36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 62
CONTENTS
Wednesday, February 18, 1998
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| FINANCE
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| DAVID SHANNON
|
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| MARION POWELL AWARD
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| HAROLD GODFREY
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE
|
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1405
| REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| GORDON TAPP
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| NAGANO WINTER OLYMPICS
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| NAGANO OLYMPIC GAMES
|
| Mr. Nick Discepola |
| HUMAN DEFICIT
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1410
| ICE STORM
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| CANADIAN WOMEN'S OLYMPIC HOCKEY TEAM
|
| Mr. Paul Steckle |
| ÉRIC BÉDARD
|
| Mr. Réjean Lefebvre |
| EMPLOYMENT
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1415
| CANADIAN SOCIETY
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1425
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| MINISTER OF FINANCE
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| STUDENT DEBT
|
| Hon. Jean J. Charest |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Hon. Jean J. Charest |
1430
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| EDUCATION
|
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1435
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| BILL C-28
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1440
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| ICE STORM
|
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| BILL C-28
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1445
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| EDUCATION
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
1450
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| NATIONAL REVENUE
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| THE SENATE
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| BILL C-28
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1455
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| SIERRA LEONE
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. John Nunziata |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1500
| SPONSORSHIP OF SPORTS AND CULTURAL EVENTS
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| POINT OF ORDER
|
| Standing Committee on Finance
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1505
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1510
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| The Speaker |
| Question Period
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. David Anderson |
1515
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1520
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1525
| GRANT EXPENDITURE REPORT ACT
|
| Bill C-359. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| TRANSFER OF OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Bill C-360. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1530
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| PETITIONS
|
| Atlantic Groundfish Strategy
|
| Gasoline Prices
|
| Mr. Paul Steckle |
| VIA Rail
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
1535
| Student Financial Aid
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| Public Safety Officers Compensation Fund
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1540
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Brain Drain
|
| Hon. Jean J. Charest |
| Motion
|
1545
1550
| Mr. John Bryden |
1555
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1600
1605
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Jerry Pickard |
1610
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Hon. Andy Mitchell |
1615
1620
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1625
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1630
1635
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1640
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1645
1650
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1655
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1700
1705
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1710
| Mr. Charlie Power |
1715
1720
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1725
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
| Mr. John Bryden |
1730
| Mr. Jim Jones |
1735
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1740
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
1745
1750
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1755
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
1800
1805
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1810
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1815
1820
1825
1830
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1835
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1840
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
1845
1850
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1855
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1900
1905
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1910
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1915
1920
1925
1930
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| POVERTY
|
| Motion
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1935
1940
1945
| Mr. Robert D. Nault |
1950
1955
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
2000
2005
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
2010
2015
| Mr. John Herron |
2020
2025
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
2030
| Ms. Libby Davies |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 62
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, February 18, 1998
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
[English]
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Mississauga South.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
FINANCE
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Have you heard that the Pied Piper is back?
But this time he has a new tack,
No pipes or sweet tunes,
Instead tales of great boons,
Yet where is the relief from tax?
Zero deficit is his sweet call,
But he is still not divulging all,
For while the call is to play,
Canadians must still pay,
And hope in vain for their windfall.
While he sings of finance reborn,
St. Albert is still so forlorn,
“No new toys” are their cries,
“Tax relief, not new buys,
Mr. Piper, won't you listen to Reform?”
And so, I bid you beware,
Of the piper of finance, if you dare,
His song is so nice,
But you had better look twice,
Or you may end up in tax despair.
* * *
DAVID SHANNON
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it was a moment of great pride for me and the citizens
of Thunder Bay when David Shannon, a quadriplegic lawyer from
Thunder Bay was bestowed with the King Clancy award by the hon.
Hillary Weston, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, on behalf of the
Canadian Foundation for Physically Disabled Persons.
In Toronto approximately 1,500 guests donated $650,000 to the
foundation, a record amount added to the $7.5 million raised in
the past 13 years.
David Shannon was recognized for his courageous 9,000 kilometre
journey from coast to coast on his electrically powered
wheelchair and for raising over half a million dollars to
establish an endowment fund for disabled persons.
King Clancy awards were also given to Joan Mactavish, for her
development and delivery of specialized services for deaf-blind
people, and Amy Doofenbaker, a dedicated veterinarian and
international wheelchair athlete.
Ford Motor Company of Canada and Bell—
The Speaker: The hon. member for St. Paul's.
* * *
MARION POWELL AWARD
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow evening I will be attending the tribute to the late Dr.
Marion Powell and will present the Marion Powell award at the
launch of the screening of the film Passing the Flame: The
Legacy of Women's College Hospital at Roy Thompson Hall.
During her illustrious career Dr. Powell established the Bay
Centre for Birth Control at Women's College and advocated
contraceptive choice for women.
The famous five worked to get women the vote. Dr. Powell worked
to get women control of their own bodies. She is considered a
pioneer among her peers and was a beloved member of the Women's
College Hospital family.
Tomorrow I will have the honour of presenting the Marion Powell
award to Dr. Penny Ballem of the Children's and Women's Health
Science Centre of British Columbia. Dr. Ballem has devoted her
career to establishing innovative state of the art programs and
women centred services. She represents the passion, commitment
and vision that Dr. Powell would have applauded.
I applaud Women's College Hospital and Organon Canada for the
creation of this award. I hope the recognition of Dr. Ballem's
work encourages her and others like her to continue to spearhead
innovation in women's health.
* * *
HAROLD GODFREY
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with sadness that I rise today to inform the House of the passing
of a truly great Canadian.
On February 11, 1998 Harold Godfrey of Cornwall, P.E.I. passed
away. Mr. Godfrey was a leader within the farming community and
Canada as a whole.
Harold started farming at the early age of 14. He and his son
Donald have a beef and potato farming operation with a cow-calf
operation specializing in purebred Simmental cattle.
Harold Godfrey was a strong and active supporter of farm
organizations. He served as president of the P.E.I. Federation
of Agriculture, a director of the CFA and many other maritime
organizations, including the P.E.I. Potato Marketing Board.
In addition to these roles, Mr. Godfrey served as a member of
the Atlantic Veterinary College Advisory Board. In 1989 his
lifelong contribution to agriculture was recognized when he was
appointed to the Atlantic Agricultural Hall of Fame.
Harold was an active member of his community and his church. We
thank Harold for his life's work.
* * *
ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on February 25, 1998 former Canadian heavyweight boxing
champion George Chuvalo will bring his crusade against alcohol
and drug abuse to the town of Blind River in my riding of
Algoma—Manitoulin.
Mr. Chuvalo will speak with students of W.C. Eaket and Jeunesse
Nord high schools to impress upon them the dangers associated
with substance abuse and addiction.
Mr. Chuvalo is an impassioned advocate who has lost three
children and a wife to drug abuse. His emotional presentations
on this subject have been successful in changing many lives and
have led to a greater understanding of the importance of speaking
frankly about the dangers posed by drugs and alcohol, especially
for our youth.
I wish to congratulate Tim and Joanne Caddel, constituents of
mine from Algoma Mills who have been instrumental in building the
community support necessary to welcome George Chuvalo to Blind
River.
While in Blind River, Mr. Chuvalo will be presented with special
recognition for his efforts in raising awareness of the national
problem of drug and alcohol abuse.
I ask all hon. members to join me in saluting the efforts of
George Chuvalo and those of Tim and Joanne Caddel of Blind River.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I was in Toronto for the unveiling of an Ontario
senatorial selection act at Queen's Park. Both Alberta and
British Columbia already have senatorial selection acts that
allow the people to choose their senators. Now Ontario has joined
the movement for democracy in government.
The message is clear. Over half of this country has indicated
its willingness to modernize the upper house. Government by
appointment is clearly outdated, undemocratic and unacceptable.
Canadians want effective, elected and accountable representation.
The Prime Minister has told Canadians on many occasions that he
supports an elected senate. Now Canadians are calling on the
Prime Minister to respect the will of the people and allow the
provinces to choose their representatives through democratic
elections.
1405
Senator Thompson's second hearing is tonight. It is time for the
Senate to say adios Senor Thompson, and for this Prime Minister
to say Senate election.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
connection with the reference to the supreme court, the ad hoc
committee of Canadian women on the Constitution will be coming to
tell the justices that Quebec is not entitled to unilateral
secession.
This marginal group, some of whose members are Liberal MPs,
does not speak on behalf of women's groups in Quebec or in Canada.
It is not, therefore, surprising that their proposal is more in
line with the government's position than with the women's position,
particularly when we see that one of their representatives, Mary
Eberts, was also the Treasury Board chief negotiator in the wage
equity issue, which is still not settled, moreover.
All of the women's groups in Quebec believe that only the
people of Quebec are entitled to decide their future. In
solidarity with Quebec, these women believe in freedom and
democracy. They know that Quebec's right to be the only one to
decide its future does not in any way encroach on their own rights.
Quebec sovereignty will not be achieved at the expense of
women, but rather along with women.
* * *
[English]
GORDON TAPP
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of Burlington residents it is my pleasure to rise today to
congratulate Order of Canada recipient Gordon Tapp.
For more than five decades Mr. Tapp has entertained us as a
comedian, musician and scriptwriter on radio, television and on
the stage. His unique down-home charm has tickled the funny bones
of people of all ages.
Mr. Tapp gives generously of his time and talent by raising
funds for volunteer organizations such as the Muscular Dystrophy
Association, the Easter Seal Society and local Burlington
organizations.
He has thrilled world leaders and brought cheer to our troops
overseas.
Colleagues, please join me in congratulating Gordie Tapp. A
great Canadian and a fine citizen, he brings honour to our
community and our country.
* * *
NAGANO WINTER OLYMPICS
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is with tremendous admiration, pride and respect that I rise
to congratulate all of our Canadian athletes participating in the
Nagano Winter Olympics.
There is no doubt these athletes in Nagano are there not only
because of their personal achievements but thanks to the training
provided by dedicated coaches and the support of their families.
However news coverage also shows coaches and parents holding
fundraising events. Why? In an attempt to raise dollars to join
their athletes in Nagano.
Now some Canadian politicians are attempting to justify their
own participation in a $75,000 all expense taxpayer funded VIP
junket to Nagano. The heritage minister is accompanied by
Conservative, Bloc and Liberal members of Parliament. These
politicians say they are going to Nagano to show solidarity and
support for our Canadian athletes.
It seems to me that Canadian athletes would garner far more
solidarity and support from their coaches, parents and teammates
than from politicians acting as VIP cheerleaders.
* * *
[Translation]
NAGANO OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes away from the usual
business of the House, if I may, to speak of Canada's athletes, who
continue to aim for their best ever performances in the atmosphere
of intense pressure of the Olympic Games.
In recent days, we have seen such athletes as Jean-Luc
Brassard, Stéphane Rochon, Ann-Marie Pelchat, Ryan Johnson, Tami
Bradley, Mélanie Turgeon, Kristy Sargeant, Kris Wirtz, Marie-Claude
Savard-Gagnon and Luc Bradet staunchly defending the Canadian
colours in competition. For them, effort and perseverance were
more than mere words. Are they not champions merely by making it
to the Olympics?
Of course we wish victory to all our athletes, since that is
what all of their efforts are focussed on, but we owe them
particular thanks for putting us in touch with the most human
aspects of ourselves: love for one another, pleasure in one
anothers' achievements, and solidarity in effort.
We wish each and every one of our athletes good luck in the
pursuit of their Olympic goals. They are the pride of our country.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN DEFICIT
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance has the gall to talk about
dealing with the human deficit. What chutzpah.
This is the government that created the deficit with $7 billion
in cuts to health, education and social service. It created it
with cuts to employment insurance, training, pensions, the
environment, child care and housing.
The results of this inhumane Liberal agenda is a crisis in
health care, education, family incomes and communities
everywhere.
1410
In Winnipeg today nurses are saying emergency rooms are unsafe
with IV bags going dry, vital signs not being checked, health
aides working 24-hour shifts and patients waiting long painful
hours for treatment.
In the face of these bleeding cuts to the provinces, the health
minister is playing politics on hepatitis C compensation instead
of showing leadership.
Canadians are sick to death of the human deficit created by this
government and some have even given their lives for it. That is
too high a price to pay.
* * *
[Translation]
ICE STORM
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Canada announced yesterday in
Saint-Hyacinthe an additional $40 million for farmers
particularly hard hit during the ice storm.
The sovereignists can say what they like. Our government did
not act unilaterally, but only after consulting the Government of
Quebec, which did not deign to respond to the invitations of the
federal government.
The fact of the matter was that farmers and the heads of small
and medium size businesses could not wait any longer for a quick
and positive response from political leaders.
The fact of the matter is that the Government of Quebec
decided to play petty politics with all these issues, blaming
Ottawa for all the problems.
While Quebec might not appreciate the goodwill, and
particularly the quick action and positive response of the
Government of Canada in this matter, the people, SMBs and farmers
will remember that the Canadian government did not drag its feet.
It took action throughout the storm, from start to finish.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN WOMEN'S OLYMPIC HOCKEY TEAM
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
earlier this week at the Nagano games the Canadian Women's
Olympic Hockey Team won silver after completing an action packed
final game against the United States.
Shortly after the emotional medal presentations had concluded,
one of our players remarked that she and her teammates regretted
that they had let Canada down by not claiming gold.
Canada boasts a very long and distinguished hockey heritage.
From the first Stanley Cup game to the Canada-Soviet summit
series, this truly Canadian sport has provided us with countless
positive and uplifting memories. Indeed Canadians have come to
expect nothing less than the best from our hockey heroes.
I had the opportunity to view portions of this gold medal game.
What I saw was our girls fiercely competing against the U.S. amid
a swell of national pride, waving Canadian flags, and cheers.
Even when the last whistle had sounded, the pride felt by
spectators in their homes and in the stands was not in any way
diminished.
The effort put forth by our Olympic women's hockey team more
than exceeds the high expectations held by Canadians. This team
has made us all proud.
* * *
[Translation]
ÉRIC BÉDARD
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
Tuesday, February 17, Éric Bédard, a speed skater from
Sainte-Thècle in the riding of Champlain, won the bronze medal in
Nagano in the men's short track 1,000 metre.
I am very proud to pay tribute to the courage and
determination of our first Quebecker to win a medal at the Nagano
Olympic Games.
My congratulations to Éric Bédard for an exceptional
performance. I also offer my congratulations to his parents Gaétan
and Claire Bédard and to his family and to the people of Sainte-Thècle.
This is the first time an Olympic medal has been awarded to an
athlete from the Mauricie.
Éric Bédard's success brings honour to his region and to all of
Quebec.
Congratulations, Éric, and good luck in the relay.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, as I
have indicated many times in the House, unemployment is
Newfoundland's biggest problem. Therefore I believe government
should not be shocked if I say I was outraged when I learned that
Newfoundland has taken the biggest percentage hit in federal job
losses.
On March 31, 1995 Newfoundland had 6,440 federal employees. As
of June past we have 4,836 federal employees, for a loss of
24.9%. That compares with the 18.4% loss in Atlantic Canada and
the 14.6% loss nationwide. I am told that Newfoundland will have
lost nearly 30% of its federal employees by the end of March
1998. By the end of the fiscal year the province with double the
national unemployment rate will have taken double the national
rate of federal job losses.
The government came to power on a promise of jobs, jobs, jobs.
What has that cost Newfoundland? Jobs, jobs, jobs.
* * *
1415
CANADIAN SOCIETY
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the United Nations has honoured Canada for several years by
acknowledging that our country is the best country in the world.
That honour has been sustained because of our commitments in a
number of areas.
In the area of justice and security we commit to promote a
peaceful, just, tolerant and civil society governed by respect
for the rule of law and for our fellow human beings.
We commit to a universal, accessible, portable, comprehensive
and publicly funded health care system.
We commit to the provision of a compassionate social safety net
for the benefit of the unemployed, the disabled, the aged and
those who live in poverty.
We commit to the protection and promotion of the health and
beauty of our natural and manmade environments.
Finally, we commit through our example and our initiatives to
always promote international peace and co-operation.
These are the kinds of commitments that make Canada great, not
only in the eyes of Canada but also in the eyes of the world.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on page 29 of the Prime Minister's 1997 red book it says
this: “We will allocate every billion dollars of fiscal
dividend so that one-half will go to a combination of reducing
taxes and reducing the national debt”. It was a clear-cut debt
reduction and tax reduction promise for every billion dollars of
surplus.
Yesterday the finance minister told the CBC he is not going to
apply that formula to the 1998 budget.
The finance minister is breaking the Prime Minister's promise.
What is the Prime Minister going to do about it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister will read from the red book. We will
allocate our budget so that over the course of our mandate
one-half will be spent to improve programs—and a lot of people
agree with that—and one-half will go to tax cuts and reduction
of the debt. That is the Liberal program which we ran on during
the last election.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition will read from the
red book: “We will allocate every billion dollars of fiscal
dividend so that one-half will go to a combination of reducing
taxes and reducing the national debt”.
Now the finance minister is breaking that promise and the Prime
Minister is agreeing with him. It is just like the GST promise.
Will the Prime Minister tell us how this broken promise differs
from the broken GST promise?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I could read from the Speech from the Throne where it
was said that one-half of the surplus would be used to address
the social and economic needs of Canadians. That is something
the Reform Party does not want to do. The other half will go
toward a combination of reducing taxes and the national debt. It
is very clear, very simple and very Liberal.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition will read from the sermon
on the mount. “We will allocate every billion dollars of fiscal
dividend so that one-half will go to a combination of reducing
taxes and reducing the national debt”.
Liberal candidates went door to door making that promise and
less than a year later it is being broken by the Minister of
Finance.
If the Prime Minister will not keep his debt reduction and tax
reduction promise this year, why should Canadians ever again
trust him on anything he says about debt reduction and tax
relief?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians watch members of the Reform Party. One day
they are for debt reduction. The next day they are for tax
reduction. They change all the time. They do not know.
For us it is very clear. Over the term of our mandate, because
we have provided Canadians with good government, because there
will be a surplus, we will do it the Canadian way, the reasonable
way. Half will be used for solving economic and social problems
and the other half for reducing taxes and the debt. It is very
simple.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is amazing what can sneak up on you in a mandate.
The Prime Minister told the country in 1993 that he would scrap
the GST, but he was just crying wolf. Last year he said that 50%
of any surplus would be split between tax relief and debt
reduction. Now he has just admitted that he is crying wolf
again.
The finance minister also says “No problem. We don't really
need to keep our word”.
1420
Let me ask the Prime Minister what happened between the promise
and the present.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I invite the hon. member to look at the Speech from the
Throne where it was very clear, and in the red book it was very
clear.
We will do the right thing for Canada. It is not to be able to
put our heads in the sand and not recognize that we have social
problems and economic problems which need some government
intervention. At the same time we will do something that has not
been done for 50 years: a series of balanced budgets.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister talks about social programs. It is because he
has racked up such a horrendous amount of debt over the last 30
years.
The Prime Minister broke a GST promise. Now he has broken this
promise for 50% of tax relief and debt reduction. The finance
minister said on CBC radio “Oh, well, I am not under any real
constraint to keep that promise”.
Was this latest tax promise reneged on just recently, or was it
just another GST hoax right from the beginning?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, maybe I have to read again very slowly so that they
understand.
We will allocate our budgets so that over the course of our
mandate one half, 50% in English, will be spent to improve
programs and one half, 50 p. 100 en français, will go to tax cuts
and reduction of the debt.
It was exactly the same thing that was in the Speech from the
Throne that was presented and voted on by the House of Commons.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
there is a great deal of confusion about the government's position
with respect to the supreme court reference. There is the position
of the Minister of Justice, the position of the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, and the position of the lawyer, Yves
Fortier.
I would ask the Prime Minister to tell us what the
government's position is.
Is it the position of the Minister of Justice, who says that
Quebec's sovereignty would create such an exceptional situation
that the Constitution would be of no help, or is it that of Yves
Fortier, who argued the exact opposite before the supreme court?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government's position is very well known. We are saying
clearly that the case is before the supreme court right now, that
the lawyers are making their arguments, that we are going to let
them do so, and that the supreme court will be able to make its
decision.
The important thing for us is to ensure that all Canadian
citizens comply with the law of Canada.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I see that the Prime Minister is avoiding the issue, while his
Minister of Justice is talking about it to the newspapers and his
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is talking about it just
about everywhere.
The Minister of Justice tells us that the court must rule on
native rights, while Yves Fortier is arguing quite the opposite.
I therefore ask the Prime Minister from whom exactly in this
government is Yves Fortier taking his orders?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
for people who said they were going to ignore the supreme court,
that it had no say in the matter, they are taking quite an interest
in the court's goings on.
The government's lawyers are explaining the position of the
Government of Canada and the other intervenors representing
particular groups are explaining their points of view. It will be
up to the supreme court to decide. If they want to go and present
an argument, let them apply to the supreme court and send a lawyer.
They did not even have the courage to go and defend their case
before the supreme court.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the government is getting more and more mired in its contractions
every day.
Yesterday, the Minister of Justice said the opposite of what
her lawyer was saying in court on Monday. The Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs then said the opposite of what the
Minister of Justice was saying in the newspaper, and today what the
Prime Minister is saying does nothing to clarify the government
position.
With this reference to the supreme court, does the Prime
Minister admit that he has loaded all of us onto a ship over which
even he is beginning to lose control?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to take this
opportunity to clarify yet again, as I did yesterday, the
position of the federal government in relation to the ongoing
reference before the supreme court.
I want to quote from a statement of clarification that I issued
yesterday in case anyone was under any misunderstanding as to
where the government stands.
1425
I will quote “The federal government's position is set out in
our factum and our reply and was repeated in court on Monday. The
federal position is that the constitution applies, and I fully
support this position”.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on the reference, Quebec federalists are repudiating the
government. The Conservatives and the NDP are repudiating the
government. The Canadian Labour Congress is repudiating the
government. The Globe and Mail is repudiating the government.
Even the Premier of Ontario is gradually moving in that direction.
Is the Prime Minister not beginning to realize that he no
longer has anybody on his side in this reference business, and that
even his traditional allies are starting to dump him.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, after the sound and fury of the Bloc has died down, the
arguments will still be there, and Quebeckers will hear them.
* * *
[English]
MINISTER OF FINANCE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
I would like to inquire today about the health of the finance
minister. Yesterday we saw worrisome signs of amnesia when the
finance minister expressed concern about the human deficit. He
has forgotten that he is the one who hacked $3.5 billion from
health care. He has forgotten that he is the one who slashed
$1.5 billion from education.
My question for the Prime Minister is straightforward. Is the
finance minister well?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, he is in extremely good shape just like the finances of
the nation.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister and the finance minister can try to put a positive
spin on the human deficit but the facts speak for themselves.
How could they be proud of their record when 200,000 more kids
are living in poverty than when the Liberals took office, when
48,000 fewer young people are employed than just two years ago,
and when tuition fees have risen 41% in the past five years?
How could the Prime Minister be proud of the growing gap between
the privileged and everyone else, the prosperity gap that he and
his policies have helped to widen?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, every responsible government, including the Saskatchewan
and British Columbia NDP governments, are working to balance
their books.
We have had to make these very difficult decisions because of
the $42 billion debt that we took over in 1993-94. Despite all
this, the Canadian economy managed to create a million new jobs
in the last four years.
* * *
[Translation]
STUDENT DEBT
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, he appeared to finally acknowledge that there was
a connection between education and job opportunity. In Canada,
students graduate with a very heavy debt load. This country is
also faced at this time with a brain drain caused by excessive
taxation.
If there must be a millennium fund, I would like the Prime
Minister's commitment today to making the solution to two questions
his priority: student debt, and the brain drain, by cutting taxes
so that our young people remain—
The Speaker: The hon. the Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
student debt is a problem of enormous concern to the government.
When we met with the provincial premiers in December, an agreement
was reached between all the provincial premiers and the federal
government, that the two levels of government would work together
to solve this problem.
As for education, we of course believe—and I said so
yesterday in my speech—that for young people with a good
education, there is 5% unemployment. Those who unfortunately have
less education have a 15% unemployment rate.
This means that—
[English]
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the Conservative Party.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
want to help the Prime Minister today. He is recognizing that
the student debt problem is an extremely important problem. It
has been assessed at FMC.
If that is the case and there is to be a millennium fund, will
the Prime Minister make a commitment today that the number one
priority of his government for students will be student debt and
the reduction of student debt?
1430
Will he also commit to stopping the brain drain that we have in
Canada today by reducing taxes so we can keep young Canadians at
home to work in our country?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are preoccupied. I invite the leader of the
Conservative Party to wait for the budget which will answer many
of his questions.
Yes, we will be in a position to do that because after four
years we have managed to reduce the $42 billion deficit the
Conservative government left us in 1993-94.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Prime Minister announced for about the 15th time
his $3 billion monument called the millennium scholarship fund.
While he was blowing hot air about his commitment to education,
his tax collectors were cracking down on employees who dared to
upgrade their education at work.
Yesterday a scientist with Ipsco was hit by Revenue Canada for
$30,000 in back taxes because his company paid for specialized
training.
How could the Prime Minister brag about his commitment to
education when his tax collectors are punishing employees for
investing in their own education?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as usual Reform members do not have their
facts right. The record of the government is one of commitment
to lifelong learning. We have announced a number of measures
this time.
With regard to employers providing training, we actually
encourage employers to provide training. Assessments on whether
it is an expense have to be done on a case by case basis.
The hon. member is wrong when he says that companies cannot
expense training. They can and they do. He should get his facts
right.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
once again the minister demonstrates that he has no capacity in
his file. It has nothing to do with writing off the expense. It
has to do with Revenue Canada retroactively assessing these
training courses as taxable benefits. Yesterday somebody was hit
with $30,000 for taking a university course.
The Business Council on National Issues says that millions of
Canadians may be hit with high retroactive taxes for their
companies having invested in their training.
How could the government square this penalization, this
punishment of people investing in their futures, while at the
same time brag rhetorically about investing in training and
education?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been an employer. I have been
there. Employers right across the country send their employees
on courses.
When it can be shown that it directly benefits the company and
not solely the individual, or that it benefits the individual to
be more productive and efficient, it is not taxable.
The hon. member should get his facts right and do his research.
It is business as usual for the Reform Party: no facts and just
trying to make cheap political points.
* * *
[Translation]
EDUCATION
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister is putting more and more energy into
promoting his millennium scholarship fund, which he wants to turn
into the symbol of Canada's entry into the 21st century.
The Prime Minister claims to be ensuring compliance with
Canada's Constitution in his reference to the Supreme Court, so why
he is incapable of complying with another clear provision of the
Constitution, which is that education is exclusively a provincial
matter?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, education is a matter of exclusive provincial
jurisdiction, and the Government of Canada is not meddling in
education, because we are the federal government.
However, financial aid to students has always been a shared
responsibility, and I know of no federal government in the world in
a developed country that is not involved in helping its people have
access to educational institutions. Canadians are entitled to
receive aid from their federal government.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, so
they are breaking up the best system of loans and grants in Canada
to create another through duplication.
Does the minister realize that his project simply ensures
political visibility but does not resolve the problem of student
debt? This is why people in both Quebec and Canada are criticizing
the government so vigorously.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is another question. Clearly in this federation,
which we have considerably improved in recent years, there is no
question of creating overlap. We will always work together with
the provinces, especially in areas where Canadians have to count on
help from both governments.
* * *
1435
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in 1996
this Liberal defence minister announced a $500 million emergency
campaign to clothe our soldiers.
Yet recently an advertisement appeared in the Plainsman
newspaper requesting forces personnel to return all combat shirts
and pants which are not being used to the clothing stores so that
they could be redistributed to the second rotation of soldiers
going to Bosnia.
Will the Minister of National Defence explain to the men and
women in our forces why $500 million cannot even buy them proper
pants? Why is the government turning the Canadian army into the
Salvation Army?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party is always looking at
information that is quite old.
The clothe the soldier program, which is what he is referring
to, is in fact moving on. Funds are being provided all the time
to increase the amount of new clothing and new equipment, the
latest up to date equipment and clothing for our soldiers.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
fact this recent ad appeared in the Plainsman and it reads:
Request and appeal to all military personnel at 15 Wing who
presently hold combat shirts and trousers that are not being used
for Operational reasons to please return to Clothing Stores so
that these items may go back into the system to properly kit Roto
2 of OP Palladium.
Does the minister think it is good for morale to turn the
Canadian army into the Salvation Army?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): It sounds like the same question again, Mr. Speaker.
In the process of providing for this new clothing there has been
a period of time when there has been a shortage. That shortage
is coming to an end and all our troops will get the proper
clothing and will not have to go through that kind of procedure.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-28
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the government's ethics counsellor said and put in
writing that, because of Bill C-28, the Minister of Finance had
placed himself in an apparent conflict of interest situation.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister
again prepared to stand in his place and say that there is no
problem and that his shipowner minister has broken none of the
rules in the June 1994 code of conduct?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
one thing is clear: the allegations are completely unfounded.
Yesterday, Howard Wilson said: “Mr. Martin is not in a conflict of
interest situation”.
It is absolutely clear that he is not in conflict of interest
and I stand by what I have always said, which is that the minister
behaved with complete propriety and that he took all the necessary
steps so as not to be in any real or apparent conflict of interest.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the following appears in the code of conduct, and I quote: “On
appointment to office, and thereafter, public office holders shall
arrange their private affairs in a manner that will prevent real,
potential or apparent conflicts of interest from arising”.
Is it not clear to the Prime Minister that the Minister of
Finance placed himself in an apparent conflict of interest
situation that is completely unacceptable and at odds with the
spirit and the letter of his own code of conduct?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
absolutely not. Everyone in Canada knows that our Minister of
Finance and his family are owners of a very large shipping company.
Everyone knows this.
Immediately on becoming Minister of Finance, he took the
necessary steps to ensure that he was not in a conflict of interest
situation or in an apparent conflict of interest situation. That
is why he asked the Secretary of State for Financial Institutions
to look after this particular problem, rather than doing so
himself.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister is the owner of Canada Steamship Lines, one of
the country's largest shipping companies.
It just so happens the same finance minister sponsored tax
legislation that could potentially save millions of dollars in
taxes for companies such as his own.
Why is the finance minister allowed to bring in legislation that
could potentially profit him personally to the tune of millions
of dollars? Why is he allowed to do that?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have replied to this question time and time again.
