whatever the cost could well end up penalizing
students in Quebec”.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, with
no change in taxation and a massive increase in CPP premiums, we
see that yesterday's budget provides absolutely nothing in the way
of tax relief.
Instead of offering real tax relief, the Minister of Finance chose
to increase spending.
1440
Why is the minister spending Canadians' tax relief, when their
disposable income and standard of living continue to drop?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Reform Party critic seems to be saying that providing tax relief
for single mothers is not a tax reduction.
They are saying that lowering taxes for 13 million middle
class and disadvantaged Canadians is not a tax reduction. They are
saying that helping students deduct their student loan interest is
not a tax reduction.
We represent Canadians. I wonder who the Reform Party
represents.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
what this minister has represented is 36 tax increases, including
the largest tax increase in Canadian history, bringing federal
revenues up by $46 billion from 1993 to 2000, a $5,000 increase
in revenues per family.
How can this minister claim this is a tax relief budget when
revenues are going up, when taxes are going up, when bracket
creep is taken into account, and the CPP? People will pay more,
not less, after this budget.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let us do a bit of economics 101. The government's
revenues are going up. Why are the government's revenues going
up? They are going up because there are a million more Canadians
back at work. They are going up because Canadian corporations
are making more profits, therefore they are paying more taxes and
revenues are going up.
Let me explain slowly to the Reform Party. When economic
activity is good and when Canadians are going back to work and
the economy is booming, then Canadians feel good, our revenues go
up—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
despite the opposition of Quebec's educational community, despite
the opposition of the Government of Quebec and the Liberal Party of
Quebec and despite the serious reservations of all provincial
ministers of education, the government has imposed its millennium
scholarship fund.
Will the Minister of Finance acknowledge that his government's
refusal to put money set aside for the millennium scholarship fund
into existing provincial loan and bursary programs is intended not
so much to help students as to make the federal government more
visible to young people?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I think students are entitled to know where the money they receive
comes from. That is their right. I do not think this is a great
concern for the Bloc.
As we saw recently, the Quebec premier gave out cheques but
failed to tell people that 90% of the money was provided by the
federal government. It is time for people in Quebec, as in the rest
of Canada, to know the truth.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
are talking about $80 million out of $600 million.
What is the Prime Minister's response to his colleague in
human resources development who told journalists yesterday, and I
quote: “The millennium fund is the best way for the federal
government to increase its visibility”?
The government does not care about young people. What counts
is visibility.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I think the minister is quite right. We want to help young
Quebeckers prepare for the 21st century. It is right for them to
realize that there are advantages to being part of Canada rather
than be told all sorts of things by the Bloc Quebecois that have
nothing to do with reality.
We think every Quebecker should know that the taxes they pay
to the federal government give them something in return. They are
going to know it in this case, you can be sure.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, older Canadians waiting for news about the seniors
benefit were disappointed in yesterday's budget. They thought
they would finally have some security. Instead they were shoved
to the back of the line while the finance minister blew the
surplus on big spending.
1445
Why are the spenders moved to the head of the line while tax
relief on retirement savings gets ignored?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask the hon. member are there no students, are there
no people with disabilities, are there no seniors, are there no
single mothers, are there no people in need in her riding?
Is her riding so choice that there are no Canadians who require
help? Are there no Canadians who require equality of
opportunity? Does she live in a riding where there are no poor,
no middle class? If she does then she is lucky. That does not
describe the entire country. We are going to stand—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I guess the finance minister forgot that two years ago
he announced clawbacks in taxes of up to 75% on retirement
savings.
Anxious older Canadians, unable to plan their retirement, have
been waiting while this dithering, delaying finance minister
fails to let them know the details of his so-called seniors
benefit.
Why the delay? What is his excuse?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said very clearly this year we will be bringing down
the seniors benefit, and we will.
Let me tell members something that will not be in it. The Reform
Party in one of its recent documents advocated a $3 billion cut
in old age pensions. Let it be very clear, that will not be in
it.
What we have said is that we are going to protect those who
require help. We are going to make sure that, with an aging
population, this country can take care of its senior citizens. We
are going to do in the future what we did in the past.
This government and the provinces saved the Canada pension plan.
The Reform Party voted against it—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Finance.
The employment insurance fund surplus will have exceeded $25
billion by the year 2000. A sizeable portion of that surplus was
created by employment insurance cuts, or in other words savings at
the expense of the unemployed. Twenty-five billion dollars, that is
more or less the total budget for health, education and social
assistance in Quebec.
Is the Minister of Finance not ashamed to restore Canada's
financial health by the year 2000 at the expense of the unemployed,
who are among the poorest members of society?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when we came to power, there was a $6 billion deficit in the
employment insurance fund. Since we have been in power, that
shortfall has been eliminated.
When we came to power, unemployment insurance contributions
were $3.07. The Conservative Party had intended to raise them to
$3.30. We lowered them every year, and today they are down to
$2.66. That is a record we can be proud of.
* * *
[English]
ARMENIA
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
In consideration of the current political situation in Armenia
and the pending elections on March 16, what is the minister
prepared to do to ensure that the upcoming elections in Armenia
are fair and democratic, and how will Canadian foreign policy
promote bilateral economic co-operation between Canada and
Armenia?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
We have agreed to supply a number of election observers to work
through the organization for security and co-operation. It is
also important to underline that just last year we signed a major
trade agreement and a major foreign investment agreement with
Armenia. We are negotiating a taxation agreement.
We want to reinforce those kinds of initiatives by inviting a
number of high level visits between Armenians and Canadians,
particularly in the business community, to promote our further
relationships.
* * *
THE BUDGET
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
largest tax increase of the year was not announced in yesterday's
budget. It was announced late last year when the Liberals passed
their huge CPP tax increase. Canadians felt the first instalment
come out of their paycheques in January. The CPP tax increase
will continue to balloon over the next three years.
1450
In fact, it is part of the total tax grab of another $48 billion
that will have taken place by the year 2000.
How can the minister say he is cutting taxes when the government
taxes this year will be at an all time high?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let us simply take a look at the record. The fact of the
matter is this year there was a $1.4 billion cut in employment
insurance premiums. In yesterday's budget we cut taxes for
students, we cut taxes for single mothers and single families, we
cut taxes for 13 million Canadians. In fact, 14 million Canadians
saw a tax reduction. We eliminated for all those taxpayers
earning $50,000 or less the odious surtax imposed by the kissing
cousins of the Reform Party.
The fact is a $7 billion tax cut package was in yesterday's
budget.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
can smell that odious thing right now.
Once upon a time there was a hope in this country that maybe,
just maybe, once the budget was balanced there would be some
prospect of significant tax relief. It was kind of like the
faint hope clause for Canadian taxpayers.
But in this budget, when we add together the CPP increases, the
bracket creep, the user fees, the hidden taxes, Canadians are
paying more taxes now and in the future than ever before in
history.
Why could the finance minister not find money for real tax
relief but he could find money for another $11 billion in new
spending?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, which spending would the hon. member like to abolish? Is
the help for students? Is it the help for the single mothers?
Or would he like to perhaps take back the $1.5 billion transfer
we made to the provinces, the $7 billion in transfers we are
going to do over the next five years? Are those the things the
hon. member would like to cut? Where are the hon. member's
values?
This budget yesterday was about Canadians' needs and—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, like you, I am finding it a
little difficult sometimes to get the whole debate. I know we
are going to settle down a bit.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the finance
minister has said that the hardest thing he had to do was cut
health care. He said he had to do this because of the deficit.
Health care across Canada is in a crisis. Now that he has the
money, why did he put no new investment therefore into health
care in the budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the largest single investment in this budget was the
$1.5 billion transfer to the provinces for health care. We have
put $134 million more into the Medical Research Council for
medical research. We put a substantial amount of money into the
national AIDS strategy. We put $60 million into the blood
agency.
What the hon. member ought to know is that 80% of all new
spending in this budget went to health care and education.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, only a
Liberal would give a person a dollar one day, pay the person a
dollar the next day and say he got an increase. The reality is
those transfer payments were not an increase.
In the news reports today the Minister of Veterans Affairs,
Newfoundland's cabinet minister, has announced that the
after-TAGS money will come from the $3 billion contingency fund.
Will the Minister of Finance confirm that this is the case and if
it is the case, what is he also going to do for the west coast
fishery?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this government is very concerned with the problems of
those who are involved in the fishery in Newfoundland. We have
demonstrated in the past our great concern and it is obviously a
matter to which this government has devoted its attention.
But I have stated in this House, and I will repeat, the
contingency reserve will not be spent.
It is one of the reasons that we were able to eliminate the
deficit and it will not be spent.
1455
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday Canadians were waiting to see this imaginary surplus.
Instead they had to witness the tax and cut Liberals become the
tax and spend Liberals. The surplus has disappeared.
The Minister of Finance may be able to hide the surplus from
ordinary Canadians, but what he cannot hide is the Liberal
contempt for the ordinary taxpayers of Canada.
Did the Minister of Finance hide this surplus simply to prevent
his own caucus from spending it all?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can well understand that the hon. member would not
recognize a surplus if it hit him.
The fact is yesterday we brought down the first balanced budget
in 30 years. We have projected three balanced budgets in a row
and that would be the first time that has happened in 50 years.
Let us understand that is a very important thing for this
country.
The leader of the Conservative Party has stated that deficits
are not important. He has said that he would be prepared to cut
taxes and see the country go back into debt.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, when
we hear the finance minister talk about debt reduction he sounds
like a used car dealer. No money down, no payments this year.
That is his commitment to debt reduction. It is not a genuine
commitment, and we know better.
Canadians are wondering what the Minister of Finance did with
the $3 billion reserve fund this year. The fact is he has
already spent the $3 billion reserve. Why should Canadians trust
that the Minister of Finance will use that $3 billion contingency
in the future to pay down the debt when he has demonstrated that
he will spend it every chance he gets?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member has been. In our
second budget the contingency reserve went to eliminating the
deficit 100%. In our third budget it went to eliminating the
deficit 100%. In our fourth budget it went to eliminating the
deficit 100%.
We laid in place a plan which led to the elimination of the
deficit. I can assure the House that it will lead to a
substantial reduction in the debt burden of this country.
* * *
OTTAWA-CARLETON ASSOCIATION FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL
DISABILITIES
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
For over two decades the Ottawa-Carleton Association for Persons
with Developmental Disabilities has had a federal contract to
securely shred classified information. Now it seems that the
national archives might be ending this contract, leaving 61
people with developmental disabilities out of a job.
Is the minister prepared to take action to protect these jobs?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton and
other hon. members, including the hon. members for Ottawa South,
Ottawa West—Nepean, Ottawa—Vanier and a number of others who
brought this matter to my attention.
I agree with them that these developmentally disabled people
should continue to be employed by the federal government and I
intend to take measures to make sure that happens.
* * *
THE BUDGET
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, after all the hype and the headlines what real change
has this budget brought about?
Canadians still pay the highest personal income taxes in the
free world. We still have a $583 billion national debt, a second
mortgage of $77,000 per Canadian family. Government spending has
never been higher in Canadian history.
It did not have to be this way. After all, we had a surplus.
Why did the finance minister blow this money on more spending
instead of real tax relief and real debt reduction?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would simply say to the hon. member is helping 13
million Canadians lower their taxes not tax real relief? Is
helping single mothers not real tax relief? Is helping students
not real tax relief?
What constituency is the hon. member talking about? Who is he
worried about?
We made it very clear. We are going to cut personal taxes and
we are going to start with low and middle income Canadians. We
will get to his friends later.
* * *
1500
PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of my brother Speaker from the
Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly, Mr. Glenn Hagel.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I am going to hear at least three points of
order and I am going to begin with the hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
HANSARD
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, many people look to Hansard as being a fairly
accurate record of the proceedings of this House. I am not sure
if this is a point of order or a point of privilege. I will
allow you to judge that.
But I would like to point out to you that I have checked
Hansard last week and this week just to see how the remarks
that I have been making have come through.
Last week in the debate on C-4, remarks that I did not make were
attributed to me in the Hansard record and yesterday, in
looking through this again, I note that I had an intervention.
Following that intervention a response was made to what I had
said by a Bloc member. None of that is recorded in here.
I bring that to your attention because I think there are many
people out there that look to Hansard to be fairly
accurate. I do not know what can be done about this, but I think
it is something that should be looked into.
The Speaker: My colleague, I thank you for bringing that
to my attention as you did earlier at the chair. If some error
has been made I will see to it that (a) the Hansard blues
are checked through and (b) we will refer to the audio which is
on the television portion. If there is a correction to be made
it will be made. It was inadvertent if it did happen.
On the same point of order, the hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask if you would bring the results of that back
to this House. I have heard concerns of this before, not just
from this member. We would like a report back to the House,
please.
The Speaker: Of course we are going to check it and
we will see where it is. If it is an error, I guess we make some
errors, but we will try to cut down on them as much as we can.
We will have a look at the blues and the television tapes and if
indeed that was on there, if it is necessary, I will report back
to the House.
I am going to go to point of order from the hon. member for
Edmonton North.
1505
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
during Statements by Members today my colleague from Wild Rose
said that he had spent the last four years touring around the
country visiting prisons and then went on to make some comments
about the prisons.
At that moment the member for Brampton West—Mississauga blurted
out from her place “eating your way around the—” and then
covered her mouth, realizing what she had said.
With regard to these vicious personal attacks, which are
unnecessary, could she stand up and withdraw the comment?
The Speaker: In the heat of everything that was going
on I did not hear the remarks. I do not know that they were
made, but an hon. member has been named. The hon. member for
Brampton West—Mississauga is here now. Perhaps she could
clarify whether anything was said.
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, instead of getting into a petty argument I would
like to withdraw that comment.
[Translation]
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier today, during Oral Question Period, you
asked a member to withdraw his statement suggesting that a minister had
said things that were untrue. That is what you asked the hon. member for
Medicine Hat to do, and he did.
However, claiming to be quoting from a newspaper, another member,
in this case the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, said basically
the same thing about the Minister of Finance, still alleging that the
words were not his but those of the reporter.
Paragraph 487.(2) of Beauchesne clearly states:
487.(2) Words may not be used hypothetically or conditionally,
if they are plainly intended to convey a direct imputation—
In other words, whether his words were used hypothetically or
borrowed from someone else, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot
does not have the right to use words the hon. member for Medicine Hat
was forbidden to use, and rightly so.
So I suggest that you ask the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to withdraw the words he used in reference
to the Minister of Finance.
The Speaker: Members, of course, cannot quote from another person
who used words they are not allowed to use in this House. I sometimes
miss a word here and there, and I missed those. It happens. The hon.
member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is here. He was named.
Did he use a word suggesting that someone in this House lied?
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
simply read what Alain Dubuc wrote in the paper, namely that the
Minister of Finance was so secretive about his budget, almost to the
point of deception, or something to that effect. But it was a quote.
The Speaker: It is a very simple issue. As I said, we cannot use
this word, even if it is from someone else, in this case a journalist.
We cannot use someone else's words.
I would ask the hon. member to withdraw these words if he did use
them.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, while listening to you, I found
the exact quote. I would not want to distort the statement made
by Alain Dubuc, who is the editorial wrtier from La Presse. He
wrote, yesterday, that “the minister is cautious to the point of
becoming deceitful”. And if you ask me—
The Speaker: Even if it is from Mr. Dubuc, we cannot say this. I am
asking the hon. member to withdraw this comment.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to stir up
controversy. We have better things to do. I withdraw these words. I
could have replaced them by “Mr. Dubuc said—”
1510
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for his withdrawal. This is
good enough for me.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[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]
CANADA-TAIWAN PARLIAMENTARY FRIENDSHIP GROUP
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the 73 all party members of the Canada-Taiwan
Parliamentary Friendship Group I am pleased and honoured to table
our first ever report, in both official languages, in the House
of Commons.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will know that this
organization is not an official delegation and therefore he will
require unanimous consent of the House to table any such
document.
Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to table this
document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, this report on bilateral
trade and cultural affairs was prepared by our delegation to
Taiwan from January 11 to January 17, 1998. It has been adopted
by our membership and approved to be tabled in the House.
* * *
PETITIONS
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my
honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The petitioners from the city of Kamloops and surrounding
communities are concerned about the government's decision to
pursue the multilateral agreement on investment and are against
the MAI on principle.
They ask parliament to urge the government not to sign it.
SENIORS BENEFITS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a
second petition on another matter to present.
The petitioners are from throughout central British Columbia.
They are concerned about the government's seniors benefit package
that will soon be coming to parliament.
They are worried that the clawback will penalize those Canadians
who have provided for their retirement years while rewarding
those who have not.
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a
third petition to present.
The petitioners indicate that if the government is to proceed
with any form of tax reform, which we have just seen it is really
not, it should be phasing out or phasing down the GST.
This would benefit all Canadians and put money into the hands of
Canadians to stimulate their local economies.
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am happy, on behalf of a great
number of constituents in my riding, to present a petition this
afternoon.
The petitioners believe that consumers in Canada are basically
at the mercy of the pricing policies of oil companies. They
therefore petition the Government of Canada to adopt legislation
which would require gasoline companies to give 30 days written
notice to the Minister of Natural Resources of an impending
significant increase in the price of gasoline of over 1% of the
current pump price per litre. Also the notice should contain the
reason or reasons for the increase and when it will take effect.
RIGHT TO LIFE
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36 I have the privilege to present four
petitions to the House.
In the first petition 40 citizens of my riding of Cambridge wish
to draw to the attention of the House their concerns for the
sanctity of life.
1515
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament retain current
provisions in the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide
and that Parliament not sanction the aiding of suicide or
euthanasia.
HOUSING
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the second
petition 25 concerned citizens in my riding call on Parliament
to ask the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation to protect the future of housing co-operatives in
Ontario.
The petitioners request that the minister only negotiate with
his provincial counterpart under publicly declared principles
established with input from co-operative housing stakeholders.
ABORTION
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the next
petition, which contains 130 signatures, calls on Parliament to
enact legislation protecting health care providers from having to
take part in abortions or in referrals for such procedures.
PUBLIC NUDITY
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the
final petition over 500 citizens in my riding of Cambridge and
surrounding areas draw to the attention of this House their
concerns with the issue of nudity in public places.
