CONTENTS
Wednesday, February 19, 1997
STATEMENT BY MEMBERS
Mr. Bernier (Beauce) 8303
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 8303
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 8304
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 8306
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8307
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8307
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8307
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8308
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8308
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8308
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8309
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8309
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8309
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8310
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8310
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8310
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8310
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8310
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8311
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8311
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8312
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8313
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8313
Bill C-372. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 8315
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 8315
Motion for concurrence in 56th report 8316
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 8316
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 8316
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 8316
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 8316
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 8316
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 8316
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 8316
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 8316
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 8316
Consideration resumed of budget motion andamendment 8326
Amendment to amendment 8328
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 8332
Consideration resumed of budget motion 8333
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 8338
Bill C-72. Consideration resumed of motion 8342
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 148; Nays, 30 8342
(Motion agreed to, and bill referred to a committee.) 8343
Bill C-79. Consideration resumed of motion 8343
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 113; Nays, 64 8344
8303
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, February 19, 1997
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesdays, we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENT BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
commend the work of the people in my riding of Nipissing for their
efforts to save CFB North Bay. In recent weeks there has been a
remarkable team effort made to inform the members of this
government about the consequences of the NORAD facility leaving
our city.
Our most powerful weapon has been the co-operation that has
existed between all the stakeholders. So far we have received over
16,000 signatures on a petition to save our air base. This grassroots
support is echoed across our community. It extends from the
affected employees and their local unions to our city council and
our business community.
This support has been essential in allowing Mayor Jack Burrows
and I, along with the valuable assistance from North Bay MPP and
Ontario Premier Mike Harris, to bring a strong and unified message
to Ottawa.
This issue crosses political and ideological lines as we fight
collectively to save hundreds of jobs in northeastern Ontario and
northwestern Quebec.
* * *
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
morning on CBC the finance minister said his government is
focusing spending on those things which are most important to
them: health care, children and jobs. Let us look at the record.
The minister has slashed $7 billion from health care, education
and welfare. In fact health care has been cut 40 per cent. This is
how the finance minister focuses on health care.
The minister has gouged the average family's after tax income
by $3,000. Parents are working longer and harder just to make ends
meet. This is how the finance minister focuses on children.
And jobs? Our unemployment rate is hovering around 10 per
cent compared to Japan at 3.4 per cent and the United States at5.4 per cent. If the minister taxed less and left more in the hands of
those who earn it, this would increase consumer spending and drive
the economy and businesses to create jobs. Instead, through 36 tax
increases this minister takes $24 billion more every year, killing
jobs in our communities. This is how the finance minister focuses
on jobs.
The finance minister's words and his record conflict.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
draw attention to the archaic method used by The National
Battlefields Commission of Canada to collect fines for traffic
violations on federal property, particularly in Quebec City.
The people ticketed for very minor violations cannot pay the
fines even if they wanted to because these fines are not set in
advance. They have to immediately sign a guilty plea, which is
referred to the Court of the Sessions of the Peace for a judge to set
the amount of the fine and additional court costs. Failing that, the
documents will be served on them.
This is a costly procedure for all taxpayers. It is high time that
The National Battlefields Commission of Canada updated its
procedures. This is another good way of saving money.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian Medical Hall of Fame is a national organization which
recognizes the outstanding achievement of Canadian medical
8304
scientists. The Medical Hall of Fame was founded in November
1993 and is located in my home city of London, Ontario which has
earned an international reputation as a leading medical centre.
Inductees to the Medical Hall of Fame are all outstanding
Canadians, both men and women, who have distinguished
themselves with extraordinary careers to the benefit of mankind.
Perhaps the best known example is Sir Frederick Banting, the
discoverer of insulin, who started his work in London, Ontario.
Today I am pleased to welcome to Ottawa several distinguished
laureates of the Medical Hall of Fame, accompanied by J. Allyn
Taylor, honorary chair, Ted Eadinger, board director, Betsy Little,
executive director and Barbara Tomlin, administrative assistant.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a year ago on February 13, along with the Minister of
Canadian Heritage and the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism,
I announced the Matthieu Da Costa award. The award honours
black history month by commemorating the life of Da Costa, the
first recorded black person in Canada. Through literary essay and
art competitions it encourages students to explore contributions
made by individuals of cultural minority backgrounds to the
development of Canada.
Today I am proud to announce that elementary and secondary
schools all over Canada from coast to coast actively participated in
the award contest. A special ceremony was held at the Canadian
Museum of Civilization to honour the 1997 winners. We all
congratulate Skye Smith, Caitlyn Doyle, Crystal David,
Marie-France Pare, Kimahli Powell, Marie-Claude Latreille,
Warren George Lefthand and Michael Lomenda.
Along with the Canadian Teachers' Federation, I invite all
members to join me in celebrating this truly unique initiative which
fosters a shared sense of Canadian identity.
* * *
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to welcome today to our nation's capital six members of
the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame. Although we are very pleased
to have the physical presence of London as the hall of fame the
talent comes from across our diverse land.
Dr. Henry Barnett from London has been recognized for his
work in stroke and clinical trials.
Dr. Douglas Harold Copp from Vancouver discovered the
hormone calcitonin which regulates calcium levels in the blood.
Dr. Jacques Genest from Montreal has been recognized for his
research on hypertension.
Dr. Herbert Jasper from Montreal has been recognized for his
work in electrophysiology and EEG.
(1405 )
Dr. Charles Leblond from Montreal has been recognized for his
research in anatomy and cell biology.
Dr. Robert Salter from Toronto has been recognized for his work
in orthopedic surgery.
These individuals are our best and brightest. It is a wonderful
and fitting tribute that they are here today. We owe them an
immense debt of gratitude. I encourage all members to show their
gratitude.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, an election year is no doubt a time when things get a little
hot in this place. That in itself comes as no surprise. What is
regrettable however are the unacceptable attacks on our colleagues
that we have witnessed on a number of occasions in the past few
weeks.
Following the incident the hon. member for Beaver River was
involved in yesterday, I would call upon each and every member of
this House to behave like a mature adult.
The House of Commons is a forum for debating ideas. The fact
that the two sides of this House hold diametrically opposed views
is normal.
There is nothing wrong with heated debates per se, but I wish the
respect we owe one another would always prevail. This way,
unfortunate events that do nothing to improve the opinion the
public has of parliamentarians could be prevented. This is another
responsibility that rests with all of us.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, hello
Edmonton North. I look forward to campaigning on Reform's
platform of more jobs through smaller government and lower taxes
and against the Liberals' tax gouging, job killing record.
The Minister of Finance says that he has not raised taxes. Oh,
really?
8305
What about the tax increase on life insurance premiums,
gasoline, air transportation, private corporation dividends and
securities?
What about the elimination of the lifetime capital gains
exemption, the income test for age credit, and the lowering of the
withdrawal age for RRSPs?
What about the 70 per cent increase in CPP premiums that will
deliver $9,000 a year to Edmonton pensioners while the MP
pension plan yields five to six times that amount?
Call it what you like but it is still a tax, T-A-X. By increasing
overall taxes for Edmontonians 30 per cent and personal taxes40 per cent, the Liberals have picked an extra billion dollars out of
our pockets.