This piece of legislation was handled by the Secretary of State
for Finance. According to the arrangement made by the Minister
of Finance when he became Minister of Finance—everybody knew
that he was in that business—he made a disposition to make sure
that he was not to be in a conflict of interest. And so said Mr.
Howard Wilson yesterday in front of the committee.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister is absolutely wrong. This bill was sponsored by
the finance minister himself.
He himself stands to profit from this legislation.
1440
The ethics counsellor did not even know about this until he read
about it in the newspaper. Then this farce of an investigation
was to call up the minister's company, which said oh no, Mr.
ethics counsellor, there has not been any wrongdoing. You can
trust us. That was his investigation.
My question is for the Prime Minister. What is the use of an
ethics counsellor if he approves unethical behaviour?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I say again that out of about 350 clauses of the bill,
there was this clause that related to an industry that is very
important in Canada, and this was handled by the secretary of
state for finance. For me it is very clear.
I have no doubt that the people of Canada agree with me that the
Minister of Finance is a man of integrity and honesty, and he has
shown it to the Canadian people.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the government's ethics commissioner acknowledged that the measures
intended to eliminate any whisper of conflict of interest in the
story of the ship-owning minister's sponsorship of Bill C-28 were
not implemented.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Since the ethic's
commissioner's statement proves that there is an apparent conflict
of interest and the 1994 code of ethics states that ministers must
not find themselves in such situations, what does the Prime
Minister intend to do about his minister-cum-shipowner-cum-legislator?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have been answering that question for two weeks now. The
Minister of Finance has taken all of the necessary steps—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: —to ensure that he was not in a
conflict of interest, either real or apparent. That is why he
handed the matter over to the Secretary of State for Financial
Institutions. It is clear cut.
Since the Minister's very first day in this House as an MP,
everyone has known he was a highly successful businessman in that
industry. He has always been able to play his role as an MP and as
a minister without any conflict whatsoever with his family's
interests.
* * *
[English]
ICE STORM
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the President of the
Treasury Board announced a compensation program yesterday for
part time farmers in Quebec who suffered losses in the ice storm.
My riding also suffered losses and we appreciated the Salvation
Army, unlike the Reform.
Can the minister of agriculture give this House his assurance
that part time farmers in Ontario will receive similar
consideration?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker, we can give that assurance. We were
in Saint-Hyacinthe yesterday and announced the ice storm recovery
program for part time farmers in Quebec, a $50 million program.
The minister of defence, the House leader and I will be in
Kemptville in eastern Ontario tonight to have similar
consultations with the farmers in eastern Ontario on the same
issue.
* * *
BILL C-28
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister's department has clearly broken
ethical standards by having, first, the minister himself
sponsoring a tax bill, potentially saving his company millions of
dollars, then hiding this clear violation from the ethics
commissioner.
How does this minister expect Canadians to believe his next
piece of legislation will not have another sweetheart deal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance will stand up in the House next
Tuesday and will prove again that he is an excellent Minister of
Finance who works diligently for the interests of all Canadians,
that he is very honest and that he is a man whom we shall all
respect because he deserves it.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the facts are clear. The finance minister sponsored a
bill through which his company made profit. The ethics watchdog
was called in a day late and a dollar short to cover up this
clear violation. His entire investigation was kept in house.
Given these facts, why does the Prime Minister put the finance
minister's personal gain ahead of government ethics?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have been in this House for quite a long time. The
people of Canada elected me here 11 times.
1445
I know that when you cannot attack somebody above the belt and
you are gutless, you hit below the belt. That is what we see
today.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister. The record will clearly show that the
Minister of Finance introduced Bill C-28. We assume the Minister
of Finance knows what is in the bill before he sponsors it. The
bill provided for clear benefits that could accrue to his own
company.
When the ethics commissioner appeared before the finance
committee yesterday, he said that when legislation is being
drafted in the Department of Finance that could benefit the
Minister of Finance, he or his office is always informed ahead of
time so he can check out conflict of interest possibilities.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver East.
* * *
EDUCATION
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Prime Minister, in speaking to the Canadian Club,
admitted too many Canadians are unable to attend college or
university today because they cannot afford it.
The Prime Minister says that he cannot hide his enthusiasm for
the millennium scholarship fund but students cannot hide their
horror at having to wait another two years for help.
Will the Prime Minister rename the fund the 1998 fund so that
students can get help today when they need it, not some time in
the future?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for supporting
the program. We cannot do it this year because we have to
negotiate with the provinces to make sure that the system
functions well, that there is no duplication. We have done it
before.
When we had the infrastructure program, it was a successful
program because we managed to have three levels of government
working together for the benefit of Canadians and we intend to do
the same thing for the benefit of students.
I am happy to see that this member will be supporting us on
that.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister
said that the government promises to put in a spring in the steps
of students, to let them leap forward and see the dream in the
new millennium fund.
The millennium fund is for future students. At a current
undergraduate degree cost of over $25,000 our current students
are drowning in debt. Will the Prime Minister throw today's
students a lifeline or just another line?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have been working. There was some provision last
year to help students. I cannot say what will be in the budget,
but wait patiently. Now it is only six days.
Of course we will do the right thing and I hope they will be
applauding.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister believes that this millennium fund will be his
government's legacy. I say that his education legacy is one of
shame.
Today's students have paid for this future fund by shouldering
massive cuts to education. Today's students do not need a legacy
fund, they need an education fund.
Instead of repackaging his cuts of the past, he is trying to
create a personal legacy. What is the Prime Minister prepared to
do for today's students?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we would have been able to act much faster if we did not
have to deal with the legacy of the Conservative Party, the $42
billion deficit in our first year.
That was the first priority, to put order in the finances of the
nation. We have done it in our dealings with the problems of the
nation.
It is too bad I had, as Prime Minister, the legacy of the
Conservative Party. It was no fun.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence. As the
minister knows, there is substantial concern about the treatment
of civilian employees at Canadian forces bases where certain
operations are being privatized.
Is the minister prepared to take action so that employees at our
bases are treated fairly?
1450
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think we have an obligation in our
department to meet our budget reduction targets. We have an
obligation to perform our services in an efficient and effective
fashion. If we can do so and save the taxpayers money, we should
do that. That is what we can do with the alternative service
delivery program.
However, at the same time, this government and our party have an
obligation and a desire to make sure that our employees are
treated humanely. We have demonstrated that with the way we have
gone about downsizing the public service. We will demonstrate it
again in terms of how we treat employees in the alternative
service delivery program.
* * *
NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on Monday when I asked the national revenue minister
about the leaked income tax return he denied it. On Tuesday he
referred to clearing up ambiguities. What about a clear and
honest answer today? How many more ambiguities are there, 100,
1,000, or 10,000?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I responded yesterday to the matter the
hon. member has brought forward. I want to be clear again to
make sure I put the facts on the line.
In the case the member was referring to, there was a consent
form provided to Revenue Canada, the basis on which information
was provided. The issue at hand is whether the consent form
should be clearer and more precise. I say yes. That is why as
of January 15 we have asked the Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation to make its consent form clearer so there are no
misunderstandings as to the information to be provided.
* * *
[Translation]
MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Industry.
In September 1997, the Medical Research Council distributed $49
million in grants to universities. We now learn that there is a
considerable imbalance between the number of grants awarded
to English language universities and the number awarded to French
language universities.
Can the Minister of Industry explain to us, for instance, why
McGill University received twice as many grants from the council as
did the Université de Montréal?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development—Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week I
had the honour, on behalf of the government and the Medical
Research Council, of announcing grants to the Université de
Montréal and to McGill University.
I am also honoured today to tell you that, of the money
awarded by the Medical Research Council over the last five years,
33% went to the Province of Quebec, and that the Medical Research
Council thus made it possible for research that will create lasting
and quality jobs to continue.
That is what this government has been committed to doing
since 1993.
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister, of which I
gave him notice a couple of hours ago.
Senator Thompson is only the last straw that broke the camel's
back in terms of the public's intolerance with our Senate. Our
Senate is undemocratic, unelected and unaccountable. It is a
house of hacks, flacks and bagmen. Enough is enough.
Is the Prime Minister ready now to take the initiative to break
the log-jam and introduce into the House a motion to abolish the
existing unelected Senate? If he does that I assure him of our
support.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have always been in favour of reforming the Senate.
We voted in this House on the Charlottetown agreement. We wanted
to have an elected Senate, one that represented all the regions.
Unfortunately the people of Canada did not accept that
proposition. In particular, the Reform Party voted against it.
If there is occasion to reform the Senate, this party has always
been in favour of a reformed Senate. However, we need to do it
by amending the Constitution. In order to amend the Constitution
in Canada we need the consent and advice of the provinces.
* * *
BILL C-28
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great regret, but important to remember, what the ethics
commissioner said yesterday. We cannot ignore his testimony. He
stated that he was called in to investigate the apparent conflict
of interest between the finance minister who did sponsor Bill
C-28. He also said that he contacted CSL executives to determine
the impact on CSL.
1455
Why did the ethics commissioner contact CSL to find out what the
impact would be on CSL? Why did he not contact a tax expert?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I presume the ethics commissioner contacted everyone who
had facts and asked them to make a contribution so that he could
render the opinion he gave yesterday which was very clear.
[Translation]
“One thing is clear”, he said, “the allegations are completely
unfounded. Mr. Martin—the Minister of Finance—is not in a
conflict of interest situation”. In order to arrive at that
opinion, he obtained all the information required to be able to
give a clear opinion on the matter.
* * *
[English]
SIERRA LEONE
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for Latin America and
Africa and it concerns the continuing crisis in Sierra Leone,
west Africa.
The last 10 days of fighting have produced hundreds of thousands
of refugees and a serious food shortage. Just yesterday a
Canadian, Dr. Milton Tectonidis with Medicins Sans Frontieres,
was seized by rebels.
Can the minister tell the House what plan our government has to
provide aid to Sierra Leone and to help Dr. Tectonidis return to
safety?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Nepean—Carleton for his question.
On the humanitarian aid I am very pleased to announce that
Canada is going to send $600,000 to the international committee
of the Red Cross to alleviate the horrible suffering in Sierra
Leone.
With respect to Dr. Tectonidis, our high commissioner to Sierra
Leone indicates that an Ecomog force has now been sent to Bo and
Kenema to try to rescue the two men the hon. member just referred
to. We wish them well in that voyage.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
It is quite clear that the overwhelming majority of Canadians do
not support the Senate in its present form. It is nothing more
than a posh country club for political hacks.
The Prime Minister in his previous answer suggested that the
people of Canada rejected Senate reform when they voted against
the Charlottetown accord. That is simply not the case.
Will the Prime Minister recognize that most Canadians do not
support the Senate and will he undertake—
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I explained to the House that we wish to be able to
reform the Senate, but under the Constitution of Canada the
Parliament of Canada cannot reform the Senate alone. The powers
and the numbers are subject to constitutional changes. We are
willing to do that when the provinces are ready.
At this time some people are proposing an equal Senate, with the
provinces having equal representation. In order to change the
Senate we need the consent of the provinces and at this moment
the provinces are not pushing—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Skeena.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the minister of Indian affairs.
Grassroots aboriginals are angry and upset that the minister's
office leaks confidential letters and yet withholds information
which might embarrass the department.
We have an internal departmental memo which directs a senior
bureaucrat to withhold information requested by a band member
under access to information because it might make the department
of Indian affairs look bad.
Did the minister direct her bureaucrats to withhold this
information? If not, did this directive come from her? Where
did it come from?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, following the question from
the hon. member yesterday I looked into the circumstances
surrounding this letter.
First of all, it is two years old. Second, the contents of the
memo are not considered to be protected. Third, the name of the
requester is not in the letter.
The letter in question is, in fact, context and only context
about the information request.
The letter should not and did not affect the decision to release
the information the requester was entitled to.
Finally, the truth is that the bottom line of all this is that
the requester got the information he asked for.
* * *
1500
[Translation]
SPONSORSHIP OF SPORTS AND CULTURAL EVENTS
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec
minister of finance recently announced that $12 million in tobacco
tax revenues would be used to subsidize sports and cultural events
in Quebec.
In order to avoid having sports and cultural events suffer
because of the fight against smoking, when will the Minister of
Health finally introduce the long promised amendments?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are working on them and we are getting there. We will act when we
are ready.
* * *
POINT OF ORDER
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I appeal to
you as the defender of parliamentary rights and protector of the
right of everyone in this parliament to speak, not only in this
House, but wherever our work as members takes us.
The members of the opposition were prevented from doing their
work properly by various decisions taken by the chair of the
Standing Committee on Finance. This is the subject of my remarks
to you.
The chair of the Standing Committe on Finance categorically
and systematically rejected a request by my colleague the member
for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who wanted to hear from witnesses in
committee in order to better understand the entire scope of clause
241 of Bill C-28.
The chair refused any witnesses.
The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot also asked to have the
ethics commissioner testify. The committee chair, contrary to all
expectations and plans, shortened the appearance of the ethics
counsellor, on his own initiative.
The third point I would like to raise with you, and which I
consider quite extraordinary, is the fact that the chair of the
Standing Committee on Finance rejected the request of my
colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for a special committee, a
sub-committee, at least, to hear witnesses and clarify the matter
of the apparent conflict of interest involving the Minister of
Finance.
It is extraordinary, in our opinion, for a committee chair to
use his powers, which should serve to enable parliamentarians to do
their work, to systematically prevent the opposition from obtaining
any information on this matter.
For the good of the Minister of Finance, if the opposition can
query a number of specialists in order to clarify this important
and complex situation, it seems to me the committee should be
allowed to do its job.
I therefore appeal to you as the Speaker of the House and
ultimate chair of all committees so that parliamentarians may be
heard.
1505
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to read a
portion of the proceedings of the committee sitting in question, or
at least a summary of that sitting. There are two points that
should be brought to the attention of the Chair.
First of all, the fact that a decision by the chair of a
committee may be appealed. An appeal can be made to the committee
as a whole. Parliamentarians are free to do so, of course, but
ultimately at that level whom a committee will or will not hear is
under the committee's jurisdiction.
As for procedure, I would remind you of what it says in
Beauchesne's sixth edition:
[English]
Article 760(3) states:
The Speaker has ruled on many occasions that it is not competent
for the Speaker to exercise procedural control over the
committees. Committees are and must remain masters of their own
procedures.
This is from the Journals of December 4, 1973.
I recall having the occasion when I was in opposition of rising
in the House to plead a similar case in the late 1980s which I
lost.
I also want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, of article 760(4) which
states:
On one occasion, after a grievance was raised in the House
concerning procedure in a committee—
Again, we are talking about procedure here, not the matter of
whether or not someone likes the quality of the decision, which
is entirely different. It continues:
And so on. Then again there is not an instance where the
Speaker personally intervened in that.
The two points I want to summarize are: First, this is not an
issue of procedure per se; in other words whether someone has
been aggrieved because he or she was not allowed to speak in
committee, whether the chair went beyond the usual control the
chair has over committee and so on. One is making a qualitative
judgment here in terms of how the chair of the committee ruled.
Second, even if it had been a matter of procedure, His Honour
has been constant in the past by saying that he—and your
predecessors, Sir—has not seen fit to undertake to overrule such
decisions before.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on the same point of order. It is a very serious issue.
I will simply say that the government House leader pointed out
that when he was in opposition he understood the necessity of
having the Speaker at that time intervening in a situation. He
subsequently lost his case but I think he appreciates the point.
He has taken it to heart.
I simply want to make the same point. In this case the
allegations that are being made are extraordinarily serious. If
they are not dealt with in an appropriate way, it will darken the
reputation of the House. I believe the Speaker is charged with
the responsibility of upholding the reputation of the House of
Commons.
In this case I believe the seriousness of the allegations
warrant the intervention of the Speaker.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise on
the same point of order. I listened to the government House
leader. I think there has been some slight error in
interpretation.
The reason that members of the opposition parties in the finance
committee jointly introduced a motion asking for the opportunity
to delve into the issue further was in an effort to clear any
hint of wrongdoing by the Minister of Finance.
We recognize that for us to do our work in the House of Commons
and in the finance committee the reputation of the Minister of
Finance is paramount. Allegations have been made.
Interpretations of various comments have been made, the fact that
there may be a conflict of interest with the Minister of Finance
on the eve of the budget.
This is an effort not to question necessarily the procedure in
the finance committee but simply to find a way to clear the air
once and for all so that there is no hint that a possible
conflict of interest may occur with the Minister of Finance.
1510
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on the same point of order. We support this point of order. We
feel this process requires transparency, not just for the
opposition but for the government and the minister.
One of the Liberal promises was that the ethics counsellor would
be reporting to parliament as opposed to simply the prime
minister. In lieu of that, the committee needs to have the
ability to investigate the matter.
For instance, the commissioner talked to CSL to find what the
tax implications would be. Perhaps the committee would be able
to call tax experts to find out what the implications would be.
The point is that all Canadians will be best served by a
transparent process in the hands of parliamentarians at the
subcommittee level.
The Speaker: This point has come up a number of times
since I have been in the House. My predecessors in this chair
have consistently ruled that the committees are masters of their
own work.
I would point out with respect that members of the committee can
bring this forth in the committee proper and the committee will
decide what it wants to do with it. If a report is brought back
to the House then I believe we could entertain the motions or
objections such as those that are brought forth.
Unless and until I get direction from the House of Commons that
the policies in this regard are to be changed, I would rule at
this time that the committee is master of its own destiny and
that if a report comes back to the House, at that time I will
have a look at it.
QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order in regard to a document that was quoted
from by the minister of fisheries.
I first raised this matter yesterday after question period. I
based my point of order on Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation
495, which reads:
A Minister is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or
other state paper not before the House without being prepared to
lay it on the Table.
The government House leader argued that the minister did not
actually quote from the document and therefore did not have to
table the document. I have reviewed the videotape and it clearly
shows the minister quoting from the document. I have reviewed
Hansard which indicates the exact statement in question in
quotation marks.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the authority of the House stems
from the powers granted it by the Constitution, our standing
orders and our longstanding practices. I would point out that
any attempt to deliberately omit information from the House by
disobeying the practice as outlined in citation 495 of
Beauchesne's sixth edition would be considered a contempt of
parliament.
The reason why the minister may be reluctant to table the
document containing the accusation against me is because that
document is a lie.
The Speaker: I believe the member mentioned the hon.
minister of fisheries. Is that correct?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I owe the minister of
fisheries an apology. I intended to say the Minister of Veterans
Affairs.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member is going to get up in the
House and declare that people happen to be lying, at least he
should understand who he is talking about. I feel offended by
this hon. member and I find his apology totally inadequate.
1515
The Speaker: Colleagues, with regard to the use of the
word “lie”, of course the word “lie” in itself is not
unparliamentary. I did not hear the hon. member for Medicine Hat
say a minister lied. If I understand correctly, although I do
not have the precise words, the member stated that the document
was a lie. That is a lot different from a member lying.
I want to put that particular part to one side. With regard to
the hon. member misnaming a minister, that is regrettable. I
could understand the minister of fisheries reacting to it.
However, the hon. member has clarified that he was talking
specifically about the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Is that
correct?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: That being the case, yesterday I do not know
that the minister quoted from a letter. I do not know that he
quoted necessarily from a document. I believe that the hon.
leader of the government in the House did make a statement on
this yesterday. At that time the hon. government House leader
said that if this was a letter or a document it would be tabled
in the House. I might have misunderstood. However, he also said
that if this was a briefing note, which is different from a
document as I see it, then that would not be brought into the
House.
How do we get to the bottom of this? Evidently the Minister
of Veterans Affairs is not here so he cannot tell us whether he
quoted from a document or not.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, it is rather difficult for me to
give a decision and to bring us through this situation if I am
being interrupted. I would ask you to please hold your comments
until at least we get the situation as clarified as we can.
I was saying that the minister is not here. I put this question
to the government House leader. Does he have direct and specific
information about this document?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I indicated yesterday that I
would undertake to look into the request made by the hon. member
and of course I will. I do not expect to delay this at all. Had
he contacted me informally before, I would have done my best to
have it for him today. To the extent that it can be available
for the next sitting of the House it will with the same
conditions that I stipulated yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me, I would like to raise
something else in relation to what the member said. It is the
reference to citation 485 of Beauchesne's regarding
unparliamentary language.
It states quite clearly that language, whenever it is
conditional or hypothetical, does not make unparliamentary
language acceptable. For someone to suggest in any way that the
minister may have been not telling the truth in terms of quoting
from a document or that he did not have a document and that in
itself was not true, and so on, is the same as saying the
minister himself was making statements which were untrue. To
make it conditional like that does not make it any more
acceptable.
I invite Mr. Speaker to check the parliamentary records, the
blues as we refer to them, later to see whether that language is
appropriate even with the conditionality that was placed on it
today.
1520
The Speaker: I am going to deal with the first point and
then I will come back to the second point the hon. government
House leader brings up.
I have Hansard from yesterday. I am looking at page 4020
and I do not see in this any quotation marks. That could be an
error on the part of Hansard. I wonder if the hon. member
could wait until we have the Minister of Veterans Affairs here.
We will question him. If indeed he did quote from a document, I
am sure he will tell us. Then we will proceed from there.
I want to go to the other point of order brought up by the hon.
government House leader. I did not hear, either in the tone or
the words that were said, the allegations that the hon.
government House leader said were uttered to him in this House.
However, I will take it upon myself to review specifically what
was said. I will review the tapes, the television tapes also, to
satisfy myself that such was not the case. It is not
parliamentary for us to accuse each other of telling untruths. My
understanding is that there was no accusation made of an
individual. However, I will review it and I will come back to
the House.
Does the hon. member have more information to give us?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the
quotation marks were on the original blues that were sent out.
They have subsequently been removed. I simply point that out.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to request that when you review Hansard and the
movie rights to this saga, perhaps you could also look at what
the minister for ACOA said in the House with the tapes. That is a
telling tale in itself.
The Speaker: The hon. member is right, this is becoming a
saga. I have given an undertaking to this House. I will fulfill
that undertaking and I will get back to the House.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to four petitions.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Statements by Ministers.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a point of order under the item Statements by
Ministers. It relates to points of order raised earlier about
the ability of members in this House to do their jobs
responsibly.
It is hard for us to do our job on a critical issue like
compensation for hepatitis C victims when the Minister of Health
is out there bashing the provinces instead of in here making a
statement to this House.
Would it not be in order, Mr. Speaker, for ministers of the
crown to bring to this House full details of such critical issues
so that we can carry out our duties responsibly?
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member knows that the
practice of the House is that a minister may make a statement
under Statements by Ministers when the minister considers it
appropriate.
Over many years I am sure the hon. member has followed the
proceedings of this place.
1525
Complaints along the lines of that raised by the hon. member
have been raised by other hon. members. They have suggested that
somehow a minister in making statements outside the House is not
fulfilling his or her functions in the House.
The Chair has consistently ruled that it is not a matter for the
Chair to intervene in, nor is it a matter affecting the
privileges of hon. members should ministers choose to make
statements outside the House instead of here.
It is an opportunity for members to comment when ministers make
statements in the House but the fact that statements are not made
here I do not believe is a matter for comment by members on a
question of privilege, nor is it one that relates to either a
point of order or a question of privilege in this House.
While I am pleased that the hon. member has been able to air a
grievance, I do not believe it is a question of privilege or a
point of order.
* * *
GRANT EXPENDITURE REPORT ACT
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-359, an act to require every organization that
receives a grant of public money to submit a report on the way it
is spent that is to be available for public inspection.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as members may recall, as the heritage
critic for the Reform Party it has been a concern of mine that
there have been ongoing expenditures of public funds, sometimes
on very questionable projects as deemed acceptable by people from
the Canada Council right through the heritage department.
It seems to me that the way to bring that under proper control
is to create a situation of accountability, of transparency, of
visibility regarding how these funds are being spent, and that is
the purpose of this bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
TRANSFER OF OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-360, an act to amend the Transfer of Offenders
Act (removal of foreign offenders).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce
my private member's bill which seeks to make amendments to the
Transfer of Offenders Act. This bill was developed in
conjunction with amendments to the Immigration Act.
The goal is to facilitate the deportation of non-Canadians
convicted of crimes. This bill will assist the crown in the
removal of such criminals.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two motions today. Motion No. 337 calls for this
House to restore the taxes on cigarettes to the level existing
January 1, 1994 which happened just at the time when the
government dropped the taxes and caused the single biggest
increase in consumption by youth this country has ever had.
It also calls for the tax rate on tobacco sticks to be the same
as the tax rate on tobacco sticks equal to that on cigarettes,
increase the rate of tax on fine cut tobacco, smokeless tobacco
and leaf tobacco intended for retail sale so that this tax on one
gram of tobacco is equal to the rate of one cigarette and, last,
to improve the tax paid markings that are required on packages of
tobacco products and apply the incremental revenue to health
care.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion I believe is on the Notice
Paper. Why is he rising on motions today? Could he explain that
to the Chair, please.
Mr. Keith Martin: I call for unanimous consent, Mr.
Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: What is he asking for unanimous
consent to do?
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have another motion that
I would like to ask for unanimous consent for.
An hon. member: For what?
Mr. Keith Martin: To pass the following motion.
1530
The motion calls for this House to convene in 1998 a meeting of
like-minded nations in order to develop a multilateral plan of
action to reform international organizations such as the IMF, the
World Bank and the UN, so that they can identify the precursors
to conflict and establish multilateral conflict prevention
initiatives. This is so we can move our foreign policy from
dealing with conflict—
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the
unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
The hon. deputy government whip, on a point of order.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there has been no information given to us on this side
of the House. I am wondering if the member has any compelling
reason why his motion should be taken out of precedence of all
the other motions of the other members of Parliament. There is a
procedure that we follow for private members' motions. I wonder
if he has a compelling reason why his should be treated
differently.
The Deputy Speaker: I have a feeling that if we got into
the reasons we would be into a debate. I think the question that
is properly before the House at the moment, with respect, is
whether or not the hon. member has consent to deal with his
motion today during motions. Is there consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no consent.
* * *
[Translation]
PETITIONS
ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mr. Yvan Bernier
(Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the people of
Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, I am pleased to present a
petition to this House from the Pabok regional county
municipality. This petition contains 1,276 signatures and
concerns the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, more commonly known as
TAGS.
The petitioners are drawing attention to the fact that our
region has been heavily affected by the groundfish moratorium
imposed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada back in May 1994. Since
then, the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, or TAGS, has been the only
means of survival for a large part of our population. This program
was slated to continue until the end of the moratorium in 1999, but
has been re-examined and is now slated to terminate in August 1998.
The people are calling for this program to be continued until
the end of the initial moratorium and feel they should not be the
victims of poor management.
[English]
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure to present a petition this afternoon from a great
number of constituents from my riding.
The petitioners feel that the issue which they are addressing in
this petition certainly is something which consumers right across
Canada feel is important at this time. They feel that Canadian
consumers are at the mercy of the pricing policies of oil
companies. They call upon the Parliament of Canada to adopt
legislation which would require gasoline companies to give 30
days written notice to the Minister of Natural Resources of an
impending significant increase in the price of gasoline that is
over 1% of the current pump prices per litre and that such notice
also contain the reason or reasons for the increase and when it
will take effect.
[Translation]
VIA RAIL
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a
petition bearing 239 signatures, which combine with the 10,847 I
have already tabled in the House, for a total of 11,086 people who
have signed the petition, which reads as follows:
“We would like
VIA Rail to continue to use the Lévis intermodal train station and
also the Montmagny subdivision trunk line between Harlaka and
Saint-Romuald for the operation of the Chaleur and Ocean trains”.
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to
present a petition.
The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that
some individuals are marrying Canadian citizens or permanent
residents for the primary purpose of entering Canada as a member
of the family class. Since fraudulent marriages of convenience
cause pain to innocent spouses, the petitioners request that
Parliament encourage the government to consider introducing a
three year conditional period for sponsored spouses.
1535
STUDENT FINANCIAL AID
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition from Catherine Kowalchuk, Jeff
Leroux, Laurie Cameron, Susan Scarth and more than 23,000 others
who are calling upon Parliament to create a system of student
financial aid which includes the following elements: special
opportunities grants, a national grant program, expanded and
extended interest relief, income based remissions after interest
relief, work study programs and tax refunds.
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS COMPENSATION FUND
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians,
including constituents from my riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that our
police officers and firefighters are required to place their
lives at risk on a daily basis as they execute their duties. The
employment benefits of police officers and firefighters often do
not provide sufficient compensation to the families of those who
are killed in the line of duty. Finally, the public also mourns
the loss of police officers and firefighters killed in the line
of duty and wish to support in a tangible way the surviving
families in their time of need.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to establish a
public safety officers compensation fund for the benefit of
families of public safety officers who are killed in the line of
duty.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following question will be answered today: No. 9.
.[Text]
Mr. John Reynolds:
Concerning the travel to Australia and New-Zealand between
August 24
and September 3, 1997, by the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, could the Minister please provide:
(a) the number, names and titles of the individuals who
accompanied the Minister on that trip;
(b) the total cost for all aspects of that trip;
(c) the names and positions of the individuals the Minister met
and the purpose of each meeting in Australia and New-Zealand;
(d) the Minister's itinerary for the complete trip; and
(e) information on any agreements or joint undertakings
initiated, or planned between Canada/Australia and
Canada/New-Zealand as a consequence of that trip?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): (a) Sarita Bhatla, policy adviser to the
Minister of Citizenship & Immigration, CIC, and Mr. Greg Fyffe,
assistant deputy minister, policy and program development, CIC,
accompanied the minister on her travel to Australia and
New-Zealand.
(b) The total travel cost for this trip was $36,153.65. The
travel cost incurred by the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration was $12,457.73. The Department of Citizenship and
Immigration has no information concerning hospitality costs or
other expenses incurred by the Department of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade and/or regional/local offices and absorbed by
them.
(c) Monday, August 25—Auckland, New-Zealand
Briefing on New-Zealand Refugees issues and tour of Mangere
refugee resettlement centre.
11 a.m.: Ms. Marie Sullivan, branch manager, refugee quota,
New-Zealand Immigration Service, NZIS.
