36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 84
CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 31, 1998
1005
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUNAVUT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-39. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CONSUMER PACKAGING AND LABELLING ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-389. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
1010
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Kidney Disease
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-36. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1015
1020
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
1025
1030
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1035
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1040
1045
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1050
1055
1100
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
1105
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1110
1115
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1120
1125
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1130
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
1135
1140
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1145
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1150
1155
1200
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
1205
1210
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1215
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1220
1225
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1250
1255
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Mitchell |
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1320
1325
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1330
1335
1340
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
1345
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEMBER FOR BEAUHARNOIS—SALABERRY
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1400
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Brent St. Denis |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE FAMILY
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFORM PARTY
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1405
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Maria Minna |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PORT MOODY—COQUITLAM
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1410
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL LANGUAGES DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PORT MOODY—COQUITLAM
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GRAND FALLS CURLING CLUB
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PORT MOODY—COQUITLAM
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1420
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1425
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1430
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1435
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COPYRIGHT BOARD
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
1440
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Louis Plamondon |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRAINING FOR YOUNG PEOPLE
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKING
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1445
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1450
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA FOUNDATION FOR INNOVATION
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
1455
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LIGHT STATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Matthews |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNSHIPS
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1500
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE DOUGLAS ALKENBRACK
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
1505
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Larry McCormick |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
1510
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-36. Second reading.
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1515
1520
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
1525
1530
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1535
1540
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ROYAL ASSENT
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-36. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1545
1550
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
1555
1600
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1605
1610
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Aileen Carroll |
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1635
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ROYAL ASSENT
|
1650
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-36. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1655
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-223
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Agriculture and Agri-Food
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1700
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Natural Resources and Government Operations
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-36. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1705
1710
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1715
1740
(Division 119)
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment negatived
|
1745
(Division 120)
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-25. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILD BENEFIT
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1755
(Division 121)
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment negatived
|
1805
(Division 122)
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
1810
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-211. Second reading
|
1815
(Division 123)
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-223. Second reading
|
1820
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1825
1830
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
1835
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1840
1845
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1850
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1855
1900
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | (Division deemed demanded and deferred)
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Firearms
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1905
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1910
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Labour Sponsored Investment Funds
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1915
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Research and Development
|
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chris Axworthy |
1920
![V](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 84
![](/web/20061116175327im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, March 31, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1005
[Translation]
REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay on the table,
pursuant to section 66 of the Official Languages Act, the annual
report of the Commissioner of Official Languages for the calendar
year 1997.
[English]
Pursuant to standing order 108(4)(b), this report is deemed
permanently referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Official
Languages.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
NUNAVUT ACT
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-39, an
act to amend the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
CONSUMER PACKAGING AND LABELLING ACT
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-389, an act to amend the Consumer Packaging
and Labelling Act (nutritional value of food).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce at first
reading this bill to amend the Consumer Packaging and Labelling
Act, which provides for the listing of the nutritional value of
food products.
[English]
My private member's bill stipulates that any processed food
intended for retail sale must include labelling which lists the
exact nutritional value of the product. Proper food labelling is
an essential tool in the fight against nutrition related
illnesses such as heart disease, cancer, tooth decay and
diabetes.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1010
PETITIONS
KIDNEY DISEASE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
is the last day of Kidney month.
I am here to present the first of a number of petitions signed
by thousands of people in the Peterborough riding and across the
country, including Ken Sharp, who has been on dialysis his entire
adult life, almost 25 years.
The petitioners are interested in a bioartificial kidney project
which might, in the end, provide relief for those who are on
dialysis. They point out that 18,000 Canadian citizens suffer
from end stage kidney disease and that those on kidney dialysis
and those successfully transplanted recognize the importance of
the bioartificial kidney and of present treatments.
The petitioners point out that dialysis services across the
country are inadequate. Therefore, these petitioners call upon
parliament to work and support the bioartificial kidney which
will eventually eliminate the need for both dialysis or
transplantation for those suffering from kidney disease.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
The House resumed from March 25 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget
tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998, be read the second
time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to be here this morning to take part
in the debate on the implementation of certain provisions of the
budget.
We have seen something different from the government this year
in that it has finally introduced a balanced budget. The
government predicts that this will be the case over the next
three fiscal years. However, its actions in this have not
changed dramatically.
As we have seen time and time again with this government it has
taken measures to limit debate on various bills, including this
bill. It seems that it does not want members to do their job,
that is, to examine these bills in this place and to represent
the views of their constituents.
The government has with this stage of Bill C-36, as it has time
after time, tried to restrict the voices of millions of Canadians
so that it can have its way and pass bills which may not serve
the best interests of the people and of the nation.
The official opposition has introduced an amendment to this bill
which states:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “That” and substituting the following:
“this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-36, An Act
to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
Parliament on February 24, 1998, since the principle of the Bill,
while charging the Consolidated Revenue Fund to establish and
fund the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, fails to
guarantee that appropriate and objective accounting standards
will be followed as advocated by the Auditor General.”
I have had the pleasure of sitting on the public accounts
committee and listening to the reports that the auditor general
brings to that committee.
Before I speak to the specifics of the measures that the
Minister of Finance brought forward in his latest budget which
are being implemented by this bill, I would like to take a moment
to talk about the auditor general.
The individual appointed to this position serves parliament as
the watchdog of government, government finances and government
departments. He works for parliament, not the government.
This individual is charged with ensuring that the government is
wisely spending taxpayers' hard-earned money and making sure that
taxpayers get good value for their money. In today's economic
environment getting good value for our money is something that we
all must do.
1015
Under the scrutiny of the auditor general the government has had
to become more prudent in its fiscal management, and I have the
greatest respect for the office of the auditor general and for
this mandate.
Bill C-36 contains legislation intended to implement many of the
announcements made by the government in this year's budget. The
bill is divided into 13 parts, each of which either establishes a
new program, amends existing legislation to alter program
delivery or authorizes the federal government to engage in some
new activity.
The scope of this act includes the Canada millennium scholarship
foundation, assistance to reduce student debt, grants to
encourage savings under registered education savings programs,
and incentives under the Employment Insurance Act to provide a
premium holiday in 1999 and the year 2000 for employers who hire
young people.
Low income families will qualify for the Canada child tax
benefit. There are some minor changes, mainly cosmetic, which
affect old age security and veterans allowances. Other
provisions of this bill include a wide variety of items such as
raising excise taxes on cigarettes, reducing the excise tax on
air transportation and allowing certain native bands to impose a
7% value added tax on alcohol, tobacco and fuels.
Although many of my constituents in Cariboo—Chilcotin express
some happiness with the fact that the books finally are balanced,
they certainly do not feel this is the government's victory. They
feel this is their victory. They are the ones suffering the
enormous tax burden like most Canadians. They are also suffering
the enormous cuts to health and social programs, a lot of them at
the provincial level after transfer payments were cut.
While watching programs and services that directly affect their
everyday lives such as health care and declines due to cutbacks,
they have seen the federal government dole out millions of
dollars on such things as free flags. This is discouraging. Many
of my constituents understand that we simply cannot continue
living as we have become accustomed to in past generations, we
have to start taking responsibility for ourselves and our
families. We have to stop living beyond our means.
My constituents are angry at the lack of prioritization by this
government. They would rather have a much smaller and more
affordable bureaucracy. They would rather see cuts in the senior
levels of the public service than cuts at the service levels.
They would rather have money go to programs and services which
would benefit everyday lives instead of going into programs which
are more symbolic and do not have a direct impact on everyday
lives. We saw that in the flag program and we see it again in
the millennium scholarship fund.
The Minister of Finance has stated in question period that my
party is against education simply because we oppose this bill.
That simply is not true. What we oppose is the manner in which
this government has established this fund. After reading the
editorials from my local newspapers and listening to my
constituents, the biggest disappointments from this year's budget
are that there is no tax relief and the government is not putting
a real down payment on eliminating our huge debt.
I am sure it comes as no surprise that my party feels there is a
better way of dealing with putting our fiscal house in order. We
would introduce debt and tax relief measures as a way to
stimulate job creation and economic growth. This would help
alleviate the much publicized brain drain which sees many of our
brightest citizens leaving Canada in search of jobs and lower tax
jurisdictions.
There is also the view of many of our critics that we oppose
many of the universal social programs that have become a
cornerstone of Canadian society. Again this is simply not the
case. We do oppose the view that these universal social programs
run by the bureaucrats are the best and the only way to care for
the poor, the sick, the old and the young.
We support a greater focusing of social policy benefits in hopes
of targeting benefits to those who really need the help, doing so
in a rational and compassionate manner. Over the past decade in
particular we have had to change how we live in this country.
1020
We are all more dependent on our families than we were before.
We have had to take more responsibility for ourselves and our
loved ones and we have to live within our means on shrinking
budgets. Our standard of living is much lower than it was even
five years ago.
I am sure there is a great deal of pride in the fact that we as
a society are able to look after ourselves, our loved ones and
those who look to us. But Canadians also have a lot of
resentment over the abuses within our system, the money that is
wasted and the intrusion in people's lives.
I hear time and time again from those in my riding the
resentment of my constituents over the smugness of the
bureaucrats running these programs who say their way is the best
and the only way. It brings out real hostility and resentment.
People are sick of governments that arrogantly impose their ivory
tower, socialistic philosophies which have diminished us
culturally, socially and economically.
I am in full support of the amendment brought forward by my
party and in opposition to this bill and the tactics of limiting
debate that the government is insistent on using in passing this
bill. Not only is it censoring both me and my colleagues and the
members of the House in speaking on behalf of their constituents,
it is also censoring our constituents as a result of the time
allocations it has imposed on the House of Commons.
The government's action immediately preceding and with the
announcement of this year's budget denied Canadians their first
real budgetary surplus in decades. As seen in the plethora of
spending measures in this year's budget, including what many
perceive as the Prime Minister's only real legacy, the millennium
fund, we have seen this government return to its tax and spend
ways. The government had a wonderful opportunity this year. It
could have given Canadians some real tax relief and start to make
payments on our debt after years of mismanagement.
The Liberal government made a clear choice this year to keep
Canadians overtaxed by introducing new programs that will only
help a small percentage of Canadians. The message from my riding
of Cariboo—Chilcotin is clear. What a let down. I urge all my
colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-36 moves the government forward in its commitment
to implement the Canada child tax credit.
I will take a few minutes to talk about this because I know the
men and women in Etobicoke—Lakeshore who daily have to plan for
their children and who daily in some way have to respond to the
needs in their communities would like to find out a bit
more about the child tax benefits and to see how that child tax
benefit measures up in the goal of building a strong economy.
Let me start by quoting the Minister of Human Resources
Development who described the challenge in two simple sentences:
“Opportunity denied in childhood too often means chances lost as
an adult. Children are our future, so there is no better place
for Canadians to invest”.
Bill C-36 speaks to that investment in our children. The vast
majority of Canadians know how lucky we are to be living in
Canada. Most of our children receive a pretty good start in life
but some are not so lucky. I am speaking of the children who
unfortunately experience emotional, behavioural, learning
problems that affect their school performance and personal
development, and those caught in the cycle of poverty.
Others suffer from physical problems such as disease, disability
or injury. This is not only a personal tragedy but also a loss
to the nation as a whole. And so Canadians believe that their
government should make it a priority to invest in the well-being
of our children, the future of our country.
1025
Governments already provide substantial support for families
with children but we need to do more. The issue is not just how
much support we provide but also how we provide that support. In
particular, we must do everything we can to tear down the
so-called welfare wall. We must ensure that parents on social
assistance who rejoin the workforce will not lose all their
benefits and services.
The federal, provincial and territorial governments have been
examining ways to bring down the welfare wall and to improve
assistance to children in low income families. We know the
discussion that goes on around our country.
The proposed approach is a national child benefit system under
which the federal government will provide an enriched Canada
child tax benefit. In turn, the provinces and the territories
would redirect some of their spending into better services and
benefits for low income families, especially the working poor.
The 1997 budget started us on that road. It proposed a two step
enrichment of $850 million to the existing $5.1 billion child tax
benefit. The $850 million annual increase includes $600 million
in new funds in addition to the $250 million for the working
income supplement proposed in the 1996 budget.
I am showing here the direction in which this government is
going from 1996 to 1997 to this budget. In the first step, which
took effect last July, the working income supplement was changed
to provide benefits for each child instead of per family. The
maximum working income supplement is $605 for one income families
and $1,010 for two child families. It increases by $330 for each
additional child.
The second step will occur this July when the working income
supplement will be combined with an enriched child tax benefit to
form the Canada child tax benefit. The maximum benefit for low
income families will be $1,625 for one child families and $3,050
for two children families and will increase by $1,425 for each
additional child.
Those individuals who will benefit from this will definitely
know that we are heading in the direction to alleviate their
situation. More than 1.4 million Canadian families with 2.5
million children will see an increase in federal child benefit
payments by July 1998.
As part of the national child benefit system social assistance
payments made by provinces and territories will be adjusted in
accordance with the increase in the child tax benefit. The
provincial and territorial governments will then reinvest the
savings from social assistance to improve benefits and services
to all low income families with children whether they are on
social assistance or working. We hope that in the province of
Ontario this will definitely happen.
Provinces are currently finalizing their reinvestment plans and
are considering a variety of options including provincial income
benefits, earned income supplements, extension of medical and
dental benefits to low income working families and increased
support for child care. To ensure that aboriginal children on
reserves benefit like other children from this initiative the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is working
with first nation leaders and provinces to develop appropriate
reinvestment strategies.
The national child benefit system is an important initiative
that deserves the support of all members of this House. It will
increase support to low income families and reduce barriers to
work, building on the respective strengths of the federal and the
provincial governments in achieving shared goals. As part of the
national child benefit system the federal government has
committed to further enriching the Canada child tax benefit by
$850 million annually.
The 1998 budget allocates $425 million as of July 1999 and a
further $425 million as of July 2000 to fulfil this commitment
and this commitment is to be worked out further with provincial
and territorial partners.
1030
The federal government will continue working with the provinces
and territories as well as with the first nations to reduce child
poverty and barriers to work.
There can be no more worthy effort than a new partnership on
behalf of Canada's children. This is why the government is more
determined than ever to improve assistance to children in low
income families. This is why the government is more determined
than ever to open up a broader and brighter horizon for low
income families and their children by bringing down once and for
all the welfare wall.
That is why I ask members of the House to support Bill C-36
which moves us closer to a goal that all of us in the House
should support.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-36, the
budget implementation act.
The recent Liberal budget could have been historic since it is
the first time in decades that our books have been balanced.
However, the Liberals missed an historic opportunity in the
budget to deal with the issues of most concern to Canadians.
High tax levels, a crippling national debt, bracket creep and
job killing payroll taxes have all been passed over by the
government, despite the fact that these things affect the quality
of life in our country, that these things reduce our standard of
living.
Canadians are subject to some of the highest tax rates in the
world and the Liberals did nothing in the budget to address the
situation. In 1993 Ottawa collected $125 billion a year from
taxes, but thanks to the Liberals Ottawa will suck $166 billion
out of the pockets of taxpayers in 1998. By the year 2000
Canadians will be paying $48 billion per year in higher taxes
than when the Liberals were elected. That increase is equivalent
to $5,000 per Canadian family. It is these taxes that are
sucking the lifeblood out of our economy and forcing many of our
highly skilled workers to move to the more tax friendly United
States.
In the recent budget the Liberals should have addressed bracket
creep but they did not. This insidious tax constantly pushes
taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their income
remains unchanged. Even the OECD called on the government to
eliminate this sneaky tax. Bracket creep represents taxation by
stealth since taxes automatically increase each year.
The government has collected an extra $22 billion since bracket
creep was introduced by the Tories in 1989. Considering the
present government's tax and spend mentality it should come as no
surprise that it opted to maintain bracket creep, to maintain
high tax levels and to maintain a source of income for its big
government programs. The 1998 budget contains $11 billion in new
spending initiatives for 25 new government programs.
What it does not contain is real tax relief. It utterly fails
to recognize that there is a $583 billion national debt. The
debt load costs $45 billion each year to service. That is $45
billion less for important social programs like health care and
education. It is $45 billion thrown into the wind each year with
no direct benefit for Canadians. That is what our national debt
load represents. Yet the Liberals are patting themselves on the
back for taxing Canadians to death in order to eliminate the
deficit. Meanwhile the monstrous debt load looms over our heads.
The finance minister had nothing to say about the serious debt
situation which we now face. In fact budget documents show the
national debt remaining unchanged through the year 2000. In
typical Liberal fashion the government believes that if it
ignores the problem it will go away.
It is not possible to sweep $600 billion under the carpet.
Ignoring the debt today means that it will be passed on to the
next generation tomorrow, and that is wrong. According to the
budget that is what the Liberals want to do. The truth is that
there was a surplus in 1997-98 of $3.2 billion but the Liberals
blew it on new spending.
1035
If the Liberals had applied the surplus against the debt, we
would have had an interest savings of $235 million a year over
the next three years. Rather than show a surplus on the books
and face questions over excessive taxation, the Liberals simply
spent the money.
Speaking of the nation's financial books, the auditor general
accused the finance minister of cooking the books. His
accusations are well founded in standard accounting practices as
a matter of fact, standard accounting practices the government
has stubbornly refused to accept.
The amendment put forward by my colleague from Medicine Hat
addresses this issue. The problem is that the Liberals have
assigned $2.5 billion to the Prime Minister's Canada millennium
scholarship foundation despite the fact that not a single
scholarship will be handed out until the year 2000. It is not
standard accounting practice, except in Liberal circles, to cost
future liabilities into current budget figures, but then a lot of
strange things go on within Liberal circles such as patronage
appointments to the Senate in exchange for certain financial
remuneration.
This is not the first time the Liberals have used this method of
accounting for purely political purposes. The auditor general
twice criticized the government for doing the same thing with the
Canada foundation for innovation fund and the $1 billion payment
to Atlantic Canada for the HST.
The amendment put forward by the member for Medicine Hat would
deny passage of Bill C-36 because the Liberals are cooking the
books for pure political gain. I think this is obvious to all
members of the House, and I urge them to support the amendment.
I would like to continue discussing the budget by pointing out
the opportunity that was missed to lower taxes, particularly
payroll taxes. Even the finance minister's department states
that payroll taxes kill jobs. When the finance minister appeared
before the finance committee in October 1994, he said that high
payroll taxes were a tax on jobs and that it was ludicrous. He
certainly has changed his tune in the last few years.
The CPP premium hike introduced this year is the largest tax
grab in Canadian history. It will kill tens of thousands of
jobs. Likewise, the minister has kept EI premiums at
artificially high levels and he applied the huge EI surplus
against the deficit.
EI premiums for employees are $2.70, but the break even point is
$2. EI over the last few years has been taking in $8 billion
more each year than it pays out. These high EI premiums
represent nothing more than a tax on jobs. To the minister these
high premiums have become necessary revenue to apply against the
deficit.
The CFIB and small business continually cite high taxes,
particularly payroll taxes, as the largest impediment to growth
and expansion. If the government wants to address unemployment
it must get our tax levels down and encourage firms to hire.
The Liberals just do not get it. Government does not create
jobs. High taxes most certainly do not create jobs. Big
government and high taxes kill jobs. They are an impediment to
economic growth and lower unemployment. The Liberals do not have
a plan to create jobs as demonstrated by progressively higher
taxes in each subsequent budget since 1994.
However, Reformers have a plan for getting Canadians back to
work and strengthening the economy. We would reduce job killing
payroll taxes and capital gains taxes in order to encourage
investment in Canadian businesses. We would eliminate the 3% and
5% income surtaxes introduced by the Tories and only tinkered
with in the budget. As well, Reformers would increase the amount
of the basic personal deduction and extend the child care expense
deduction to all parents.
In all, our efforts would reduce taxes by $15 billion by the
year 2001. This amounts to $2,000 per family of four. This plan
is directed toward providing a brighter future for Canadians, a
future filled with hope and opportunities.
Unfortunately, when we examine the Liberal government's
obsession with high tax levels and its continuing yearly tax
increases, the hopes of many Canadians are erased and many
opportunities will simply never arise. Therefore, for these
reasons I cannot support Bill C-36. I urge all other members of
the House to oppose the bill.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak to Bill C-36 introduced by the Minister of Finance
and known as the Budget Implementation Act, 1998.
1040
A lot could be said about this budget, but I will begin by
pointing out several of its shortcomings, particularly in so far
as the Department of Canadian Heritage is concerned.
In recent days, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has passed
herself off as the great defender of the rights of francophone
and Acadian communities. Her grand statements are beginning to
sound like science fiction.
A hard look at the numbers and at what is actually going on
reveals that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is cutting
official language education funding by $22 million. This is
particularly hard on independent schools and associations of
independent schools at a time when francization needs are
glaring.
On March 18, the minister announced that the Official Languages
in Education Program was being renewed for a further five years,
with stable funding, meaning that, despite the fiscal turnaround,
the savage cuts of recent years are continuing.
The Commission nationale des parents francophones du Canada, an
organization representing 11 provincial and territorial
federations of francophone parents outside Quebec, reacted to
this announcement in a release quite rightly entitled “Political
will in free fall”.
It says, and I quote: “The announcement of another large cut in
the Official Languages in Education Program for the next five
years represents another disappointing chapter in the
increasingly sorry turn that the future of official languages in
Canada is taking—. The ongoing erosion of the Official
Languages in Education Program is indicative of the erosion in
the political will of the Canadian government with respect to the
development of minority francophone communities.
It can be expected that teaching in French in the francophone
communities will become a priority as resources dwindle”.
While the federal government was paying $268 million into this
program at the time the Liberals were elected in 1993, the
Liberals reduced payments to this program this year to $152
million, or a reduction of 43% over six years.
According to Mrs. Johanne Lacelle, the president of the
Commission nationale des parents francophones, “We are
disappointed, because the educational needs in minority
communities are pressing. We are still far from having the
quality education that would put us on an even footing with
others. Funding should be doubled or tripled rather than
reduced. Assimilation is on the rise in all of the francophone
communities.
More and more francophones are losing their first language,
while more and more anglophones are acquiring a second language.
These are the results of the present language situation in
Canada”.
Let us recall that the Commission nationale des parents
francophones revealed in 1996 that the bulk of the funding to
provinces for official languages in education was going to
anglophones learning French as a second language. Finally, only
the minister herself thinks that everything is fine and that
francophones can be helped by reduced budgets.
We have also called upon the Minister of Canadian Heritage, both
here in the House and in the heritage committee, to substantially
increase the funding allocated to the court challenges programme.
The purpose of this program is to provide financial support to
cases taken before the courts by groups or individuals who feel
that their language rights have not been respected.
Finally, the minister has announced that she would not pursue her
plan to cut 9% from this program. What great progress for
francophones. By cancelling this cut, the minister will have to
find the $250,000 this 9% represents elsewhere in her
department. So who will pay the price this time?
At the present time, there are about 10 cases before the courts,
or in preparation, contesting provincial decisions on school
administration or the creation of French language schools.
Unless the court challenges program receives a substantial
increase in funding, some of those cases will have to be either
abandoned or deferred, as the money will run out before the year
is over.
The past has shown that continuous recourse to the courts was
the only way francophone minorities could ensure any sort of
respect for their rights by the governments of the anglophone
provinces, despite section 23 of the Constitution.
In another vein, the 1998 federal budget makes no provision for
funds for the multimedia sector or for loan guarantees to develop
content in the new media, including the Internet.
1045
Yet, this was promised in the second red book, and the advisory
committee on the information highway recommended setting up a $50
million fund. Last week, at the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage, the representatives of Telefilm Canada indicated how
important investment in the multimedia sector is to the
development of television programs, videos and films.
The Liberal government could and should also have announced the
immediate abolition of the GST on books. While the minister
allocates $31 million a year to her program to assist
publishers, the Minister of Finance pockets some $120 million in
revenues from taxes on reading material.
By continuing to tax books, the Minister of Finance is
nullifying his colleague's efforts. He is undermining the
industry and limiting public availability of written material,
thus hurting both culture and education.
That is some of what is missing in the 1998 budget, which
confirms that the Liberals are promoting certain values in their
speeches and election campaigns but neglecting them when they
deliver their budget. It is all very well for the government to
set ambitious objectives for its departments, but these are
unattainable without the necessary financial means.
Part 7 of Bill C-36 is intended to implement the raise in taxes on
cigarettes announced by the Minister of Finance before the budget
was tabled.
While the Bloc Quebecois supports such an increase, it deplores
the fact that the minister did not include measures to support
sports and cultural events that may lose their sponsorship by
tobacco companies, following the adoption of Bill C-71 by the
federal government.
I should point out that the Quebec government took the
initiative regarding this issue by pledging to allocate part of
the revenues generated by the tax increase on tobacco—that is
about $12 million—to a Quebec fund for culture, sports and
health. This initiative will be confirmed in the budget to be
brought down by the Quebec government.
Parts 1, 5 and 10 of Bill C-36 deal with the government's
millennium scholarship fund, the measures to support registered
education savings plans, and federal assistance to students.
In spite of these stopgap measures, one wonders whether the
federal government truly wants to improve education, considering
that, between 1993 and 2003, it will have cut over $10 billion in
that sector, including $3 billion in Quebec.
These federal cuts, which are partly responsible for the lower
quality of our education system, have resulted in soaring
tuition fees, thus contributing to the indebtedness of a whole
generation of students and to a major increase in personal
bankruptcies by graduating students.
Instead of providing financial solutions to these students, the
federal government ties them down for a long time. With this
bill, the Liberal government amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency
Act to extend from two years to ten years the period of time
during which a discharge does not release the bankrupt from the
reimbursement of his student loan.
I cannot talk about education without deploring once again the
chronic underfinancing of research and development, as we are
about to enter the 21st century.
This situation directly impacts on students, because they do not
have access to modern teaching and research infrastructures, and
because they are deprived of the stimulating presence and
expertise of teacher scientists.
I will conclude by saying that the federal government should
stop talking about its noble values and boasting about its great
initiatives. Instead, it should find the means to implement these
projects and to take concrete and effective action, while
respecting the jurisdictions of each level of government.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to enter the debate on Bill C-36.
I would like to discuss a specific aspect of the legislation
which perhaps many members have not mentioned. It has to do with
the authorization in the act to allow the Canada Development
Investment Corporation to dispose and transfer its assets and
liabilities including the Canada Hibernia Holding Corporation.
All Canadians have been interested in the Hibernia oilfields for
many years. It was back in 1965 that the initial investigative
work was done in the oilfields to see whether this would have a
significant potential for some of our poorer provinces.
Some people may wonder why the member for Durham is talking
today about the Hibernia oilfields. My wife's family has deep
roots in the province of Newfoundland.
This is also something which all Canadians want to share and
rejoice in. I do not think people realize that if the government
disposed of its financial interest in the Hibernia oilfields,
currently it would be about $2.5 billion. We can imagine what a
positive impact that would have in hopefully increasing a surplus
in future years.
1050
The Hibernia project represents a partnership of Canadians for
Canadians. I was in Newfoundland a couple of years ago and I
discussed a number of the financial aspects with legislators
there. They were very concerned about some of the cutbacks in
the CHST and how they were going to be able to maintain some of
their basic services through the CHST and also through the
equalization payments system.
During various periods in the history of Newfoundland a
depopulation has occurred. That has been a benefit to ridings
like mine. A great number of people from Newfoundland are now
residing in parts of Ontario. They had to leave Newfoundland
because there was no employment. Unemployment levels in
Newfoundland are still unacceptable. With the economic activity
that is going to be generated by Hibernia, unemployment levels
are going to decline.
A substantial investment in capital has already occurred in the
Hibernia oilfields. Most of this money has been spent in Canada.
Capital expenditures of over $5 billion have already gone into
this project and 55% to 60% of these capital expenditures were
Canadian. Sixty-six per cent of all employment was Canadian.
Today as we speak there are over 250 jobs on that rig. Of course
that money goes back into the economy of Newfoundland.
They are currently projecting to increase the production up to
20,000 barrels a day. As the entire platform is developed they
are talking about 135,000 barrels of oil a day. That is a
significant and major oil discovery on our east coast. It is
going to have a tremendous impact on the economy of Newfoundland.
That is good. We all benefit. The federal government taxes
these people when they make profits. The province of
Newfoundland will get royalties from this and it also will get
the spin-off jobs. This is very positive for increasing the
economy of Newfoundland.
I should mention the recent discovery at Voisey's Bay. This is
a long term project. When it gets going, Newfoundland will also
be able to reap some benefits in the mining sector. The mining
and resource sector is anticipated in 1998 by the Conference
Board of Canada to increase its revenues by over 80% in the
province of Newfoundland. Unemployment rates will decline due to
this to 17.9%, which is still unacceptably high but is
significantly lower than it has been in the past.
In St. John's and other communities in Newfoundland there has
already been a tremendous increase in residential construction.
The Conference Board of Canada estimates that in 1998 the renewal
of the housing sector will increase 14.8%.
Some foresighted government years ago which saw the need to put
in that seed capital to get the Hibernia project going was very
wise indeed. This is a great opportunity for the people of
Newfoundland to acquire economic benefits and to build a truly
indigenous economy for themselves.
A concern I have about this issue is from time to time I hear
people especially in resource based economies challenge the
equalization payments system. The equalization payments system
is based on certain income levels that exist within a provincial
jurisdiction and then it tries to equate them with the three
wealthier provinces. Through that process there have been
payments to provinces to help raise their standards so that we
all have equality.
That is what is so great about this country.
As Canadians we agree that we have to have basic standards,
standards in health care, standards in social services, standards
in unemployment insurance benefits, et cetera. That is what
makes this a great country.
1055
If people were to sit down and ask what it is that Canadians
understand, it is that we have over the years created these
sharing arrangements. The people of Ontario and the wealthier
provinces like Alberta and British Columbia from time to time
have realized the importance of sharing in this way.
I have heard people argue from time to time that the resources
from a resource based economy should be excluded from the
equalization formula. This means we would exclude the resource
sector from the calculations. The equalization payments would be
skewed to allow the provinces that are utilizing their resources
not to have to include them in the calculations.
I do not have to tell anyone that the province of Alberta for
years and years has been a net contributor to the equalization
payments system and an economy very heavily dependent on the
resource sector.
Those people were able to buy into the argument. It seems that
the new provinces, those now coming on with a higher resource
sector must do so as well.
I understand the arguments I have often heard members speak
about. They say that Newfoundland's infrastructure has
deteriorated over the years, that they need time to build it up.
They do not think they should be penalized by seeing their
equalization payments decline at the same time that this is
occurring. They want to be given some breathing room, to be
given a chance to catch up.
I understand the merits of that having been to Newfoundland and
having understood that its infrastructure certainly is in need of
significant capital injection. However the reality is that we
must as a country all live with common standards. For that
reason, I believe it would be unwise for us to pursue that.
Right now the province of Newfoundland receives equalization
payments of somewhere around $1.4 billion. We should all be
rejoicing, including the people of Newfoundland, and saying that
those equalization payments are going to come down.
Maybe one day Newfoundland will be a net contributor to the
equalization payments system. That is great. Once again it
shows how Canadians care and that in good times and bad times we
can live together.
I also want to touch on one aspect of this legislation which I
think perhaps a lot of members have overlooked. It is the
ability to allow the government at any time to dispose of
Hibernia by orders in council without bringing further
legislation to this House.
It is a very significant time. Clearly somebody is thinking of
doing just that. As we talk, international oil prices are
fluctuating. It is clear that the government is going to be
prudent in selecting a timeframe in which to undertake this.
We should know that our investment in Hibernia is really
twofold. We have a direct investment via the Canada Hibernia
Holding Corporation. That is an 8.5% interest in the entire
operations. Some of the bigger players are Mobil Oil, Chevron
and Petro-Canada. Interestingly enough we still own 8.3% of
Petro-Canada so indirectly Petro-Canada also has an interest in
the Hibernia oilfields.
I just wanted to intervene at this time to talk about the
equalization payments system, about how the rest of Canada,
including the people of Durham, are very thankful that this has
been a success for the people of Newfoundland. At the same time
I want to give them a little reminder that we are all in this
club together. We are all going to play by the same rules. When
things get a little better for Newfoundland, it will also have to
play by the same rules. I am sure most people of Newfoundland
believe that.
In closing, I wish the people in Newfoundland well. I was very
happy the other day to see the first tanker shipment of oil leave
the Hibernia oilfields. It marks a new day for the people of
Newfoundland.
1100
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to address my comments today regarding Bill C-36 and my
concerns regarding education in Nova Scotia and the country at
large.
With this budget and with the policies and directions this
Liberal government has implemented over the past five years, it
has created an educational deficit in this country which
threatens our ability and our children's ability to grow and
prosper in the future.
In my home province of Nova Scotia funding for post-secondary
education has been ravished since the federal Liberals imposed
their severe cuts to education with the Canada health and social
transfer in 1995. The provincial Liberals have matched the feds
cut for cut. The results are rapidly rising tuition fees,
spiralling student debt and a serious threat to accessibility.
Here are some sad, I would say outrageous, facts regarding
public education in my province since the advent of Liberal cost
cutting federally and subsequently provincially. Between 1993
and 1996 $50 million has been taken from provincial grants to
school boards. That is nearly a 10% decrease. I have personally
watched the tortured process by which school boards fight over
whether to cut full day elementary classes, band, speech
therapists or class sizes. In the late hours of these meetings
we hear them bickering over elements of education, none of which
are frills but are all essential to the growth of our students.
Yet that is what they are being reduced to doing now.
Between 1994 and 1996 there have been 764 teaching positions cut
across the province of Nova Scotia. That was a 7.5% reduction.
Meantime enrolment has dropped by just 1.1%. Is it any wonder
some classrooms are overcrowded and many teachers stressed out?
Specialist teachers have been hit especially hard. By 1997 the
education funding review work group identified a $33 million
deficiency in special education funding. All these cuts are
directly related to the severe cuts imposed by the Canada health
and social transfer.