Let us set things right. Hello, Edmonton North.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I want to applaud the joint decision made by the Fonds de
solidarité des travailleurs du Québec and the Fonds régional du
Bas-Saint-Laurent to invest $1.5 million in Carrière Glendyne,
located in Saint-Marc-du-Lac-Long. This investment will bring the
slate mine back into production and preserve 60 direct jobs in this
small village of 534 people.
Getting Carrière Glendyne back into operation will give new
impetus to the economy in Saint-Marc-du-Lac-Long. The initial
stages involving rock scaling activities have resumed, and it is
expected that all of the company's 60 employees will be called
back to work by March 17.
Quebec is among the world's ten largest mining countries, and
the first one in the Francophonie. To be a master in one's own home
is to have at one's disposal the means to make decisions and to
fully benefit from them.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
this budget is yet another Liberal con job.
Instead of jobs, there is $3.2 billion in further cuts to social
programs scheduled this year. Instead of helping to reduce child
poverty now, there is another red book promise to help children in
need effective July 1998, only 18 months from now. And if it does
materialize, it is only 20 per cent of the commitment the B.C. NDP
government has made to help end child poverty now.
The Liberals have taken $14 billion out of the economy through
cuts to social programs. Now they insult Canadians with a snow
job pre-election budget. This budget offers nothing for struggling
families who are looking for stable employment and no hope for
their children's future.
The Liberals have achieved one thing. In 1993, the last year of
the Mulroney government, 5,250 taxpayers earning over $70,000
per year paid no taxes. Under the Liberals, there has been a 400 per
cent increase: 21,270 Canadians earning over $70,000 a year paid
no taxes.
* * *
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to
celebrate the centennial of the Women's Institute with my
colleagues in the House. Over the last 100 years the work of the
Women's Institute has become well known and respected across
Canada and around the world.
(1410)
The movement began with one woman, Adelaide Hoodless, and
her response to the death of her 18-month old son from drinking
impure milk. Impelled by her personal loss, Mrs. Hoodless became
an activist campaigning for clean milk. On February 19, 1897 at
Stoney Creek, Ontario the Women's Institute began, creating a
movement to educate women in the home sciences.
The local movement spread quickly to become the pre-eminent
women's organization in Canada. At the turn of the century the
concept spread to Britain and throughout Europe. In 1933 the
organizations joined forces and the Association of Country Women
of the World was formed.
Over the years, issues have changed and the WI continues to
make a difference. I am honoured to acknowledge those who
continue that important community based work which was started a
century ago.
* * *
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased today to draw attention to the Liberal government's
commitment toward building a strong future for all Canadians,
especially Canadian children.
Yesterday we were presented with a workable budget, a budget
that invests in jobs, health care, education and children.
The government has long recognized that children are our
greatest resource, that they are our future and we must invest in
them. The government has made the investment.
The national child benefit system is an innovative approach to
reducing the number of Canadian children who live in poverty. The
new system will provide a total of $6 billion in assistance to low
8306
income families across Canada which will improve the living
standards of hundreds of thousands of Canadian children.
The national child benefit system is a step forward in the fight
against child poverty. It is exactly the type of program that will
give our children a fighting chance for a better future. It
demonstrates our commitment to our future: Canada's children.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Finance confirmed that our
deficit reduction objectives have not only been reached but
exceeded. Indeed, the deficit is a little over $5 billion less than
expected.
Yesterday, the Minister of Finance announced that his budget
does not include any tax increase or new tax affecting individuals
or corporations.
Yesterday, the minister also showed that it is possible to manage
public finances effectively, while also helping the poor in our
society. And I do mean the poor in our society.
Our government has once again demonstrated that the solution to
our country's economic and social problems does not lie with
extremists, but is based on a good Liberal government establishing
a balance between economic and social needs.
* * *
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, from
February 22 to 26, the Minister for International Trade and sixty or
so business people will make an official visit to Israel and the
Palestinian territories.
The Bloc Quebecois expects the minister to raise the topics of
democracy and human rights in his meeting with Prime Minister
Netanyahu. A climate of peace and democracy is essential to
prosperous trade between our countries.
We hope the minister will take advantage of this trip to obtain,
from the Palestinian authorities, the letters promised during
consideration of the bill to implement the Canada-Israel Free Trade
Agreement. We are still waiting for these letters.
This Middle East visit is therefore important and the results of
the minister's meetings during this trip must be made public and
will be of the greatest interest for the future of the Canadian and
Quebec economies in this part of the world.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday's
budget only proves that Reformers were right three years ago: the
debt is the problem.
The finance minister has raised tax revenues by $24 billion and
has reduced spending by $13, billion, a $37 billion gain. But lo and
behold, we will still have a $17 billion deficit. Why? Where did the
$37 billion go? It has gone to pay big interest on Canada's ever
growing debt.
The finance minister blew it by not making cuts in the first year.
He blew it by not reducing the size of the government faster. He
blew it by not including businesses and regional development
grants in his spending cuts.
Under Reform with spending cuts in the first year we would have
balanced the budget today. Under Reform we would be talking
about budget surpluses to share with taxpayers, hospitals and
universities.
Yes, yesterday's budget only proves that Reform's zero in three
plan was after all the best vision for Canada versus this slow pain
for no gain, two year roll over, let us hit you somewhere else targets
of this Liberal government.
* * *
(1415)
[Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
is good news for the provinces in the budget brought down
yesterday by our Minister of Finance. Our government has
announced that no additional reduction is planned in transfers to
the provinces in 1997-98.
[English]
Let us not forget, as our colleagues from the opposition often do,
that Quebec continues to receive 31 per cent of transfers when it
only represents 25 per cent of the population. Moreover, Quebec
receives over 45 per cent of all equalization payments.
[Translation]
Our government has therefore done its part to preserve social
and health programs. Our recent budget is a clear indication of our
intention to work with the provinces to ensure sustainability.
Now it is up to the Premier of Quebec and his Minister of
Finance to show us that they in turn can reduce Quebec's deficit
while maintaining our social programs, as several other provinces
have already done.
8307
8307
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the budget tabled yesterday by the Minister of Finance is a
most disappointing one. If there is one underlying theme, it is the
Liberal vision of a highly centralist federal government,
encroaching unrestrained onto areas of provincial jurisdiction
every time it has the chance.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, the
Minister of Finance had such a wonderful opportunity to
demonstrate to us his government's real belief in a decentralized
federalism which respects provincial areas of jurisdiction. Why,
then, did he prefer to follow his usual pattern, the usual habit of the
Liberals, and to announce still more overlap, still more duplication,
still more waste?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
could the Leader of the Opposition tell us which measures in
yesterday's budget did not please him? Does he believe that the
federal government ought not to have used the taxation system to
help the disabled? Does he believe that the federal government
ought not to have used the taxation system to help those who give
donations to small charities?
Does he believe that the federal government ought not to have
created a new and greatly enhanced benefit for the poor children in
Montreal and elsewhere in Quebec? Does he believe that the
federal government ought not to have bowed to Quebec's demands
for an infrastructure program?
Which programs does the Leader of the Opposition find
unacceptable for helping Quebecers and Canadians?