The minister's main focus in Auckland was her August 25 visit to
the NZIS run Mangere refugee reception centre. She toured the
facility, met staff, was briefed on New Zealand's offshore
refugee program and held a roundtable discussion with
representatives of non-governmental organizations, NGOs. The
centre is managed by the refugee quota branch of NZIS and serves
as the focal point for all activities relating to the
identification in co-operation with the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees UNHCR, interview, selection
transportation in co-operation with UNHCR and the International
Organization for Migration, IOM, reception, medical
assessment/treatment, sponsorship and settlement of New Zealnad's
annual convention refugee quota.
Noon: Informal luncheon and discussions on refugee issues
with:
Ms. Jacqueline Tidbury, Regional Co-ordinator, Refugee & Migrant
Services, New Zealand NGO
Dr. Nagalingham Rasalingham, President, Auckland Refugee
Council
Ms. Marie Sullivan, NZIS
Mr. William Smith, Refugee Co-ordinator, Amnesty International
Mr. Keryn McDermott, Co-ordinator, Aukland Institute of
Technology AIT Program, Resettlement Centre
Ms. Jan Clark, Senior Policy Adviser, Risk Management, NZIS
Mr. Sean Henderson, UNHCR
Topics discussed during lunch included public perceptions of
refugees, settlement challenges, responsibilities of sponsors and
challenges in tapping new sources of sponsorship.
Monday, August 25—Wellington, New Zealand
5 p.m.: Honourable Jack Elder, Minister of Internal Affairs,
responsible for citizenship issues.
Minister Elder, responsible for citizenship, passports, the
police, etc., indicated that his department is about to embark on
a review of citizenship law.
7 p.m.: Official dinner hosted by Mr. Brian Watson, Acting
Canadian High Commissioner.
Guest List:
Acting Canadian High Commissioner and Mrs. Linda Watson
Hon. Lucienne Robillard
Mr. Greg Fyffe, ADM policy and program development, Citizenship and
Immigration Canada
Ms. Sarita Bhatla, Policy Adviser to the Minister of Citisenship
and Immigration
Hon. Max Bradford, Minister of Immigration, Government of New
Zealand
Mr. John Chetwin, Chief Executive and secretary, Department of
Labour, Government of New Zealand
Mr. Andrew Lockhart, Acting General Manager, NZIS
Mr. Peter Leniston, Manager, Policy and Evaluation Branch, NZIS
Mr. Martin Treadwell, Acting Chair, Refugee Status Appeal
Authority, RSAA Independent Tribunal
Mr. Peter Cotton, Director, Refugee and Migrant Service NGO
Mr. Arvind Zodgekar, Senior Lecturer, Sociology and Social Policy
Department, University of Victoria, Wellington, New Zealand
Mr. David Hardinge, Counsellor Immigration, Canadian High
Commission, Canberra, Australia
Ms. Barbara Gavan, Senior Private Secretary to Hon. Max Bradford
Tuesday, August 26—Wellington, New Zealand
9 a.m.: Overview of the Department of Labour and New Zealand
Immigration Service
Mr. John Chetwin, Chief Executive and Secretary, Department of
Labour
On August 26 a series of meetings was held at NZIS National
Office with senior officials. Chief Executive and Secretary of
the Department of Labour, John Chetwin, welcomed the minister and
provided an overview of the department and its broad
responsibilities.
Mr. Andrew Lockhart, Acting General Manager, NZIS
Andrew Lockhart laid out the scope of NZIS operations onshore
and abroad.
Mr. Peter Leniston, Manager, Policy and Evaluation Branch, NZIS
Peter Leniston presented an overview of the government's
coalition agreement which guides the present direction of NZIS
policy development. The agreement focuses on New Zealand's
ability to absorb newcomers, emphasizes the requirement that
immigration policy must meet the country's needs and recognizes
diversity.
10 a.m.: Discussion of refugee/asylum issues
Mr. Andrew Lockhart, Acting General Manager, NZIS
Ms. Margaret Cantlon, Manager, Refugee Status Branch, NZIS
Mr. Martin Treadwell, Acting Chair of the Refugee Status Appeal
Authority, RSAA
Discussion of New Zealand's two tier asylum system. It was
pointed out that New Zealand's refugee system, like much other
immigration policy and procedure, is not codified in law. Rather,
it exists under terms of reference issued by cabinet.
Noon: Working Lunch: Roundtable discussion on intelligence and
Risk management project
Guest List:
Ms. Jan Clark, Senior Policy Adviser, NZIS
Mr. Peter Leniston, Manager, Policy & Evaluation Branch, NZIS
Ms. Anita Reedy, Policy Adviser, NZIS
Mr. Andrew Lockhart, Acting General Manager, NZIS
The present level of co-operation between CIC and NZIS on
enforcement issues was praised by the New Zealand side. Reference
was made to the recently concluded visit to Ottawa and Vancouver
by senior NZIS policy branch staff who were extremely pleased
with their reception and found CIC's willingness to share
insights and information of great benefit. Minister Robillard
reacted positively to the comments of the New Zealanders and
suggested that avenues for further co-operation, including
offshore interdiction, might be pursued in the future for the
mutual benefit of both countries. The discussions also covered
integration issues with Mr. Leniston and Ms. Bev Hong, senior
policy analyst, NZIS.
2 p.m.: Mr. Kevin Jenkins and Ms. Angela Cassidy, Policy
Advisers, NZIS
Update on New Zealand population conference
2.30 p.m.: Mr. David Pickering, Manager, Citizenship, Department of
Internatl Affairs
In meeting with senior staff of the Ministry of Internal Affairs
on August 26 further discussion of citizenship matters took
place.
4 p.m.: Hon. Max Bradford, Minister of Immigration
Minister Robillard met with New Zealand Minister of Immigration,
Hon. Max Bradford, on three occasions while she was in
Wellington. Minister Bradford spoke very favorably about the
co-operation that now exists between CIC and NZIS. Minister
Bradford described his top priority as fixing the existing
refugee determination system.
8 p.m.: Official dinner hosted by the Honourable Max Bradford &
Mrs. Bradford.
Guest List:
Hon. Lucienne Robillard
Ms. Sarita Bhatla, Policy Adviser to the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration
Mr. Greg Fyffe, ADM Policy and Program Development, Citizenship
and Immigration Canada
Mr. David Hardinge, Counsellor Immigration, Canadian High
Commission, Canberra
The Hon. Roger Maxwell, MP, List Member of Parliament, National
Party, and former Minister of Immigration
Mrs. Georgina te Heuheu, MP, List Member of Parliament, National
Party
Mr. Murray McLean, MP, Member of Parliament for Coromandel,
National
Mr. Geoff Thompson, President, New Zealand National Party
Thursday August 28—Canberra, Australia
10.15 a.m.: Call on High Commissioner Brian Schumacher and High
Commission staff.
11 a.m.: Meeting with the Minister of Immigration and
Multicultural Affairs (DIMA), the Honourable Philip Ruddock.
On August 28 Minister Robillard met both formally and over a
working lunch at Parliament House with Minister Ruddock. Session
covered matters relating to the context for change in immigration
policy within Australia.
12 p.m.: Lunch hosted by Minister Ruddock.
Following the conclusion of the luncheon meeting, which was
attended by Australian politicians Opposition Immigration Shadow
Minister, Chair & Deputy Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on
Migration, etc., DIMA officials such as Secretary, DM, Helen
Williams and High Commissioner Schumacher, Minister Robillard
proceeded to the House of Representatives to observe Question
Time.
2 p.m.: Briefing/roundtable discussion: The Legal Framework
Opening Remarks: Mr. Mark Sullivan, DIMA Deputy Secretary
Briefing led by Mr. Des Storer, First Assistant Secretary,
Australian Parliamentary, Legal and Research Division, DIMA, on
Australian immigration legislative framework.
2.30 p.m.: Briefing led by Mr. Eric Brookbanks, Assistant Secretary,
Business Branch & Acting First Assistant Secretary Overseas
Client Services DIMA, concerning immigration control issues
including removals.
Also participating in this discussion were:
Mr. Abdul Rizvi, Assistant Secretary, Migration and Temporary
Entry Branch, DIMA
Mr. Dario Castello, Assistant Secretary, Migration and Temporary
Entry Branch, DIMA
Joann Mackenzie, A/Director, Instructions and Forms Distribution
and Delivery Strategies Branch, DIMA.
6.30 p.m.: Informal Dinner with Senator Amanda Vanstone, Minister of
Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs to discuss
foreign student issues in Australia and Canada.
Friday, August 29—Canberra, Australia
9 a.m.: Briefing/Roundtable Discussion on humanitarian entry,
asylum and compliance. Briefing led by Ms. Jenny Bedlington,
First Assistant Secretary, Australian Client Services Division,
DIMA. Also participating in this discussion were:
Philippa Godwin, Assistant Secretary, Protection and Family
Residence Branch, DIMA
Frank Johnston, A/Assistant, Refugee and Humanitarian Branch,
DIMA
Peter Job, Director Settlement Branch, DIMA
Matt Kennedy, Director, Citizenship Decision Support Section,
DIMA
12.30 p.m.: Official luncheon, host: Mr. Brian Schumacher, High
Commissioner for Canada.
Guest List:
Hon. Lucienne Robillard
Ms. Susanne Tongue, Principal Member, Immigration review Tribunal
Independent Tribunal
Mr. Jahansah Asadi, Regional Representative, UNHCR
Dr. James Jupp, Director Centre for Immigration and Multicultural
Studies Australian National University
Mr. Andrew Metcalf, Senior Adviser, Office of the Minister for
Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Ms. Julianna Stackpool, Policy Adviser, Higher Education, Office
of the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth
Affairs
Ms. Jenni Gordon, First Assistant Secretary, International,
Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs
Mr. Jorgen Steen Olesen, Regional Representative, IOM
Ms. Philippa Godwin, Assistant Secretary, Protection and Family
Residence, DIMA
Mr. Bert Mowbray, General Counsel, DIMA
Ms. Jenny Bedlington, First Assistant Secretary, Australian
Client Services Division, DIMA
Mr. A. Smith, Deputy High Commissioner, Canadian High Commission
Mr. Greg Fyffe, ADM Policy and Program Development, CIC
Ms. Sarita Bhatla, Policy Adviser to the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration
Mr. David Hardinge, Counsellor, Immigration, Canadian High
Commission, Canberra
Monday, September 1—Sydney, Australia
11 a.m.: Walkabout of Canadian Consulate, led by Consul General
Alan Virtue and accompanied by Mr. Ian Thomson, Immigration
Program Manager. Meet with consulate staff and present Locally
Engaged Staff, LES, Merit Award.
12.30 p.m.: Visit to Auburn Migrant Resource Centre, followed by
Working Lunch with non-governmental organizations, NGOs.
Minister Robillard met at the Auburn Migrant Resource Centre
with senior representatives from an array of NGOs active in
providing service to and advocacy on behalf of immigrants and
refugees. Participants included a solicitor who represents
asylum claimants, Refugee Council of Australia, National Council
of Churches, AUSTCARE, Ethnic Communities Council, Australian
Jewish Welfare Society, etc. Each of the NGO reps provided an
overview of their interests, activities and concerns of the
moment.
2.35 p.m.: Tour Centre and On Arrival Accomodation flats, DIMA
facilities, with: Ms. Tricia Flanagan, DIMA A/Regional Manager,
Paramatta, a district of Sydney
3.30 p.m.: Meeting with Fairfield Mayor, Mr. Ken Chapman, JP.
The visit to the Fairfield municipal council allowed Minister
Robillard the opportunity to receive the views and experiences of
a local authority on providing services to a multicultural
population, 64% of whom do not speak English in their homes. A
short walking tour of multicultural area, Cabramatta, in
Fairfield area escorted by Mayor Chapman.
Tuesday, September 2—Sydney, Australia
9. a.m.: Briefing and tour of DIMA office of The Rocks, a model DIMA
operation led by Mr. Glen Smith, Regional Manager, the Rocks.
Minister Robillard toured the facility and met with staff
10.30 a.m.: Meeting with Mr. Shun N. Chetty, Principal Member Chair,
Refugee Review Tribunal, RRT and working lunch
Mr. Chetty briefes Minister Robillard on the independent
RRT's role in hearing asylum appeals.
2.50 p.m.: Villawood Detention Centre
Briefing/Tour of facility and discussion on DIMA
operations in New South Wales, NSW.
Led by Mr. Nick Nicholls, DIMA NSW State Director and Ms.
Nelly Siegmund, NSW Onshore Protection Manager.
Wednesday, September 3—Sydney, Australia
8 a.m.: Mr. Bruce Sant, acting DIMA Airport Manager provided
commentary on DIMA airport operations
(d) See part (c).
(e) Agreements or joint undertakings, initiated or planned
between Canada/New Zealand and Canada/Australia during Minister
Robillard's travel to Australia and New Zealand between August 24
and September 3, 1997:
New Zealand:
1. Government of New Zealand expressed interest about a staff
exchange between our Departments of Immigration.
Australia:
1. The possibility of future visa delivery co-operation was
initially discussed and both Minister Robillard and the
Australian Minister of Immigration and Milticultural Affairs
agreed in principle to the idea of considering additional
locations.
2. Closer formal cooperation in offshore interdiction between
Canada and Australia was endorsed in principle.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all other
questions stand.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, this is with respect to a question that was brought
forward on October 2, 1997. I have risen twice to ask when we
would receive an answer. It appears on the Order Paper as
Question No. 21.
I would reiterate that this is an unnecessary delay. We are
looking for a very simple answer with respect to the whereabouts
of certain ministers at a specified time in Quebec.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I have made a note of the
hon. member's request. I will seek information on Question No.
21.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, with respect, this is the
third time that I have requested an answer. I am looking for
something a little more specific than “We will get back to
you”.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the parliamentary
secretary will want to take this under advisement.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I will take it
under advisement.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the questions are addressed to
Parliament. Parliament directs them to the minister concerned.
It is my understanding in this case that most of the cabinet
ministers are involved in the question.
I would say to the hon. member, however, that I regret the
delay.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that all remaining
questions be allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask you to call Motion for the Production of Papers No. 1.
That an Order of the House do issue for That a
Humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that
he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all
documentation related to the recent provincial Ministers of
Health meetings; the Health Care Transition Fund; and the
Council of Deputy Ministers of Health and Ministers of
Health, specifically, documentation pertaining to: (a)
dicussions on a National Blood Agency; (b) discussions on a
new National Pharmacare Program: and (c) discussions on a
new National Homecare Program.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion for the
Production of Papers No. 1, in the name of the hon. member for
Charlotte, is acceptable to the government with the reservations
stated in the reply and the documents will be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Subject to the reservations expressed
by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House
that Notice of Motion No. P-1 be deemed to have been adopted?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the other
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to
stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that the remaining
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to
stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order relating to a Motion for the
Production of Papers which I placed on the Order Paper on
November 18, 199, Motion No. P-8. It has been four months since
I requested this information from the government and I would
appreciate it if the parliamentary secretary could inform me as
to when I may expect a response.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon.
member's request under advisement. I will get back to him as
soon as possible.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1540
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—BRAIN DRAIN
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should lower
the tax burden on Canadians and offer interest relief to student
loan holders in order to address the brain drain crisis which is
forcing Canadians to move to the United States where unemployment
rates, income tax rates and student debt levels are lower and the
standard of living is 25% higher than in Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, from the outset, with your agreement in
the House, I would like to inform you that I am going to split my
time with the hon. member for Kings—Hants who is seconding this
motion. I will then speak 10 minutes and, I understand, do
questions and comments for five minutes and then he will speak.
I rise on this opposition day motion with some anticipation as
we look forward to the budget that will be delivered here in this
House on Tuesday, February 24.
We have given a great deal of thought and have debated a great
deal of the matters that we will be discussing today. I want to
share with the House some of the views that we have in regard to
the choices that we will be making in the next few weeks.
I would like to start from the outset by saying that for us in
this party, this budget that we will see on February 24 is more
than just about numbers. It is not just about a balance sheet.
The budget exercise is not just reduced to just calculating what
the numbers are and adding them up. All of this is about our
country, about the values that we share within our families, our
communities and the choices we will make for those communities in
the future. The budget will speak to that.
I also think it is important for us to have a cold hard look at
the situation we are experiencing in this country economically
and how it affects people, how it affects individuals in their
lives. The government likes to quote all these economic
indicators. They get up in the House and the Minister of Finance
talks about the OECD and how we are doing in terms of debt to GDP
ratio or whatever it may be. All this also includes the impact
that our decisions have on individual Canadians, on families.
When the government talks of its record, I think it is important
for all of us in this House to talk of all of the record. What
does this record include? It includes a record, a statistic that
explains more than anything else the plight of Canadians.
The fact is that disposable income continues to go down in
Canada. Simply put, we are poorer today than when the Liberal
government was elected in 1993. Unemployment is still very high.
Youth unemployment went up in the last month. Poverty is more
pronounced today than it was. There are more children living in
poverty today than in 1993.
Canadians are saving less. On savings, 2% of their income is
going to savings compared to 6% of the American average, 12% of
what it was a few years ago.
If we want to talk about the indicators, taxes in Canada are the
highest taxes among the G-7 countries.
When I try to assess what the full record is of this government,
I cannot help but compare it with the only economy we really
compare with, which is the United States. In the United States
the unemployment rate is half of what it is in Canada and
disposable income is continually rising to the point where the
gap has never been more pronounced, more important than it is
today.
Let me mention a statistic, a number that tells the story. In
the third quarter of 1997 per capita after tax income in the U.S.
was a bit more than $30,000 in Canadian funds. My colleagues will
actually be surprised by this number. When you hear it the first
time, you say it is not possible, but let me quote it to you
directly, Mr. Speaker. “Per capita after tax income in Canada
was a bit over $17,000”. That is a gap of $13,000 between Canada
and the United States.
These are our neighbours to the south, the people with whom we
compete. We should be on the same footing as they are, yet the
gap is incredibly wide. Why? The wrong choices have been made.
1545
[Translation]
I would say right off that the greatest problem facing us is
that of the impoverishment of Canadians. Men and women, in their
family, in their day to day choices, are unable to make purchases.
They are vastly poorer than they were in 1993.
There are more poor children today than there were when this
government was elected. Unemployment among young people is at
unacceptable levels.
The gap between Canadian and American incomes continues to rise.
[English]
We believe in the Progressive Conservative Party that it is time
this country had a plan for economic growth. That is what we
need. This country has been on its heels and on the brakes. Now
is the time we allow Canadians to earn more money. If there is
to be a balanced budget, if there is to be a fiscal dividend, we
happen to believe the first people who should benefit from that
are those who have made the biggest sacrifices in the last few
years; individual Canadians and Canadian families deserve an
increase in their revenues.
When I look at the whole record and see Canadians becoming
poorer and poorer I cannot help but come to one solid,
unequivocal conclusion. If they have seen their revenue go down
they deserve to see it now go up. This should not be a foreign
argument to the people in this House.
The Deputy Prime Minister said, after a report was published
suggesting that the pay for members of Parliament and cabinet be
increased, our pay has gone down long enough and we have lost
revenue. I do not quarrel with this, but if that is true for the
Deputy Prime Minister then it must be true for the people who
voted for the Deputy Prime Minister. This government should be
able to understand that.
What do we need to do if we are to allow our friends, our
neighbours and the people in our families to begin getting the
breaks they deserve? The first thing we have to do is reduce
taxes. This country needs less taxes and less debt and, as a
consequence, more jobs. That is what will produce jobs in this
country.
I want to make our position clear. From the outset in the
election campaign we said very clearly that we do not need to
wait for the budget to be balanced to offer Canadians tax breaks.
They deserve them now. What kind of tax breaks do they deserve?
The first people who should benefit are lower income Canadians.
We should increase the basic exemption from $6,500 to $10,000.
They are the ones who can use it. That would allow us to take
thousands of Canadians off the tax rolls. It would allow them to
increase their revenues and give families with young children a
very important break.
We continue to believe there should be a reduction in personal
income taxes. By the way, we are not the only ones who believe
this. There are more and more people, whether they are
economists, think tanks or universities, saying it is time we
gave Canadians a reduction in personal income taxes.
We need to reduce employment insurance premiums. There is a $13
billion surplus in the fund now for no good reason except to
reduce the deficit which the fund was never designed for. This
is done at the expense of jobs and the unemployed. I see the
minister laughing. He thinks it is laughable that Canadians are
unemployed. Now he is talking.
I also believe it will be critically important for us to reduce
taxes by eliminating the federal surtax of 3%. The time has
come. That surtax came upon us because there was a deficit. If
the deficit is gone the tax should go.
We also need to index the child tax benefits. The government,
by deindexing and allowing this to continue, is taking the
equivalent of $160 million out of the pockets of lower income
families and their children for the purpose of paying down the
deficit. We should return to indexing and introduce a little
justice into the system.
1550
We also believe the time has come to reduce student debt. The
Prime Minister talks about the millennium fund. Every member of
this House has heard about the number one priority for students
today. The member for St. John's West has heard about it. He
has done excellent work on the question of student interest debt
on behalf of our party.
There is a reason for this problem. The consequence of high
taxes and high debt in this country has led us to a situation in
which we are experiencing a brain drain like never before. We
are losing the best and brightest. They are graduating with high
debt levels and they are being offered jobs in the United States
with higher pay, lower taxes and a higher standard of living.
The consequences for us in the long term development of Canada
could be incalculable if we do not address this issue soon by
reducing that debt and by reducing taxes. We should have concrete
measures, including an interest tax credit and an initiative that
will allow us to give a break to students who could reimburse on
an income contingency loan program.
I will speak briefly on some other things we believe in, that we
are going to make the right choices in terms of our values. We
believe we should modify the registered education savings plan to
make the contribution tax deductible. We should increase RRSP
contributions. Income tax brackets should be indexed in order to
stop bracket creep which has brought one Canadian in five on to
the tax rolls.
Those are some very concrete ideas for Canada to have once and
for all a plan for economic growth for all Canadians.
For clarification, the member for St. John's West is seconding
this motion and not the member for Kings—Hants.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member's correction is duly
noted. Questions and comments.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I compliment the Reform Party at this time. Generally I
find when Reformers make their points in debate, while sometimes
wrongly thought out, they are always genuine, whereas the member
for Sherbrooke has offered the scenario that because disposable
income is going down, it is somehow the fault of this government.
He knows disposable income is tied to economic health and he
knows that the government of which he was a part ran up an annual
deficit of $44 billion and a debt of $600 billion plus. He knows
full well that no government can turn that around overnight.
This government has reduced the deficit and will reduce the
deficit to zero. Will he acknowledge that the situation of which
he complains is his former government's fault?
Hon. Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to
hear the member talk about arguments being genuine. Did he not
promise to scrap the GST? Is he not the person who promised his
constituents he would scrap the GST? Apparently he has
discovered some new found righteousness in the position. It is
the same thing for helicopters.
Let us for a moment forget our partisan positions. I quote from
a memo written to the Minister of Finance by Nesbitt Burns. He
would not assume that Nesbitt Burns is a partisan outfit, that it
would have a view. This was written to the minister with regard
to advice for the upcoming budget:
While the Liberals claim to have slain the deficit dragon
without resorting to significant tax hikes, federal tax receipts
have still climbed $25 billion over the past four years—courtesy
of bracket creep, closed loopholes, and economic growth. The
flow-through impact from revenue measures of the past budgets
will boost the tax bill by $2.6 billion this year alone.
If there has been any economic growth in Canada it has not been
domestic. It is because of the free trade agreement established
in 1988.
1555
The same memo states:
The tax wedge between the two countries has already widened to
unprecedented levels. Allowing it to widen further would harm
competitiveness, stifle job creation, and keep the Canadian
dollar on the downtrend. These are not the ingredients for a
revival in our country's living standards. There is also strong
evidence that the growing tax gap is prompting record numbers of
high income Canadian professionals to move south of the
border—particularly doctors, educators and engineers.
That is from major financial institution in the country. That
is the response it is giving to this Liberal member. Rather than
whine and complain, I hope he would face up to these hard
realities and offer those who are suffering in this country
answers instead of trying to blame everything on another
government that was defeated in 1993.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to commend the leader of the Tory Party for
this motion. We are on the eve of a new budget that will be
coming down within a few days. This is an issue that I hope all
members will take dear to their hearts. It is a very important
one.
We talk about the brain drain and I hear people laugh at that.
It is for real. I have to agree with the leader. I was visiting
family over the weekend. In speaking with my brother-in-law,
they are actively pursuing employment south of the border. These
are people who were born in Canada, lived in Canada and have been
here all their lives.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his kind words. He did not say them in any partisan
tone. I hope the whole debate is that way. What he says is
pretty compelling. When it is a brother-in-law and a member of
the family, we cannot pretend these are statistics any more. It
is happening.
What I am worried about is I see 80% of the graduating students
at the University of Waterloo moving to the United States. Who
bears the cost of that education? Who goes through all that?
Why do they leave? Simple math. It is higher pay, lower taxes.
The Liberals can laugh all they want. I see them laughing on
the other side. I do not think it is a laughing matter.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will appreciate that
his time is expired.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, good
government means looking ahead. Good government means
recognizing trends, especially in a global environment.
The PC government recognized the global trends and brought this
country free trade, the deregulation of financial services,
transportation and energy, which enabled Canadians to compete
nationally and internationally. The Liberal government inherited
a country that was poised globally to compete and to succeed. It
could have invested in Canadians. It could have provided
opportunities for Canadians to succeed. Instead of allowing
Canadians to embrace the future, the Liberal cuts to health and
education transfers handcuffed young Canadians to the past.
The 280% growth in student debt has been a significant yolk, a
significant burden on all young Canadians. The loss is to
Canada. When are young people are graduating with a $25,000
student debt after a four year program, that is a loss to all of
Canada. If we look at the reasons why Canadians are going south
of the border and young people are pursuing their dreams
elsewhere, we have to recognize that student debt and high taxes
in Canada are directly related to that.
The February 14 issue of the Globe and Mail said:
There is evidence that the heavier tax burden, combined with
lower overall incomes in this country is putting in motion a
brain drain of our most productive workers. Higher tax loads
mean bureaucrats substituting their judgment for that of business
people and workers on how their income is to be spent. That is no
recipe for productivity growth.
This is not about partisanship. This is about what is best for
Canadians. I hope all members of this House support this motion
because it is extraordinarily important that we take a
non-partisan perspective on an issue as important as brain
draining.
1600
Like a lot of families in Atlantic Canada over the past 30
years, my family and I have watched the phenomenon of brain
drain. We have watched our young people move to central Canada,
for instance, to seek opportunities. It is very sad.
This phenomenon now exists throughout Canada. When the finance
minister or any of these members fail to acknowledge the issue,
when they look into that camera they are looking into the eyes of
mothers and fathers in Atlantic Canada who are losing members of
their families. They are losing their children. They are going
away. The romantic thought that they will return some day just
does not happen.
We have always talked about our standard of living in Canada and
the quality of life our health and social programs provide us.
With the right income that can be bought elsewhere. That is
exactly what is happening.
Eighty per cent of Waterloo computer science graduates are now
going to the U.S. There is a standing offer by Microsoft for
Waterloo computer science graduates. Why? It recognizes the
talent we have in Canada and that the Canadian economy will not
provide the same level of incentive and opportunity for young
people as the U.S. economy.
Let us look at some of the other issues in the U.S. On average,
American manufacturing workers are paid $1 more per hour than
Canadians. Effectively Canadians are paying one-third more in
income taxes than Americans. The U.S. savings rate has remained
steady at about 6%. That is about three times what Canadians
have been able to save.
The budget will be about choices and we feel very strongly that
those choices should be with Canadians. The Minister of Finance
did not balance the books. The books were balanced by Canadians
who have made significant sacrifices in their lives over the past
four years. It is those Canadians who now deserve an opportunity
to build their futures and to invest in their families, their
educations and their homes in Canada.
Our registered education savings plan would provide tax
deductibility. It is very similar to the structure of the RRSP.
It would provide Canadians with more flexibility to save for
their dreams, dreams that are important to them and their
children.
That is the type of policy we are looking for and would like to
see in the upcoming budget. We do not need the gigantic
traditional Liberal policy of bringing forward some sexy program
like the millennium scholarship program which will effectively do
more for the Prime Minister's legacy than it will for young
Canadians who are graduating at this point with significant debt
load.
We need tax reduction. We are speaking about increasing the
basic personal exemption from $6,500 to $10,000. Why should a
Canadian making $8,000 per year be paying taxes? We have to ask
ourselves that hard question. Why should a family that is below
the poverty line be paying income taxes? It is fundamentally
wrong. It is creating a direct disincentive to work and
employment. It is similar to EI premiums which the government
has refused to deal with in a significant way. We believe they
should be set at about $2 as opposed to $2.70.
Payroll taxes, EI premiums and the CPP tax grab the government
has implemented are the biggest impediments to job growth in
Canada. High taxes kill jobs and the most insidious tax as a job
killer is the payroll tax.
That has been demonstrated internationally. Policy does not
need to be created in a vacuum. We can look at other countries
and how they have succeeded. Let me say that high taxes kill
jobs in any jurisdiction that practises them. In a global
environment we do not have the luxury of taxing our citizenry to
death because when we do it we are preventing them from
participating in economic growth and prosperity in a global
environment.
As we enter the 21st century what would be the best policy to
ensure that our young people are able to compete in a global
knowledge based environment? It is one that provides them with
opportunities to seek and receive education and to succeed within
their own countries.
1605
The tax burden that has been inflicted on Canadians since 1993
with successive tax increases is draining the incentive for our
brightest and best to stay in Canada and they are moving to the
U.S.
We have a number of members from Atlantic Canada in our caucus
who have a good understanding of this issue, based on what we
have seen happening in our families over the past 20 or 30 years.
It is now a national phenomenon.
If members opposite—and I see some of them grinning—do not
take it seriously I would suggest they wait for a few years. When
the continued government policy of high taxes has an impact on
their families and their children move to the U.S. and other
parts of the world, perhaps they will take the issue more
seriously. I hope they will come to their senses and support
policies to keep our young people in Canada.
This is an important issue, especially if we look at it from the
perspective of Nova Scotians. Nova Scotia is the cradle of
higher education in Canada. When I consider the impacts of the
government's policies of taxing and cutting on my province and on
my region, this issue is particularly important to me. In fact,
to underline just how important this motion is, I would like to
take this opportunity to move the following amendment to the
motion:
That the motion be amended by adding the word “serious” before
the words “brain drain” in the third line of the motion.