The petitioners pray that Parliament clarify and reinforce the
relevant sections of the Criminal Code to ensure that these laws
will meet the reasonable limit test under the charter of rights
and freedoms.
SENIORS BENEFIT
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have three petitions to present to the House today
pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first one is a petition signed by many Canadians who are
very concerned about the seniors benefit and are calling on
the Parliament of Canada to undertake to review the entire
retirement income system in Canada to ensure there is adequacy in
the system today and tomorrow.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 is
from a number of Canadians who are very concerned about the
multilateral agreement on investment.
These Canadians are concerned that the House of Commons would be
signing this without public debate. They are calling on the
government and the House of Commons to debate this issue in the
House publicly and to place the issue, if the Government of
Canada decides to sign the MAI, before a national referendum for
all the people of Canada to make that decision.
They are concerned about this because obviously the rights of
Canadian citizens and the power of the Government of Canada would
be greatly superseded by those foreign—
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I know the hon. member will not
want to make a speech on the presentation of petitions but
comply with the rules and give a brief summary of the petition
and perhaps the place where the petitioners are from, which I
think the rules allow.
TAXATION
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate that advice. My final petition is
pertaining to the tax system in Canada. These Canadians are very
concerned about the unfair tax system and they are calling for
fair tax reform.
EMERGENCY PERSONNEL
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians
including from my own riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that police
officers and firefighters are required to place their lives at
risk on a daily basis and that employment benefits for them often
do not provide sufficient compensation for the families of those
who are killed in the line of duty.
They also state that the public mourns their loss when they are
killed in the line of duty and wishes to support in a tangible
way the surviving families in their time of need.
The petitioners therefore ask Parliament to establish a public
safety officers compensation fund for the benefit of families of
public safety officers killed in the line of duty.
* * *
[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 suggest
that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[English]
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask you to be so kind as to call Motion No. 7 in the name
of the hon. member for Brandon—Souris.
That an Order of the House do issue for
copies of all plans, drawings, documents and proposals
initiated by the Crown, or by others on behalf of the Crown,
surrounding the Health Canada study on the licensing of the
bovine growth hormone drug (rBST) in Canada.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, it is acceptable to the
government except for the documents which cannot be released
pursuant to the Access to Information Act. These documents are
tabled immediately.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Subject to the conditions mentioned by the
hon. parliamentary secretary, does the House agree that notice of
Motion P-7 be deemed adopted?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the other Notices of
Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1520
[English]
THE BUDGET
FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
The House resumed from February 24 consideration of the motion
that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the
government.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to begin the debate on the 1998 federal budget.
In the interests of civility I would like to find something in
the budget on which I could compliment the minister at the
outset. The best I can do is we note that the colour scheme of
the 1998 budget is not Liberal red but Reform green. I would
like to compliment the minister on this change in colour scheme.
It is the duty of the official opposition to hold the government
accountable for its actions and to present constructive
alternatives where we consider the government's course of action
weak or misguided. This duty we now intend to discharge in
relation to the federal budget presented to the House yesterday.
I begin by commenting on what could have been. This budget
could have been the best piece of economic news to be received by
Canadian taxpayers in the last three decades. It could have been
a budget and budget day to be celebrated by all Canadians
regardless of party. This could have been the case because, for
the first time in 28 years, the federal budget is balanced. For
the first time since fiscal year 1969-1970 the federal government
will not be spending more than it takes in in taxes.
A balanced budget, the elimination of the deficit, has been a
goal to which the Reform Party has aspired since its inception.
It is a goal which has been pursued by many other Canadians, by
the chambers of commerce, by the boards of trade, by the Canadian
Federation of Independent Business, by the Canadian Taxpayers
Federation, by the C.D. Howe Institute, by the Business Council
on National Issues, the conference board. The fact that this
objective has been reached could have been, for all of us, a day
of unqualified celebration.
But I say could have been for a good reason. I say could have
been because this budget unfortunately and regrettably also
contains a great betrayal of those Canadians who are chiefly
responsible for eliminating the deficit.
I refer to the oft abused, oft ignored, long suffering Canadian
taxpayers, the 14 million Canadians who pay personal income
taxes, the hundreds of thousands of business people who pay
corporate taxes and payroll taxes year after year, the millions
upon millions of Canadians who pay consumption taxes including
the hated GST every day on almost everything they buy.
Let us begin this budget debate by clearly recognizing that it
is the taxpayers of Canada who are chiefly responsible for
eliminating the deficit.
Let me establish this. When the Liberals took office the
deficit, the legacy of fiscal mismanagement left over from the
Tories, stood at $42 billion. It now stands at zero or near
zero, but how was it eliminated? It was eliminated in part by
offloading federal spending on the provinces, by slashing
transfers by $7.4 billion. This offloading accounted for about
16.5% of the reduction of the deficit.
Primarily, however, the bulk of the deficit, 70% of it, was
eliminated by increased tax revenues collected from the long
suffering Canadian taxpayer. The federal government will collect
$35 billion more from taxpayers in 1998 than it did in 1993. It
has levied 37 tax increases on top of the 71 tax increases levied
by the previous tax happy Tory administration. So 70% of the
deficit was eliminated not by cutting federal spending but by
increased revenues from the taxpayers.
1525
This brings me to the most regrettable feature of the
budget, a feature that will go down in Canadian history as the
great betrayal. If it is the Canadian taxpayer who has through
the payment of increased taxes contributed the most toward
eliminating the deficit, then by all that is fair and just and
equitable it is the Canadian taxpayer who ought to be the first
to be rewarded and ought to receive the most.
The first claim on any surplus ought to be debt reduction and
tax relief, the two highest priorities of the very people who
made elimination of the deficit possible.
Canadians had a right to expect that this might happen. In the
1997 federal election the Prime Minister solemnly promised the
following, from page 29 of the 1997 red book: “We are moving
towards a time when the budget will finally be balanced and the
government will have a fiscal surplus. When we reach that time,
we will allocate every billion dollars of fiscal dividend so that
one half will go to a combination of reducing taxes and reducing
the national debt”.
By this promise millions of ordinary Canadians were led to
understand that as soon as there was a budget surplus they would
be rewarded by half of every billion dollars of surplus going to
tax relief and debt reduction, and they understood this would
occur over the entire mandate of the government in the first
year, the second year, the third year and the fourth year. But
what happened? Let me tell the House what happened. Let me
trace the downward spiral of government credibility on this
issue.
Earlier this year the government's Fiscal Monitor showed a
December 1 public accounts surplus of $1.4 billion and financial
surplus of $11.3 billion. In other words, the official figures
from the finance department showed a significant surplus. But at
the same time the finance department's spin doctors began to
predict a year end deficit of $2 billion; in other words, a sign
for anyone watching of front end loading by the government
endeavouring to spend any surplus before it could accumulate.
This is an old story. Finance ministers since the days of Sir
John A. Macdonald have complained about civil servants, sensing a
possible year end surplus in departmental budgets, rushing out to
spend it before the fiscal year ends. But in this case we have
the Minister of Finance himself, the finance department itself,
following exactly the same practice which it has decried.
This downward spiral of credibility was further advanced by the
Prime Minister's prebudget speech on Tuesday, February 17.
Remember, this is the Prime Minister who a few months before was
talking about debt reduction and tax relief. In that speech on
February 17 there was not a word about debt reduction and not a
word about tax relief. It was as if the red book had become a
dead book.
Instead, the speech focused almost entirely on a new spending
proposal in a sphere of provincial jurisdiction, namely the Prime
Minister's $2.5 billion millennium scholarship fund. By the
Prime Minister's own election promise, if there was enough of a
surplus to support a new $2.5 billion spending initiative there
should automatically have been announced a $2.5 billion
contribution to debt and tax relief.
There was not a peep from the Prime Minister on February 17
about debt and tax relief, only the scratching sound of the
Prime Minister's pen writing a cheque on the account of the
taxpayers of Canada.
The breaking of the Prime Minister's election promise, which was
soon to come, became a fait accompli on February 18 when the
finance minister told the CBC that he would not be
“constrained” by the Prime Minister's election promise.
Now the great betrayal is confirmed in this budget speech. The
budget discloses that the entire accumulating surplus for 1997
was spent and no new tax cuts in 1997 and no real debt reduction.
That surplus should have amounted to $3 billion and the
government spent the whole thing.
In this budget there is no serious effort to tackle the debt.
Despite the fact that the polls say the majority of Canadians
want debt retirement to be the number one priority of this
government, the minister devoted only one and a half pages in his
budget speech to debt reduction while he spent eleven pages and a
great deal of time on spending proposals.
1530
Net public debt remains constant at $583 billion over the
mandate of the government. Interest charges on the debt increase
to $45 billion per year. The claim that the government has
reduced market debt by $13 billion fails to mention that much of
this has been done by the government using its MasterCard to pay
off its Visa card, using funds from the civil service
superannuation fund and from CPP to pay off government debt.
The provision for only a $3 billion contingency reserve, which
may go to paying down the debt only if it is not needed by the
big spenders in the government, is completely inadequate. In the
1997 federal budget, and I quote from page 47, it said in big
bold black letters—the finance department was trying to impress
us—“the contingency reserve is not a source of funding for new
policy initiatives”. It said the same thing on page 94 of the
1996 budget. It said the same thing on page 68 of the 1995
budget.
However, in 1998 the contingency reserve disappeared and was
replaced by an equal amount of new spending. Program spending
was budgeted at $103 billion. The actual spending was $106
billion. The difference was made up from this contingency fund
that was not to be touched for that purpose. This says that
statements by the minister, even if they are in the budget, about
what the contingency reserve fund may or may not be used for are
not worth the paper they are written on.
What is needed is the ironclad national debt retirement fund
proposed by the official opposition and established by law, to
which fund 50% of any budget surplus would be allocated by law
each year.
The big story of the budget is that while no serious effort is
made to tackle the debt, spending is nevertheless up by $11
billion over the next four years.
While tax relief measures amounting to $7 billion are offered
over three years, total taxes paid by all taxpayers increased by
$46 billion over the period. In other words the government is
prepared to put $900 in tax relief into the average family's
right pocket and then take almost $6,000 in additional tax
revenues out of the left pocket and hope that the hapless
taxpayer does not know what is happening to him.
We find it unbelievable that the finance minister was able to
get this shell game through the government caucus. Picture it.
He apparently came to the Liberal caucus one day, that great
sheepfold where Liberal backbenchers are told what to do and
think. He must have said to them “I am going to give the
Canadian taxpayers $7 billion in tax relief over the next three
years and I am going to take 400,000 people off the tax rolls”.
He must have said that.
Apparently nobody stood up. The chairman of the finance
committee must have been sitting there; he did not stand up.
Nobody stood up and said “Mr. Minister, while you are giving $7
billion in tax relief over three years with one hand, our CPP
payroll tax hike over the same period takes more than $7 billion
from the pockets of those taxpayers. So how can the taxpayers be
further ahead?”
Furthermore, when the minister said he was going to take 400,000
people off the tax rolls, surely someone in the Liberal caucus
must have stood up and said “But Mr. Minister, bracket creep
alone will add 460,000 people to the tax rolls over the same
period and again the taxpayers are worse off at the end of the
day”.
That is why it is necessary to have an official opposition. To
hold the finance minister accountable, because there is
absolutely no accountability demanded of the minister by the
Liberal caucus.
Therefore 1998 should have gone down as a landmark victory for
Canadian taxpayers, the end of overspending, the elimination of
the deficit, the beginning of a new era of tax relief and debt
reduction. Instead it will go down as the year of the great
betrayal, the year of the broken promise, the beginning not of
broad based tax relief and debt reduction but the beginning of
more Liberal spending, the very thing that led to high deficits,
high debt and high taxes in the first place.
This budget eliminates a fiscal deficit but leaves in its place
a credibility deficit which will not be eliminated until this
government is driven from office.
1535
I suppose that Canadians should not be surprised by these
betrayals and broken promises. Exactly the same thing happened
after the 1993 election. Canadians were led to believe that if
they voted Liberal, the promise to kill, scrap, abolish the GST
would be kept. But in the end the vision and the promise of tax
relief was shattered by a broken promise.
I suggest that this pattern of betrayal has become an inherent
characteristic of Liberal governments: winning votes by
presenting a vision encased in a promise and then shattering the
vision by breaking the promise. It is a pattern of which I am
personally reminded every day.
Perhaps not all members of the House are aware that the office
on the fourth floor of the Centre Block which I now occupy as
Leader of the Official Opposition is the old office which was
occupied by Mackenzie King, the founder of modern liberalism. He
occupied it from 1920 to 1948, not just when he was leader of the
opposition; he liked it so much he kept it when he was prime
minister.
Mackenzie King helped to decorate that office. He helped to
choose the frescos, the pictures around the top of the walls just
below the ceiling. These are pictures of knights in armour in
various poses intended to depict the various virtues which
parliamentarians are to display. There is one displaying
struggle. There is one on integrity. There is one on justice.
There is one on conciliation. But it is the last fresco which is
the most interesting. It is entitled “Vision”. It is the
picture of an angel receiving a vision and handing it to the
knight.
According to historians, the face on the angel is Mackenzie
King's mother's face. He asked the painter to put his mother's
face on that picture. We will recall that next to his dog, there
was no creature on Earth more highly esteemed by Mackenzie King.
Reformers esteem Mackenzie King's mother as well because she of
course was the daughter of a Reformer, William Lyon Mackenzie, so
I would not want to say anything to denigrate Mackenzie King's
mother.
However, beneath this lovely portrait of “Vision” is a wall
panel. If we push it, we discover that it is on hinges and
swings open to reveal a dark secret passage out of the office. I
suggest that this is the perfect picture of Liberal politics. Up
on high is this glorious vision, like the vision of a balanced
budget, a vision of fiscal responsibility, but just beneath it is
a trap door to enable them to escape the burden of the vision.
This is a shameful pattern. It is a shameful legacy. It is one
which the finance minister will not be allowed to forget. When
the current finance minister replaces the current Prime Minister,
as he seems determined to do, and when he then loses the next
election, as he most surely will, he may very well find himself
planning his retirement in the Turks and Caicos, sitting in that
same office as leader of the official opposition. He will then
be daily reminded of that fatal flaw of a degenerate liberalism,
a congenital predisposition to betray in government the visions
it espouses at election time.
Having outlined the greatest fundamental weakness of the budget,
the betrayal of the interests of the taxpayer in debt reduction
and tax relief, let me comment further on the spending and taxing
components of the budget.
The government has made it clear that its number one priority
once the budget is balanced is to increase spending; 50% of any
surplus should go to spending. The budget itself contains 17
spending proposals amounting to $11 billion over four years.
Members should note that the spending program proposed by the
government has two major flaws, flaws which have become
characteristic of Liberal budgets.
The first flaw is that government spending still contains
billions of wasteful expenditures. There is almost $1.1 billion
of wasteful and patronage ridden regional development programs
that simply do not work, have never worked and will never work.
There is over $800 million in subsidies to CBC TV which should be
eliminated through privatization while preserving Newsworld and
CBC radio.
There is at least $1 billion to DIAND that does not have a hope
of ever getting down into the hands of ordinary aboriginal
people. The list goes on and on. I have not mentioned the small
wasteful expenditures which add up to big waste, such as spending
$97,000 of federal money on a study of idolatry and religious
practice in colonial Peru, or $57,000 on a study on wives and
husbands in 15th century England.
1540
My colleague, the hon. member for St. Albert, chairman of the
public accounts committee, will be dutifully digging out all
these wasteful expenditures and reporting them in his regular
“Waste Report”.
The second flaw in the government's spending program, and this
is a big one and a bad one at this point in our history, is that
the government continues to abuse its constitutional spending
power by spending without consultation and without co-operation
in provincial areas of jurisdiction.
Its biggest new expenditure item is the $2.5 billion millennium
scholarship fund. Did the government go to students and ask them
“We have $2.5 billion to spend on education, how do you think it
should be spent?” If the government had done that, it would
have heard that the preference of students is to pay down
existing student debt which is now accumulating at the rate of $2
billion a year and to increase transfers to institutions in order
to lower tuitions.
Did the government go to the provinces? This House is to be
bound by the Constitution. It has a list of what the federal
government does and what the provincial governments do. If we go
through the list, education is under the provinces. Presumably
the government went to the provinces and asked them “We have
$2.5 billion for education. How would you like us to spend it?”
If the government had done that, it would have heard that the
provinces' priority would have been for the federal government to
restore the $7 billion in cuts to health and education transfers
made in previous years.
The biggest flaws therefore in the government spending programs
are its abuse of the Constitution and its failure to eliminate
waste.
The constructive alternative, and the official opposition is in
the business of constructive alternatives, offered by the
official opposition is contained in our booklet entitled
“Securing Your Future”. Our alternative is to hold the line on
spending at $103 billion. This can largely be done by
eliminating the wasteful expenditures that I have referred to
earlier.
We propose to hold that line for three years while the focus is
entirely on debt and tax relief. Then we say allow spending to
rise but only by the percentage rate that the economy itself is
growing. The difference between the government spending program
and the Reform spending program is the difference between
irresponsible, unconstrained spending and responsible limited
spending.
Let me turn for a minute to taxation. To finance its spending
program, the government will collect $151 billion in taxes next
year, $35 billion more than the Liberals collected in 1993. If
the CPP payroll taxes are included, the total rises to $42
billion more than the government was taking in 1993.
To maintain this level of revenue, Tory and Liberal
administrations over the past 14 years have established one of
the most socially and financially repressive tax regimes in the
western world.
I am here today, at the commencement of the 1998 budget debate,
with the full backing of 58 Reform colleagues to say on behalf of
millions of Canadian taxpayers, enough is enough.
On behalf of the 14 million personal income taxpayers upon whom
the government has inflicted the highest personal income taxes in
the western world, we are here to say enough is enough.
On behalf of the hundreds of thousands of small and large
business people who are strangling in Revenue Canada red tape and
who cannot expand or hire more employees because they are paying
too much income tax, too much excise tax and too much payroll
tax, we are here to say on their behalf that enough is enough.
On behalf of the 2.7 million taxpayers, single mothers, young
graduates, retired Canadians, Canadians whom the finance minister
described today in question period as ones for whom he has such a
passionate concern, and from whom he collects $1.4 billion a year
in taxes, we are here to say enough is enough.