In Nova Scotia there is also a new twist to public education
which has been brought about again by Liberal cuts. There is not
enough money for textbooks, special needs students or the
replacement of some of the overcrowded and substandard schools,
yet the Liberals found the cash to indulge in a new scam which is
called public-private partnerships to build new high tech
schools. The government has gone into partnership with some
companies such as IBM and Systemhouse and others of its corporate
backers to build and run schools. They will not reveal the terms
of the partnerships or the long term costs.
When Liberal friends and corporate backers who make up the
consortium building the private schools could not find the
private money to finance the construction, the government quietly
loaned them more than $45 million interest free.
Here are some more facts about post-secondary education in my
province since the budget cuts to education. In Nova Scotia
funding for university and community colleges dropped from $270
million to $230 million this year. On average Canadian students
who graduate now have over $24,000 debt in student loans.
Declining government support means that universities must rely on
tuition fees for an increasing share of their revenues. Nova
Scotia students are paying more than 22% of the university
revenue in their tuition, this versus a national average of
14.5%.
The average tuition for arts undergraduates in Nova Scotia is
over $3,700. This is the highest in the country. On average
Nova Scotia undergraduates paid $500 more than the next most
expensive province, Ontario.
The cost of living for Canadian students in 1996 was over
$12,000. Expenses for an undergraduate arts student for the
1997-98 academic year at Dalhousie totalled $9,000 in tuition,
room and board and additional fees.
Only the University of Toronto was higher among 10 universities
surveyed by Statistics Canada.
1105
It is not a surprise that Dalhousie, one of the proudest and
oldest universities in the country, is now on strike. There are
117 professors at Dalhousie who have been laid off. This
university is now in the throes of chaos and again it has to do
with our lack of commitment to post-secondary education in this
country.
I think it is no surprise that the people of Nova Scotia have
voted very roundly against what they see as Liberal cost cutting
to some of their essential services and that includes education.
They have voted with their ballot against Liberal policies in
Nova Scotia and continue to do so also federally because they are
concerned about the future of their children. I think this
budget is going nowhere to allay their fears on that score.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to give a few thoughts on Bill C-36, the implementation act
of the budget. This is a large piece of legislation and of
course it results from some of the things that were tabled in the
budget in late February. I want to look specifically at some of
the issues that are talked about, the millennium scholarship fund
for instance.
There are a few other things I should preface my remarks with,
and that is the situation we are in fiscally in the country so
that all these budget implementation things could happen at all.
Of course when the budget was tabled last month the government
talked about finally being in the position to have a balanced
budget.
That is super in terms of Canadians saying we do not have to
deficit finance anymore and hopefully it will never happen again,
but the question of course is how did we balance the budget and
how is it that we are operating at a zero deficit.
I would hate to be critical of government members patting
themselves on the back so hugely that they would dislocate their
shoulder. That would be a most unfortunate thing.
But looking at how the budget was actually balanced there are a
few questions to be asked. I know Mr. Speaker would be just as
concerned as I to know some of the answers to this.
In 1998 the government will collect $35 billion more in taxes
than it did in 1993. I do not know whether this could be called
cutting spending. I hardly think it would qualify under that
category. I think of my home city of Edmonton where taxpayers
have been asked to kick in $35 billion as part of the larger
economy of the country, $35 billion more in taxes.
For my part of the country and my city, that equals about $1
billion just for the city of Edmonton. That is a lot of people
working and a lot of people sending in their taxes to Revenue
Canada to kick in our portion of this increased tax and revenue
for the government of Canada. It is about $1 billion coming out
of Edmonton alone.
When I think about it I would be amused if I were not so sad.
When the relocation of the superbase happened in Edmonton it was
treated as though this was a gift of largess from the government.
It said you lucky folks, guess what is happening to you in
Edmonton. You will be getting the western Canadian superbase and
we will spend hundreds of millions of dollars making sure that
happens.
That is wonderful and there is increased economic activity in
Edmonton. We sure appreciate that but when it is treated as
though it is some sort of gift from someone on high, it could be
understood that the gratefulness is not quite that exciting.
1110
After all, if we are sending $1 billion more into the Government
of Canada, then a $100 million return on a superbase is not
exactly a great investment on our dollar. When the government
talks about partnerships and investments, I am no mathematician
but I know that if I get $100 million spent in my community and
then the government turns around and takes $1 billion in extra
taxation and revenue from me then I am not exactly what one would
call a winner in that area.
We need to realize that the government is going to be collecting
$35 billion more in taxes than it did in 1993 when it came in.
Who is paying that? It is the taxpayers who are sending out
their cheques to Revenue Canada. People all across the country
want the budget balanced and this budget has done that.
However, there is also the debt which is the accumulation of all
these deficits that have added up over the years. The total debt
now is $583 billion, which is an amazing amount of money.
Frankly, I do not even know how many zeros that is. However, if
we break it down to the average family we are looking at every
family of four in this country from Newfoundland to British
Columbia being saddled with an extra mortgage of $77,000. This is
just scandalous. I am not sure that any government should be
standing up patting itself on the back and saying it is terrific.
We need to make sure that debt reduction is the number one
target but frankly I do not see it here in the budget. When the
budget was delivered, the Liberals said that if there was any
money left over people could rest assured that they would put
some of that money toward the debt. There was a wink, wink and a
hand on my wallet in my back pocket. They were going to make
sure to look after the debt.
I look at pages in the House of Commons who are coming along the
generation behind those of us who are getting a little older. Who
is going to pay that debt? I am sure every member in the House,
regardless of political party, understands that we have close to
$600 billion of debt. Who is going to pay it? We can stand and
brag that we do not have to worry about this anymore because we
are paying off our Visa with our MasterCard, but I think that
certainly defeats the purpose.
The government has slashed payments to the provinces by $7.4
billion. That is an incredible amount of money. That is 16.5%
of the reduction of the deficit.
Mr. Speaker, when you travel the country, as I am sure you do,
and talk to people they say what their priorities are. They want
to have a good health care system in the country. They want good,
sound education programs. They want to make sure they have secure
pensions when they reach retirement age. I think everybody
universally feels the same way about that.
However, here we are debating a bill which includes the
millennium fund right now which concerns post-secondary
education. How much help is it going to be? It will touch 6% of
the students in the country. I think the far wiser thing the
government could be doing is moving forward and realizing that
what is important is not just to reduce the debt but to offer tax
relief to all the provinces. With a higher amount of money in
transfer payments, the provinces unilaterally could then offer
universal tuition reductions. I think that would be a a lot
better than picking students who are going to be able to benefit
from this millennium fund.
If we talk about students, and I think of our pages who are in
university right now, they are going to have their first degree
under their belt by the time this millennium fund even kicks in.
When we look at how serious it is to offer real help to students
and then look at this implementation of the Canada millennium
fund, it looks to me like the Prime Minister, before he heads out
at the turn of the century, wants this to be his shrine. He
wants this to be his personal legacy. He will go out on a roll
as the architect of this and they will build a statue saying he
was the one who brought in the Canada millennium scholarship
foundation.
If the government were seriously concerned about students it
would do something in this budget to increase the transfer
payments it slashed so harshly. It should put back the transfer
funds to the provinces to ensure that under their jurisdictional
powers they would have the money available to offer universal
tuition cuts. I think that would be a very refreshing thing.
1115
Regarding tax relief there is not a lot in the budget that
offers real cash back to the people who are paying billions and
billions of tax dollars to the government. The government will
put a dollar in the pocket of taxpayers and say that is
wonderful. Then the old hand comes around to the wallet again
and it takes $2. That is not good arithmetic. It is not good
politics. It is not good optics. I know you would certainly
agree, Mr. Speaker, that government has to watch where it has its
hands.
If we look at the ultimate amount of money the government brings
in, it is absolutely staggering. I am looking at the budgetary
numbers in the budget in brief. Budgetary revenue is the amount
of cash the government is bringing in. In fiscal year 1998-99 it
will be $151 billion. All those zeros would hardly fit on a
ledger sheet. They would have to be written very small.
The government is spending $104 billion on program spending.
There is a balance of $46.5 billion. The government says that is
a lot of cash and it is terrific that it has $46 billion.
Do we know where that exact amount of money is going? It is
going to interest payments on the debt. It is frightening when
we see that kind of thing happening because interest payments
will just gobble up all the cash that should be going to other
programs.
There are many tremendous programs, worthwhile programs. We see
some of them in the bill. Should we be thinking about education?
Absolutely. This is what we talk about, that future generations
need to have an education. Is the government really concerned
about education, helping students and making sure that tuition
fees are low? No. Instead it builds a shrine to the Canada
millennium scholarship foundation. What good does that do other
than provide a trophy, a plaque or a statue? It does not do a
lot of good.
Let us look at the amount of money going to various projects.
Talking about education again, the Canada Student Financial
Assistance Act on paper looks absolutely super. We sit down and
ask questions about whether this is the best way to address
student finance. I do not think so.
Tuition should be lowered and transfer payments should be put
back to the provinces. We should make sure that the provinces
are able to deliver excellent quality post-secondary education so
that kids are able to learn, get their degrees, get good jobs and
pay taxes back to the government. That is what it is all about.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is March 31, the end of
fiscal year 1997-98. Today the budget book of the federal
government is balanced for the first time in almost 30 years. It
will be balanced in the forthcoming two years, resulting in three
consecutive balanced budgets in almost 50 years.
It can be said that the post-deficit era has begun. It is an
era of new optimism and expanding opportunities for Canadians as
we prepare for a new century.
We now have an economy with historically low interest rates and
inflation. Thanks to lower interest rates, the monthly payment
on a $100,000 mortgage is now over $250 less than it was in
January 1995, a savings of over $3,000 per year. The monthly
payment on a $100,000 small business loan is now over $180 less
than it was in April 1995, an annual savings of over $2,200.
We now have an economy that has created over one million new
jobs since the Liberals took office in October 1993. It is an
economy with which the OECD says Canada will lead the G-7 nations
in economic and job growth in 1998.
1120
Indeed we have reason to be proud as Canadians. Not only will
we be putting the debt to GDP ratio on a permanent downward
track. Our debt reduction plan will reduce the absolute level of
debt, which I say to answer the anxiety of the opposition.
Earlier I spoke of the expanding opportunities for Canadians as
we enter the new millennium. The budget builds on action taken
in previous budgets by proposing a Canadian opportunities
strategy. The aim of the strategy is to provide Canadians,
especially young Canadians, with greater opportunities to prosper
in a new knowledge based economy. This strategy takes action on
seven fronts. Let me name them.
The first is the Canada millennium scholarships and Canada study
grants.
The second is increased funding for advanced research to
granting councils: the Medical Research Council, the National
Research Engineering Council and the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council.
The third is tax relief on student loan interest and
improvements to the Canada Student Loans Act.
The fourth is measures that promote lifelong learning.
The fifth is helping Canadians save for their children's
education through Canada education savings grants.
The sixth is supporting youth employment through an employment
insurance premium holiday for employers who hire young Canadians
in 1999 and 2000.
The seventh is expanding access to advanced technology by
increasing funding for SchoolNet, the community access program
and the Canadian Network for Advanced Research.
On the Canadian millennium scholarship program part of the
budget let me say that the foundation for the program would be
the centrepiece of the Canadian opportunities strategy. It is a
comprehensive strategy designed to help create new opportunity
for Canadians by expanding access to the knowledge and skills
needed for better jobs and higher standards of living as we enter
the 21st century.
The role of the Canada millennium scholarship foundation is to
remove the barriers for low and middle income Canadians,
especially young Canadians so that they can get the
post-secondary education or the advanced technical training they
need to get good jobs in the new economy.
Beginning in the year 2000 Canada millennium scholarships will
be awarded to over 100,000 full time and part time students each
year over the next decade through an initial endowment of $2.5
billion from the federal government. This is the single largest
investment ever made by a federal government to support access to
knowledge and skills for all Canadians. It truly reflects the
commitment of the government to the youth of the country.
For full time students the scholarships will average $3,000 a
year. Eligible students will be able to receive up to $15,000 in
millennium scholarships over a maximum of four academic years of
study toward undergraduate degrees, diplomas or certificates. The
Canada millennium scholarship foundation is about access, not
jurisdiction, with a challenge that is crucial to the future
prosperity of Canada. All levels of government have a legitimate
role to play and a responsibility to work together.
Let me touch on another item in the budget concerning allocating
the fiscal dividend. The fiscal dividend is the projected
surplus of total revenues over total spending that would arise in
the absence of any new tax and spending actions since the 1997
budget. In our 1997 election platform, “Securing Our Future
Together”, we pledged that over the course of our second mandate
we would allocate our budget surpluses on a 50:50 basis. Half
would go to investments in social and economic priorities. The
other half would go to a combination of tax relief and tax
reduction. This rule of thumb reflects the balanced priorities
of Canadians. The government remains committed to this formula.
The 1998 budget, the first in our new mandate, reflects that
commitment.
The formula will be used as a guiding principle for planning
purposes. Although the annual split may vary from year to year,
already the impact for the 1998 budget over three years is 40%
investments on social and economic priorities and 60% on tax
relief and tax reduction.
1125
Let me go to another topic on tax relief if I may. The budget
delivers $7 billion of tax relief over the next three years. Yes,
tax relief for low and middle income Canadians through an
increase in the basic personal exemption and the elimination of
the 3% general surtax on Canadians with incomes of up to about
$50,000. These are two measures that will take 400,000 Canadians
off the tax rolls and reduce taxes for 14 million Canadians by
the year 1999 and the year 2000.
In conclusion, let me ask all colleagues in the House to give
their support to Bill C-36 which may be cited in short as the
Budget Implementation Act, 1998. When we do this I am sure
Canadians will be proud of all of us.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
honoured to be provided with the opportunity to speak to Bill
C-36 and the official opposition amendment.
It was most unfortunate to bear witness to our government
attempting to play fast and loose with the financial books of the
country. We have a world renowned organization of professionals
called the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. Members
of this group are contracted all over the world to audit
financial records to maintain the integrity of financial
statements.
The Minister of Finance's recent methods of creative bookkeeping
make a mockery of Canadian professional accounting practices. All
the minister can say is that he knows better.
We have the office of Auditor General of Canada. His office has
a budget of approximately $50 million. Approximately 500 people
are employed to scrutinize government programs and financial
activities. The auditor general has been most critical of the
minister's creative bookkeeping.
How does the government react to the very office set up to
monitor its finances in the interest of Canadians? It provides
thinly veiled threats to its servants who are attempting to do
the job they have been mandated to do. It tells its own watchdog
that the finance department is in charge and if the auditor
general does not like it then the rules will be changed.
I sincerely hope that this is not an example of what Canadians
can expect, should the Minister of Finance ever fulfil his goal
of becoming prime minister of the country.
The issue of cooked books is just a symptom of the disease.
Sometimes I wonder whether the Minister of Finance is conducting
himself in such an irrational and questionable fashion merely to
draw attention away from his failure to address the real problems
of his budget.
The main element of the recent budget was the establishment of
the $2.5 billion Canada millennium scholarship foundation, but
the funds are not to be disbursed until the year 2000.
Canadians get little in the way of direction or assistance from
the government for the years 1998 and 1999. Finally, in the year
2000 the millennium fund kicks in. Who benefits? In 1996 there
were 1.7 million students. The millennium fund will only help 2%
a year with $5,000 grants. It will not necessarily help the
needy. It will often aid those who already have sufficient means
to fund their education. It only helps those who are continuing
their education.
Millions of our youth do not have the interest, background or
qualifications to gain the opportunity of this fund. It will be
limited to a few. It will do nothing for those who do not go to
our universities.
I recently attended a forum put on by street youth, just some of
those who will not be eligible for the Prime Minister's
millennium fund. At this forum there was a great deal of soul
searching and relating of tragic stories: abusive homes, alcohol,
drugs, hopelessness, cynicism. Name it and it was there.
These kids are a major component of our next generation and
society is doing very little for them. They have been forgotten
by the budget. Indeed, they appear to have been forgotten by
those who loudly profess to care for them. Even though there
were about 150 young people attending the session, there was not
one Liberal or NDP member of this place to be found, even though
the gathering took place in downtown Vancouver, their
constituencies, miles away from my own.
After cutting billions of dollars from transfer payments the
government appears to think that our next generation's problems
are to be handled by the provinces and territories. The
government attempts to characterize any critics of the Prime
Minister's memorial fund as being anti-education. They say the
fund is all about a stronger future for our young people.
1130
Actually this government is more concerned with creating a
personal political memorial for the Prime Minister than it is
with assisting our youth.
When the Reform Party and the vast majority of Canadians argue
for debt and tax relief measures to stimulate our economy this
government plays with the books to conceal any surplus. It says
it will look at debt and tax relief once the surplus surfaces,
but can and will that ever happen if the minister has free rein
over his bookkeeping practices?
Instead of a millennium fund for students the Liberals have
provided a millennium burden for taxpayers. By the year 2000
Canadians will be paying over $173 billion per year in taxes.
That is $155 billion in total budget revenues plus another $18
billion in Canada pension plan taxes. This works out to $48
billion more and is equivalent to about $5,000 per year higher
for the average family than when the Liberals were elected.
It may be a coincidence, but the $5,000 figure arises here as
well; $5,000 more per year for the average taxpayer and $5,000
per year for 2% of our students who will be fortunate enough to
obtain the millennium funds. This government has made a
unilateral decision to tax the Canadian family of four and give
those tax funds to a minuscule proportion of our youth. This
government is not being overly compassionate or considerate
toward youth—
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. There does not appear to be a quorum in the
House.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not see a quorum. Call in the
members.
And the bells having rung:
1135
The Deputy Speaker: I see a quorum.
The hon. member for Surrey North has the floor.
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Mr. Speaker, this government has made a
unilateral decision to tax a Canadian family of four and to give
those tax funds to a minuscule proportion of youth. This
government is not being overly compassionate or considerate
toward youth. It is merely taking from the family to create a
memorial for the Prime Minister.
I will now move on to a couple of areas of concern to my
constituents. This government promised to spend $30 million on
crime prevention. It has been having difficulty even maintaining
the status quo. In my community the officer in charge of the
Surrey RCMP detachment has lost a number of his more experienced
officers to other police forces and other agencies. Why?
Because it took until last Friday for this government to finally
provide a pay raise so that these officers could feed and clothe
their children.
This government was more concerned with looking after government
executives than it was with those who were in more dire financial
straits. Now that it has finally brought in the pay raise it
may well be too late and may not be enough.
Instead of keeping its commitment to maintain the salaries of
its national police force in line with the average salary of the
major municipal forces, this government has merely thrown them a
bone. There is little meat involved. Many other officers from
my community may be forced to move onto greener pastures. It is
unfortunate.
This government has so much difficulty with its priorities that
it fails to properly look after those who toil to preserve the
peace in our communities, our police officers. The former
minister of justice and the former solicitor general were
promising $30 million for crime prevention all the way back to
1996, but little has been seen. When it comes it will again
likely be for a political purpose rather than being in the best
interest of our citizens.
I will provide another example of the dreadful mismanagement of
this government. It is all hoopla and little action. The former
solicitor general was quite proud of the RCMP for introducing its
violent crime linkage analysis system, or ViCLAS, a project to
monitor and solve crimes of a serial nature. It has been said
that if the system had been properly used during the Paul
Bernardo and Karla Homolka investigation the murders of Kristen
French and Leslie Mahaffy may never have occurred.
Guess what? The province of Ontario has learned its lesson. It
has managed to allocate sufficient but scarce resources to
properly fund ViCLAS through the operations of the Ontario
Provincial Police. But where is the federal government with the
RCMP? I have been led to understand that the RCMP ViCLAS project
is now under severe threat because this government has not found
or made available the necessary resources to properly fund this
worthwhile and world-recognized program.
1140
Imagine, the RCMP is forced to fly the Prime Minister to the ski
hills but the government does not have enough money to fund one
of the world's most advanced technological crime fighting tools.
As with most things, this government is more concerned with
trumpeting and taking credit for the program. It is not
interested in providing the funds to operate it efficiently or
effectively.
With that thought I will end my comments on this bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I believe the
previous occupant of the chair had made a commitment to recognize
the hon. members for Louis-Hébert, Kings—Hants and Calgary.
The hon. member for Louis-Hébert.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great interest that I rise in this House today to speak on Bill
C-36 introduced by the Minister of Finance.
I have followed the whole debate on this extremely controversial
bill with great interest. After reading the remarks made by a
number of members, I was shocked to see those few colleagues from
Quebec that sit across the way speak out in support of certain
parts of this bill.
While representing the people of their ridings in Quebec, they
support the Canada millennium scholarship foundation proposed by
a Prime Minister seeking visibility.
This is happening despite the obvious consensus of the Quebec
coalition, which was reiterated by the Premier of Quebec in a
press conference. I just cannot get over it. This seems to
indicate a serious lack of consistency between what Liberal
members from Quebec say in Ottawa and what the Liberal wing is
saying in Quebec.
In its last budget, the federal government announced that $2.5
billion had been earmarked for education and that he wanted to
invest it in a new program, the millennium scholarships program,
which, I remind the House, will not provide any relief to the
existing education system, after cuts totalling $3 billion in
education.
It claims to be putting the fiscal dividend, that is, the budget
surplus, to work by investing in education, skills development,
assistance for low income families with children and health
care, through the Canadian opportunities strategy. A better name
for this strategy would be Canadian government visibility
strategy.
The Minister of Finance cut federal transfers to the provinces
for social assistance, post-secondary education and health as part
of the joint effort to put its fiscal house in order. But I would
point out that 52% of the results were due to the sacrifices the
provinces have had to make. Now that this goal has been reached,
the Liberal government wants to act alone and spend budget
surpluses instead of making up for the harm done by cutting
transfers to the provinces.
During yesterday's meeting between the Premier of Quebec, his
education minister, the Prime Minister of Canada and his
Minister of Human Resources Development, the two governments
agreed to establish a negotiating framework for the infamous
millennium scholarships.
Quebec already has its own scholarship program and post-secondary
education priorities. The two levels of government agree that
there should be no duplication of programs and that Quebec's
jurisdiction and priorities in the education sector should be
respected.
It is clear, however, that the government opposite wants to
celebrate the millennium by making a significant contribution to
knowledge through millennium scholarships awarded to students
over a ten-year period.
The Quebec coalition representing several organizations does not,
however, have the same vision of what is needed to provide real
assistance to students.
At a press conference yesterday, coalition president Bernard
Shapiro, vice-chancellor of McGill University, said, and I quote
“We feel that the bill in its present form contains no
appropriate provision whereby Quebec could use the important
resources allocated to the foundation in a broader manner,
consistent with its priorities. Members of the coalition,
including Quebec students, believe that the resources set aside
for the foundation would be better used within the existing
structures and budgets of Quebec's education system”.
We in the Bloc Quebecois support this view. It is obvious that
the student population, the faculty and many other individuals
are in agreement with the Government of Quebec's position. This
is blatant interference in a provincial area of jurisdiction that
all governments, since Jean Lesage's day, have ardently defended.
1145
Education is the soul of a people, its very backbone. It allows
it to develop as a society, to understand its origins and its
past, and to plan its future. It is the cornerstone of any
society.
We in Quebec have chosen to invest in the future of our community
and of our society with a system of education which responds to
the true needs of its students. We have made a choice as a
society.
The federal government, on the other hand, with all the cuts it
has made since coming to power in 1993, has decided otherwise.
Now, having seen its popularity with students dwindling away, it
is implementing a new program which will get the flag of Canada
onto its cheques.
But students are no fools. They know who cut $3 billion from
education, and that provincial governments have had to make some
difficult choices and will have to continue to do so, because
cuts in federal transfers to the provinces for health and social
programs will be in the order of $30 billion from now until the
year 2003. We have a social deficit and it is time that deficit
was remedied before it is too late.
We are asking the federal government, given that Quebec has
exclusive jurisdiction over education, to exclude Quebec from
the millennium scholarship program, but with fair and full
compensation.
The Liberals are using this battle against the deficit as a
pretext to continue privatizating the Canadian economy and are
now setting their sights on education.
This private foundation, to be established under Bill C-36, will
allow the companies funding it to decide, in a certain way,
which students deserve financial assistance. Will they make
their choice according to the field of study that responds to
their needs or the general needs of Quebec?
What about the real budget for research and development of $310
million and not $400 million over three years? That will enable
the granting councils to keep their heads above water, but not to
expand.
We must not forget that we are at the bottom of the list of G-7
countries in terms of research and development, and nothing
indicates things will improve in the future. How can we compete
with rival countries? How will we keep our brains? How will we
interest our young people in post-secondary education? This
budget provides no reassurance.
Another failing of the budget is the fact that the Minister of
Finance said not a single word about agriculture. However,
there are a lot of problems, which we will be coming back to in
the House. Barely 16 lines in 275 pages are devoted to Canada's
rural regions. The only reference is to the minister's having
given the Farm Credit Corporation more money last year. The only
major expenditure in this regard is $20 million over five years
and among a number of departments.
Since 1991, the Liberal government has cut the agriculture and
agri-food budget by $4 billion, and this year's budget contained
other cuts. There is a lot to be said in this regard, and we
will come back to it in the coming months.
I will point out there are several failings in Bill C-36, but my
colleagues will surely return to other very important aspects of
the latest budget of the Minister of Finance.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-36, the budget implementation act.
The budget of 1998 represented a major shift in the fiscal
fortunes of the Government of Canada. It has taken 15 years of
fiscal planning to achieve this balanced budget as the Leader of
the Opposition mentioned previously in the House. Policies
including free trade, the GST, deregulation of financial
services, transportation and energy, all implemented by the
previous government, were necessary and appropriate. They
provided the framework and the basis upon which this government
was able to balance the budget.
Let us make it clear. The real heroes today are not
politicians, or certainly not the members on the government side.
The real heroes are ordinary taxpaying Canadians who have had the
budget balanced on their backs and who endure the highest taxes
in the G-7 countries.
With this budget the Liberals have gone from being a tax and cut
government to now being a tax and spend government. This should
not be surprising because this was the government that led us
down the path of debts and deficits beginning with former Prime
Minister Trudeau in the early 1970s.
1150
The biggest single spending initiative in this budget is the
millennium scholarship fund. Canadian taxpayers are contributing
$2.5 billion of their money to a bursary fund that will not be
delivered to students for three years. Even then it will only
benefit 7% of students.
What seems to be lost on the government is who in fact is
making the program possible. It is ordinary taxpayers. It is not
the Prime Minister. It is not the finance minister. It is
ordinary Canadians who as I have said have paid the highest taxes
of any of the G-7 countries. They have seen their income taxes
as a percentage of GDP rise from 13% in 1993 to 14% now. Keep in
mind that the previous government reduced income taxes as a
percentage of GDP from 14% to 13% between 1989 and 1993.
Now the Minister of Finance is retroactively allocating $2.5
billion from last year's budget to this program, an act that the
auditor general has spoken against. The Minister of Finance has
taken responsibilities away from the auditor general, the
watchdog of the Canadian taxpayers in this House and provided
them to the board.
When I recently asked the Minister of Finance in question period
to provide the auditor general with access to the fund's books,
he responded that if the auditor general would like to have
access to those books, it will be arranged. The auditor general
does want access to those books, yet nowhere in this legislation
is their a clause giving the auditor general the access he needs
to oversee the taxpayers' money. The departmental officials I met
with last week confirmed that despite the minister's reassurances
to the contrary in this House, the auditor general in fact will
not have access to the fund's books.
This represents the second time in two years that the Minister
of Finance has set up an at arm's length foundation with a
significant amount of taxpayers' money and appointed a separate
auditor. The last time was the innovation fund, $800 million to
be allocated to medical centres, universities and research
laboratories. Now $2.5 billion will be administered without a
clear and transparent auditing practice.
In the legislation the board for the millennium scholarship fund
will appoint its own auditor. This is contrary to common
business practices where the shareholders appoint an auditor, not
simply the management. In this case the shareholders are ordinary
Canadians who are represented by this government. That is why
this departure and this lack of accountability in practice is
very dangerous. It is also why the auditor general should be
involved in overseeing such a huge allocation of Canadian
taxpayers' funds.
Why does the government or the minister not appoint an auditor
themselves? Instead it is going to be the board that appoints
its own auditor. It may be an arm's length corporation but I
would suggest that the arms are very short when the government is
going to be appointing a significant number of the members of the
board. The accountability is certainly not provided to ordinary
Canadians who are footing the bill.
If we look at the millennium foundation in this legislation
there is a significant lack of clarity surrounding the criteria
of need and merit. It is stated very nebulously that the
criteria is based on need and merit. No further direction has
been given to the board on this criteria. Depending on the
make-up of the board, the need or merit criteria could vacillate
from one end of the spectrum to the other.
I remind the House that there are many young Canadians who need
a higher education. The need component for the millennium
scholarship fund may be more appropriate than simply the merit
component. There needs to be some type of guarantee that young
Canadians who do not have the financial means to achieve a higher
education are provided with a higher education. Keep in mind
that 7% of Canadians seeking higher education will benefit. Only
7%. To have it nebulously stated as it is, is inappropriate.
Frankly students who demonstrate the merit frequently earn
scholarships to higher education institutions. They can
participate in a higher education without the need for some
gigantic memorial fund to the Prime Minister.
It should be remembered that the Canadians taxpayers who are
footing the bill for this deserve and have now lost the ability
to oversee the funds with this government's reticence to use the
auditor general.
A second point of Bill C-36 which is worth noting today is the
changes to the RESP program.
1155
Investor's Digest recently ran an article stating that the
changes to the RESP policies will simply serve to complicate the
current program. I quote “The problem with the RESPs is that
they are already too complicated for most investors. The new
grants will create more confusion”.
I do town hall meetings in my riding. Often we talk about tax
policy. I have not had one constituent ask me to complicate the
tax code. I have heard a lot of them say that the Canadian tax
code is not user friendly and that it is inappropriate that
citizens have to hire accountants to deal with their own
governments.
What does the government do to address a crisis in higher
education funding? It complicates the tax code. This proposal
serves to complicate a tax code that is already far too
complicated.
To give one example of the potential for abuse, there is a 20%
top-up for individuals investing in an RESP, a matching where the
government will effectively provide grants to those who invest in
RESPs. It is a worthy intention to help provide and augment
Canadians' savings for the higher education of their children.
However we must always be wary of the first law of public policy,
which is the law of unintended consequences.
I met with departmental officials last week. Nobody has
explained to me why this 20% top-up will provide Canadians with a
20% grant if they invest in an RESP. If, 20, 18 or 15 years down
the road, the beneficiary of the program chooses not to go to
university or to pursue a higher education for whatever reason,
the government will at that point be getting that grant back. The
money earned on that grant over that period of time will be left
with the individual, the contributor, the Canadian investor. This
creates a direct incentive to invest in RESPs.
Recognizing that there is only a limited pool of funds out there
for Canadians to invest with, it creates a direct disincentive to
invest in RRSPs. The government is effectively providing a 20%
top-up for Canadians to invest in one investment vehicle and a
similar disincentive to invest in the other, the RRSPs.
By creating a policy like this, we will create a policy that
will ultimately create financial insecurity for Canadians in
terms of their retirement accounts. It will create a crisis down
the road.
No attempt will be made to recover the earnings from the 20%
top-up. The fact is it would be almost impossible logistically
to do this. Again this is going to create a decrease in the
incentive to invest in RRSPs.
Let us look at another example of this government's propensity
to tinker with economics as opposed to providing broad based tax
relief, which was the appropriate measure that should have been
taken at this juncture. Let us look at the EI fund and the
employment insurance holiday for employers hiring young
Canadians.
Our party has repeatedly called for the government to reduce EI
premiums to $2 from the current rate of $2.70. We outlined our
position in our plan for growth, which was our prebudget
submission.
The finance minister has stated categorically time and time
again that EI premium reductions will not create jobs, will not
lead to increased job creation in Canada. I heard the minister
speak recently to the board of trade in Halifax. He stated that
reducing EI premiums would not lead to greater job growth. Today
the minister's agenda has obviously changed. Why would he
eliminate EI premiums for young people if he did not feel that
the reduction or the elimination of those EI premiums would lead
to increased job creation for young people?
Everybody wants young people to have greater opportunities to
seek employment in Canada. But we want all Canadians to benefit
from reduced payroll taxes.
We have established that the minister cannot have it both ways.
Effectively he is articulating that reducing payroll taxes will
not have an impact on employment growth. Yet he is implementing
policies where effectively that is what he is doing for that
intent. Effectively he is playing one group against another.
Certainly young Canadians between the ages of 18 to 33 need a
break. But through this employment eugenics policy or this
Pavlovian economics policy, he is creating a direct disincentive
for Canadian businesses to hire other Canadians.
1200
Again, it is an example of a government that prefers to make
decisions for Canadians as opposed to ordinary Canadians, who
deserved broad based tax relief in this budget, to make their own
decisions as to what to do with their fiscal dividend.
While this government now brags about being in the black, many
Canadians are still in the red because of its reticence to
change fiscal policy for the better.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate this opportunity again to stand today to support the
official opposition's proposed amendment.
I bring the amendment to everyone's attention again by reading
it because I think it is quite appropriate in the way this debate
has been shaped and in the way the Minister of Finance has
structured his budget in an effort to hide the truth and in
effect impact negatively on the taxpayer who actually funds this
hidden contingency fund that the minister has so carefully
deferred to the future.
This is the proposed amendment by the official opposition:
this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-36, an act
to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
Parliament on February 24, 1998, since the principle of the bill,
while charging the consolidated revenue fund to establish and
fund the Canada millennium scholarship foundation, fails to
guarantee that appropriate and objective accounting standards
will be followed as advocated by the auditor general.
There is no question that the auditor general has warned this
government time and time again about its actions. Even when it
comes to some of the chief proposals, it seems like his warnings
continually fall on deaf ears. This is not a very good example
for the people in this country who are footing the bill and
paying hard earned tax dollars to see it squandered by the
Liberal government in such ways that are inappropriate and
despicable for the most part.
It is another example of government manipulating the system in a
cynical attempt to fool the taxpayer into thinking the government
is being productive. In this case we are talking about the $2.5
billion that would have gone to debt reduction and tax relief. We
owe tax relief to the taxpayer. This is what should have
happened with the $2.5 billion.