It is absolutely critical that all members of the House support
the motion and ensure the policies we generate as
parliamentarians will provide opportunities for our young people
to embrace the future as we enter the 21st century and not
handcuff them to the past.
The Speaker: The amendment to the motion is in order.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The hon. member for Kings—Hants in his remarks said that
members opposite were smiling. I was watching along here and
there was no one smiling at the time.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: We have five minutes and I am going to try
to recognize all members who want to ask questions or make
comments. I recognize the hon. parliamentary secretary. He has
30 seconds.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
found the hon. member's comments rather interesting. I am sorry
but I did smile.
I smiled because I recalled a sales tax in this country called
the manufacturers' sales tax going from 9% to 13% under five
years of Conservative government.
I smiled because I saw the business tax base go up and up, year
after year, when the Conservatives were in office.
I smiled because the GST was introduced by—
The Speaker: For 30 seconds, the hon. member for
Kings—Hants.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon.
member's comments. He really should not be smiling at all
because the Conservative government eliminated the manufacturers'
sales tax and replaced it with a consumption tax, the GST, which
made more sense in a global environment and his party committed
to ripping it up.
1610
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the
interest of moving the debate to another level, may I suggest
that the motion we are debating is a rather encouraging motion.
At the same time it is shortsighted and really incomplete.
Would members opposite be interested in adding another dimension
to the motion concerning a shift from withdrawing funds from
basic research and the infrastructure that is necessary to do
research? Many of the brains that are drained from Canada—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kings—Hants.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of
investment in research and development is extremely important.
We are the only country in the G-7 countries that has actually
reduced its commitment over the past several years. I take the
hon. member's suggestion very seriously. We as a party are
extremely supportive of an increased commitment to research and
development, especially medical research and development.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, having
three children in post-secondary education I understand the
problems. Microsoft is now recruiting people in Canada to stay
in Canada. With the technology today no one has to leave the
country.
The reality is that this government and the member for
Sherbrooke raised the debt in this country from $169,549 million
to $466,198 million a 274% increase. These people left us with a
mortgage that we have to pay and that is why we cannot reduce
taxes.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, perhaps if we looked back
at history we would see that Pierre Trudeau inherited no debt. It
was the Liberal government's interventionist, anti-Canadian
policies which led to the significant debt that we inherited in
1984.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during his speech the leader of the Conservative Party mentioned
that the after tax income of Americans was some $30,000 and of
Canadians was only $17,000, if I heard him correctly.
He failed to mention that there are differences in the two
income tax systems. In Canada we have a child tax benefit which
is outside the tax system. We also have a GST credit which is
outside the tax system. We also have government paid health
services that we pay in our tax system which is not covered in
the U.S. by its tax system. In addition, the social fabric of
the U.S. does not respect—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kings—Hants.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has so
many good reasons why Canadians should stay in Canada, he should
be speaking to all the Canadians who are leaving Canada. He
obviously knows something that ordinary Canadians do not.
Canadians are making decisions and voting with their feet. They
are going to the U.S. because the level of taxation is lower. If
they want a standard of living, they can buy it down there. This
government's cuts to health and social transfers over the past
four years is denying Canadians the quality health care they need
in Canada.
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the
motion. It will allow me to talk about some of the economic
progress the government has been able to achieve with Canadians
over the last four years. It will also give me an opportunity to
deal with the absolute, total and complete hypocrisy of the Tory
Party that put forward the motion.
The Tories have a very selective memory. I do not blame hon.
members every time it is brought up for saying “Let's not talk
about that. We will just point toward the future”.
1615
Many of the challenges we have in the future are the result of
their total incompetency in managing the Canadian economy for the
nine years in which they were in power. In fact it is to the
point that back in 1994, shortly after we had taken over, the
Wall Street Journal described what the Tory government had
done to this country by saying that Canada was then a candidate
for membership in the third world.
That is a party which with the very words of its motion says
volumes about the way it thinks. The Conservatives do not look
to the historic progress Canada has achieved over the last 50
years in creating social policy that is the envy of the world.
No, they do not look toward that. What they look toward is the
United States.
The Conservatives look to the model of the United States. It is
a model where we see millions of people without health care. It
is a model where they create employment by simply driving down
minimum wages so that people are not able to live on those wages.
It is a country where the inner cities are totally crumbling.
That is the model that party points to and it totally ignores
what this nation has been able to accomplish.
More important, when we talk about a party that does not honour
Canada, that is the party which just last week in this House
totally abandoned the interests of Canada and voted with the
separatists. It abandoned Canadians. That is what that party
across the way did last week. It is total hypocrisy. I am sorry
to use that word again, Mr. Speaker, but that is what that party
did. What does not help the country is voting with the
separatists.
But let us return to the debate. This debate is about what
Canada has in fact been able to achieve over the last few years.
Again, there is faulty memory.
The Tories came to power. And they are right. There was a
deficit. It was around $38 billion in 1984. Boy, they worked to
bring it down. They had policies to bring that deficit down.
They were going to clean up the finances of the country. They
inherited $38 billion and what was it when they left nine years
later? Had they eliminated it? Had they made progress on it?
Yes, they made progress right up to $41 billion. That is the
progress that they made. In the process of doing that they more
than doubled the national debt. That is the type of progress the
Tory party made in terms of controlling the deficit.
The balance sheet is not the only thing we ought to be looking
at. I know the Tories certainly do not want to look at it. In
half the time it managed to go from that $42 billion deficit
which we inherited to a point, and I will quote the finance
minister who I believe said “on the cusp of a balanced budget”.
That is $38 billion to $41 billion in eight years and $42
billion to zero in four. I think the Canadian people were quite
appropriate in the choices they made back in 1997.
Let us look at another important measure which is the
measurement of job creation in the last four and a half years. We
have made some progress but it is certainly not enough yet.
Unemployment is at 8.9% although that is a lot better than the
11.2% when we took office. It is still not good enough and more
progress does have to be made.
Let us make that comparison in job creation. In the first 51
months of this government's mandate there has been over one
million net new jobs created in this country. Most are in the
private sector and most are full time. What happened in the last
four years of the Tory government? We saw much the same progress
as we saw on the deficit, a 58,000 decrease in net new jobs in
this country in that period. Let us compare the record: 58,000
jobs lost, or over a million jobs created.
I think Canadians understand that the economic policies of this
government have meant progress for Canada. Increasingly better
economic ideas have meant a better country economically for the
people of Canada.
1620
Let us talk about taxation for a minute. We believe in reducing
taxes. In fact the last budget saw a number of significant tax
decreases. But they were tax decreases, not as the Tory party
suggests across the board where those who earn more get a bigger
tax break, they were targeted tax decreases.
They were tax decreases that were important to Canadians who
needed it. For example, $850 million to low and middle income
Canadians with children. Tax reductions for Canadians with
disabilities. Tax reductions for Canadians making charitable
donations. Tax reductions to help individuals pursue
post-secondary education.
We believe in applying principles when it comes to tax
reductions. One of the most important ones is that low and middle
income Canadians will benefit first from tax reduction. Second,
tax reductions will be provided when we have the surpluses to
provide them, not by going out and borrowing the money as the
Tory party has suggested we do.
Let us just talk about one particular tax reduction the Tories
did suggest during the campaign. I want everybody to listen to
this because this is almost unbelievable. The Tories suggested
that corporate income tax would be reduced from 28% to 24%. That
is right in their platform.
What would that mean? That would mean that those paupers of
Canadian society, those hard done by people in Canadian society,
the Canadian financial institutions, the Canadian banks, would
receive a $300 million tax reduction under the Tory plan. That is
what they were suggesting, that we reduce taxes for Canadian
banks by $300 million. That is their idea of progressive tax
reduction.
Canadians saw the type of ideas that they were trying to put
forward and they were not fooled. Canadians understand something
and they understand it well. Although we continue to have
difficulties in this country, and we do—I do not think anybody
in this House would suggest that we do not—Canadians understand
that the policies of this government have worked to improve the
situation.
We took over in 1993 at a time when the previous government had
put this country close to economic ruin. We have restored the
health of the nation's finances. We have seen employment
increase. We have historically low interest rates as compared to
the Americans. We have a sustained low inflation rate that is the
envy of the industrialized world. In fact we have had economic
growth in the last 12 months near the very top of the OECD.
There is one conclusion that Canadians have, and that is that
the Tories' incompetency in managing the financial affairs of
this nation is matched only by their audacity in trying to
re-write history.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member has a penchant for quoting publications. It is a
penchant I share as well. One of the publications I enjoy is the
Economist. For $172 a year he could be similarly well
informed. And that is in Canadian dollars by the way, which
makes it even better value now that the dollar has been so weak.
The Economist on the deficit issue and the elimination of
the deficit in its 1998 preview said that the credit belongs to
structural changes made in the early 1990s. It listed free trade,
GST, deregulation of financial services, transportation and
energy. You know, the national energy program. Members opposite
may remember that.
Where does the member's party stand on free trade and the GST?
1625
Hon. Andy Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may have
deluded himself in believing that the management of the economy
between 1984 and 1993 was so great, but Canadians did not buy it.
They did not buy it in 1993 when there were two Conservative
members and they did not buy much more of it in 1997 when there
were only 20 of them. They understand what was there. Employment
down 100,000. Real disposable income down one and a half points.
Real disposable income per capita down 6.6%. Canadians
understand.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
really quite intrigued by the comments made by previous speaker,
the member who made the presentation. I thought this motion
related to students and keeping brains in Canada. I thought it
was concerned with identifying reasons for losing them.
I refer the hon. member to his own record and the record of the
government at this time. In successive budgets the government
has reduced the money available for science and technology, in
particular for research and development and especially basic
research.
Would the member be prepared to address the question of how we
could keep our brains in this country and provide them with the
research infrastructure that is so necessary to develop and
advance knowledge?
Hon. Andy Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, in the last budget we
saw the foundation for innovation, an $800 million investment
into exactly that type of thing.
In the last budget a series of measures were introduced to help
Canadians pursuing post-secondary education. There was an
expansion of the registered education savings plan; 100% increase
in the education tax credit; changes in the tax system to allow a
carry forward of the tuition deduction; expansion of the tuition
deduction; and the interest relief period being increased from 18
months to 30 months. When added to the original six months, the
period becomes three years. This government has taken very
specific measures.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I truly
never thought I would be sitting in this Chamber listening to the
Liberals and the Tories bragging about who ran up the best
national debt. I cannot believe it. But the member has a point.
In 1984 Mr. Mulroney was elected with a landslide on the promise
to do something about the debt. He had nine years to do it and
he did not.
With the concern about the brain drain that is coming from the
Tories, would the member not agree that the brain drain has
already occurred, that the people with any brains have left the
Tories and joined the Reform Party?
The Speaker: I will take that as a comment rather than as
a question.
Hon. Andy Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I will not get involved
in the courting of the Reform Party and the Tory Party. I will
let them deal with that on their own.
The record is very clear. This government has managed to bring
the deficit probably down to zero. We will know next week if we
have reached zero or if we are just short of it. We have made a
commitment to debt reduction and tax reduction. We will invest
in the types of programs Canadians believe in. Programs related
to education, job creation and health care are the kinds of
investments Canadians have asked us to make and those are the
investments we will make.
The Speaker: Resuming debate, the hon. member for
Medicine Hat. I erroneously told him he had 20 minutes. He has
10 minutes to speak.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to rise and speak to this motion.
The members of the Conservative Party have raised an important
issue. They have referred to relieving Canadians of the onerous
tax burden in Canada today. They have spoken of interest relief
on student loans, an important issue, the brain drain crisis
which is forcing Canadians to move to the United States where
they have lower unemployment rates, income tax rates and student
debt levels. The Conservatives have also referred to the fact
that the standard of living in Canada has fallen like a stone in
the last several years. The standard of living is now 25% higher
in the United States than it is in Canada.
1630
These are important issues. I am glad my friends across the way
in the Conservative Party have raised them. I do believe that
when we address these issues and talk about them, we have to talk
about them in the context of who is best able to address them.
When we are in Parliament we are supposed to be providing
leadership to the country. That is a pretty important point. The
only way to determine that is to look at the records of the
various parties in the House of Commons.
My friend from Skeena pointed out that we had the Liberals
and the Conservatives fighting over who had done the best job of
managing the economy. It is an interesting spectacle, a little
like sending an arsonist out to fight a fire.
In this case let us review the historical record. Let us start
on the issue that is most obvious. Let us look at the national
debt. There is the absolute record as to the ability of
successive governments to keep their spending in line.
What we have seen since the early 1970s is the federal debt rise
from about $13 billion. It took a 100 years for the debt to
accumulate to $13 billion. Starting at that point, under the
Liberal government, we saw the debt start to mount and mount. It
went up and up for years. When the Liberal government left
office in 1984, it was in the range of $160 billion to $170
billion. In that short period of time, over a dozen years, it had
mounted to somewhere in the range of $140 billion. It had gone
up a tremendous amount.
In 1984 Canadians across the country said they had had it. They
did not want to have anymore debt. They were tired of this
government getting ever bigger, providing all kinds of programs
that amounted to intervention in people's lives. They were tired
of the mounting tax burden that was necessary to feed this
voracious government.
At that point they decided to elect the Conservatives. They
said they would give the Conservatives a try. In Alberta a lot
of us put our faith wrongly in the Conservatives. We had
Conservatives around the cabinet table from Alberta. We thought
that perhaps now we will finally have some sanity when it comes
to making economic decisions.
What happened? We saw the debt continue to mount. We said in
Alberta with one voice you have to stop this. But the debt
continued to mount. Pretty soon, by the end of the nine year
mandate of the Conservatives, it had gone up $300 billion. These
are facts that occurred under a government that is supposed to be
conservative. What does conservative mean? What does it mean in
that context. If it is there to protect the finances of the
country and be conservative with people's money, obviously
it did not do it. We saw the debt mount by $300 billion under
its watch alone. Obviously it was not the answer.
Liberals jump in and say they have done a wonderful job. They
have added another $100 billion to the debt. Now we get to the
point in the country where the government is balancing the budget
on the backs of taxpayers and on the backs of the provinces by
cuts to health care and social programs. What is their plan?
Their plan, after 30 years of deficits, is to start spending
again. I find that extraordinarily frightening. It is absolutely
imprudent. It is reckless. Furthermore, it betrays a trust that
the government should have established with Canadian taxpayers
which is that it recognizes and understands how much taxpayers
are suffering today under staggering debtloads.
The Conservative Party has pointed out that the standard of
living in Canada has fallen like a stone. It started under the
Conservatives. We should point that out.
I refer to an article in the Ottawa Citizen from December
where World Bank statistics show the standard of living in Canada
for decades was on par with the United States. For per capital
income we were two and three in the world. Ten years ago it
started to fall. Canada has fallen from third spot to twelfth
spot in the world. I am amazed that this has not been more of an
issue today.
1635
Sadly, for reasons I do not understand, a lot of people have not
picked up on this. The fact is the very people this government
is supposed to be serving are suffering tremendously under
Liberal and Tory governments.
The article talks about the difference in unemployment rates.
It points out that the real unemployment rate in Canada is 18.5%
counting all the people who are discouraged and who have given up
looking for work. I know my friends opposite will talk about job
creation. They have created some jobs.
However, imagine if we would have kept the participation rate
the same as it had been 15 years ago in the economy in terms of
people participating and looking for jobs. We would have a
million more jobs today than we have.
I simply want to say that what we have heard here today is an
argument between two different political parties that have both
demonstrated by their actions that they are completely unable to
grasp the concerns of Canadians and to do anything about it.
Now we are here today in a situation where we have a huge debt,
$600 billion, where the average per family debt is $77,600. We
have a situation where Canadians pay income taxes, taxes of
$6,000 a year just to pay the interest on the debt. That is what
the average family has to pay. The average family in Canada
today pays $21,000 in taxes, more than what it puts out for food,
shelter and clothing combined.
Surely it will start to dawn on my friends in the Liberal Party
and certainly on my friends in the Conservative Party after the
horrible government they brought us that we must start to reverse
this trend.
That is why I was so disappointed to hear the finance minister
say in an interview on CBC that they are not going to keep their
50:50 promise, tepid though it was, to start to reduce debt a
bit, to start to pay down taxes a bit.
They said “no, really we meant it for later on and now what we
want to do is start spending”. I think that is unbelievable.
Perhaps the worst thing of all about this is the people who are
most vulnerable in Canada today pay the highest price.
I am talking about low income people, people who do not have a
lot of skills in many cases. These are the people who are paying
the highest price. My leader in December pointed out that he had
received a letter from a family in New Brunswick trying to get by
on $32,000, a pretty modest income.
Those people were doing their level best. They decided that the
mother in the family would stay at home to look after their four
children because they believed their children were more precious
than anything. They were barely making it. They were still
paying $3,000 a year in federal income tax.
The answer is to come to grips with the fact that this debt is
killing the country, it is hurting people and we should start to
pay it down.
If we do that, the interest payments drop and then we can start
to cut taxes. We can ease the tax burden on low income
Canadians. That is the answer to helping Canadians. It is the
answer to keeping more Canadians in the country instead of seeing
them flow south of the border as my friends have pointed out. We
need to start doing that.
The answer is not more government programs. Surely by now,
after 30 years of spending evermore, we will come to grips with
that important point.
I urge my friends on the other side to vote in favour of this
motion so that we may once again return to that tradition in
Canada that we had of limited government and people who can stand
on their own two feet.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want
the member to tell us today whether or not his party position has
changed on tax cuts. In the past it spoke continuously about across
the board tax cuts.
I want him to tell us unequivocally, without budging, nudging or
fudging, whether he still supports across the board tax reduction
or whether he will support the government's balanced approach to
reducing taxes for select people who need the tax reduction while
maintaining spending on our social programs.
1640
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, the answer is of course
we support broad based tax relief, absolutely. We have made that
very clear. We have offered up in our latest document $20
billion in tax relief that would help all Canadians because all
Canadians have suffered under successive Liberal and Tory
governments. We had 71 tax increases under the Conservatives and
37 now under the Liberals, including the CPP tax hike which is
going to hurt the most vulnerable Canadians. The government
should be ashamed of that action.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
agree with the hon. member that government spending is not the
answer to the problems of Canada. That is why I am concerned
about the big government spending programs like the millennium
scholarship fund. That is why the Conservative government reduced
government program spending growth from over 15% per year to
around 0% growth by the time our government was defeated in 1993.
My question for the hon. member is related to regional economic
development. Our party believes in a strong market based economy
that all Canadians have access to the levers of and can
participate in the economic growth. That means we need regional
economic development programs in some regions of the country in
order to ensure equality of opportunity. I would like to know
the member's position on regional economic development programs.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a fair
question.
Our belief is that regional development programs have failed
miserably. If they had worked people in Atlantic Canada would
have all the jobs in the world, but they have not worked.
We take a different approach. We believe first that we should
lower taxes across the country. In fact, our tax relief package
would deliver over $1 billion in tax relief to Atlantic Canada
every year. That would do a lot more for Atlantic Canada than a
bunch of patronage programs which simply pass out pork to loyal
party supporters of various political parties. It just has not
worked in the past.
The second point we would make is the federal government has an
important role to play judgment in ensuring that the
transportation infrastructure of the country is in good shape. I
think that Atlantic Canada of all places needs to have its
infrastructure improved, not by giving it to Doug Young, not by
giving hundreds of millions of dollars or $32 million to people
like Doug Young, but to ensure that it goes to the—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there appears to be a contradiction in the remarks of
the hon. member for Medicine Hat in his support for the motion.
The member repeatedly said the debt should have priority. He
said that over and over again. Yet when we look at the motion it
does not discuss debt at all. It discusses only tax cuts.
I cannot understand why the member for Medicine Hat would want
to support the motion when his own leader has said that debt
reduction has priority, yet this motion gives priority to tax
cuts. Is he not in a contradiction here?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, obviously we did not
write the motion. It is not perfect but I think at least it goes
in the right direction.
We have been in a situation where we have seen taxes go up 71
times under the Conservatives, 37 times under the Liberals. I
will not belabour the House with the horrible Liberal record. I
think it is time we offered Canadians some tax relief and freed
them from the horrible burden that both Liberal and Tory
governments have placed on them.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will try
keep my question short. I congratulate my friend on a great
intervention. I think he put it forward very well.
I would like to ask him if he would consider that the problem
here is a conflict of vision, a conflict between the Liberal-Tory
view of Canada in which we have to have a nanny federal
government that congers up a new program, a new spending
initiative for every problem that comes along, and Reform's
vision of a smaller, more focused federal government which lets
the provinces and municipalities do more for themselves.
The Speaker: We are going to get an answer to that as
soon as we get the next Reform speaker up. But now we are going
to go to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to this motion by the Progressive Conservative
Party.
I will say right at the outset that the Bloc Quebecois will be
supporting this motion, because we agree with its analysis.
1645
We feel that present student debt levels are horrendous, and
that a solution must be found that respects the fact that education
and assistance to students is a provincial jurisdiction.
I will leave it to my colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean,
to speak to this issue and, in the nine minutes remaining, I will
focus on two other concerns addressed in the motion: Canada's
high rate of taxation compared to that of the United States, and
the issue of unemployment.
The tax burden of Quebeckers and Canadians has always been a
great concern of the Bloc Quebecois.
Since our arrival in 1993, we have called on the government to take
another look at individual and corporate taxation, which has not
been reviewed since the late 1960s.
It must be made fairer and the tax burden on low and middle
income members of the public reduced. Corporate taxation must be
amended so that tax resources now available in the form of
unwarranted benefits, particularly for very large companies, are
shifted towards SMBs, which are the real source of new jobs, so as
to lighten their tax burden and stimulate employment.
Two years ago, we released a 300-page detailed analysis of
Canadian taxation, the first since the late 1960s, as I was saying.
This analysis says essentially the following: we have the means, if
we dust off the Canadian tax system, to reduce the tax burden on
low and medium income taxpayers by $3 billion, each year. We are
talking about a $3 billion reduction in taxes on the incomes of low
and medium income households.
We also concluded from this in depth analysis that we could
move $4 billion of the current tax burden, of taxes not paid by the
major corporations. We could take these savings and move them over
to the SMBs. We are talking about $4 billion, and there would $2
billion left over, which could go to really reducing taxes on small
and medium businesses and on the very small businesses, known as
the VSBs.
Two weeks ago as well, we released a statement on what we
expected in the upcoming budget of the Minister of Finance.
On the subject of reducing the tax burden, we asked the Minister of
Finance, as we did last June in the election, to reduce it for
individuals by fully indexing tax tables.
Indexing has not been used since 1985 and brought in nearly an
extra half billion dollars to the government the first year the
practice was stopped. Since then, with inflation every year,
billions of dollars are at stake.
If tax tables were indexed again, taxpayers would have an
additional $2 billion in their pockets as tax refunds in the first
year. Two billion dollars is not trifling matter.
Only with a return to indexing, which should be standard practice,
since otherwise it is a disguised tax, can we avoid making middle
income earners pay more income tax than their fair share.
We also sought a targeted reduction in the tax burden in order
to lower it from its very high level for businesses in Quebec and
Canada. The best target at the moment, which could enable us to
give a boost to job creation, is the level of contributions to the
employment insurance fund. These levels are far too high for
employers and employees and are seen as hindering job creation.
If the forecasts of the Minister of Finance are right, this
year, there will be a $7 billion surplus in the employment
insurance fund, which will not go to job creation and to increasing
benefits to those hit by the scourge of unemployment.
In the coming years, the federal government will have the
means to make targeted reductions to the tax burdens of Quebeckers
and Canadians.
1650
Why? If the Minister of Finance gives us the real numbers—over
the past four years, let us say that his forecasts have been far
too pessimistic—gives us figures that are a little more
realistic, we will see that, starting this year, or in other
words the fiscal year ending next March 31, there will be a
recorded surplus of about $2.3 billion.
Starting next year, that is to say the fiscal year starting
April 1, 1998 and ending March 31, 1999, there will be an
accumulated surplus of $9.5 billion. In 2001-2002, if we make it
till then, the surplus will be over $30 billion.
These are not forecasts pulled out of thin air, as the Finance
Minister has often accused us of doing, then confirming our figures
himself within a few months. These are forecasts based on very
conservative hypotheses, conservative in the non-political sense,
on the rate of economic growth, the inflation rate, the input of
new receipts compared to the average for the last four years. As
I have said, that puts us at a surplus of $30 billion for the year
2001-2002.
The Minister of Finance has an excellent opportunity to reduce
the tax burden and, if he cleans up the taxation system as well, he
will be able to free up still other surpluses to be applied to
reducing taxpayers' burden and to job creation.
The Minister of Finance will be in an even better position to
reduce this tax burden if he does not implement new initiatives in
areas that are already under provincial jurisdiction, which would
only increase inefficiency. I am thinking of initiatives in areas
like education, health and so on, in which the minister has no
business interfering. The federal government does not have
jurisdiction over education or health, and ought not to be
implementing new initiatives such as those announced during the
election campaign and in the throne speech.
We are going to fight against the inefficiency of new
initiatives by the federal government in areas already covered by
the provinces. And, while we are on the topic of such initiatives,
it could, as requested by Canada's premiers at the last first
ministers' conference, give back to the provinces what it has taken
away from them over the past four years, and what it is getting
ready to take away between now and 2003.
Let us not forget—and I hope that people who are listening
today and who tune in for next week's budget will remember—that,
in 1994, when the Minister of Finance brought down his budget, he
unveiled a plan to cut federal transfers to the provinces in the
areas of social assistance, post-secondary eduction and health.
These cuts will take place every year until 2003.
He mentioned it only once in 1994, but these cuts will be going on
until 2003. Between now and then, the federal government will cut
$42 billion in provincial transfer payments in these three sectors.
Now, he has just announced that it will no longer be $48 billion in
cuts by 2003, but only $42 billion. But that is another story.
We therefore support the Progressive Conservative Party's
motion, because it looks at three major concerns. First, student
debt levels, which are shocking, given that education is said to be
the cornerstone of nations; second, we will be fighting for a
reduction in the tax burden; and, third, we will be supporting the
Conservatives' motion because it addresses the horrendous problem
of job creation.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
note the member said he supported the motion so I would like to
ask him about something which relates to the provincial
jurisdiction of education.
The member will know that the motion proposes interest relief on
student debt. The facts put on the table were that the average
student debt load was some $25,000 a year. The facts did not
state that only one-quarter of all university graduates have any
debt at all. We are talking about a small number.
For me the issue is accessibility, not the servicing of debt
after they have a job.
The member will also know that the unemployment rate for
unemployed youth who have a university degree is only 6.5%.
For all Canadians who have a university degree the unemployment
rate is only 4.5%. The motion addresses university students and
graduates who will have the best opportunities of all our youth.
1655
The question I have for the member relates to youth unemployment
of which 52% are high school dropouts. They have an average
unemployment rate of some 23%. The dropout rate in Quebec is
over 30%. If education is provincial jurisdiction in Quebec,
what is he proposing be done to deal with high school dropouts
which amount to more than 30% in the province of Quebec?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, what I am proposing is very
simple. Since the Liberals came to power in 1993, the average debt
level of students in Canada has nearly doubled. Is there not a
connection somewhere between this government's policies and
students' average debt level? I think it is easy to figure out.
The planned cuts I mentioned in the conclusion to my speech
just now, which were initially to cut $48 billion in social
transfers between 1994 and 2003, primarily in post-secondary
education—in health and social assistance, but in education as
well—say it all.
We cannot cut billions in the education sector year after year
and think that governments across Canada will be able to absorb all
these expenditures without an impact on tuition fees and on student
debt levels.
What would I do in their shoes? First, I would start by
minding my own business. Education is an area of provincial
jurisdiction. Second, I would cancel the cuts planned between now
and 2003 in the education sector.
It seems to me that that would be the first step, if I were
concerned about improving the situation for students and the level
of education across Canada. I would give back to the provinces
what the government took away from them for education. This will
help people and will not be a strictly political gesture to get
some visibility as federalists.
[English]
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will continue to try to participate in the debate.
Leaving all the politics aside, it is fine for the government
side to say that you did this in 1984, but the reality is that we
are now in 1998 and taxes are choking the country, choking our
youth. I hear examples of it over and over again.
I am speaking in support of the motion. I wish I had 10 minutes
but I do not, so I cannot make a lot of points. However, I want
to say that we must have a tax system which ensures people stay
in the country and which works for all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, to echo what my colleague has
just said, the Minister of Finance seems more interested in passing
legislation to his own benefit than lowering the tax burden on
Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have a chance to participate in today's debate. The
motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should lower
the tax burden on Canadians and offer interest relief to student
loan holders in order to address the brain drain crisis which is
forcing Canadians to move to the United States where unemployment
rates, income tax rates and student debt levels are lower and the
standard of living is 25 per cent higher than in Canada.
When it comes to a vote we in the New Democratic Party will vote
against the motion. To me it does not make much sense at all. I
am not saying it is totally wrong but it does not make much
sense.
First, the motion refers to the brain drain. Do we actually
have a brain drain in this country? Interestingly enough
Statistics Canada says that we do not. In a recent report from
Statistics Canada, according to Mr. Ivan Fellegi, the so-called
brain drain is in fact a brain gain.
He acknowledges that Canadian skilled workers are leaving the
country, with 11,000 knowledge workers having left Canada in
1995, 5,600 to the U.S. of which 1,600 were doctors and nurses.
But evidence shows that there is a net brain gain if one
considers that Canada has more immigration of skilled workers
from the rest of the world than it loses to the United States and
other countries.
1700
That same year 34,300 knowledge workers came into the country
from the rest of the world. In 1996, 42,600 knowledge workers
came to Canada.
Participants in a recent C.D. Howe Institute conference
examining this issue concluded that there was no particular
problem in Canada with a brain drain.
It is fair to say that the evidence—and I think all of us will
acknowledge that Statistics Canada is probably one of the best
statistics gathering centres in the world—tells us that part of
the premise of this motion is actually incorrect. So set that
aside.
As my friend across the way indicated, student debt problems are
certainly very serious for tens of thousands of young people, but
access to higher education is probably even a greater issue that
we should confront. We have to find ways and means of easing the
debt burden so many young people have accumulated as a result of
pursuing their higher education goals.
I wonder if it is not time for us as a nation to get bold and
actually strike away the whole issue of having tuition fees at
all. This is not a particularly unique idea. Sixteen of the OECD
countries already are tuition free. The majority of OECD
countries have tuition free colleges and universities.