1545
On behalf of the 7.7 million taxpayers, hard working, often
underemployed parents and citizens making $30,000 a year from
whom this finance minister extracts $12 billion a year in
revenue, we are here to say that enough is enough.
On behalf of the hundreds of thousands of Canadian young people
who see their first paycheque chopped by Revenue Canada, we are
here to say enough is enough.
We deplore the hypocrisy exhibited by the other side on this
point. The youngest members in this House are in this caucus,
not in that caucus. If anyone is entitled to speak on how young
people feel about taxes and debt, it is this caucus, not that
aging caucus.
For the hundreds of thousands of seniors who are worried sick
when they see an ever increasing proportion of their fixed income
clawed back by the government, we are here to say on their behalf
because they cannot stand here and say it themselves, that enough
is enough.
On behalf of the millions of moms and dads, like the Kim Hicks
family that visited the House earlier in the year, who cannot
make ends meet because they are paying more in taxes than they
pay for food, for shelter, for clothing, we are here to say that
enough is enough.
On behalf of all those Canadian families who have taken a $3,000
a year pay cut because of the spend and tax policies of the
government, and who cannot personally stand in this House to
protest the injustice and the frustration and the unfairness of
it all, we are here to say enough is enough.
For more and more Canadians, the federal government is no longer
identified with the services it provides. This government is not
considered by the rank and file of people as the government of
medicare, or the government of old age assistance, or the
government of the CBC.
Today in the minds of millions of Canadians the federal
government is most identified with the excessive taxes it
imposes. It is the government of Revenue Canada. It is the
government of T-4s. It is the government of the GST. It is the
government of taxes which, if not reduced, threaten to render the
very name of the Government of Canada and the finance minister
and the finance department odious to the Canadian people.
If there are members opposite who do not know the meaning of the
word odious, its synonyms are: repulsive, repugnant, disgusting,
disreputable, despicable, detestable, execrable, infamous,
invidious, obnoxious, offensive, contemptible, abominable,
loathsome, repellent and hateful.
I realize that the Canadian taxpayer did not get into this
abused relationship with the federal government all at once. This
confiscation of the taxpayers' income and resources by successive
governments has happened gradually, one tax at a time, one
increase at a time, the hope of such governments being that the
taxpayer will be annoyed and inconvenienced by each tax bite but
never angered enough to revolt.
The Liberal government's approach to taxpayers reminds me of an
old story. When it comes to taxes there are no new stories.
It is an old story of a travelling salesman whose car broke down
in the country. He hiked over to a farmer's house. The farmer
offered to help but first invited him in for lunch. As the
salesman sat down at the table he noted that seated at the
farmer's table were the farmer's wife, three children and a pig.
The pig had three medals around its neck and a wooden leg.
This salesman was a Canadian. That meant he was polite. He did
not want to appear nosy. He did not want to appear inquisitive.
So he sat through the whole meal without saying anything, just
making small talk. Finally he could not contain himself. He said
to the farmer “What is with the pig?”
The farmer explained “One of our children once fell into the
dugout.
That pig ran into the dugout and pulled the child out so we gave
him a medal”. He said “Our second child once set fire to the
barn. The pig ran in there, pulled that child out from the
flames and the smoke and we gave him another medal”. He said
“The third child was once cornered in the field by a bull but
that pig rushed in, diverted the bull so that the child could run
to safety. We gave him another medal”. “That explains the
medals”, said the salesman, “but what about the wooden leg?”
“Well”, said the farmer “when you have a pig this good, you
only eat him a piece at a time”.
1550
I suggest that that farmer's attitude toward the pig is very
similar to the Liberal government's attitude toward the taxpayer.
The government is willing to recognize the heroic achievements
of the average taxpayer who is raising a family, paying the
mortgage, paying taxes. It gives him a medal for that. The
Liberals are even willing to give him or her a taste of tax
relief now and then, like the $7 billion promised over the next
three years while at the same time collecting $46 billion more
through general tax revenue increases.
But in the end, this government's primary interest in that
taxpayer is to confiscate more and more of his or her income.
Only with a taxpayer that good, you do not eat him all at once.
You just eat him a bit at a time, a leg today, an arm tomorrow
and the rest next year.
In summary, the Liberal-Tory record of overtaxation is one of
the most socially and financially repressive regimes in the
western world and Canadians are paying the price.
Every Canadian who is out of work or working for low pay and
under poor conditions, and there are millions of them, is paying
the price of this high tax regime in this country. Every parent
or senior who is living in despair below the poverty line and
still paying taxes, and there are millions of them, is paying the
price of too high a tax system. Every entrepreneur who defers
investment in a new project, every business person who decides
not to hire another employee because their income is strained by
overtaxation, they are paying the price of too high a tax system.
These people want real tax relief, not token tax relief. They
want real tax relief moved up, way up on the agenda of this
Parliament and this government.
On the subject of tax relief, my colleagues, in particular the
official opposition critic for finance, the member for Medicine
Hat, and the official opposition critic for revenue, the member
for Calgary Southeast, will have more to say on the official
opposition's proposals for tax relief.
Suffice it to say that if the tax relief proposals contained in
the official opposition's “Securing Your Future” program were
to be fully implemented, they would deliver more than $20 billion
in tax relief per year to Canadians. They would lift 1.3 million
lower and middle income Canadians off the federal tax rolls
altogether which in turn would lift a tremendous weight of worry
and anguish off the shoulders of those taxpayers. They would
deliver more than $2,000 in tax relief to the average family of
four by the year 2000 which in turn would deliver stress relief
to families such as no government program could deliver.
When fully implemented, our tax relief proposals would deliver
over $1.4 billion per year in tax relief to Atlantic Canada, over
$4.5 billion per year in tax relief to Quebec, almost $7.5
billion per year in tax relief to Ontario, over $1.4 billion per
year in tax relief to Manitoba and Saskatchewan, over $1.9
billion per year in tax relief to Alberta, and over $2.5 billion
per year in tax relief to British Columbia.
That is tax relief that would do more to stimulate local
economies and accomplish regional development than all the
regional development programs and policies ever conceived of or
implemented by this government.
These Reform proposals would deliver genuine broad based tax
relief to people, but I am talking about more than financial
relief. I am talking about relief from stress and guilt and
worry and anxiety and despair. I am talking about people being
able to sleep better at night, being able to get out of debt, to
have more money to put away, to build more security and freedom
in their own lives and to have more opportunity to get a decent
job with a good income. Tax relief is not just a fiscal policy.
It is a social policy.
I have spoken earlier of the great betrayal of the Canadian
taxpayer contained in the budget. But there are two other groups
of Canadians for whom this budget will also be a huge
disappointment.
I refer first to Canadian youth and second to Canada's
unemployed.
1555
We just had a marvellous convention last weekend with an active
group of young people from across the country. They are acutely
conscious, much more conscious than perhaps their elders that
under the Liberal-Tory mismanagement the federal government has
piled up this federal debt of $583 billion or $20,000 worth of
debt for every man, woman and child in the country.
This debt constitutes an intergenerational transfer of wealth
since the taxes needed to finance the interest and the principal
are levied on future taxpayers while the borrowing that the debt
represents enriches the lives of current citizens. The debt in
fact constitutes a $77,000 second mortgage on every family of
four in the country, both the principal and the interest on which
must be paid off by future generations of Canadians.
In addition, as if that was not enough, the young people of this
country are conscious that under Liberal-Tory mismanagement of
the Canada pension plan the unfunded liability of that plan now
amounts to another $485 billion. So the unfunded liability on
the Canada pension plan constitutes a third mortgage on every
family of four in the amount of $65,000, the repayment of which
falls squarely and disproportionately on the young.
Against these huge obligations, the $77,000 second mortgage, the
$65,000 third mortgage, which successive governments have loaded
on to young people, what does the government have to offer? A
$2.5 billion millennium fund. An amount insufficient to pay the
interest for one month on the debt imposed on young Canadians; an
amount which pales into insignificance when compared with the
hundreds of millions of dollars in tuition fees paid by students
each year or the billions of dollars in student debt already
accumulated; an amount which pales into insignificance when
compared with the CPP premiums young Canadians will have to pay
after the minister's 73% hike in CPP payroll taxes.
To address the betrayal of youth by a generation of shortsighted
and self-serving Liberal and Tory politicians, the official
opposition offers not tokenism but constructive alternatives.
Some of these details will be elaborated on by my colleagues.
Suffice it to say at this point that we support the reform of
the student loan program to make interest on student loans
deductible and to make repayment less onerous and more secure by
directing it through the income tax system. But we want to do
much more than that.
In the weeks ahead we intend to enter into a public discussion
on a reform of CPP which will give young people a choice between
the current CPP managed by the government and a personal pension
plan designed for younger and middle aged workers owned and
controlled by them, not by the government. But our greatest
commitment to youth in the future is reflected in a concrete plan
to tackle and reduce the crushing federal debt.
Our plan has three features. The first is a commitment to
devote 50% of future budget surpluses to debt retirement, to
reduce the mortgage on our young people's future.
Second is a commitment to set debt reduction targets and to
stick to them and not the pale targets contained in this budget
which no financier in the world would even recognize as a target.
We propose concrete targets of reducing federal debt from 70% of
GDP to 50% by the year 2003 and 20% by the year 2016; in other
words to cut that second mortgage on every family in this country
from $77,000 to $36,900 over the next 20 years. This achieves
savings of some $20 billion in interest per year which are then
available either for tax relief or for social investment.
Third, we back up these commitments with balanced budget
legislation: a legal definition of surplus so that the games
playing that has gone on around here over the last three months
cannot go on, a commitment to accounting principles for
calculating the surplus that will prevent finance ministers from
playing with the books; a legal requirement to keep the budget
balanced over a four year cycle; a legal requirement to put 50%
of defined surplus into a national debt retirement fund; and
penalties on ministers and MPs for violation of those guidelines.
Six provinces of this country have balanced budget laws. If the
federal government were really serious about debt retirement or
removing this enormous burden from future generations, this
budget should have been accompanied by a federal law making a
repeat of the Liberal-Tory deficit and debt accumulation illegal.
1600
I want to direct a word to that other vast group of Canadians
whose needs will never be met by the budget. This is a group
whose hopes have been mocked by budget after budget and throne
speech after throne speech produced by the Liberal government.
This is a group to which the federal government addresses more
words than any other and does less than it does for any other
group.
I refer to the 1.4 million Canadians who are without work today,
the 2 million to 3 million Canadians who are underemployed, and
the hundreds of thousands of unemployed or underemployed young
people which give us the highest youth unemployment record in the
western world.
From jobs, jobs, jobs and employment is the number one priority
in its first budget in 1994, the government has fallen into the
pallid and token provisions for job creation and youth employment
contained in the budget.
Even if we believed that government spending and government
policy could somehow lead to jobs in the numbers that are
required by the unemployed, who would ever believe that the
government, after five years in office and a record of failure in
this area, has any new answers? In contrast, the official
opposition has a job creation strategy for the 21st century
worthy of the name, large enough to match the problem and
particularly capable of offering help to youth.
The government has relied on a one cylinder engine of government
spending to drive its job creation engine. The official
opposition wants to harness a bigger, stronger four cylinder
engine to that task.
The other three cylinders are business investment, consumer
spending and international trade. To stimulate business
investment and consumer spending we advocate the broad based tax
relief discussed a moment ago. That includes a $3.3 billion
reduction in payroll taxes paid by job creating employers.
Of course there needs to be more investment in job creation and
human resources, in training and technology, but does anyone in
their right mind believe that the federal government is the best
one to lead or to make that investment?
The federal government cannot even train its senators to come to
work, let alone do something useful when they get there. The
federal government cannot even apply technology like electronic
voting to the House. I hope someone writes that little story up
one of these days, if they think the federal government has a
grasp on how to attach modern technology to a current operation.
Let those investments be primarily made by individuals and
families in their own education and by institutions and companies
in training and technology, by leaving more of their own dollars
in their own pockets through tax relief. Until that stimulus is
provided we are absolutely convinced there will be no significant
improvement in job creation numbers over the present levels.
While the present employment levels may be good enough for
Liberals, they are not good enough for the official opposition
and they are not good enough for Canadians.
I have something to say to every unemployed person, particularly
those who have become weary and discouraged because they feel
there is no hope. I have something to say to every underemployed
person. I meet lots of them: the university graduate who is
working in the fast food joint, the engineering graduate who is
driving a cab. Whoever they are and wherever they are, I want to
say to the hundreds of thousands of young people who are worried
about finding a summer job, let alone finding a good paying
permanent job, that the key to more jobs is tax relief.
The key to more jobs is not more government programs. It is not
more rhetoric like we saw in the budget speech. That has not
worked. For the past 10 years it has not worked. The key is
more dollars in the pockets of consumers to spend and in the
pockets of investors.
It is time the great army of the unemployed and underemployed
made common cause with the oppressed and angry taxpayers to
demand the tax relief which is the key to firing up the job
creation engine.
The country needs to further stimulate the fourth great cylinder
of the job creation engine. We need to stimulate greater
international trade, a stronger export sector and a bigger and
better strategy than trade junkets to prospective trading
countries led by the Prime Minister.
1605
The country needs tax relief to make our exporters more
competitive. We need an MAI that works for Canada, that will
allow responsible Canadian based multinationals to function
freely and securely anywhere in the world. We need an
enlargement of our trading sphere.
On this latter point I am proposing today that Canada and the
United States invite the United Kingdom to join the North
American free trade area. Expansion of the North American free
trade area means more jobs and higher incomes for Canadians. The
country's trade alliances should reinforce and complement our
historic foreign policy and defence alliances. The United
Kingdom has more in common with Canada and the United States with
respect to foreign policy and defence issues than it has with
France or Germany.
Getting the United Kingdom into NAFTA would be particularly
beneficial to Atlantic Canada, which could then promote itself as
Europe's great trade gateway to North America, just as the U.K.
could promote itself as America's gateway to European trade.
The official opposition calls upon Canada's Prime Minister to do
something strategic and far sighted for once to increase and
enlarge our trading sphere, to actively pursue with U.S.
President Bill Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair the
idea of Britain joining the North American free trade area.
Even if in the end this idea is resisted, Canada and the Prime
Minister should at least be more vigorously pursuing freer trade
with Europe and doing so in association and co-operation with our
oldest Atlantic partner.
We came to the budget debate today, half hoping that this could
be a day of unbridled celebration of our 10 year advocacy of a
balanced budget. Instead, we find ourselves forced to hold the
government accountable for a broken promise. It is a great
betrayal of the Canadian taxpayers and a great betrayal of
Canada's youth and unemployed.
To counter these dark blotches on the government's budget, we
offer the alternative of, first, a commitment of 50% of any
future surplus to debt reduction; second, a commitment of 50% of
any future surplus to tax relief; and, third, a job creation
strategy based on a broader foundation and a broader vision than
anything contained in the budget.
In the meantime, while Canada awaits new and better leadership
than that offered by the authors of the budget, I move:
That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after the
word “that” with the following:
The House of Commons reject the budget statement by the Minister
of Finance because it denies Canadians debt and tax relief by
spending away the federal budget surplus, thus killing
opportunities for job creation and economic growth; it leaves
Canadians saddled with the highest personal income tax rates in
the G-7 countries resulting in a systematic brain drain to
jurisdictions with lower taxation levels; it allows interest
charges on the national debt to consume one-third of every tax
dollar collected by the federal government and to exceed spending
on health care, education and old age security combined; it
continues the steady decrease in real disposable income for the
average Canadian through tax hikes; and it does not keep the
government's promise of committing 50% of the surplus to new
spending and the remaining 50% to some combination of debt
reduction and tax relief.
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate on the amendment.
1610
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on the finance minister's fifth budget, but I am not
too pleased with it.
First of all, I would like to congratulate the real architects of
the battle against the deficit reduction, of the initiative to put
public finances in order. I would like to congratulate Lucien Bouchard
and his finance minister, Bernard Landry; Ontario finance minister Ernie
Eves; New Brunswick finance minister Edmond Blanchard and the other
finance ministers in the maritimes. I would like to congratulate Alberta
finance minister Day Strockwell; Manitoba finance minister Eric
Stefanson;
British Columbia finance minister MacPhail and the finance minister of
Saskatchewan too. Together, they had to withstand 52% of the spending
cuts made by the Minister of Finance.
My congratulations to the unemployed, and to employers and
employees. In the past three years, the Minister of Finance has taken
between $6 billion and $7 billion from annual surpluses that belonged to
them to put his fiscal house in order.
I would like to congratulate the taxpayers in Quebec and Canada
because they too were instrumental in restoring the health of public
finances.
During the four years he has been Minister of Finance and the
Liberal government has run the country, the taxpayers of Quebec and
Canada have been hit with $30 billion in new taxes by the Minister of
Finance.
Therefore, the benefits to be found in this budget are few and far
between. This is why the congratulations stop here.
The Minister of Finance definitely does not deserve to be
congratulated for putting our fiscal house in order. Let us just make a
quick calculation; it is easy to do with the successive budgets of the
minister.
The minister's own efforts only account for 12% of the money, which
really comes from the provinces, the employment insurance fund and the
taxpayers' pockets. We have no congratulations for the minister, who
said this morning that our fiscal house has been put in order, a zero
deficit has been achieved, and a surplus now exists. The minister was
right in using the impersonal form instead of “we”, because he is not
the one who did all this.
I am also very disappointed by the way the minister is going about
putting our fiscal house in order; he is keeping practically all the
resulting dividends, even though he deserves no credit at all.
The minister is keeping over 50% of these dividends. What is he
doing with that money? He is taking all sorts of initiatives, even in
areas where he asked the provinces, the unemployed, the welfare
recipients and the sick to make sacrifices. He is taking all sorts of
initiatives for students, in the area of education.
After cutting $12 billion in social assistance, post-secondary
education and health care, after having already cut billions in
the past three years, not to mention that he is about to cut
another $30 billion—as part of the budget cuts included in his
1995 budget—the Minister of Finance is taking all sorts of
initiatives, such as the $2.5 billion millennium fund.
Before getting to the issue of provincial jurisdiction, let me say
something about the somewhat secretive nature of the minister's
initiatives.