What is the government doing? It is just playing a shell game
with the books and are becoming experts at it. It should be held
accountable for it. Instead of translating a surplus into lower
taxes for Canadians, the government is pretending that the
surplus does not exist. Instead of reducing the massive national
debt standing at close to $600 billion, the government buries its
head in the sand and pretends that there is no problem and tells
taxpayers there is no problem.
This is not the first time this government has tried to pull a
fast one with the books. As the previous speaker pointed out,
last year the government was criticized for allocating the cost
of the Canadian Foundation for Innovation of $800 million a year
before the foundation was created. It was all deferred.
In 1996 the government gave a $1 billion payout to the Atlantic
provinces as an incentive to harmonize the GST in that region.
Once again, this happened a year in advance of the payout.
I was looking through other portions of that act and at the
proposed changes by the government to Bill C-36. It sure likes
to defer things to the future. I think the small business
community, the engine of our economy, should be paying particular
attention to something in the bill which deals with employment
insurance and premium holidays.
1205
In the years 1999 and 2000, employers who hire young people
between the ages of 18 and 24 will pay no EI premiums on their
wages. If EI premiums remain stable this will save employers up
to $3.78 per $100 in earnings, a measure that will cost about
$100 billion.
What is this? They are deferring it to the year 1999,
another deferred promise that will not take effect until the next
year. It gives the view that the Liberals are doing a great big favour
to employers by bringing this change into the act.
What is so great about it? Right now there is about a $13.5
billion surplus in the EI account. By March of next year that
will have grown to $19.6 billion. Whose money is that sitting
there? It is the taxpayers' money.
If the government were truly interested in helping employers, in
pushing this economy along even more, it would give that tax
relief directly to the employers, it would place it back into the
hands of the employers and employees by an across the board EI
reduction in premiums. Then it would benefit someone. Right now
who is it benefiting? It is sitting in an account. It is the
taxpayers' dollars. All could be part of a relief plan or a
benefit to the employer in expanding his business. Anything is
better than being in the hands of this government or a
bureaucrat.
The auditor general has complained about each of these cases.
What is the government's response to the auditor general's
complaints? It had the gall to threaten him. The deputy finance
minister fired off a letter to the auditor general telling him to
mind his own business. If that is not a shameful act, I do know
what us. The auditor general is hired to do a job and what
happens? The government threatens him for doing it. In reply to
the auditor general the government said that it could change the
rules if it liked.
The auditor general pointed out that if the government gets away
with this it will open the door to future governments simply
allocating expenditures from year to year regardless of when the
expenses occur. In other words, Liberal habits have become
almost institutionalized. Taxpayers spend an awful lot of their
hard earned money on the federal government. They deserve to be
able to look at the books knowing that the government is being
above board in return. There is something unethical about it.
We all know the real reason for the finance minister to continue
the Liberal tradition of bending the accounting rules. He wants
to be able to keep a tight control on the fiscal reins so that he
can better position himself to become the Liberal leader. I
guess that is the ultimate agenda. He wants to become the
leader. After all, what better way of winning support than
giving taxpayers a tax break just before a leadership bid. Is
that the plan of the finance minister and the Liberal government?
There are personal agendas here. I do not think they are
acceptable to most Canadians.
I would like to give the finance minister a bit of strategic
advice for free. If he did the responsible thing now, pay down
the debt and deliver tax relief today, he would find that his
popularity would increase immediately. Probably his chances for
leadership would be better. Everyone would rally behind him in
much more substantive way and with good reason. Is that not good
advice? The members across the way do not agree with that. They
want to see more of the same. Best of all, his popularity would
be earned legitimately.
Imagine that, a Liberal finance minister who became popular by
being straightforward and honest with Canadians about their tax
dollars.
1210
In this case I urge all members of this House to seize the
opportunity to show Canadians transparency, honesty and integrity
in this government, support the official opposition's amendment
and bring transparency to the government's bookkeeping.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-36, the Budget
Implementation Act, 1998.
I will be addressing part I of the bill in particular, which
deals with the millennium scholarships, a project which everyone
knows is very dear to the heart of the Prime Minister and member
for Saint-Maurice.
We know these scholarships will come from a special fund of $2.5
billion, to be administered by a private foundation, starting
with the year 2000 and running for 10 years.
Some observers wonder, moreover, what is going to happen after
that. If there is a need, why should the federal government not
be responsible for it always?
This is already one somewhat foolish aspect of this project,
which has just popped up out of the blue, or perhaps out of the
head of our Prime Minister.
As you know, there is a hue and a cry in Quebec at the present
time, and just about everyone is against this federal government
project, from stakeholders in education at the kindergarten
level right up to university presidents. This of course includes
students and teachers via the CEQ and the Association étudiante
du Québec. It should be pointed out, as well, that this
coalition is being headed, most courageously, by President
Shapiro of McGill University.
So, as I have said, this plan by the federal government is
raising a great deal of opposition in Quebec.
One of the best illustrations of this is a real gem written by
Lysiane Gagnon on Thursday, February 26, in La Presse. Given her
political opinions in general, Mrs. Gagnon is displaying
remarkably clear thinking.
The article is entitled “A demagogic and provocative project”,
and includes the following:
Future generations will find no better illustration of the reign
of the current Liberal Prime Minister than these millennium
scholarships: the perfect example of a superficial and demagogic
policy, of window dressing that does nothing at all about the
real problems and that may even create a few new ones.
These scholarships will swallow up money that should have been
put towards improving the school system, and they will contribute
to the further deterioration of relations, if they can possible
get any worse, between Quebec City and Ottawa.
Is it pure
coincidence or skilfully organized provocation? Hard to say. But
one is stunned by this unbelievable federal intrusion in
education.
—The decent thing would have been to substantially increase
provincial transfer payments, now that Ottawa has put its fiscal
house in order. This would not have been a question of
generosity, but rather repayment of a blatant debt. But there was
the vanity of the Prime Minister, who wants his name associated
with some sort of government handout, not to mention the
deep-seated need of any government for maximum visibility. A
direct gift to taxpayers brings in more votes than turning money
over to the provinces.
—Three years of budget cuts have left the universities in
deep financial trouble, with the result that the quality of
teaching and research is deteriorating.
1215
And Ms. Gagnon goes on:
What is the point attracting more students on campus, if it is
to give them an inadequate education and devalued diplomas?—If
the Prime Minister was even remotely sincere in his wish to
stimulate education, he would have provided assistance to
schools, through the responsible governments. But obviously, when
it comes to votes, it is more productive to distribute maple-leaf
bearing cheques to post-secondary students—all the more so
because they, unlike primary school students, have the right to
vote.
The millennium scholarships will be grafted, God knows how, onto
an already existing grant system.
Either they will based on different criteria, and this will
thwart provincial policies, or they will be based on the same
criteria used for existing scholarships, and this will be a
patent case of duplication of services.
It is probably in light of this that, yesterday, the Premier of
Quebec made a proposal to his federal counterpart. The
management of Canada being what it is, if Canadians ever want to
have access to these scholarships—although we have doubts about
the federal government's attitude—the government simply has to
reach an agreement with the English speaking provinces concerned,
as there is no grant program elsewhere in Canada. In Quebec, we
have a loans and grants system. Such an agreement could meet
identified needs and suit provincial governments.
It is up to the federal government to come to an agreement with
these provinces.
As usual, it is different in Quebec, where we have a very well
organized grants and loans system.
This is the spirit in which, when they met yesterday, the
Premier of Quebec, with the coalition I referred to earlier
firmly behind him on this, gave the Prime Minister of Canada an
amendment to be included in this bill as clause 46.1. Let me read
it for the record. It concerns the right to opt out with
compensation, which would be totally legitimate, appropriate and
proper for the Canadian government to give the Quebec government
in this context.
Under an agreement between the Lesage and Pearson governments,
Quebec has had the right to opt out of loans programs since
1964, because the Canadian government is not involved with
bursaries. If it now wants to get involved, why not include, in
the same spirit, this opting out with compensation clause?
I will read this amendment, which we endorse and which would be
added as clause 46.1.
46.1. When a province has established and administers a financial
assistance program for students to ensure equal opportunities
regarding post-secondary education, the ministers shall, at the
province's request, conduct negotiations with this province to
come to an agreement with respect to the fair compensation it
should be paid in lieu of the foundation's activities in the
province.
I think this would settle the matter. This is full of wisdom, as
the Quebec government has often been these past few years,
especially since 1994.
I think it might meet both the needs of Canada, if these are
indeed—which is questionable—needs expressed by the education
community and the public, and those of the Quebec government and
National Assembly in terms of use of funds and transfers. It is
important to know that the coalition has the support of the
Liberal Party as well as that of the public, including students.
This would improve the grants and loans situation.
It seems to me that it would be the wise thing to do, in
addition to being in keeping with the underpinnings of the
Canadian Constitution, where it is clearly and plainly stated
that education is under provincial jurisdiction. That is what we
are asking for.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as
the education critic for the NDP I am very pleased to speak in
the House to Bill C-36, an act to amend certain provisions of the
budget tabled on February 24.
I would like to focus my comments on the budget and how it
impacts or whether it alleviates the crisis facing post-secondary
education in Canada.
1220
The millennium fund illustrates very well the government's
failure to recognize the crisis facing post-secondary education.
If we talk to students and to student organizations like the
Canadian Federation of Students, which has done a lot of analysis
and evaluation of what is the reality and the situation facing
students today, we find out that the average debt for students
graduating this spring will be $25,000. In fact, worse than
that, approximately 130,000 student loans are in default.
There have been reports of a 700% increase in student loan
bankruptcies from 1989 to 1997. What is a very shocking fact and
statistic is that now 25% of all bankruptcies are as a result of
student loans in 1997. This means that at the end of 1997 there
was something like 37,000 bankrupt graduates. This is a very
dismal state of affairs. It illustrates very graphically the
crisis facing post-secondary education where student are
graduating into poverty and where more and more students are
declaring bankruptcy. In the recent budget the number of
graduate bankruptcies was projected to be 216,000 by the year
2003.
Liberal members and the government have stated that the new
budget, the showpiece of which was the millennium fund in
education, is something that will address this crisis. Many
members in the oppositions parties and in my party have exposed
the fact that the millennium fund would not even come close to
compensating for the years of cuts that have taken place in
post-secondary education as a result of policies of the Liberal
government.
The millennium fund will provide a fund in the budget of $2.5
billion. That sounds like a lot of money, but the fund will not
even begin until the year 2000, which means that students will
still be left with virtually no help or resources until the year
2000.
Even in the year 2000 when this fund begins we will be looking
at a contribution from the fund of $250 million per year over a
10 year period. When this is put in the context of the funds
that have been taken out of post-secondary education by the
federal government, the real picture begins to emerge. By the
time the fund starts in the year 2000 we will have lost over $3
billion from post-secondary education as a result of federal
government policies and cutting back on education and transfers
to provincial governments.
It is a very serious situation caused by the Liberal government
that is now offering, with all the spin, rhetoric and talk about
the legacy for the year 2000, the millennium fund. When the
surface of that fund is scratched and examined we see that it
offers very little assistance to students. It will only help an
estimated 7% of students. It will provide—we are not sure
whether it will be grants or scholarships—assistance to only
about 7% of students who are actually in need. That puts the
picture in perspective as to whether or not the millennium fund
will actually address the needs before us.
Another very troubling factor about the millennium fund is that
it takes us down the slippery slope toward privatization and the
corporatization of post-secondary education. A lot of concern has
been expressed by student organizations and by people in the
educational field. Certainly the research we have done in the
NDP suggests the course of action the government chose in setting
up the fund was to set up in effect a private foundation. There
was a named chair representing a very large corporate interest in
Canada. This does not bode well for the future of post-secondary
education.
1225
Very important to the country is the notion and the principle of
publicly funded post-secondary education. What we will see with
the millennium fund is a private board being set up that will
have the ability to set criteria as to how grants or scholarships
will be administered, taking it out of the public realm.
In Ontario a lot of concern has been expressed about ongoing
privatization. At the University of Toronto a fund to assist
students in need was turned into a scholarship fund after the
intervention of the president of the Bank of Montreal who sits on
the board of governors. There are the same kinds of concern
about the millennium fund because of the uncertainty about who
will qualify for assistance or the level of assistance, whether
it is a scholarship program and whether or not there will be
creeping corporate influence in terms of setting criteria as to
who will receive scholarships or loans. We have not yet received
information from the federal government.
They are very disturbing facts about the millennium fund. The
first is the lack of real financial support it will provide,
given the level of cutbacks that we have had. The second is the
fact that it is taking us down a road of privatization and
corporatization of post-secondary education.
Another issue I would deal with around the millennium fund has
to do with how it was set up. We heard in the House yesterday
concerns expressed about the situation in Quebec. I understand
the concerns that have been put forward by members of the Bloc
Quebecois about the lack of consultation around the establishment
of the millennium fund. However, let us be very clear. It was
not just Quebec that was left out of the picture. It was all
other provinces as well that are still waiting for a phone call
from the Prime Minister or someone representing the government to
inform them about what their role will be in the millennium fund
and in setting up the criteria.
It is another indication of unilateral action being taken by the
federal government. I would like to ask government members
whether or not they think this is their new kind of federalism:
unilateral action and no consultation with provincial government
even though post-secondary education is a provincial jurisdiction
and responsibility.
We in the NDP think this is an absolutely incorrect way to go
about implementing the millennium fund. We believe there should
be co-operation and discussion involving the setting up of a
national grants program using the funds from the millennium fund
as the beginning of a national grants program.
The last point I will make is that one of the things that was
discovered in the budget was that buried in some of the
background material were plans to change the bankruptcy laws. It
was a most cynical ploy by the government. On the one hand we
were told that the budget would help students, that the
millennium fund would help students. On the other hand the
finance minister was very quietly laying plans to change the
bankruptcy laws which will make it much more difficult for
students to file for bankruptcy and will extend the deadline from
two years to ten years. This is a most cynical ploy by the
federal government and illustrates why the millennium fund will
not do what needs to be done in terms of providing federal
funding for post-secondary education.
I conclude my remarks by saying that there is growing opposition
and concern about the fund as people begin to realize that it is
not doing what it is purported to do by the government. There
has simply been a lot of political rhetoric about the fund, but
the stark reality is that it will not help the students in need
in Canada today.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to be able to speak to Bill C-36 and the Reform
amendment. It was great to see the budget finally balanced. It
is what Reformers have been calling for, for years.
We want to make it perfectly clear that we have reservations
with respect to the budget. One of the first and most important
is the provision of the millennium scholarship fund.
We have been advocating for years that there needs to be greater
funding for post-secondary education. We were advocating putting
money back into the CHST during the 1993 election.
1230
The big problem is that the auditor general has found the
government to be distorting the financial statements to make
itself look good in this House and elsewhere. The auditor
general gave an interview in which he said “You cannot record
something just because you announce the intention of doing
something. There is a difference between an expenditure and a
future commitment”.
We have in this country families who intend to have children,
but an intention expressed does not mean they qualify for the
child tax benefit. The day the government is willing to hand out
a benefit based on an intention will be the day when it would be
within its purview to announce an intention and have it show up
in a budget as if it had been an expenditure. We just do not
accept that at all.
We also find that while the budget is balanced it has been
balanced by increasing expenditures. It is no secret that
interest rates in Canada came down not as a result of government
actions but as a result of a worldwide phenomenon. The
government has certainly garnered the benefit from that. However,
it is not as a result of its doings. The government's reductions
in direct program spending amount to 5.3% and it has increased
the amount it has taken from taxpayers by 71%. We are not giving
the government any kudos for that.
We also find that the government is refusing to reindex to
inflation the personal income tax system. It had an opportunity
to do that in this budget, but it did not.
As well, Canada pension plan payments will be increasing year in
and year out. From our research it appears that by the year
2000-2001 there will be roughly $9,000 more in net tax burden for
Canadians. I do not think there is anybody in this House or
anybody in this country who thinks they will be that much better
off in 2000-2001 to be able to carry that extra tax load.
I would like to leave this House with a couple of word pictures
because they say a picture is worth a thousand words.
During the cold war there was a policy called MAD. It was an
acronym for mutually assured destruction. It was an assurance
that no one would survive in the event of a nuclear war.
Everybody would lose and nobody would win. I would like to
propose a new meaning for that acronym, which is that Canada has
the mother of all debt in this country at this time. Our debt is
$576 billion. It has been said a lot of times in this House and
it has been said a lot of times across Canada, but not everybody
knows it yet, so it certainly is not lost on Canadians to say it
one more time.
We feel that Canadians have not been completely apprised of the
debt they have. I just spoke in a high school in my riding and
unfortunately some of the young people there did not know it.
When they heard how much it was and how much they personally are
inheriting from previous as well as present governments they were
not one bit happy. MAD describes their state of mind as well.
We are definitely opposed to the continuation of spending and
taxing and the maintenance of a debt which we do not have to have
in this country. There would have been a balance left over this
year if it had not been spent. We would like to see that go back
to the people.
Taking that nuclear bomb illustration a little further, what is
the fallout from a debt bomb? We have the highest taxes in the
G-7. Bracket creep erodes every person's income in this country.
The danger of overspending is that there will be a slight rise in
interest rates and all of a sudden we will be back into deficit
spending. Nobody wants that, particularly the young people of
this country.
We have high unemployment and low wages. Wages can only get
lower as the cost of doing business goes up with the taxes that
are locked in by this budget.
1235
Canadians are mad. They wanted tax relief, they expected tax
relief, but they did not get tax relief. They are upset that the
debt will not decrease this year. They did not want a millennium
fund to polish the Prime Minister's image. What they wanted was
real tax relief.
This is another illustration from the cold war. There was a
movie called “Dr. Strangelove”. I cannot quite recall its
subtitle, but it went something along these lines: “How I
overcame my fear and learned to love the bomb”.
We have a debt bomb in this country. We have a Prime Minister
and a finance minister who have overcome their fear of the debt
bomb. They have learned to love it. They want to pass it on to
Canadians.
At the end of that movie the mad scientist, sitting astride his
bomb, was having the ride of his life. I believe that is an
accurate description of our government today. It is astride the
debt bomb, it loves it and it wishes everyone could be aboard.
Canadians want off. They do not want to ride this to its
obvious conclusion. At the end of the movie we did not see what
happened to Dr. Strangelove, but we know what the end will be if
we do not get our debt under control.
We do not want debt in this country. We do not want higher
spending. We do not want taxes. What we want and what the
Reform Party is calling for is responsible government. We oppose
Bill C-36. I oppose it on behalf of my constituents.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36, which
we are addressing today, deals with the implementation of certain
provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24,
1998.
This debate will provide me with an opportunity to raise, and to
criticize for the most part, certain political choices made by
the Minister of Finance, as well as to draw attention to
everything he has not done and to the Bloc Quebecois' fiscal
proposals he has not followed.
The Minister of Finance is boasting that he has managed to put
public finances back on a sounder footing. I wish to speak out
against what the Liberal government has done to attain that
goal, and also what it has not dared to do.
In order to attain its goals, it cut transfers to the provinces
along with employment insurance benefits and failed to index the
tax tables.
Transfers to the provinces were cut by $7.2 billion annually,
which accounts for 52% of all the spending cuts the Liberal
government made in 1994 and 1998.
Cutting employment insurance benefits means that people who lose
their jobs are not as well protected since the reform, while the
fund shows a surplus of billions of dollars.
Another thing the government has not done is indexing the tax
tables. The Minister of Finance has taken advantage of the
increase in revenues, in part as a result of not indexing the
tax tables, GST credits and child tax benefits.
It is instructive to look at how the Minister of Finance has
succeeded in putting his fiscal house in order, but it is
particularly interesting to think about the choices the Liberal
government has refused to make in order to attain those results.
It has not made a serious attack against waste, respected its
commitments, or really reformed the taxation system.
As far as an attack against waste is concerned, year after year
the auditor general criticizes the spending of billions of
dollars by the federal administration.
As for respecting his commitments, I should remind the House
that, in 1995, the Minister of Finance promised a 19% reduction
in his departments' spending over three years. In fact, spending
was reduced by only 11.5%, so the government could have cut
another 7.5%.
We also asked for income tax reform and the Liberal government
could have undertaken a review of corporate income tax to help
job creation, and one of personal income tax to improve fairness.
The suggestions made by the Bloc Quebecois were flatly rejected
by the Liberal government, even though our finance critic did an
extraordinary job in proposing concrete solutions to the
government.
What did the Liberals do when the first surpluses appeared? They
could not keep themselves from doing what they have always done,
which is to spend.
1240
Even though the Liberal government's contributions only
accounted for 11.5% of the federal spending cuts, the Minister of
Finance is making 51.4% of the new expenditures provided in the
budget. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have
decided to reward themselves for eliminating the deficit, instead
of rewarding those who actually did the work, namely the
provinces, the poor and middle class families.
Out of all the new Liberal expenditures, the $2.5 billion for
the establishment of a millennium scholarship fund was the
initiative most strongly criticized by the whole community.
As we know, the Premier of Quebec is trying to solve the issue
with the support of a coalition that includes a number of Quebec
stakeholders.
The Premier of Quebec proposes that clause 46 be amended by
inserting the following:
Withdrawal with compensation
46.1 When a province has established and administers a financial
assistance program for students to ensure equal opportunities
regarding post-secondary education, the ministers shall, at the
province's request, conduct negotiations with this province to
come to an agreement with respect to the fair compensation it
should be paid in lieu of the foundation's activities in the
province.
We all know that negotiating with the federal government for fair
compensation takes a lot of effort and energy, often with little
likelihood of success. In this case, we hope that the federal
government will take some responsibility and that, for once, it
will be able to come to an agreement with Quebec on the
millennium scholarship program.
They know that education is an area of exclusive provincial
jurisdiction. For over 30 years, Quebec has had its own system
of loans and scholarships. All of Quebec's education
stakeholders are opposed to the plan, because it does not meet
Quebec's priorities in this area. The only way to avoid
duplication is to come around to Quebec's way of thinking. We
hope that the Prime Minister will grant Quebec's request.
We also know that the auditor general is critical of the
government's spending practices. The foundation's funding has
been included in the 1998-99 spending forecasts, although the
money will actually be spent in the year 2000.
One of the things we criticized about the budget had to do with
the Minister of Finance's transparency. We would have liked to
see the actual figures, in the right columns, so that we could
have had a real debate about the surpluses but, instead, this
year's surpluses have been concealed by including spending that
will take place in the year 2000.
Former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau said that, if a
government had such an excess of revenue and undertook to ensure
the part of the common good that fell outside its jurisdiction,
there arose the presumption that that government had taken more
than its share of taxable capacity.
Quebec has said no to the millennium scholarships, and I hope its
wishes will be respected.
There is also employment insurance. Those to whom the federal
government owes a large debt include the unemployed, but the
government has decided to ignore them. The budget speech is
clear: the unemployed have no problem and the EI program will
not be improved.
Bloc Quebecois members have introduced six private members' bills
with suggestions for improving the employment insurance program.
The federal government has accumulated $6 billion in savings in
its fund. We asked that the eligibility criteria be restored.
In 1989, 83% of unemployed workers were eligible for EI. This
dropped to 43% in 1997. The percentage has dropped steadily
since 1990.
In order to analyze this phenomenon, which has gone on for eight
years, the minister has just ordered his department to do a
study, in co-operation with Statistics Canada.
Meanwhile, the unemployed are losing out. In committee, we
moved that this clearly inadequate percentage be studied.
We would have liked a report analyzing the effects of this new
employment insurance policy.
1245
The government continues to amass the surpluses without paying
out a cent more. In 2000, the surplus will reach $25 billion.
Premiums will not be lowered in 1999. They will be reduced by a
meagre 10 cents in 2000—not enough. The Conseil du patronat
was very clear on this point. They wanted a substantial
reduction in premium levels to permit the creation of jobs in
business.
The only employment insurance premium holiday will be for
employers hiring young people between 18 and 24 years of age in
1999 and 2000.
The measure applies to two years only. It is shortsighted. We
would have liked the government to consider other clienteles
strongly affected by the new employment insurance measures,
especially those aged 45 or older, who often find themselves
unemployed. We know the focus of business is on young people
with experience, those in their thirties, and that older people
find themselves without work and the possibility of finding any.
We also introduced anti-deficit legislation. It would control
government spending. We deplore this government's refusal.
This anti-deficit legislation may be found in five Canadian
provinces, including Quebec, in 48 American states, in France and
in New Zealand.
We were very disappointed at the policies proposed by the
Minister of Finance in this budget.
The Bloc would have advocated creating no new programs,
reimbursing the provinces for the Canada social transfer,
changing how the employment insurance plan is managed,
implementing targeted tax cuts and passing anti-deficit
legislation.
We would have preferred the minister come to an understanding
with the Bloc Quebecois. A number of people have expressed
their disappointment with the Minister of Finance's budget. We
would like the Minister of Finance in the future to accept some
of our suggestions for lightening the tax burden of Canadians and
Quebeckers.
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I
rise to ask for the unanimous consent of the House that the order
for second reading of my Bill C-237, standing on the order of
precedence, be discharged and the bill withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there consent that the hon. member
withdraw the bill as indicated?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no consent.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to address Bill C-36, otherwise known as the
Canadian millennium scholarship foundation.
I would like everybody to realize one thing. This scholarship
supposedly is about education. I have great difficulty in
believing that. I do not think this is about education at all. I
believe that it is actually the Prime Minister using taxpayers'
hard earned money in order to boost his own ego, so to speak. And
just to add insult to injury, we have only to look at the
announcement he made to appoint the chair of the foundation prior
to this legislation's even being introduced to this House.
That to me goes a long way in saying exactly what this is all
about. They have talked time and time again of the great effort
they have put into addressing the budget in order to bring this
new found money into the education fund.
1250
Number one, it was not this government that balanced the budget.
It was the Canadian taxpayers, the hard working taxpayers in
Canada who sacrificed a lot to see this happen. A lot of them
suffered time lost from their families, something that money
cannot compensate.
I see the arrogance of this government when it says that it
balanced the budget. I question that. It is just not so. We
look at what has happened in the last few years. This used to be
a society in which only one working person had to go out to make
a decent living for the family.
In most cases that is no longer possible. Both parents now have
to work in order to survive. It is not for little extras. No,
it is to survive in this country which we say is so great.
We have become unpaid slaves to the government in many cases. We
have accepted this because we were led for many years to believe
the government was looking after us, that the government was
taking care of the problems and we would not have to worry.
Gradually through the years taxation crept up. The government
said we have to do this in order to pay for this. We bought
that. The government said it was good, it would benefit Canadian
society. We thought the government was very knowledgeable. We
agreed to work a little harder and to pay a little more in taxes.
Along came another issue and the government sold us under the
guise that it is good for society, that it will make us better,
caring, sharing human beings. We bought this and bought this and
bought this.
Now Canadian taxpayers are waking up to one simple fact.
Taxpayers definitely are caring and sharing human beings but this
government lacks any of that sort of compassion. This government
has become a tax addicted parasite on the taxpayers of this
country.
We were led to believe that if we worked hard we could
contribute to our own type of special retirement plan, that if we
were diligent and invested wisely we could retire early and in
comfort.
I am sad to say that in Canada this is just about no longer
possible. The harder someone works, the more they are taxed. The
more they put away to retire, the faster the government figures
out how to get in there just like that and take it.
The government takes it no longer with one hand but with both
hands, from a person's bank account, their wallet and their
wife's purse. It will even take from a child's inheritance in
order to say it will help you.
When someone asks for help from this government, they stand in a
line. They are lucky if, when they phone, there is anyone on the
other end. It often is a machine telling them to dial back later
when it is not so busy. That is the caring, sharing feeling of
this lousy government.
Let us take a look at this for one moment. The government is
saying it will give back $385 million in the scholarship fund.
It slashed over $7 billion from education and health but it will
give back $385 million.
That is like cutting off a hand to save a finger and then saying
we helped you, we fixed you, we made it better, aren't we nice
people.
1255
That snow job no longer works in this country. I think this
budget came a bit early. It should really have been introduced
on April 1. There is no doubt in my mind about that.
Let us look at what is happening in the EI surplus. We have
mentioned time and time again what is happening here. This
government is taxing employers and employees into poverty. We now
know that there is a $13.5 billion surplus in the EI program
alone. What does this government do? It says it will give back
a few pittance to the employer and the employee. It tells us
that because it raised it so high it can now cut back a bit and
call it a tax cut.
This is like an armed robber taking $100,000 out of a bank and
giving back $10 in the hopes he will not be sentenced. He feels
that by giving some back he is not altogether bad. That is not
going to wash too long in this country.
The people are starting to wake up. We have received phone call
after phone call into all our offices. I do not even believe
there is a member across the way, although they may not like to
admit it and maybe will not admit it in public, who has not had
phone call after phone call every day from people who are just
getting by or who are not getting by at all because they are
being taxed to death.
When we put that question to the Liberals here in the House,
which I did a few days ago, one out of eight or nine
I questioned says that in all the time they have been here
since 1993 they have received two phone calls. That is hard to
believe. In fact, I cannot believe that. I think somebody is
fudging.
An hon. member: They must have had their lines cut.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: Either that or they tapped into the
machines. “There is no human being on this end so I cannot
answer questions. Phone back at a more suitable hour”.
That means one minute, I hope, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: I was not just checking the wind.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: It is not blowing that good. We have
seen how ill the wind blows from that side of the House many
times. In fact, we are still trying to pay for some of the moves
they have made here.
It seems we do have our priorities really mixed up in this
country when we allow situations to go on as we do today such as
with the blood scandal and the part the government has played in
that. I also have great difficulty with the millennium fund.
This government came to power it has put closure in this House
38 times, more than the PCs believe it or not. I heard
complaints back then about this type of dictatorship but it goes
on and on.
Mr. Speaker, I see closure has again come to this House.
The Deputy Speaker: Closure may come later but for the
moment the hon. member's time has expired.
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise in this
debate on the budget implementation bill. I noticed that my
colleague from across the way was talking about which way the
wind was blowing. I was pleased to see last night which way the
wind was blowing in British Columbia. It seems to be a very
Liberal wind after that byelection.
I wanted to talk a bit about one component of the budget. It has
to do with tax reduction. I do not know and I do not believe
there is a great deal of argument in the country about the
desirability of tax reductions. Regardless of whether one is in
the centre or in the left or right of the political spectrum,
most Canadians would see tax reduction as a desirable goal.
However, I think what is important is the way tax reduction is
to be achieved. One of the important aspects of the budget was
that there are some very important principles underlying the
types of tax reductions in that budget.
I would like to take a moment to enunciate some of those, give a
couple of examples of how that works. Then if I have a moment
toward the end, I am going to compare that to some of the
suggestions which have come from some of the opposition members.
1300
The first principle upon which the tax reductions are based is
that tax reduction should begin at the bottom. As we have the
fiscal manoeuvring room to provide tax reduction, it should be
provided first to those Canadians at the lower and middle income
levels. We start at the bottom with those who can least afford
to pay tax and then expand the reductions upward as our fiscal
dividends expand.
It is a very important principle. We saw that clearly enunciated
in the budget with the raising of the basic personal exemption.
This will take some 400,000 Canadians off the tax rolls. In
addition we saw it with the 3% surtax being eliminated for those
people earning under $50,000.
The second principle in respect of tax reduction is that it is
important to target tax reductions to achieve important social
objectives. Again we saw that in the budget. In the budget we
saw such things as the $850 million tax credit being provided to
low and middle income Canadian families with children. That is
in addition to the $850 million that was provided in the previous
year.
We saw that in a series of tax reductions in respect of
obtaining post-secondary education. We saw a targeted tax
reduction to achieve the very important social goal of providing
access to post-secondary education. We saw tax reductions to
help Canadians with disabilities in addition to the actions that
were taken in the previous budget. We saw other specifically
targeted measures such as a caregiver tax credit. On a smaller
basis a tax reduction is being provided to volunteer emergency
workers which is particularly important in a rural area like
mine.
Another principle which the finance minister enunciated,
developed and crafted his budget around is the importance of
providing tax reduction in line with one's fiscal needs. We saw
that very clearly. We saw a government with the help and support
of all Canadians bring a balanced budget to this country for the
first time in a generation and a half. Then once the fiscal
dividend was at hand, the government started to provide the tax
reductions. That is the appropriate way to do it, to make the
reductions once the government is in the fiscal position to do
so.
The fourth principle is a principle which some of my colleagues
who sit across the way should listen to very carefully. The
government has the responsibility not just to taxpayers but to
all Canadians. If it simply takes all of the government action
on the tax reduction side, then substantial numbers of Canadians
will not be impacted and will not benefit by that action. In
putting whatever type of fiscal plan together within a budget,
one needs to remember the principle that not all Canadians are
taxpayers, but all Canadians deserve to be considered for support
by the federal government as they may require. We clearly saw
that in the budget.
We saw $2.5 billion for the millennium fund, direct spending to
help people access post-secondary education. When you come from
a rural riding like mine, Parry Sound—Muskoka, the cost of
post-secondary education tends to be higher because students need
to live away from home. That is a particularly important thing.
We saw the increased funding to the granting councils. We saw
the $1.5 billion restoration of the previously scheduled
reduction to the CHST.
Those were non-tax measures, but they were measures that were
important to Canadians. They were able to benefit Canadians who
may not necessarily be taxpayers.
It is interesting to look at those principles. They are
important principles. They are Liberal principles.
They are principles the finance minister crafted within the
budgetary measures.
1305
It is important to look at what some of our colleagues across
the way were suggesting in terms of budgetary action. Many were
enunciated during the previous campaign.
First of all it was interesting to note that both the Reform
Party by 1999 and the Tory party which had a date of 2000, were
projecting balanced budgets far after we were able to achieve it.
When talking about one of the principles, the interesting part
is they wanted to provide tax action before they were willing to
balance the budget. In essence they wanted to borrow money in
order to provide tax cuts rather than bring the fiscal dividend
forward and provide tax cuts in a sustainable manner. This is
clear in both parties' platforms.
Looking at some of their tax measures, they certainly would not
result in a bottom up process.