A few years ago as a society we determined that a grade 12
education was what was required to be a contributing citizen in
the economy of the time. I think all of us would agree that grade
12 is now the minimal standard. Probably grade 16 or grade 18
makes more sense in terms of what is required to become a
contributing citizen in the knowledge based economy of the 21st
century.
Why not have tuition free universities and colleges? I think my
friends in the Reform Party—although I stand to be
corrected—are proposing tax cuts to the tune of $2.6 billion.
What is interesting is that that is the exact amount of money
Canadians spend on tuition fees each year.
We have a choice. This is what the business of politics is all
about. Do we give across the board tax cuts of $2.6 billion to
everyone, rich as well, or do we invest it in education and
training for Canadians? That is the fundamental question we have
here between political parties.
We say we should invest it in young people. We should invest it
in Canadians. We should invest it in the human resources of the
country. It is fair to say it would be the best investment one
could make, as other countries have already determined.
Another point however is that tuition fees account for about
$2.7 billion annually. If we were to introduce an inheritance
tax, which virtually every industrialized country in the world
has with the exception of Canada and one or two others, and we
exempted the first $1 million in inheritance and taxed only an
inheritance above $1 million, we would collect on an annual basis
$2.8 billion. This would cover the cost of tuition fees for every
student in this country.
In other words, if we did what virtually every other
industrialized nation does, if we collected money from the vast
inheritances some people receive with the first $1 million being
tax exempt, we would bring into the central government coffers
the equivalent of all the tuition fees in Canada. It seems to me
that would be worthy of some consideration.
We are going to have a budget in a few days. I hope the Minister
of Finance sees the value of investing in young people and others
who are pursuing better education and training opportunities, and
takes this bold step and does away with tuition fees. Fund it
from this new tax that virtually every other western
industrialized nation has in place today.
It is rather interesting that this motion comes from my friends
in the Conservative Party who Canadians totally rejected a few
years ago for actually bringing this nation to its knees
economically.
There were massive cuts to education, massive cuts to health
care, massive cuts to social programs, debts skyrocketing.
Canadians said “We have had it with these guys. We are going to
toss them out so far that we can hardly see them”. There used
to be Tories packed into this place. Now there is a little group
down at the far end. Then they were replaced.
1705
An hon. member: What about the NDPs?
Mr. Nelson Riis: We have always been a small group at
this end. Nothing changes particularly for us.
Then it changed and now it is Liberals. I suspect that when
Brian Mulroney gets up in the morning and reads the newspaper he
cannot believe what the Liberals have done. They have done things
that he only dreamed of doing. Massive, massive cuts to
education. Horrendous cuts to health care. They have almost
completely wiped out all the major granting agencies. There have
been huge cuts to social programs so that this morning we now
have 1.5 million children living in poverty.
Other countries have no children living in poverty because their
parents do not live in poverty. Countries such as Norway and
Denmark do not have people living in poverty. They have no
children waking up in the morning who live in poverty. We have
1.5 million.
We have 400,000 young people who do not even have a job. They
should be working today. Since the Liberals took office, 200,000
young people have been added to these rolls. There are 1.5
million people without a job and another million people working
at part time jobs. Yet the Minister of Finance and the Prime
Minister stand up and say that the economy is strong, that things
are going well.
Somebody said the other day it is like having the Titanic
economy. Remember that two-thirds of all the wealthy first class
passengers were rescued and two-thirds of all the people in
steerage were locked down below and drowned.
Yes, we have a recovery for bankers and banks, wealthy people,
corporations and wealthy families. Things have probably never
been better for them. However for the average person things are
rough. For the unemployed things are rough.
I just came from a conference this morning sponsored by the
Canadian Labour Congress, a special interest group I am told by
my Liberal friends. It is interested in labour. What was the
name of the conference? Jobs. Do we hear of the government
having a three day conference on jobs in this country? No, we do
not. The Canadian Labour Congress two blocks from here is having
a conference on jobs, trying to find ways and means of getting
people back to work.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance stand up here and
say “Do not worry. Unemployment is down to eight point some per
cent, to just under 9%”. It was at 9% for 87 consecutive
months. Are we supposed to be joyous at the fact that it has
come down a quarter of a percentage point? This is embarrassing.
It is probably immoral that we stand here and accept this
immorality of having so many people unemployed.
I want to relate a point that was raised at the conference this
morning at the Chateau Laurier sponsored by the Canadian Labour
Congress. They talked about a woman who a few months ago had a
good job in Winnipeg, Manitoba. She had a condo and a car. She
was doing well. Then they experienced layoffs in the business.
She lost her car, lost her condo, lost her job and is essentially
homeless. She has gone from being a productive citizen with a
meaningful job living in a community to being homeless in a few
months. That is how close most people are to that status.
I will sit down now because my time is finished. I cannot
support this motion. It really fails to deal with the crucial
issues confronting our country. Let us hope and pray that when
the Minister of Finance stands up here next week on Tuesday
afternoon he will have something to say that will actually
address these serious problems of unemployment.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciated what the member had to say. I cannot
agree with everything of course. I used to support the NDP at
one point earlier in my life. However, I found out that its
policies do not work and I became much more realistic.
One of the concerns the people of Saskatchewan have is that one
of our main exports is young people.
Why is that happening? Why are the young people leaving
Saskatchewan? It is plain and simple. There are not any jobs
available for them. Very few jobs are being created in that
province.
1710
Why are there very few job opportunities? Saskatchewan has the
highest taxes in the country. What would happen if there were
broad based tax cuts?
Let us lay politics aside. Let us forget about the left and the
right and all the rest of it.
The question I have for the member is what creates real jobs in
this society?
It is good to talk about education. However, in Saskatchewan we
have a very low unemployment rate. Why? Because there are very
few people looking for jobs. There are very few people left in
that province because there are very few job opportunities. I
agree with the member that there should not be cuts to education.
We should not be making our young people pay the price for the
debt and the high taxes.
However, what creates real jobs in this country? It is not more
government programs. I hope the member would agree with that.
Would the member agree, as has happened in many places around the
world, that if we reduce taxes we begin to allow investment to
take place and we allow people to keep their money so they can
buy goods and services that produce real jobs.
Would he agree that is the main problem which young people face
today? Education is important, but they can have all the
education in the world and it will do them no good when it comes
to getting a job.
What creates the real jobs in this country? That is the debate
we should have. Let us lay politics aside and find out what
creates the real jobs. That is what we should be doing in this
place.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend probably
knows this but Saskatchewan has the lowest unemployment levels in
Canada.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Because all the young people leave.
Mr. Nelson Riis: No, it is because it has one of the
hottest economies in Canada.
By the way, it was the first province to have a balanced budget.
My friend forgot to mention that fact, as well as the fact that
it has the lowest unemployment in Canada. These are realities
that my friend forgot to mention.
The member said that tax cuts create jobs. I remember Ronald
Reagan saying that when he was president of the United States. He
gave tax cuts to the rich. It was the trickle down idea. Give
the tax cuts to the richest families in the United States and
eventually the benefits would trickle down to the regular folks.
Regular folks got sick of being trickled upon. That is what
happened. Unemployment went up. The debt load went up. The
economy went down. It was an economic disaster. Ronald Reagan
bankrupted the United States. I will let the facts speak for
themselves.
My friend asks if government can play a role in job creation.
Yes it can. I will give my friend an example.
In the city of Kamloops we have a program, like many other
communities across the country, called community futures. It is
sponsored by the federal government. It is one of the few
federal programs which I think really works well. Basically it
provides support for individuals on employment insurance to
create small businesses. It provides loans of up to $75,000 to
entrepreneurs who want to start a small business.
In the city of Kamloops alone, using this microcredit arm of the
federal government, 850 new businesses have been created.
Normally each business has two or three employees. The odd one
will have more. These small businesses are thriving. Every loan
has been paid back. There have been 850 new businesses and about
1,500 new jobs created in the city of Kamloops alone.
That is something which the federal government has done and has
done really well. People appreciate that. We should be
expanding those kinds of programs so people do not have to go
begging to the banks for the $50,000 loan to start their small
enterprise. That is something the federal government could do.
It is doing it now, but it could expand the program to create
thousands and thousands of new businesses and job opportunities
across the country.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Madam Speaker,
it is a pleasure to be here today to discuss this issue, although
it is not a very pleasant issue.
I was the seconder of this motion and I was a factor in
convincing our caucus to use our supply day to discuss what we
consider one of the great problems in this country and one of the
great pending tragedies for the next generation of Canadians that
will help to contribute to our economic growth.
1715
The problems of student debt are way greater than a student
problem. It is a Canadian problem. It is the Canadian taxpayer's
problem. We must deal with it as such.
The cost of having student debt in Newfoundland in particular
and in the rest of Canada is reduced access to education.
Education becomes an elitist kind of approach where individuals
can get educated only if they have significant personal wealth.
In many families that is simply not going to happen. Many
students in many parts of the country are being discouraged from
getting an education.
We all know that job opportunities and education go together. It
is really a penny wise and pound foolish kind of policy to have a
situation where we effectively discourage people from getting
educated. The future growth of Canada is definitely at stake if
we do not do something with this student debt problem. Again, I
say this is one of the reasons that our caucus has made this one
of the most important policy matters that we want to deal with.
We know we have to try in opposition to influence the government
to deal with real problems in Canada. This real problem in Canada
seems not to be fully understood by the Government of Canada. Our
job in opposition is to bring it to the attention of the
Government of Canada and to see if we can find solutions to the
problem.
The problem is horrendous and huge. There are 1.5 million
students presently enrolled in Canadian post-secondary
institutions. Collectively these are the youngest and brightest
people who are trying to get ahead in Canada, who are doing the
most for the future of Canada and for themselves and for their
future families. Those 1.5 million students now owe collectively
$6.9 billion. Most of them do not have anything but a part time
job, working on an education.
There is a tragedy brewing in this country if tuition fees and
education costs continue to rise. This country cannot grow into
the next century. This new millennium we all want to talk
about is going to be an apprehensive place for a lot of those
students once they graduate.
One of the other problems we have, besides having tremendous
student debt, is that we have tremendously high student
unemployment. We can brag about the employment rates in this
country that may be 8% to 9% for adults. The Stats Canada figures
for the real unemployment rate below 30 years of age is 16.5%. In
Newfoundland where I come from it is 23.5%, statistically proven.
In real terms in Atlantic Canada if the truth were known for
those students and young people who are still in Atlantic Canada
we probably have an unemployment rate well in excess of 30%.
That causes the other great problem which Atlantic Canada and in
particular Newfoundland have been all too familiar with, the
problem of out-migration.
The member for Kamloops is wrong if he thinks that Canada has a
net brain gain. We have more people leaving Saskatchewan, we have
more people leaving Newfoundland. Where are they going to? There
was a time when we could export some of our most uneducated
people out of Atlantic Canada, out of Newfoundland to parts of
central Canada.
Central Canada is going to find out and British Columbia is
going to find out that a lot of the job opportunities for our new
students who have tremendous debt, who need to go to areas where
there is lower taxation, higher rates of pay and greater
opportunities, when they want to visit their children or their
grandchildren they better have a passport to visit them because
they are not going to be in Canada.
I am going to quote a very prominent Liberal on this problem
because sometimes I think the Government of Canada does not
really take into account where this problem came from. This is a
letter from one of our well known Liberal premiers who was a
Liberal cabinet minister. When asked by my colleague from St.
John's East the premier of Newfoundland answered: “The rising
cost of post-secondary education is due in part to the reduction
in transfer payments that was particularly targeted to
post-secondary education”.
It is not a coincidence that over $6 billion in transfer cuts
have happened since this Liberal government took office in 1993.
It is not a coincidence that there is also $6.9 billion worth of
debt for students in this country. It is not a coincidence that
the provinces of Canada took the cut in federal transfers and
simply transferred them to somewhere else. The federal guys
transferred the cuts to the provinces, the provinces transferred
them to the universities and the universities did what? They
transferred them to the students. That is where the $6.9 billion
of debt comes from.
As I said, with the effects of that transfer to students across
this country some have taken the most terrible of all courses.
1720
In Newfoundland they have actually chosen not to go to
universities or colleges. They have chosen not to get educated.
They see examples in dying rural communities where people are
saying what is the point of getting educated. What is the point
of my degree if I owe $30,000 and there are no jobs? I might as
well not have gone at all.
For Canada that is the most expensive and tragic alternative.
We all know there is a direct correlation between education and
employment. If you choose not to get educated you will live on
the social welfare system of Canada for the next 40 or 50 years
of your supposed working life.
Another terrible tragedy from this terrible debtload is
bankruptcies. Almost 8,000 bankruptcies are from students. These
are not people who went into business. These are not people who
have mortgages on their homes. These are not people who have
travelled extensively and who have wasted money. There were
8,000 young Canadian declaring bankruptcy in 1996-97. It was
because they went to school.
Another tragedy is the collection agencies, which this
government should do something about. I know one of those
agencies is based in the U.S.
Talk to parents who are trying to help their children pay off
their loans with their savings. Some become targets of
collection agencies when their children who cannot pay the loans
themselves move within or outside of Canada. It is nothing short
of mafia style collection tactics. I could give song and verse
about some families in Newfoundland that are digging into their
meagre savings accounts.
I have a letter from one parent whose daughter owes $19,000. The
mother has $16,000 in savings and the collection company will not
take it. Unless you pay it all, it does not want anything from
you. The out-migration is unbelievable.
If we do not educate students at a reasonable cost we will have
another great problem. Where is the source of future economic
growth in Canada? In the year 2006 of the new millennium who
will buy cars and houses? Who will have the money? Who will
have the money to pay into the Canada pension plan to keep
members of our age group reasonably content? Where is the
economic growth? It comes from well employed, well paid people
who pay taxes to this country. That is not going to happen.
The finance minister has solved our deficit problem for the late
1990s but I think he will create a huge economic and social
problem 10 or 15 years from now when a large number of people
cannot work and cannot spend on consumer goods.
Entrepreneurship and small business is such an important part of
Canada's future growth. Small business creates most of our jobs.
We all know that if you are going to get involved in a business
you had better have some net personal worth when you go to the
bank. I met a young lady the other day with a masters in
engineering. She wants to start a business but she owes $57,000.
Go down to one of our chartered banks and say that you have this
great business idea. Guess what it will say? No business loan,
no job creation, no real constructive place for you in Canada.
As the member for Kamloops said, it is all a matter of making
choices. There are choices. We can decide to freeze tuition. We
can decide to lower student debt. We can forget this millennium
fund which will help somebody somewhere in the future. Instead
we can help students in our universities today who will graduate
this year.
I know. I went to a university in Newfoundland and I had free
tuition. It works. A whole generation of us who went to
university in Newfoundland in 1965 to 1970 had free tuition.
Guess what? There was a whole generation of us who got educated,
never had to draw unemployment insurance over 30 working years
and contributed to the economy.
The investments that countries like Ireland are making into free
tuition, the investment that Newfoundland made into free tuition
from 1965 to 1970 are bold, visionary and they work. That is
what this country needs when it comes to student debt. It does
not need something called a millennium fund for some scholarships
for some students. It really needs to get a handle on the cost
of education and the idea that if we do create an educated
workforce we will have jobs into the future and we will have a
very successful country. I can only urge the Government of
Canada to start paying attention to this very tragic problem.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I see many members
rising to speak so I will consider two one-minute questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
would like to ask a question, but first of all I would like to make
just a few comments.
It seems that the parties, whether Progressive Conservative or
Liberal, are totally forgetting what has been going on in this
country.
1725
We need to look at what has been going on in this country and
at why we have lost jobs. Many jobs have been lost because of
technology.
I have used the example of the Brunswick mine in comments I
have made here in the House before. It used to have 1,400
employees and produce 8,000 tonnes daily. Today, with 800
employees, it can produce 10,000 tonnes daily.
Many jobs have been lost in the Atlantic region because of the
problems with the fisheries. In Newfoundland, fish plant closures
have done away with many jobs.
My colleague from the Conservative Party who has just spoken
cannot bring himself to say that free trade is responsible for the
loss of many jobs.
Perhaps if we quit giving our jobs to the Americans, Canadians
would have work too.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Power: Madam Speaker, in answer to the
question, very often in debating in the House of Commons or any
other place we want to say the same things, we agree on the same
things and we take different approaches to them.
I am a very strong believer that free trade helped this country.
Free trade created those million jobs that the Liberals take
credit for now and say what a great economy we have. In Canada,
with so many interprovincial trade barriers, our domestic economy
has not grown at all like our export economy. That is very easy
to prove.
In future it will not be free trade that will create jobs in
this country. It will be free brains that will be developed in
the minds of our young people in our universities and
post-secondary institutions. That is where the future is. I am
really not interested in sitting down, listening and talking
about what happened to free trade, GST, 1984 and 1991. In 1998
we have 1.5 million students who are heavily indebted. Their
future, if they can get an education, is going to be a good
education at a reasonable cost.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened with intent to the member. He talked about huge
economic social problems of the future. Also, the motion
addresses people fleeing from this country.
I could not help but observe a few short days ago that this
party sided with and supported a motion from the Bloc Quebecois
which denied a legal process. That is the unilateral declaration
of independence by the separatist party in Quebec. I take that
one step further. It is a suspension of the Constitution of
Canada. It would be a suspension of the rule of law in this
country.
How many people does he think will leave the country the day
that revolution starts?
Mr. Charlie Power: Madam Speaker, that is absolutely the
most silly frivolous point when we are talking about student debt
and future employment problems.
One of the problems in this country is that little reference to
the Supreme Court of Canada. If the Liberal Party of Canada
wants to create separatists that is one of the great ways to do
it. It has caused the constitutional crisis of this country. It
is devoid of ideas of how to deal with Quebec. It is devoid of
ideas of how to create employment.
To use this reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to try to
brand our leader, the federalist who saved Canada in 1995, as a
separatist because he does not agree with the government
resolution is wrong. It was wrong when the government sent it to
the supreme court. It is still wrong. It will do nothing for
the good of Canada. If it creates unemployment or it creates
separatists, it is because the Liberal government did not have
many ideas to begin with.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Thirty seconds for
the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the member for St. John's West commented considerably on
the fact that student unemployment is the crucial problem. Would
he not agree that student debt is not the problem, it is student
unemployment? They come out of university and cannot get jobs to
pay off their debts.
Does he not agree that is because the economic situation
which exists in his province and across the country was a
result of Conservative mismanagement of the economy for nine
years? That is why there are no jobs. It is his former
government that is—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
St. John's West.
Mr. Charlie Power: Madam Speaker, obviously there is a
great connection between being able to find a job and paying off
any debt you happen to have.
In the case of students, debt has become significantly more
difficult. With student aid, even if you get a job, if you end
up with $25,000 in debt for an undergraduate degree, and probably
$40,000 plus for a masters degree, even at reasonable rates of
remuneration, you cannot pay off the debt. It is simply not
manageable.
1730
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Madam Speaker, I would like
to thank the member for Kings—Hants and the member for St.
John's East for bringing this important motion to the House.
The Minister of Finance was warned by university leaders months
ago that a brain drain is drawing the intellectual life out of
Canada. A prescription to remedy this problem is an infusion of
dollars for research and training to increase participation.
It is time this government realizes that Canada is not an island
on its own. We need to retain our human capital and convince
Canadians to stay here in a country that has full potential to
prosper internationally at an exceptional level. Right now is the
time for this to happen.
Many of our country's most promising young researchers and
academics are leaving for more enticing grounds, mainly to the
United States. They are leaving because they cannot get the
resources they need to thrive in Canada, namely research dollars,
decent salaries and lower taxes.
Consequently this trend will ultimately damage our economy.
Canada stands to lose domestic talent to our southern neighbour.
Less homegrown research and development means fewer resources
available to support our Canadian businesses. These same
businesses are struggling to find well trained workers who will
help them compete internationally.
The facts are clear. Canada is losing talent to the United
States because American companies are offering Canadians higher
salaries and the U.S. government can offer lower taxes.
High taxes in this country are also scaring away businesses to
low tax U.S. and other destinations around the world. The tax
rate for corporations ranges from 38% to 46% in Canada. In the
U.S. it is considerably lower. If corporations are feeling the
pinch, let us now consider young people and understand what
drives them south of the border.
Studies indicate that as of late we are losing young talent and
ambition. Our leaders are the future. A student graduating from
university is faced with a high debt burden from years of student
loans. When offered a high paying job, they obviously take it in
anticipation of ridding themselves of debt and saving for the
future. Paying off a debt of $25,000 to $30,000 when entering
the workforce is unbearable. How are our young people ever to
get ahead when they are suffocated with huge student loan
payments monthly?
Debt repayment incentives are driving our teachers to Columbia,
Mexico, Egypt and the United States. High debtloads are driving
our engineers and computer scientists to the United States and
many private school grads are deciding to work elsewhere to cover
their debtloads.
I urge this government to seriously consider the implications it
is imposing on our young graduates. Student debt burdens are a
serious problem in Canada. The Minister of Finance must
introduce measures in the upcoming budget that will repair the
damage he has done to our young people.
The only way to ensure that the Canadian economy continues to
grow is to empower the consumer. To do this requires an increase
in the disposable income of Canadians. Unlike in the United
States, disposable income has fallen in Canada. In fact, it has
fallen or been flat for two years running. The unemployment rate
in the United States has been considerably higher. Canada's
unemployment rate, on the other hand, has consistently been
higher than that of our southern partner.
The Liberal government has continued to cut, cut, cut. Now its
eyes are finally opening, a little late I might add. Dramatic
cuts in post-secondary education by this government have caused
the average student debt to almost triple this decade from an
average of $8,700 in 1990 to $20,000 this year and forecast to
$25,000 in 1998.
I believe in the Liberal budget next week they will be coming
out with the millennium fund of $1 billion. They have caused
this student debt by tripling tuition fees in the 1990s. Maybe
they should be giving the money back to the universities so that
tuition fees can be reduced.
These disheartening figures point to another issue that is
surfacing. The fear of enormous debt is driving qualified
students away from the universities. How will this country
compete internationally if talent is not encouraged to flourish?
If this trend continues, what future does this country have?
We know that the personal income tax gap has widened between
Canada and the United States.
1735
This is due to many reasons. One which can be fixed in this
upcoming budget is bracket creep. By indexing bracket creep we
can realize almost a billion dollars returned to the hands of
Canadians. It is time that we let Canadians spend their money
instead of government.
A document compiled by the industry department raises serious
concerns about whether Canada has much to brag about or not. This
report is entitled “Keeping up with the Jones”, no relation I
can guarantee. It reveals the true picture, not the rosy one
this government keeps referring to.
Let me share with this House some of the findings since the
Liberal government so quickly swept it under the carpet with
embarrassment.
The national income gap between Canada and the United States is
getting worse. Americans are now 25% richer than Canadians. The
U.S. economy is getting richer and it is paying its workers
better. The salary gap is especially pronounced in occupations
requiring high skills. Engineers, computer scientists and
architects are earning an average of $11,000 to $13,000 more than
their Canadian counterparts.
The combination of lower taxes and higher income in the United
States means working Americans have more money to spend. An
example is a couple with $80,000 in taxable income and two
children living in California will take home $7,000 more than a
similar Canadian family.
Canadians pay about one-third more in taxes. Top corporate tax
rates are significantly higher in Canada than in the United
States.
Many state governments offer very generous tax and investment
incentives to businesses for the purpose of attracting investment
and innovation activities. Canada's ability to attract and
retain knowledge workers is seriously undermined by its personal
income tax structure.
Canadian workers hand over significantly larger portions of
their earnings to the tax man than Americans. The top marginal
personal income tax is 20% higher in Canada than in the United
States.
The continual shortage of knowledge workers such as software
engineers in this country poses a huge problem as Canadian
business struggles daily with the year 2000 problem. It is
estimated that there are 300,000 Canadians in California working
in Silicone Valley.
It is time this government admits to these mistakes. It must
undo the damage it has done. Cuts in transfers to the province
have cost this government the credibility as an effective
government and are costing Canada our talent.
The Liberal government must put a stop to this brain drain.
Unless this government wakes up and starts now, we stand to lose
more and more of our talent to the United States.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the member repeated the numbers the leader of the Conservative
Party said about the differential between Canada and the U.S. in
terms of the average income.
The member did not mention that in Canada we have a different
income tax system. The computations are different. We have
things that are outside the Income Tax Act whereas they are not
similar in the U.S., for example the child tax benefit, the GST
credit and our health care system alone. He used the example
that a family making $80,000 a year in the United States would
have $7,000 more of disposable income than a similar family in
Canada.
I would like to ask the member if he can tell this House exactly
how much that family in the U.S. then has to pay for health care
and social security that Canadians do not have to pay for.
Mr. Jim Jones: Madam Speaker, if we compare the tax rate
between Canada and the U.S., in Canada we max out at the top tax
rate at $55,000 to $60,000. That is 54% in Ontario, I guess a
little less now with the cuts the Harris government has done for
the provincial level.
In the U.S. people max out at 36%, at $250,000. With the
difference between the 20%, a lot of health care can be bought,
child tax benefits, education. There is a lot more disposable
income and just as good an education system.
1740
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am entertained watching our Liberal and Tory friends
quibble over their GST. It is very entertaining indeed.
I was very interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for
Markham. He is a strong advocate of tax relief as a policy for
economic growth. However, not too long ago I read some remarks
made by the hon. member in the local Markham newspaper. He said
that if Mike Harris continues his harsh cuts which are necessary
in order for him to impose tax cuts, this would hurt the federal
Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario. I find it ironic for
a party which is at 12% in Ontario to be criticizing at party
which is at 35%.
I wonder if the hon. member could explain how he squares his
remarks this evening with his earlier comments which criticized
the fiscal virtue of the Mike Harris common sense revolution.
Mr. Jim Jones: Madam Speaker, I heard the member from
Calgary bring this up the other day in the House. If he had
called me instead of making the comment in the House he would
have found out exactly what I said.
I agree with what Mike Harris has done. In this country, in the
last nine months of 1997, 270,000 jobs were created. Of those
270,000 jobs 216,000 were created in Ontario. That proves that
high taxes cost jobs.
What I said is that on issues such as the megacity people are
saying that maybe the Harris government could communicate a
little better. Government could be a little more consultative
when bringing people into the process so they understand and
accept what the problem is and what the government is trying to
do.
I did not say I was against Mike Harris and I did not say I was
against his tax cuts.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will start off by saying how
quickly they forget. How quickly the hon. member for Sherbrooke
forgets. Let me remind the House of a few frightening fiscal
facts.
In 1985 the government recorded a deficit of over $38 billion.
By 1993 it got the deficit down to $41 billion. Over those nine
years the total yearly deficits exceeded $290 billion. Just as
damning, the interest payments on those deficits totalled $300
billion.
I am not trying to shift the focus of today's debate. The fact
is that decade of deficits and the failure of political will
which resulted in them is a key reason why Canada's tax burden is
so heavy today.
There is no mathematical mystery here. Deficits are like credit
cards. The more you use them, the more you have to pay back,
principal plus some pretty heavy interest. The only way
governments can pay interest, even before they get to the
principal, is through taxes. The more the interest grows, the
more the taxes grow.
Let us look at the evidence on taxation. I think we will find
the fingerprints of the hon. member for Sherbrooke all over it.
In 1985 the former government introduced the high income surtax.
It was a temporary measure to help fight the deficit. Then there
was 1986 when that government added a 3% surtax on the basic
federal tax. Again it was a temporary measure to fight the
deficit.
Those surtaxes are still with us because when we came to office
the deficit was the highest it had ever been.
If the hon. member wants to condemn a government for our painful
tax burden he only has to open his scrapbook. If he wants to
thunder about a brain drain crisis he should consider how the two
surtaxes which he helped to introduce have added thousands of
dollars to the yearly tax bills of successful professionals and
scientists.
1745
My purpose today is not just to look at what caused the tax
problems Canadians face but to remind the hon. member that when
he looks at this government he is also seeing solutions that
work.
From the start of our first mandate we made an absolute
commitment to deficit reduction and elimination. One of the
driving reasons was our recognition that the only way we could
start the process of broad based tax relief was to get our
finances under control.
Since then we have brought the deficit from $42 billion down to
$8.7 billion last year, the lowest level since 1969-70. We have
done this without a single increase in personal income tax.
Despite our constrained fiscal situation we began a process of
targeted tax relief to those who needed it most and where it
could do in fact the most economic and social good. These
include increasing the child tax benefit by $850 million and
measures to help the disabled, low income working parents and
Canada's charities.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have made it
quite clear that this is only a start. As our fiscal situation
improves so that we can act without jeopardizing our fiscal
progress and while preserving Canada's cherished social programs,
we will certainly widen the scope of our tax action.
There is another area where we have already taken some positive
action. I would like to highlight it because it relates directly
to the specific problem the hon. member addresses, student debt
loads.
Another bit of history the hon. member for Sherbrooke may have
forgotten or perhaps would like Canadians to overlook is that
during the Tory government era the tax credit which was supposed
to help cover basic personal necessities for post-secondary
students grew from $50 to $80. That was between 1984 and 1993.
Under our government, in just half the time that education amount
more than doubled to $200 a month.
Our government understands that in today's work knowledge and
education are the keys to economic and individual success and
security. We are not only talking the talk, something the hon.
member is very good at, I might say, but we also walk the walk.
That is why our 1996 budget provided an $80 million increase in
direct federal tax assistance for post-secondary education. In
last year's budget we increased that support by $137 million
through measures whose value will reach $275 million when they
mature.
They were complemented by the creation of the Canada Foundation
for Innovation which will ensure that post-secondary students
have access to better facilities and equipment to prepare for the
knowledge based economy of the 21st century.
The other measures include increasing the education credit to
$150 per month from $100 immediately and increasing it to $200
per month in 1998 and in subsequent years, allowing students to
carry forward all unused portions of the education and tuition
credits to be applied against any future income.
As a result of these budget measures a student in full time
attendance at a post-secondary institution for eight months with
tuition fees of $2,800 and additional fees of $300 will receive
over $1,200 in combined federal and provincial tax assistance per
year. This is an increase of more than 30% from the $900 in
assistance available to students in 1995.
The 1997 budget also announced an important change to the Canada
student loans program. To better recognize that some students
still may not have the capacity to repay their loans, the budget
proposed to extend to 30 months from 18 months the period of time
during which students are allowed to defer making payments.