As we know, the millennium scholarship fund will start giving out
scholarships only in two years. However, in his budget, the Minister of
Finance eliminated any sign of a real surplus for this year, by
including the whole amount of $2.5 billion, even though he will start
giving out that money to students only in five years.
1615
This resulted in almost unanimous agreement—all analysts
zeroed in on this ploy—that the Minister of Finance was
overstepping the bounds, that he was not behaving in the most
transparent manner in showing where public finances were headed,
and that he was sometimes using somewhat dubious methods, such as
concealing the real surplus for this year and for the next two
years, by including in the 1998-99 budget an amount of $2.5 billion
that will actually be spent two years from now.
This is not the first time the Minister of Finance has done
this sort of thing.
I cannot recall a single time in the first four budgets where the
Minister of Finance gave us figures that made sense, that
corresponded to the reality of public finances.
It is very important in democracy to show things as they
really are, and it is even more important to do so when it comes to
putting one's fiscal house in order, even if we were not talking
about the Minister of Finance, who is asking the most disadvantaged
Quebeckers and Canadians in particular to make tremendous
sacrifices. These people are entitled to transparency.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Mississauga South on a point of order.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the statements
of the member attributing something to the finance minister which
he says is not the truth I believe are unparliamentary. I would
ask the member if—
The Deputy Speaker: I have been listening quite
attentively to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
[Translation]
I think that everything the hon. member said was
parliamentary. He did not suggest that the minister had been
dishonest. His remarks are in order. This is a point of debate
and not a point of order.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your kindness
and understanding. As I was saying, this is not the first time a
budget contains figures that are cautious and fail to reflect the
reality of changes in public finances.
Barely a few months ago, I was in Vancouver with the Minister
of Finance, who was giving us information on the economy and the
financial situation. It was then he announced the good news that
the 1996-97 deficit for fiscal year ending March 31, 1997 would be
somewhere around $8.9 billion.
Six months earlier, we were telling him in this House that the
deficit would be below $10 billion. He said the members of the
Bloc Quebecois, the opposition, was bandying figures about. Six
months later, he said the forecast was out by 63%.
If he were working for a firm of economic consultants, he would be
out on the street now for having made an error of 63% in six
months.
I was rather disappointed to see the Minister of Finance
hiding things. Over the next three years, he says, the budget
surplus will be zero, zero, zero. Do you know what the real
figures are? I will give them out.
We have become forecasting specialists. We decided that, if,
in the past four years, the Minister of Finance has been incapable
of putting the right figures in the budget, we would tell him the
right ones. He says there will be no surplus in 1998-99 and marked
a zero on page 12 of his budget plan. The real surplus amounts to
at least $7 billion and starts this budget year.
For 1999-2000 the figure given is 0.0. That is tantamount to
laughing in people's faces. It is an affront to the public, which
expects the right information from their elected representatives.
A surplus of $14 billion is what we expect, and he writes zero in
the budget.
I went further, up to 2000-01. I say there will be a surplus
of at least $19 billion. He does not want to go that far in his
forecasts. I can understand that. If I were out by 63% over six
months, I would not even make a two week prediction.
On the millennium fund, I said earlier that, in his budget
plan of 1995, the Minister of Finance was sly, rather sneaky.
Sometimes that can be a good thing, but as far as I am concerned,
it can also be a fault. In this case, it is a major failing.
In 1995, he said there would be a plan for budget cuts in
order to fund social assistance given out by the provinces to the
most disadvantaged, university education—under provincial
jurisdiction—and health.
1620
He said “I am going to cut and cut, until 2003, in order to
attain my objective of a balanced budget” and so on. Cut so much
that, if all of the cuts until 2003 are added together, the
Minister of Finance will have cut $42 billion, a good part of that
$42 billion in university education. Another $30 billion is to be
cut before 2003, and the minister announced nothing about this
yesterday.
Oh, he did announce one thing: the cuts initially forecast at
$48 billion will be reduced to $42 billion, and he would have to
be applauded for continuing to cut at the $30 billion level until
2003. Now he is telling us “I have put our fiscal house in
order”, and he gloats over it. He toots his own horn. We will be
coming back to that later.
He toots his own horn, and then he says “Now that I have this
surplus, I am announcing that I am going to put $2.5 billion into
education”. He cuts education, health and social assistance to the
tune of $42 billion and now he is telling us: “We are going to put
$2.5 billion into education. Look, we have some extraordinary
initiatives in the area of education”. The provinces meanwhile
continue to cut. But it is he who is cutting.
The public must know this. And as for getting into an area of
jurisdiction as exclusive as education, so what if this has been a
prerogative jealously guarded for the past 50 years by any and all
Quebec premiers, whether federalist or sovereignist. Quebec will
never accept the federal government's encroachment on this sector.
The Prime Minister said: “We are not getting into education,
we are simply helping students with debts”. First of all, it is
they who caused those debts by making savage cuts in recent years
and, second, the Minister of Finance pronounced the word
“education” in connection with the millennium fund no less than 12
times during his budget speech. That is a rather serious problem.
On top of that, they claim that they have an interest in
student debt loads.
Give me a break. What the government is really interested in is
its visibility. In the scrum yesterday, the Minister of Human
Resources Development made no bones about it. He said in
English—he did not dare repeat it in French, because I think he
realized he had made a blunder—that this was the best way of
increasing the federal government's visibility.
So much for the federal government's wonderful philosophy of
student assistance: relieve them of their money by annually
reducing the amounts available for university education, a job
foisted off on the provincial governments, and then turn up to put
a partial band-aid on the wound they themselves inflicted by
interfering in an area reserved for the provinces. This move may
well provoke an unprecedented confrontation between the federal
government and the Government of Quebec.
The federal government, through its finance minister, also
kept us from seeing the real extent of its leeway. Why? Because,
in his wisdom, in his concern for his image, in his desire to make
a dramatic gesture as well and to break records never before broken
in the history of Canadian taxation, the Minister of Finance
decided that what he valued most was not a balanced budget, not
visionary policies, not improved conditions for the most
disadvantaged in society, not the elimination of child poverty.
Furthermore, in this regard, the forecast increases in the
child tax benefit have been put off for two years. That is the
priority they give to the fight against poverty. That is not what
motivates this government. That is not what motivates the Minister
of Finance. Nor is he motivated by the fate of the unemployed.
Once again, by not using the government's overall gains to create
an independent EI fund, he has just given us the message that, in
the years ahead, all surpluses from employers' and employees'
premiums will go into his pocket.
So he is not interested in helping unemployed workers either.
Since January 1997, the benefits available for those unfortunate
enough to lose their jobs have steadily decreased. They now
receive almost half of their most recent wages.
They are thus denied EI by restrictive measures. The
unemployed and what becomes of them are not what motivates the
government.
1625
Furthermore, this was the unanimous view of analysts, people
from the private sector, and representatives of the business
community. Yesterday, I listened to the executive director of the
Canadian Federation of Independent Business, who had this to say:
“This budget did not contain any significant measure and no
strategic plan for creating employment in any consistent and
lasting way”. That was what Mr. Cléroux had to say outside the
House.
So, jobs and unemployment are not what concern the Minister of
Finance. What concerns him is going down in history as the one who
not only put the country's fiscal house in order but who broke the
record for surpluses. His concern is making it into the Guinness
Book of Records.
That is what is on his mind.
The proof lies in the fact that he is not letting us in on the
real surpluses. The proof is that, if the present trend continues,
if the federal government continues with its initiatives and
continues to aim at very conservative economic growth—we have done
the math—the surplus will perhaps top $30 billion by 2003.
This is not a sign of good public management. It is a sign
that somewhere people are paying too much in taxes and the Minister
of Finance could care less. People are paying too much in taxes,
while the Minister of Finance is breaking surplus records and
calling himself a good manager. He calls himself a great manager.
Surpluses that go up year after year—the Minister of Finance
is so ashamed that he does not even give the figures in his budget;
he puts zeros everywhere—point to bad management.
This is someone who is more interested in popularity, because of
some agenda, perhaps that of becoming the next prime minister, you
never know, but it is not necessarily someone interested in
efficiency and the general well-being of the public. If he were,
he would have tried to achieve a balance.
A reserve of $2 to $3 billion is fine, but we would not
accumulate large surpluses, which are a sign that the tax burden of
average taxpayers, which is not significantly reduced in this
budget, is too high, that people are paying too much in taxes, and
that other people are also contributing too much as well. I am
thinking of the unemployed, those on welfare, the ill, and
students, who are still suffering from the cuts in the 1995 budget.
What I found yesterday in the budget is that the Minister of
Finance was in far less of a hurry to remedy misery and to lighten
the burden of taxpayers who have been crushed by $30 billion in
additional taxes of all kinds he himself has imposed over the past
four years, and also by the non-indexation of tax tables.
He was in far less of a hurry to help the sick, to help
students, except with one program aimed solely at raising the
federal profile, at getting that maple leaf out in a prominent
place. The Minister of Finance was much more interested in
drafting custom-made bills serving the interests of his foreign
shipping holdings than in looking after the general well-being of
the people of Quebec and Canada and in being a good manager.
People will understand that, while this Minister of Finance
has not made significant reductions in their tax burden, he is
continuing to take money from the most disadvantaged and to make it
more difficult for the provinces, particularly Quebec, to balance
their budgets. The people sitting down to do their federal tax
returns are well aware that while the minister is taking money from
their pockets, he is also getting bills passed that are tailor-made
to save him tax money in the coming years. They know he is in
apparent conflict of interest, that this government is refusing to
cast any light on that apparent conflict of interest, and that the
integrity of the Minister of Finance is open to question.
That is hard to take. We have sounded people out. All of my
Bloc Quebecois colleagues have asked the people in their ridings
what they think of this budget, and of this nebulous business.
1630
I can tell you that people remember Bill C-28. People want an
accounting because they see that the Minister of Finance is not
only unconcerned about their welfare, but appears concerned only
about his own and that of his buddies.
I would like to table an amendment to the amendment to the
budget proposed by the Reform Party. I move:
That the amendment be amended by striking
all words following the words “Minister of Finance” and
replacing them with the following:
“because he has, by creating the Canada Millennium
Scholarship Foundation, broken his promise to respect
provincial jurisdiction over education, he has provided
nothing to stimulate job creation, he has not provided for
adequate income-tax reductions for middle-class families, he
has continued to appropriate the huge employment insurance
fund surplus, he has obstinately refused to table
anti-deficit legislation and he has not returned to the
provinces the money he cut from their transfer payments,
while pursuing his planned cuts up to the year 2003.”
I table this subamendment in this House and thank you for your
attention in the hope that taxpayers will now know they have to
keep an eye on him.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): For the time being we will
take the text submitted by the hon. member under advisement. We
will get back to you in a few minutes.
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 Calgary Southeast,
Taxation; the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre,
Banking; the hon. member for Lévis, Spirit of Columbus Platform;
and the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington, Construction
Industry.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I want to start by saying how disappointed and upset I am at the
comments made by the hon. member who just spoke in his reference
to an hon. colleague, the finance minister, using this
opportunity for his own personal image, to try to gain a spot in
the history books and to increase his own popularity. He is not
working for the welfare of Canadians. He is in a conflict of
interest and his integrity is in question.
When I became a member of Parliament comments like this used to
bother me. Some would say they were politically motivated.
However, having been here before and seen this member and the way
sometimes things play in this House, I believe those statements
tell me more about this hon. member than they do about the
finance minister.
I would like to comment and ask a question of this member with
regard to the elements of his speech. He indicated that he was
not interested whatsoever in the fishiness and fuzziness of
numbers. However, there is no question that in 1993 when this
government took office there was a deficit of some $42 billion.
That deficit is now gone as a result of another balanced budget
with a balanced approach.
The member may be right that the government has broken some
promises, but the promises we have broken are things like the
promise we made to balance the budget in five years and it has
now been balanced in four. We promised to reduce the deficit to
3% of GDP and it is now down to zero. That is a broken promise.
The member does not give credit where credit is due in terms of
setting the priorities.
1635
The member somehow thinks this is the only budget that will be
brought down in this mandate. The undertaking of the government
was to balance the budget, and the finance minister has
delivered.
The member did not want to talk about the tax break for low
income Canadians. He did not want to talk about the surtax cut
for middle income Canadians. He did not want to talk about the
child tax benefit increase for families or the child care expense
deduction or the other tax measures.
The member did not give credit for those but rather decided to
launch a personal attack against the Prime Minister. I think at
this point I would pose a question to the member.
First of all, I ask him to rise in his place and apologize to
the House and to the finance minister for his personal attack.
Second, with regard to the upcoming fiscal period, with regard
to the numbers presented, exactly which numbers, which he
generally referred to as fishy, is he saying he does not
understand so that we can explain it to him in plain English?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I was beginning to despair at the length of the question, its
preamble in particular.
I will never apologize, because what I said was the truth,
accurate and verifiable. Over the past four years, the Minister of
Finance has cut everywhere except there. Fifty-two per cent of the
cuts he imposed have been made by the provinces in such areas as
social assistance, post-secondary education, and health.
If he is capable of doing the math—and I have my doubts—let
him look at the budgets since 1995 and he will realize these are
the right figures.
The other source for getting public finances back onto an even
keel: tax increases, and the employment insurance surplus made up
of employer and employee contributions, 37% of the sacrifices and
efforts to get our fiscal house in order. Now we are up to nearly
90%; 90% of the recovery has been from the most disadvantaged
provinces, the poorest provinces, the average taxpayer. The
percentage that is really connected to the Minister of Finance's
cleaning up his own act is 10%. Ten per cent! And I should
apologize for saying that he is not the one responsible?
Another point: I will never apologize to the Minister of
Finance, because I am not the one who introduced Bill C-28.
He is the one who did. Out of 464 pages, two paragraphs dealt
with, deal with, a change to the Income Tax Act affecting
international shipping companies and international shipping holding
companies, like his. I should apologize?
I should apologize for having discovered that loophole in Bill
C-28, an omnibus bill? Two paragraphs out of 464 pages, and I
should apologize for the fact that the Prime Minister and the
Deputy Prime Minister have been rising in this House for the past
month to tell us that there is perhaps a doubt, an apparent
conflict of interest. Mr. Wilson, the ethics counsellor, has said
so. But there will be no light cast on this matter. They will
even refuse requests from the four opposition parties calling for
a special subcommittee of the Finance Committee to get to the
bottom of this. And I should apologize for the lack of
transparency? No way.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the backbench Liberals who wish to
applaud this northern Ontario style budget.
The member mentioned there is something fishy about this budget.
We have a major crisis in this country on all three coasts, the
west, the north and the east coasts. There was not one single
word, not even one attention for the people who are facing a
major crisis in their lives. We are talking about hundreds of
thousands of people in hundreds of communities on all coasts in
the fisheries. There was not one single word in there about the
crisis in the fisheries.
My question for the government of the day is why was that
omitted from this budget.
1640
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Speaker, if I understood my
colleague's comments correctly, he was talking to the Liberal
members.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: He will never get an answer from the
Liberals.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: No, he will not, but I would love to give
him my own answers.
It is obvious that many people have been overlooked in this
budget. Particularly overlooked were those whose sacrifices were
responsible for this result, which is a good result, but this was
not the way to go about it. What I really cannot sit still for is
the Minister of Finance parading around telling anyone who will
listen that it was his doing.
And none of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois will sit still for
it either.
He overlooked the most disadvantaged members of society, who
are already affected by the scourge of poverty and unemployment.
These are the people whose doing it was. There are the provinces
too. They have also been overlooked. There was unanimity on that
yesterday. All Canadian provinces, particularly the finance
minister, and Mr. Galganov—
An hon. member: Mr. Romanow.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Romanow, not Galganov. Let us forget
him; he is history. Nobody mentions him any more.
Mr. Romanow, who even claimed to be speaking for the premiers
of all Canadian provinces, said they felt they had been taken for
a ride, because they were the ones who did the work, who made the
cuts, by order of the federal finance minister, and who are seeing
the finance minister pocket the dividends rather than distribute
them to the provinces. It is hard to take.
When someone asks others to do his dirty work, when manages to
make a profit somewhere and the dividends do not even show up in
the budget out of a concern for non-transparency, when there are
the surpluses, and not a moment's thought is even given to
redistributing them to those who actually made them possible, that
is hard to take, even for one's friends.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty to inform
the House that the amendment to the amendment moved by the member
for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is in order.
[English]
Debate will now be on the amendment to the amendment.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Madam Speaker, I rise
on behalf of many disappointed Canadians across this country to
register disbelief in the priorities of this government as
reflected in its budget and the priorities in particular of the
Minister of Finance.
In yesterday's budget the Minister of Finance talked about
building a Canada for the 21st century. That is what he chose to
title his budget. But he shows no sign of recognizing that
cutting and slashing over the past four years in health, in
education, in vital social services, in environmental protections
have weakened Canada's foundation and the very fabric of the
nation. The finance minister may make a great interior decorator
but Canada needs a first rate general contractor. We need
someone who knows the difference between rebuilding and
redecorating.
It is unbelievable that this budget is silent on jobs. This
budget is silent on health care transfers and it barely mumbles
about poverty.
1645
The government thinks that a scrap of wallpaper here and a
splash of paint there will be sufficient to disguise the truth
that Canada's foundation is not as solid as it needs to be.
When Canadians balanced the budget through health care cuts,
through increased poverty and through lower incomes the finance
minister and the Liberal government lost their last excuse to
ignore the pressing needs of Canadians, the excuse of the
deficit.
Earlier in the week we were heartened, we were actually
encouraged, when the finance minister emerged from the G-7
meetings and proclaimed that this budget would address growing
inequality in this country and that it would address
unemployment.
What do we get in this budget? No targets for reducing
unemployment; not for reducing unemployment by 1% a year or by
any other target. There is no target for reducing poverty; not
by one half, not by one third and not by any other target.
What targets do we have in the budget? We have the target to
keep inflation in the same 1% to 3% band where it has been since
1991. The last time I checked inflation it was below 1%.
What is the level of employment? It is still hovering around
9%.
[Translation]
And what about our children? In this great country with its
wealth of natural resources that claims to be progressive, 21% of
our children live in poverty.
[English]
I want to give the Minister of Finance credit on one count and
that is for targeting tax breaks to low and middle income
Canadians. But he could have made better choices. He could have
made more cost effective choices.