The Tories' 10% across the board tax reduction means the more
you earn, the bigger the tax break you get. That is the exact
opposite of the principle the finance minister is using, which is
from the bottom up. The Tory approach is to provide the largest
tax decrease to those who earn the most. We who come from
Ontario know full well the results of that type of approach.
The Reform Party had a similar approach. It suggested a
flattened tax regime and an average $2,000 savings for a Canadian
family. When there is a flattened tax regime with an average of
$2,000 it means the more you earn, the higher your income, the
larger the tax reduction you will receive.
One of the most interesting and telltale signs of not adhering
to those principles that I enunciated should be in the budget,
was the Tory suggestion that the corporate tax rate, not the
small business tax rate, but the corporate tax rate be reduced
from 28% to 24%. This would mean that companies such as Canada's
chartered banks, those cash starved corporations, would receive
more than a 10% tax reduction.
The Tories, rather than suggesting that tax reduction come from
the bottom up, suggest a corporate tax reduction from 28% to 24%.
The impact of that is to put oodles of money into those cash
starved institutions, Canadian chartered banks. That is the type
of principle they want to bring to tax reduction.
Let me summarize. As we deal with the budget and the component
of tax reductions, what makes it a successful budget, what has
brought the support of Canadians to this budget, what has brought
that Liberal byelection victory in British Columbia yesterday is
the principle of providing tax relief from the bottom up. It is
targeting tax relief to achieve important social goals. It is
achieving our fiscal dividend first and then providing tax
relief. Most important, it is remembering we have a
responsibility to all Canadians and not just taxpayers but also
including them.
Those are the reasons this budget has the support of the
Canadian people. This was very clearly demonstrated yesterday in
British Columbia.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to engage in today's debate on Bill C-36, the
budget implementation act. I hope not to address what this
government has done for Canadians but rather to point out what
this government has done to Canadians. I will discuss what
Canadians wanted from this budget and how this budget affects
Canadian families and students.
On budget day the finance minister stood up and smugly told
Canadians that he had slain the deficit monster. Well, I
disagree. The deficit has been fought on the backs of the
taxpayers. The hon. secretary of state was mentioning “We did
it. The government did it. We did this, we did that”. It was
the hard work of the Canadian taxpayers that balanced this budget
and I do not think the government should lose sight of that fact.
The hon. member mentioned a balanced budget. He was trumpeting
his own government's balanced budget.
In 1993 we were saying that could be accomplished within three
years. The government scoffed at that, yet it put in place the
same kind of plan.
1310
I sent out a householder survey in my riding of
Dewdney—Alouette and had over 500 people respond on questions
having to do with the budget. I will take a few minutes to touch
on some of the results and point out some of the things Canadians
wanted but did not get from the budget.
On the question of government spending, 72% of the people who
responded in Dewdney—Alouette said that spending should be
reduced. Only 3% of the respondents believed government spending
should be increased.
On the question of interest on the debt and initiatives for debt
reduction, 96% of the people who responded believed that
government should set real goals and timetables to lower the
debt.
On the point of deficit spending, my constituents were asked
whether they believe the government should pass legislation to
prevent deficit spending from happening again. Overwhelmingly,
constituents sent a clear message. Of those asked, 92% supported
the notion of this type of legislation preventing future deficit
spending which of course has led to the enormously huge national
debt of close to $600 billion.
Yes, the tax burden imposed on Canadian families is enormous.
Canadian families work half the year just to pay their tax bill.
For most Canadians, forgoing a second income is not even an
option. For those who decide to stay at home and raise their
children, they are unable to take advantage of some of the
deductions for families who choose to have their children in
care. We would like the government to address that and to have
equity for all Canadian families.
Canadians wanted the government to cut spending. They wanted
tax relief. They wanted the government to address the debt. What
did Canadians get? They got higher spending on the part of the
government, higher taxes and a government that is on the brink of
falling back into the deficit gorge with any fluctuation in
interest rates.
I will briefly touch on the millennium scholarship foundation.
As some members mentioned earlier, this is not really about
education, it is about the Prime Minister using taxpayer dollars
to boost his political profile. The way this was handled in the
budget was quite surprising. I find it quite unbelievable.
The government simply cannot record something just because it
announced the intention of doing something. There is a
difference between an expenditure and a future commitment. The
finance minister lost sight of this fact. The very finance
minister who is trumpeting the budget for what it does for
education slashed and burned health care and education funding by
$7 billion. That is a fact that cannot be lost on Canadians.
A few members mentioned B.C. I am glad they realize where it is
now because there will soon be blowing an ill wind from the west.
If the Liberals really had a concern about education, they could
never have cut to the degree that they have cut since 1993 and
then make these half measures, not even half measures, not even
quarter measures, to try to convince Canadians that they care
about education. Words are empty if they are not backed up by
actions. Canadians are starting to realize that a budget that
pretends to address all these concerns in not even quarter
measures just does not match up with the actions the government
is implementing in the budget.
I was talking to two university professors about the millennium
scholarship foundation. They thought it was a good idea until I
pointed out to them that the students at their institution would
not be eligible for these scholarships. This is due to the fact
that they teach at a public institution that is privately funded.
Students who choose to go to that type of institution do not
have the opportunity to take part in the millennium scholarship
foundation. That is a shame because this is not even a quarter
measure, as I mentioned before. It does not address the concerns
of the majority of students in this country.
1315
Yesterday I had the opportunity to speak to over 60 high school
students. I was explaining to them the concern with the debt and
why we need to address that debt which is close to $600 billion.
They asked me how that was possible. I used the story of
overspending.
When a government chooses to overspend year after year, the debt
piles up higher and higher. I had to explain to those high
school students that $45 billion goes to interest on that debt
alone and is eating the heart out of our social programs. They
were shocked that this could happen in our country. They asked
me how it happened? I said because the governments of the day
put us in this shape because they did not take care of the
financial house of this country. I am sorry to say, but the
Liberal government started us along this path.
I explained the so-called debt contingency retirement plan of
the finance minister. He wants to dedicate $3 billion to debt
retirement on that total of almost $600 billion. There is a big
if. That is if that money not needed for other spending. I see it
as an escape clause that could be used at any time for the
finance minister to dedicate to any other kind of spending
without having to put it to debt retirement.
If we treated our mortgages on our homes in the same way the
government is treating the national debt, we would be hauled off
and put into a place not nearly as nice as this for not meeting
our financial obligation. We must have this house in order.
This finance minister's plan does not address any kind of
substantial debt retirement plan. That debt was created over
years. There has to be a plan to get that debt down. The future
of our country hangs in the balance as a result of that. This
government must take note of that and do something about it. It
must do something soon with a concrete plan; not an if plan, not
a plan that if we do not need the money we will put it to debt
retirement. It has to be a committed plan.
When I was talking to those high school students they were
shocked at the state of our country. They asked me why I wanted
to get into politics. I was a teacher prior to this. I said this
country needs people who are willing to stand up for their
future, for our children's future, for the future of our nation
and set a course to address the major concerns in this country.
That is why I entered politics. We hope to influence the
government to look at these concerns and these issues and address
them with concrete plans.
It is for that reason that I cannot support Bill C-36.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
some displeasure that I rise in this House today to speak on Bill
C-36 to implement certain provisions of the 1998-99 budget.
Indeed, on behalf of the citizens of my riding of Verchères,
whom I have the honour of representing in this House, and all
Quebeckers, I have the duty and responsibility of conveying our
profound disappointment with this misleading and shamefully
partisan exercise.
At first glance, this budget may seem extremely positive. After
all, is it not the first balanced federal budget in nearly three
decades?
Does it not contain very good news for the taxpayers? The fact
is all this is a smoke and mirrors, a cover up.
All of a sudden, after four years of intense deficit reduction
efforts on the backs of the provinces, the unemployed and the
most disadvantaged, as soon as a surplus is achieved, the
Liberals are starting to spend left and right again. Really, once
a Liberal, always a Liberal.
1320
To add insult to injury, the federal government has once again
decided to invest the money saved at the expense of others in
areas over which it has no jurisdiction.
Imagine this, after accumulating in the employment insurance
fund billions of dollars in surpluses at the expense of employers
and employees to help wipe out part of its deficit and cut back
billions of dollars in transfer payments to the provinces,
forcing the provinces, including Quebec, to make difficult
decisions, which have been made courageously, in the areas of
health and education, the federal government has the nerve to use
a substantial portion of the extorted money to encroach yet again
on provincial jurisdictions.
By the way, members will note that the provinces got hit with
52% of federal cuts; yet, according to the last budget, they are
entitled to only 23% of the new expenditures. However, while
federal spending was cut by only 12%, it accounts for 51% of the
new expenditures.
What is important to the federal government, when it comes down
to it, is the visibility of providing services directly to the
public and getting into their hands as many cheques bearing the
maple leaf as possible. This is an underhand strategy: Ottawa
seeks to make the Quebec government look bad by hampering its
progress toward a balanced budget, so that it can look good at
Premier Bouchard's expense as the provincial election
approaches.
Then the Liberal government wants to rush to the rescue once
again with new initiatives in areas of provincial jurisdiction
in order to lighten the burden of misery it itself has imposed,
and continues to impose, since $30 billion or so in cuts still
remain to be made across Canada by the year 2003 in education,
health and social assistance. Some would call this absolute bunk,
yet the federal government is quite open about it.
As proof of this, the President of Treasury Board is quoted in Le
Soleil of March 8, 1996 as saying “When Bouchard has to make
cuts, those of us in Ottawa will be able to demonstrate that we
have the means to preserve the future of social programs”.
Edifying, is it not? Is this the co-operative federalism they
delight in referring to on the other side of this House?
When will the Liberals understand that this strategy leads
nowhere? When will they understand that Quebec cannot be bought
for billions of dollars? They have put this strategy in
practice over and over during the past three decades with
somewhat disappointing, even catastrophic, results. They have
been unable to slow the rapid growth of the sovereignist movement
and have plunged Canada into the perilous spiral of debt from
which it is hard to extricate ourselves today.
In its prebudget document, the Bloc Quebecois asked that a
significant portion of the surpluses for the next two years be
given back to the provinces as tax points, to compensate them—at
least to some extent—for the drastic cuts made by the Liberal
government during its first mandate to transfer payments for
health, post-secondary education and social assistance. However,
it seems that, as with the surpluses generated in the employment
insurance fund, Ottawa has decided to keep control of that money.
The Bloc Quebecois has urged the federal government to make sure
the employment insurance fund is used only by those who
contribute to it.
We continue to condemn the misappropriation of funds by the
federal government with the employment insurance surplus. That
surplus is constantly increasing, because of the more strict
eligibility criteria imposed by the government and maintained
against all logic.
But it is in research and development that the duplicity of this
government is most obvious. Indeed, while the Liberal
government's rhetoric has been impressive, we have seen very few
concrete measures. The Bloc Quebecois has asked that, at the very
least, funding for granting councils be restored to the 1993
level. However, the Liberals have only pledged to restore that
funding to the 1994-95 level, thus making Canada fall even further
behind in research and development.
This budget speech, like the one last year, was full of grand
phrases regarding the importance attached by this government to
research and development, and so on.
1325
I will, if I may, quote a few of the gems in the finance
minister's budget speech about research and development. First
of all, the minister said, and I quote: “For 200 years in Canada
prosperity and knowledge have gone hand in hand.—The
creation of jobs in the new millennium will be anchored in two
essential components: the infrastructure of innovation, and the
infrastructure of skills and knowledge”.
And he went on to say: “There can be few things more critical to
determining our economic success in the next century than a
vigorous, broad based research and development effort.
The fact is the more R and D that is done in Canada, the more
jobs that will be created for Canadians”.
How are we to square these fine words with the meagre resources
committed and the highly questionable decisions already made by
this government with respect to R and D?
On numerous occasions in the House, I have seen government
members rise and claim that R and D into sources of renewable
energy is one of their greatest priorities.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Two years ago, Ottawa
announced that it was terminating its modest annual contribution
of $7.2 million to the Tokamak magnetic fusion project in
Varennes, now the largest R and D energy project in Quebec.
Magnetic, or nuclear, fusion constitutes a very promising form
of producing a large volume of energy in a clean, safe,
environmentally responsible manner.
Since then, I have been trying to understand the twisted
reasoning that led this government to make such a ridiculous
decision. On numerous occasions, I have questioned the various
stakeholders and have met with inconsistent, incomplete and
incomprehensible answers. Not only will the $70 million already
invested in the project over the last 20 years be lost forever,
but the technological, industrial and economic shortfall for
Quebec and for Canada could be colossal.
Many other industrialized countries have realized the importance
of nuclear fusion research and some are even spending as much as
10, 20 and even 40 times more than Canada in this very promising
area of research.
It is important to point out that Quebec, which is already
receiving a lot less than its fair share of federal investments
in research and development, is facing an even greater deficit
with the end of the federal government's financial participation
in the Tokamak project.
Paradoxically, Ottawa is pouring billions of dollars into far
less promising areas and paying particular attention to Ontario.
I am thinking of the federal government's decision to focus on
the development, production, marketing and sales of Candu
reactors, whose reliability and environmental safety record
continue to be questioned.
What explanation is there for such stubbornness and false
economies on the back of a province that is not receiving its
fair share of research and development funding, in an area where
dividends are potentially so numerous and so high compared to
the modest annual investment required? I take this opportunity
to again express my indignation and to appeal to this
government's common sense in this matter.
I would also like to have talked about the millennium scholarship
foundation, but unfortunately, as time is short, I will close by
taking the few minutes remaining to remind the hon. members of
this House that Quebeckers are not fools. They have had it with
fancy speeches aimed at nothing more than raising the profile of
the government on the backs of society's disadvantaged.
Far from being a prophet of doom, I would like to repeat to the
Minister of Finance what many analysts fear. After creating
surpluses, he cannot just rest on his laurels and spend wildly
to then fall back into the same bad habits. Instead, he must
structure public finances so we will no longer have to face the
nightmarish deficits passed on to the people of Canada over 30
years by successive Liberal and Conservative governments.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would hasten to let the speaker know before I begin
that I do not intend to follow the pattern of the member for
Verchères and to address my remarks specifically to the concerns
of one province. I will speak to this bill as a Canadian.
I am pleased to stand as the official opposition critic to
address Bill C-36, the budget implementation act.
1330
Part VIII of the legislation addresses the phase-out of the air
transportation tax levied on air travel as a percentage of ticket
prices. Coinciding with this phase-out is the commencement of
NavCan's user fees for large aircraft and for the reduction of
federal funding for this not for profit corporation which was
created to provide air navigation services on a commercial basis.
The air transport tax will be completely off the books by
November 1, 1998. At that time NavCan will be cut off as planned
from government funding and will have to operate on its own. That
is the way it should work. Once a government service has been
commercialized and is financed by charging fees to those who use
it, the taxes previously collected to pay for the service should
be reduced. Otherwise the result is double taxation.
Unfortunately this is what we may see happening to operators of
light aircraft. Although November 1 is also the date for the
commencement of NavCan user fees for small aircraft, there is no
plan to ease the tax burden on the general aviation sector.
The Reform Party is a great supporter of user pay, but operators
of light aircraft are already paying and paying and paying
increased Transport Canada charges and new airport user fees, for
example, the infamous fee to pee that so many pilots talk about.
Particularly galling is the excise tax on aviation gasoline
which is poured into the government's general revenues. Aviation
gasoline is taxed at a much higher rate than jet fuel. Jumbo
planes fuel up and pay 4 cents of excise tax per litre while the
tax rate for aviation gasoline is 11 cents, a full 7 cents per
litre difference.
It is not in our national interest to charge and tax general
aviation into the ground. Commercial aviation needs a healthy
general aviation sector to be its pilot recruiting and training
ground. That is the way it has always been. However, in the
face of spiralling costs in the form of taxes and fees the number
of licensed pilots in Canada has been steadily decreasing for
years. Double taxation of operators of light aircraft will only
make matters worse.
Canada must not follow the example of some European countries
which have killed private flying by overregulating airspace.
These countries are now forced to seek foreign pilots to fly
commercial aircraft.
I have noticed a good omen. The finance minister has received a
letter from NavCan's president proposing a solution to the
problem. NavCan has requested that the 7 cents per litre
difference in excise tax rates levied on jet fuel and on aviation
gasoline be eliminated, and that NavCan be permitted to collect a
similar amount from aviation gasoline sales to finance air
navigation services for smaller aircraft.
I urge the finance minister to carefully consider NavCan's
proposal. It is only fair to offer a revenue neutral, user pay
system to the operators of small aircraft similar to the deal
being given to major operators of commercial aircraft.
It is also solid common sense to tie fuel consumption to
financing the air navigation service. This way there is not only
no double taxation of light aircraft operators but heavy users of
light aircraft would automatically pay more than infrequent
weekend flyers. Equally important, NavCan would not have to
waste money and effort tracking down and invoicing individual
pilots.
As air transportation taxes are the sole transportation issue
deemed worthy of a mention in Bill C-36, I would like to use my
remaining time on a more general issue.
I have to admit that I am somewhat encouraged by the budget being
balanced for the first time since 1969. However, my enthusiasm
evaporates when I consider how the Liberals managed to do it. It
was not done by cutting wasteful spending. Of this I can assure
the House. The Liberals continue to spend money, coddling their
corporate darlings such as Bombardier and Power Corp, not to
mention simply squandering money on things like the free flag
program.
1335
The Liberals brought the balanced budget into being by
increasing taxes 37 times, by slashing health and education
transfers to the provinces and by hoarding big UI surpluses so
that they could disguise an ongoing deficit. It is truly the
Canadian taxpayers who dislodged the deficit as increased
revenues actually counted for 69% of deficit reduction.
Spending days are back. First there was redbook two in which
tax relief and debt reduction were given second billing to
spending. Now the budget makes it abundantly clear that the
Liberals have not learned a thing. What we are witnessing now is
a foolish rush to spend any surplus to maintain unity within the
Liberal caucus: pork, pork, pork.
Rather than basing its spending plans on contingency reserves,
the government has displayed its contempt for debt reduction by
essentially arguing that it is not necessary: don't worry, be
happy.
Rather than consolidating the budget balance so that it stays
balanced during the next economic downturn, the government could
not wait to start spending again. Thus we have more than two
dozen spending increases, totalling over $10 billion over the
next three years.
Liberals seem to feel that they have to be big spenders even
though Canadians would be happy with a responsible government
that provided stable funding for the things Canadians count on,
those things that governments do best such as health care, a
national highway system and education. The Liberals cannot
resist grand gestures like the new millennium scholarship fund.
I hate to be cynical but I am afraid this place eventually makes
all of us a bit cynical. When considering spending projects, the
government's number one concern is to get the lion's share of any
glory to be gained. I wish the government would think of how it
could best help Canadians rather than how to use taxpayers' money
to boost the its political profile. How else can the millennium
scholarship fund be explained, except as a gesture to boost the
government's profile?
First, the fund is not about post-secondary education. It will
not restore slashed education funding or provide students and
parents with tax relief so that they can better afford to save
for tuition and repay student loans. It is the same old
malarkey, the tax and spend approach. If the Liberals were so
concerned about education, why do they not just return some of
the $7 billion they took away from the provinces in transfer
payments?
If they are such defenders of post-secondary education, why did
they do away with the Mulroney scholarships program which was
really the same as the millennium scholarship fund? It was
another political ploy like the one we are getting now. I
predict that the ultimate fate of the millennium scholarship
program will be the same as it was for the Mulroney scholarships
as soon as that one time political benefit has been exhausted.
I am heartbroken. I could have gone on for another 20 minutes
on the millennium fund.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure all hon. members would like
to hear more from the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.
1340
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to participate in this debate on Bill C-36, but not to
say that I am in favour of it, because I certainly am not.
Let me give you an example of the sort of thing that happened
back home, in New Brunswick, last week. While the Liberals were
boasting “Canadians are happy and so are post-secondary
students”,
last week, universities held a rally to let the federal
government know how hard hit they have been by cuts in education.
An hon. member: Provincial cuts.
Mr. Yvon Godin: An hon. member across the way said “provincial
cuts”. If these were only provincial cuts, why did the Premier
of New Brunswick and both his finance and education ministers say
they had to be made as a result of federal cuts? And by the way,
the Liberals are still in office provincially in New Brunswick.
Perhaps not for much longer, but they are still there.
At any rate, the government is telling us there is something
good in store for post-secondary students starting in the year
2000. It is important for Canadians to know that things are not
as good as they are made out to be. At present, university
students have to spend between $25,000 and $30,000 to get the
education they need to enter the labour market. The proposed
changes to the tax credits might save them $3,000 but they still
will not have a job at the end of the day.
How are they expected to pay off their debts then?
I think what the government should have done is increase funding
for educational institutions in order to reduce the cost of a
university education.
Here is an example. This week, New Brunswick announced it would
cost 10% more to attend university. This announcement came
immediately after the federal government said it would improve
its program for education and that it would benefit post-secondary
students. It is obvious that university students are having a
hard time. They expect to see their debt level rise to as much as
$40,000 in the years to come. These young people who attend
university accumulate huge debts, which they are then unable to
repay.
Turning to the scholarships that the government plans to award,
only 7.1% of all students in Canada will benefit.
Let me give you an example. If, in the Beresford region of New
Brunswick there are 100 students who want to go to university,
only seven of them will get scholarships. It is the same across
the country, in Vancouver or anywhere else. Therefore, not many
people will benefit from these scholarships.
Moreover, these scholarships will be awarded based on merit,
that is to say, they will be given to those who have good marks.
They will definitely not be awarded to the poor, when we know
that some students have to work at McDonald's or in other
restaurants or convenience stores to earn a bit of money so they
can pay off their debts.
The government really missed the boat, unless it deliberately
chose to launch a big advertising campaign in Canada by saying it
would give money to students, without spending that much.
The numbers may seem impressive—millions of dollars for
Canadian students—but once you split the money among all the
regions, it does not amount to much. Again, only 7 students out
of 100 will benefit.
The government has a greater responsibility than this toward our
young people, because they represent the future of our country.
They are the ones who will take over from us, and getting them
into debt is not the right thing to do. As I said, the government
has a responsibility to help these young Canadians, and it is a
good investment for the future of our country.
This is why I oppose the government's budget. I oppose the way
the government tried to convince Canadians that it was supportive
of our young people. Our young people are not getting government
support. They go to school from grade one to grade twelve, and
then they have to fend for themselves.
To make things worse, the rich have a better chance to get these
scholarships than the poor or middle class people.
I met with students who came to my office. They told me they
would be penalized if they worked, because the following year the
government would deduct 80% of their earnings, thus making it
impossible for them to get a student loan or scholarship.
1345
These sorts of things have young people across Canada really
worried. I have used New Brunswick as an example because that
is where I come from and I had last week's example, when students
from the Université de Moncton marched in the streets.
University of Fredericton students did the same, to let the
government know they were being poorly treated. This is what is
really happening in this country.
An hon. member: In Quebec too.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Students in Quebec, in Manitoba, in Ontario, or
in British Columbia feel the same way.
They are not happy with the budget of the Liberal government.
I think that our Prime Minister is selective when he visits
universities, and perhaps chooses those attended by the wealthy.
He should come and visit New Brunswick and see the reception he
gets. He should come and visit an area of the country where
people are living in poverty. He should come to my region and
see what he is doing to our young people and how they are not
helped by the 1998 federal budget.
The Liberals have the nerve to travel around the country boasting
that they have done something good for Canadian students.
I say that this is misleading, as only 7% of students will
benefit.
An hon. member: It is smoke and mirrors.
Mr. Yvon Godin: The best thing to do would have been to invest in
institutions, so that everyone would have received the same
treatment and the costs would have dropped.
Once again, I am not alone in paying attention to this bill.
Young people in my region are telling me very clearly that the
federal government's budget does nothing for them and they do
not support it. The government should be aware that the young
people attending universities represent Canada's future and give
them the education they need for the future and for the economy
of the future. That is what we need.
Yesterday, I was at the community college in Bathurst. The first
question the students asked me was “Where are we going to find
jobs?
How are we going to pay our tuition fees?” They are very
concerned.
The government had a responsibility, and I come back to that
because it is its responsibility to lower costs for Canadian
students and to do the right thing once and for all. They
cannot always be thinking of themselves, their patronage
appointments and the millions they are giving to Doug Young.
They should look at what is going on with our young people. That
is much more important.
I do not support Bill C-36. I say the government should do more
important things for young people, invest where it would help
them, give them a chance to go to university, to study and to
enter the labour market free of debt and not obliged to declare
bankruptcy. What are we giving our young people? They go to
university and then they go bankrupt. What a great start to
life.
Let us hope there are some Liberals who will put a bug in the ear
of their minister on behalf of our young Canadians.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my comments today
will primarily have to do with the confidence one should have in
this government, and particularly the Minister of Finance,
regarding the measures included in Bill C-36.
Everything is a matter of confidence, because we are trying to
figure out the government's true intention in proposing these
so-called social assistance measures, particularly the millennium
scholarship fund, which has a budget of $2.5 billion.
1350
Why do I say this is a matter of confidence? Because, in my
opinion, it was more important for the government and for the
Minister of Finance to come up with some program or scheme that
would hide any budget surplus generated during the last fiscal
year.
By now, everyone knows that the government could have brought
down a budget with surpluses totalling $3 billion. However, if
the government had done that, it would have been forced to help
those taxpayers who are paying for these budget cuts and these
new programs. The government would have been forced to reduce
taxes, and possibly employment insurance contributions.
It would have been forced to take other measures that would have
cut into its own revenues, at a time when it is building
surpluses that will reach some $30 billion, or more, in the years
2000 to 2003.
I say it is a matter of confidence, because the auditor general
said that by establishing the millennium scholarship fund, the
Minister of Finance is including in this year's budget an
expenditure that he will make in the year 2000.
In his last report, the auditor general had criticized the
minister for acting like this. The issue then was the Canada
Foundation for Innovation. In that case, the government had
agreed to budget $800 million for a foundation that did not yet
exist.
That would enable the government to inflate its deficit by $800
million, which would serve its purpose since it could convince
the taxpayers that the government ought to continue to make cuts
at the expense of the unemployed, the poor and all those most in
need.
By inflating its deficit, the government claimed it was justified
in maintaining its budget restrictions. Here is what the auditor
general thought of this: The 1996-97 deficit is over-estimated by
$800 million. This is because an operation relating to the
Canadian Foundation for Innovation was recorded as a liability,
which is contrary to the accounting conventions set out by the
Government of Canada in Note No. 1 of the financial statements.
This $800 million was reported as an amount owing to a body which
did not exist as of March 31, 1997. The foundation had no legal
existence until April 1997.
What is more, the funding agreement between the Government of
Canada and the foundation was not signed until July 1997. The
government fiddled with the figures and made this expenditure
appear a year before the fact, because this served its political
ambitions.
Far from showing any remorse, the Minister of Finance had,
moreover, done the same thing with the harmonization of the GST
in the maritimes. The government had already earmarked $1
billion for this operation, although there were no agreements in
place.
After these two experiences, there is still no remorse
forthcoming from the government. After the business of the GST
and the $800 million for the Canadian Foundation for Innovation,
it is repeating the offence a third time by setting aside $2.5
billion for the millennium scholarship foundation.
It is posting them in the books now, even though the first
cheques will not be issued until the year 2000.
1355
Why? Once again to avoid showing surpluses, which would not be
in its interests because it would bring too much pressure to bear
on the government. Would the same be allowed of individuals?
Would an individual be allowed, for instance, to enter the
expenditure of funds in this year's income tax return to avoid
reporting income? Would Revenue Canada let him do this?
I challenge any Canadian to enter in 1997 expenditures which
will actually be made in 1998, as the government and the Minister
of Finance have done.
I can tell you Revenue Canada would immediately catch it and ask
him to review his financial statements.
Would a small or medium size business be allowed to do the
same? Could it enter expenditures this year to avoid showing a
profit at the end of 1997? No, this would no be allowed.
I challenge the Minister of Revenue to tell us whether he would
allow a small or medium size business to enter this year
expenditures that will not be made until next year, in order not
to show a profit and, thus, avoid paying income tax on this
amount. Yet, that is what the government is doing.
That is what it is doing with the millennium scholarships. Any
program would have done just as well for the government; what
mattered was not so much to help students as to gain visibility,
to show a zero deficit in order to keep pressure at bay. That is
what the main goal was.
Can we trust government that claims to want to help students but
does it through a process that is secretive almost to the point
of being undemocratic, a process giving people the impression it
is doing them a favour when in fact it is pursuing purely
political objectives?
This action by the government is despicable.
Helping students was not the government's intention. In fact,
even though it could now rectify the situation somewhat by giving
that money back to the provinces, which would be in a better
position to use it for educational purposes, the federal
government has so far refused to consider this possibility.
This confidence issue will remain until the government
demonstrates its willingness to be more transparent and to use
accounting practices that comply with the general rules
recognized by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants,
and until it demonstrates that its intentions with regard to
helping a particular segment of our society are not purely
political but truly meet the needs of these people.
The Speaker: It being almost 2 p.m., we will now proceed to
Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
MEMBER FOR BEAUHARNOIS—SALABERRY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
for Beauharnois—Salaberry is telling the whole world the truth
about Canada. In fact, he seems torn between promoting the
separation of Quebec and recognizing that Canada is not such a
bad country.
What he said recently to an American audience left no doubt at
all:
[English]
“Quebec wants out, not because Canada is a bad country, or
federalism as a system cannot work”.
[Translation]
Coming from a member of the Bloc, such a statement deserves to
be mentioned. He readily recognizes not only that Canada is not
such a bad country, but also that federalism as a system works.
Members of the Bloc are doing everything they can to make it go
wrong, but to no avail, because the system keeps working.
Canadian federalism must be on very firm ground, since it
ensures that Quebeckers can profit from a system which their
government adamantly rejects. Yes, we keep working for Quebec and
for Canada, despite the guided tours the hon. member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry is making throughout the world.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on Friday the Minister of National Defence announced
that Canadian forces members will receive pay adjustments as a
result of a comprehensive review. What the press release did not
announce is that once again the Liberals can give with one hand
and take away with the other.
1400
A master corporal will see an increase on April 1 of about $100
per month gross. After taxes, EI premiums and CPP deductions,
the net worth will be $53 a month.
Now we find out that national defence is increasing rents to DND
personnel. This will equal for a master corporal $30 per month.
The real net increase will be $23 per month. That is not enough
to buy a case of beer.
Why is the military increasing rents? Why is the government
treating our people in uniform in such a shabby way?
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one can say
that the meeting the Prime Minister and the Premier of Quebec had
about the millennium scholarships was successful.
After the meeting, the Prime Minister stated again that this
program that will help hundreds of students to complete their
studies will complement existing programs in Quebec. Quebeckers
will know where the money for their training comes from and the
Premier of Quebec did not object to that principle.
Let us just hope that the Premier of Quebec will keep thinking
that way throughout the negotiation process undertaken to
harmonize the federal program with Quebec's priorities, so that
this issue can be resolved successfully.
I urge the Government of Quebec to keep an open mind throughout
these talks so that Quebec can fully benefit from this
innovative project that will prepare a whole generation to meet
the challenges of the next millennium.
By the way, way to go B.C.
* * *
NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today in the House of Commons to recognize a very important
day in the history of Canada.
[English]
Today at one minute to midnight will mark the 49th anniversary
of the momentous occasion when Newfoundland and Labrador joined
Canada. I want to celebrate with the House this very special
occasion.
Our province has seen its ups and downs, but through the 49
years of being a very proud member of this country we have been a
full and equal participant in Confederation. Our day has come,
our year has come and our century has come.
Newfoundland and Labrador will be joining the rest of the
country in economic prosperity. We will be exceeding the
country. Our GDP, our standard of living, will be raised in my
opinion because of Confederation.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a new example of misinformation, courtesy of the
Reform Party. Reform's pamphlet on immigration contains many
examples of incorrect figures and facts to mislead Canadians.
The letter from the leader of the Reform Party states:
In March 1998 an advisory group appointed by the Minister of
Immigration met in Ottawa to examine the policies and legislation
governing immigration to Canada.
The minister was holding hearings in Ottawa in March, not the
advisory committee. The letter from the Reform leader further
states:
The official opposition requested an opportunity to contribute
its own recommendations, but was denied access to the advisory
group by the minister.
It was the minister who was holding hearings, not the advisory
group. The minister decided not to hear from any MPs because
they already had access to her in the House.
* * *
THE FAMILY
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Reform Party has long called for equal tax treatment for one
income families who care for their children at home. In fact
this is part of our Reform blue book and was a central part of
our 1997 election platform.
We should be offering a child care credit for all parents
regardless of the method of child care they choose. Research
from around the world shows that direct parental care for young
children is one of the best methods of fostering secure
attachment and preventing problems in adolescence and adulthood.
According to a national poll fully 94% of Canadians identified
lack of time to spend with offspring as a serious stress on
family life. In a poll conducted last year 92% of Ontarians said
it was preferable for a young child to be at home with a parent.
Yet the government implements tax policies which discourage and
in fact discriminate against such an arrangement.
The most important relationship for the long term health of the
nation is that of the parent-child bond. The family is the
building block of society.
* * *
[Translation]
REFORM PARTY
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here are
some other inconsistencies.
[English]
The Reform Party pamphlet on immigration states that the
advisory group's mandate was to provide recommendations to the
minister. Later they claim “the advisory committee has made 172
recommendations to the Standing Committee on Immigration”.
1405
[Translation]
Not only is this second statement false, but it also shows the
continuous inconsistency of the Reform Party. Reform members
also recommend that the government produce a detailed and honest
report on the immigration levels, legislation and policy and
table it in Parliament.
Reform members do not know what they are talking about. The
Immigration Act requires the minister to table in this House, in
October, a report on the levels expected for the following year
and the actual levels for the current year.
Finally, this booklet is for all Canadians, but it is available
only in English.
Does this mean that francophones across Canada are not
Canadians?
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I do not believe the Reform Party can determine fact from
fiction. I see no other purpose for Reform's immigration
pamphlet than to foster anti-immigration sentiment in the
country.