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I will tell him what I find unacceptable. It is that his
government has, over the past two years, cut $4.5 billion from
transfers to the provinces for social services and education. Today
he imagines that a few million dollars are going to make us forget
the $4 billion in past cuts.
As for the details, I will get to shortly, but just now I have three
questions for him. Here is my question for the moment.
What we want to find out from the Minister of Finance is how he
can justify, on the one hand, that he is short of money and therefore
needs to cut transfer payments to the provinces, when these are
mainly for health care and education services and, on the other
hand, he can at the same time justify sprinkling a few million here,
a few million there, in areas in which he has no jurisdiction at all?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let
us look at the facts. In 1997-98, Quebec will receive $10.3 billion,
31 per cent of federal transfers, which is more than any other
province. In equalization payments alone, Quebec will receive
close to $4 billion, 46 per cent of the total payments. From 1993 to
1998, transfers to Quebec have dropped about 11 per cent. Our own
cuts exceeded 14 per cent.
(1420)
Two weeks ago, the Bloc Quebecois asked us to increase
assistance to students who need student loans. They asked us to
increase tax credits for parents who wanted to finance their
children's education. This we did in yesterday's budget. I am
waiting for the Bloc Quebecois to congratulate us.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if there is anything that characterizes the fundamental
differences between us, this is it. For the Minister of Finance, for
Liberals, it is incomprehensible for the federal government to play
its true role of distributor of the wealth, as they often describe it,
while at the same time minding its own business.
Can the government not respect the areas of jurisdiction set out
in its own Constitution? That is where the problem lies. How can
they imagine that they are better placed to look after prenatal
nutrition? Ottawa will look after prenatal nutrition. Ottawa will
look after literacy, the disabled, poor children, family policy. These
are provincial areas of jurisdiction. Can they not grasp that, on the
other side?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Ottawa is involved, it is because Quebec asked for it. Where
assistance to students is concerned, it is the Bloc Quebecois who
asked us to increase student aid. If we are involved in
infrastructures, it is because the President of Treasury Board got a
letter from Bernard Landry asking Ottawa to get involved in the
infrastructure program in Quebec.
If we are in research and development, allow me to point out
that, in 1993, the Government of Canada funded 22 per cent of
Quebec R & D activity. Quebec's share was a mere 8 per cent. A
good thing, then, that we are involved.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ):
Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, because if they were not, Quebec's
deficit would be down by 60 per cent.
The Liberals, who were elected three and a half years ago to the
shouts of jobs, jobs, jobs, have nothing to offer one million and a
half unemployed workers in Canada today. Yesterday's budget had
nothing better to offer than a paltry $25 million in new money for
job creation measures for the coming year. This is an average of 90
cents per Canadian.
8308
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Now that he has
given up doing anything about high unemployment, does the
Prime Minister have anything to offer 1.5 million Quebecers and
Canadians who are looking for jobs, besides wishing them a
cynical good luck?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for three years we have worked very hard on job creation,
and Canada has created more than 700,000 new jobs, which, I
repeat, is more than Great Britain, France, Germany and Italy
combined.
I agree the demand is enormous, but we managed to reduce
unemployment from 11.4 per cent in January 1994 to 9.7 per cent.
We want to do better, we always do.
Today, for instance, Canadians benefit from interest rates that
have dropped by five percentage points in two years and are now
two and a half percentage points lower than interest rates in the
United States. When you look at the Canadian economy, you can
see the results of this policy, because today, car sales, housing sales
and construction, and industrial expansion are all benefiting from
the lowest interest rates we have had in Canada for 35 years.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister forgot to add that this year we had a
record number of bankruptcies in Canada. He forgot to say that.
(1425)
My question is this: Why will the Prime Minister not admit that
he failed on job creation? Why will he not admit that his slogan
``jobs, jobs, jobs'' was just that, like the other slogan on abolishing
the GST: ``scrap, scrap, scrap''? He no longer has any credibility.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Once again,
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member forgot to ask his question.
Let me tell you that in the past four months, we created 85,000
new jobs in this country in the private sector alone. The vast
majority of these jobs are permanent. According to most
economists, this year in Canada we will create between 300,000
and 350,000 new jobs, and the same number again next year.
According to most economists, according to the OECD, Canada
will create more jobs than any other country in the G-7, including
the United States.
Now, about the budget. Let me just quote Gérald Ponton,
president of the Alliance des manufacturiers et des exportateurs du
Québec: ``No new taxes: good news for business and the Canadian
economy. Clearly, when the government uses its fiscal flexibility as
it did with the infrastructure program and the innovation fund, it is
setting an example Bernard Landry would do well to follow, which
he can do without increasing taxes''. That is what this government
has done.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in yesterday's budget there were a lot of questionable
statements, but the biggest whopper of them all was the finance
minister's claim of not raising taxes. Just days before the budget,
the government raised compulsory Canada pension plan premiums,
payroll taxes, by 70 per cent.
Since the Liberals came to power in 1993, income tax revenues
have risen by over $15 billion, corporate tax revenues are up by
almost $7 billion and the hated GST is bringing in almost $2 billion
more.
How can the finance minister possibly claim that he is not
raising taxes when federal tax revenues have increased by over $24
billion and the Canada pension payroll tax is being raised by 70 per
cent?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the fact that the Reform Party has a different set of values than
most Canadians and the fact that the Reform Party does not believe
in the Canada pension plan certainly does not give it licence to
misconstrue what the Canada pension plan is all about and how
important it is to Canadians.
The leader of the Reform Party knows full well that not one
penny of Canada pension plan premiums comes to government,
neither to the federal government nor to the provincial
governments that joined with us. It is invested for the retirement
savings of Canadians in exactly the same way as with other
retirement schemes.
Just because the Reform Party does not believe in the basic
institutions of the country, it is no reason to stand up in the House
and deliberately misconstrue what the heck they are all about.
The Speaker: I wish the hon. Minister of Finance would
withdraw the words ``deliberately misconstrue''.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the
words.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the net impression of all that ranting was for the minister
to be saying that he does not interpret the increase in CPP
premiums as a payroll tax.
(1430 )
The economic analysis and forecasting division of his own
department publishes papers-I can give him copies of them-in
which it describes CPP premiums as a payroll tax. It has computer
models for running that payroll tax and determining its negative
impact on job creation when it is increased.
Last night, Judith Andrew of the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business discussed the CPP premium increase as a
payroll tax. If there is any group in the country that can recognize a
payroll tax when it sees it, it is the CFIB.
8309
The only people that do not believe a 70 per cent hike in CPP
premiums is not a payroll tax increase is the Minister of Finance
and the gullible gang across the way.
I would appreciate a straight answer to my question. Given the
views of his own department, why will the minister simply not
admit that CPP premiums are a payroll tax and that he has raised
them by 70 per cent?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the leader of the Reform Party, in his effort to destroy the Canada
pension plan, consistently refers to the increase in premiums of the
pension contribution that would be made.
The other day he said that these premiums would go at full
maturity for a person at the maximum earnings from $945 to
$1,635.
What the hon. member, the leader of the Reform Party, has not
done is provide Canadians with a calculation of what his alternative
would cost. Let me do it for him, in case it has slipped his mind.