Across this country the GST is a burden on every single
Canadian. The Minister of Finance could have introduced
increases in the GST tax credit to provide some important and
immediate relief. He could have exempted some basic necessities
like home heating oil, children's clothing and school supplies.
Not only would that have provided important tax relief, but
accepted economic analyses make it clear that GST cuts would
create more jobs than any other form of tax cut.
It is absolutely unbelievable, and I believe to the vast
majority of Canadians unacceptable, that there is not one single
new dollar in this budget for health care transfers. Let me say
to colleagues opposite, no matter what this government may try to
tell them, cancelling a cut in spending is not a spending
increase.
[Translation]
Canadians have said on many occasions that the greatest
priorities for allocating the budget surplus were health care,
education and jobs.
[English]
I want to remind this government of its own solemn red book
promise that 50% of any budget surplus would be spent on vital
programs and services and the other 50% would be spent on debt
reduction and tax reduction.
The fiscal dividend in this budget is $6.5 billion, and 70% of
that amount has gone to debt reduction and tax reduction. If
this government had simply kept its promise, if this government
had simply done what the Prime Minister said during the election
campaign it would do and what the finance minister said again and
again the government would do, then it would have invested
another $1.5 billion in health and other social transfers.
That is the real priority for Canadians.
1650
Do you know what else, Madam Speaker, is an absolute tragedy? If
this government had kept its commitment to allocate 50% of the
surplus for health and social spending, in the process it would
have generated a great many jobs. We know how many jobs have
been wiped out in this country over the last three years by the
excessive slashing and cutting in health, education and other
vital public programs. The government did not choose to do that.
I know the Tories and the Reformers are rejoicing at the Liberal
acceptance of their priorities. But there are a great many
Canadians who feel very badly betrayed by the decision of this
government not to reinvest 50% of the surplus in health care and
education.
I want to tell members of the House briefly about a letter I
received recently from a young woman in New Brunswick. It is a
woman I do not know. It is a woman with whom I spoke on the
phone the evening before the budget. I wanted to call and talk
with her about what would be in that budget, if it was to provide
some kind of relief to her circumstances, to the situation in
which she finds herself.
This is a woman with six years of university education. This is
a woman with two post-secondary degrees. Like a lot of students,
she has $40,000 in student debt. In fact, like 600,000 young
people under the age of 30 in this country today, she still does
not have a job despite how hard she has worked, despite how much
she has sacrificed.
As this woman reminded me in her letter, she did exactly what
she was encouraged to do which was to work hard, to go into debt
and then she would be sure to get a good job. Today that young
woman is living with her parents, like a lot of others in her age
category. Because she is living with her parents she is not
eligible for social assistance. She is not eligible either for
employment insurance. She is in default on her student loan.
I will quote directly from that woman's letter:
I have spent my life much like most people, searching for
happiness. How is it possible if I cannot be proud? How is it
possible if I cry myself to sleep every night and through most
days? I am ashamed. I cry tears of shame. All I want is to be
a person.
No matter what direction I look in, I do not see a light. I am
no longer in the tunnel, I am at the bottom of a pit and there is
someone piling on the dirt.
You know, if I was given that Senator's job—the one who never
shows up for work—if I had his job, I would show up every day.
I know what it is like to need work. I know how important a job
can be in the role of feeding one's soul.
This budget ignores this young woman and this budget ignores a
great many other young men and young women like her. Is there a
job for these young people? Is there any commitment to relieve
the poverty she is experiencing? Because she is earning no money
none of the tax benefits introduced in this budget is of any
benefit to her whatsoever. No millennium fund will help her in
her current situation. The premium reduction for employees will
not help her either because she is over 25 years of age.
This government refused to set any targets and timetables to
help ensure that people like her would get back to work.
1655
Disgracefully, the only real job initiative, the reduction of
the employer EI premium on young people hired over the next two
years, will only help to employ one half of one per cent of the
400,000 young people unemployed in this country today. The
government's commitment to youth employment is window dressing at
best.
Last week this government announced no new money for summer
youth employment programs. There are 48,000 fewer young people
working today than there were two years ago.
To recap, what do we have in this budget? No meaningful job
creation; nothing new for children living in poverty; a
millennium fund that will not start for two years and at its best
will help only 7% of Canadian students, leaving 93% of those
students without any help from that millennium fund; not a single
new dollar for our health care system or for our education
institutions.
This budget sets out the battle lines for the fight for a better
world. Unlike this government, the Reformers and the Tories, our
party believes that better world begins by investing in the
institutions that give us a civil society.
This finance minister had the chance to make investments to
fight social inequality and promote job creation as he promised.
This government chose another way. It chose not to offer hope
but to dash expectations. It chose to ignore the crisis of
poverty and the growing gap between the super rich and everyone
else in this country. It chose to paper over the problems in our
society, the cracks in the very foundation of our nation. It
made a mistake for which Canadians like my young friend in New
Brunswick will pay the price.
Shame on this government. Shame on a government that can
gleefully pat itself on the back for ignoring the problems at the
very foundation of our civil society.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam Speaker,
you had not recognized me, but I am glad you did. Better late than
never, as they say.
I was very moved by the words of the hon. leader of the NDP,
especially when mentioned the young woman in New Brunswick. What
her story tells us is that hope has to take root somewhere. People
must be given hope that jobs will be created and poverty will be
fought.
I congratulate the NDP on its decades old tradition of
fighting for social justice, as was mentioned by my colleague from
Kamloops regarding David Lewis.
I would like my colleague to elaborate on two of the
interesting ideas she put forward, although there were many. She
mentioned targets and setting targets in the fight against poverty
and unemployment. I wonder if she would expand a bit on these
ideas, which are extremely valuable in my opinion, and could become
a real policy on job creation and the fight against poverty.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Madam Speaker, nobody kids
themselves into thinking that by just setting targets and
timetables for unemployment the problem is solved, that the work
is done.
Surely this is a government that understands the concept of
targets and timetables. The very manner in which this government
went about tackling the problem of the deficit was to set clear
targets, to set timetables, then develop a plan on how it would
reduce the deficit and then measure progress toward those targets
and timetables.
Heaven knows we heard lots of self-congratulation when the
finance minister was able to stand yesterday and announce that
this year they were bringing in a balanced budget.
1700
All we asked was that the government approach the problem of
joblessness, the continuing problem of chronically high
unemployment, with the same kind of determination that it has
tackled the problem of the deficit. That requires that it set
realistic targets, that it set a realistic timetable.
We are not trying to suggest that we have the formula that is
guaranteed to succeed. What would be wrong with the government
saying that it commits every bit of its might and muscle, all the
resources at its disposal, to bringing down unemployment by 1% a
year over the duration of its mandate? In other words it would
commit to reducing unemployment to 5% by the end of its mandate.
There are some who will say that is overly ambitious. Do we
have any way to achieve that? If we look south of the border
unemployment in the United States is below 5%. If we look across
the ocean at the U.K. it has an unemployment rate below 5%.
We certainly will not see progress in reducing unemployment if
the government persists in bringing in budgets without any
acknowledgement of the severity and the magnitude of the problem
of unemployment and without setting any targets whatsoever for
reduction of unemployment.
Most Canadians will be shocked when they learn, as they will,
that the government is quite content with the projections for
unemployment to remain above 8% until the new millennium. That
is not what Canadians have in mind when they want a government
that will participate in the rebuilding of Canada.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's criticism
of the government's budget. She criticized us for not spending
money here, there and everywhere. However she must admit that
even Tommy Douglas and Bob Rae understood that in order to get
the bankers off our back we needed to deal dramatically with the
deficit and the debt, as has been pointed out in the House.
The hon. member also must admit that through the last couple of
budgets the government specifically centred money and tax breaks
on families and students wanting to get an education. It is
recognized that those who have post-secondary education have a
better chance of getting a job.
The government simply cannot throw money out there and hope that
it will create jobs. It just does not work that way. We need
Canadians with an education in jobs in the high tech area. The
best way for us to help with this terrible situation is to help
families and to help students get an education.
Is the hon. member aware of that? What is her answer to getting
rid of the close to $600 billion debt we now have?
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Madam Speaker, one of the
frustrations about the procedures of this assembly is that we do
not get to ask questions back. One thing I would love to be able
to ask this hon. member is what happened between June 2, the day
of the federal election, and the introduction of yesterday's
budget that totally changed the commitment his government made to
the people of Canada during the election campaign.
If it is so irresponsible for me as leader of the New Democratic
Party to stand in my place and say that 50% of the budget surplus
should have been reinvested in health, education and other vital
services, why is it not irresponsible for the Minister of Finance
and the Prime Minister and every Liberal member to prance around
the country during the recent federal election campaign making
exactly the same promise?
They cannot have it both ways.
1705
Mr. Bob Speller: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Certainly the hon. member knows that when that commitment
was made it said over the course of a mandate.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: That just reflects how little he,
his colleagues, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister
understand the real priority and pressing needs of Canadians.
There is one heck of a lot of people who want to understand how
the government could have turned its back on this commitment in
this year when we have people lined up and trying to get into
surgery when they need it. We have people on stretchers in
hospital corridors. We have people who desperately need home
care and cannot get it. We have people who desperately need
prescription drugs and cannot get them. Why? Because the
government rips away $7 billion every year.
When some people hear those figures they think that $7 billion
is a lot of money but they guess the government had to do it.
This is a government that is doing it year after year after year.
It is literally killing people.
How could the government say it will do that later, that later
it will reinvest some of the surplus dollars, but in the meantime
decide to take up the cause of the Reform Party that says we
should not worry if we end up with a deteriorating health care
system and in fact we should not worry if we have to introduce a
two tier health care system because somehow or other people will
just get by.
This is a government that has a lot to answer for. One of the
questions that it has to be prepared to answer is why it is
prepared to turn its back on the priorities of Canadians. Why is
it prepared to betray a promise it made during the campaign that
50% of the budget surplus would go to health care?
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Madam Speaker, I
join in the debate knowing that we are marking a very important
moment financially for the country and for the economy. I want
to speak to that right off the bat. I want to speak to the
balanced budget and what it means. I want to use the opportunity
to speak very clearly on what it is exactly that we are dealing
with.
I join with all of those who look at the balanced budget and say
bravo. Bravo, it is a good thing for the country to have a
balanced budget. There is not a member in the House who would
not agree with that.
However, I also want to make very clear why we have a balanced
budget and recognize the soldiers on the front lines, Canadian
citizens: low income citizens, those on a fixed incomes who have
no choice but to pay heavily in income taxes. I also recognize
the contribution of other levels of government.
If the federal Minister of Finance was in a room with the
ministers of finance from the provincial governments, I doubt he
would be patting himself on the back in the same way without
having a very red face when saying to the provincial ministers of
finance “I have balanced the budget”. I think the answer that
would come across the table would be “You what? No, no, no. I
do not think you balanced the budget. Canadians did but you did
it on our backs by cutting in health care and education”. That
is what happened here. As they do that they would also recognize
that we have done our share.
This has been an almost 15 year effort. The government I was
part of started that effort.
This government has benefited a great deal from a lot of these
policies. History may record that the current Prime Minister
leads the Liberal Party of Canada, but he certainly embraced the
policies of the Progressive Conservative Party.
1710
I look at this result and say bravo. How we got there is
another issue, and I want to talk about that. I also want to say
that there is some disappointment. One thing the Minister of
Finance could have done yesterday is send a message of growth for
the economy and hope for Canadians. I thought he would have done
that by delivering broad based tax cuts.
We now have the answer. The path is set. Broad based tax
relief is off the table and spending is back.
This is a budget of death bed repentances. Government members
were forced to reverse a number of its key policy initiatives of
the first mandate. This is a budget with no economic plan. There
is no plan for growth, no targets for employment, no targets for
job creation, no targets for tax reduction, no targets for debt
reduction.
There is a target, though. I thought it was actually an ironic
target. The only one they put out was a news release for the
Bank of Canada yesterday. Guess what target they were able to
agree on.
Was it one of their targets? No. I will read the press
release. The second paragraph says that targets for reducing
inflation were adopted in February 1991 by the previous
government and in December 1993 the government and the Bank of
Canada agreed to extend the targets. Of course history will
record that the Liberal Party of the day criticized loudly the
government of the day for having set that target.
Then they go on to say how low inflation is such a great thing.
What else is new?
That target has been set, but there is no target in terms of
debt. There are no targets in terms of employment. In fact, the
government abandoned the practice of actually projecting what
unemployment rates would be. I do not think it has the courage
to tell the truth and to live up to that test.
This has to be the first government on record, by the way,
record that I know of that is in a mad rush in the first year of
its mandate to spend money. Most governments in the first year
make the tough decisions on reducing spending and then try to
ease them toward an election campaign with a little less pressure
on the purse.
In that caucus, to give an indication of the mindset, they are
in a mad rush to spend money right away. Quite appropriately
today is Ash Wednesday and yesterday we were treated to a Mardi
Gras of spending in the budget.
The budget has lost sight of a number of the fundamental needs
of Canadians. The government likes to talk about the
fundamentals in the economy and to say that the fundamentals are
right.
Let me share some of the fundamentals on Main Street Canada;
some of the fundamentals of Amherst, Nova Scotia; some of the
fundamentals that my colleague from St. John's hears about in
Saint John, New Brunswick, or in Brandon, Manitoba; and some of
the fundamentals in Markham, Ontario, or in Granby, Quebec.
These are some of the fundamentals that we hear about. Canada
has the highest personal income taxes among the G-7 nations. The
disposable income of Canadians has dropped 1.3% since 1993 but
the federal government's revenues for personal income taxes have
increased 23% in the same period. The real personal per capita
income is more than $4,400 higher in the United States than in
Canada.
I hesitate to say that in the presence of the young page who is
here. He is probably planning to move to the United States as he
hears that.
Personal and business bankruptcies have reached record levels
under the Liberals. Unemployment in Canada is double that of the
United States. That is one of the fundamentals of the Liberal
government.
We have the continuing tragedy of high unemployment for young
Canadians with 400,000 young Canadians out of work. These are
the fundamentals that we do not hear about, not in this place,
not by this government. We only hear about them every day in
Asbestos, Quebec. We hear about them in Pictou County but we do
not hear about them here.
It is a government that also continued to waste a billion
dollars to buy out a GST deal with Liberal governments in
Atlantic Canada, a billion dollars to save face. It spent almost
a billion dollars on Pearson airport, and $500 million on a
helicopter deal was wasted, down the drain. All this was to save
face politically.
It is a government of deathbed repentances that is now trying to
fill in the holes it has dug for itself.
1715
In the last Parliament it cut transfers to the provinces by 40%.
Colleagues from the other parties will remember that as the
Prime Minister looked the electorate in the whites of their eyes,
his government suddenly discovered that it should back up a bit
and cut the transfers to 35% instead. The cost of that was
dramatic. By the way did it cut Ottawa? No. Spending in Ottawa
has been cut by less than 2%. As the government reacquainted
itself with the electorate, the cuts nonetheless go on.
Today in the House of Commons we talked about health care. The
bottom line and the truth about health care are reflected in the
numbers from the Department of Finance on cash transfers for
health, education and social assistance. Let me quote the
numbers from the Department of Finance.
What does this budget mean for the province of Nova Scotia in
particular? In fiscal year 1997-98 Nova Scotia will receive $427
million in cash transfers; the next year in 1998-99, $425
million; in 1999-2000, $422 million; in 2000-01, $418 million, in
2001-02, $415 million; 2002-03, $411 million in cash transfers.
I can only imagine that people in Nova Scotia must have been
bewildered yesterday when they heard the Liberal premier, Russell
MacLellan say that this was the best budget in 20 years. Surely
he must have sounded a little funny because the Liberal minister
of finance in New Brunswick actually denounced the budget. The
Liberal minister of finance in Newfoundland and Labrador
denounced the budget. The minister of finance in P.E.I.
denounced the budget. The minister of finance in Ontario did the
same, as did the minister of finance in Quebec.
Why does Russell MacLellan who is running in an election
campaign as the Liberal candidate, the ambassador of the Liberal
government in Nova Scotia, say that it is the best budget in 20
years? I say to Mr. MacLellan, please get off your knees. Start
representing and defending the interests of the people of Nova
Scotia. Since he cannot do that, John Hamm will do it instead.
I will give an example of the Liberal cynicism of this budget.
Page 13 states: “Today we are announcing the largest single
investment ever made by the federal government to support access
to post-secondary education for all Canadians”. The Liberals
forgot to say that this was preceded by the biggest ever cut in
post-secondary education.
And what is the consequence? Do not believe me. I will quote
from a well-known document by this government: “In 1990, only
eight years ago, the average debt load after a four year program
was $13,000. By next year it will have almost doubled to
$25,000. At the beginning of this decade, fewer than 8% of
borrowers had debts larger than $15,000”—and if I remember
correctly, at the beginning of the decade a Progressive
Conservative government was in power—“now almost 40% do”.
Who said that? The Minister of Finance said that. There it is,
the Liberal record. Even the Liberals cannot hide from the
facts. This is the sad record of a government that has lost
sight of priorities.
[Translation]
I would like to know how we got there. The government is also
announcing a millennium scholarship program that will not be
implemented until the new millennium—in two years' time—while
students are facing an unprecedented debt load.
Furthermore, as the Prime Minister acknowledged in the House
today, main purpose of this program is not to help students but to
increase government visibility. To be quite honest, I have nothing
against the federal government's visibility. I am a federalist.
I am proud to be a federalist. I am a Quebecker and proud to be
one.
That does not bother me, I am happy the federal government gets the
credit it deserves when it makes its contribution, on behalf of
taxpayers, of course.
However, when visibility becomes the prime objective, we have
to say that they are turning an issue all too important to our
society into a political football. I find that a disappointment.
I would really like to know where the Minister of Finance was when
he made these cuts to education and health care. Suddenly he wakes
up, and the issue becomes important.
1720
The best consequence, the most important one was noted by a
woman named Sherry Cooper from the investment firm Nesbitt Burns.
She made a very common sense remark, which will surprise you with
its simplicity and truth. She said “What is the point of investing
all that money in education and information if students earning
their diploma head off to the United States to work because of high
taxes here”?