The Reform Party states that Canada now accepts more immigrants
per capita than any other country in the world. This is false. I
urge the Reform Party to look to New Zealand first. Its pie
chart shows immigration of skilled workers at only 21% when in
fact the 1997 figures show over 55% were from the economic class.
The Reform Party claims that some immigrants are sponsoring
extended families and people who are not really relatives. The
Immigration Act only allows sponsorship of immediate family,
parents and grandparents.
Reformers insist that they are committed to restoring the
confidence of Canadians in the immigration system. They should
start by speaking the truth.
The Speaker: We are getting pretty close in our
statements. We had better cut back a bit on the rhetoric.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
since 1870 Manitobans have governed themselves in areas of
provincial jurisdiction. Since Confederation, Manitobans have
elected MPs to the House of Commons. Even earlier they governed
themselves at the municipal level democratically.
Manitobans have always been saddled with senators who are party
fundraisers, leadership campaign supporters, former MPs and
political friends.
Senator Carstairs wants a triple-E Senate. Premier Filmon wants
a triple-E Senate. Premier Filmon even said that Manitobans
should have the right to elect their own senators.
The Prime Minister said he is ready and willing to make changes
to the Senate when the provinces are ready. Manitobans are ready
and waiting.
* * *
PORT MOODY—COQUITLAM
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as chair of the Liberal B.C. caucus I am delighted to announce
very good news to the House. As a result of yesterday's
byelection the Liberal caucus has a new member of Parliament for
Port Moody—Coquitlam. This is a great victory for the Liberals
in B.C.
It marks the decline of the Reform Party. It sends a clear
message that Reform's gutter politics are distasteful to
Canadians. The leader of the Reform Party has been rejected. It
also shows that the Prime Minister and the Liberal government
have the confidence and support of the people of B.C.
I say thanks to the voters of Port Moody—Coquitlam for sending
this message loud and clear.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA POST
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the people of Saint-Honoré-de-Témiscouata have
decided to hold Canada Post accountable.
Canada Post provides a largely insufficient annual amount of a
little more than $4,000 for postal outlets in municipalities
that have been deprived of their post offices under the brutal
closure policy implemented by the Conservatives.
In 1993, rural areas responded by electing members of Parliament
who supported the moratorium on the closure of rural post
offices. Unfortunately, the post offices that were closed have
not been reopened.
The people of Saint-Honoré-de-Témiscouata are
sending a clear message to the federal government.
The municipality has taken down the Canadian flag from its
municipal building. Citizens have put their houses for sale and
buy their stamps in Rivière-du-Loup, 20 kilometres away.
Today, the federal government must live up to its commitment and
force Canada Post to provide enough money to maintain postal
services for all of rural Canada.
* * *
1410
[English]
ABORIGINAL LANGUAGES DAY
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today
the Commissioner of Official Languages released his annual report
on Canada's two official languages. However Canada has many
languages, all of which are equally important to the rich fabric
of Canadian society.
Today being Aboriginal Languages Day draws our attention in
particular to the 53 aboriginal languages which exist in the
country, many of which are on the brink of extinction due to the
unfortunate historical maltreatment of aboriginal peoples and
their cultures.
However I am pleased to note that aboriginal peoples have taken
and continue to take measures to revive, preserve and promote
their languages.
Chapel Island Portlotek First Nation in Nova Scotia declared
Mi'kmaq to be the official language of its community. Eskasoni
First Nation in Nova Scotia, in partnership with government,
established a centre of excellence for Mi'kmaq language
curriculum development to support language programs in both
public and band schools.
These measures serve to ensure that the rich heritage of
aboriginal languages enhances not only the lives of aboriginals
but also the lives of all Canadians.
* * *
PORT MOODY—COQUITLAM
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
congratulations to Lou Sekora on a solid victory in yesterday's
byelection.
The voters of Port Moody—Coquitlam have put their confidence in
a Liberal member to represent their interests in the House of
Commons. We will not let them down.
The Reform Party claims that it is the only voice for British
Columbia, but yesterday the voters rejected Reform's divisive,
narrow politics.
The fact is that Liberals have increased their percentage of the
vote in this riding consistently since 1993. Clearly British
Columbians want good government and will vote for members who
represent their day to day concerns.
Finally, yesterday shows that no Reform seat is safe in western
Canada. Together with other Liberals from western Canada and
from every part of the country, we will build a strong British
Columbia and therefore a strong Canada.
* * *
GRAND FALLS CURLING CLUB
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to join with curling fans from across Canada in
celebrating the new world champion junior women's curling team
from my riding of Tobique—Mactaquac.
This year, Team Canada was the Grand Falls Curling Club of
Melissa McClure, Nancy Toner, Brigitte McClure, Bethany Toner and
Julie Webb. Years of training, dedication and sacrifice paid off
on Sunday when they beat Japan's Akiko Katoh 11 to 3.
They also have a secret weapon. Father Joseph LeBlanc and the
congregation at St. John the Evangelist Church in Johnville, New
Brunswick, held a prayer service Sunday morning to ensure their
victory.
I congratulate Melissa, Nancy, Brigitte, Bethany and Julie. They
truly are the best in the world. Way to go, Team Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
POVERTY
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the National
Council of Welfare has said that it is a national disgrace that
we should have 2.8 million people on welfare in Canada. And that
is not an overstatement.
We should not forget that over the last decade, the number of
people on welfare has gone up by 47% from 1.9 million to 2.8
million. Single mothers represent 27% of those on welfare.
The human resources development minister can heap all the praise
he wants on the employment insurance reform, the fact is this
reform is one of the main causes of increasing poverty.
Why does the Liberal government take pleasure in racking up $20
billion in surplus in the employment insurance fund, in hiding
budget surpluses, and in granting tax privileges to certain
shipping concerns when children are going hungry and their
parents are being pushed aside as active participants in society?
* * *
[English]
PORT MOODY—COQUITLAM
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure I rise today to welcome a new colleague. The
residents of Port Moody—Coquitlam have spoken loud and clear.
They have sent us a member who cares and supports the same things
they do. They have sent us Lou Sekora, the newest Liberal member
of Parliament.
Mr. Sekora and our Prime Minister should be proud of the vote of
confidence the people of British Columbia have shown in them.
The leader of the Reform stated last week:
A lot of people will be watching this riding, not just in B.C.,
but across the country, because it's the first chance for voters
to say what they think of government policy.
For once we agree. Port Moody—Coquitlam has sent a message to
the Reform. They have said no to the Reform style of politics.
They have said no to the Reform mud-slinging. They have said no
to Reform's attempt to set British Columbia against the rest of
Canada. They have said no to the arrogant, guttural behaviour of
not just the Reform Party but equally so its contemptible leader.
I say congratulations to Mr. Sekora, our newest Liberal member
of Parliament.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on February 20 of this year the Minister of Health was
asked about compassion. He was asked if he would extend a hand
to the thousands of Canadians dying from hepatitis C in their
blood. He said “This government will not walk away from its
responsibilities”. But he broke that promise. The Liberals are
now leaving thousands of Canadians to die without help.
I ask the Prime Minister, what would he tell these thousands of
abandoned victims to do, just go away and die quietly? Is that
his position?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the decision that was announced last Friday was a decision made
and shared by every government in this country. It was made in a
difficult situation with tough factors to take into account.
In listening to the hon. Leader of the Opposition one would
think that decision did not show compassion. Twenty-two thousand
people are going to be compensated as a result, everyone who was
contaminated with hepatitis C during a four year period when
governments, when the Red Cross could have and should have acted.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I directed my question to the Prime Minister for a
reason. We have heard the lawyer's answer. We have heard the
accountant's answer. We have heard the answers of people who put
limited liability ahead of human suffering.
In his report Justice Horace Krever said that Canada has a moral
obligation to compensate all these victims. A moral obligation. I
ask the Prime Minister, is he now saying that Justice Krever was
wrong and we do not have a moral obligation to compensate all
victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Mr. Justice Krever did his job as a commissioner on a royal
commission. He dealt just with the blood system. Then it was up
to governments to fulfil their responsibilities by making public
policy. We did that last Friday. As a result, governments are
spending over a billion dollars for the benefit and assistance of
over 22,000 Canadians who were harmed during a period when
something could have been done to prevent it.
Governments are taking responsibility and doing the right thing.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the health minister adds insult to injury. The health
minister went before the cabinet today to ask for $100 million to
compensate sports teams and jazz musicians for lost cigarette
ads. One hundred million dollars from the health minister for
car racing, comedy clubs, and tennis tournaments.
How can the Liberal cabinet even consider spending $100 million
on racing cars when thousands of hepatitis C victims remain
uncompensated?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the compensation was an agreement that was negotiated
between the provincial health ministers and the federal health
minister under a very severe situation. In fact the federal
government contributed $800 million and the provincial
governments are contributing $300 million. That is what has been
decided collectively by the provincial governments and the
federal government.
I am amazed today. For years these guys across the aisle have
been asking us to cut welfare, asking us to cut payments to this
person and that person. Suddenly they are on the road to
Damascus.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
guys across the aisle at least recognize a moral responsibility
when we see one.
Canadians are watching the heartless approach the health
minister is taking toward these innocent victims of the blood
scandal. The lawyer says “this is difficult”. It is
difficult, but it is also deadly.
Will the Prime Minister tell his health minister to back off and
compensate all victims of this blood tragedy today?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we made very clear the reasons why every government in this
country believes this is the right and responsible course to
take.
1420
The hon. member should remember that over 22,000 people will be
receiving assistance, all of those who were infected during the
period when the system did not work as it should have. And those
who were infected by those people, their spouses and children are
also going to be compensated.
This is the right thing to do. All governments are taking their
responsibilities in an appropriate way.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will give you an example of what is the right thing to do.
The governments of Ontario and Alberta said they were wrong and
and listened to their conscience by compensating the Dionne
quintuplets and the victims of sterilization. They were not
ashamed to stand up and say “Sorry, we made a mistake”.
When is the Prime Minister going to stop listening to this cold
lawyer in the health department and follow his heart and
compensate all victims?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a program that has been developed by the
provincial governments and the federal government according to
the obligation of all levels of government. From this side we
have contributed much more than the provinces to resolve this
problem.
There were all stripes of governments involved and they all
agreed. There was agreement from the NDP, the Conservatives, the
Liberals, even the Parti Quebecois. The obligation of the
governments was met in a very sensitive way and it is the right—
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the premier of Quebec met with the Prime Minister of
Canada concerning the millennium scholarships.
The parties agreed to mandate two negotiators to find a way to
reconcile the objectives of both governments. Let us keep in
mind that all those involved in education in Quebec support the
position of the Quebec government.
Does the Prime Minister agree that, in order to give the
negotiations a chance, he ought to suspend examination of
Bill C-36, which concerns the millennium scholarships, until the
end of the negotiations?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
money allocated for the millennium scholarships will be taken
from the budget, because it is the last day to do so. This
money will be invested in a foundation. The foundation and the
legislation are necessary.
If we want the program to be put into place in September 1999,
the bill needs to be passed as soon as possible.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, one
must conclude that the Prime Minister still intends to proceed
with the adoption of those clauses of Bill C-36 which deal with
the millennium scholarships.
In this case, can he commit to introducing an amendment to Bill
C-36 which will set out a mechanism to allow for a future
agreement with the Government of Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the bill enables the foundation to sign agreements with the
provinces. The foundation will hold discussions with each
province.
In the case of Quebec, I met with the premier yesterday and we
agreed to preliminary meetings at the departmental level. The
Deputy Minister of Human Resources Development will meet with
his Quebec counterpart to find a solution which will allow young
Quebeckers to benefit from the Canadian government's millennium
scholarship project along with other young Canadians.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the millennium
scholarship fund should only be set up in a spirit of openness
on the part of the federal government toward the education
sector, whose main representatives came here yesterday with Mr.
Bouchard and supported his position.
My question is for the Prime Minister. His first reply is of
concern to us. Does the Prime Minister know that, under the bill
currently before the House, it is impossible for the millennium
scholarship fund to delegate any responsibility to a government
with which it may sign an agreement?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think that, in its present form, the bill does not in any way
prevent the foundation from signing an agreement that is
acceptable to both sides.
The important thing is to make sure that the millennium
scholarships are accessible to all young Canadians, in every
province of the country.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to make
it clear that the bill specifically provides that the foundation
cannot delegate any of its responsibilities to a government.
It can certainly sign agreements, but it cannot delegate any of
its responsibilities. This is the issue here.
1425
Does the Prime Minister not think it would be wiser to take
another look at the bill to see if, following yesterday's
meeting, some adjustments are in order?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are satisfied that the bill gives us all the flexibility we
need to settle the issue in a reasonable manner.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the health minister. I hope today the back doors are
locked.
Can the minister tell this House, without blaming the provinces
and without hiding behind the lawyers, does he think the
hepatitis C victims infected before 1986 have been treated justly
and fairly?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
sometimes governments are called upon to make tough decisions as
a matter of public policy. When we look back on the tragedy of
the tainted blood, it is plain that the period 1986 to 1990
stands out. It stands out because it is a period during which
those responsible could have and should have acted. Had they
acted, many of those infections would have been prevented.
Every government in the country thinks it is good public policy
to provide assistance to people who were infected in that period.
That is the reason we put aside more than $1 billion to assist
the more than 22,000 people who were infected.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today's
cabinet tobacco go around is just a smokescreen to hide the many
things the minister does not want to talk about. No new money
for health transfers. Inadequate compensation for hepatitis C
victims. Continuing chaos in the health protection branch. More
cave-ins to the multinational drug companies.
How can the Minister of Health pretend to be in charge? How can
he do his job when every major health decision is being made by
the Minister of Finance?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I can understand how the view of things would be distorted from
that perspective. Let me fill the hon. leader of the third or
fourth party in on some of the facts of the matter.
The facts are that this minister and this government have
identified the important priorities in the health care system.
Home and community care; strengthening the system of health care
throughout the country; enforcing the principles of the Canada
Health Act; working toward pharmacare to make pharmaceutical
products available. Those are the priorities for the health care
system and those are the priorities of this government.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister left the House yesterday without speaking to the
hepatitis group which is the sickest and has the highest
mortality rate. He did not speak with them. He did not meet
with them.
Does that close the door forever on his talks with these people?
Is he simply going to keep it slammed? We are talking about
unilateral action on behalf of the government to compensate the
sickest group of the hepatitis C victims.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the hon. member shamelessly exploited victims for his
own reason. I think he should be ashamed of himself.
The record shows that I have met more than once with the very
people who were in our company yesterday. In fact, last Thursday
I spoke by telephone with Mr. McCarty to tell him personally
about the decision that was coming Friday. It was not because I
thought he would like it. I knew he would not, but I wanted him
to hear it from me.
This is a minister who accepts his responsibility, who has met
with victims.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Charlotte.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): That is right, Mr.
Speaker. He spoke long distance. This is the minister of remote
control. Why does he not meet with them eyeball to eyeball. He
can explain to them what he has explained to this House and they
can determine whether or not he is sincere in what he is talking
about.
We have talked about this issue for weeks and weeks and he has
successfully dodged the bullet. The fact remains that there are
40,000 uncompensated innocent victims. Will the minister act and
show true leadership on this issue?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what the hon. member obviously does not know is that I have met
with those victims. I have met with several of the people he has
referred to. I have met with them on more than one occasion.
Last week, as I said, I spoke to them directly to tell them what
the decision of the governments was.
1430
Last week every government in this country agreed on the
appropriate approach in public policy to compensate those who
were infected during the period when governments could have acted
and did not. That is an appropriate and responsible approach.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, some tens of
thousands of Canadians have been infected by hepatitis C,
infected by the very same virus, and they got it the very same
way, from tainted blood. They only ask to be treated fairly.
They only ask to be treated equally.
My question is to the Prime Minister. We can tell a lot about
leadership when an individual has made an error. I ask the Prime
Minister today to right the error of hepatitis C compensation to
those innocent victims.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what the hon. member sees here is a decision, a responsible
decision, taken by every government in the country. We looked at
the record and saw that during the period in question something
could have been done, but it was not done.
As a physician I know the hon. member is well aware that every
medical procedure involves risk as well as benefit. As a matter
of public policy one cannot go back and erase the risk of the
past, but we can deal with the period during which those
responsible should have acted and did not, and that is what we
have done. Those are the people who will be assisted by
governments throughout this country.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on the very
day we get that kind of an answer we have the health minister
fighting vigorously in his cabinet for tobacco cash—$100 million
for tobacco cash.
Here is what the hepatitis C victims say: “Why would that
money go to tobacco instead of going to us?” That is my
question to the health minister: Why would that money not go to
the victims of hepatitis C? They do not want two tiers of
victims.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member would do well to be careful what he believes
about what he reads in the newspapers.
Let me come to the point of his question because I think the
hon. member misses the rationale.
The governments of Canada, all of them, have agreed that the
appropriate rationale in terms of assisting those who were
infected with hepatitis C is to look to that period when
something could have been done to prevent it. That is the reason
we will be providing, by way of an offer to settle the
outstanding claims, over $1 billion for the benefit of over
22,000 Canadians who might have been kept healthy.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
There are 2.8 million people on welfare in Canada in 1998. La
Presse, in reporting the remarks of the chair of the National
Council of Welfare, rightly called this a “national disgrace”.
Will the minister admit that, by denying hundreds of thousands
of workers access to employment insurance benefits, his reforms
contribute significantly to this national disgrace?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the
National Council of Welfare for the excellent work it has done.
It has been a great advisor to the Canadian government and we
appreciate its contribution.
Its report will be an invaluable tool in ensuring that our
government continues to serve Canadians well, as we plan to.
I am pleased to see that the number of welfare recipients has
been decreasing steadily since 1995. Things are certainly looking
up.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the minister say he is pleased with
having 2.8 million welfare recipients?
Is it not a national disgrace as well to have a minister sitting
on a EI fund surplus that will reach $20 billion in 1998, when
thousands of unemployed workers who no longer qualify for
employment insurance end up on welfare?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we care about children who are
living in poverty in this country.
Earlier, we heard members of the Bloc Quebecois mention that
many welfare recipients are in fact single mothers. It is
precisely to help these families that we set up the national
child benefit, to which we will allocate $850 million this year
and another $850 million thereafter, for a total of $1.7 billion.
* * *
1435
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
simply want to know why this Prime Minister thinks some victims'
lives are worth more than others. I want to know why he is
helping some of the dying but ignoring the rest.
Tens of thousands of people who contracted hepatitis C from the
blood system are now being abandoned, but every single Canadian
who contracted AIDS from a blood transfusion is being fully
compensated, as they should be.
Both of these groups are suffering and dying because of their
blood. Why do all AIDS victims get compensation but not all
hepatitis C victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the chronology of the tragic events which led to the hepatitis C
infections through contaminated blood is now very clear. It is a
sad history.
One feature of that history which I have been stressing, which
was very influential on governments, was that during the
four-year period from 1986 to 1990 many of those infections could
have been prevented had those responsible for the system acted as
they should have.
The federal government is contributing $800 million and the
provinces are contributing $300 million to a fund totalling over
a billion dollars to assist and to aid those who were infected in
that period.
We believe this is good public policy. We believe it is the
responsible way—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government did not use those kinds of excuses when the AIDS
victims were asking for compensation.
People who contracted AIDS from blood transfusions are being
paid, even if they contracted AIDS before the AIDS test was
implemented in 1985. The government did not use legal
technicalities then.
Innocent Canadians are dying because of the government's blood
system. It is a tragedy and we need to help them.
I have a very simple question. Why is this government setting
up two tiers of victims in this country?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if the hon. member would look at the history of the matter he
would see that the facts themselves speak clearly for
distinguishing the period 1986 to 1990.
I might add for the hon. member's benefit that we are offering
compensation not only to those who were contaminated with
hepatitis C during that period, but also to those who may have
contracted HIV, either through a spouse or a parent, as a result
of contamination through the blood system.
All governments in this country believe this is the right and
responsible way to act.
* * *
[Translation]
COPYRIGHT BOARD
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
The latest decision of the Copyright Board threatens the
livelihood of creators, according to the headline on the SOCAN
magazine. This is the first time since the establishment of
this board that a majority decision by it has cut into the gains
made by artist management collectives.
Will the minister acknowledge that creators are today paying the
price for his appointing to the board people who knew nothing
about copyright?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
is a quasi judicial independent board, which has a very good
record in copyright matters. We have faith in it.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it did
have a good record until the arrival of the two new
commissioners.
Under the Copyright Act, the minister must appoint a judge to
chair the board. The position has been vacant since October 4,
1994.
Why is the minister not complying with the act and filling the
vacant position?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, up
to now it was not necessary. It is true that with the passage of
the Copyright Act there are new responsibilities and we will
consider appointing a judge to chair the board.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when the
minister of Indian affairs is asked about the tragic shooting of
Connie and Ty Jacobs on the Tsuu T'ina reserve she personally
attacks whoever asks the question.
I want to assure the minister that I spoke with Connie's sister
and brother yesterday and they are adamant. They want a full,
independent, public inquiry into all of the conditions on the
Tsuu T'ina reserve. They do not want the Assembly of First
Nations, the band or the chief to hijack this investigation.
Will the minister listen to Connie's family and grant their
request so they can have peace of mind?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think it would be beneficial to this process if the
members of the Reform Party placed the interests of the truth
ahead of their own political agenda.
1440
We have an inquiry in Alberta. We are engaged with the AFN in
this exercise on a daily basis. We are making some progress in
the interest of calm and in the interest of the truth and good
relations between all parties affected.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, talk about
ducking responsibility. The minister listens more to her
political friends than to grassroots aboriginals.
This is a wealthy reserve. It spends more than $20 million a
year for 1,000 people. But they still do not have money for the
basics. Basic housing is substandard and the social conditions
are heartbreaking. Only an independent inquiry can tell us
whether or not the money on this reserve is being spent wisely.
That is why Connie's family wants a truly independent inquiry
and not a cover-up.
Is the minister going to accede to the family's wishes and grant
that independent inquiry?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think it is obvious now what the Reform's agenda is.
It is to confuse the issue.
We have an investigation into a tragic shooting which we all
feel badly about. It is very important that we not confuse that
with other issues the Reform would like to put in play to confuse
the issue, which is not in the interest of all the parties
affected.
* * *
[Translation]
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
In his last report, the commissioner of official languages once
again used bilingualism as an excuse to gloss over the growing
erosion of French speaking communities outside Quebec.
How does the government square such a report from the
commissioner of official languages with the strong criticism of
a number of well known individuals, including the editorial
writer of Le Droit, who reminds readers that the assimilation of
francophones is continuing everywhere outside Quebec and that, in
the meantime, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is doing nothing
but promoting bilingualism?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has a selective
memory and is not doing a very good job of quoting the report.
I too would like to quote from the report. The commissioner
tells us the following “There were nevertheless some major
milestones for the communities in 1997, especially developments
in school governance, the opening of school and community centres
in nearly all provinces and the development of community radio
stations”.
* * *
TRAINING FOR YOUNG PEOPLE
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
In last September's throne speech, the government promised to
develop a plan to match the training given young Canadians to
the training required in the future by high-growth industries.
Will the minister tell the House about the progress made in this
regard?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has taken action
to prepare young Canadians for the jobs of the knowledge-based
economy towards which we are headed.
[English]
In the budget we launched the Canadian opportunities strategy
precisely to expand access for Canadians to the skills and
knowledge which they will need to succeed in the future. For
example, we will offer the Canada millennium scholarships. We
have increased assistance for advanced research. We are helping
post-secondary graduates to manage their student debt loads.
My department is working with Industry Canada and the software
industry to increase the number of students who will get the
information they need to succeed.
* * *
BANKING
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Ontario minister of finance has approved tough new
regulations banning tied selling in the mutual fund industry in
that province, overriding the lobby of the Canadian Bankers
Association.
Mike Harris is not exactly a raving lefty who reads copies of
Karl Marx every night before he goes to bed. I ask the Minister
of Finance, why does he not at least be as progressive as Mike
Harris and show some real leadership in this country by bringing
in legislation to enforce a ban on tied selling in the banking
industry?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would suggest to the hon. member that he might want to
lend him his copy.
The issue of tied selling, as the hon. member knows, has been
referred to the House of Commons finance committee. It held
hearings yesterday and it is holding hearings today. We look
forward to its report.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
a question of leadership, which is something this minister thinks
about an awful lot.
1445
For example, we have a banking ombudsman who is selected,
directed and paid by the big banks in this country. It is like
putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.
I want to know if the minister can show some real leadership and
bring in legislation for a truly independent banking ombudsman so
people who have grievances about banks in this country have an
independent body to go to.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I simply point out that there were no ombudsmen in
individual banks until this government took office. There was no
national ombudsman until this government took office. The
industry committee which has been very active in monitoring
bank activities did not play that role until this government took
office. We do not have to take a back seat to anybody in terms
of our control of what the banks are doing.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
according to Elections Canada the Tsuu T'ina reserve donated more
than $19,000 to the Liberal Party over the past four years. That
is money that should have gone to housing or health care or to
fight illiteracy. Instead it went to the Liberal Party
fundraisers.
While people live in poverty on this reserve, does the minister
think that is the best way to spend $19,000?
The Speaker: The way the question is phrased I find it
difficult to find it tied to the administrative responsibility of
the government. However, I saw a minister rising. If he wants to
answer the question he may.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a very serious and tragic situation. I do not
think it does getting to the truth any good by trying to wrap it
in other issues, as is attempted by the hon. member.
The fact is we are working with AFN on other justice issues. We
will continue to do that. It should not be confused with the
issues the member is putting forward.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
Elections Canada that is telling us about the money. I think
it is part of us.
The Indian affairs minister looked the other way when Bruce
Starlight rang the alarm bell. She is now looking the other way
while the Jacobs family is crying out for help. Things are
desperately wrong on the reserve and giving $19,000 to Liberals
instead of fixing the real problems of poverty is just plain
wrong.
Will the minister launch an investigation now on the conditions
of the reserve?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, an investigation has been commenced in the province of
Alberta. We are dealing with the AFN to deal with the broader
issues.
I implore the hon. member to be an agent for the positive
in this, not an agent for the negative in the interests of
reconciling our communities as the minister has led since the
RCAP response.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
medical community recognizes that those affected with hepatitis C
are the sickest of the sick. These individuals will suffer
greatly along with their families. The reality is they will die
through no fault of their own.
Knowing this, why would the Minister of Health use such a small
timeframe for compensation when he knows full well the problems
started years earlier than 1986?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the question in this difficult case is in which period should
government step in and take the extraordinary step of
compensating those harmed through the operation of the system.
The answer to that question is in that period during which this
was not simply an unforeseen risk but during which something
could have been done and was not done, that is the period for
which compensation should be offered and that is the position of
the governments of this country.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the West
Germans have been aware of a process to secure blood safety prior
to 1986, and it has been brought to our attention. In the
meantime Canada was purchasing contaminated blood products for
our people from the U.S. prison system.
1450
Justice Krever stated in his report: “Compensating some needy
sufferers and not others cannot, in my opinion, be justified”. I
do not think there is anyone in this House who could justify what
this government is doing. It cannot be justified.
With this in mind, why is the minister refusing to—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I believe we have explained the rationale and the approach that
governments have taken and it is clear from the record.
Medical procedures and forms of treatment bear with them an
inherent risk. When people go into the hospital for an operation
sometimes things go wrong and they are harmed.
What differentiates the period for which we are offering
assistance is that something could have been done at that time
and was not. That is the difference between the years 1986-90.
* * *
CANADA FOUNDATION FOR INNOVATION
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
A number constituents, researchers and professors have contacted
me regarding research in Canada. The Canada Foundation for
Innovation was announced as a huge boost to research in Canada.
We have heard little since that announcement.
Can the minister tell this House the status of that foundation
and this government's support for research in Canada?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to say that not only is the foundation
established and functioning but it is receiving applications for
the first competitive set of grants. We expect the first
announcements to be made by early summer.
This will be a major incentive to universities and teaching and
research hospitals across Canada to not only take advantage of
the foundation for innovation and its assistance in upgrading and
building research infrastructure but also to make use of the $400
million that has been made available to the university research
granting councils to further support the performance of
international quality research in this country.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for that paid
political announcement.
The Indian affairs minister always digs in her heels when we
bring problems to her attention. For example, when Bruce
Starlight's letter about the Tsuu T'ina reserve was leaked by her
department she delayed for weeks and weeks before finally calling
in an investigator and paying Starlight's legal fees. The same
thing is happening here again. The minister is ducking her
responsibility while the solicitor general talks about being
engaged to the AFN.
The Jacobs family very clearly does not want the AFN involved in
this.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about
the issues of welfare reform, about providing infrastructure,
housing, sewer and water, about providing access to education and
access to economic development to first nations communities, we
are talking about the work of the royal commission. We are
talking about gathering strength.
This government's response is to that grassroots report that is so
very important which I would suggest the member read.
When talking about the tragedies that occurred on the Tsuu T'ina
reserve, the death of Connie Jacobs and her son and the
investigation that is essential to be undertaken to satisfy the
questions the family has—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm.
* * *
[Translation]
JUSTICE
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
thanks to the leniency of the Minister of Justice, Joseph
Lagana, Jean Lamarche, René Rodrigue, Domenico Tozzi and Raymond
Boulanger now belong to the quick release club.
These gentlemen are all important drug dealers and money
launderers who have been released after serving only one-sixth of
their sentence.
What is the minister waiting for to propose passage of a money
laundering bill, as the Bloc Quebecois has constantly been
demanding, one goal being to prohibit any release of these major
criminals until they have served their full sentence?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I bring to the member's attention not only that we are
committed to bringing forward legislation with regard to money
laundering but also that during the course of the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act review, which is forthcoming, we will
have an opportunity to discuss accelerated review as well.
* * *
1455
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, if this government has learned anything from the blood
tragedy surely it is to prevent history from repeating itself.
Yet it seems to be business as usual in the Department of Health.
We have more evidence of drug safety being compromised,
scientists pressured by the pharmaceutical industry and now
serious allegations of wrongdoing in the health protection
branch.
Why is the Minister of Health presiding over a department which
is an accident waiting to happen and what steps is he taking to
address these very serious concerns?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is difficult to respond to such undifferentiated generalities,
but I hope the member will know, among other things, that a
science advisory board chaired by Dr. Roberta Bondar, a
distinguished Canadian scientist, working with 15 or 20 other
scientists at the top of their fields is now looking at the
scientific capacity in Health Canada, including in the health
protection branch.
We are committed to the safety of the public. We shall do what
is required to ensure we have the scientific expertise to ensure
that the highest standards of quality permeate every aspect of
health care.
* * *
LIGHT STATIONS
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
safety and lives in Newfoundland and Labrador are as important as
safety and lives in British Columbia.
Tourism, historic sites, culture and heritage are as important
to Newfoundland and Labrador as they are to British Columbia.
I would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the
minister responsible for the coast guard, if he will apply the
same decision to the 24 light stations in Newfoundland and
Labrador as he recently applied to the 27 in B.C. Will he
announce that light keepers at the 24 stations in Newfoundland
will remain in place? The minister cannot blame this one on
the Conservatives being in power. He made the announcement.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question because certainly
the issue of saving life at sea is an extremely important one and
I know the member speaks with conviction. I would remind him,
however, the program did begin when a certain senator from
British Columbia was responsible for it at that time.
I will apply exactly the same criteria with respect to the
Newfoundland and Labrador light stations with respect to staffing
as I did on the west coast. I point out that there has been a
long trend with respect to this. Two hundred and twelve of the
two hundred and sixty-four light stations we had twenty-five
years ago have currently been destaffed—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Bramalea—Gore—Malton.
* * *
INTERNSHIPS
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, 12 Canadian organizations will place some 85 young
Canadians in international internships in Europe.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International
Trade outline what international issues these projects will deal
with and explain how these internships will benefit both the
participants and Canada?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague is
referring to that part of the national youth employment strategy
which was referred to by the hon. Minister of Human Resources
Development a few minutes ago.
There are 12 projects that are international in scope and they
are necessary to give practical skills to young people to compete
in an international market. We are currently conducting an
evaluation of that program which is one year old. We find that
60% to 70% of the interns—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Northeast.
* * *
COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
what a canned performance, a softball question from a Liberal
backbencher and a corked answer from a parliamentary secretary.
Give us a break.
The Communications Security Establishment intercepts and
monitors communications between drug dealers, gang members and
other dangerous criminals. It has a direct impact on the
security of Canada.
Why does the defence minister refuse to allow me and the Reform
Party a briefing on the Communications Security Establishment?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly what information the
hon. member is looking for. There is information that has been
filed. Obviously the kind of business that the Communications
Security Establishment is in puts some limitations on it. But I
would certainly be happy to talk further with the hon. member to
find out what he is looking for.
1500
The Speaker: Colleagues, we are now going to proceed to
tributes for one of our former members of parliament who died
just a short while ago, Mr. Alkenbrack. I will call on the hon.
member for Markham to begin.
* * *
THE LATE DOUGLAS ALKENBRACK
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour
to pay tribute to Mr. Alkenbrack.
Douglas Alkenbrack came to the House of Commons to represent the
riding of Lennox—Prince Edward in 1962 after many years of
public service in municipal government. His parliamentary career
was spent in the pursuit of fair play and justice. His
constituents returned him to the House in every election until
his retirement in 1979. This fact attests to the worth of his
work on their behalf.
He once said “Each of us is an ombudsman for the people he
represents”. The records of the House bear witness to his
vigour in his quest for fair treatment for his constituents.
1505
A true blue Tory, Mr. Alkenbrack also loved his country
passionately. He gave a message to all of us in 1970 that still
holds true today: “Every Canadian, as had the Fathers of
Confederation, has great spiritual resources available to him.
Our patriotism emanates from and has its source not only in
ourselves and in our relationships with our fellow citizens, but
also in the majesty of nature and the physical grandeur and
beauty of our great dominion from the misty Grand Banks of
Newfoundland to the Rocky Mountains, Vancouver and Queen
Charlotte Islands”.