In the agreement with the provinces that amount would go from
$945 to $1,600. The Reform Party alternative would take it from
$945 based on the Chilean model, which they have adopted, to
$2,150.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform Party has a plan for preserving both the CPP
and increasing retirement income for Canadians at a lower cost
than what the government proposes.
An hon. member: It is not like the MP pension plan either.
Mr. Manning: I want to come back, Mr. Speaker, to the ethics of
this issue.
I am sure that the finance minister, as an aspiring Prime
Minister, realizes the importance of being honest with the Canadian
people. All I am doing is cautioning the government that it is
heading down the same road on this CPP premium as it went down
with the GST. The Liberals have almost convinced themselves that
a tax is not a tax, just like they convinced themselves that the Prime
Minister never said he would kill, scrap, abolish the GST.
Will the finance minister stop and pause before he gets too
deeply into this and admit that he has raised payroll taxes by 70 per
cent, the greatest single tax increase in Canadian history?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am sure that the leader of the third party, as the aspiring leader of
the fifth party, would like to put his own numbers before Canadians
so they can make the same judgment.
We have stated that contributions to the Canada pension plan are
not a tax. They are an investment in Canadians' retirement savings.
One thing is very clear. The agreement the federal government
has come to with the Government of Alberta, and I notice that the
hon. member has not got the courage-Mr. Speaker, I am sure he
does-the hon. member will go to Alberta and will campaign
against Ralph Klein because Ralph Klein signed the deal.
(1435 )
I am sure he will go into Ontario and will campaign against Mike
Harris because Mike Harris signed the deal. I am also sure he will
explain to Canadians why his alternative will cost $500 more than
the federal government's changes to the CPP.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday, the Minister of Finance told us in his budget that the
deficit for the current fiscal year was $5.3 billion less than his
target last year, on the same date, in his previous budget. With this
manoeuvring room, the minister could, among other
things-because there are a lot of things to do-pay Quebec the $2
billion it cost to harmonize its sales tax with the GST.
Will the Minister of Finance acknowledge that the McKenna
formula, concocted in secret after the Government of Quebec made
its requests known, serves simply to justify more unfair treatment
of Quebec by the federal government?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the member would look back at the speech I made with the
announcement, he will see that I set out the formula for
compensation to the Atlantic provinces, Manitoba and
Saskatchewan.
At the same time, I explained why Quebec, Ontario, British
Columbia and Alberta would not be receiving compensation. They
did not lose over 5 per cent of sales tax revenues. The reason is
quite clear.
We are prepared to compensate a province if losses are involved.
The hon. member will understand that, if no losses are involved,
there will be no compensation. Quebec has all the information. We
gave them not only our figures, but the provinces' as well.
I am prepared to sit down with the hon. member, as we did with
the officials of the Quebec ministry of finance, to explain exactly
how the formula works.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we have a minister of finance in Quebec too. And he
says harmonization with the GST would have cost Quebec $2
billion had the corporate tax burden not been increased accordingly
to compensate. In Ottawa, on the other hand, the Minister of
Finance says that is not so, that in fact Quebec made money in the
process.
8310
If the Minister of Finance thinks Quebec minister Landry is
lying to the public, would he rise and say so?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the information in my reply comes from Government of Quebec
statistics. If the hon. member would care to look at sales tax
revenues in 1990, 1991 and 1992, he will see that Quebec lost no
more than 5 per cent of its revenues at the start.
He will also see that, in subsequent years, Quebec made money.
These figures are public.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the finance minister did a pretty good impression of
George Bush with his no new taxes line. Unfortunately here are the
facts.
Since the Liberals came to power in 1993, federal tax revenues
have increased 20 per cent while the average family income has
decreased by 10 per cent. Liberal years have been good years for
the finance minister but hard times for Canadian families.
(1440 )
Let me ask the finance minister this. How can he possibly claim
that there have been no new taxes when the average income of
Canadian families has dropped by 10 per cent?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is no doubt that over the course of this government's
administration our revenues have gone up. Absolutely. They have
gone up because we have had a stronger economy. Economic
growth brings higher revenues.
If we want to fight the deficit surely to heaven it is better fight
the deficit by having a stronger economy than by adopting the kind
of scorched earth policies Reform would advocate which would
absolutely destroy the economy.
The fact of the matter is that overwhelmingly the majority of
increases in this government's revenues has come from increased
economic activity primarily in the corporate sector because it is
making more profits and as a result of those profits we are getting
more revenue.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
argument here is not over growth, it is just who is going to get the
benefit from the growth. This government is getting 20 per cent of
the benefit while the Canadian public and taxpayers are losing10 per cent of it.
Since the Liberals came to power in 1993 the average family
income has dropped by $3,000. I do not think families could be
convinced that this is growth or that it has been really fun for them.
Let me ask the finance minister again how he can possibly claim
no new taxes when the average family income has dropped by
$3,000 per year and its Canadian pension plan payroll taxes have
been hiked 70 per cent. How does it work?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there have been in certain areas increases in taxes, increases in tax
revenues. The Reform Party has opposed these. The Reform Party
has gone on the web and said ``these are the tax increases brought
in by the federal government that we oppose''.
The Reform Party opposed the elimination of the tax advantages
for family trusts. It opposed the elimination of the preferential rate
for large corporations. It opposed the measures that were taken to
combat the underground economy. It opposed the elimination of
the $100,000 lifetime capital gains tax exemption.
These are the tax increases Reformers opposed because they hurt
their friends. Heaven help them if they had to help poor or middle
income Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question os for the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday's budget epitomized this Liberal government's
inaction in the area of taxation. Three and a half years after taking
office, the Minister of Finance has made no major changes; he has
no real tax reform to propose to the people of Canada. Taxation is a
powerful tool available to the Minister of Finance to achieve social
or economic objectives.
How can the Minister of Finance explain that, despite a golden
opportunity to create jobs through taxation, nowhere in his budget
did he use either personal or corporate taxes to do so?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Quite the
contrary, Mr. Speaker. In yesterday's budget, we presented highly
targeted tax breaks amounting to more than $2 billion over a three
year period specifically for persons with disabilities as well as
substantial breaks for students or parents who want to save for their
children's education. There is also the child tax benefit.
The vast majority of measures contained in yesterday's budget
were precisely tax measures, tax breaks designed to help
Canadians.
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
November, the Bloc Quebecois released a corporate tax analysis,
which clearly showed that up to $3 billion could be recovered and
recommended this amount be invested in job creation incentives.
How does the minister justify not having done his homework in
that area, in spite of this recommendation?
(1445)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
was done long before the Bloc's report was tabled. I could quote,
for example, from previous budgets, measures like the abolition of
the lifetime $100,000 capital gains exemption, the broadening of
8311
the minimum replacement tax base or the elimination of the tax
advantages offered by the use of trusts.
As I said the last time, the list goes on-
Mr. Gauthier: For three pages.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): That is right, I tabled it myself. I
submit that the hon. member should ask the Table for the three
pages I mentioned.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the
last election, the government campaigned on the issue of jobs, jobs,
jobs.
In the budget yesterday there was not a word about jobs. There
was nothing for jobless Canadians. There was just 80 minutes of
self-congratulations.