[English]
What is the point? We have to ask that hard question. What is
the point of investing in education and training if the students
who graduate, because of high taxes and because of lower pay,
leave Canada to work in the United States?
Apparently the Prime Minister will be in New York next week,
hosted by a prestigious New York club. I can only assume it is
to thank him. I can see it now. They will say “Thank you very
much, Prime Minister, for everything you are doing for the United
States. We cannot tell you how much we appreciate your paying
for the education of these young people and keeping your taxes
high and your productivity low so that these young people will
come to the United States to work for us. We think it is the
best thing you could have done for us. Thank you very much”.
That will be the message.
That tells us what is wrong with the government. I do not think
its members realize the consequences which their lack of
understanding has.
The government has also been cynical in the way it has turned
the budget into a game. Now we are in the game of underestimating
the revenues and overestimating expenditures.
The government is digging its hands deeper into the pockets of
Canadians. How is it doing that? By deindexing the tax rolls it
is able to get billions more in revenue from Canadians. The
government does it insidiously. It says “We do not increase
taxes, we just take more money from you”. It is all a
technicality. It is called bracket creep.
All of a sudden we are supposed to have a surplus, but it is
well hidden. The government even in the millennium fund cannot
come clean. It has booked the money this year. In other words,
it says to the indebted students “Pay this year. You will not
benefit from it, but in two years from now the fund will kick
in”. That is something the government did with the innovation
fund, which has been largely denounced by the auditor general.
[Translation]
This government lacks transparency in the area of employment
insurance. The auditor general criticized them for using
employment insurance to reduce the deficit, when the system was not
set up for this purpose.
I would point out that in the budget the government boasts of
reducing all taxes by $7 billion over three years. Yet this same
government is taking $6 billion annually out of taxpayers' pockets.
To my knowledge, this is the only government to establish an
unemployment plan for Canadians. They create more unemployment,
raise taxes, tax employment insurance and create unemployment.
That is what their policies do.
When they are asked to reduce contributions, they say “No,
that does not work. It will not create real employment”. And yet,
in the budget, they are doing just that for people between the ages
of 18 and 24, for two years only. When they are asked why, it is
“to create employment”.
If it works for young people aged 18 to 24, would it not work
for people aged 45 or 55? Why not do it for everyone who wants a
job, since unemployment is too high in Canada? No. They believe
only in minor measures, always in order to save face.
[English]
My party believes that it is time for Canada to get a strong
plan for growth in our economy. We need to get our foot off the
brake. What this means for us is lowering taxes. Lowering taxes
by reducing EI premiums by about a third so we can create more
jobs. Lowering taxes by increasing the basic exemption for
Canadians to $10,000 so we can allow lower income Canadians to
earn more and buy more of the essential goods they need.
The 3% surtax should be eliminated completely. The government
said “We have taken it off for the poor”, but the middle class
is still being hit. If there is one victim of this government and
this budget it is Canada's middle class. They are getting
whacked to the tune of billions of dollars. They are not going
to get a break.
This is a government which had a great opportunity to launch us
onto a new path, to close the chapter on deficits, but also to
start us on a new path.
It should have set a target for debt reduction so that we are
able to measure our performance, so that we are able to live in a
political environment where we can go to our neighbours and say
“Together we need to limit spending, to keep it under control.
If we do we will meet a specific target. When we get there we
will be able to reduce taxes further”. If we create that kind
of a political environment we will all increase our chances of
succeeding. Those should have been hard lessons learned in this
budget.
1725
Our party firmly believes that we need this plan for economic
growth and that this budget is more than just about numbers. It
is about values, it is about the choices we make. It is not good
enough to shift the numbers around.
Some parties would say they would put more money into education,
but then they would cut equalization. The position we have taken
is that there should be more money put into education by building
a new deal with provincial governments so that there is a health
care guarantee for all Canadians, so that we can leave provincial
governments alone.
I feel for the people of Nova Scotia today. I feel for the
people of New Brunswick. I feel for the people in Yarmouth. I
was with my colleague from Kings—Hants during the election
campaign. Together we visited a hospital wing that was
completely closed. Now the government is saying to the people in
Nova Scotia there will be more cuts in the next few years. This
is wrong. We need to change our priorities.
We believe in a plan for strong economic growth in this country.
As we do that we can reallocate priorities. We can put the
emphasis on education, health and guaranteed services to
Canadians. It requires the political will, the vision and the
foresight to make it happen, something that was not part of this
budget, I am sorry to say.
I want to close by putting to the House, through unanimous
consent, a subamendment to the amendment proposed by our Reform
colleagues. This was put to our colleagues before. I hope today
that they will see clear to offer some consent to a very useful
amendment that would allow all members of this House to rise and
vote democratically and take a position on this.
The subamendment we would put to the House for a vote, which we
hope all parties would agree with and would give consent to would
be:
That the amendment be modified by deleting the word “and”
after the words “tax hikes” and adding after the words “tax
relief” the following words “it continues to tax low income
Canadians earning less then $10,000, it does not set specific
targets for reducing the national debt, and it continues to tax
Canadians by stealth, by refusing to index income tax brackets”.
Madam Speaker, you have heard the amendment to the motion. We
feel that all members in this House would probably be glad to
have an opportunity to rise in their place and speak on this and
to vote on it. We actually anticipate enthusiastic consent so
that we can all speak on this.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
rise on a point of order and ask you to inform me if I am
incorrect. It seemed like yesterday we went through this process
and that before you put forward a motion, you have to get the
consent of the House. Is that wrong? That seems to me what
happened yesterday.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have unanimous consent of the House to propose such a motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I find
this post-budget debate rather amusing.
We find that the party of the right, the Reform Party, is
emphasizing the reduction of debt and lower taxes, which one
expects. We find the party of the left, the NDP, wants us to
spend more on programs.
That is understandable also. But at least these two parties are
clear where they stand.
1730
We find the leader of the PC party still on the horns of the
same dilemma he faced in the election campaign, finding most of
his support in the maritimes, which usually want more spending,
and yet still trying to pretend to be a party of fiscal
responsibility. He suggested that the minister should have a red
face. It is my contention that the Tory leader should have a red
face for even pretending to comment on this budget after the mess
the last PC government left this country in.
He suggested that we embrace the policies of the PC government.
While it is true that the PC government articulated some of the
policies which we have embraced and we have implemented, the
problem for it was that it did not have the courage to implement
any of those policies. That is why we were left 10 years later
with a Canada pension plan that had not been revised. We are the
party that had the courage to set the fiscal house in order.
The Liberals, they say, abandoned the policy of projecting UI
figures. Of course we abandoned the policy of long term
projections because Canadians had totally lost faith in long term
projections after years of the Tories missing every projection
they ever made. Our two year rolling targets are far more
realistic because we have hit our targets and indeed have
exceeded our targets.
He comments on the cost of Pearson airport. The Canadian people
are happy to have Pearson airport now in the hands of a
non-profit local airport authority where the profits are poured
back into the public facility as opposed to lining the pockets of
friends of the former government.
He suggested certain provincial finance ministers are condemning
the budget. But we expect that because provincial finance
ministers always want more money and more power. What we have to
point out to the Canadian people is this. Yes, we did reduce the
transfers to the provincial governments but by a percentage that
was less than what we cut our own program spending by.
If the people, for example, in the province of Ontario are
noticing a difference in health and education programming they
might look to their own premier who cut that spending by five
times the amount that we cut our transfers by. So they will be
smart enough to lay the blame where it belongs, at the desk of
the provincial premier.
However, my question for the leader of the Progressive
Conservatives is this. When are we and his supporters, who are
few but there in the west of Canada, in Ontario, indeed in my
riding, going to find out whether he really stands for keeping
the fiscal house in order and cutting spending or whether he
stands for all the money to reducing the debt, or whether he
stands for, as the people in Nova Scotia want, lots and lots of
spending?
When is he going to be clear and honest with the Canadian people
as to where his party sits on the political spectrum so that they
can decide whether they support him?
Hon. Jean J. Charest: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to
table in the House immediately a document entitled “A Plan for
Growth”. It spells out in great detail exactly where we stand
on all these issues.
All members of the House of Commons can read it. So I ask for
consent to table this document immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the member have
the unanimous consent of the House to table the document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: Madam Speaker, I ask you to rule on
what I have just asked, the consent of the House to table the
document. I cannot believe Liberal members would refuse after
the question by the hon. member for Oakville. Surely they would
not have the gall. I want to table what our position is. I want
to do it for the record in the House and I think it should be
published in Hansard so that all Canadians will have a look
at it.
Madam Speaker, I am asking you to put the question to the House.
I would be curious to find out which Liberal member would want to
get himself on the record at this point saying no. Let us hear
them.
1735
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I again ask the House
if it gives the hon. member its unanimous consent to table a
document at this point.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There is no consent.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: Madam Speaker, the parliamentary
secretary to the House leader of the Liberal Party said no and I
want the record to show that. It demonstrates the hypocrisy of
the Liberals who have now embarrassed the member for Oakville.
The Reform Party members did not say no. Why would they object?
If they asked the same thing I would not object. Nor did the NDP
or the Bloc. That demonstrates the hypocrisy of the Liberal
Party. I am sorry that she has been embarrassed.
I am surprised that the member would actually want to rise and
say that our positions are not known or that they just continued
to have the courage to pursue the policies that we had brought
forward but did not have the courage to implement. Does the
member mean like the GST, the Pearson airport, the free trade
agreement or the targets for inflation? What about when the
leader of the Liberal Party of Canada guaranteed funding for
health care and education in 1993?
When the member for Oakville said they reduced their program
spending more than they cut the provinces, I am very sorry, but
whether it is in percentages or in raw numbers, she had better
check her facts. Maybe the parliamentary secretary would have
the courage to get up and correct her, since he is now bent on
correcting her today, and tell the truth to Canadians.
What is the truth? The government gutted health care and
education after cynically promising that it would not touch it,
that it would be guaranteed.
The last comment I want to make is that it is very imprudent for
someone from Oakville to actually criticize the people of Nova
Scotia, which she has done today. I would say to the member for
Oakville that she would be wiser to let the people in Nova Scotia
make up their own minds on their future and not sermonize them
from the House of Commons. Their health care and education have
been cut and they have a right to services also. They have a
right to receive services from this government and from
governments in the province of Nova Scotia. We will see how they
speak in the next provincial election.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, to
make more time for my colleagues I would just like to ask a quick
question. I know the hon. member who talked about the debt
realizes that this big debt is a dark cloud hanging over this
country, holding down unemployment and keeping taxes up high.
This huge debt has put us in a desperate situation.
I remember back in early 1990 when the member's government was
in control it brought in the famous GST. There was a big debate
nationwide on that and I think about 90% of the people did not
want it, I suggest, based on petitions and all that. One of the
members who used to be in this party now sits across the House
because of that situation.
I remember distinctly, loudly and clearly, a person by the name
of Michael Wilson saying—being an old Conservative I was very
interested in what he had to say—every penny from the GST will
go to tear down the debt.
All I have to ask this member is what in the world happened? It
went up faster and greater than ever.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: Madam Speaker, actually I
appreciate the opportunity to engage my colleague from Wild Rose
on this issue because there is a lot of rhetoric around. Let me
try to present the facts in as straightforward a manner as I can.
When this government was elected in 1984 it faced a very serious
problem of high deficits and debt. In fact, the deficit relative
to GDP, the size of the economy, was about 8%. We then engaged
in the process of reducing spending because average Liberal
government program spending, which the member from Edmonton will
know, in the last 10 years before the election of the Progressive
Conservative government in 1984 increased 14% a year. Guess who
was minister of finance?
We engaged in the process of turning the ship around. I am sure
the member for Wild Rose will appreciate that does not happen
overnight. Let me set down for him some markers that indicated
real progress. The federal government started to balance its
operating budget as of 1987.
1740
What is the operating budget? I will take a second. It is the
amount that comes in in revenue and what we spend on programs and
excludes interest on the debt. From there on what we dealt with
was the leftover debt, mostly of Liberal governments.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am certainly very proud to
rise on behalf of the government in this debate to highlight our
dramatic, in fact historic, balanced budget and our budget of
balance.
Up until yesterday one in every three Canadians, everyone under
27, had never seen their federal government deficit free. As this
House will see, the era of credit card governance is over. One
would have to be almost 50 to remember when Canada was deficit
free for three consecutive years. We are changing that too.
Starting now and with the 1998 budget, we announced our
commitment to balance the books this year and continue to balance
the books for each of the next two years. In other words, Canada
will enter a new millennium with the type of positive financial
performance we have not seen in a half century. That is a
milestone, a new beginning and it is worth celebrating.
It is no surprise that the official opposition and other
opposition parties are standing in their place today ranting and
raving that we have not gone far enough or fast enough, whether
it is cutting debt or cutting taxes. Let me refer to a word that
the leader of the official opposition has never heard of, let
alone understands its meaning, balance. That is a word they do
not like, it appears.
I remember how members opposite consistently attacked our
approach in each of our past budgets, an approach that combined
real fiscal discipline with reasonable, responsible investments
in areas of strategic economic benefit and for Canadians in
jeopardy and in need.
It is no wonder that today's budget leaves a very bitter taste
in their mouths, because the results of our approach are clear,
concrete and convincing.
This government not only balanced the budget but took a balanced
approach. Unlike the Reform Party which continues to put forward
programs of extremes, this government has chosen to take a
balanced plan for the future.
Today we heard the leader of the official opposition say that
his party has a national job strategy. That is what he said. But
we know what the name of this job strategy is, Reaganomics. It is
called voodoo economics of the 1980s. It did not work then and it
is not going to work now.
I think what we need to do is look at the facts of our balanced
approach. These are the facts. Canada's pace of economic growth
and job growth is positioning us as a world leader among the
major industrial nations. Our deficit performance is absolutely
the best of any G-7 nation. That is the benefit we get from a
balanced approach.
It is an approach that the 1998 budget sustains. It combines
continued fiscal progress through our debt repayment plan with a
program of general tax relief and investments in learning and
skills, in helping to manage student debt, in aiding children in
need, in boosting research and in funding to provinces for health
care and education.
What I want to focus on is our fiscal track record, because it
is our success as financial managers that has made possible these
tax cuts and strategic investments.
Achieving a balanced budget this year means that the deficit has
in fact declined by $42 billion in just five years. This dramatic
turnaround is the combined result of two factors. The first is
the sharp drop in federal program spending due to our review of
all federal programs. Program spending this year is estimated at
$106 billion, down from $120 billion in 1993-94. That is real
cuts in real dollars. Second, the deficit has been cut thanks to
higher budgetary revenues, primarily from a growing economy.
Taken together, these factors highlight a dramatic
transformation in Canada's economic and fiscal policy. In
1993-94, high deficits were pushing interest rates up and
depressing economic activity.
1745
This meant higher interest charges on the debt, fewer jobs for
Canadians and, in turn, lower revenues for government, creating
further deficit pressure. It was a vicious circle.
Today Canada enjoys the benefits of a virtuous circle with
fiscal progress contributing to lower interest rates which in
fact fuel economic growth and job creation, leading again to an
ever improving fiscal situation.
As the minister told this House, while we have won a major
battle, we understand full well that we have not yet won the war.
Interest charges on our debt, the result of decades of deficits,
will cost us $41.5 billion this year. That is money that cannot
go to health care or further tax reduction or addition debt
reduction.
For a strong economy and a secure society, this debt must be
brought down. Our commitment is to make that happen, steadily
and permanently. That is why we are instituting a two track
strategy.
First, we will continue to follow policies that will pay off in
better economic growth. Second, we will bring down the absolute
level of debt itself through the debt repayment plan.
Under this plan we will continue to present two year fiscal
plans based on prudent economic assumptions. Next, we will
continue to build a buffer into our budgets. The $3 billion
contingency reserve is there to make sure we meet our balanced
budget targets despite any unforeseen pressures.
Finally, if the contingency reserve is not needed, just as it
has not been needed in each of the last four budgets, thanks
again to our prudent economic assumptions, it will go directly to
pay down the debt.
Again, as the minister said, this is how since coming into
office we have brought the deficit down year after year after
year. This is how in the future we will bring the debt down year
after year after year.
An hon. member: We heard that before.
Mr. Tony Valeri: The hon. member opposite says he heard
it before. He is quite correct. He has heard it before because
it is a program that was put in place to eliminate the deficit.
That is in fact what has occurred.
Every day over the last number of years the opposition party
would stand up and say that we would never accomplish the
elimination of the deficit. Yesterday those members sat in their
seats and listened to the Minister of Finance state unequivocally
that the budget will be balanced this year, next year and the
year after precisely because we put in place a strategy to
eliminate the deficit in a very balanced fashion, not by the
extreme programs that the opposition party is putting forward,
tax cuts at any cost.
Although we do have to listen to the rhetoric, and I am
attempting to lay down some facts, I hope the hon. members will
stand in their places and say that the deficit strategy the
government put in place was a successful one which has
accomplished that objective one year ahead of schedule of what
the Reform Party had actually indicated in its election platform.
In a very important way, the reduction of the debt has actually
begun. In 1996-97 the combination of economic growth and fiscal
restraint meant that the debt to GDP ratio, what we owe in
relation to what we produce, fell significantly for the first
time in more than 20 years.
We all agree in this House that level is still too high but
everyone must admit in this House that the trend is going in the
right direction. We will continue to bring down the debt to GDP
ratio. This year it will drop even further. Over the next two
years the improvement will continue, falling to about 63%.
I will return to the topic of debt but for the moment I want to
step back to our current deficit success.
1750
I think it is worth comparing our federal financial performance
with how other major industrial countries are handling their
fiscal challenges. In Canada we use the public accounts method
of measuring public finances. It is one of the most rigorous in
the world. It is rigorous because it includes all the
liabilities which government incurs over the course of a year.
Many other countries such as the U.S. and Japan use the financial
requirements measure. This includes only the borrowings that the
government makes in financial markets. According to this measure
Canada is in the best fiscal health of the G-7.
It is worth repeating that when we use the financial
requirements measure Canada is in the best fiscal health of the
G-7. This means that by the time the federal government of the
United States sees its first balanced budget we will be on our
third. Meanwhile, all the other major industrial economies will
still be running deficits.