To Mrs. Alkenbrack, their children, grandchildren and
great-grandchildren, I extend the sympathy of the members of the
Progressive Conservative caucus.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to
pay tribute to Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack, a former member of
Parliament who represented many of the people in the riding of
Prince Edward—Lennox and later on Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington who are now my constituents.
Douglas served this House and the people of Canada from 1962 to
1979. His brother, Wesley Alkenbrack, attributed Doug's
remarkable success in the political arena to the fact that he was
a people's man. A devout member of the Conservative Party, Doug
never lost the sense that he was the people's representative for
his riding, whether those people were Liberal or NDP, black or
white, rich or poor.
Before becoming involved in the all-consuming world of politics,
Doug was a lumberman, co-founder and partner in the R.W. Kimmerly
Lumber Company in Napanee from 1937 to 1962. His job took him
through all parts of Lennox and Addington and Frontenac county
where as a businessman he would gain the reputation as a straight
shooter and a hard worker. It was no doubt this reputation
gained as a businessman was part of the secret of his success as
a politician.
Before and after I was elected in 1993, Doug was always generous
in sharing his opinions with me. As a rookie MP, the House of
Commons can appear intimidating at first glance. Doug was always
just a phone call or a visit away. He wanted to make sure I was
representing the people of Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington in the best possible way because, as he would say, they
deserve no less.
In 1995 Doug Alkenbrack in co-operation with the Lennox and
Addington Historical Society published a book of his poetry
entitled Rhymes of a Back-Bencher.
On behalf of my constituents and indeed the people of Canada, I
wish to extend our heartfelt sympathies to Doug's wife Nan, his
daughter Eleanor Grennell, his son Dr. Douglas Alkenbrack, and
also his brother Wesley Alkenbrack of Napanee.
Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack was not only a colleague but a dear
friend. May he rest in peace.
I would like to take this opportunity to read from one or two of
Mr. Alkenbrack's poems. This one says a lot about the riding and
is entitled “Homeward”. There is a preamble:
My duties and work in Ottawa over a span of almost eighteen
years kept me busy but I was always glad to get home to Napanee
usually each weekend. In November 1968 I was glad enough to
write this, entitled “Homeward'.
It's great to go down to the Capitol
Where there's plenty to hear and see
Of our country's might, as they talk all night
Of a free democracy.
And they say it is good to be understood
In committee or caucus hall
Or in strong entreat from a Commons seat
Where governments rule or fall.
But there's one thing better that I prefer
And the best that can happen to me
Is to homeward wend, on the glad week-end
And return to Napanee.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the official opposition to pay
tribute to the late Douglas Alkenbrack, former Progressive
Conservative MP for the Lennox—Prince Edward riding, the
people's man in Napanee and the north area.
Doug was elected in 1962 for Lennox—Prince Edward and served
this House and his party with distinction until 1979. As a
former counsellor and later the mayor of Napanee, Doug brought a
sensitivity to riding issues and was known as a congenial and
respectable gentleman by his peers on the Hill.
Doug was, as his brother Wesley characterized him, a people's
man who devoted his life to his parliamentary and riding duties.
Doug was an unpartisan individual who was receptive to ideas and
input from those who claimed they did not support his party's
views. He saw the good in people and the work of the individual
and respected their right to offer another alternative.
1510
Doug Alkenbrack was more than a politician. He was a student of
politics, history and a published poet as we just heard. He
embraced this aspect of his life with the same vigour and
enthusiasm as he did for politics.
After Doug's retirement from politics in 1979, he remained a
popular member of the Napanee community and area. Certainly this
is testimony to the respect and high regard his community had for
this gentleman and for the work he did on their behalf over his
career.
I sat in this House with Doug Alkenbrack. I can say that Doug
was a fine gentleman, a tireless worker on behalf of his
constituents and a man who held this institution in very high
regard.
On behalf of the official opposition, I wish to extend to his
wife Nan, his daughter Eleanor and his son Douglas, our deepest
and sincere condolences on his passing.
He will be sadly missed by those who knew and loved him and by
all the members of this House.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to pay tribute to Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack, a former
member of this House, who died recently at the age of 86.
Mr. Alkenbrack first distinguished himself in the lumber industry
between 1937 and 1962 at the R.W. Kimmerly Lumber Company
Limited, a company that still exists today.
His political career began in 1952, when he became a Napanee
municipal councillor. He went on to serve as mayor from 1957 to
1958.
In 1963 he was first elected to the House of Commons, as a
Progressive Conservative, representing the riding of
Frontenac—Lennox. He was re-elected in every election until he
retired from politics in 1979.
On behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to
offer condolences to his family and friends.
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I knew
Doug Alkenbrack fairly well when he was a member of Parliament. I
remember that in 1979 he sat roughly where the Conservative
member for Ontario is sitting now, in the second row to your
left, Mr. Speaker.
He was known around the House as someone who was a real
gentleman as has already been said, as someone who was a very
practical person, as someone who was not overly partisan in terms
of being a member of Parliament.
Before he came to this House, he was involved in municipal
politics. He was involved in his community. He was involved in
the lumber business in his home community in northern Ontario.
I remember one of the last days he was in the House. As a
matter of fact, we expected the government to fall. It was
before the election of 1979. As it happened, I was to have the
floor after question period. Doug came to see me during question
period to see whether or not he could have the floor instead of
me so that he could have a chance to give his farewell speech in
the House. Of course I ceded my place to him.
On behalf of our party, I want to extend to his wife, his son,
his daughter and his grandchildren, his family, our very sincere
condolences on the loss of a great parliamentarian and a real
gentleman who was well liked by people in all four corners of
this House.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, an
act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
Parliament on February 24, 1998, be read the second time and
referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill, the Budget
Implementation Act, 1998.
One very important thing in this bill is that it would establish
the Canada millennium scholarship foundation.
This project has been rejected by the whole education community
in Quebec.
We saw it yesterday. Representatives at the elementary,
secondary, college and university levels, administrators, unions,
all Quebeckers clearly expressed their opposition to Bill C-36.
They accompanied Mr. Bouchard, who came to Ottawa yesterday to
give Mr. Chrétien a proposed amendment that would satisfy
Quebec's education coalition.
The amendment reads as follows:
Withdrawal with compensation
46.1. When a province has established and administers a financial
assistance program for students to ensure equal opportunities
regarding post-secondary education, the ministers
shall, at the province's request, conduct negotiations with this
province to come to an agreement with respect to the fair
compensation it should be paid in lieu of the foundation's
activities in the province.
1515
This amendment is not just the position of the Government of
Quebec, it is also the position of the entire coalition, which
represents all those involved in education in Quebec.
There is recognition that the federal government might be
entitled to a certain degree of visibility. It wishes to ensure
that the people who receive money from this program know where
it came from. I believe that desire may be legitimate.
This ought not, however, to be done at the expense of
efficiency. The bill contains some things that are completely
unacceptable. The way the foundation is set up and the
administrators appointed, and the means they are equipped with,
is duplication, in my vocabulary.
It is creating, alongside the structure that exists in Quebec to
provide financial assistance to students, another structure
which will not only compete with the entire system in place in
Quebec, but will also disturb it. It is important for those in
the rest of Canada to understand this.
In Quebec, there is already a system of loans and scholarships in
place. As a result, the average student debt load in Quebec is in
the vicinity of $11,000 on graduation, as opposed to $25,000 in
the rest of Canada. The explanation for the difference is that,
since 1964, Quebec has exercised its right to opt out in
accordance with an agreement reached between Prime Minister
Pearson and Premier Lesage. Quebec has developed an incredible
expertise in this area. I believe it to be a model that is the
envy of all of Canada.
Today, when they want to put the millennium scholarships in
place, the reason the Quebec coalition is opposed to the federal
position is not because it will make more money available to
students, but because it is necessary to ensure that this money
will fit properly within the jurisdictional framework set out in
the Constitution.
In Canada, education is a provincial jurisdiction. When I hear a
phrase like the one used recently by a Liberal MP that “we are
not interfering in education, we are going to give money to
students”, this is evidence of gross ignorance of Canada's
history, and of the fact that, for Quebec, jurisdiction over
education is something sacred. It is one of the cornerstones of
the Confederation pact of 1867. It is therefore important, and
it is necessary that a solution be found.
The Quebec government took a reasonable attitude and made a
proposal. Both parties agreed to appoint negotiators: on the one
side, the deputy minister of human resources development and, on
the other side, the Quebec deputy minister of intergovernmental
affairs, assisted by officials from the ministry of education, to
try and find a mutually satisfactory solution.
The Bloc Quebecois will be monitoring developments very
closely, and I was very surprised by the Prime minister's answer
today, during question period. He said these negotiations could
take place and Bill C-36 did not have to be amended, it could be
passed as is. That is absolutely impossible, since paragraphs
29(1) and 25(2) provide that the foundation may not enter into an
agreement with the provinces to delegate the management of the
millennium scholarships.
Therefore, if the federal government wants to show good faith
following yesterday's decision to have negotiations, if these
negotiations are not simply a way to buy time, the federal
government should make a move. It could for instance set aside
Bill C-36, at least as regards the millennium scholarships, or
include a provision to the effect that, if an agreement is
entered into by Quebec and Ottawa respecting the management of
the scholarships, this agreement shall become part of the act
following the negotiations.
It is important that it be made very clear that Quebec has
control over the development of its education system. Yesterday,
the coalition's spokesperson, Mr. Shapiro, who is the dean of
McGill University, came here to speak on behalf of all
stakeholders there.
1520
We cannot call Mr. Shapiro a separatist. McGill University is no
hotbed for separatists. I think there are people there of all
political stripes, including federalists.
However, Mr. Shapiro and stakeholders in education have one
concern. They say that instruction is an integral tool in the
development of the individual. Certain things are learned at
the primary, secondary, college and university levels, and
equality of opportunity will not be assured by awarding
university scholarships at the end of a program of studies on a
merit basis. There has to be enough money available at all
levels of education, especially at the post-secondary level. I
think it is important for us to reach an acceptable outcome.
Could the federal government achieve its visibility objectives
while the Government of Quebec and education stakeholders
achieve their objective of efficiency? I think, in order to
reach an agreement, that a way must be found to achieve both
objectives—that is federal visibility, a condition the Prime
Minister himself put on the table, and provincial efficiency,
which holds together the coalition of education stakeholders in
Quebec. So we have before us the opportunity to come up with a
solution to a problem that could last several years.
There was the manpower issue, you will remember. It took a
strong consensus in Quebec lasting a number of years and
repeated questioning here by the Bloc for the dam to finally give
way and agreements to be reached ensuring Quebec control over an
important aspect of manpower and training.
There will be similar cases in the future, including the whole
matter of the youth strategy. How can Quebec be given
responsibility for manpower training with the federal government
retaining control over the youth strategy? This is an example
of work yet to be done, and the whole matter of the Canada
Millennium Scholarship Foundation is another one.
Yesterday, all the vital forces in Quebec education were
represented in Ottawa.
These people came to tell the Prime Minister of Canada “We want
a solution that will allow the money to be used efficiently in
Quebec. We want to make sure it will not be sprinkled here and
there for reasons of visibility, which would lead to unacceptable
results. We cannot afford to waste money in the education
sector”.
From 1994 to 1998, the cuts to federal transfer payments
accounted for 75 cents out of every dollar the Quebec government
was forced to cut from the budgets for health and education. The
situation is urgent. The federal government must negotiate in
good faith. These negotiations must be conducted properly, which
means that, as regards the millennium scholarship fund provided
for in Bill C-36, the government must not act as suggested by the
Prime Minister today.
This bill must not be rammed through the House by the federal
government.
Rather, we must put things on hold and give time to the
negotiators to find a solution in line with the amendment
proposed by the Premier of Quebec. The purpose of this amendment
is to allow a province that administers a financial assistance
program designed to ensure equal opportunities, to reach an
agreement with the federal government for fair financial
compensation in lieu of the foundation's activities in that
province.
This is the request made by the Quebec government, but it is
also the request made by all stakeholders in Quebec's education
sector. I hope the federal government will give favourable
consideration to this request from all Quebeckers.
[English]
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to speak to this budget on behalf of the
constituents of Dauphin—Swan River. After surveying the
constituency, I can report that their priorities differ from the
priorities of the government.
More than 66% of my constituents said they wanted the reduction
of the $583 billion debt to be the priority of any surplus. Over
56% said that their second priority was the reduction of the GST
and income taxes. Another 9% made tax relief their first
priority. Ten per cent wanted increased spending after the debt
was paid down. Only 3.2% of my constituents agreed with what the
government is doing by increasing spending before paying down the
debt.
One of the best things about being an MP with the Reform Party
is that we are not only free to vote, we are expected to
represent the views of our constituents, especially when our
constituents' views conflict with party policy.
1525
I have not lost my role as deputy critic for national unity, nor
have I lost my standing committee memberships.
We all know what the Prime Minister did to the independent
member for York South—Weston and Warren Allmand when they would
not go along with the orders that came down from the top. Warren
Allmand was kicked out of the chair of the justice committee and
the member for York South—Weston was first kicked out of the
Liberal caucus and then the Liberal Party of Canada by the Prime
Minister.
Section 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the BNA Act, assigns
the House of Commons the responsibility for authorizing all new
or increased spending in taxes. Under section 54 the crown and
cabinet can only recommend new spending and taxes. They cannot
authorize, at least in theory. Let us not forget that.
Through their member of the House of Commons the people are to
be free to express whether or not they think increased spending
or taxes is what they want. That is how it is spelled out in the
Constitution. That is the theory.
The trouble is that theory is often fiction and the truth is
very strange. Instead of MPs who are here to serve and express
the will of the people on spending and taxes, the government
seems to think MPs are here to serve and express the will of the
government.
Last week we celebrated 150 years of responsible government,
beginning with Baldwin and Lafontaine. In fact, Joseph Howe
established responsible government sometime earlier in Nova
Scotia.
What is responsible government? It means that the crown and the
cabinet are to be held responsible to the elected House, the
House of the people, the House of Commons. The House of Commons
is not responsible to the cabinet. Somewhere along the line we
got it backwards and now backbenchers are expected to fall in
line with whatever the Prime Minister and the cabinet send down
from on high. Responsible government is not working the way
Joseph Howe, Baldwin and Lafontaine and so many others thought it
should.
I think it is time to try some new ways of making sure that
spending and taxes theoretically authorized by this House are
supported by the people, the voters, the taxpayers.
What is the answer? How about the grassroots solution?
Tax and expenditure legislation in my home province of Manitoba
requires that tax increases be authorized by the voters through a
referendum. Tax and expenditure legislation also holds the
premier and the cabinet of Manitoba personally and financially
responsible for any budget deficit.
Someone once said that hanging concentrates the mind
wonderfully. Tax and expenditure legislation concentrates it
wonderfully on the priorities of government and on careful
management of the public's money. After all, it is not the
crown's money and it is not the Prime Minister's money. It is
not the cabinet's money. It is not even the MPs' money. It is
the public's money held in trust to be spent only as necessary in
a responsible manner.
Someone might say “We cannot do that. We have never done it
before”. My first response to that is to list the seven last
words of any dying institution or organization. The seven last
words of a dying institution are, “We've never done it that way
before”.
I have already pointed out Manitoba's pioneering use of tax and
expenditure legislation. Alberta has also enacted tax and
expenditure legislation.
Even this House passed a very weak version of tax and
expenditure legislation, the Spending Control Act, in the 34th
Parliament. The Spending Control Act was brought to this House
by Don Mazankowski in 1992. Most of us say it was too little,
too late.
Under the Spending Control Act the finance minister was required
to aim for statutory targets on program spending and to justify
any deficits. The statutory targets were in effect up to March
31, 1996.
If the current finance minister really wants to make his mark on
Canada and federal government spending policy, if he is really
serious when he says that the mistakes of the past finance
ministers to run deficits for more than 25 years will never be
repeated, then he should bring in tax and expenditure legislation
as soon as possible.
By the way, one of those past finance ministers who spent us
into a $583 billion debt, excluding liabilities, was the finance
minister who delivered the budget speech of 1978, the current
Prime Minister.
1530
We are glad the Prime Minister stayed in parliament long enough
to be here to take advice from the Reform Party on how to begin
cleaning up the mess he helped create in the 1970s. However,
there is still a $583 billion debt plus at least as much in CPP
liabilities that need to be cleaned up. If we go at the rate the
Prime Minister and Minister of Finance propose it will take well
over 200 years to clean up the mess.
The finance minister likes to compare Canada to the standards
for European Community membership: budget deficits at no more
than 3% of GDP and public debts at no more than 60% of GDP. What
the Minister of Finance and Prime Minister forget is that those
standards apply to the total deficits and debts of all levels of
government: federal, provincial and municipal. Maybe it is just
selective memory.
Even if we deal only with federal debt, we are at between 70%
and 75% of GDP. If we add the current CPP liability we are at
something like 140% and 150% of GDP. If we add health care
liabilities for the next 20 years, even I do not want to think
about that.
What did the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance do in
the last parliament? They cut $4 billion in funding for health
care and offloaded even more of the liability on to the
provinces. If that is Liberal social conscience, I would like to
know where is the conscience.
If the Prime Minister really wants to do something in the new
millennium for Canada's youth then he should take steps to make
sure that Canada's youth are not saddled with a huge public debt
and high taxes for the next millennium.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance should bring in
tax expenditure legislation that does the following. First, I
suggest they should require the public accounts to be balanced
over the life of a parliament. Second, they should require
public approval for any new or increased taxes. Third, they
should require any budget surplus to be applied to lowering the
debt and taxes.
In closing, members of the House should never forget that they
have a constitutional responsibility to authorize only the
spending and taxes people want. Tax and expenditure legislation
would go far in sending a clear message to Canadians that we
understand it is their money and that we take our responsibility
to them seriously.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak to the debate at second
reading of the budget implementation act. I will take a little
different tact from what my peers have done. They addressed a
number of aspects of the budget and I concur with their comments.
However, I want to take a little different direction.
Let me first point out that I believe this has to be a good
process. Surely this is where the parliamentary process should be
at its best. There can be a tendency, though, so I am told, due
to the pressures and demands on our time, to lose sight of the
fact that the decisions made here affect everyday people.
Incrementally the lives of every Canadian are affected by every
decision made in the House. This is particularly true of budget
decisions, something of which many Canadians have become
painfully aware.
Therefore, I think it is useful to remind ourselves of whom it
is we are here to serve. It is the people of Canada and their
positions on the issues of the day. Are we reflecting their
position? How will individuals in our ridings be affected by the
decisions we make?
Let us always be primarily mindful of the impacts on everyday
Canadians and their families, not the partisan lobby groups that
promise to re-elect us, not the self-proclaimed cultural elite
that feel compelled to decide for us what Canadians need, and not
the political favours being traded. Let us decide on the basis of
how it will affect the lives of members of our constituencies who
put us here. Let us reflect their concerns and make common sense
decisions consistent with their desires and best interests.
It is within this context that I wish to make my comments on
behalf of the families I represent. In Canada we pride ourselves
on being fair and non-prejudicial.
Yet for years we have tolerated an injustice perpetrated on the
families of Canada.
1535
The tax policies of this “liberal” government send a signal to
parents who wish to be the primary caregivers of their children
and raise them at home. That message is that this choice has no
value. However, if they pay someone else to care for their
children it does have value and is recognized in the tax
treatment. The government is telling us, through its tax
treatment, that parenting has no value or at least far less value
than institutionalized care.
The government's message is negatively prejudicial against
parents who wish to be the primary caregivers of their children.
Over and above that, studies indicate that institutionalized
child care is generally speaking—not always; there are always
some exceptions—not in the best interest of children.
Under current tax laws in Canada, parents who choose to pay
someone else to care for their children can claim the expense.
Those who can or choose to forgo other activities and invest the
majority of their time into the care and training of their
children are told by our tax department that their efforts have
no value. Therefore no tax considerations are given. This is a
bad message. It is unfair and detrimental to the stability of
our nation, and many families are calling out for changes.
The government has its priorities wrong by stating that
parenting has less value than non-parental care, as implied by
the tax treatment, and Canadians know this. We clearly recognize
that not every one is able, due to circumstances or other
personal reasons, to provide full time care for their children;
but that is not a reason to treat unfairly those who choose to
commit full time effort to caring and training of future
generations.
It is for this reason the Reform Party has been calling for
unfair prejudicial treatment to end by working to see implemented
a child care deduction to all parents, including those who care
for their children at home: $5,000 for every child under seven
and $3,000 for every child seven to twelve years of age. Parents
who can and want to should be encouraged, not discouraged, to
provide as much direct parental care as possible.
Why do we take this position? It is what many families are
calling for. It is well backed up by sound research that
increased parental care is in the interest of the children. So
it follows that it would be in the long term best interest of our
country. They are our future citizens, our future leaders.
Allow me to refer to some thorough and respected research done
on this very topic. The research I have today is from a well
known research firm, the National Foundation for Research and
Education on the Family. I will quote from a study it did for
the Ontario government.
It found by more than a 10 to 1 margin that Ontarians felt it
preferable for a young child to be at home with a parent than to
be in institutionalized day care. It also found 77% of parents
who had their children in non-parental care would have preferred
to have provided parental care in retrospect. In addition,
parents prefer family to day care. Given the choice between day
care and a relative, 73% said that a relative would be preferable
to institutionalized day care.
I could go on. I have a number of studies, but for the sake of
time I quote from a cross-Canada study done in 1991. The
question was: “If you had the choice, would you stay at home to
raise your children or would you work outside your home and use
day care?” Of course 70% said “Certainly I would prefer to
stay home”. It was by far the majority, yet we have tax
policies and tax treatment today which say this has no value but
institutionalized day care does.
For this reason I brought this matter forward today. For some
time now the Reform Party, as part of its policies, called for
change in this area and for fair treatment of families.
We argue that parents should have access to at least equal tax
treatment which is not dependent on how they choose to care for
their children. It is a reasonable position. Reform cares about
families.
1540
Let me quote from our policy book one of our key principles that
has been foundational to the Reform Party and the reason I raise
this issue today. Our seventh principle says that the Reform
Party recognizes the importance of strengthening and protecting
the family unit as essential to the well-being of individuals and
society.
We also recognize in our policy book that it is the duty of
parents to raise children according to their own conscience and
beliefs. We further affirm that no person or government or
agency has the right to interfere with the exercise of that duty
as long as the actions of parents do not constitute abuse or
neglect.
The Reform Party recognizes the important work that parents do.
We want to give them every opportunity and encouragement to
invest in the lives of future generations. Why? Because it is
in the long term best interest of a strong and healthy society in
the years to come. Unfortunately the Liberal budget like many
before it does not respect this principle or the work that
parents do.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): For the benefit of
the visitors in the gallery, later today the House will be going
to the Senate to receive royal assent to certain bills. We are
setting the stage for that now and in about three-quarters of an
hour we will be going to the Senate.
* * *
[Translation]
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have the honour to
inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate
informing this House that the Senate has passed certain bills,
without amendment.
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have the
honour to inform the House that a communication has been received
as follows:
Government House
Ottawa
March 31, 1998
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable J. E. Michel
Bastarache, Puisine Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada in his
capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate
chamber today, the 31st day of March, 1998 at 4.30 p.m., for the
purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony B. Smythe
Deputy Secretary Policy Program and Protocol
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, an
act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
Parliament on February 24, 1998, be read the second time and
referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened to
the members who spoke before me and raised specific issues
relating to the budget measures. I want to present a more global
view of the measures proposed in the 1998-99 budget.
1545
My comments will be based on the fact that last year, as members
will recall, the Bloc Quebecois said that the budget for the
year now ending underestimated certain revenues, and that by the
end of the fiscal year the Minister of Finance would end up, as
is the case today, with sizable surpluses.
At the time, as members will certainly recall, the Minister of
Finance said the Bloc Quebecois had not done its homework, that
its predictions would not come true, and that there would be a
deficit of some magnitude.
Surprise, surprise, the Bloc Quebecois was right. The Minister
of Finance managed to get more revenues than anticipated, with
the result that the deficit became that much smaller. However,
taxpayers also saw their income get smaller, because the
additional money was taken from their pockets by the government.
This year, it feels like we are watching the same scenario
again. It is like the sequel to last year's scenario. Once again,
the Minister of Finance will not divulge the true revenues that
can be anticipated in the new fiscal year that begins tomorrow.
This brings me to some important considerations if the government
is to treat Canadian taxpayers with respect. After all, they are
the ones who provide the government's revenues.
The problem is that if the government collects more money than
it needs, then it is overtaxing Canadians.
This is the sort of situation we are currently in. It was not
the case last year. Revenues were higher than expected, but
expenses were greater than the expected, or even actual,
revenues.
According to the budget measures proposed, next year's deficit is
supposed to be zero, which means that any excess revenue will
amount to a surplus. If only a few dollars are involved, for
heaven's sake, we are hardly going to claim taxpayers have been
overtaxed. But we are not talking about a few dollars here, we
are talking about billions.
If we look at a 24-month period, we are talking in the order of
between $20 and $30 billion. A huge sum. Especially since the
Minister of Finance is not declaring it.
As a member in this House I am concerned, because the budget
measures have to be approved by this House. We are debating the
fiscal year before us in order to reach a conclusion through a
vote.
But if what we are debating is incomplete, when will we debate
the use of these potential surpluses we expect will materialize?
Our expectation is all the stronger because the same situation
occurred last year, and we were right.
What we are debating now and will vote on is not the whole of the
budget, which will be managed next year. I fear, and I do not
think I am alone, that revenues in the order of several billion
dollars, indeed tens of billions of dollars, will be beyond the
reach of the democratic control exercised by the members of this
House.
The government is making arrangements to use the money as it
pleases. Will it pay off the debt with it? I wish it would, but I
do not think that is what will happen.
1550
The Minister of Finance was quite clear in his budget
announcements. He will apply to paying down the debt at most $3
billion, an amount he has set aside in a contingency fund. If
there are contingencies, then this amount will not be available
and the debt will not be paid down, while billions in extra
revenues accumulate.
If any money is applied to the debt, at the rate of $3 billion a
year, I can tell you that it is going to take 200 years to pay
it off. It seems somewhat ridiculous to me.
But I want to get back to what I wanted to say. What will the
Minister of Finance do with extra revenues during the fiscal
year starting tomorrow morning? There is nothing in the bill
about that. In fact, the Minister of Finance, who is a Liberal,
has been very conservative; he has taken a liberal approach to
spending and a conservative approach to revenues. Well, we are
used to seeing people change colours overnight. It seems to be a
real fad lately.
Here we have the finance minister, who is conservative with
revenues, telling us that revenues will match expenditures
exactly. But in fact, we know—we can tell and foresee—that he
will have perhaps $10 billion, between $8 billion and $12
billion, at the end of fiscal year 1998-99. Where will this money
go? Who will be responsible for deciding what it should be
allocated to? The members of this House perhaps? Certainly not.
There is nothing about that in these budget provisions.
It will most likely be covered in an addendum to operating
expenditures, indicating that the amounts were used for this or
that purpose, or else a fund will be established to carry forward
the amount for God knows what new project.
My point is that, with this budget, with the measures we are
debating here, the Minister of Finance is hiding several billion
dollars, the use of which cannot be debated democratically. And
democracy is something we care very much about.
I will conclude by saying that the Minister of Finance lacks
transparency here and is failing his duty.
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to speak against Bill C-36, the budget implementation
act. I would like to start by giving the House a few reasons for
my rejection and my constituents' rejection of the budget
implementation act.
The first thing of course is that budgets are more than just
numbers. A federal budget is about people and it is an
opportunity for the government to express the hopes, dreams and
aspirations of the people of Canada through an annual budget.
The budget this year has some hopes, dreams and aspirations in
it. Unfortunately it covers only those dreams and hopes of two
people, the finance minister who has dreams, hopes and
aspirations of being the prime Minister one day, and the Prime
Minister who is developing this millennium scholarship fund so
that he will never be forgotten in Canadian history.
We can say with certainty that this Prime Minister and this
government will never be forgotten by this Canadian public ever
for what they have done to the Canadian people when it comes to
the dreams, the hopes and the aspirations of those Canadians.
There are several problems and many things wrong with this
budget. One problem that was identified by the Reform Party and
also by Canadians overwhelmingly is that there is no plan to pay
the debt down.
This is a huge problem for Canadians and for any federal
government because it takes a huge portion of the federal budget
to service that debt.
1555
That is why that is such a problem. That money for servicing
the debt could be put into transfers to the provinces for health
care, education and programs that really make a difference to
Canadians. This government has failed Canadians in that regard.
I conducted a survey in my riding. Ninety-four per cent of
those in my riding responded in favour of debt reduction. They
said that 20% to 50% of any budget surpluses should be directed
in this area. This budget fails to address that issue.
The second point is there is no net tax relief measures in the
budget. The Liberals will boast that Canadians will be better
off after the budget. That is like jumping from the frying pan
into the fire. I have heard it said that to cook a frog put the
frog in the pot, put it on the stove and slowly turn up the heat.
Before you know it the frog will not jump out of the water. He
will just sit there and get cooked. That is what this
government is doing with this budget. It is cooking Canadians to
the point where we cannot stand the amount of taxes in this
country. I will get into that a little later in my remarks
today.
The constituents of Okanagan—Coquihalla value some of the
programs they get from government. They want a strong health
care system. They want a system that will ensure that they can
get a decent education. They want a government that will provide
vital services like national defence, foreign affairs and a
criminal justice system that actually works for law abiding
citizens. These are the types of programs for which Canadians
are proud to say they pay taxes, for those programs that mean so
much to all of us.
What the hardworking people in my riding do not want to see is
their tax dollars being wasted on programs that are not
essential. The best example of this is the interest we have to
pay on the debt as a result of Liberal and Conservative
governments time after time living far too high on the hog.
Taxpayers are paying about $45 billion a year just to pay the
interest on our national debt. The average taxpayer pays over
$21,000 in federal taxes. Roughly one-third of that goes to
paying the interest on the debt.
The people of British Columbia in particular are feeling more
than a little abused as a result of the taxes they pay. B.C.
today has the highest taxes in all of North America. The average
family income in British Columbia is approximately $58,000 a
year. The average tax bill for those families is approximately
$29,000 a year. That is an overwhelming amount of tax for one
family to have to pay. While all Canadians need tax relief, it
is needed nowhere more than in my province of British Columbia.
The hardworking people in my riding are tired of seeing their
tax dollars flow to Ottawa and never return. This government
continues to take but puts little back into the province of B.C.
Last year transfers from the federal government accounted for
only 7.9% of the provincial revenues. That is the lowest in the
country.
Other provinces receive much higher amounts from the federal
government. For example, 43% of Newfoundland's provincial budget
comes from the federal government. For New Brunswick that figure
is 45.5%. For Quebec 17.6% comes from federal coffers. The
Canadian average is 16.9%. For British Columbians it is at 9.7%.
Once again the rest of the country gets the gold and we know
xactly what B.C. gets.
This government continues to take from B.C. and does not give
back. I will give members an example. Fruit growers in my
riding have experienced this firsthand. In 1997 orchardists in
the Okanagan and Similkameen valleys were devastated by the worst
hail storm in 100 years and other severe weather related
disasters. Fruit growers sought immediate assistance under the
Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, to no avail.
1600
The minister of agriculture blamed the banks when in fact the
orchardists and the people of British Columbia knew it was not a
problem with the banks, it was a problem with the federal Liberal
government.
In contrast, it took less than one month for the maple syrup
producers affected by the ice storm to begin receiving
compensation. In fact, a new program called the ice storm
recovery program was designed to provide an additional $50
million for part time farmers, specifically meeting the
conditions of these producers.
B.C. fruit growers, on the other hand, waited almost a year and
are still waiting while the producers in central Canada wait less
than a month. Where is the fairness? Where is the equality in a
system like that?
Another problem in my riding and in British Columbia is in the
softwood lumber industry. The industry is in serious difficulty
because of the federal Liberal government's mishandling of the
export quota system. In 1995 the Liberals struck a softwood
lumber deal with the Americans. They say they made the deal to
ensure fair treatment of our lumber products being exported to
the U.S.
What the Liberals actually did was put themselves of telling
every Canadian lumber firm, no matter how big or how small, how
much lumber they can export to the U.S. As a result of this
bureaucratic nightmare it has cost my province and my riding jobs
in that softwood lumber industry. That is not good enough from
this government and we want to change that.
I see my time is running out. There are so many things that are
wrong with the government's handling of the budget but I will not
have time to address them all. However, I would like to close
with the millennium scholarship fund.
The focus of the budget should have been debt reduction and on
tax relief. The constituents of my riding said so and Canadians
from coast to coast said so. Instead, the focus has been on new
spending in a sphere of provincial jurisdiction, the $2.5 billion
scholarship fund.
Perhaps the biggest flaw in the new millennium scholarship fund
is its abuse of the Constitution. The government continues to
abuse its constitutional spending power by spending without
consultation and without co-operation in the provincial areas of
jurisdiction.
I started off this afternoon saying that budgets are about
people and should be about people, about dreams, about hopes and
about aspirations. They should be about a government that has a
vision that is going to carry us into a new era in the year 2000.
However, this budget fails to do that. This budget should have
been about young people who are looking for their first job,
about young people and young families who want to buy their first
homes, about single mothers who are trying to make end meets and
for the future of Canada.
I would argue that the government has let those people down.
That is why I am proud to stand opposed to the budget
implementation act, Bill C-36.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, Firearms; the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, Bill C-68; the hon. member for
Winnipeg Centre, Labour sponsored investment funds; the hon.
member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Research and development; the
hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
Employment insurance.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with considerable interest that I take part this afternoon in the
debate on Bill C-36, the Budget Implementation Act, 1998,
introduced by the Minister of Finance.
As the member for Frontenac—Mégantic, I cannot go along with this
bill. The budget that was tabled contains many inequities, one of
which is the millennium scholarship foundation.
1605
These scholarships are an obsession that is making our Prime
Minister sick. They are raising a ruckus, not just with Quebec
but with all the provinces, because he is going to show the
scholarships, which are worth $2.5 billion, in the spending for
1997-98, when the bill has not yet been passed and when this
amount will not be spent until the third millennium, over two
years from now.