The finance minister did not even mention the 9.7 per cent
unemployment rate, the 1.5 million unemployed, the one in four
people underemployed or who are worried about losing their jobs.
When will the finance minister come down from his mansion on
the hill and realize that by relentlessly driving up taxes he is killing
jobs in this country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what was done in yesterday's budget was to very clearly outline a
comprehensive jobs program.
First of all, we started out with the absolute necessity of cleaning
up the nation's finances. Our interest rates have gone from two and
a quarter percentage points higher than the United States' to where
they are now, two and a quarter to a half percentage points lower
than the United States'.
This is as a result of the actions of this government. That is why
people are now saying that Canada will have the strongest job
creation record of any of the G-7 countries.
Second, we put in place a short term program, infrastructure,
roads, sewer mains and highways in order to create instantaneous
jobs. More money went into the tourism sector because it is a
massive creator of jobs.
The Prime Minister's missions abroad have led to the highest
level of exports in this country's history. We have put in place a
long term job program, helping students finance their education, a
very large research and development program for Canadian
universities.
This government has put in place a comprehensive job program
and it is paying off.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if there
is job creation in this country, that is news to the 1.5 million people
who are still unemployed, the same number as when the
government came to power.
The last Tory government and the present Liberal government
have left this country with a legacy of joblessness that has not been
paralleled since the Great Depression. Seventy-six months in a row
of unemployment over 9 per cent is a disgraceful record and the
minister should be ashamed.
The Liberals have broken their promise to create jobs. When will
the minister realize that high taxes are killing jobs in this country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is expected that when an hon. member rises in this House the
premise of their question will reflect the policies of their party.
The Reform Party seems to have forgotten this fundamental
piece of legislative responsibility. Therefore let me simply say that
since we have taken office, as the Prime Minister has said, there
have been over 790,000 jobs created in the private sector.
Is that enough jobs? Of course it is not. Are we worried about job
creation? Do we want to see more young Canadians go back to
work? Absolutely.
However, let us understand what the alternative was. In 1993 in
Penticton the leader of the Reform Party said that if they were
elected and their economic plan, their scorch and burn policies,
were put into effect, that at the end of three years there would be
fewer jobs in Canada than there were in 1993.
We are 800,000 jobs ahead of the Reform Party.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
The minister announced that $150 million would be provided
over a three year period to support provinces that will implement
new initiatives, such as home care and pharmacare programs. The
fact is that such initiatives have already been taken in Quebec.
(1450)
Is the minister going to do what he did with the GST and tell
Quebec that, since it has already implemented such reforms, it will
not get one penny? Is he going to do that again?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am surprised both at the tone and the substance of the hon.
member's question, asking the Government of Canada not to
provide moneys for citizens who reside in the province of Quebec
who would be interested in participating in a national home care
program or in a program for national pharmacare, thereby
extending medicare.
8312
I am rathersurprised that the hon. member would deny the
citizens of the province of Quebec those kinds of economic
opportunities.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think
the minister did not understand the question.
This is despicable. The minister is putting $300 million into
health, which does not even come under his jurisdiction, after
reducing by $2.3 billion, in the last two years, transfer payments to
the provinces for health.
How can the minister expect to be taken seriously by the public
when he is giving a measly $300 million with one hand, after
cutting billions with the other hand in the last three years?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member should know that the Minister of Finance, not in
this budget but in the last budget, provided to the provinces
something which they had been asking for for quite some time, the
stabilization of transfer payments.
The Minister of Finance clearly did that and for this fiscal year
we will be providing both cash and tax points totalling $26.9
billion.
The hon. member should remember that as a result of this
government's policies as they relate to interest rates they will save
the provinces $1.8 billion. Equally so, under the auspices of
equalization, the provinces will now receive $8.6 billion in this
fiscal year. That is a hell of a lot of money for the purposes of
health care and other social programs.
* * *
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
Reformers and others have been complaining that bilingual
labelling and packaging adds millions of dollars to the cost of
doing business in Canada. Could the minister tell the House the real
cost of doing business in the two official languages of this country
and the benefits to Canadians?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
study that was done by the commissioner indicated quite clearly
that the advantages are much larger than the cost. In fact, even the
enterprises themselves indicate that the cost is very small and is
well worth the advantages.
In his study on the costs of bilingual packaging and labelling to
small and medium size businesses, the Commissioner of Official
Languages found that the average cost of compliance with federal
laws and regulations is one-fifth of one cent per dollar of product
revenue.
So those who scream against it are completely unjustified. The
firms themselves find it is necessary because there are health,
safety and security advantages to it and because the cost, once
again, is one-fifth of one cent per dollar of revenue.
* * *
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, to use one of the finance minister's favourite phrases, let
me simply say that this is the Liberal record that he is so proud of:
1.5 million Canadians unemployed, one in four Canadians worried
about losing their jobs, $7 billion slashed from health care and
education, a $28 billion federal tax grab, and Canadians have
$3,000 less to spend in disposable income.
Why does the finance minister not come clean and admit that
Canadians today are far worse off than when the Liberals came to
power in 1993 because of their tax, tax, tax policies?
(1455 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
heaven forbid I should speak for the government. Simply let me
quote David Crane, one of the more astute commentators on the
political scene, referring to the budget. He said the budget can
almost be called an investment budget that focuses almost entirely
on people, making sure that children get early support to be good
learners when they start school; providing more money for parents
to raise healthy children; giving more deductions to post-secondary
students and boosting innovation in the universities and industry.
That is what a non-partisan and objective commentator has to
say about this budget.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that commentator has a Liberal membership. There is no
doubt about that.
The simple truth is, and the finance minister should know this,
taxes, payroll taxes, kill jobs in this country. Unemployment is at a
record level in this country and he has offered no tax relieve to take
care of that. Only last Friday he imposed yet another $10 billion tax
grab on hard working Canadians.
Will the minister explain for the benefit of Canadians how this
$10 billion CPP tax grab is going to help Canadians keep their jobs,
8313
help the 1.5 million Canadians who are out of work to get jobs?
Does he not know the simple truth by now that taxes kill jobs in this
country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Tim O'Neil, chief economist, the Bank of Montreal, is forecasting
well over 300,000 new jobs this year. Maureen Farrow from
Loewen, Ondaatje, McCutcheon Limited international investors
whom I talk to every day is looking at Canada as if it had sort of
risen from the ashes. It is fascinating because it is the deficit, the
debt and the current accounts, the contained inflation environment,
the overall competitiveness, the restructuring of the export centre.
We have gained enormous market shares across the board in export
markets, particularly in the Asian markets, including Japan.
The hon. member talks about people who have Liberal cards.
This from Deutsche Bank: ``The Canadian economy has enjoyed
massive monetary stimulus. We expect GDP growth to be more
than doubled to 4.1 per cent this year, more than 1 per cent in
excess of the United States, nearly two times greater than the
average of the G-7. The longer term prospects beyond 1997 are
favourable''.
Mr. Speaker, it is a tragedy that you are going to cut me off.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is to the Minister of Finance who, we will all remember, four years
ago stood in his place and said that jobs were a priority when 1.5
million Canadians were out of work. This afternoon 1.5 million
Canadians are still out of work; youth employment is at 70 per
cent; bankruptcies are at an historic high; 1.5 million children live
in poverty because their parents live in poverty. I could go on.