Combined with the initial six months after graduation when no
payments are required, this means that students will have up to
three years of help in dealing with their loans.
I do not want to magnify our actions. We know they are only the
beginning of a solution for Canada's students. That is why the
Prime Minister has set out a dramatic further advance, the
millennium scholarships. He has told Canadians that will be an
important part of next week's budget. Let us remember that every
dollar of scholarship a student receives—and the Prime Minister
has said in his speeches that this will help tens of
thousands—is one dollar less debt that he or she must incur.
I could certainly go on reminding members of the House how
legislation before us will help tomorrow's students by doubling
the annual limit of contributions to registered education savings
plans.
1750
While students and the plight of Canadian taxpayers deserve our
attention, this motion does nought. There is no doubt the
problems it raises are real, but the solutions we are offering
are equally real. Starting with the courageous deficit action
that eluded the previous government, I am confident that next
week's federal budget will prove that our solutions are more
certain and more concrete than the motion and the hon. member
dares to dream.
I can go on and on about the various initiatives the government
has put forward. Let us remember one thing. This party and this
member do not own any of the issues of student debt. Canadians
and students across the country have continued to communicate
with the government and with members on this side of the House
who held town hall meetings in their ridings to talk about the
plight of students.
We realize that education and skills training will certainly be
the cornerstone by which the economy will continue to grow into
the next millennium. We have said over and over again in the
House that the government is committed to ensuring that students
have accessibility to higher education and skills training. We
have done it in our past budgets and we will continue to do it in
the upcoming budget.
I want to mention something I neglected to mention earlier. I
will be splitting my time with the member for Kitchener Centre.
When the member for Sherbrooke decided to come forward with the
motion, he conveniently forgot the previous Tory government was
in large part responsible for the mess we found the country in.
Today he comes to the House merely pointing out the problems and
not offering anything in terms of concrete solutions, except to
say that a broad based tax cut, irrespective of whether or not
the government books are in balance, is the solution.
I would say to the Tory caucus that Canadians disagree.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, somehow I do not like the term brain drain. It somehow
indicates that all the smarts have gone some place else. Looking
around at all of us here, I do not believe that is true.
I would like to direct a question to the member who has just
spoken. I would rather call it an intellectual exodus. Does the
member remember the greatest exodus outside the depression in
Saskatchewan? The greatest exodus that ever hit Manitoba,
Saskatchewan and Alberta was when a Liberal government instituted
the national energy policy.
We are talking about an exodus. That kind of taxation brings
about an exodus. Would the member not agree that the exodus we
are talking about is brought about by high taxation?
Mr. Tony Valeri: Madam Speaker, while I respect the
intervention of the member, to stand and essentially say that all
the challenges faced by the country as we move into the next
century will be solved by reducing taxes is just not the case.
Right from the beginning the government has said we would
continue on a balanced approach. We have done so since we came
to office. The Reform Party certainly does not have to worry
about our commitment to fiscal responsibility. It is rock solid.
I am sure the hon. member will be here on February 24 at 4.30
p.m. to listen very closely to the budget speech. That budget
will certainly be not merely rhetoric or exchanges in the House
but a demonstration of the commitment of the government and of
the results we have been able to achieve.
1755
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
found it rather amusing to look at the members who proposed the
motion and to hear the reply we just heard from the Liberal
member opposite. A pox on both parties.
On the one hand the Liberal government says the fault lies with
the previous Conservative government. The Conservatives simply
say it was the Liberals' fault because of what they are doing.
One of those parties governed the country since Confederation.
Therefore it seems to me they are both to blame.
If the hon. member would have had another five minutes to speak,
I think he would have lost one arm. He was so busy patting
himself on the back that there is no way he could have preserved
his arm.
The claim is that taxes have been reduced and the government has
been balanced in everything it has done. Why is it, then, that
we have so many bankruptcies and so much dissatisfaction with
what is happening?
Mr. Tony Valeri: Madam Speaker, I remind the hon. member
for Kelowna that if he wants to dole out the blame between those
two parties he should also stand in the House to say that the
Liberal government will balance the books over the next number of
years.
The Liberal government takes initiative in terms of reducing
taxation for Canadians. The Liberal government invests in the
priorities of Canadians in education and health care. The
Liberal government will bring the country into the next
millennium with stronger fundamentals than there have ever been,
with confidence in a stronger economy than has ever been, and
with Canadians saying they have greater opportunity than they had
between 1984 to 1992.
The member can live in the past if he wants to. I am not
patting myself on the back. I am merely stating the facts and
ensuring they get on the record, only for the benefit of members
opposite.
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to apply a little reason
to what has become a very rhetorical debate.
My colleagues opposite seem to relish raising alarm bells about
the national brain drain. It is true some American and Canadian
employers are competing for talented Canadian youth. An example
would be the software industry. The brain drain is a challenge
faced by all industrialized countries including the United
States.
I encourage members opposite to raise their awareness of the
government's many strategic investments in Canada's young people
which seek to create job opportunities for them at home.
I welcome the chance to assure the hon. member that Canada's
future is in very good hands. It is in the hands of
extraordinarily talented and creative young people, the best
educated, the most literate and the most technologically savvy
generation the country has ever produced.
As the Prime Minister stated in his Reply to the Speech from the
Throne, the government is investing in our youth's future. He
said “Canada will remain the best country to live in because it
cares about its people”.
Our commitments to Canada's youth are a living testimonial to a
fundamental truth. Let me remind the House that the government
made youth a national priority. Each year we invest over $2
billion on youth programs aimed at helping young people to
realize their potential and to prepare them to seize job
opportunities in the emerging new economy. These investments
support access to learning, the key to employability in today's
demanding and rapidly changing economy.
We offer young Canadians every opportunity to pursue their
professional goals by supporting them financially in their
post-secondary studies.
Increasing access to higher learning is an overriding goal of
federal initiatives such as the Canada student loans program,
registered education savings plans, and the recently announced
millennium scholarship endowment fund.
1800
Access to education is only one part of this equation. The
federal government also makes strategic investments in science,
technology and the creation of knowledge, the very lifeblood of
the new economy. These investments enable Canadian youth to
carve out new niches for themselves in an emerging knowledge
economy.
To encourage excellence and inspire aspiration, this government
funds the $800 million Canadian Foundation for Innovation. By
rebuilding the research infrastructure of universities and
teaching hospitals, the foundation will stimulate economic
development in knowledge intensive sectors to improve
opportunities for young graduates to pursue research careers here
in Canada.
The Government of Canada also works closely with the national
business organizations involved in leading edge research into the
development of the workforce for the next century. For example
we contribute to the business education partnership forum
advisory committee which is organized by the Conference Board of
Canada. Initiatives such as Career Edge which is backed by over
200 Canadian corporations and the corporate council on youth and
the economy are giving Canadian youth a leg up in the competitive
global economy.
This government's productive partnerships with the private
sector are equipping young Canadians with the skills they need
not only to find work but to excel in an information economy.
Partnerships such as the sectoral partnership initiative form a
cornerstone for Canada's approach to creating job opportunities
for youth.
Many of our initiatives link universities with the business
community by bringing together educators, employers, workers and
government both to define and to address human resource
challenges facing Canadian industry. There are a number of
outstanding examples of successful partnerships with universities
either directly with individual institutions or through the
Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.
Another crucial partnership in light of the skills shortage in
one of the fastest growing sectors of our economy is the Software
Human Resources Council. The council is working to increase the
supply and quality of workers entering this booming area of the
labour force and in the process is creating opportunities for
Canadian youth.
While we are quick to nurture the best and the brightest, we are
equally determined to ensure no young person is left behind in
the rapid transition to the knowledge economy. We assist youth
who experience difficulties moving from school to the labour
market through a range of programs under our youth employment
strategy. This government invests $375 million a year in
initiatives such as Youth Service Canada, Youth Internship Canada
and the student summer job action program to help young people
find jobs. Over three years this strategy will create nearly
280,000 experiences for young Canadians.
Since the Government of Canada began investing in youth
employment in 1994, over 300,000 youth have acquired work
experience and skills development. Recent surveys indicate that
88% of Youth Internship Canada and 85% of Youth Service Canada
participants are either employed, self-employed or returned to
school six to twelve months after completing the federal youth
program.
Our collective challenge is to ensure we nurture this new talent
pool, match would be workers with job ready employers and create
every opportunity for young people to put their abilities to work
for the benefit of Canada.
I am the first to admit that government initiatives are not the
entire solution. They never will be. There is no doubt there is
much more work to be done to ensure Canadian young people assume
their rightful place in the workforce. But there can be no
denying that this government is doing many things right.
I do not share my hon. colleague's sense of alarm that the sky
is falling. Instead I see every reason to believe that Canada in
the new millennium will be a place of great hope and equally
great opportunity, a place where young Canadians can proudly
stake their claim to a better future.
1805
As Canadian naturalist and author Roderick Haig-Brown once said
“In Canada my children are free to make their lives as they
would be nowhere else, less free perhaps than I was, because now
there are more people; but more free because now there are more
ways”.
On that inspirational note I urge my hon. colleague to withdraw
his unduly pessimistic motion. Instead find new ways to work
with us for the betterment of Canada's young people and for us
all. For truly, the sky is the limit.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I made the point earlier that simply providing an
education for students is not going to solve the problem because
there are very few jobs out there. I come from the province of
Saskatchewan and I gave the examples. I want to go beyond that
and ask the member something else in regard to education.
Many educational institutions are not educating students in a
way that prepares them for the working world. They go to some of
these institutions of higher learning with the purpose of
preparing themselves for a job, a job which they later discover
does not exist. Simply pouring money into education in itself
does not accomplish miracles.
I hope the member will listen to the question carefully. How
can we hold these educational institutions more accountable to
provide an education that is truly going to meet the needs of
those students who are spending thousands of dollars? How can we
hold those institutions more accountable to meet the needs of
those students? There is a real problem. They go to these
institutions and they end up not being properly prepared. What
can we do about that?
Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, one of the examples I
used in my comments was the sectoral arrangements that are being
made and the partnerships that are being formed with institutions
in the business sector. It is key that all of those parties
continue to look at curriculum and continue to have it evolve in
a way where there is meaningful employment at the end of the
educational stream. I see that as being done in partnership.
That is something this government has demonstrated. Not only is
it committed to it happening, but it is successful at having it
happen.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, when I
hear the undying optimism on the opposite side of the House, I
sometimes wonder. I heard one hon. member say earlier that some
people in this House talk the talk, but the Liberal government
walks the walk. Perhaps we should remind ourselves who is
walking the walk. It is the young people in Canada who are
seeking opportunities elsewhere who are walking the walk. They
are leaving Canada.
With the unbridled optimism of the government, perhaps it should
spend less time in the House and more time out talking to young
people and telling them why they should stay. Not the talk of
this government, but the actions of this government and the
fundamentals of the economy are driving the young out of this
country.
Given that free trade, the GST and the deregulation of financial
services, transportation and energy have been fundamentally
important to this government's ability to eliminate the deficit,
where did the hon. member stand on free trade and the GST in the
1993 election? Where did the Minister of Finance stand and where
did that party stand at that time?
Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, the issue of the brain
drain is one that is very near and dear to my heart. While not
directly in my riding, Kitchener-Waterloo are twin cities. It is
one of the institutions the members opposite have been quoting
when they talk about the brain drain. I point out to the hon.
member that one of the highest growth sectors for the region of
Waterloo is the high tech industry. It is staying in Canada. It
is creating jobs and opportunities in companies that make this
country proud on a global basis.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when the international trade committee did a study into why small
and medium size businesses were not expanding their
opportunities, they told us that the cost of business was too
high in Canada.
The cost of payroll taxes and interprovincial trade barriers were
hurting their ability to trade. They said that it was easier to
go across the line. One Ontario company said that it was easier
to go across the line and establish in Michigan and do business
back in Canada.
1810
How does the government intend to resolve the problem that we
are losing jobs because we are not competitive?
Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite clear on
the gist of the question, however this government has
demonstrated that it is committed to looking at breaking down
barriers within Canada as far as trading goes. We will continue
down that road.
I would also point out that when something is done in
partnership with the provinces, it is something that has to be
worked out in concert with them. It is not something that can be
done unilaterally. Of course, it is taking time.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am delighted to speak to this supply motion from our friends in
the fifth party caucus. We are pleased to support this motion
even though it is a conversion on the road to fiscal Damascus as
it were for our friends in the fifth party. Late conversions are
welcome ones nevertheless.
I must commend the hon. member for Kings—Hants and his
colleague from St. John's West for their eloquent remarks on this
subject. Later on in my remarks I will address the extent to
which their party and their colleagues contributed to the
problem.
Let me begin at the outset by saying it has been remarked many
times that the government opposite will have to increase the
federal chiropractic budget because of the amount of back
slapping that is going on over there. It truly is remarkable.
They should take up yoga. Such flexibility is required.
This government has applauded itself for its fiscal rectitude, a
government that has added a $100 billion to the national debt in
three and a half or four years, bringing our debt interest costs
up to $47 billion a year. We spend more on debt interest as a
percentage of our federal budget, as a percentage of our national
accounts and as a percentage of our gross domestic product than
does any other G-7 country.
That is money that does not go to post-secondary education. It
does not go to support students or higher education. It does not
go to help health care or those less fortunate. It goes to line
the pockets of bondholders and those to whom we owe this money
here and abroad. It is an enormous waste. It is a sinkhole of
resources and economic potential. It costs the average Canadian
family $6,000 a year in taxes just to finance the $47 billion in
debt interest payments.
The party opposite, and occasionally the party to my literal
right and my figurative left, sometimes argue that it is cruel
and hard hearted to talk about tax relief, that we are misplacing
our priorities, that what we need are more big government
programs like the Prime Minister's $3 billion endowment fund.
To put it in context, the reality is that $47 billion is almost
equivalent to the entire budget of the Government of Ontario for
all of its health care, welfare, social programs and everything.
It is also equivalent to what the provinces of Newfoundland, New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan,
the five smallest provinces, spend annually on their budgets for
all of their programs. That is how much is being flushed down
the Liberal-Tory sinkhole of debt financing.
We believe there is a need for radical, dramatic policy change
to offer hope and opportunity to younger Canadians, those who are
presently struggling to get into university, those who are in
university and struggling to get out from under their debt, and
those who are out of university struggling to get into the labour
market but who are unable to do so because of the 17% youth
unemployment given to them by this and the previous government.
They need economic opportunity and it is not available to them
today.
1815
It is no accident that we find in this caucus—and I will grant
in the Progressive Conservative caucus—a number of younger
Canadians, people like myself who are not very long out of
university, people who have faced economic challenges in a very
real and concrete way.
We will not find among the younger members of these two caucuses
professional politicians who have been shifting between municipal
councils, provincial legislatures and federal parliaments that
have been legislating taxes, tuition increases and cuts in
transfer payments for higher education.
We will find people who know what it is like to graduate with
$20,000, $30,000 or $40,000 of debt and to try to find their
first leg up the ladder in a labour market which offers so little
opportunity to young Canadians.
That is why we will find in this caucus, and to some extent in
the Progressive Conservative caucus, an appetite for a different
approach. Not more big government, Ottawa style programs
administered by bureaucrats; not more back to the future of the
1960s and 1970s. We want to move ahead to the 21st century, a
21st century not characterized by a family tax burden which
consumes 47% of what the average family earns, not burdened by
$600 billion of public debt and not limited in opportunity with a
17% youth unemployment rate.
Imagine a future where tax freedom day comes on April Fool's Day
as opposed to the end of June. Imagine a tax burden which only
takes 25% or 30% of the average family's income instead of 45% or
50%. Imagine a country which only spends a few billion dollars
on debt interest and is able to spend the rest on tax relief, job
creation, health care and higher education. That is the kind of
country I want to live in. That is why I ran to be in this
place.
Speaking of the tax burden, I will run through some of the
numbers, but before I do so let me say that the brain drain of
which my hon. colleagues speak has a very personal meaning for
me. It is not simply an economic concept. I will speak of the
experience of my family.
Some of my family are fifth and sixth generation Canadian. I
have ancestors who like yourself, Mr. Speaker, descent from the
United Empire Loyalists. Mine is a Canadian family which goes
back 250 years. I am in a sense ashamed to say that today my
entire immediate family—my parents and both of my brothers—are
now working and living abroad because they could not find the
economic opportunities in Canada they were able to find overseas.
They are not happy about the fact they had to leave the greatest
country in the world. I am not happy about that fact.
I would like to tell a personal story about my father. My
father served in the Royal Canadian Air Force for 11 years as a
jet fighter pilot and as a squadron commander of CF-100s at
various air force bases. He then went on to teach and become
headmaster of several fairly well known Canadian private schools.
Those who know about the private school industry will know it is
not a very compensatory vocation. People earn far less there
than they do in the public school system.
An hon. member: Not as good as MPs' salaries.
Mr. Jason Kenney: There is no MP pension. In fact there
is no pension for people who work in the independent schools.
They are there because they are profoundly dedicated.
My father worked for the air force but not long enough to get an
air force pension. Then he worked in independent schools where
there are no pensions. When he retired he and my mother simply
did not have enough money to live on. That is the truth.
One day my father opened up the careers section of the Globe
and Mail and found that a school in the United Arab Emirates,
in Dubayy, was seeking a headmaster for a new international
school. Lo and behold, my father applied and was selected.
In the United Arab Emirates, which is not a country I would
suggest as a model for the Canadian economy, the tax rate is
precisely zero.
There are no taxes.
1820
I am not suggesting that Canada ought to adopt the Arab economic
model. However, when we are competing in an international
marketplace with the best trained and the most skilled
professionals, we are competing with jurisdictions like the
United Arab Emirates which allow people to keep 100% of the
fruits of their labours, not 30% or 40% as in Canada.
The moral of this personal story is that in three years my
father and mother will have been able to save more for their
retirement there than they were able to during the time they
worked in Canada. That is a shame.
My oldest brother is a very skilled lawyer with an expertise in
a particular area of international law. He went to Canadian
universities. We subsidized his education, for which he is
grateful. When he went on the international marketplace offering
his wares, he found that by practising in New York State he was
able to keep 20% to 30% more of what he earned than he could
here. He just relocated to Dublin, Ireland, with his company,
taking 30 employees who would otherwise be in Toronto or
Montreal.
There is a kind of personal irony in this story because some of
my ancestors actually came to this place 150 years ago during the
Irish potato famine, from which I have since recovered. They
came here 150 years ago for economic reasons. They came to the
shores of this great country aboard the coffin ships in 1847,
seeking a life of hope and growth and leaving behind them a life
of subsistence agriculture and no opportunity. They found
opportunity in Canada and prospered in many different fields.
I am proud of my ancestors who worked so hard to build the
country and give so much to me and my generation. However, I
find it tragic and ironic that 150 years later the descendants of
those very same potato famine emigrants are now going back across
the Atlantic, back to the land from whence they came where they
now find economic opportunity.
The grandchildren of paupers from Ireland are going back to
Ireland now because the tax rates in Ireland have been lowered to
a point where it is now leading the OECD in growth. There has
been a 9% growth in real income for each of the last four years.
There is no more a brain drain in Ireland. The greatest export
in Ireland used to be its people. Now it is keeping its people
because it has invested in higher education, in lower tax rates,
and in research and development. It is the model growing economy
of Europe as a result.
Young Canadians are pulling up their stakes and moving from this
place to Ireland because they do not have the kind of opportunity
they need here; because relative to our G-7 partners the personal
income tax burden of Canadians is a whopping 56% higher; because
the Canadian property tax burden is the highest in the entire
OECD; because the corporate income tax burden is 9% higher in
Canada than the average in our G-7 partners; because the average
Canadian family paid a total bill of $21,242 or 46% of their
income last year compared to only $17,000 in food, shelter and
clothing.
If one were to keep constant the personal income taxes brought
in, in 1994 by the government, it would necessitate a $6.5
billion tax cut just to keep income taxes constant with where
they were three years ago.
The top marginal tax rate in Canada kicks in at $60,000 a year
while in the United States it kicks in at $271,000 a year. The
Americans have many flaws but at least they are prepared to
reward risk taking and the kind of venturous spirit that is
necessary in a free market economy. We penalize those people. We
think the wealthy are those who earn over $60,000 a year but the
middle class knows differently.
My family and other Canadians have moved abroad because working
Canadians and their employees are currently paying a deficit
reduction tax of $7 billion into the unemployment insurance fund.
It is basically a cook the books fund for the Minister of Finance
to cloud the actual size of the deficit.
1825
Young Canadians are moving abroad, are moving to the United
States and leaving with the skills we have given them. We have
just raised CPP payroll taxes by 73% over six years, the largest
single tax increase in Canadian history. It is a $10 billion tax
increase which I am ashamed to say my hon. friends in the PC
caucus voted for at second reading.
While I am speaking about my friends in the Tory Party, I cannot
help but recall their economic record, those who introduced—
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Jason Kenney: I am being heckled by the hon. member
for Markham. A comment he made during his speech was
interesting. This new found champion of fiscal rectitude was
quoted in the Economist & Sun of Markham on November 25,
1997. I would be happy to table the article. He is quoted as
“putting some distance between himself and the provincial Tories
as he spoke to Markham high school students” the week previous.
Of the Mike Harris tax cutting, deficit cutting, waste cutting
Tories, he says “If they don't get a gentler heart and get a
little humanity and sensitivity into it, not only will they hurt
themselves but they will hurt us, the federal Tories”.
Do my Liberal friends believe that a party at 12% is saying that
the tax cutting champion of Canada, Mike Harris, is going to hurt
it when he is at 35% in the polls? I would expect as much from a
party that raised taxes 71 times and cut the average after tax
disposable income of Canadian families by over $2,900 in their
last term of government alone. I would expect it of a party that
raised federal revenues to 16.9%, their highest point in history.
My friends remind me of their GST, their great glory. They bask
in the glory of the GST.
I hope my hon. friends in both parties will listen not to me but
to the voice of the Canadian people. Let us look at the most
recently released major national poll, released February 9 by the
Globe and Mail.
The government promised in the campaign to spend 50% of every $1
billion in a future surplus on debt reduction and tax relief. We
did not hear a word about debt reduction and tax relief in the
throne speech. We heard very little about them in the November
economic statement by the finance minister. Now that the
Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are doing their
prebudget spin, it is very clear that 75% or 80% of the surplus
will be directed to new big government Ottawa programs.
That is not what Canadians want. In that poll Canadians were
asked “Do you think the federal government should start to grow
again? Should it get bigger?” Guess how many think it should
start to grow. The grand total is 15%. Some 44% thought it
should stay the same size and 40% of Canadians think the
government should shrink further than where it is today. The
government is to spend 80% of its surplus on new programs and
only 15% of Canadians think that is an appropriate response.
When asked what the priorities ought to be with the surplus we
will be facing next week, 45% of Canadians chose debt reduction
as their preferred option; 29% said tax relief to create jobs,
hope and opportunity for young Canadians to which this motion
speaks; and a grand total of 23% said it should go into new
program spending like the blow away millennium project of the
Right Hon. Prime Minister.
When those 15% who think we ought to spend more were asked what
their spending priorities were, they said their top spending
priority was to increase transfers to the provinces for health
care and higher education.
When they asked about a federal government sponsored scholarship
fund, it fell so far down the list that I cannot even find it.
1830
They want to repair the damage the government has done by
cutting over $9 billion to health care and education. The
government wants to take the credit. Instead of co-operative
federalism, instead of transferring the money to the provinces
where it will be most efficiently and creatively administered,
the federal government wants the credit. That is what the $3
billion millennium fund is about.
It is not about the future. It is about a past rooted in the
1960s, a past of big government, a past which offers very little
to my generation. We need the tax relief and investment in
education and research development which will provide real hope
and opportunity. For that reason I am pleased to support the
motion.
Some hon. members: More, more.
The Deputy Speaker: I can see there is a lot of
enthusiasm so we will move quickly.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened very carefully to the remarks of the member
for Calgary Southeast.
An hon. member: You did?
Mr. John Bryden: Yes, I did. Early in his remarks he
criticized the government for having incurred a hundred billion
debt in the course of the four years of its mandate. He was
alluding to the fact that it took us four years to reduce the
deficit of $44 billion a year down to zero. He was criticizing
us for not cutting spending fast enough.
We are Liberals, not Reformers. We believe we have to move
rather reasonably on these things and not an immediate slash and
burn. We tried to move ahead in cutting spending in an orderly
fashion so the economy could get used to it.
Nevertheless, after four years we did get there. I am sure the
member for Calgary Southeast will agree it is very good to get
the deficit down to zero and to start paying down the debt.
If the member for Calgary Southeast who supports the
Conservative motion listened very carefully to what the
Conservatives were saying, he would have heard that the
Conservatives—
The Deputy Speaker: If the hon. member is going to ask a
question, could he do it right away, please? I am trying to
squeeze people in, as we have been doing all day.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the question
very quickly. You are quite right.
Conservative members suggested cutting taxes, which would cost
$2 billion. They proposed through the member for St. John's West
free tuition, which would cost $2.6 billion. They also proposed
increasing transfers for another $1 billion.
Does the member for Calgary Southeast agree with the $5.6
billion in new spending suggested in the Conservative motion?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, my party and I do not
support any new net spending, but we believe we can repriorize
overall spending.
We spend $103 billion in program spending. There is no reason
we could not take billions out of grants and handouts to
businesses, crown corporations, regional development programs and
useless grants and redirect them to where they would be far more
productive in research and development and higher education.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I read
in my local paper that the Reform deputy leader was in my riding.
In her interview by the editorial board she talked about extra
spending. She wanted extra spending in health care. She wanted
extra spending in education. She wanted extra spending in social
programs. She wanted all kinds of extra spending.
Does the member have two different stories, one for the House of
Commons and one for when he comes to Saint John, New Brunswick,
to see if he can pick up some votes?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's
question. I can understand the member is confused in the same
way as the member from Ontario was.
We are proposing that new spending can be found for such areas
as research and development, higher education and health care
transfers, but not net new spending. That new spending ought to
be found by reducing other programs.
We have enumerated the areas we think deserve reinvestment and
the areas we think should be cut in order to fund those
reinvestments in our excellent document “Securing Your Future”
which is available on the Internet at www.reform.ca.
1835
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during the member's speech he gave some figures. I would like to
table figures from the Angus Reid poll issued on February 7, when
Canadians were asked what they wanted to see the fiscal dividends
spent on.
The top priority was health and education, followed by increased
programs to create jobs for young people, followed by programs
such as home care and pharmacare, followed by new benefit
programs for children in low income families, followed by the new
scholarship fund to improve access to education, followed by
reduction of debt, and then followed by tax reduction. I do not
know where the member gets his information from, but this is
public.
I have a question for the member. A Statistics Canada report
says that in 1995, 11,000 knowledge based persons left Canada but
34,300 knowledge based persons entered Canada. It says there is
no brain drain. In fact we have a net addition to the knowledge
based manpower in Canada.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the very same poll from
which the member cites asked the question “What do you think
should be the federal government's main priority in deciding what
to do with any future surplus money?” Reducing accumulated
debt, 45%; cutting taxes, 29%; spending more in government
programs, 23%. The numbers he was reading were from the 23% who
think we ought to spend more.
With respect to Statistics Canada, I simply do not buy the idea
that we have a net increase in skilled workers. We have a very
high level of immigration, relatively speaking, and many
immigrants are quite well skilled.
However many Canadians who have gone through our post-secondary
and university education programs are leaving the country. I
defy members of the House to stand and say they do not know
people or are not related to people with post-secondary education
who have left the country for brighter economic opportunities
elsewhere.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for sharing his thoughts today and for the
gastro-colonic reflexes from members opposite.
It has been sad
for some of us to watch the party of prairie populism emerge and
evolve into the party of prairie poll mongering.
Our party believes as strongly as the Reform Party in the free
market. The Liberals believe in free government, in big
government. The Reform Party believes in free market. We
believe in free market for the Canadian economy, but we believe
that all Canadians need access to the levers of the free market.
There are some fundamental changes that need to occur such that
those Canadians can access the tools.
Speaking of brain drains, in 1993 there was a huge brain drain
from the House. However one of the most important issue is
student bankruptcies. Students are graduating on average with
$25,000 worth of debt in Canada. In 1997, 8,000 students had to
declare bankruptcy.
What is the hon. member's personal opinion on the bankruptcy
issue? Since it is an immediate problem, how would the Reform
Party address the student bankruptcy issue in the short term?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, a brain drain is voluntary
and a lobotomy is imposed. That is what happened to the Tory
caucus in 1993.
With respect to student loans, we propose that student loan
interest should immediately become tax deductible to reduce the
burden. We also support the immediate adoption of a income
contingent student loan repayment program.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition tabled a private member's bill
to that effect in 1994. We have long been on the record as
taking concrete steps to adopt the kind of flexibility in student
financing we need to relieve the enormous burden many young
people face.
1840
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Calgary Southeast for his
riveting speech. When this member gets up to speak, he speaks
with such knowledge on the subject and based on his record with
the taxpayers' federation that he is obviously an authority on
the subject.
It is ironic. I was speaking with good friends of mine, Troy
Lanigan and Robert Pauliszyn of the taxpayers' federation, who
say that we have the formula exactly right. The taxpayers'
federation is agreeing with us: 50% debt reduction and 50% tax
relief.
Because the other side cannot seem to get it, would the member
explain to them in quite simple terms how tax relief will
stimulate the economy? They do not seem to understand.
Mr. Jason Kenney: That is a difficult question, Mr.
Speaker. I will just briefly point to history as evidence that
tax relief produces more jobs.
In 1962 when John Kennedy dramatically cut marginal rates,
employment and disposable income skyrocketed. When Ronald Reagan
did it in the early 1980s, revenues skyrocketed as did real
incomes. When Mike Harris did it in the last two years in
Ontario, revenues grew faster. When Bob Rae and the Liberal
Government of Ontario raised tax rates, revenues went down. When
Mike Harris cut tax rates revenues went and with them came tens
of thousands of new jobs.
[Translation]
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development) (Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be sharing my allotted time with my learned and
articulate colleague from Mississauga West.
[English]
It is rather interesting to listen to the debate. A colleague
in the Conservative Party talked about the Liberals being big
government. We should compare the size of government today with
what it was prior to the election of the Liberal government.
Let us look at the motion to see whether or not there is a
problem with it. It says “lower the tax burden”. It does not
say by how much. Would it be lower the tax burden of everybody?