We are looking at a disgraceful duplication of public funds.
Once again, I am reminded of the duplication we have in the
Department of Agriculture with a Holstein cow. When her
production is used for commercial milk, she comes under the
jurisdiction of Quebec's agriculture minister.
When her production is used for industrial milk, she comes under
the jurisdiction of the federal agriculture minister. One cow
and two agriculture ministers to look after her.
Now it will be the same for a student. The Government of Quebec
has been giving scholarships and loans since 1960. Now, the good
Prime Minister of Canada, out of generosity, and a wish to see
the maple leaf on the cheques, is again going to duplicate
structures and this is going to cost hundreds of millions of
dollars.
Just as we had one Holstein cow and two agriculture ministers, we
will have one student and two levels of government offering
scholarships. In reality, this will not mean one cent more for
the student. That is the sad and unfortunate fact of the matter.
Quebec Premier Lucien Bouchard, accompanied by most of the
university presidents, came to Ottawa yesterday to meet with the
Prime Minister of Canada, and to try to bring him back on track.
Since the Prime Minister does not wish to lose face, the task
has been entrusted for the next two months to two deputy
ministers—who have already succeeded in breaking certain
impasses—to keep the PM from losing face while allowing Quebec to
opt out of these famous millennium scholarships.
I would remind the House that clauses 29(1) and 25(2) do not, in
fact, allow Quebec or other provinces to opt out.
It will not be the milk cow that will be penalized in this case,
but the students. When they mess with our future, when they mess
with our children, that is really tragic. I trust that the
government will get back down to earth within the next few
months.
Another point that prevents us from accepting the Minister of
Finance's bill is the fate he has in mind for the hundreds of
thousands of housewives. I have had the pleasure of speaking to
dozens of women in my riding who belong to the AFEAS. I have,
for instance, met Mrs. Yvonne Provençal and Mrs. Marie-Paule
Giroux of the Disraeli region. In Lac-Mégantic I have had the
pleasure of meeting with AFEAS members from Piopolis, Woburn and
Lac-Mégantic, and they too have shared their concerns with me.
They are totally justified in being concerned, for the Minister
of Finance plans to consider total family income when determining
the amount of old age pension they will receive.
This is true for most women who stay at home or on the farm to
raise children.
1610
Mr. Speaker, your mother, who played the role of nurse,
educator, seamstress and cook and who comforted you when you were
young, was not on any company's payroll. To determine the amount
of the cheque she will receive when she reaches 65, the
government will take her spouse's revenue, A plus B divided by
two, to obtain an average.
In the great majority of cases, homemakers will again be the
first ones to be penalized, which is very sad.
I hope my Liberal colleagues opposite will stand up to make the
finance minister, a millionaire who has completely lost touch
with Canada's and Quebec's reality, come to his senses.
Another thing that convinces me to vote against Bill C-36 is the
two year EI premium holiday that will be given to employers
only. My colleague from the New Democratic Party, who defeated
the former Minister of Human Resources Development in the last
elections, was telling us this week, and rightly so, that we are
opening a door that will allow employers not to contribute to the
employment insurance fund. That is dangerous for workers, who pay
ever increasing EI premiums without being fully entitled to
benefits. That explains why it is estimated that the employment
insurance fund will have a $19 billion surplus next year.
Let us turn now to another issue that prompts me to vote against
Bill C-36. Two weeks ago, here in Ottawa, during the recent
biennial convention of the Liberal Party of Canada, Dr. Wagner, a
distinguished resident of Saint-Hyacinthe, put the following
question to the Prime Minister of Canada: “Mr. Prime Minister,
are you going to put money into hospital care?”
Dr. Wagner knew full well that, during the last four years, the
Liberal government has cut nothing less than $42 billion in
transfers to the provinces. Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta,
Ontario and all the other provinces had to cut in health care and
seniors' homes.
I want to point out again that the government has no idea of
what is going on in the countryside, in our villages and in our
towns. The finance minister is no model for the government.
Instead of doing the right thing and paying his taxes here in
Canada, he has registered his fleet of ships in some tax havens.
It is a crying shame to have this guy managing the $160 billion
we put in his hands, year in and year out. If he were to do the
right thing and to pay his taxes here in Canada, he might have
more money to manage, we might have less money to pay and he
might do his work a little more conscientiously.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to speak on Bill C-36, the budget implementation act. The
reason I will be very resoundingly voting against the bill is
that contained within the bill is the fact that the government is
not adhering to standard accounting practices.
The words of the auditor general are: “I believe the change
will open the door for governments to influence reported results
by simply announcing intentions in their budgets and then
deciding what to include in the deficit or surplus after the end
of the year once preliminary numbers are known”.
1615
This is not an unqualified person. This is the Auditor General
of Canada who is expressing severe concern about the way in which
this Liberal government is currently administering the finances
of Canada.
I stand on behalf of a number of people when I come here in my
role as the member of Parliament for Kootenay—Columbia. I would
like to refer to an e-mail that I received from one of my
constituents on March 2, 1998.
The constituent writes that her husband is employed at a planer
mill. His income is over $60,000, which sounds like a lot of
money, but she said I should keep reading. She said they have
just sent in last year's income tax and, if it is correct, they
will have paid $21,552.91 in income tax, Canada pension plan and
unemployment insurance premiums.
This works out to almost 31% of the couple's income. If sales
taxes, hidden taxes, municipal taxes and the others are added, it
means that almost 50% of their income goes to taxes.
The woman goes on to say that there are four of them living on
her husband's wages. She worked at B.C. Gas until January 1994.
She quit because in 1993 her husband and she paid more in income
tax, Canada pension plan and UI premiums than the amount of her
take-home pay and she was earning almost $20 an hour.
The couple has a daughter living at home who works part time and
a son who is presently attending college. She said that their
budget is very tight, to say the least. They are at the point
where they pay the bills, buy some groceries and put gas in their
vehicle.
The couple has not taken a holiday since 1993. Since the woman
quit work, they have had to replace their furnace, hot water
tank, washing machine, dishwasher and the fence around their
yard.
During the winter of 1996-97 the couple's roof leaked.
Therefore, last summer they sold their car so they could afford
to replace the roof. They are now driving a 1984 Jimmy that they
repaired with the balance of the money they got for their car.
They have just one vehicle.
The woman concludes that it is no wonder local businesses are
having hard times. She and her husband cannot afford to buy
anything that they really do not need and she suspects that many
others are in the same boat. Unless they get a break on taxes
they will not be spending any more than they have to.
How can this constituent have any confidence in the investment
that she, her husband and her family have made in this government
when they, one way or the other, turn over 50% of their income to
this and other levels of government and when this government is
not even adhering to the watchdog, the Auditor General of Canada,
who says that the way the government is doing its books is
effectively cooking the books?
The letter I referred to is not the only one I have received
from constituents who have expressed concern about the way this
government so cavalierly mismanages the finances of this country.
During the election I had a rather interesting experience. The
Liberal candidate accused me of going into a senior's home in
Revelstoke and taking in a bogus financial adviser to tell them
what was going on with Liberal government policy. I was told
that I had scared those seniors so much the Liberal candidate
could not even get the ear of the seniors in this home.
It was rather laughable because, as I pointed out to him in
debate during the campaign, the adviser who I had taken in with
me was a civil servant in the employ of the government, in the
human resources department, who had gone to advise the seniors on
the policies of the government. These are the policies that are
going to rip off 75% of their income over $24,000. The only
thing that Canadians got from the speech of the finance minister
was that the government was going to look into it.
That is not adequate. That is not even remotely adequate
because Canadians want to be able to look after themselves.
Canadians want to know what the rules are going to be. In this
piece of legislation the government is walking away from the
recommendation of the auditor general who says that the
government is doing it wrong, that it is breaking the rules with
respect to the $2.5 billion millennium fund, that it cannot do it
that way. What did this government do? It said that it will
invent new ways.
1620
As a matter of fact, the finance minister said on March 18 in
this House “Let us understand that the world evolves, things
change and governments must adapt”. What cannot be adapted at a
whim by this finance minister, this Prime Minister or this
Liberal government are accounting rules. Accounting rules are in
place so that the seniors in my constituency, so that this woman
in my constituency who has written this heartfelt letter, can
have a feeling of confidence that this government is being
straight up and straightforward and is putting all of the numbers
on the table. It is not doing that according to the auditor
general.
This is not anything that was fabricated by the Reform Party.
This came from the Auditor General of Canada.
What were my constituents to think when the finance minister
stood to say that he was going to remove the 3% surtax, which was
imposed by the Tories when they were in power, for 85% of the
population? He said this as though he should be getting some
great credit. In fact, what he failed to tell us, which we all
knew anyway, was that it was a deficit elimination surtax.
What has this government boasted of? This government has
boasted that it has eliminated the deficit. So what right does
this finance minister have to keep even 15% of Canadians paying
the deficit elimination surtax?
It is called honesty in government. It is called full
disclosure. This government is not into full disclosure because
it knows if it was the people of Canada would take the time to
listen and realize that they are being sold a bill of goods.
The government will be successful in passing this budget
implementation bill because of its majority. By virtue of its
majority it has shut off debate in the House of Commons and we
will be voting on it tonight. The government has brought in time
allocation to force this thing through. This bill will do
nothing more than change the rules in the face of the auditor
general who is saying, “No, that is wrong. You can't do it”.
I really do not know what goes through the mind of Canada's
naturally governing party. That is the way it visualizes itself.
It is here forever. It will assume the centre of the road. It
will say anything and do anything to assume the position of being
Canada's naturally governing party.
Canadians have to wake up. We have to call on these people to
be accountable. If enough of us stand up, if enough of us speak
up, sooner or later the government jig will be up.
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this debate is about the provisions in the recent
budget, a budget that was made possible because the Government of
Canada carried out the wishes of Canadians. Their message was
loud and clear: eliminate the deficit and get our fiscal house
in order.
We have accomplished that. Now Canadians will be the
beneficiaries of the sacrifices they have made.
This budget commits 80% of new spending to two of Canadians'
highest priorities: health care and more opportunities to
improve our knowledge and skills in competitive workplaces.
I can think of no better way to direct our resources than to
help young Canadians prepare for the 21st century. They are the
leaders of tomorrow and we must do what we can to ensure they are
able to meet the challenges of the knowledge based economy.
Last year we introduced our youth employment strategy which
helps young Canadians make the often difficult transition between
school and work. Through programs such as Youth Service Canada,
Youth Internship Canada and Summer Career Placements we are
helping our young men and young women to gain valuable work
experience which will help equip them with the skills necessary
for today's labour market.
1625
We will build on these foundations with new measures that
encourage youth employment and, equally important, we will ensure
that all our youth are given the opportunity to fulfill their
education potential.
As the Governor General said in last September's Speech from the
Throne, there is no better way to mark the millennium than to
invest in Canadian youth. That is why we announced the Canada
millennium scholarship fund. Hon. members know that over 10
years the fund will award scholarships to more than 100,000 full
and part time students and it will do so annually. It will begin
with an initial endowment from the federal government of $2.5
billion.
I have heard concerns expressed that the millennium scholarships
will infringe upon provincial jurisdiction and will duplicate
provincial programs. I want to ensure hon. colleagues that this
will not be the case. The Government of Canada fully recognizes
that education falls under provincial jurisdiction, but our
history shows that both the federal and provincial governments
have worked together to assist Canadians who face financial
barriers to learning.
The federal role goes back to the post World War II years when
we first provided assistance to veterans who wished to complete
their post-secondary education.
There is no need for apprehension regarding infringement. The
millennium scholarships will be administered by a millennium
scholarship foundation, an independent body which will be at
arm's length from the federal government. Part of the
foundation's mandate will be to consult with provincial
authorities and the post-secondary education community to build
upon existing programs.
Since 1964 the Canada student loans program has helped make
post-secondary education more accessible by providing students
with loans. This government has continued that tradition and in
the 1997 budget we extended interest relief from 18 to 30 months
for borrowers having difficulty repaying their loans.
Now we are expanding assistance even more. All borrowers will
receive tax relief for interest on federal and provincial student
loans and we will provide a 17% tax credit for the interest
portion of what they repay each year.
Since Quebec does not participate in the Canada student loans
program, the province is entitled to compensation if its program
has substantially the same effect as the CSLP. With respect to
reduction of student debt, the Government of Canada will review
provincial measures with Quebec to see if they have a similar
effect.
We are also addressing the challenge of helping families finance
their children's post-secondary education long before they reach
the post-secondary level. The new Canada education savings grant
will benefit all families, but especially low and middle income
families. The secret is to start early and to make regular
contributions. The government will encourage this through the
savings grant.
For example, if a family contributed $25 to a registered
education plan every two weeks for 15 years, their child would
have $4,700 available for each of the four years of higher
education.
The previous two budgets included measures to make RESPs more
attractive by raising the annual and lifetime contribution
limits. The new Canada education savings grant will pay 20% on
the first $2,000 in annual contributions for children up to age
18. The maximum annual grant will be $400 per child.
Saving for your child's education through RESPs means you will
benefit from the savings grant and the tax-free growth of
investment income. The savings grant will make RESPs among the
most attractive savings vehicles available for a child's
education. RESPs will definitely be one of the best things
parents and other relatives can do for their children, for nieces
or nephews.
Speaking of children, hon. members will recall that in the 1997
budget we enriched the Canada child tax benefit by $850 million
effective this July. We promised further enrichment and we are
delivering on that promise in this budget. We are committing an
additional $850 million, spread over two years, beginning in July
1999 and again in July 2000.
1630
As well, the budget proposes to increase the dollar limits for
the child care expense deduction by $2,000 for children under 7
and by $1,000 for older children. This measure will provide tax
relief of about $45 million for some 65,000 Canadian families.
As honourable members have pointed out on more than one
occasion, we must continue to address the unacceptably high youth
unemployment rate. The youth employment strategy is tackling that
problem as will provisions under the new Canadian opportunities
strategy. But we are also addressing youth unemployment quite
specifically by challenging the private sector to hire more
Canadian young men and women.
Employers who hire youth between the ages of 18 and 24 in 1999
and 2000 will pay no employment insurance premiums for those new
workers. All companies will be eligible, not just small
companies as was the case in the new hires program which ends
this year.
It is estimated that this new measure will reduce payroll costs
for employers by $100 million annually in both 1999 and 2000.
The budget clarified the Government of Canada's intention to
make effective changes in the guaranteed income supplement, GIS,
and the spouses allowance program, the SPA.
We will move the beginning of the GIS/SPA payment year from
April to July. This will give needy seniors an additional three
months to submit their income statements. This will ensure that
the income tested payments of these individuals will not be cut
off and the definition of income used to calculate payments will
be more in keeping with those used for income tax purposes.
I began this debate by saying the budget is the result of
sacrifices made by Canadians to eliminate the deficit and ensure
fiscal responsibility. I congratulate Canadians for their
determination to stay the course.
All hon. members can help us move in that direction by
supporting Bill C-36.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, contrary to the last speaker I certainly do not intend
to be supporting the budget implementation act. The problems
with it are quite massive. However, we cannot deal with
everything at one time in one speech; 10 minutes is just too
little.
There are good things in the budget but there are a lot of
things that could have been done differently, that could have
been done properly, that could have been done in keeping with
what the provincial governments around Canada would like to have
seen.
The duplication and the wasted money were just dripping from the
last member's speech. I could see it and feel it. I believe
that had this budget been properly prepared we would see a lot of
benefits going to Canadians in actual dollars that are now going
to be wasted.
I would like to deal with education for a minute since that was
a topic recently brought up. We have in Canada two essential
elements to our society that are really the basis for everything
else. Those two elements are health and education. Without a
good solid health program properly financed, people are not
capable of working, and without education they will not know how
to do the job in the new economy that has developed after the
industrial revolution.
The federal government has great taxing powers and is able to
use those tax powers to take a lot of money from all of us. That
is not a bad thing in itself because some provinces certainly
need a bit more help than others. However, when the federal
government takes money away from taxpayers and from provinces, as
it flows through Ottawa a certain amount is going to stay in
administrative fees, in commissions, regulations and all kinds of
things.
In this balanced budget the funding for education was to go
through the hands of the federal government.
1635
I have made a point of speaking in Manitoba with students,
provincial politicians, municipal politicians, teachers and
average citizens. There is absolutely no doubt that to benefit
all students in this country the money for education should not
have gone into this millennium fund, this $2 billion, $3 billion,
I cannot remember the exact figure now that we start talking
billions of dollars.
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[English]
A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as
follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General
desires the immediate attendance of his honourable House in the
chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate
chamber.
1650
And being returned:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have the honour to
inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate
chamber the Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General was
pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the
following bills:
Bill C-5, an act respecting co-operatives—Chapter No. 1.
Bill C-33, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of
money for the public service of Canada for the financial year
ending March 31, 1998—Chapter No. 2.
Bill C-34, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of
money for the public service of Canada for the financial year
ending March 31, 1999—Chapter No. 3.
Bill C-21, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act, Chapter
No. 4.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, an
act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
Parliament on February 24, 1998, be read the second time and
referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it was certainly a pleasure to walk down to that other
place to receive a blessing of sorts for duties that we do here.
I would like to finish off with the education theme. The basic
concept is that money has to be spent in the most efficient,
effective way possible. The things we are doing in Canada and in
the government should not be simply for our political benefit. We
should be doing things for our constituents and our provinces
that are in their best interest.
In the case of education, the best interest of Manitoba as I was
explaining—I will not speak for other provinces—would be to
have that money flow directly to the provincial government as
opposed to being put through the millennium fund or through other
federal government programs that require duplication of
administration, extra boards, extra audits and those kinds of
things.
The priorities in government spending can be seen differently by
different parties, but some basic truths and beliefs should
always be adhered to. One of those is that if we spend ourselves
into a big hole and get into big debt over the years, at some
point we will have to get out of it. The province of Manitoba
has taken its budget and shown the way for the federal
government.
It has done this by attacking the debt at the start of a budget
surplus or a balanced budget.
1655
By doing a front end attack on debt the amount of interest that
has to be paid at the start is lowered. The government seems to
want to do it at the end. Things change over the years and maybe
it will never get done.
I would like to comment on the Manitoba budget, not because it
is a perfect budget but because of the instruction it can give to
the House. I understand Manitoba's debt is around $6.8 billion.
The provincial government put $150 million against the debt in
its last budget some few months ago. It kind of promised, as did
this government, to do something about the debt. In fact it had
promised $75 million toward the debt. It doubled that because of
the compound effect of paying off the debt.
When the compound effect of the extra $75 million was factored
in over the 30 year debt repayment plan it was worth $300 million
and knocked nine months of payments off the books. Hon. members
will notice that it has an actual plan. It is not just some
promise that it is maybe going to happen or that it will work
out.
That type of investment, if members want to look at it like
that, will pay big dividends in the area of social programs,
education, health or any of the things as I explained earlier are
the basis of society and have to be in place for anything else to
work.
At the present time interest on the debt is costing Manitobans
about $520 million every year, which works out to $450 per
person. If we did not have to pay the interest and that money
were left in the hands of Manitobans, most people would spend it
and the first thing we know jobs would be created and everybody
would be better off.
I was pleased to speak on a couple of points. I hope the
government in future budgets will take heed of our words.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
BILL C-223
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. Earlier discussions took place among
all parties and the member for Portage—Lisgar concerning the
taking of the division on Bill C-223, which stands in his name
and is scheduled today at the conclusion of Private Members'
Business. I believe you would find consent for the following
motion:
That, at the conclusion of today's debate on Bill C-223, all
questions necessary to dispose of the said motion for second
reading shall be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested
and deferred until Tuesday, April 21, 1998, at the expiry of the
time provided for Government Orders.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. There have been consultations among
the parties and I have two travel motions.
I believe you would find unanimous consent for the first motion:
That, in relation to its examination of Biotechnology, the
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food be authorized to
travel to Saskatoon during the period April 2 to April 4, 1998;
and that the necessary committee staff do accompany the
Committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
1700
NATURAL RESOURCES AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think you will also find there is unanimous consent for the
following motion. I move:
That the research officer of the Standing Committee on Natural
Resources and Government Operations be authorized to travel to
Calgary, Alberta from May 3 to May 6, 1998 in order to attend a
conference on climate change.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the motion put forward by the hon. parliamentary secretary. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, an
act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
Parliament on February 24, 1998, be now read the second time and
referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House and add a few
comments to this debate.
I looked at some of the stats and listened to some of the debate
in the House today. I wondered why is the Liberal government
trying to postpone all of these goodies further down the road
instead of implementing them pronto as the need is there.
It is strange the government would want to wait until the year
2000 to bring forward the scholarship fund if there is a
desperate need for it. I would have thought the government would
have said it should be retroactive when I look at the debt load of
students today and the need that is there. Why not make it
retroactive? That is where the need is.
Looking at the statistics, we probably lose 10%, 15% or perhaps
as many as 20% of our graduates to the United States where they
are able to acquire better job opportunities. What is the
government doing? It is probably delaying the inevitable that
sooner or later government will have to realize that jobs are
either provided to people in our country or amalgamation takes
place with the U.S. so that there are job guarantees.
This brought me to thoughts about the years when I grew up.
Across the way are Liberal members who have that shade of colour
I have in my hair and maybe some of them are even minus some
hair. They will probably remember some of these things.
I finished elementary school and was only fortunate enough to go
through grade 11 because of health problems in my family. My
younger brothers and sister were able to go to university. What
did it cost my folks at that time to send one of their kids to
university?
One of my younger brothers loved to raise a calf or two each
year. That calf put him through university. He did not have to
go to the bank to borrow money. Dad gave my brother the calf at
its birth. He looked after it and raised it. Dad supplied the
pasture. My brother had funds to go to university. That was very
easy. Nobody was denied this opportunity.
Why is it that it was so easy in those days? They had their
priorities right. They did not have taxes taken off every little
bit that they sold or every little bit that they earned.
My first year as a farmer I only rented 60 acres of cropland
from a neighbour. After I had the crop harvested I was wealthy
enough to buy a brand new pick-up truck. It was one of the
fanciest trucks; it was two toned, had a radio and all the extras
you could get. The cost of that pick-up truck was $1,400
Canadian, which took me less than 1,000 bushels a week.
Today a half-ton truck with all the extras on it will cost at
least $35,000. At the price of wheat today at least 10,000
bushels will be needed.
If we look at the 10,000 bushels, it is not just the wheat, but
first of all at least 50% has to come off for taxes. Therefore at
least 20,000 bushels will be needed to buy that truck. It is
astounding that things have gone this way.
1705
I look at the young pages. They want the opportunities that I
had and that my brothers and sister had. They had the opportunity
to get an education. If they wanted to, it was there. The
finances were there. There was no problem. People could afford
to send their families to university.
Today that does not hold true. I talk to my constituents. A
mechanic said to me one day “This is my wage. This is what I
take home or what I should be taking home, but after the taxes
and all the other deductions come off, I can barely afford to put
food on the table without sending my kids to university. They
have no opportunity to go. If you do not have somebody who will
co-sign for you, it is pretty hard to get student loans even at
the bank. It is not that easy”. That is why I feel for the
younger generation.
Why has this happened? How did we get into this mess? I look
at the $600 billion of debt, and I look at the $42 billion in
interest to service that debt and then look at this millennium
fund at $2.5 billion. Something does not add up. There is $42
billion blown into the wind. Why? Because politicians for the
previous 30 years thought that if they wanted to maintain power
in this House they had to buy votes by making promises. Promises
can only be made and kept if you pay for them. If you do not pay
for them, it is going to cost you.
I talked about buying a pick-up truck. What did it cost me to
operate that truck? About 15 cents a gallon for the gas; an
imperial gallon, not a litre. Today a litre of gasoline costs 50
to 55 cents and 24 to 26 cents of that is for taxes. This is what
the young people are dealing with.
We are standing up in this House and saying “Look what we are
doing. We are giving you a tremendous opportunity. You will get
$2.5 billion for education”. It does not make sense. Why does
it not make sense? Because this could have been avoided.
This reminds me of a prime example of something I have seen
happen so often on the farm. When you had milk cows in the early
years you pail fed the calves because you had to ship the cream.
You wanted to sell the surplus, so you did not let the calves
have everything that they wanted. You pail fed them. We would do
that all winter long and they would be used to it. When Dad
banged the pail they knew it was time to come to the trough and
get their feed. That was simple. They enjoyed doing that and we
enjoyed giving it to them because we saw them grow.
Then when summer came and the sunshine was bright outside and
Dad decided to lead them out to the pasture, they all took off.
They liked the grass. It was good. But Dad knew if he wanted
healthy calves and wanted them to grow fast, they still should
have some milk. What would he do? He would bang the handle of
the pail and they would come running. He had to make sure there
was enough milk or else they would run right over him if they did
not get what they wanted.
This is what governments have been doing for the past 30 years.
They have been banging the pail of luxury and saying “This is
what we will give you”. Now they have all their constituents
out in the pasture and they are very hungry. There is no more
grass left. They are suffering. They are saying “I am banging
the pail, come and get it”.
1710
There is nothing left to get, except the debt of $600 billion.
That debt is financed by foreign companies or foreign investors
to the tune that one-third of that $42 billion is flowing out of
this country and we will never see it again. I do not want to be
pessimistic. The Reform Party has come into this House and has
impressed these things on the government and finally we do have a
balanced budget, which is the right step. But $600 billion of
debt still has to be looked after.
Are the Liberals going to find a miracle? Are they going to
somehow change straw into gold? I do not know what is going to
happen, but I wish everyone well because I think the pail has run
dry. Maybe some day the Liberals will also find out that people
do not follow the pail any more and then what will happen?
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-36, the budget
implementation bill. I would like to deal with a number of
issues. My colleagues have spoken quite eloquently on the faults
of Bill C-36. I am going to deal with a few other issues and how
we can revamp and rejuvenate our economy so that we can provide
for a better future for all Canadians.
Bill C-36 is a microcosm of what this House does repeatedly. It
nibbles around the edges of an issue rather than taking the bull
by the horns and addressing the issue. Rather than dealing with
the larger issues of debt reduction, poverty within our country,
educational problems, problems of tax relief, egregious rules and
regulations that choke off our private sector, the government has
chosen to nibble around the edges and not really deal with the
meat of the matter.
On the education issue, the millennium fund in principle is
good. We have to provide moneys so our students can have the
funds to be educated in post-secondary institutions. However,
there are some significant failures within our education system
which the government has an opportunity to deal with.
For example, a chasm exists between the needs of the private
sector and the ability of our education system to fill those
needs. Large numbers of jobs within our country go unfilled,
primarily because there are no students to fill them. The
government should work with the private sector and the
educational institutions so that the students in the institutions
today understand what are the future needs of the economy.
I was down in the United States recently. They have done some
innovative work in that area. It is for that and other reasons
many Canadians go south of the border to find employment. In
many cases they find a more lucrative and challenging environment
in which to work. That is a shame, because those students could
stay within our country.
Look at the example of the United Kingdom. They have built some
innovative links between industry and the private sector, the
private sector, education and government.
For example, students should be provided with apprenticeship
possibilities. Provide them with apprenticeships in professions
that are going to be needed in the future. There are many needs
the economy of the 21st century will require filled. We as a
country have to look at the future, anticipate those needs and be
aggressive enough to provide that information to our students. It
is our role to provide those opportunities to the youth of today.
I compliment the government on its RESP and child tax benefit
plans. These are things we have said are good. They will enable
people within the private sector to have more moneys so as to
provide for their needs and give them the ability to be
functional members of our society.
With respect to our economy, the government could have addressed
the issue of tax relief. Even in my province of British
Columbia, if you can believe it, the NDP has actually taken the
step to look at the successes of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba
and Ontario and has adopted a tax reduction strategy, albeit a
timid one.
Why did the government not do that in any meaningful way? It has
proven to work in country after country after country. High
taxes kill jobs. Lower taxes will enable the private sector to
be more aggressive and create jobs.
1715
When we go into our communities and talk to the private sector,
it tells us that the tax structure we have today is far too
complicated and onerous and prevents it from hiring people.
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt the hon.
member, but it being 5.15 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to order
made on Wednesday, March 25, 1998, to interrupt the proceedings
and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the
second reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1740
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
|
Epp
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Meredith
| Morrison
| Nystrom
|
Pankiw
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Schmidt
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Vellacott
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
– 99
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Parrish
|
Peric
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Valeri
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 132
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
1745
The next question is on the main motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
you would find unanimous consent that the members who voted on
the previous motion be deemed to have voted on the motion now
before the House, applying the vote just taken in reverse.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in this
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Parrish
|
Peric
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Valeri
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 132
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
|
Epp
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Meredith
| Morrison
| Nystrom
|
Pankiw
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Schmidt
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Vellacott
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
– 99
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
The House resumed from March 30 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-25, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred divisions, starting with Bill C-25.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken on the main
motion of Bill C-36 to Bill C-25.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in this
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 120]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
CHILD BENEFIT
The House resumed from March 26 consideration of the motion and
of the amendment.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made Monday, March 30, 1998, the
House will now proceed to the recorded division on Motion M-198
under Private Members' Business.
The question is on the amendment.
[English]
As is the practice, the division will be taken row by row
starting with the mover and then proceeding with those in favour
of the amendment sitting on the same side of the House as the
mover. Then those in favour of the amendment sitting on the
other side of the House will be called. Those opposed to the
amendment will be called in the same order.
All those to my left in favour of the amendment will please
rise.
1755
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Assad
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Casey
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Finestone
| Folco
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Hardy
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Minna
| Morrison
| Nystrom
|
Pankiw
| Peric
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Schmidt
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
– 113
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Gagliano
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Parrish
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Valeri
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 114
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1805
During the taking of the vote:
Mr. John Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I missed getting up. I wanted to vote and I would like
to place my vote against.
The Speaker: The hon. member's vote will be recorded.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Brown
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Casey
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Coderre
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Doyle
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Elley
| Epp
| Finestone
|
Folco
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Lincoln
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Maloney
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Minna
| Morrison
| Nystrom
|
Pankiw
| Peric
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Vellacott
| Venne
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford) – 125
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
|
Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Bryden
| Byrne
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Gagliano
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Parrish
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Valeri
| Volpe
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 102
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
1810
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed from March 30 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-211, an act to amend the Criminal Code (arrest of those in
breach of condition of parole or statutory or temporary release),
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Monday, March 30,
1998, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill
C-211 under Private Members' Business.
1815
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
|
Chatters
| Desjarlais
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
| Goldring
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
| Lebel
| Longfield
|
Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| McTeague
| Meredith
| Morrison
|
Nystrom
| Pankiw
| Peric
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Price
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Steckle
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Vellacott
| Venne
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford) – 74
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Anderson
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| DeVillers
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Grose
| Harb
| Hardy
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marceau
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Parrish
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Valeri
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 152
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 6:20 p.m.
the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
The House resumed from February 4 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-223, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of
interest on mortgage loans), be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
1820
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-223 put forth by the
member for Portage—Lisgar. I think he deserves an enormous
amount of credit for putting forth his private member's bill,
which goes to the heart of a very serious issue affecting members
of the lower socio-economic groups as well as middle income
groups, to enable individuals to obtain their first home, to move
from the large pool of renters to the pool of home ownership,
thereby ensuring their ability to have a roof over their heads.
Bill C-223 does just that. Its purpose is to provide for the
deduction of interest paid by taxpayers on the the first $100,000
on a mortgage loan secured on the first qualifying home acquired
by taxpayers.
My colleague from Portage—Lisgar spoke about this matter in the
first hour of debate and made a very eloquent argument in favour
of the bill. I would like to support what he said.
The bill addresses a number of concerns and illustrates a number
of benefits. For example, it would lower the tax burdens of
individuals and would ensure people would have more money in
their pockets. This is particularly important in view of the
fact that over the last several years individuals have been
living with fixed incomes. Their disposable income has been
eroded over time through bracket creep and the introduction of
some 34 tax increases over the last four years. Therefore they
have less money in their pockets to provide for basics such as
home ownership. Bill C-223 would increase the amount of home
ownership and housing affordability.
1825
In my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca the issue of affordable
homes is extremely important. There is a large pool of
individuals who would like to own homes but cannot.
Contrary to what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance said in his speech, that a taxpayer's choice of
accommodation, owning versus renting, is a personal choice, for
many people it is not a personal choice. For those people who
are in the lower socio-economic groups owning or renting is not
an option. They do not make enough money to own a house.
How do we ensure that these people have enough money to
eventually have the security of home ownership? Bill C-223 does
just that. It would enable people to deduct the interest on the
first $100,000 of mortgage from their taxes. This will not
benefit the rich. It will not benefit the speculator. The bill
specifically states that it only deals with the first $100,000.
The bill specifically deals with those individuals in the lower
socio-economic groups and those individuals who are first time
homeowners.
The bill also provides an economic stimulus to the economy. It
will increase the number of housing starts, put people back to
work and generate more money through the economy.
The bill put forth by my friend from Portage—Lisgar is a win,
win bill. It should not have any opposition. If one looks at
the arguments put forward by members of the government, one sees
that their concerns were addressed by my colleague. They are
understandable questions from the government, but they are
questions that have been answered and meet the objective not only
of our party but of the government to ensure that people,
particularly those with the middle and lower incomes, are able to
finally own homes.
Renting is not something that people in lower socio-economic
groups want. They want the security of home ownership. They do
not like to rent. Renting takes away from the disposal income
that they could use for other necessities such as food, clothing
for their children and education needs. All these things would
benefit those people who need it. Bill C-233 does just that.
The bill would also provide equity between homeowners with
mortgages and those who do not have mortgages. Arguments against
the bill have been that it would likely increase the price of
houses. The price of houses is a function of supply and demand.
We have an enormous demand but we do not have the supply. Bill
C-223 would provide an influx of money that would provide a
stimulus to the job market.
There are other issues to deal with. The bill can be seen as a
backdrop against the declining disposal income of all people, the
decrease in affordable housing and the declining economic
situation of people from coast to coast.