Would the Minister of Finance admit that this budget gives no
hope to those who are unemployed or underemployed and that the
only jobs he is creating are con jobs and snow jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member, who sat in this House with a lot of us under the
previous government, knows full well the economic situation in
Canada when we took office in 1993. There was no hope. Taxes
were going up. Interest rates were going up. Job creation was
virtually a thing of the past.
I know he will understand, being a fair person, that looking at
Canada today the fact is not only have we created over 700,000
jobs, not only are we being touted as doing better than any other
OECD country, but our interest rates are down, our companies are
exporting, consumer confidence is up. The foundation is there.
Now, are we satisfied? Absolutely not. Is there pain and
suffering out there? Yes, there is. I know the hon. member, unlike
those around him, understands and shares that feeling, as do we.
We are going to continue to work on this because government is
about people. It is about providing them with the sustenance they
require and we will continue to do as we have done.
(1500)
[Translation]
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, we are honoured today to
welcome a group of eminent Canadians to this House. Their
achievements have earned them a place in the Canadian Medical
Hall of Fame.
[English]
These individuals have made outstanding contributions to
medical science. Excellence in advanced research and scientific
discovery have earned them a place in the Canadian Medical Hall
of Fame located in London, Ontario. Their achievements are a
source of pride for all of us.
I will ask them to stand as I call their names and I would ask you
to withhold your applause until I have introduced all of them: Dr.
Henry Barnett of London, Dr. Harold Copp of Vancouver, Dr.
Herbert Jasper of Montreal and Dr. Robert Salter of Toronto.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I invite you to join me in Room 216 after question
period. I would like you to meet these distinguished Canadians at a
small reception. If you have time you are cordially invited.
* * *
The Speaker: I have notice of a point of order from the member
for York South-Weston.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order with respect to the practice of budget
secrecy. The delivery of yesterday's budget represents a marked
departure from the practice that has been followed in the House for
many years, certainly since I was elected to Parliament.
Many of the provisions in the budget were announced by the
government in advance of the minister's speech yesterday.
Moreover, it has been the practice over the years that the budget
documents themselves not be released until the minister rises to his
feet in the House.
Yesterday the budget documents were available approximately
15 minutes before the minister rose to his feet. People had the
opportunity to obtain the documents and to release them.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you review this matter because it is an
important principle. The reason we have budget secrecy is to
ensure that no individual or groups of individuals are able to profit
from advance information they might obtain concerning an
upcoming budget.
8314
In the past, finance ministers have been forced to resign where
a budget leak has occurred because of the sanctity of the principle.
I submit also it impinges on the privileges of members of the
House when information is released prematurely. The reason why
the budget was released at 4.30 p.m. yesterday is because the stock
markets had closed.
(1505)
Mr. Speaker, I would like you to review this matter. I would also
like you to review the whole concept of the budget lock-up. I and a
number of other people found it disconcerting that the media were
reporting what was in the budget before the Minister of Finance
had finished reading his speech.
Surely the lock-up should be extended until after the Minister of
Finance has completed his speech to the House so that all
Canadians have equal opportunity concerning the release of the
information. It is patently unfair to the minister and to the House
that the media should be reporting the contents of the budget before
he is finished his speech.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to what my hon. colleague suggests is a
question of privilege. It would be my submission to you, Mr.
Speaker, that it is not a question of privilege.
It is no secret that the government, since coming to office, has
attempted to demystify budget making. Out of respect for the
traditions of budget making, it is important to remember that we
campaigned based on the fact that we felt this was important to
Canadians and to all members of the House. The Standing
Committee on Finance has travelled the country and continues to
travel the country on prebudget consultations.
The principle behind budget secrecy is to ensure that no
individual profits from information gained before the budget is
read. I submit there has been no opportunity for private gain. In
fact, to specifically deal with my hon. colleague's second point, the
documents to which he alludes were on the desks of members of
Parliament. No member of the public had those documents.
Since the Minister of Finance is coming into the House of
Commons to speak to members of Parliament, I submit that it
would be impossible for there to have been a breach of security, a
release or disclosure of pertinent information, as my hon. colleague
has suggested.
The stock markets were closed at the time of the deposit of these
materials. There was no opportunity for any member of the public
to take any advantage. As members, we are honourable members.
The materials were placed quite properly on our desks as the
Minister of Finance was about to speak.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have
listened to the arguments put forward by the member for York
South-Weston and from the government side. I think that the
arguments put forward by the government side were very weak. I
am more inclined to listen to the first speech.
I have one point I would like to make. The government member
said the stock markets were closed. That is a typical centrist
Canadian attitude. The stock market in Alberta was wide open at
the time the minister stood up. The stock market in British
Columbia was wide open at the time the minister stood up.
(1510 )
It is time these people started to recognize that Canada does not
end at the lakes. There are millions of people on the prairies and in
B.C. who deserve the same courtesy and attention as the rest of
Canada.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is
just one small point I would draw to your attention. I think you
would find that the members of Parliament who were in the lock-up
that was allowed by the Department of Finance were not allowed
out of the lock-up until the minister stood up.
In the converse, the members of Parliament who were not in the
lock-up, who are all honourable people and I am sure all had
honourable intentions, nonetheless had the details of the budget
prior to the time the minister stood up. I cannot imagine that
anyone would have abused that privilege but it is possible that
telephone calls could have been made from the lobby.
If members of Parliament are in the lock-up and are not
permitted out, there has to be a good reason for it. Why then were
the members of Parliament in the House given copies of the budget
prior to the minister standing up?
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the first point I would make is that
this is certainly not a matter of privilege.
The second point is that I would not question the behaviour of
any member of the House. I recall being in the Chamber just before
the minister rose to speak. All members on all sides of the House
were receiving documents as the minister arrived. Some were
flipping through those documents. All members of the House were
treated alike. The documents were here within the safety and
security, if you will, of this Chamber with no prospect whatsoever
of any kind of opportunity for anyone to profit from it.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the fact is the budget documents
were available in the lobby. There were people in the lobby who are
not members of Parliament. I had two people with me who were not
8315
members of Parliament and who had the budget document15 minutes before the minister started speaking.
The Speaker: I want to inform myself about the precedents. I
understood this is being brought up as a point of order, not a point
of privilege. Is that correct? I address myself to the hon. member
for York South-Weston.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be more
appropriately phrased as a point of privilege than a point of order.
The Speaker: I will deal with everything that has been said in
the context of a point of privilege.
I want to inform myself about the precedents. I want to inform
myself about what went on yesterday. After I have informed
myself, I will get back to the House and I will share with you what
my findings are.
Mr. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Is this a different point of order?
Mr. Williams: On the same point, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: As far as this point is concerned, I feel that I have
heard enough. You are no doubt going to quote me something from
the rules that we work by. I will familiarize myself with all of the
rules that are involved.
_____________________________________________
8315
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (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 15 petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour
to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian
delegation to the fifth annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific
Parliamentary Forum which was held in Vancouver, British
Columbia from January 7 to January 10 of this year.