This is a reflection of the sacrifices Canadians have made to
support and ensure that we were able to get the deficit under
control.
There is an even more important way in which our fiscal progress
has real meaning and real benefit for Canadians. The improved
position of governments, combined with the federal government's
commitment to low inflation, has played a key role in allowing
interest rates to drop to a near 30 year low. While
international pressures have squeezed rates up somewhat, today
they are still more than 3 percentage points below the level of
early 1995.
This is a bottom line win for Canadians. It means that someone
who is renewing a five year $100,000 mortgage today will save
$3,000 a year compared to just three years ago.
There is one final area of strong performance I want to touch
on. As I said earlier, an important element of our fiscal renewal
has been our government's action to control program spending.
Over the last three years it has dropped in absolute dollar
terms, a discipline unprecedented in at least 30 years.
But the growth of Canada's economy, combined with the fiscal
turnaround we have put in place, means that we can now afford to
begin to make strategic investments such as the Canada millennium
scholarship and to increase provincial transfers to the Canada
health and social transfer.
Our commitment to restraint is strong and secure. The fact is
program spending will continue to fall in relation to the size of
the economy. It will continue to reflect the priorities of
Canadians, continuing the process we started some five years ago.
At that time total program spending stood at almost 17% of
Canada's GDP. This year we estimate that it will be down to
12.4% of economic activity. By the year 1999-2000 it should drop
to 11.5% of the economic activity, the lowest level in 50 years.
We must remember that is the year when, based on our fiscal
targets and prudent planning, Canadians will see their third
balanced budget in a row. That has not happened in almost 50
years.
Four years ago we established a plan which is working. For the
first time in 30 years the budget is balanced. For the first
time in 50 years we will balance the budget for three consecutive
years. This budget is simply the next stage in that plan and it
continues the same balanced approach for the future which has
worked over the past four budgets.
We will pay down the debt as we have paid down the deficit. We
will invest in critical priority areas like education and health
care. We will cut taxes, beginning with middle and low income
Canadians.
There is no doubt about it, with this budget we have made
choices.
They are choices that reflect Canadian priorities and that
reflect the same balanced approach that we have taken all along.
This is a budget for the Canadian people. The days of
overspending and overreaching are gone. We have brought the
deficit down from $42 billion to zero and we will continue to
live within our means.
1755
The only reason we can realistically talk about tax cuts is we
have managed to get the books balanced. The measures announced
in the budget will affect 90% of Canadian taxpayers. Four hundred
thousand low income Canadians will be removed from the tax rolls
altogether and an additional thirteen million Canadians will see
their federal taxes drop. All along, this government has not
once raised personal income tax rates. Where we have raised
taxes, we have been sure to do so in the interests of fairness as
with the special surtax on the banks.
The Canadian opportunity strategy is a comprehensive strategy
that focuses on expanding access to opportunities, to knowledge
and skills that Canadians require to meet the challenges of the
21st century. For a student today hoping to enter post-secondary
education, it is about the 100,000 millennium scholarships that
will be awarded each year.
For more than one million Canadians paying off a student debt,
it is about tax relief for the first time ever on the interest
portion of their student loans. For adults who are hoping to
return to school or acquire new skills, it is about tax free
access to their RRSPs. For parents or grandparents, it is about
the Canada education savings grant to help them save for the
education of their children and their grandchildren.
The millennium scholarship fund will provide 100,000
scholarships a year to students in every province and every
community, with up to $3,000 per year for full time and part time
students, young Canadians and adults at universities, at
community colleges, at technical schools and vocational
institutes. It is all about increasing access to knowledge and
skills. It is about preparing for the next millennium. It is
about reflecting Canadian priorities.
The way we set up the millennium scholarship fund is a
reflection of what we believe. It is something we felt was so
important that it should be taken out of the hands of politics
and put into the hands of experts. That is why we are setting up
a private foundation to administer the scholarships. Over time
we may attract private sector endowments so it can grow and help
even more young people.
All governments have an obligation to provide better access to
skills and knowledge. We are not about to stand aside and ignore
that obligation. It is not about jurisdiction or turf. It is
about our future.
What we have been able to achieve over the last four budgets is
a result of the hard work of Canadians. Members in this House
often make reference to the fact that this government boasts
about its success. Government members on this side of House
state unequivocally that our success in our war with the deficit
is a result of the sacrifices Canadians have made, of the
partnership Canadians have struck with this government, of the
support Canadians have given this government over the last two
elections to deal with the fiscal questions and challenges we
have had to deal with.
This budget marks an historic moment. It makes possible what
many thought was not possible. Most important, it is a budget
that shows Canadians that their support for our deficit fight and
their willingness to endorse and accept the tough decisions we
had to make was not misplaced. This is their success and the
rewards it produces will be theirs and their children's.
1800
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.
There were some things I found surprising. First he said: “My
government accomplished this; my government accomplished that. We
took priorities into account; we did a good job, and so forth”.
He should perhaps quit reading the notes the Department of
Finance gives him, just as he should perhaps quit taking his
orders from the finance minister in committee.
He should perhaps actually take a look at the budget documents
and do a little evaluation of what has gone on for the last four
years and will continue to go on until 2003.
In 1995, his Minister of Finance introduced a plan of major
cuts. Only once did he speak about it. Every year, another $6
billion is cut from social programs, university education and
health care.
For the information of my colleague, who does not seem to be
informed at all, or who tells us only half of what he knows, there
are still $30 billion in cuts to be made by 2003, and they will be
in those very sectors of university education, health and welfare.
If they are really concerned about education, as one of the
keys to the future, the first thing the finance minister should
have done, and did not do, was to give back what he cut in the
university education sector.
But no. They take this year's surplus, around $3 billion, put down
$2.5 billion this year for the millennium fund scholarships, when
these scholarships will not actually be given out for another two
years, and the public is given to understand that they are
concerned about student indebtedness.
All they are concerned about is their visibility as a federal
government. During Oral Question Period, the Prime Minister made
it clear. So did the Minister of Human Resources Development in
the scrum.
The millennium fund, he said, was not about arguing, but about
the future.
How is it that the constitutional issue of Quebeckers' freedom of
choice, a constitutional fact of Canadian life, has been referred
to the supreme court, and our right to exercise this freedom under
the Constitution is being questioned?
Does he think the Constitution need not be applied in the
educational sector? They claim to be defending this Constitution
and to be betrayed by our democratic right to choose our own future
as Quebeckers. It is no big deal, but they refer it to the supreme
court. That is my first question.
My second is as follows. Does he realize, on quick
calculation, that, in the past four years, 52% of the cuts imposed
by the Minister of Finance were absorbed by the provinces? They
are the champions and the artisans of improved public finances.
The taxpayers' contribution was 47%, through taxes, through the non
indexing of tax tables, through the Minister of Finance's
systematic robbery of the surplus in the unemployment insurance
fund of between $6 billion and $7 billion a year.
In the end, his Minister of Finance, the good manager, cut 11%
from federal government operations. Some manager. He should stop
parroting the words and political lines of his minister and take
his duty as a member of Parliament to heart.
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri: Madam Speaker, we have started to hear
the rhetoric heat up a bit. To address a couple of the points
that were made, the budget yesterday reflected the balanced
approach, the approach that worked for the government and worked
for Canadians since 1993 in achieving our successes.
When it comes to the issue of the millennium scholarship fund
and the issue of jurisdiction, the federal government has always
had a role in access to education. It is a role that the
government has continually stated, in fact with the announcement
of the millennium scholarship fund, is not about jurisdiction or
turf.
If the hon. member were to go to Quebec and speak to young
students who are looking to gain access to university, he would
know they are not concerned about jurisdiction or turf. They
want solutions. They want to have some hope. They want to have
some access to skills training because they know these are types
of skills they will need to compete in the next millennium.
1805
The government has responded to the priorities of Canadians. I
think we would find across the country that the whole learning
strategy, the opportunity strategy, is one that is well received
by students, by Canadians interested in lifelong learning, by
parents and grandparents who want to put money aside for their
children.
Everyone realizes, regardless of what level of government, that
we have to do our very best to ensure that each and every
Canadian has equal opportunity to learning and skills training.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Madam Speaker, the
hon. member on the opposite side said that members on this side
of the House should stand in our place and say that the deficit
plan has been successful. I would say that whether or not we
determine the deficit plan has been successful depends on how one
measures success.
If we measure success by the high number of people who are
unemployed, perhaps the plan has been successful. If we measure
success by the large number of young people who need help and who
will not be able to receive help under the budget, perhaps we can
say it has been successful. If we measure success by the large
number of people lining the corridors of hospitals trying to get
proper health care, by the large number of people who are unable
to afford pharmacare and proper medicines, or by the large number
of seniors who are concerned about their future, perhaps we can
say the budget has been successful. If we are looking at the
large number of federal government employees who are still
seeking pay equity, not being paid their rightful due, perhaps
again the government has been successful. If we look at the
large number of people working in shipyards who are not able to
have a national shipbuilding policy that will address their
concerns, perhaps the government has been successful.
When we look Atlantic Canada and Nova Scotia in particular the
budget does very little to address the concerns of the people in
that area. There is nothing concrete offered to ease the
employment concerns of the fishers on the east coast. No
substantial relief is offered to young people currently
experiencing high student debt load.
We talk about the millennium fund which will not kick in until
the year 2000 and then will only help about 7% of the students in
the area. The budget has no new job creation strategies. It has
no targets, as has been mentioned. There is no new investment in
health care.
The government mentioned choices and talked about them being the
choices of Canadians. We could look at the large number of
Canadians who have not been consulted or dealt with in a real
partnership. I am speaking about our aboriginal communities that
year after year are refused admittance at the first ministers
tables and constitutional talks. Yet we talk about working in
partnership. Have those people been considered and have they
been consulted in terms of priorities for people when we say that
this is a budget for Canadian people?
We talk about priorities. Yet, when we talk about priorities,
we are not really talking about priorities for people but we are
talking about the priorities the government determined were its
priorities in meeting the budget deficit. It has been done on
the backs of the people. When we talk about how successful we
are, let us think about those people who have to worry about
where their next meal is coming from.
I see that my time is just about up. I throw those remarks out
to have them on record for a response by the hon. member.
Mr. Tony Valeri: Madam Speaker, we do not have very much
time to address the number of issues that were brought forward.
I would like to reiterate the fact that the government, despite
what some members in the opposition continue to state, does and
will continue to invest in Canadian priorities. Health care and
education consistently rank among the priorities of Canadians.
Certainly the debt and tax relief with respect to low income and
middle income Canadians are issues. We have taken steps. The
child tax credit is a commitment that we fulfilled in the past
budget and one that we will continue to work on.
I assure the hon. member that back in 1993 the finance minister
put in place a consultation process that was unprecedented in
this place.
1810
We travel across the country on the Standing Committee on
Finance gaining information from Canadians on what in fact should
be included in the budget. I would only offer an opportunity for
the hon. member to perhaps travel with that committee to hear
from Canadians themselves.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
is a pleasure today to rise to debate the government's budget. It
is an important day. I think we would be negligent if we did not
point out that this is an important day for taxpayers who have
done a tremendous amount to bring the budget into balance for the
first time in 28 years.
I am glad to note, as we began the budget debate on this day,
that the finance minister acknowledged the tremendous role that
taxpayers have played in bringing the budget into balance.
I have been listening to my colleagues opposite and I have
noticed that they have used a few words over and over again. They
argue that they have taken the balanced approach to this balanced
budget.
I want to scrutinize whether or not that is exactly the case by
running through the three major aspects contained in the budget.
The government talks about how it will deal with the issue of
spending. It talks about how it will deal with the issue of
taxes and the issue of debt.
Let us start with the spending side. That is where the
government started. It is where its proclivities lie and it is
probably one of the most interesting parts of the budget. The
government is arguing that it is the balanced approach to
increase spending overall in the budget by $11 billion. We have
not seen an increase in spending like that in years and years and
years.
I simply want to make the point right now that we think at a
time when the government has balanced the budget for the first
time it is missing a glorious opportunity to deal with the
fundamental economic problems of the country in a way that will
fix them once and forever. By increasing spending it has
essentially blown that chance, an $11 billion spending increase.
I want to say a couple of words about how the government has
spent that money. For weeks on end the government has been
talking about the need to invest in education. It has been no
secret that there would be increases in spending for education.
Who can be against education?
We all agree that education is extraordinarily important, but I
think a little history is in order here. I think we need to talk
about just how much the federal government values education. We
need to point out to taxpayers of Canada and to students that it
was the federal government which took the broad axe to education
funding in the first place.
I remember very well in the 1995 budget that the finance
minister said they were to cut the size of government
percentage-wise far more than they were to cut transfers to the
provinces. He made a speech to the Kansas City Reserve Board
saying that they were to make far deeper cuts to the size of
government, trim fat, eliminate waste, before they would ever cut
important things like health care and higher education.
It just wasn't so. Those were their words but their actions
were completely different. The result was that health care and
higher education suffered massive cuts, 35% cuts to the provinces
to provide health care and higher education. This was completely
unnecessary when there were all kinds of wasteful areas in
government spending that they could have cut, things that are
completely unnecessary.
It was bad enough that they did that two or three years ago. Now
they want to be rewarded for riding to the rescue with a new
education program. They want to be rewarded after the provinces
have taken the hits. It has been the provinces that have had
protesters on the lawns of their legislatures saying that they
want to see more funding for health care, more funding for higher
education. There were never any protests here. The federal
government got away with it basically scot-free.
Today those members want to come waltzing in to provincial
jurisdiction and say that they will restore a fraction of the
funding and they expect to be rewarded for it.
1815
I want to point out in talking about the particulars of the
millennium scholarship fund, just where we think this fund goes
absolutely wrong. The first point is that the millennium
scholarship fund will focus spending on about 6% of the students,
leaving 94% of the students out there still looking for a way to
get to university. We argue that if the government had taken that
money and given it to the provinces, they could have used it to
reduce the tuition costs and that would have helped all the
students.
We think the millennium scholarship fund misses the point also
in a very fundamental way. The issue is not so much that
students in Canada are not well trained. We know they are. In
fact we have got one of the highest participation rates in
university in the industrialized world. The problem is not on the
supply side. The problem is on the demand side.
I was talking a few minutes ago on a cable TV show with the hon.
member for Red Deer. He pointed out that his children all
attended university in Canada but they are all working in other
countries in the world right now. Three children, one in Norway,
one in Holland and one at Princeton.
Let me talk about his son who is at Princeton. Here is a young
man who is a Rhodes scholar but could not find work as a
professor in Canada. Why? Of course because we saw the federal
government cut transfers to the provinces for things like higher
education, making it almost impossible.
The government did talk about other areas as well, or other ways
to aid higher education. Let us talk a little bit more about
access to higher education, an important subject.
Government members have talked about ways that they would use
the registered retirement savings plans to benefit people who
want to go back to school. That is entirely laudable. We agree
with expanding the use of RRSPs. RRSPs are a good idea. But the
problem is people do not have the disposable income.
The problem again is not that the programs are not adequate. The
fact is people do not have the income to participate in them.
Which is why we are making the argument that we need to have
lower taxes in this country, far lower taxes than we have today
and far more than the government was offering in its recent
budget.
The registered education savings plan is another savings plan for
education. But again Canadians just do not have the income to
participate. We make the argument that if this government really
wants to help education in this country, it has to address both
sides of the issue.
On the one side we need to ensure that Canadians have adequate
incomes so that they can put money aside to get their children
into university. We need to ensure that transfers to the
provinces continue. But on the other side we also need to know
that there are jobs for those people. We need to know that when
they graduate from university they can find a job so they can
start to pay back those student loans. Unfortunately in Canada
today where we have a youth unemployment rate of 16.2%, it is
very difficult for many students to find jobs.
A study by Nesbitt Burns points out the huge difference in the
tax rates between Canada and the United States. As a result so
many of our students whom we have just trained at great expense
are disappearing from this country and are going to the United
States. And it does not end with the United States. It points out
that people who are involved in computer sciences and it talks
about all kinds of professionals, doctors, nurses, teachers and
engineers, are disappearing across the border. It would be bad
enough if it was only an economic problem, but I argue it is also
a social problem. We are seeing families split up and that is
extraordinarily unfortunate.
It was not very long ago that Liberals in this place would stand
up and rip the Conservative government because our sovereignty
was being taken over by the Americans. Today the Liberals are
allowing our brightest and our best to go to the United States
because they will not deal with the taxation problem in this
country.
I want to talk for a moment about the debt side of the budget.
First let me explain the situation for people. In Canada today we
have a debt of $583 billion.
When my friends across the way came to power a few years ago they
began the process of adding debt upon debt upon debt. They built
the debt up by about $90 billion while they were in government.
1820
We now have this debt of $583 billion. We pay $45 billion a
year in interest on it, one-third of every tax dollar. The
average family pays $6,000 a year in federal taxes just to pay
the interest on the debt.
We have been coast to coast over the past several months talking
to Canadians about how to deal with the problem of the country's
finances. Without exception no matter what part of the country we
go to people say with one voice “Please begin the process of
paying down the debt”.
Sadly in Canada today the government is taking the approach that
the debt is not an issue. The government said in its budget that
in fact it will only deal with the problem of the debt in terms
of paying it down if it has some money left over in its
contingency fund. There are no targets set for debt reduction,
absolutely no targets. The finance committee suggested that the
government at least have a very lukewarm target of between 60%
and 50% of GDP. It completely ignored that.
All the government has is this sort of halfhearted promise that
if it can get to it, it will start to pay down money from the
contingency fund toward the debt. That is simply not acceptable.
Canadians today know that when we live in a global economy we
cannot count on just being secure in our country when we know
that an Asian crisis as there just was or a Mexican peso crisis
can have a profound impact on us especially when our economy is
teetering atop a $583 billion debt, one-quarter of which is owed
to foreigners.
We must begin to deal with the problem of the debt. Do not take
my word for it. Listen to what some of the commentators have
been saying about the issue of the debt in the wake of
yesterday's budget.
Here is what the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is saying.
Everyone well knows that is a very credible institution. My
friend from Calgary Southeast used to head the Canadian Taxpayers
Federation. It is saying “The federal government has also
chosen to ignore the national debt and instead grow its way out
of our debt woes. Debt servicing charges are actually going to
increase over the next three years from $41.5 billion to $45
billion”.