I live in a city where housing is very expensive. There are a
number of cities like that. This issue affects people who would
like to own homes from Newfoundland to British Columbia. All
provinces are affected.
The issue of affordable housing is serious. There has been
declining funding for affordable housing because of the declining
amount of resources governments have to spend. We understand
that. We have to live within our means. If the government is to
withdraw the amount of funding for affordable housing then it
should at least give people the ability and the tools to provide
for their own housing. Bill C-223 would do just that.
The government should consider other options like expanding the
RRSP to allow for a registered home ownership plan of $5,000
beyond the current maximum for first time home owners, for those
people who are purchasing homes for under $200,000.
If they were able to do that perhaps they could put money away.
Perhaps they would have the economic tools to finally own a home
and provide security for themselves and their families.
1830
The existing measures for RRSPs are not adequate. The Minister
of Finance is considering carving away our RRSP maximum. That
will take away the ability of people to provide for themselves.
It is good that RRSPs can be used toward the down payment of a
first home. The government should be complimented on that. The
government should also adopt Bill C-223, put forth by my
colleague from Portage—Lisgar. It would be a fine complement to
that measure.
Perhaps the government should also consider being innovative in
providing tax shelters for individual Canadians who are prepared
to invest in a home. Perhaps it should consider incentives for
builders to provide affordable housing. This would remove the
onus from the government and place it on the individual.
If governments are fiscally restrained, why not allow the
individual to provide those funds? There is a large pool of funds
in the private sector which could be used for investment. Those
moneys could be targeted toward affordable housing. Why not
provide a tax break for investors who are prepared to put up the
money and fill the gap?
This is also a social situation. A home, a shelter, a roof over
our heads is a basic necessity.
I support Bill C-223, which was put forward by my colleague from
Portage—Lisgar. I would ask the government to support it for
all individuals. The bill is primarily designed to address the
huge need that exists for affordable housing, particularly for
first time homeowners and those in the lower and middle income
brackets.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to speak today to Bill C-223. I begin by commending the
member for Portage—Lisgar for introducing the bill. I commend
him for providing the House with an opportunity to debate a very
important principle, the principle of tax relief.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind and in the minds of my
Progressive Conservative colleagues that this nation is
overtaxed. Once the House agrees on this then we can seek
solutions. However, let me be clear. Tax relief solutions must
be for the benefit of all Canadians. Tax relief must be
equitable and it must be efficient. Bill C-223 does not meet
this requirement.
There is a very simple question to answer here. The question
is, if surplus money is available, who will decide how to spend
it? Will it be the Liberal government or will it be the Canadian
people? We in the PC Party put our trust in the people. By
putting money back into the pockets of Canadians we will let them
decide how to better their own lives. That is why my party has
proposed raising the personal exemption threshold to $10,000 for
every Canadian. That is the fair way to approach this issue.
My friends in the Reform Party are suffering from an identity
crisis on this issue. The Reform Party trumpets itself as being
the promoter of simpler and flatter taxes. This bill is neither.
This is a call for a subsidy, a target tax break that benefits a
few. When we enact legislation that targets only certain members
of our society we are necessarily excluding others. In this case
we would be doing nothing for the poorest members of our nation
who are unable to even begin thinking of buying a home. Once
again equity does not exist.
1835
The message regarding our tax code is a tired, yet appropriate
cliché: keep it simple. This bill at the very least adds
another line to our already cumbersome income tax form.
Accountants are the overall winners with tax legislation that
adds to the present complicated reporting nightmare that many
Canadians are enduring as we speak. We need to make a collective
decision that simplifying our Income Tax Act is a worthy goal.
Then we need to strengthen our resolve to use our tax laws only
to raise revenue, not to set public policy.
Fairness is conspicuously absent in this bill. The bill
proposes that the interest paid on the first $100,000 of a
mortgage loan secured by that first qualifying home acquired by a
taxpayer would be allowed as a deduction for tax purposes. The
problem is that $100,000 worth of property is not equal across
this nation. The same home that sells for $100,000 in one part
of the country might easily command twice that in my riding of
Markham. Even if we were willing to complicate the Income Tax
Act, we certainly could not accept a tax initiative that does not
treat all citizens equally.
There is another component here which should give all of us in
this Chamber great pause. If we were to allow tax deductions for
mortgage interest we would be opening a Pandora's box. It would
be good if the bill's sponsor would reflect on how sure he is
that the Liberals would not move quickly to subject our homes to
capital gains.
With regard to Bill C-223, we do not even have to wonder. We
need only reflect on the words of the member for Etobicoke North.
He stood in this House and said “If we allow the interest to be
deductible, then surely the capital gains on the sale of the
principal residence should be taxable”.
The reason a capital gain on a principal residence in not
taxable in Canada now is that we do not consider an investment in
a principal residence as an investment. It is the ownership of a
private home. Then he continued on to say “You can't have your
cake and eat it too”. This leaves little doubt in my mind as to
the intention of this Liberal government if we were to pass Bill
C-223.
There are other dynamics at play here and they need to be
explored. At present there exists great acrimony within Liberal
ranks. On the one side we have the Minister of Finance and his
ever dwindling allies who know all too well that Canada's
finances are still a long way from the Utopia he tried to sell in
his budget.
Pushing and prodding them are the Minister of Health and his
band of 1970 style tax and spend Liberals. They were thought to
be extinct until recently when a small colony of 101 of them were
discovered in Ontario.
We on this side of the House watch this battle with great
concern. We do so because when the palace coup is complete all
hopes for tax relief will be finished.
I say that we need greater vision than that which is represented
in Bill C-223. We need to put aside all partisanship on the
issue of comprehensive tax reform and come up with an acceptable
alternative. This alternative must be effective in putting money
back into the pockets of Canadians. It must be equitable so as
to produce real bottom line benefits for all Canadians. We need
to ensure it makes our tax system less cumbersome so that people
can spend less time reporting to Revenue Canada. More
importantly, we need to just do it.
I reiterate what my colleague from Kings—Hants said on February
4 when I say that a tax break is better than the status quo, but
the public will is on side with those who seek comprehensive tax
cuts. Let us not miss this opportunity.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to debate Bill C-223, an act
to amend the Income Tax Act with respect to the deduction of
interest on mortgage loans. Before I get into the speech itself
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the member for
Portage—Lisgar for all his hard work in seeing this bill come to
fruition and debate in this House.
The purpose of this bill is to provide for the tax deduction of
interest paid by a taxpayer on the first $100,000 of a mortgage
loan to first time home buyers.
1840
Many of us here have had the experience of purchasing a home. It
is a huge investment which gives a lot of security and joy.
However, it is also the cause of a lot of stress and doubt.
This, in many cases, is not simply the purchase of property, but
the purchase of a home. A home is for families to grow together
in, a place of security and a site of well-being.
Although the physical house may hold some importance for
families, it is the psychological and social aspects of a home
that people hold dear to them. A house is for living, but a home
is to cherish.
One may wonder where I am going with this. In today's economy
many young families simply cannot afford to purchase a house to
make a home. Many young people start out facing an enormous
financial burden, as most already have a huge debt load from
pursuing their post-secondary education and getting started in
their lives.
Knowing the economic realities that most young people face
today, they have some other debts to pay, such as credit card
debts with large balances. There is also the unseen debt that
every single Canadian faces every time they pay a tax and also
the enormous national debt that has been built up over the
decades.
We should look at this bill as an intervention toward tax
reduction. To put it more simply, young people today simply
cannot afford to purchase a house on top of all the other
expenses and taxes they have to pay. Instead of purchasing a
home many couples, in essence, withdraw from their disposable
income and throw money into rental properties that they will
never recover and never receive benefits from when they could be
using that money toward creating equity in a house.
The money saved in taxes could be used for paying down other
debts or to increase their savings. In essence, buying a home is
the largest single step that most people take in achieving
retirement security. It is an investment that lasts a lifetime.
Bill C-223 would provide Canadians with an extra opportunity to
purchase their first house by giving them a much needed tax
break, making ownership more feasible. The economic spinoffs of
such a move would also help local economies, especially the
Canadian housing industry. It would also benefit the industries
that supply furniture, finishings and fittings that go into
equipping and maintaining a home.
This initiative, Bill C-223, which has been brought forward by
the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar, has widespread support from
a variety of groups and individuals. In the short time I have I
would like to quote from one of the supporters, although the
theme expressed here is shared by many other organizations. I
speak of the national trade association of the manufactured
housing industry.
After reviewing the content of Bill C-223, the association said
they “support both the logic behind the provisions of the bill
and the limitations that have been applied. Limiting the
benefits to first time homebuyers and the first $100,000 of a
mortgage will have a highly desirable effect of increasing home
ownership among our young families”.
The association goes on to say “In our opinion, increased home
ownership is of considerable benefit to the homebuyer, the
community and the greater economy. Home ownership helps to
foster stable families and stable communities. More housing
demand will stimulate new housing development and produce
secondary benefits throughout the local economy”.
I believe that the provisions of this bill would create a very
enviable situation. I am sure that I speak for many of my hon.
colleagues on all sides of the House when I say that stimulating
the economy is very desirable and something that should be
encouraged as much as possible.
Looking at my own riding of Cariboo—Chilcotin, I know that I
would readily support any initiative, whether federal, provincial
or local, which would have a positive economic spinoff for our
local economy. With the economic downturn in the province of
British Columbia we are in need of initiatives that will boost
local economies.
1845
There has been some opposition to the idea proposed in the bill.
However, I feel this opposition is unwarranted. Opponents
suggest that this would give an unfair financial advantage to
homeowners over those who rent. This is simply untrue.
There are provisions by Revenue Canada that benefit those who
own rental properties. Many types of expenditures are deductible
from rental revenue in the year they are incurred, including
property taxes, insurance, advertising, maintenance and repairs.
Also interest paid on money borrowed to purchase or to improve
rental properties can be deducted. Savings experienced by rental
property owners can be passed on to tenants in the form of lower
rents.
There has been some concern in recent years over the brain drain
that has plagued Canada. With the highest level of taxation in
all the G-7 countries, many of Canada's finest talents leave our
country in search of jobs in the United States. Why do many
Canadians leave for jobs south of the border? Very often it is
for a lower rate of taxation.
Currently all U.S. mortgage interest payments are deductible.
When homes are sold the vendors do not have to pay capital gains
tax on the first $500,000. Bill C-223 would place Canada on a
more level playing field with the United States and may make the
decision to remain here a lot easier for Canadians.
In closing, I encourage members of all parties to support the
bill. This initiative can play an important role in serving as a
building block for not only a stronger family unit but a stronger
local community and a stronger economy.
Passage of the bill would provide great and needed benefit,
particularly to young Canadians who despite their economic
vulnerability bear enormous financial burdens. Young Canadians
would be given the opportunity to set down roots and to eliminate
some of their debts while at the same time being helped to
prepare for the future. This is something we could all be proud
of. It could even mean the difference between the same
individuals staying in the community or leaving the country.
Again I thank the member for Portage—Lisgar for introducing the
bill and for his initiative with regard to tax reduction.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
delight to stand in the House of Commons to speak on behalf of
families across Canada and to add my words of encouragement to
the government to show a little compassion for families,
especially young families starting up and buying their first
homes.
It is a pleasure to speak in favour of a tax break, something
the Liberals just cannot get into their heads. If there is a
little surplus, would the Liberals turn it back in terms of a tax
break? No. Most of them think they better put it away for an
election fund. They think they better keep that money ready in
case there is an election. Then they can haul out the millennium
fund. They would have all this money to reduce the debt and to
reduce taxes and everything will be tickety-boo, great.
The Liberals will win the election because they will have all
this money. It is unconscionable. It is terrible that they hang
on to their money to use for political purposes. Meanwhile, they
are shutting their eyes to the needs of Canadian families, young
people and their children.
The bill before us is a private member's bill. I wish we could
strengthen Private Members' Business. In my observations in the
few years I have been here it seems the ideas which best
represent the needs and the wishes of Canadians are presented in
Private Members' Business. Those are the times when we get
motions and bills like the one before us today which say to the
House of Commons, to the government, that there is a need out
there which has been identified by an elected representative. The
individual MP has raised a matter that has been chosen and we can
vote if it is a votable motion as this one is.
Most of the motions go by after debate for an hour and are set
aside and nothing is ever done.
What a total waste of the time of representatives elected by the
people to run the country.
1850
My colleague from Portage—Lisgar has brought forward a very
important motion that would provide for a tax break on the money
used to pay interest on a mortgage. I think that is absolutely
necessary.
When I was a young man, and of course that takes us back
decades, it was considered a big expenditure to buy a home. At
that time when my wife and I bought our first home. The capital
expenditure was $20,000; that was the price of our first home. I
remember saying to my wife that a mortgage for 25 years was a
long time. The amount of money we had borrowed was $14,000 and I
calculated that we would pay over 25 years about $14,000 of
interest and $14,000 against the principal.
I am speaking in round numbers, in case anyone is out there
checking my mathematical credentials. I have rounded off
liberally. If anyone wants the exact numbers, I will provide
them. However this is a fact. To purchase a home at 6.5 % over
25 years one pays about 50:50 interest and principal.
Where does that interest go? It goes into the profits of people
who have invested money through their banks and other financial
institutions. The financial institutions turn around and give
people like my wife and me a loan in the form of a mortgage.
It is absolutely incredible because as a home owner borrowing
money I have to earn the money, pay taxes on the money and then
with the money left after all the taxes pay interest. What
happens to the people who receive the interest? They end up
paying taxes on it.
As a matter of fact any business can deduct an interest cost as
part of their business. Why can a family not deduct their
interest cost as part of operating and providing for their
family? My colleague is setting forth an eminently sensible
proposal. I am amazed because I have read into what other
members have been saying in their speeches that they will
probably vote against it. It just blows me away. Why would they
do that? Why would they continue to make it difficult for young
families to get ahead, to buy homes and to start building some
capital savings for their future?
Instead the government is most interested in tax, tax, tax and
preferably tax the taxes, which it does too. That is another
speech that I will give at some other time.
I urge all members to vote in favour of the bill. It is a very
good bill. It is long overdue. It would put us, at least in
this area, on an equal level with our American neighbours.
Goodness knows what kind of a brain drain we have because our
brightest young people are going to the States with its
favourable tax situation and favourable job situation with a much
lower rate of unemployment.
This is a very important measure. I urge all members to use
their heads, to think independently and to carefully analyse, as
we have done, the implications of the bill. Let us not hide
behind technical excuses, that we cannot do this because of that.
On and on they will go. Let us not do that this time. Let us
rather make a bold decision to do what is right and to vote in
favour of the bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The mover of a bill
in Private Members' Business is afforded the opportunity to
recap. I must make clear, though, that the mover of the bill
having spoken will terminate debate.
There being no other members on their feet, I recognize the hon.
member for Portage—Lisgar.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to get to stage of the bill.
1855
First I thank all participants in the debate on this private
member's bill. I appreciate their thoughts. I especially
appreciate those of my colleagues in the Reform Party who
supported me in this regard.
The bill concerns a tax refund or a tax reduction. This will
make home ownership more achievable for many. It is my intention
that young families would reap the benefits of the legislation.
My concern has been to do something right in the House to benefit
future generations. I have children and grandchildren so that is
why the bill is so dear to my heart.
In the aftermath of the government's budget it has become
apparent to Canadians that the Liberals ignored their demands for
tax relief. Canadian taxpayers shouldered the load for the
elimination of the federal deficit, but the Liberal government
apparently has no interest in giving them relief through tax
reductions. This was a serious oversight on the government's
part.
What a great opportunity for all members to support the bill and
take a small step in righting that which was not done in the
budget. This is especially important when we realize that we are
asking young families to deal with a taxation burden never seen
before in Canadian history. Going into the next century they are
being forced to service Canada's $600 billion debt.
A representative of the Toronto-Dominion Bank stated that on a
typical 25 year mortgage at 6.35% first time home buyers could
claim $1,700 on their income tax. That is a tremendous amount of
money for some young families. That is a good amount of extra
money for a young family that is starting out. It would be
especially good, considering that federal taxes will continue to
increase to service our needs.
If members agree that the family is an essential building block
for a strong society they should support the bill. By making it
a little easier for families to acquire homes and build up some
equity in them we would be supporting an essential building block
of the nation.
If hon. members explain the bill to their constituents it would
be widely supported. History has shown that in times when
Canadians have been able to afford homes there has been a
tremendous uplifting effect on the economy.
I have received numerous letters from individuals and groups in
support of the bill. Those people with knowledge of the housing
industry have given very positive support because they realize it
will make home ownership more attainable for Canadians and
therefore will create beneficial spin-off effects for the
Canadian economy.
Young families would have extra money for appliances and
furniture. They could possibly purchase big ticket items which
were previously out of reach. They might be able to afford a
better car or they might be able to put a few dollars away for
education.
It is true that there is a program that allows putting RRSP
funds toward a home. After many young people pay for rent,
clothing and food there is no money left for RRSPs. The bill
would give them a hand.
I hope all members of the House will recognize the bill as
something non-political to give young people the opportunity to
invest, to own a home in which they can build equity and in
future years will be an asset for their retirement.
When I look at the building of the country and the homes that
were affordable at the turn of the century and compare them to
the homes of today, I wish and hope that every young couple could
afford a home in the future. The quality of the homes has
improved and the quality of family life will have to improve. I
hope that we as a House take that issue seriously.
1900
To comment on what support I feel this bill will get, the saying
no news is good news and not having heard from the Liberals
tonight, I am sure that every one of them is supporting this
bill. I congratulate them for that.
I hope that when this bill goes to a vote they will show up and
exercise their right and support the young families that would
love to move into these new homes with a tax break, that they
will receive some beneficial effect of carrying the burden of
debt that we have put on their shoulders, and that they can have
a more comfortable home doing it.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to order made
earlier today, the motion is deemed to have been put and a
recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday,
April 21, 1998, at the expiry of the time provided for government
orders.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
FIREARMS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last July the commissioner of the RCMP accused officials
in the Department of Justice with misrepresenting RCMP firearm
statistics by overstating the number of firearms involved in
violent crimes. He also criticized the Minister of Justice and
the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police for using these
false and misleading statistics during the debate on Bill C-68,
the firearms act.
I obtained the RCMP commissioner's letter by using an access to
information request. Here are some excerpts. They are rather
long:
The RCMP investigated 88,162 actual violent crimes during 1993,
where only 73 of these offences, or 0.08% involved the use of
firearms.
The RCMP investigated 333 actual homicide offences, including
attempts, but only 6 of these offences involved the use of
firearms according to the statistics provided to the Firearms
Control Task Group.
We determined that our statistics showed that there were 73
firearms involved in a violent crime compared to the Department
of Justice findings of 623 firearms involved in a violent crime.
It is of particular concern that the Minister of Justice and the
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police relied on these
statistics while Bill C-68 was being processed in Parliament as
evidenced by statements in the report, “Illegal Firearm Use in
Canada”.
The incorrect reporting of RCMP statistics could cause the wrong
public policy or laws to be developed and cause researchers to
draw erroneous conclusions. Considering the data is clearly
marked as belonging to the RCMP, we must accept ownership and
responsibility for the harm the data may cause. For these
reasons, something must be done to remove it from circulation.
I asked the Minister of Justice to explain why the RCMP's
analysis of its own firearm and violent crime statistics has
never been made public?
The misleading analysis of the RCMP data was introduced six
times into the Alberta Court of Appeal by the Department of
Justice and interveners supporting the federal government.
Will the minister explain why the RCMP's analysis of its own
firearms data was never introduced into the Alberta Court of
Appeal? Why was justice department lawyer David Gates removed as
a federal government lawyer in the provincial court challenge of
Bill C-68? Why was a government lawyer replaced by a lawyer from
the private sector midway through this important case? Did Mr.
Gates object to the affidavits being filed by his own department?
On September 3, 1997 Tony Dittenhoffer, senior researcher for
the Canadian Firearms Centre, sent an e-mail message to CFC's
director of policy and programs, Gordon Parry: “It is important
that we have full explanation on the public record”.
Can the minister explain why Mr. Dittenhoffer did not make this
important information public when he appeared as a witness before
the Alberta Court of Appeal?
Why is the minister ignoring the advice of her own bureaucrats?
1905
Yesterday the minister received a letter from the Canadian
Police Association which said that the misuse of RCMP firearms
and violent crime statistics in public, in Parliament and
possibly the courts “will result in a justifiable lack of
confidence amongst Canadians”.
How does the minister intend to restore the public confidence
that has been shattered by the revelations in the RCMP
commissioner's letter.
Manitoba Attorney General Vic Toews has said this is an example
of the police being used as political tools. This it will breed
disrespect for the law.
When the government rams through this 137 page bill and 130
pages of regulations, it has to answer this final question. Is
that why the minister and her bureaucrats did this and why—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
take great objection to some of the allegations made by the hon.
member and I will answer him in the same manner that he chose to
ask the questions.
I will quote word for word from the letter that the minister
tabled in this House from the RCMP dated March 20, 1998:
I am responding to Lorne Gunter's column of March 15, 1998 titled
“False stats used to support gun registry”. The column did not
indicate that on December 30, 1997 the RCMP commissioner wrote
the Department of Justice indicating that we had reached an
understanding on the statistics and how they were reported in
“The illegal Movement of Firearms in Canada”.
There was simply a different methodology used by the RCMP and
the Firearms Smuggling Work Group in interpreting the original
data. As part of our examination, we were focusing on criminal
incidents in which a firearm was actually used in the commission
of a crime. The Firearms Smuggling Work Group's examination
criteria were broader, gathering information on all firearms
recovered by police and categorizing them according to their
circumstances. Not surprisingly, this generated a discrepancy
which was the source of our original concerns. With this
methodological approach we are satisfied that the conclusions of
the smuggling report are reasonable, and are satisfied that there
is no need to amend the report.
I want to once again state that the RCMP continues to fully
support the new firearms legislation and its objectives.
BILL C-68
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very intently to the comments
by the hon. member from Yorkton—Melville as well as to the
parliamentary secretary.
I rise on the same subject matter. It has been brought to the
House's attention that the data on which Bill C-68 has been based
are seriously flawed. On July 21, 1997 the commissioner of the
RCMP wrote to the deputy minister of justice informing him that
the RCMP data used by the government and by the department
officials during the debate over Bill C-68 were in fact flawed.
This is shocking. The statistics that were put forward and the
references in both letters mentioned by the hon. member in the
opposition set out that there is a serious problem here that has
to be addressed. The commissioner states unequivocally that the
incorrect reporting of the RCMP statistics could cause wrong
public policy or laws to be developed and cause researchers to
draw erroneous conclusions. That was in July 1997.
There is a lot of water under the bridge and a lot of things
have happened since that time, including a challenge to the
Supreme Court of Alberta by four provinces and two territories.
The serious question is have those statistics been put before
the Alberta Court of Appeal without qualification, without
correction if that is what is necessary? This is a very serious
matter if that is in fact what has happened.
The allegations by the commissioner himself that they do not
want the RCMP name attached to these statistics unless
corrections are made speak in and of themselves to the confidence
that the RCMP has in these statistics. Yet there is no
disclosure, there is no open dialogue here on the part of the
government. What we are getting here is that the RCMP is now
satisfied, or certain members may be satisfied.
We want to know what has transpired from the time the
commissioner wrote to the minister or deputy minister and what is
this talk of methodological difference or somehow this has been
glossed over. What does methodological difference mean? Does
that mean economical with the truth? Does that mean these
statistics have been used to spin a certain purpose or a certain
objective?
There are many concerns that arise out of this bill, not the
least of which is the broad widespread opposition that exists in
rural parts of Canada.
1910
The cost element again is something that has been exposed as
being completely erroneous. The government suggested that it is
going to cost $48 million. It has already exceeded $100 million.
It is going to exceed $500 million.
Recent information that has surfaced and been brought forward to
the House must cause the government serious concern. There are
questions that have to be answered by the minister or by the
government. If the conclusions that have been drawn, conclusions
the government wanted Canadians to draw, are based on seriously
flawed statistics that do not truly represent the incidence of
violent crime and the use of firearms in the country, that is
something that has to be addressed and has to be corrected soon.
The e-mails and letters that have been sent back and forth
between various government officials and members of the RCMP have
to be looked at in a very close and meticulous way before we go
any further with this piece of legislation.
The minister has a duty to the House of Commons and she has a
duty as a lawyer to slow the process down and give Canadians the
truth on what has taken place in this process.
As a member of the opposition it is my responsibility to ask
questions. As members of the government it is their
responsibility to give us answers, and truthful ones.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the minister answered in the House, we have been truthful and
we have brought forward all the information.
This question has been discussed many times. Not only is the
RCMP now satisfied with the report, the hon. member should also
understand that the firearms smuggling work group conducted the
original study. Membership of the group included experts from
the RCMP, the Ministry of the Solicitor General, the Canadian
Association of Chiefs of Police, the chief provincial firearms
offices in both Quebec and British Columbia and the Ontario
Provincial Police. The group selected the researchers and the
principal researcher was under secondment from Statistics Canada.
Most recently, the RCMP reviewed the statistics—they were
available—this time counting only those guns actually used in
crime. If you ask a different question you must expect a
different answer, and that is what happened in this case.
Commissioner Murray stated in his letter of December 30, 1997
which was quoted earlier: “The RCMP now understands the scope
and methodology of the original”.
There is also question about the firearms mentioned in the
original RCMP letter and cited by the hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville. The member indicated that only 73 of the
88,000 violent crimes investigated by the RCMP involved firearms.
This is simply not possible. Statistics Canada indicates that
there were 195 firearms homicides in that same year and more than
8,000 firearms robberies were committed. Given that the RCMP is
responsible for policing about 25% of Canada, if this is true
then the investigation is a larger proportion than that indicated
by the member.
[Translation]
I remind the House that recent events in the United States have
shown us again that this legislation is important to Canada and
to the safety of our fellow Canadians.
[English]
LABOUR SPONSORED INVESTMENT FUNDS
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this
is the last and final day for working people in the provinces of
Ontario and Quebec to invest in labour sponsored venture capital
funds as RRSP contributions. Their timeframe has been lengthened
due to the time lost during the ice storm.
Indications are that the contributions to labour sponsored
venture capital funds for this year will be down dramatically, a
total of $505 million by March 1, compared to $1.2 billion in
1995.
The industry officials feel this slide in contribution rates is
due to the changes made to the tax system where the rate of
contribution or the maximum allowable contribution has been
lowered from $5,000 to $3,500. The maximum tax credit was
reduced to 30% from 40% and the minimum holding period is raised
to eight years rather than the previous five years.
Another rule upsets the industry in that a person is disallowed
from reinvesting in a fund for two years if that person withdraws
money out of the fund.
All these factors have had a devastating effect on the health of
these important financial instruments and we cautioned the
government that this would happen were these changes put into
effect. At the current rate of decline in less than two years
labour sponsored venture capital funds will be out of investment
capital to invest in the community.
Conventional lending institutions, chartered banks especially,
have not been meeting the needs of industry with adequate supply
of venture capital. No matter what they say in their ads or
their promotional material the fact is small to medium size
businesses willing to expand their operations and grow their
businesses and create jobs are being turned down flat when they
go to their banks for business loans.
1915
It does not seem to matter how good your business plan is or
what your ideas are for increasing your business. More loans are
being turned down than are being granted. This is unlike in the
United States where banks are required through the community
investment act to reinvest some of their profits every year into
risk ventures that otherwise would not necessarily qualify for
business loans. No such regulation exists in this country.
The banks will tell us about the small business loans they have
actually given out, but a more telling figure would be to know
how many they have turned down in the same period of time. This
is all the more reason then that labour sponsored venture capital
funds are important to small business.
In the province of Manitoba 80% of all venture capital put out
last year was through the Crocus labour sponsored venture capital
fund. In other words small businesses that are tired of going to
banks and being turned down end up entering into an equity
position with the Crocus investment fund. I am pleased to say
there are more businesses in my inner city riding of Winnipeg
Centre that have benefited from these funds than any other riding
in the province.
The Minister of Finance and his department have stated in
letters to the Crocus fund that they recognize the problem. They
feel that perhaps they have gone too far in limiting the access
to using the funds for RRSP purposes. They have promised to
monitor the situation. To quote the Minister of Finance “action
will then be taken if the situation warrants it”.
In light of the numbers now made public, $505 million down from
$1.2 billion and the fact that within two years these venture capital
funds will be out of capital to invest in the community, will the
Minister of Finance review the situation now and make the
necessary changes for the next RRSP season?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to
remind the hon. member that as a result of the generous tax
assistance provided by the federal government and many provincial
governments, labour sponsored funds experienced very rapid growth
in the past few years.
When the decision was made to limit the tax assistance, LSVCCs
had about $2 billion in assets. Despite the fact that LSVCCs
raised about 50% less in the RRSP season which followed the 1996
budget, their total assets surpassed the $4 billion mark at the
end of 1997.
As well, let us not forget that the LSVCCs are not the only
providers of venture capital in this country. During 1996 the
amount of venture capital in Canada rose from $6 billion to $7.1
billion. The availability of venture capital for Canadian
businesses has never been greater. In fact, I pose the question,
is there sufficient capital available to meet the demand? Let me
provide a few figures.
At the end of 1996 labour sponsored funds had $1.4 billion
available for investment in small businesses. They invested
about $400 million in 1996, a record year for them. Based on this
information there seems to be no evidence of a shortage of funds
available for investment.
This is not to say as the hon. member has mentioned, that there
is no need for ongoing monitoring of the situation. On the
contrary, preliminary figures do indicate that LSVCCs invested in
excess of $600 million in businesses during 1997. This
investment pace combined with the possibility of large amounts of
redemption could signify, at least in some provinces, future
shortages of venture capital.
Last year's RRSP season was the first under a reduced tax
credit. We need to analyse the results, the adequacy of the
supply of venture capital and the efficiency of tax incentives at
improving access to capital for small and medium size businesses
to be able to determine if changes are warranted.
I want to assure the hon. member as in fact the Minister of
Finance has assured him, that this government will continue to
monitor the situation very closely and take measures to ensure
that venture capital is in supply in strong measure in this
country.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, some time ago I raised with the Minister of Industry the
subject of innovation and research and development in Canada. In
particular I wanted to know why the minister and this government
had not made research and development a priority. Why do they
continue to let Canada fall behind the rest of the world in this
area?
The Minister of Finance in his most recent budget stressed that
our goal must be “to make Canada not just a participant in the
modern economy, but a world leader”. That is right. The problem
is that budgets have put Canada further and further behind. All
experts agree that Canada suffers from a serious innovation in R
and D gap.
President Clinton of the United States recently stated that
sustained prosperity requires a continuous stream of
technological innovation. That is quite right.
The minister might say that they have increased funding to the
three granting councils that finance research and provide grants
to students.
Those three research agencies have seen their budgets restored in
this last budget to 1994-95 levels. In other words, this last
budget simply restored some of the cuts. By the year 2000-01,
Canada's support for basic research and education for researchers
will be no higher than it was six years earlier.
1920
There are no new dollars, no new investment in R and D. That
simply is not good enough. Others in Canada agree.
The president of NSERC, the National Sciences and Engineering
Research Council, recently said that more will have to be done in
the coming years to build that capacity up to a competitive,
world class economy. Even the Secretary of State for Research
and Development has said the same thing. The president of
Memorial University, just as an example, has said that Canada is
acting like a third world country when it comes to R and D.
We are a vital trading nation. We need to get the message
through to the government that we have to invest in the future.
Other industrialized nations have listened and taken action. I
mentioned President Clinton who has proposed future spending
increases for institutes in the United States which are
significant in comparison to ours.
The National Institutes of Research, the U.S. counterpart of the
Medical Research Council, would see its funding rise by 50% by
the year 2003, which is after steady increases through the 1990s,
unlike in Canada. There is a 10% increase for the National
Science Foundation, the U.S. equivalent of NSERC, building up to
a 24% increase by the year 2003.
I could go on, but the point is that Canada is simply not in
good shape when it comes to R and D and innovation. In fact
while our funding has decreased, Australia, Germany and France
have doubled their funding on basic research.
When the OECD studied this question, it called Canada a middle
technology country along with other countries such as India,
Greece and Mexico. Of the top 14 countries, only Italy's record
on R and D spending is worse than Canada's.
This is not only embarrassing but it places Canada on a very
dangerous path. Relying on other countries to do our basic
research for us is simply not acceptable because it means that
the information we get will be based on their priorities, not
ours. The fact that Canada grossly underinvests in research and
development is an important reason why the Canadian economy is
left with more than 1.5 million people unemployed.
We know that Canada simply cannot continue in this way. We know
that being competitive is the way in which we will make our way
in the world. It is time this government and this minister
recognized that and acted accordingly.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's innovation gap was
first mentioned in 1995 when the OECD stated that Canada had low
levels of R and D expenditures and industrial innovation when
compared to other developed countries. Since that report was
released, this government has in fact taken bold initiatives to
improve the situation.
We have created Technology Partnerships Canada, a $250 million a
year investment with the private sector, to assist the
development and commercialization of new technologies. As of
April 1, 1998, TPC will have approved $521 million in R and D
investments which will lever $2.2 billion in R and D and
downstream investments by industry.
We established the Canada Foundation for Innovation, an $800
million partnership investment to renew research infrastructure
across Canada. The CFI issued a request for proposals on
December 9, 1997.
We also renewed our commitment to the networks of centres of
excellence by making this program permanent at a level of $47
million annually. Over 400 firms and industry associations are
network partners who have benefited from leading edge research.
We established a partnership between the Medical Research
Council and the Canadian Medical Discoveries Fund to help bridge
the innovation gap for life sciences research through investments
which will commercially exploit research in universities and
hospitals.
We have given the Business Development Bank of Canada a new
mandate to support the growth of knowledge based, export oriented
small businesses.
We are working with private and public sector partners to ensure
that all of Canada's 16,500 schools and 3,400 libraries are
connected to the Internet by 1998. We are also setting the
conditions for Canada to become a laboratory for the creation of
interactive, multimedia learning software and networks.
These actions demonstrate clearly that we are committed to
making Canada an innovation based economy.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to
adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.24 p.m.)