(1515 )
The meeting was hosted by the Parliament of Canada and I can
proudly report that it was highly successful and productive.
Parliamentarians from 21 Asia-Pacific nations met to discuss
important regional and global issues. Twenty-one separate
resolutions were adopted dealing with such matters as terrorism,
drug trafficking, land mines and the environment. The Canadian
delegation was most instrumental in proposing and having adopted
important resolutions on education and literacy, on human rights,
including the exploitation of children and women.
In conclusion, I want to draw the House's attention to the fact
that the right hon. Prime Minister addressed the delegates at the
opening plenary session. He spoke of the importance of the APPF
and how parliamentarians are an essential part of the decision
making process and should play an active role in international
relations.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table the 56th report of the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs, which lists the members and the
associate members of the Standing Committee on Industry.
With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in this
report later this day.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-372, an act to amend the Criminal
Code (protection of child before birth).
He said: Mr. Speaker, our nation today has an epidemic of
children who are born with fetal alcohol syndrome which is the
result of the mother consuming substances that are deliberately and
permanently injurious to the fetus.
In response to that I am introducing a controversial private
member's bill. It would enable the courts to impose on the mother
who is knowingly consuming substances injurious to the growth of
the fetus. The courts would be able to have the individual confined
to a hospital or another suitable facility where her access to
injurious substances could be controlled for as long as the court
deemed fit. This would ensure the protection of fetuses for nobody
is speaking for their protection today.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
8316
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with
the leave of the House I move that the 56th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the
House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present a petition from a group of people on Montreal's
south shore asking the government not to increase the federal
excise tax on gasoline.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I also have a
second petition. This one too is from a group of people on
Montreal's south shore asking Parliament to exert pressure on the
federal government so that it will work with provincial
governments in order to improve the national highway system.
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition signed by Calgarians as well as people who live just
outside of Calgary. They are opposed to the early release of sex
offenders and pedophiles. They state that sexual abuse of our
children or anyone in society is intolerable. They are concerned
about making our streets safer for our children. The petitioners
therefore pray that Parliament enact legislation to establish a
pedophile registry.
(1520)
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a number of petitions today. This petition with 320
signatures asks Parliament to zero rate books, magazines and
newspapers under the GST.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition with 350 signatures on it that asks
Parliament to legislate the prohibition in Canada of the use,
production, stockpiling, sale, trade and transfer of all
anti-personnel land mines and to work toward an international
convention banning those activities.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions in which the petitioners call upon
Parliament to urge the federal government to join with the
provincial governments to upgrade the national highway system in
1997.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have another petition where the petitioners request that
Parliament not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline in the
budget.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have another petition where the petitioners ask
Parliament to take steps in keeping BGH out of Canada and to
legislate a moratorium or stoppage on the use and sale of BGH until
the year 2000, and to examine the outstanding health and economic
questions through an independent and transparent review body.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this petition calls upon Parliament to conduct a full
inquiry into the relationship between lending institutions and the
judiciary, and to enact legislation restricting the appointment of
judges with ties to credit granting institutions.
The Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, there is an unstated rule of
three to a customer. Perhaps the hon. member would not mind
doing it next time.
Mr. Janko PeriG (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have quite
a few petitions here but I will table only a few today. Pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I have the privilege to present to the House
petitions from my riding of Cambridge.
The concerned citizens pray that the Government of Canada act
immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending
the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born
human beings to unborn human beings.
Mr. Janko PeriG (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the next 370
petitioners have signed a petition praying and requesting the
government to ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal
Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced and that
Parliament make no change in the law which would sanction or
allow the aiding of a suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Janko PeriG (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as well I
would like to table petitions signed by citizens of Cambridge.
8317
These citizens wish to draw to the attention of the House that
38 per cent of the national highway system is substandard. Our
NAFTA partners are currently upgrading their national highway
systems. Investment in Canada's national highway system would
create jobs, spur economic growth, contribute to national unity and
save lives.
For these reasons, the petitioners pray and request that the
Parliament of Canada join with provincial governments to make
the upgrading of our national highway system a priority.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these
petitioners are asking the federal Parliament not to increase the
federal excise tax on gasoline in the budget.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. One of
them is from citizens of Canada from Quebec to British Columbia.
The petitioners pray that the Prime Minister and the Parliament
of Canada declare and confirm immediately that Canada is
indivisible, that the boundaries of Canada, the provinces and
territories and territorial waters may be modified only by a free
vote of all Canadian citizens as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms or through the amending formula as
stipulated in the Canadian Constitution.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second petition is regarding federal excise
tax on gasoline.
(1525 )
The petitioners request that Parliament not increase the federal
excise tax on gasoline and strongly consider reallocating its current
revenues to rehabilitate Canada's crumbling national highways.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by a number of
constituents from Capilano-Howe Sound.
The petitioners urge the federal government to join with
provincial governments to make possible the upgrading of the
national highway system.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to table
two petitions from constituents in Saskatchewan, including Mrs.
Wilma Ritz.
The petitioners request that Parliament realize that 38 per cent of
the national highway system is substandard. They call upon
Parliament to urge the federal government to join with provincial
governments to make national highway system upgrading possible.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to present two petitions which are
signed by 50 petitioners.
The petitioners note that approximately 52 per cent of the cost of
a litre of gasoline at the pumps is in the form of taxes. They ask that
the gasoline tax not be increased in the budget.
I am very happy to present these petitions to the House.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by quite a number of people primarily from the
Calgary area.
The petitioners believe that the application of the GST on
reading material is unfair and wrong. They call on the government
and Parliament to zero rate books. Specifically, they ask the Prime
Minister to carry out his party's repeated and unequivocal promise
to remove the federal sales tax from books, magazines and
newspapers.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to present three petitions today.
The first petition comes from Halifax, Nova Scotia. The
petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that our
police and firefighters place their lives at risk on a daily basis as
they serve the emergency needs of all Canadians. They also state
that in many cases the families of officers who are killed in the line
of duty are often left without insufficient financial means to meet
their obligations.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to
establish a public safety officers compensation fund to receive gifts
and bequests for the benefit of families of police officers and
firefighters killed in the line of duty.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition comes from my riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue
initiatives to assist families who choose to provide care in the home
for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
8318
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
final petition comes from Vancouver, B.C.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health
problems or impair one's ability and specifically that fetal alcohol
syndrome or other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent
preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed
to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a bill standing in my name under Private Members'
Business, Bill C-339, an act to permit descendants of United
Empire Loyalists who fled the land that later became the United
States of America, and I will not read the whole title but it is also
known as the Godfrey-Milliken bill, is awaiting second reading on
the Order Paper. It has not been drawn so it is not on the order of
precedence.
The bill is standing in my name and I am no longer eligible to
move bills in this House. Therefore, I am requesting that the bill be
transferred to the name of the hon. member for Saint John and that
it stand in her name for all purposes.
The Deputy Speaker: Do colleagues agree to the hon. member's
request?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
(1530)
[Translation]
The House resumed from February 18, 1997, consideration of
the motion that this House approve in general the budgetary policy
of the government.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to once again speak on behalf of my party
regarding the fourth budget tabled by the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday, immediately after the presentation of this election
minded and self-serving budget, I had an opportunity to give the
official opposition's initial reaction.