By how much? Are we talking one percentage point or ten? Is a
particular level required before it is effective? They do not
talk about that, of course.
Offer interest relief to students is another comment that is
made. How much interest relief? Does it matter? Is it a little
bit? Are we talking total relief? Are we going to put it off
for a while? No, of course they would not explain it.
Do you know why they would not explain it, Mr. Speaker? I will
tell you why. It is because they do not know what to do. They
had nine years to do it, and what did they do? Nothing but
accumulate large debt, a huge $42 million deficit, and in fact
get booted out as they should have been.
When hon. members talk about brain drain, I suspect some of them
can spell it but I bet they cannot define it. They do not know
what they are talking about. They are offering a simplistic
solution. They say we should lower interest rates and offer some
interest relief and all of a sudden we will get a solution for
those people who may be seeking employment elsewhere. That is
why they are out of power.
They say nothing about the short term challenge Canadian
industries face or nothing about the long term challenge. They
do not know the difference. They have made no concrete proposals
in terms of how you would address each one. Absolutely none.
[Translation]
And do you know why? Because they do not know the solutions.
They have no creativity, no imagination.
[English]
This is from a party that left us with a $42.8 billion deficit.
I want to say en anglais et en français that when they left power
the unemployment rate was 11.4%.
[Translation]
We had an unemployment level of 11.4% in Canada. And here
they are today with ill-defined solutions, and no suggestion on how
to go about solving the problems.
[English]
They failed to acknowledge that. I am not one of those who
pretend that we as a government have been perfect, but we have
done some things that have been acknowledged and in fact have
worked.
We do have the lowest unemployment levels in seven years. We
have with other Canadians created over one million jobs. We
started from the second highest level in terms of the deficit to
GDP ratio and we are now down to the lowest.
1845
They fail to acknowledge those and many other successes of this
government. I hope it is not because they do not understand.
When one speaks about a knowledge based economy it is important
to realize that we have to train, attract and retain highly
skilled workers. That is not done in a simplistic manner, as has
been suggested. We need to encourage people who have good ideas
and good skills and who have the ability to continue to learn. We
live in a society where continued learning is absolutely
essential.
The principal issue here is to understand the complexity of the
problem. I have not heard that from members opposite. I have
heard slick little slogans that if we do this and if we do that
all of a sudden everybody will want to stay. I am sorry but that
is not the way it works. We have to broaden and deepen the
talent pool in Canada.
We have had difficulties all along the way. We continue to have
difficulties.
I had the honour of chairing the G-8 ministers committee on
science, education and technology. Countries such as the United
States of America, Japan, Russia, Germany, Italy and France
shared with each other the challenges they face. Do they have the
same problems we have? On this particular front they do. Is
that what they have to do as well? Do they have to adopt this
ill-defined solution? This solution does not even attempt to
define the problem.
[Translation]
Not only do taxes have to be decreased, as the motion says.
That is one part of the solution, of course, but the true solutions
are far more comprehensive and far more complex. We need
partnerships between the universities and the various sectors, the
various levels of government, and industry. All this is essential.
The government is already working with all those partners.
[English]
It is working toward deepening the pool of scientific and
technological workers.
I want to give some concrete examples. I challenge my
colleagues opposite to argue the points which I am about to
raise.
There is the millennium fund which will provide scholarships to
tens of thousands of low income able Canadians. I heard a member
of the Reform Party suggest that it is wasted money.
[Translation]
All I can say is that the young people with whom I speak do
not believe it is a waste of money.
[English]
We have not sufficiently invested in the granting councils in
the past. I hope that will be corrected because they are a
source of tremendous possibilities for the education of people
generally and in particular young people.
[Translation]
We have established an infrastructure that encourages
innovation. No doubt members are aware of reason for the
establishment of centres of excellence, which bring together
researchers from government, universities and business. There is
the Canadian Foundation for Innovation.
[English]
The foundation for innovation now has over $800 million which
will be devoted to improving the infrastructure of universities,
colleges, teaching hospitals and like enterprises which undertake
research. Why? So they can employ, train and educate more young
people for today's knowledge based economy. That $800 million
will activate over $2 billion. Was that a bold and creative move
on the part of government? Yes it was.
We need to encourage workers to stay in Canada. We have done
that by using the national graduate register, helping students
and employers to match job openings with qualified Canadians.
Over 50,000 people are on that network. We have had a great deal
of success with it.
The student connection program is the first business experience
for many young people. Those young people train managers and
employees on how to use the Internet so they can get a head start
or be competitive in the knowledge based economy.
We need to create an economic environment which fosters
innovation. We have the IRAP program. We have research and
development tax credits. We have an unemployment rate which is
the lowest it has been in seven years. It is still too high, but
it is coming down.
1850
Through much sacrifice we Canadians have collectively created
one million jobs since 1993. We must continue to build
partnerships among all levels of government with our partners in
the private sector. We must work together to enable Canada to
enter the new millennium as a leader and not as a follower.
[Translation]
I will close these few remarks with the comment that it is
always so easy to turn up with a ready made solution. It is so
easy to turn up claiming one knows the answers. It is so easy to
suggest something without defining it. It is so easy to criticize
without offering any concrete and proven solutions.
[English]
That is exactly what this is. To get this motion from a party
that had nine years of opportunity in government and that will
probably be judged as the worst government this nation has ever
had is extremely difficult to believe. To suggest that we are
going to address the need for workers in the knowledge based
economy by undertaking those two steps, steps that are supported
by both parties on the right, is really not understanding the
problem. It is really not addressing it. It is really letting
Canadians down.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like the member to address the issue of the cost of the
millennium fund. I suggest the whole idea of this millennium
fund is nothing more than to create some kind of movable shrine
for the Prime Minister when he finally retires so that it will
have his name on it.
Let us assume the finance minister determines he is going to put
$3 billion into the fund. Let us further assume that fund will
theoretically throw off a certain number of dollars. Let us pick
a figure of 5% or $150 million a year that would be directed
toward these scholarships. Let us also take into account our
national debt is approaching $600 billion. By taking $3 billion
that could be used toward paying down that $600 billion debt, by
not paying down that $600 billion debt, that $3 billion still has
interest payable on it.
Guess what? At 5% the cost of that $3 billion is $150 million,
indeed the amount of money the government wants to spin off to
the students through this millennium fund, this great moving
shrine for the Prime Minister who at some point in time will be
the ex-prime minister.
This millennium fund is nothing but smoke and mirrors. If you
do not pay down the $3 billion, you have to pay interest on the
$3 billion. How can you pay interest on the $3 billion when you
have already put the interest back into the bond market? It is
just smoke and mirrors.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I am offended by the
suggestion that this is a shrine to the Prime Minister. The
Prime Minister has chosen to invest in young people. He has
chosen to prepare Canadians to meet the challenges of the
knowledge based economy, to prepare Canadians to go forward in
the new millennium as leaders and not followers.
The member is with the same party that came to this House of
Commons to suggest that Liberal solutions could not tackle the
deficit. I am delighted to tell the member and his party that
Liberal solutions have indeed tackled the deficit. It may have
been wrestled to the ground.
The member of the Reform Party and his party do not understand
that sometimes when you make strategic investments you get a
whole lot of return. The Reform Party does not understand that
if you fail to invest in the skills of the knowledge based
economy that you will be at the back of the line. I want to be
with the young people at the front of the line. I applaud this
move and I will support it completely, totally, unequivocally.
1855
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, sound
long term economic policy takes years to have an effect. It also
takes consistency. Let us talk about consistency. The hon.
member was first elected to this House in 1988 I believe. As I
said, consistency is critical when we are talking about sound
economic policy.
The Economist magazine's 1998 preview did say specifically
that the deficit reduction in Canada was largely due to
structural changes made in the Canadian economy by the government
in the early 1990s, free trade, the GST, deregulation, including
the elimination of the national energy program—and I hope my
friends in the Reform Party appreciate us for that—and
deregulation of transportation and financial services.
Where did the member stand on the issue of free trade and on the
issue of the GST? We have acknowledged that consistency is
critical. Where did he stand at that time on those two issues?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, he is the same
member who just a short while ago said that Liberals were big
government. I challenge that member to compare our size of
government with that which preceded us which was the Progressive
Conservative Party, just in case they have forgotten.
The member is trying to take credit for the government's success
with other Canadians. That is what he is trying to do. He is
trying to suggest that after the nine years the Conservatives
spent in power where they were dismally unsuccessful on any
number of fronts whether it be debt, deficit, unemployment, we
are reaping the benefits. I am sorry. We have done as we have
because we have stood with Canadians. I stood with my party.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I find it interesting to listen to members opposite in this
debate. I just heard a comment which is absolutely incredulous.
The comment was that it takes time for sound, long term economic
policy to have an effect. I believe that is what the member
opposite said.
In nine years of what the member opposite would like to call
sound long term economic policy, each and every year—
Mr. Scott Brison: Free trade.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Sure you can talk about the free trade
that you brought in. You can talk about the GST, which was
brought in by the Mulroney government.
However, each and every year, the Conservatives ran a deficit
and a deficit is an overdraft. If they want to talk about sound,
long term economic policy, they do not run an overdraft every
year and then at the end of the year pile it on top of the
mortgage and then run another one and do that every year for nine
years. In the last year when the Canadian people finally had had
enough, the overdraft was $42 billion. Each year that you pile
that overdraft on to the mortgage of this country, you wind up
increasing the debt. Figure it out.
For nine years, we had overdraft financing by the Conservative
government and the Conservatives are now trying to lecture this
government. I would ask the members to look at a graph. If they
looked at a graph of the nine years of Mulroney government, and
the member for Sherbrooke was in that government I might add, the
graph on the overdraft would go straight up I say to the former
mayor of Halifax. It would go straight up and out of sight.
Since 1993, what has happened under the leadership of the
present Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance is the graph
has been turned on its ear. The graph has gone straight down to
the point where finally we are not continuing to run overdrafts.
1900
Now that, I would submit to the members opposite, is what one
would call, to use their terminology, sound, long term economic
policy.
With regard this motion, it is also rather incredulous. It
reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should lower
the tax burden on Canadians and offer interest relief to student
loan holders—.
The example they continue to use, as does the Reform Party, is
the provincial Tories in the province of Ontario. They talk
about how the economy has grown and jobs have grown. I would
admit they have. In fact, revenue has increased in the province.
There is no doubt about that. Why? Imagine that just by chance
the policies of the federal government in ensuring that inflation
is eliminated, ensuring that interest rates are at 20 year lows
and ensuring that we have restored the funding in the transfer
payments to the provinces might have something to do with the
economic turnaround in the province of Ontario. I am sure members
could.
An hon. member: He is a Liberal, he can understand your
logic.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: And he is a good Liberal at that, I
say to the member.
The reality is that even the members would have to look at it
and say that Ontario is not an island unto itself. It relies on
the policies of the federal government. Indeed it relies on
international policies and international relations.
The province of Ontario, were it a sovereign country, which I do
not advocate, would be the ninth or tenth largest economy in the
world. It is quite remarkable. It was also strong in the 1980s
when I had the pleasure to serve under David Peterson, who
balanced the budget I would add. It was the first time in 40
years that any provincial government eliminated the deficit and
balanced the budget. That was the legacy of David Peterson.
Bob Rae took over and we all recall why. We can all recall the
battles around national unity and how David Peterson stood strong
and paid a horrendous political price because he stood up for
Canada. I remember that day. I remember with pride being a
member of that caucus and a member of that government.
Tragically, I admit, it cost David Peterson the job as premier.
However, the economic realities were that we were booming under
the David Peterson government. It was then that Bob Rae came to
power and he did almost verbatim what the Conservatives did here
in Ottawa. He intentionally ran $10 billion deficits, overdrafts
each and every year. Remember what I said, a deficit is an
overdraft. When government pays off its overdraft it piles it on
to the mortgage which becomes the debt.
When we left office in 1990 in the province of Ontario the total
debt for the province was $39 billion. In five years under the
NDP, whose members stand here and talk with pride about their
ability to govern, that debt in the greatest province in this
country went from $39 billion to over $100 billion. It continues
to grow because today the Mike Harris government is continuing to
run a $6 billion deficit.
Why have they not cut? There is no question that they have cut
dramatically and yet we hear members in the Reform Party saying
how revenue has increased in the province of Ontario. Please
help me with this. We have people lined up in emergency wards.
Just read any newspaper. We have replaced the level of transfer
payments to the provinces. Why were they cut in the first place?
An hon. member: Because the federal government cut them.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I will admit to the member chirping
why we cut them. We cut them because after nine years of Brian
Mulroney and Jean Charest we wound up with an unmanageable—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the hon. member means Brian
Mulroney and the hon. member for Sherbrooke. I am sure he would
want to use that kind of nomenclature.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I was speaking in the
past tense so I thought I could do that.
1905
In the Brian Mulroney government the leader of the fifth party
in this place was clearly a member of that cabinet. He was a
driving force in that government. I presume he would sit
at the cabinet table and talk to Mr. Mulroney. He would talk to
his colleagues around that cabinet table and they would make a
decision.
Their decision would be whether to increase the deficit or not.
Bob Rae did it for five years and incredibly damaged the finances
of that province and so did this government led by Brian Mulroney
and strongly supported by the leader of the Conservative Party
today.
I will admit that many of the people in that party here today,
in fact all but the leader, were not there. So they are new to
this place. They went from 160 down to 2. Some would call that a
brain drain. I think I would call it a brain strain. In any
event, it was a dramatic impact and obviously a reduction in the
size of that caucus and there was a reason. The people were fed
up.
What do they do now? They come back and say “we can solve the
problem, we will just cut your taxes and this is the model”.
Mike Harris said in 1995 “I'll cut your income tax by 30%”. He
has delivered 22.5%. He has absolutely done that. That is what
he and Mr. Eves said they would do. They have cut the taxes. How
have they done it? They have cut funding to health care. They
have cut funding to education dramatically.
We do
not mean to pick on him, but the member for Markham continues to
talk in support of Mike Harris but he is not really sure. He has
terrific ideas. I will give the House one of his ideas. This is
a quote from the member for Markham: “The Liberals should use
surplus funds from employment insurance to help save the CPP”.
Is that robbing from Peter to pay Paul? This is from the same
party that increased employment insurance premiums by 77 cents.
It has no credibility, none whatsoever on this issue.
We will be strongly speaking and voting against this motion.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am going to try again with this member because the last Liberal
member was not too good on figures. I guess I am going to have
to work quite slowly for this chap too, him being a Liberal.
I would like to talk about this millennium fund. We will not get
into the rhetoric about it being monuments and so on and so
forth. Let us just deal with some simple math.
We know that the government is in debt almost $600 billion as a
result of the Conservatives and the Liberals, the two old parties,
but that is another story. The reality is that Canada owes
almost $600 billion. Every dollar of the money we owe has
to have some interest paid on it.
If we have $3 billion of the $600 billion that is not paid down
it costs money. We will have to pay interest on that $3
billion. I think the member would have to agree with that.
If this is not smoke and mirrors, if we are not just saying we
are going to take $3 billion and put it into a fund, and indeed
that money should be going to debt repayment, where is the money
going to come from that they are suddenly going to say it is
spinning off so much? I will use some numbers just so that we are
talking about some hard numbers.
If we were talking about 5%, if the government said we are going
to put $3 billion into this millennium fund and we are going to
be spinning off 5% of that or $150 million a year, will this
member admit that the $3 billion is going to cost an additional
$150 million in interest payments alone?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, one of the reasons I
believe in my heart that the Reform Party will never govern this
country is it simply does not understand that you have to
continue to govern. You have to invest in our young people.
I admit quite clearly that the debt must be attacked. Our
finance minister has committed to that. We have put out what we
believe is a balanced plan which says 50% of our surplus will go
toward debt reduction that the member goes on about as well as
selective tax relief.
1910
At the same time, are we to simply shut the lights out and go
home or are we to say to the Canadian youth that they are on
their own? They need our support and we need to invest in our
youth. That is what the millennium fund will do. It will invest
in the education of the people who will run this country in the
future.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Madam Speaker, I
heard the hon. member for Mississauga South referring to the
Progressive Conservatives when they were in power. I want to say
that when they were there, we had the trees, we had the planes,
we had all modes of transportation.
I practically have to thumb to get to Ottawa these days with the
cuts that have come from the government side. It is a serious
situation where we have our young people who are hurting like
never before.
When the Conservatives were in power they knew there were
regions of Canada with different needs and they addressed them.
This government has not done that and we have never hurt like
this before.
What does he see? Has he been to New Brunswick? I thank him
for calling me the mayor of Halifax, but the mayor of Saint John
I was very proud to be for 12 years.
Has he been to New Brunswick? The people across Canada when
they come find it the most wonderful place in the country. They
want to help us. We had shipbuilding. We had marine. We had
everything going until these people took power and within the
last three and a half years devastated it. What will they do for
the maritimes?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, I stand corrected on
the city the member was the mayor of. I have respect for the
member and if she really is thumbing I will make sure to give her
a lift.
I know this member was not part of the Mulroney days. I just
find it incredible the legacy that was left, what we had to
inherit in 1993.
If the members opposite would simply do a mea culpa and admit
they were wrong, admit they ran a huge deficit then maybe they
would have some credibility.
They will not admit the truth. They have no credibility
whatsoever.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, my
first comment would be that, if I were a single mother or a student
owing $20,000 listening to the debate this evening, I would go to
bed pretty discouraged. There is all this finger pointing going
on, with charges that the Liberals did this and the Conservatives
did that. Could we not focus a bit on the future?
The Progressive Conservative Party's motion today reads as
follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
lower the tax burden on Canadians and offer interest relief to
student loan holders in order to address the brain drain
crisis which is forcing Canadians to move to the United States
where unemployment rates, income tax rates and student debt
levels are lower and the standard of living is 25 percent
higher than in Canada.
This morning, when I read it and learned that I was to speak
to it, I found the motion strange, although there are a lot of good
points in it. It covers so much. It talks about tax burden,
student loans, and the brain drain, and praises the United States
as though it were the best place to live. I am going to look at
each element in turn.
First, there is the brain drain. I did some research this
morning.
The chief statistician of Statistics Canada recently declared that,
between 1986 and 1996, approximately 50,000 people with various
levels of education left the country, while 200,000 came here to
work. So we are somewhat ahead. The fact still remains, however,
that there is a brain drain problem.
In this regard, a study on the behaviour of 1995 graduates
shows that, two years after they obtained their degree, 24% of
those with PhDs had left Canada, compared with 10% of students who
had obtained a master's, and 3% of students with a high school
diploma.
I would like to draw members' attention to a survey done by
the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. This
survey showed that the main factor in leaving for the United States
was the salaries there.
1915
The tax burden could be a factor, but according to the study,
it is primarily the phenomenal salaries the Americans can pay in
Silicon Valley and elsewhere.
One thing bothers me, however. They say the United States is
a great place to live. In this regard, the Liberal Party said some
interesting things today. As a country we have choices to make.
If our taxes are so much higher than in the U.S., it is in large
measure because of our societal decision to provide universal
education and health services. That has to be paid for somehow.
On the subject of the American dream, the information I have
indicates that, between 1973 and 1995, the per capita gross
domestic product increased by a third and gross salaries for people
in management positions decreased by 10% to US$258.
It all looks fine there, but what choices do they make as a
society? Their crime rate is one of the highest in the world.
Child poverty is the highest in the world. Choices have to be
made, and in many instances, to my great regret, they strongly
resemble the choices the Reform Party wants us to make, although I
would like to hear their remarks should they change their minds.
That concerns the first two elements. The third element is
student loans. Here I am going to have some fun. I am going to
have fun because there is a lot to say on this subject.
We should have a quick look at the history of student debt.
Students go into debt because it costs a lot to go to school.
Every year tuition fees go up. Why? We have to start at the
beginning.
The federal government gives large sums of money to the
provinces for education. In fact, this money comes from our taxes.
We must remember that. The federal government distributes our
taxes to the provinces, which pay the education costs. Then for
whatever reasons, the federal government makes huge cuts, leaving
the provinces stuck with the problem. Fees increase, student debt
increases, and the song goes on.
The federal government finally took notice of the problem. It
should be praised for noticing that the student debt load is very
high. Faced with the problem, the federal government said “We are
going to create a scholarship fund. We will provide assistance for
students because now we are rolling in surplus dough”. But we
still need to see them put their money where their mouth is.
I will speak of the situation most familiar to me, the
situation in Quebec, where we have the most efficient system of
loans and bursaries in Canada. Don't take my word for it. That is
what the president of the Canadian Student Association says, and he
ought to be well informed about the situation throughout the
country. He has said “If I were in Manitoba, I would be a bit
jealous of students in Quebec, because they have an excellent
system of loans and bursaries”. Recently, however, we have had to
cut back on the system because of certain cuts in transfer
payments.
The student debt load is increasing, and now the federal
government is turning up as a Johnny-come-lately.
The Minister of Human Resources Development said once in committee,
and I was there to hear it: “The federal government is giving
enormous sums to Quebec and other provinces, but has no visibility
whatsoever”. Is that what the purpose of the policy is, to gain
some visibility?
It has therefore created a system of loans and bursaries with
its own money, to be administered at the federal level. It is not
concerned in any way about whether this creates duplication, about
whether it decreases efficiency, about whether it is throwing a
monkey wrench into a system that is working perfectly well at the
moment.
All these questions have to be asked, and they are things that
bother me a great deal.
There are many things that could be done to help students.
During the last election campaign, for instance, the Bloc Quebecois
proposed a registered education savings plan. That could be one
solution. The tax credit for tuition fees could be another.
The education credit, the transfer of education credits to a spouse
or parent, not taxing the first $500 of a bursary, all these could
be yet other solutions.
In this regard, there is a consensus in Quebec, as representatives
of the Liberal Party and the Parti Quebecois, student associations
and university presidents all agree with what we are saying.
1920
Yesterday, Mr. Bouchard sent a letter to the Prime Minister of
Canada asking for an emergency meeting. Since there is a consensus
in Quebec, could a way not be found to take these huge amounts of
money and let Quebec administer them as it sees fit, in its own
jurisdiction?
It is really a shame to see this sort of petty politics.
Other ideologies may be better, but I say that, on this issue, the
logic is obvious.
Another point mentioned was the tax burden. In fact, many
issues have been mentioned today, given the wide variety of issues
covered in the motion.
I am interested in the tax burden, as it covers quite a range
of things. Today's debate on the tax burden prompted the NDP,
which often says things I find relevant, to speak about child
poverty, and poverty in general.
I have a great deal of difficulty understanding, and I keep up
on this area, how it is that, in a period of full economic growth
that has gone on for several years, poverty continues to grow.
When the topic is child poverty, and it is said that one child
in five is living under the poverty line, I find this frightening.
As a politician, I ask myself what will be the consequences of the
measures taken, or very often not taken, here in 15 or 20 years.
You will tell me I am being very egotistical, because I am thinking
of what will become of me in 20 years—I will be only 44—in what
sort of society we will be living, when I see the steady increase
in the rate of poverty. This is an up-to-date statistic, but it is
also a persistent trend. We are looking at a steadily growing gap.
Four years ago, there were one million children living under
the poverty line in Canada; today there are 1.5 million. That is
a huge increase. If this keeps on, where are we headed?
These children living below the poverty line, who have a hard time
studying since they are not properly fed, and who have a hard time
finding a job because of their poor education, and who have trouble
making their way in the world, are much more likely to get involved
in crime. All of this makes me wonder about the kind of society we
will end up with.
When I see“tax burden”, I think of taxes. When I think of
“taxes”, and I see more wealth and more poverty, I can see there is
a problem somewhere. I am not alone in saying this. But what are
we doing about it? I do not see anything happening.
In terms of tax, wealth is being created, but it does not
appear to be going into government coffers.
In 1950—I was not around—businesses paid 50% income tax, as
did people.
People are overtaxed as they say, and I agree. It is truly
hard for a single parent to pay tax on a salary of $20,000 a year.
What I am wondering is where is the money? The money stays in
the bank vaults or the coffers of big business. I have, in this
regard, a long list of companies that made huge profits and paid
almost no income tax. I will not show it to the House, because
unfortunately am not allowed. I will name some of the companies.
Barrington Petroleum made profits—not revenues—in 1994 of $11
million and paid $194,000, or 1.7%, in taxes. BCE Mobile
Communications Inc., with $66 million, paid 4% in taxes.
1925
Let me continue. In 1993, the Nesbitt Burns Inc. group made
profits of $50 million and did not pay a red cent in taxes. The
money is there. It is in the pockets of the rich.
From what I read when I am doing research, the attitude seems
to be that we should not lower the taxes of the rich, of
corporations because they are the ones creating jobs. This might
well seem logical at first. But their taxes have been going down
for 20 years, which means less revenue for governments. Taxes have
to be raised somewhere. So personal income tax is raised.
It is in this sense that I find the Progressive Conservative
Party's motion interesting. When it says that Canadians' tax
burden is much too high, there is no denying that. But there is
also the other end of the scale, the corporate tax burden, to
consider. I am not talking about SMBs nor about businesses just
starting up. I am talking about healthy companies, multinationals
making millions, even billions—we see the banks paying heavy
taxes, but that is another debate—and not paying any taxes. I
have to wonder about this, particularly when I see poverty on the
increase.
I heard what my colleague from New Brunswick had to say. In
New Brunswick, poverty is steadily increasing. Something is not
working, and I have to really wonder. At some point, people are
going to have to stop arguing and trying to blame one another. I
think people will have to sit down and try to solve this serious
problem.
In my opinion, the first step toward solving a problem is admitting
that there is one.
In his next budget, the Minister of Finance will be announcing
highly laudable measures to help students, but what is needed are
measures that are effective, not political. Where are things
headed with measures like these? Where are things headed with one
and a half million children living in poverty? And I am not
talking about the parents, or the delayed impact of poverty, what
I call people's inability to save.
You know, ten years ago,—and I am not talking about 20 years
ago here—the savings rate was much higher than it is now. I
think that the average savings per household is 1% annually. This
may not be poverty right now, but that is what it will become.
When we speak about future poverty, that is where I get worried.
In 10, 15 or 20 years, these people will stop working and will have
almost nothing set aside.
There is a certain degree of income security, but it is just
delayed poverty, and that is what is the cause of concern.
I think that the taxation system needs to be revamped. I am
not the first one to say so, either. The last major review of the
personal income tax system dates back to the work of the royal
commission on taxation in the 1960s. The last time they saw fit to
review the taxation system was in the 1960s. Now, instead of
revising the tax laws for shipping companies belonging to the
Minister of Finance, and instead of passing legislation that will
benefit the rich even more, would it be possible, at some point, to
sit down and look at what is not working properly in the system?
The Liberals should be aware of the inequalities in the
present federal system.
So should everyone. I think that, with a subject as serious as the
increasing gap between rich and poor, we must stop playing politics
and get moving.
In a document by the Department of Finance, it is stated that
there are three factors which explain the extent of the advantages
high income taxpayers enjoy: first of all, these taxpayers have the
necessary resources to make better use of tax advantages; second,
some of the major tax expenditures relate to investment income,
most of which is earned by this group of taxpayers; third, the
higher the taxation rate, the more advantageous the exemptions or
deductions. So, like just about everywhere else, it takes money to
make money.
1930
It is like the 1980s, when the interest rates were raised to
incredible highs. It is at such times that people get into debt.
They run up debts and that enriches the—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member, but his time is up.
It being 7.30 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and
put forthwith any question necessary to dispose of the business of
supply.
[English]
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to order
made Tuesday, February 17, 1998 the recorded division stands
deferred until Monday, February 23, 1998, at the expiry of the
time provided for Government Orders.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
POVERTY
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should set
targets for the elimination of poverty and unemployment, and
should pursue those targets with the same zeal it has
demonstrated for targets to reduce the deficit.
She said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the
motion I have introduced in the House. I would like to spend a
moment to tell the House why I introduced this motion.
The reason for bringing this motion forward is to open up debate
and critical thinking on this issue. If we are truly serious
about poverty and unemployment in this country then we have to
set a real plan and we have to set real targets in order to
ensure that we do actually reduce and finally eliminate poverty
in this very wealthy country.
I represent the riding of Vancouver East which has the lowest
income community in Canada. My riding has been particularly hard
hit by poverty and by unemployment.
For the last two decades Canadians have heard many promises
about reducing unemployment and eliminating poverty in ridings
such as mine and right across this country. The reality is that
none of these promises has been fulfilled, not by a Conservative
government and certainly not by the current Liberal government.
Instead, the number of people living in poverty in this country
has increased and unemployment has remained unconscionably high.
I would like to go back into history for a moment to the year
1989 when the House of Commons unanimously supported former NDP
leader Ed Broadbent's motion to eliminate child poverty by the
year 2000. That was in 1989.
1935
Now here we are in 1998 and despite what might have been at the
time very good intentions of all the members of the House from
all parties represented, nothing has changed. In fact, the
situation has worsened.
Since 1989 there are now 538,000 more children living in
poverty. The number of poor children has grown by 47%. We must
recognize that children are poor because their parents are poor.
Their parents are usually poor because they are unemployed or
they are in a low wage ghetto because our minimum wages are so
low or because the jobs that have been created have been part
time jobs that cannot support a family at any decent standard of
living.
As a result of this, the reality faced by a growing number of
Canadian families is that the number of food banks in Canada has
tripled and the proportion of the population relying on food
banks has doubled. The number of Canadians filing for personal
bankruptcy has tripled, which is something that affects small
businesses as well as lone business operators. The number of low
income persons in 1996 was 40% higher than it was in 1989. That
is the tragic record of what has happened in our country since
the motion was passed in the House of Commons in 1989.
We must ask ourselves what the root of the question is. At the
root of the growing number of people living in poverty is the
high level of unemployment. We have heard statistics many times
that unemployment is at 9% or higher for 86 consecutive months.
We talk about it a lot but it in no way describes the tragedy
that is faced by individuals and families, by working people when
they feel the devastation of unemployment. This is felt in the
family, in the local community, by business, in the school yard,
in our community centres, and on and on it goes.
There are 1.4 million unemployed Canadians and 5 million
Canadians who live below the poverty line as established by the
low income cut-offs. Of those who are employed, 18.5% have only
been able to find part time work.