Andrew Pyle, chief strategist of ABN Amro Bank, is calling the
government's debt reduction strategy lazy.
Finally listen to this quote “I think the market could be less
than enthusiastic about a plan that puts less emphasis on paying
down debt, particularly during a period of robust growth and low
interest rates”, said Aron Gampel, deputy chief economist with
Scotia Capital Markets.
There are real problems with the government's approach to
dealing with the debt. That is one of the chief reasons why we
saw the dollar fall like a stone by half a cent right after the
budget came out. That is a tremendous shock for people who were
expecting something a bit better from the government.
We also point out that the debt has a real impact on Canadians'
lives, when the debt is as high as it is and Canadian families
are paying $6,000 a year in taxes just to pay the interest on the
debt. It hurts many innocent people. I point out again that it
is Canadians who have balanced this budget and they are the ones
who deserve to see some tax relief.
I want to address the final big aspect of the budget. That is of
course taxes. I want to spend a bit more time on this issue than
on some of the other issues.
Since the government has come to power we have seen the
government introduce new tax increases 37 times. We now have a
government that is going to be taking in approximately $48
billion more in revenues by the end of its mandate than when it
came to power.
We have a situation where we are seeing Canadians' disposable
income fall like a stone, $3,000 for the average family since the
government came to power. This is added on top of 10 years of
misery under the Conservative government where we saw 71 tax
increases. There have been 108 tax increases in the last
generation under Liberal and Tory governments.
It even goes higher than that if we go back into the Trudeau era.
It is an extraordinarily poor record on behalf of both
Conservative and Liberal governments over the last many years.
1825
Government members again are arguing that they are taking the
balanced approach. They are saying “We are taking a balanced
approach to spending” by driving spending up $11 billion. That
is the biggest spending increase in a generation. They are
taking a balanced approach in not dealing at all with the problem
of the debt. That is their argument. They are saying “We do
not have to deal with the debt”. That is the balanced approach.
Now they are saying that they are going to introduce $7 billion
in tax relief over three years, but that will not come anywhere
near offsetting the huge increase in CPP premiums which took
effect January 1. It was a huge increase. We saw the largest
tax hike in Canadian history come in on January 1 and they have
the gall to suggest that they are somehow reducing taxes.
That is not the end of it. We also know—and my friends will
not deny this—that built in to the tax system is the phenomenon
of bracket creep, which allows the government every year to take
another $900 million out of taxpayers' pockets. The taxation
system is no longer indexed to inflation. Cost of living
increases will push people into new tax brackets and the result
is that they will pay new taxes. A lot of people do not even
realize it is happening. The fact is, that alone will claw back
about 50 cents of every dollar the government has offered in tax
relief.
My point is simply that the government cannot argue that there
is real tax relief in this budget. In fact the revenue which the
government is collecting is going up and up on an ever climbing
track. I would point out to my friends opposite that since the
government took power in 1993, the year it promised to eliminate
the GST, we are now seeing projections for GST revenue growth to
be 46% higher than in 1993. That is extraordinary.
Due to bracket creep and increases in income tax, by redefining
income in various ways, Canada now has some of the highest
personal income taxes in the world. I pointed out earlier that
we have personal income taxes that are 56% higher than the G-7
average, higher than those of our trading partners, higher than
in Japan, the United States, the U.K., France, Italy and all the
other countries. We are 25% higher than the OECD average.
We have seen incomes in Canada drop so dramatically that more
and more families are having to have both parents in the
workforce, one just to pay the taxes.
Our argument is that it is time for a change to the approach the
government has brought to us. We do not think its approach is
balanced at all. We think it punishes the very people who
balanced the budget. We think it is time to give Canadians, if I
dare say it, a fresh start. We think it is time to secure their
future.
I am not going to ask my friends opposite to take my word for
it. I want to quote from some letters which the Reform Party has
received. This is a letter from someone who lives in Nova Scotia:
Dear Mr. Manning,
Recently I read about the help you gave Kim Hicks in Sackville,
N.B. It is nice to see that you are listening and willing to
help people in her situation. There are many people that need
your help to influence the government to lower the tax burden on
ordinary Canadians. Please find enclosed my documentation which
says a great deal about how government taxation policy is hurting
me and many others. If this information is useful to you, please
use it.
He goes on to list his payroll stubs. The letter continues:
1830
Our point is simply this. Ordinary Canadians are paying an
extraordinarily high price for the policies of the government. We
think it is time to devote an equal balance between debt
reduction and tax relief to help Canadians secure their futures
and to give them the real hope that only the Reform Party can
truly give them.
The Deputy Speaker: With the enthusiasm the hon. member
has generated in his speech, there will be 10 minutes for
questions and comments on this speech when the debate on the
budget resumes. I believe that will be tomorrow morning at 8.30.
I am sure the hon. member will want to be here for questions and
comments.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
TAXATION
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my hon. colleague from Medicine Hat was speaking moments ago
about the bracket creep which is a serious systemic flaw in our
tax system.
I raised a question in this place on November 18 last year of
the government about a revenue department report, which had been
released the previous day, indicating income taxes paid by the
average taxpayer went up by 10% largely because the government
had kept in place Brian Mulroney's hidden tax grab called bracket
creep which the OECD says is hammering our economy. I went on to
say that if the finance minister will not commit to broad based
tax relief, will he at least commit to stop raising taxes through
the hidden tax grab called bracket creep.
I look forward to following up on that question today. As the
hon. member mentioned, in the budget released yesterday there was
a claim that there was tax relief for Canadians, particularly low
and modest income Canadians. In fact, when one takes into
account the effect of the deindexation of the tax brackets, this
sneaky, back door, malicious tax increase imposed on Canadians by
the Tory party in 1986, one will find more Canadians paying taxes
next year than they did last year and more Canadians paying more
taxes than they ever did before.
This is how bracket creep works. The basic exemptions in the
tax system and the marginal rates are only indexed for inflation
over 3%. We have had inflation, fortunately, under 3% thanks to
the strict monetary policy of the Bank of Canada for several
years now. This means that in all the natural wage raises that
people get, they are getting bumped up into the tax brackets
which they previously did not have to pay. This is why Canadians
are now paying taxes on just $6,500 of income.
The leader of the opposition said in this place that these taxes
are hidden and sneaky. You don not really notice them until you
get the bill. They are practically invisible. However, the
sneakiest tax increase of all was the deindexation of personal
income tax. The minister keeps quiet about this. The finance
minister did not even mention it in his budget this year. It is
a very simple decision that will cost Canadians billions of
dollars more annually but he kept quiet about it. Here again,
low and middle income Canadians will carry the heaviest burden.
The leader of the opposition went on to say that such underhanded
and clandestine deindexation represents the most massive and
heavy tax increase in Canada's history. It will cost Canadians
billions of dollars. Sneaky, hidden, silent and automatic.
That was not the current Leader of the Opposition. That was the
Right Hon. John Turner in this place on February 20, 1987. That
was the former leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Another Liberal member at the time said: “The finance minister
told us there was no tax increases in this budget. That
statement is false because taxes are going up in this country
because of the deindexation of deductions which this government
has done in its past budgets”.
1835
Which Liberal member said that? It was the hon. member for
Kingston and the Islands. I gather he is still a Liberal member.
Mr. Speaker, I can share your outrage which is why I close with a
request for the parliamentary secretary to justify why this
government is taking billions more out of the pockets of
Canadians, and I know you will join me today in that request as
you did in 1987, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member presumes a little on
the Chair.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the change in
personal income taxes paid in 1995, I urge the member to be a
little more careful in his analysis of the tax trends. In
comparing the tax burdens between 1995 and 1994 the member does
not consider the one time increase in capital gains income
reported on 1994 tax returns made in anticipation of the
elimination of the capital gains exemption.
As a result, an unusually high amount of capital gains
exemptions were claimed in 1994 which lowered the overall tax
rates in that year to below normal levels. Any comparison between
1994 and the more typical 1995 average tax rates which does not
take into account this fact exaggerates the rise in tax between
these two years.
Growth in federal revenues since 1994 is primarily due to an
increase in economic activity as reflected in the annual nominal
GDP growth in the range of 4%. As we witnessed yesterday, this
government has taken the first step to reduce taxes for lower and
middle income Canadians.
The Reform Party may think that tax relief for 13 million
Canadians, for low and middle income families, for single mothers
and working parents, for 90% of taxpayers is a waste of time, but
we do not.
BANKING
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, in question period on November 25, I raised the issue of
the need for a community reinvestment act in Canada. At that
time I asked the finance minister why, if the United States has a
community reinvestment act and if Canadian banks such as the Bank
of Montreal have to live by its provisions when they buy American
banks like the Harris bank in Chicago, we could not enact a
community reinvestment act in this country.
The Liberal reply was right out of the briefing book supplied by
the Canadian Bankers Association to all members of Parliament. I
wish his officials would expand their reading list a bit on this
topic. He misstated the purpose of a community reinvestment act
and implied that it would ghettoize parts of Canada in terms of
loans and investments made by the banks.
I will explain what a community reinvestment act really is for
the secretary of state in the House. I will also explain why the
New Democratic Party advocates this policy. When the Bank of
Montreal wanted to buy the Harris bank in Chicago in 1993, U.S.
regulators delayed approval until it met obligations under the
American community reinvestment act to provide loan funding for
small business and community development in the Chicago area.
Eventually about $497 million Canadian in loan commitments was
made to local housing projects and area small business over a
five year period.
This idea has never been more relevant with the announcement of
the monster merger of the Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal.
According to last Saturday's Globe and Mail, 206
communities in Canada rely solely on either the Royal Bank or the
Bank of Montreal for banking. Matthew Barrett of the Bank of
Montreal said yesterday that none of them will close but I think
there are 206 communities in Canada waiting for the other shoe to
drop.
Other banks are pulling out of communities. In January, on the
day it announced record profits to its annual shareholders
meeting, the CIBC closed a branch, the only financial institution
in Lynn Lake, Manitoba. A Braxton Associates study last year
estimated that 5,700 bank branches will close over the next
decade, putting as many as 35,000 employees out of work. We will
start to see bank branches in small communities closing as fast
as post offices. The merger mania is one of the reasons these
branches will close. It is a sad commentary on the declining
attention being paid to the needs of rural life in Canada.
A community reinvestment act makes financial institutions
accountable for their behaviour in our communities. It requires
the banks to invest in the communities deemed in need. In the
U.S. banks have to prove they are meeting the credit needs of
small business, community economic development and low income
residential mortgages. They have to keep lending statistics on
loan requests, denials and approvals, and report their record in
lending to visible minorities, women, low income neighbourhoods
and so on.
It requires those financial institutions to commit funds in
order to meet these needs and to work together with community
groups and businesses to make plans for doing so. It is not
rocket science. At first, U.S. banks did not like the idea but
now they have found they have very low default rates on
residential mortgages. Matthew Barrett knows all about it. He
had to comply with these regulations before he bought the Harris
bank in Chicago.
1840
My point is this. We need jobs in Canada. We have a higher
unemployment rate than in the U.S. Banks are making record
profits in Canada but they are not investing in small businesses
that create jobs or meeting their responsibilities to smaller
communities in Canada. In the U.S. they have to do it by law.
Here is one way for them to do it. Why does the government not
consider this idea?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the availability of credit to
the small business sector remains a critical issue for this
government.
We are very aware of the importance of the small business
community and its impact on our domestic economy. That is why
the government has worked hard over the past few years to improve
the environment for small businesses in Canada.
The views of the task force on the future of the Canadian
financial sector will be helpful to the government in deciding
whether to approve or reject the particular merger transaction.
I would like to assure my hon. colleagues in the opposition that
this government will not allow this merger to proceed without the
understanding of its impacts on the small business community in
Canada and without the full input of all Canadians, including the
small business community.
We said from the beginning that this government will not allow
any financial institution to jump the cue. We set a process in
place. That process was to allow the MacKay report to report.
Once the MacKay report comes back to this House, the standing
committee on finance will tour the country.
I offer the invitation to the hon. member who brought this
question to the House to join us to hear from Canadians and to
have input into what this government is prepared to do with
respect to the merger of any financial institutions in this
country.
[Translation]
SPIRIT OF COLUMBUS PLATFORM
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the last day of
the session before the holidays, or December 11, 1997, I questioned
the Minister responsible for International Trade about what was
happening about the guarantee of funding for the Spirit of Columbus
platform, which MIL Davie had managed to bring in after several
months of efforts.
That platform has been anchored in the port of Quebec since
August 30 of last year, but the wait on the guarantee of financing
from the Export Development Corporation, which reports to the
Minster of International Trade, has been going on for more than a
year.
As the minister's response was not very helpful, I am back at
it again today to try and get some more details.
The minister said:
I spoke with Mr. Landry some months ago. I directed the
EDC to speak with the Quebec SDI. Meetings were held. He had
spoken with the MIL-Davie union president.
The federal government feels this is a very important
undertaking. I respect the recommendations made by the EDC and
the SDI on behalf of the governments of Quebec and of Canada.
We have been waiting ever since. From time to time in this
House, every couple of months, I bring it up again. I know this is
a complex matter, but we are now at the end of February, and next
week the House adjourns. Dominion Bridge, which owns the
shipyards, is doing everything it can.
It has even got new investments from American ECO, which is
currently discussing a take-over of Dominion Bridge, and therefore
of the yards.
There are two other platform projects, each costing in excess
of $100 million, Amethyst II and Amethyst III, for which
applications have been made. The Government of Quebec is prepared
to contribute. As long ago as September 20, the SDI had given its
agreement in principle for this project. Now that we are talking
in excess of $300 million for these platforms, we are still waiting
on the federal government and the Export Development Corporation to
find out what is going on about the guarantee of financing.
I would like to give a quick review, in a few seconds, of one
other Liberal government commitment. In 1993 it had promised a
summit on the future of marine construction in Canada.
This was picked up on by then New Brunswick Premier McKenna who
reminded the government of it at a federal-provincial conference
before his resignation.
Now here we are in 1998, 5 years later,
and there is no sign whatsoever of a symposium or summit on marine
construction in Canada.
1845
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Export
Development Corporation, EDC, has been in regular contact with
Davie Industries, Société de Developpement Industriel du Quebec,
SDI, and the other participants in this transaction.
EDC has provided two separate financing options to the project
sponsors in support of the Davie contract. The first was dated
June 17, 1996 and the second, October 10, 1997. Both proposals,
however, have been put aside by the project sponsors that would
like EDC and SDI to participate in a structure which the sponsors
have engineered.
Unfortunately, following a detailed review by EDC and SDI it was
determined by both that the project sponsors were asking EDC and
SDI to assume unacceptable commercial risks.
Regardless, upon the request of Davie Industries, in conjunction
with EDC and SDI, we have continued discussions on this
transaction. At the present time EDC and SDI are working on a
viable financing structure in co-operation with Davie Industries
and the project sponsors.
It should be emphasized that EDC is a self-sustaining crown
corporation operating at arm's length from the government and is
not part of the government per se. We also want to make it very
clear that EDC could act quickly to implement the financing
question once a structure has been agreed to.
EDC appreciates the urgency Davie Industries faces in having to
secure financing for this project. We await an acceptable
proposal.
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
a recent report was prepared for Human Resources Development
Canada based on an 18 month study into underground economic
activity, the $92 billion a year construction industry. The
report was prepared by the consulting firm, KPMG.
The study which ended last fall was conducted by a working group
headed by a consortium of consulting firms and involved a half
dozen federal departments and agencies including Revenue Canada,
Finance, Statistics Canada, Industry Canada and Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation.
Government suspects and those in the industry claim the
construction workers operating in the underground economy are
padding their untaxed earnings with EI, welfare or workers'
compensation. Governments fear that underground activity in this
area is undermining their ability to fund those same social
programs, as well as the Canada and Quebec pension plans.
The abuse and undermining of social programs are only two of the
disturbing findings of the study into an industry long suspected
of being a major player in the underground economy where
otherwise legitimate activities are hidden and not taxed or
regulated.
When the untaxed wages of workers in the underground economy are
added on to social program payments, they often earn more than
workers on legitimate construction jobs, according to the report,
and it so notes. Those workers are also putting their future
financial security at risk.
Workers are being pressured into accepting less than legitimate
working arrangements under which employment insurance premiums
are not deducted, workers' compensation is not provided, and
there is no protection against dangerous or unhealthy working
conditions.
It would appear that while economic factors are the largest
factor in driving the underground economy, the picture is
complicated by other factors including politics, an inverted
sense of self-righteousness, various forms of sociocultural
motivation and the role of EI, workers' compensation, social
assistance and other benefits. The underground economy therefore
is not only flourishing, it would appear, but it is also growing.
I would like the parliamentary secretary to outline exactly what
the government plans to do to correct the abuse and what the
government plans to do to stop the undermining of our social
programs as a result of this underground activity.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington for bringing this important
issue to the attention of the House.
Underground economic activity is indeed a problem in Canada
which should be reduced. Representatives of the construction
industry take this issue very seriously, so much so that they
expressed concern about the growing problem of underground
employment and its implications for the future of their industry
directly to the Minister of Human Resources Development.
In response to their concern the minister agreed to work with
them and subsequently developed a joint industry-government
working group to examine this important issue.
1850
The report the member brought forth in his question in the House
a number of months ago referred to the results of the working
group's study. Its focus on labour market implications of
underground employment in the construction industry is exactly
what the member is asking about today.
Contrary to what the member is suggesting and suggested in his
question not too long ago, there was no leak to the media. The
fact is that over 1,000 copies of the report were made available
to the working group members last December. The intention of
that was to get some input from all those members as to what was
the best solution to deal with the underground economy.
Because of the somewhat sensitive nature of the report—it
describes in some detail how frauds are accomplished—the working
group decided that its individual members could best determine
how to distribute the report to their constituent organizations
and concerned stakeholders. The report will be used by the
individual working group members to create action plans to reduce
underground employment in the construction industry.
Once that work is done I assure the member, the people at home
who are watching and the House, that we will move very quickly on
the underground economy.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is deemed
to have been adopted. The House stands adjourned until 8.30 a.m.
tomorrow pursuant to the special order of February 23, 1998.
(The House adjourned at 6.51 p.m.)