When it comes to youth the situation is even worse. The
official unemployment rate for youth is 16.5%. That does not
include young people who have given up looking for work. Even if
we use the official statistics, youth unemployment is almost
double the unemployment rate for adults. The reality is many
young people who manage to find work are trapped in part time
jobs that pay minimum wage.
I believe, as do all members of the New Democratic Party, that
Canadians who are living in poverty or coping with unemployment
should be able to expect support and assistance from the federal
government and provincial governments. Instead, we have seen a
growing trend of inequality and poverty in Canada. The most
disturbing growing trend is poor bashing where government
policies zero in and target certain sectors of the community.
These policies say in effect you are undeserving, you are going
to be put on a work fare program, you are going to be put back on
the unemployment roll. That is the kind of mentality that has
developed through policies we have seen from the Liberal
government.
We have seen cuts to transfer payments for health care,
education and social support. The programs announced by the
government have only been skin deep and have done little to
alleviate high unemployment especially among young people.
Many of the government's own policies contribute to growing
inequality, poverty and unemployment in our country. The Bank of
Canada's obsession with fighting inflation ahead of all other
social issues has cost us thousands of jobs. We have lost
something like 100,000 jobs in health care, environmental
protection, education and public services as a result of the
slash and burn approach of the Liberal government.
This government has gutted our employment insurance system.
Unemployed people have a right to expect they can receive a
decent income while unemployed.
1940
The reality is that our current unemployment insurance system is
now pushing more and more people into poverty. Eight years ago
87% of Canadians who lost their jobs and had paid into UI
received benefits. Reports have been tabled in the House and the
stories are horrific and shocking that now only approximately 37%
of those people who pay into UI will actually receive a benefit.
People who are no longer eligible for employment insurance must
now depend on social assistance. Unfortunately that too is
becoming more and more of a tragedy. Social assistance as well
has not been immune to the savage and violent cuts that have been
perpetrated by the Liberal government in terms of transfers to
the provinces.
The Conservative government's cap on the Canada assistance plan
payments cost B.C. and Ontario alone $9.7 billion. While in
opposition, the Liberals criticized the cuts as penalizing the
poorest of the poor. Now that the Liberals are in office, they
have simply continued the same old story with the same old
policies that served to harm and penalize the poorest of the
poor.
Between 1995 and 1997, the Liberals used the introduction of the
Canada health and social transfer to slash federal funding for
social programs by $2.8 billion.
Let us turn to education for a moment as another example of the
growing inequality we face. We have heard a lot of debate in the
House today about the announced millennium fund. However, the
amount of money that is being cut from post-secondary education,
more than $2.29 billion by the Liberal government in transfer
payments, has had an incredible impact and is a growing crisis
within our post-secondary educational facilities.
Under the Liberals post-secondary education has become a debt
trap for students. The average student debt is now $25,000. Even
the prime minister, in speaking to the Canadian Club,
acknowledged that too many young people cannot afford to attend
university or college anymore. Tuition fees have increased by
45% since the Liberals took power. Again, much of this is due to
the cuts in federal funding.
Mr. Martin and his so-called fiscal responsibility has been
carried out—
Mr. John O'Reilly: Madam Speaker, it is the tradition in
this House to not call members by name. I would ask, in your
vigilance, Madam Speaker, that you not allow people speaking to
call members by name but only by riding.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must remind the
member to please adhere strictly to that rule.
Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you for the reminder, Madam
Speaker. As a new member of Parliament, it is something that
takes a while to get use to. I appreciate the reminder and will
continue with my remarks.
The finance minister has slashed $2.29 billion from
post-secondary education. What this means is that by the year
2000 colleges and universities will have lost $3.27 billion due
to Liberal policies. That is unconscionable, especially when we
hear the hypocrisy that comes out of the mouths of Liberal
members who profess to be concerned about the future of young
people in this country. We need student aid today, not in the
year 2000, not a millennium fund and not a scholarship fund. We
need a national grants program and a tuition freeze.
If the Liberal members truly care about the future of young
people and about poverty in this country, this motion is
something that should be critically debated and acted on to show
that we are serious about that commitment.
Instead of meaningful assistance, those who are on social
assistance are caught up in a cynical public relations game.
In December 1997 the Minister of Finance described child poverty
as a priority. However, based on the actions of the government
to date and as the evidence shows, child poverty has not been a
priority. It has been rhetoric. Child poverty has been
increasing.
1945
We have heard a lot of talk about the national child benefit but
we all know that when the finance minister presents his budget
next week he will be announcing the national child benefit for
not the first time, not the second time, not the third time but
the fourth time. Meanwhile poor kids in this country and their
families have not seen a dime in terms of improved circumstances
to relieve the poverty stricken measures that they live with in
their local communities.
Whenever the Liberal government is called to account for this
government's appalling record on poverty, it tries to hide behind
the national child tax benefit. With these repeated
announcements and exaggerated claims by Liberal ministers the
fact is the truth is coming out that not one thing has changed.
As I have pointed out in this debate tonight the situation has
worsened.
The announcement by the Liberals on the child tax benefit does
not even come close to making up for the 40% cut in federal
transfers to social services and other programs since the
Liberals took office.
Anti-poverty groups in this country have been outspoken. They
have made it very clear that the $850 million that has been
announced so many times is simply not enough to deal with even
the limited program that the federal government has announced.
And it does not apply to those on welfare.
It is important that we address and lay out clear and meaningful
targets for the elimination of poverty and reducing unemployment.
In the upcoming budget I believe there is a critical question
that each of us has to ask ourselves. That is, will the measures
that are outlined in the budget eliminate poverty, will they
reduce poverty and unemployment or will they increase the growing
inequalities that we have seen?
I would like to point out that there are good alternatives we
can look to. An alternative federal budget was put together and
presented by a group in Winnipeg, Choices and the Canadian Centre
for Policy Alternatives. It lays out in a much better way than
what the finance minister has done in all of his years of dealing
with this, very clear choices and targets that we can
systematically move toward to reduce unemployment and poverty if
we have the political will and if we have the fortitude to speak
out. We must call for things like fair taxation and minimum
wages, and for ensuring that the massive profits of the banks are
reinvested in our communities.
I believe that we must set national targets. We must embark on a
national housing program. What better program could we have to
reduce unemployment, to pay people decent wages and also to
fulfil a social need? That is a program for people who are
living in inadequate housing.
I would urge the members of this House to take this motion
seriously. I would also seek the unanimous consent of the House
to have this voted upon.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to have this opportunity to debate the hon. member's
motion. In the words of her motion the hon. member for Vancouver
East is asking that the Government of Canada “set targets for
the elimination of poverty and unemployment and should pursue
those targets with the same zeal it has demonstrated for targets
to reduce the deficit”.
I would like to assure the hon. member and all members of this
House that the Government of Canada is responding to the
challenges of poverty and unemployment with innovative and
effective policies.
I am sure the hon. member realizes that reducing the deficit, as
Canadians say we should do, is helping to create a stable
economic environment for private sector growth which in turn
helps create jobs and reduce poverty.
The Minister of Finance has made it clear that future dividends
from deficit reduction will be distributed to reduce the national
debt, to reduce the tax burden and to invest in new programs.
1950
We know that too many people are unemployed and struggle to make
ends meet. We are sensitive to the plight of Canadians who are
doing their best to provide for their families. In this regard
we do have a number of effective programs that are designed to
move on in the right direction toward reducing points of
unemployment.
That being said, I believe it is important to stress that shared
responsibility is the key to helping people return to the labour
force and alleviate poverty. The Government of Canada cannot
shoulder this responsibility on its own. Provinces, businesses,
individuals, the labour movement, community agencies, everyone
needs to contribute.
We emphasized shared responsibility once again in last fall's
Speech from the Throne. We are prepared to work with the
provinces and territories to develop a Canada-wide mentorship
program. We are prepared to work with the private sector to
better forecast the number and types of jobs available in the
future and then jointly develop a plan to ensure that young
Canadians are qualified to fill those jobs.
On poverty we are already working with the provinces on the
national child benefit system.
Let me first address the issue of unemployment. The
government's contribution is to help by setting the right fiscal
environment, supporting learning, making available up to date
information and facilitating sectoral based partnerships. Our
strength is in giving Canadians more options to pursue
employment. I am thinking of the ways in which we promote labour
mobility so workers can take advantage of job opportunities
across the country.
Hon. members will be familiar with the saying “an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure”. That is the philosophy
behind the formation of sectoral councils that bring together
employers, workers, educators and governments to address human
resource needs before they become problems. These initiatives
are showing concrete results.
Some 370,000 new jobs were added to the economy in 1997 and the
unemployment rate declined steadily in 1997. According to the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Canada is
expected to have the fastest growth among G-7 countries in 1998.
Since this government was first elected there are over one
million more Canadians working.
I believe our new employment insurance program is designed to
get unemployed workers back into the labour force. As part of
the new employment insurance we are investing $800 million more
in active employment measures for a total investment of $2.2
billion by fiscal year 2000-01. As well we have a $300 million
transitional jobs fund designed to create 40,000 permanent jobs
and productive partnerships in areas of high unemployment.
All members of this House are concerned about the high rate of
youth unemployment. Again in co-operation with our partners the
government is tackling that challenge with renewed vigour. Our
youth employment strategy builds on some $2 billion in Government
of Canada programs. It helps Canada's young people make the
often difficult transition from school to work and land that all
important first job.
For example, perhaps the hon. member has heard of the youth
employment strategy project in Vancouver where this past spring a
number of young people created a healthy living space for both
seniors and youths. For over six months the group constructed a
rooftop garden at the Vancouver General's Banfield Pavilion which
is a long term care facility for seniors. As well they designed
a rooftop garden at VanCity Place for Youth. When the project
was completed, several participants began providing horticultural
therapy for residents at the Banfield Pavilion.
In the future we will increase funding and expand programs under
the youth employment strategy. Since a sound education is
crucial in today's knowledge based economy, we will ensure that
post-secondary education is accessible and affordable. For those
young people who lack education and have inadequate skills, we
will assist them by further developing community based programs.
1955
Of course in a changing economic environment it is essential
that we all upgrade our skills and think in terms of lifelong
learning.
The hon. member's motion also calls for the elimination of
poverty. The initiatives I have just mentioned, which result in
sustainable employment are the most effective way to eliminate
poverty.
The government is also addressing the horrendous problem of
child poverty. For the member to continue to suggest that this
government has not made this a priority, the fact is it has been
made a priority. The provinces are now working with our
government very closely in order to deal with this blight on our
society. We are determined to do everything possible to eliminate
it.
In the February 1997 budget the Government of Canada committed
$850 million to create an enriched child tax benefit. The new
investment will give much needed support to 1.4 million Canadian
families and will help more than 2.5 million children. In June
the Minister of Human Resources Development and his provincial
and territorial counterparts reached agreement to establish a
national child benefit system.
In the Speech from the Throne we promised to at least double the
$850 million investment over the course of our current mandate.
This will bring the total Government of Canada investment in the
well-being of our children to almost $7 billion per year.
The government's commitment to provide more income support for
low income families will enable our provincial and territorial
partners to redirect savings in social assistance. Those savings
can go into complementary programs and services with the goal of
helping welfare parents become employed. This is the basis for
the national child benefit system.
Building on this collaboration last January, we agreed to work
with the provinces and territories to develop the national
children's agenda. This will be a broad, comprehensive strategy
to address the developmental needs of Canada's children.
As part of the agenda the Speech from the Throne announced three
new federal initiatives. In addition to the national child
benefit system, we will develop indicators to measure and report
on children's readiness to learn. We will expand the aboriginal
head start program for First Nations children on reserves and we
will establish centres of excellence for children's well-being to
help us better understand children's needs.
In closing, I would say to the hon. member that there is no
magic means of eliminating poverty and unemployment. What is
needed are concerted efforts from all concerned, including
members of this House. I encourage the hon. member and her party
to work with the government on constructive ideas to meet these
challenges. In that manner we will be serving all Canadians.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in debate to the hon. member's
private members' motion. These are initiatives that all members
of the House have the opportunity to take when they feel that an
issue is important enough for them to bring forward in their own
private members' bill. I would like to commend the hon. member
for taking advantage of the opportunity that members of
Parliament have to bring issues forward for debate and
consideration by the House.
The hon. member is concerned about unemployment and poverty and
wants to see something done about that. I think there would be
no one in this House who would not applaud and agree with the
member's concern that in this wonderful and rich country of
Canada we do not have citizens living in poverty, nor citizens
who are unable to find a job and have a steady income with which
to provide for themselves, for their families and for their
future.
The intent of this motion is one I think with which this House
agrees. I think the reason and the point of the debate is to
address these concerns, to examine them and also to talk about
some solutions.
First of all, the motion provides that the government set
targets for the elimination of poverty.
It also provides that the government set targets for the
elimination of unemployment.
2000
There are two things to say about this part of the motion and I
would like the hon. member to consider them carefully. One is
just some practical observations. Elimination of poverty should
be considered in the context of opportunity to make sure that a
person is not in impoverished circumstances. Those are
opportunities that individuals must take advantage of themselves.
There are cases where poverty cannot be eliminated because
sometimes the choices of individuals not to take advantage of
opportunities cannot be eliminated. I would suggest wording that
is this sweeping and this inclusive is not very realistic in
light of human nature and in light of the fact that a minority of
people may not be able to take advantage of opportunities that
ought to be there but, even if they are, are not capitalized on.
The same holds true for the elimination of unemployment. I
recommend to the hon. member that the motion would read better if
it included setting a target to ensure that every Canadian had
the opportunity to have a reasonable standard of living, an
adequate and comfortable standard of living, and to have
employment. That would be a more reasonable and a more realistic
target.
Another difficulty with this portion of the motion is the hon.
member's statement “the government should set targets”. This
suggests that government is the agency through which poverty and
unemployment should be eliminated or, as I have suggested,
addressed.
I would argue that the member might want to consider that it is
not government particularly that creates unemployment or
employment. Government is not the agency by which these issues
can be totally addressed. There are other agencies or other
entities involved in this whole area. Individuals and their
choices, job creators, investors, business people and
entrepreneurs are very much involved in the whole area of
employment.
Government being the whole entity, the whole vehicle or the
whole answer is a very serious fallacy. We have seen that the
state as nanny has not worked in many countries around the world.
The state as the total agency for central planning, management of
the economy and management of employment has failed miserably in
eastern European countries and other countries where a total
government system was in place.
When addressing these very serious, very real and very heartfelt
concerns on the part of Canadians, the member would do well to
recognize that the agency of government is not the whole answer.
She would do well to remember that.
I am a little bemused the motion says that government should set
targets and pursue them but does not say what measures should be
taken to reach those targets. Setting targets and pursuing them
is nice if they are realistic targets, which I suggest these are
not, but also there have to be some practical measures to reach
the targets.
I will talk about this a bit later, but I must say the hon.
member did a wonderful job of pointing out the real lack of
opportunity for Canadians to rise above poverty and to make sure
there were adequate resources for themselves and their families.
She made a very excellent case for Canadians who are not able to
have employment opportunities that are needed and desired.
However she failed to spend almost any time—she just barely
touched on them—on measures which could actually achieve the
goals the member sets out.
2005
It is nice to define the problem. It is nice to expand on the
problem. It is nice to underline the problem. It is nice to
complain about the problem. It would be a lot more helpful to
the people involved if we as leaders and legislators actually
laid out a plan of action to address the problem in a substantive
way.
Rather than spending 18 minutes on the problem and 2 minutes on
what we can do about the problem, it might be better to spend 2
minutes on laying out the problem clearly and practically and 18
minutes on what we might do to address the problem. We have to
put a framework around what we are talking about. I have
attempted to do that.
I would like to move on to what I believe would be helpful in
addressing the problem of ensuring that Canadians have
opportunities so they will not live in impoverished circumstances
and will not be unemployed. I do not think there is any Canadian
who wants to be in these circumstances. Nor do I think there is
any Canadian who thinks this is acceptable.
I want to talk about the whole area of job creation and
employment. The hon. member referred to the alternative budget
put out by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and
Choices. It is a very interesting document. The document
recommends such popular measures as ending the capital gains
exemption on family farms and small businesses. In other words,
if someone has a capital asset and it gains in value, that gain
should be taken away according to the alternative budget. I am
not quite sure how that will help families and business people.
It recommends carbon taxes. It recommends a huge tax on banks,
which will simply drive service charges through the roof. It
recommends personal income tax rates should be increased. How
are families supposed to not be impoverished if their money is
taxed away from them when they manage to get some?
The member should be looking at measures that will give us less
government spending and take less of our resources so that we
have more to provide for ourselves and our families and more to
expand business opportunities. We need lower taxes and less
government intervention and over-regulation of businesses so that
opportunities can be created.
We do not need to do some of the things the NDP is consistently
suggesting. We need new measures to bring real prosperity to the
country.
I recommend that to the member. I commend her for her motion
and wish her well in achieving these goals along with the rest of
us.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would
like to thank my colleague from Vancouver East, who by introducing
this motion, has enabled me to participate in today's debate and to
speak to a subject that I hold dear and that is of concern to the
Bloc, namely the increase in poverty.
The motion by the member of the NDP proposes that the
government set targets for the elimination of poverty and
unemployment and that it should pursue these targets with the same
zeal it has demonstrated for targets to reduce the deficit.
The Bloc Quebecois has no disagreement with the aim of this motion,
but we would point out that the means proposed to fight poverty
must respect provincial jurisdictions. We do not want flowery
speeches on poverty, but action when we have the means to change
things.
That is why I would like to point out today that the very same
Liberals, now in government, criticized the government of Brian
Mulroney in the 1993 elections for systematically weakening the
social safety net. This is what the red book says. They accused
the Conservatives of cutting hundreds of billions of dollars in
health care and assistance to children, seniors and the unemployed.
These fine words come from the red book of the Liberal Party, while
it was in opposition.
2010
It looks a lot like the criticism levelled at the present
Liberal government. Since the Liberals have been in government,
few specific measures have been taken to slow the rise of poverty
in Quebec and Canada. Worse yet, despite its election promises,
the current government refused to unleash a vigorous fight against
poverty and to a large extent it has weakened measures taken by
Quebec.
Tom Kent, one of the main architects of social programs under
the Liberal government of Lester B. Pearson, is very critical of
this government, accusing it of being largely responsible for the
cuts in health and social programs in the provinces.
A few days before the Minister of Finance brings down his
budget and with the little time we have, I would remind this House
of what the government refused to do to improve the situation of
the most disadvantaged and what the Bloc proposes in order to
really fight poverty. The situation is not as rosy as the Liberal
members in this House would have us think.
We strongly encourage the Liberal government to stop wandering
about and to drop its obsession with looking after its own
visibility before the interests of taxpayers.
Otherwise, it will have to face strong opposition from the Bloc
Quebecois MPs.
There must be a proper strategy for dealing with the problem
of poverty. The provinces need to have the necessary funds to put
into place measures tailored to their realities, which may differ
from one context to another. Is it too much to ask for this
government to respect the need while respecting jurisdictions?
What the Bloc is proposing first of all is that the amounts
that were taken away from the provinces for social transfers be
paid back. It is all very fine for the Liberals to boast that
their cuts are over now, but I would like to remind them this
evening that the cuts to health, education and social services cost
the provinces more than $6 billion a year, and will do so until the
year 2003, for a total of $42 billion.
To illustrate the unprecedented impact of these cuts, we need
only remember that, in Quebec, out of every dollar cut from health,
education and social assistance by the National Assembly in 1994
and today, approximately 75 cents are the result of the downloading
done by the federal Liberals.
Clearly put, Quebeckers must realize, and we cannot ever
repeat it too many times, that it is through their efforts in
recent years that the federal deficit was eliminated, as the
Minister of Finance boasts.
Before starting up its spending again, it is imperative for
the federal government to reimburse the provinces. This is why we
are proposing that, to cancel out the effect of the cuts there have
been since 1993, the government need only restore to the provinces
tax points equivalent to 25% of the forecast surpluses for the next
two years.
If the federal government gave the provinces $2 billion in tax
points in 1998-99, and an additional $4 billion for 1999 and 2000,
they would end up with the same amount of money they were getting
at the start of the Liberals' term in office, when they were
elected in 1993.
In the next budget the government will be tempted to make new
expenditures, once again in the jurisdiction of the provinces. We
therefore encourage the Minister of Finance to resist such
temptation, but we know he will not.
In the 1997 throne speech, the federal government clearly
announced its intention to create programs for children and young
people in the areas of health, education and social policy. Should
we applaud that?
Not yet. The federal government is talking about looking after
home care, community services, strategies for youth, bursaries,
pharmacare, ways to interest young people in science, a national
school nutrition program, Canada wide benefits for poor children,
a Canadian foundation for innovation, and a partridge in a pear
tree. All provincial jurisdictions.
It would be unspeakable for the government to use some of the
savings from transfer cuts for hospitals, schools and social
assistance to increase its visibility while putting its stamp on
areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
2015
A number of representatives from different milieux are very
critical of this government's approach. Its centralizing attitude
without regard for the provinces has but one aim: to show it off in
the best light and thus justify its existence.
Viewers must be wondering why the Bloc Quebecois is making
such a kerfuffle over reimbursement of social transfers to the
provinces. The reason is simple: the government's cuts to the
transfers considerably hamper the establishment of real social
policy.
Quebec already has policies in these areas. The Quebec
government released its white paper on family policy in 1997.
The Premier of Quebec emphasized that economic recovery had to be
achieved through a better coalition of labour and family, through
more equitable policies and more work incentives. A true
redistribution of wealth and a genuine effort to combat poverty
must place the focus on children and their families.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: You would do well to listen, sir.
When you were in opposition—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order please. I must ask
the hon. member to please put her remarks to the Chair and not to
colleagues across the way.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Madam Speaker, I would like to put my
remarks to you, but I am being addressed from the opposite side.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: They would like to throw me off, so
that I will not speak about the way the government is fighting
poverty, but I will go on.
In six years, the cost of these new measures undertaken by the
Government of Quebec will require $235 million on top of what the
Government of Quebec now spends on the family.
I urge members of the House to consult this white paper. They
will be able to see how Quebec is better placed than the federal
government to intervene in family policy. I must point out that
the proposed policies will benefit all families, particularly those
with low incomes.
This is why it is so important that we recover the amounts
paid under the Canada social transfer so that we can implement real
strategies, so that we can stop making the mistake this government
is making of having no policy on poverty.
The Bloc Quebecois will therefore continue to call for full
indexing of tax levels, personal exemptions and credits for GST,
medical expenses and child tax benefits. Furthermore, $2 billion
is now needed for the child tax benefit, and not the mere $850
million being touted by the Minister of Human Resources
Development. Two billion dollars must be invested now to help
children. If there had been real tax benefits, the goals would
already have been reached, but now, we are lagging behind. The
federal government is missing the boat on poverty.
[English]
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I speak this evening to Motion No. 133 as put
forward by the New Democrats.
I must compliment the New Democratic Party for submitting this
motion which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should set
targets for the elimination of poverty and unemployment—.
From 1993 to 1997 this House lost some of its social
consciousness which was provided to a large degree by the New
Democratic Party. I think we have a stronger and healthier
Parliament since the return of the NDP which can now speak to
these issues. I do not think there is a member in the House who
thinks child poverty is funny. Individuals in this country are
unemployed.
Statistics can describe the unemployment rate and the child
poverty rate in Canada, but the big issue for many families in
this country, whether they be from Atlantic Canada, British
Columbia, the north or elsewhere, may not necessarily be the
political philosophy they follow.
It may actually come down to the issue of whether they have milk
in their fridge or whether they actually have bread in their
cupboard. Those are the greater issues for which we are here.
It is a higher calling than actual political rhetoric.
2020
There is an adage in business that is used quite often. It is
what gets measured gets done. What the New Democratic Party
wants to do with this motion is challenge the government to set
benchmarks with respect to unemployment, challenge the government
with respect to child poverty.
It was brought up by one of the hon. members of the NDP earlier
that the poverty rate in Norway, a country I have been too as
well, is such that it essentially has no child poverty and it is
directly connected to its unemployment rate which is quite low as
well.
I would advocate that children are not poor necessarily, it is
their parents who are poor. Children are poor because their
parents are poor. They do not have a job. They do not
necessarily have the economic means to provide for their
families, provide for their children to seek post-secondary
education. It is those very issues which are our duty and
responsibility as legislators to address.
We believe for too long, for over a decade, Canadians have not
had any increase in disposable income. In fact, Canadians now
earn 6% less after taxes than they did in 1990. Canadians are
poorer than they have been in a decade.
I cannot fathom, and I know my colleagues in the NDP as well
cannot fathom, why we tax individuals who only make $9,000 a
year. What we believe is our economy needs a plan for growth. We
need to ensure that we have more individuals participating in the
economy to have a better standard of living than they are
experiencing now. We need to create more growth in the economy
so that more individuals can participate and have a decent
standard of living.
That is why earlier today the leader of the Conservative Party
and our finance critic, the hon. member for Kings—Hants, tabled
a plan for growth. Within that plan for growth there are
initiatives that will help those individuals most in need. One of
the things we want to do is raise the personal exemption on an
individual's income tax form from $6,500 to $10,000. It would
take two million Canadians off the tax rolls overnight. Those are
two million Canadians who simply should not have been there in
the first place. Because we have not indexed the personal
exemption on income tax forms, today we have 500,000 Canadians
paying tax who did not in 1990.
Another initiative we want to put forward in order to stimulate
the economy and to help those in need is tax relief with respect
to payroll taxes. It has been proven time and time again by
economists that if there is one kind of tax that has a most
negative effect on creating jobs it is that of payroll taxes. The
reason we are having this debate about a fiscal surplus or a
fiscal dividend is this government takes in nearly $6 billion
more in the EI fund than that program actually consumes. That is
what is responsible for the surplus.
We have balanced the budget on the backs of Canadians and
unfortunately on the poorest Canadians in that regard. We want
to make sure the EI fund is sustainable. The chief actuary for
the government points out that although the EI payment is $2.70
per $100 of insurable earnings, it is sustainable at $2. I know
the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead understands that as well.
2025
Two dollars for every one hundred of insurable earnings would
put $6 billion back into the economy. The other thing it would
do is stop taxing every new job that we create.
Another thing we put forward earlier today in our plan for
growth, and I think my hon. colleagues in the NDP will be
receptive to this, was with respect to the child tax credit. For
too long it has not been indexed to inflation. What happens is
we take money away from the poor families that need the money.
We have to challenge ourselves. The intent of this motion is to
measure our success. The NDP should be applauded for bringing
forth such a motion.
What this government is not willing to accept at the moment is
that we have had unemployment above 9% for well over 80 months.
That is the longest single stretch of high unemployment since the
depression. What the economy needs is a plan for growth through
less debt, less tax and more jobs.
In conclusion, we need to ensure that we challenge the
government to raise the personal exemption from $6,500 to $10,000
and take those 2 million people off the tax rolls overnight.
There is another social cost here which has a very
negative effect on our economy overall. I said during my
campaign in Fundy—Royal that for too long Atlantic Canada's best
export has been our best and brightest young people.
Unfortunately it is not only an Atlantic Canadian phenomenon.
Some of our best and brightest are now seeking opportunities in
the United States. Why? There are those who have been
successful enough to get a university degree who are now seeking
opportunities in areas where they do not necessarily have a
chance for employment. They end up going to the United States.
They do not have to pay for the last 30 years of overspending,
mom and dad's spending binge. They will be taxed less and they
will have more opportunity.
What we need to do is ensure that more individuals have a chance
to participate in the economy by growing the economy through less
debt, less tax, more jobs and more opportunities. Above all we
need to help those most in need, those in the margins of society.
That is why we want to take 2 million people off the tax rolls
overnight.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Speaker, my
colleague has just been saying that the labour movement ought to be
involved throughout the entire process, so as to create youth
employment.
I am pleased to hear that, on the other side of this House,
the Liberals realize that there is a labour movement here in
Canada, that they are prepared to talk to them, unlike the former
Minister of Human Resources Development, who said that if he met
the president of the CLC in the desert after wandering about for 2
weeks, he would not even drink a glass of water with him.
At last they are beginning to acknowledge that there is room
for the labour movement, that it can discuss with government and
employers to create employment.
Not long ago, I was talking with the people at a food bank in
my riding. They told me “It would be nice if they came to visit,
came to see how well we are operating. Even though there is
nothing to get excited about, as the fact we exist is no reason to
rejoice”.
There is no reason to rejoice when we have food banks just
about on every corner. There is nothing to rejoice about when, in
the past, a person could walk the streets of Montreal and not see
all those people—
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. In view of the fact that the House
is scheduled to adjourn at this time, I wonder if you would seek
the unanimous consent of the House to extend the time by two
minutes to allow the member who moved this motion an opportunity
to reply before the House adjourns.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have the consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
2030
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
would like to thank the members of the House for consenting to a
further few minutes to conclude this debate.
I only regret that we could not have a longer debate beyond the
designated time. I feel if we could have had some more debate in
this House, we would have had an interesting dialogue and
exchange of ideas about this motion that is before us today.
I listened very carefully to the members from the other parties
in the House in terms of their response to this motion. I would
like to say that while I hear the Liberal members say that they
are sensitive to the plight of poor Canadians, I really believe
that the programs that have been put forward by the Liberal
government are very superficial and do not even begin to address
the damage that has been done since 1993.
The hon. member from the Liberal Party spoke about the child tax
benefit as being a positive sign that things are improving.
However the reality is that if this is an anti-poverty measure,
why does it not apply to people who are on social assistance? Why
will the child tax benefit not be fully indexed? If it was an
anti-poverty measure, it would be.
In my riding we had a round table on youth unemployment. One of
the concerns was brought forward by young people themselves.
Because many of the government programs are not sustained and
because they do not have a continuity in terms of training and
moving people into good paying jobs, young people become very
frustrated. They get into a program, it ends and before they know
it they are back on the street or they are back in the unemployed
lines.
The issue before us today is to set timetables, to set targets
for a full employment strategy. I believe this can be
accomplished if the government is seriously committed to it by a
program of fair taxation, by a national housing program, by
encouraging the provinces to adopt a minimum wage that is
liveable, by ensuring that welfare rates are above the poverty
line, and by reducing student debt.
We have not talked about the issues raised by the Royal
Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, where we see the greatest
poverty in this country.
I believe that these are things that can be done by the House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired
and the order is dropped from the order paper.
[Translation]
It being 8.32 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m.
tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 8.32 p.m.)