We took a more thorough look at the budget last night. As you
know, the official opposition works very hard. We are not lazy
people.
However, when we look-and this will be the first part of my
presentation-at the evolution of public finances over the last three
years, and when we look at the track record of the Minister of
Finance, we have no choice but to say that the minister is lazy.
Why?
I now get to the first part of the presentation. Some may look at
how public finances have evolved and think the Minister of
Finance is an extraordinary manager. However, we can say, based
on an assessment of his track record, that his reputation is
overrated. Why? Because if we consider budgetary revenues from
1993 until today and what federal spending has been since the
Liberals came to power, since the Minister of Finance has been the
head of the Department of Finance, we see that if the minister had
sat around twiddling his thumbs, the result would have been
exactly the same as far as reducing the deficit is concerned. We
could have put Youppi, the Expos' mascot, in his place, or Alcide,
the mascot of the Granby Zoo, as suggested by the hon. member for
Shefford, and the result would have been the same.
Why? Simply because the Minister of Finance was able to take
advantage of an extraordinary rate of economic growth, that
unfortunately is not reflected in job creation because of the
minister's inertia, but that increased the federal government's tax
revenues by $22 billion. Where did our wonderful manager of
public moneys, our national mascot get those $22 billion? Not just
anywhere. He got them from individual taxpayers, from middle
income people whom he continued to bleed dry, exactly like the
previous government, by maintaining high taxes, income tax and
even premiums, including those for the unemployment insurance
fund which generate a surplus of $5 billion annually. He generated
8319
$22 billion in new revenue. It is easy to reduce the deficit with this
kind of increase in tax revenue.
There is another very important item on the books of the
Minister of Finance. He never dwells on his past achievements. He
only talks about the present and the hoopla around his budget, but
we should look at what he did before: he cut government spending
by $14 billion. Where did he make those cuts? We should take
those $14 billion and find out exactly where he cut most vigorously
and effectively as a good public administrator.
Well, we see that more than 50 per cent, or to be more exact,52.1 per cent of those $14 billion in spending cuts over the past
three years, when we look at the revised figures the Minister of
Finance gave us yesterday, is the result of cuts made in transfers to
the provinces. It is easy to be in debt: if I have debts, I will let my
neighbour pay. Now that is good management. And that is what the
Minister of Finance did. Since he became head of the Department
of Finance, 52.1 per cent of the $14 billion that was cut was the
result of cuts in transfer payments to the provinces. Meanwhile, he
walks around saying: I am a good manager, but in Quebec, they are
not, they cut all over the place and they downsize.
Of course, our Minister of Finance is too lazy to do the job
himself and lets others do the work for him, while he goes around
with a big smile, making theatrical gestures and exuding charm, as
some people said, but he is the worst public administrator the
federal government has ever known, because he lets others do the
dirty work. Fifty-two per cent from downloading onto the
provinces. It is easy to be a good manager.
(1535)
The proportion of operating expenses in this $14 billion is 20 per
cent. Twenty per cent of $14 billion comes under his control as
manager and represents cuts in government operations. It is a small
amount compared to the 52 per cent he left up to the provincial
governments. And included in this figure is the despicable cut of
$4.5 billion in social programs and in transfers to the provinces to
cover post-secondary education, health and social welfare.
Actually, in the past three and a half years, the Minister of
Finance has managed to reduce government operating expenses by
only 6 per cent. I think people understand now that the reputation
of the Minister of Finance is overblown and that he sitting there
like an overpaid manager. He is sitting there watching events
saying: ``I am not going to do anything, because if I do, I might
make a mistake''. Every time the government rose to propose
things, it made mistakes too.
We need only think of the promises on the GST and the promises
of $720 million for the daycare system. We need only think of the
bad decisions made in the implementation of employment
insurance, which will, and I will come back to this, marginalize a
whole lot of workers, who will be so discouraged by the eligibility
criteria that they will simply withdraw from the labour market and
swell the ranks of welfare recipients and be in the pay of the
provinces.
From this alone, we can see that the government had only one
thing in mind: to keep the system, maintain the unwarranted
advantages of wealthy Canadian families-and we will have an
opportunity to return to this shortly when we talk about the revision
of the tax system-and continue to bleed middle income earners
and the unemployed, as it has done since the start of its mandate.
The Minister of Finance has wasted an excellent opportunity to
leave his true mark, not the false image of a good administrator
who has reduced the deficit, the only one in Canada's recent history
to have kept his promises. In the kind of economic situation that
this minister has enjoyed, Michael Wilson, Don Mazankowski and
John Crosbie could have done much better than he did.
He has lost an excellent opportunity. Why? Because he could
have taken advantage of the relatively good economic situation to
do the things we are entitled to expect from a true administrator of
public finances.
First of all, he could have brought in tax reform. Our tax system
has not been changed in 30 years. We have said this many times.
We even made it one of our campaign commitments, just as the
Liberals did. That is another red book promise that has not been
kept. They talked about making our tax system more efficient,
more in line with the reality of the 1990s and the next decade and
more fair and equitable for all taxpayers, but they have not done it.
In the three and a half years he has been at the helm of the
finance department, the Minister of Finance has lost an excellent
opportunity to reform our tax system.
Last year, we did the job our lazy minister should have done. We
formed a small task force. We sought advice from experts across
Quebec and across Canada; we even used the briefs that were
submitted at numerous meetings of the finance committee where
tax experts were invited to talk about corporate and personal taxes.
Last year, with our small team from the official opposition, and
with the full support of my colleagues, who were good enough to
make suggestions for the reform of corporate taxation, we tabled a
substantial, almost exhaustive analysis of all major tax
expenditures that applied to Canadian businesses.
For the benefit of taxpayers in Quebec and in Canada, tax
expenditures are all the exemptions, everything in tax legislation
that applies to corporations, as well as to individuals-in this case I
am talking about corporations-everything that lowers the taxes
paid by corporations.
8320
(1540)
We reviewed twenty or so of these tax expenditures and found
that things had changed in the last 30 years. Some small
improvements, some cosmetic changes, had been made but,
overall, things had been terribly neglected and a number of unfair
advantages to large corporations for which there was no longer any
justification had been left intact. And they continued on this
course. Three and a half years of the Liberals in power, three and a
half years of our super tough manager, our mascot, the Minister of
Finance, and not a line written about the reform of corporate
taxation.
The Bloc Quebecois' analysis showed how, through tightening
the rules and abolishing outmoded tax expenditures, $3 billion
could be saved, and we suggested to the Minister of Finance that he
take this $3 billion and plow it back into the corporate tax system in
order to support SMBs in their job creation efforts. People are
looking for jobs, and the Liberals are telling us that jobs are their
priority.
I recall that, when we tabled this report, the Minister of Finance
rose to his feet and congratulated the Bloc Quebecois. Even the
newspapers reported that the Minister of Finance had congratulated
us on corporate taxation. But that was as far as it went. He
congratulated us. We were very flattered, very pleased. My
colleagues and I in the Bloc Quebecois were very pleased to be
congratulated, but that was not why we did what we did. It was not
so he could take this report and shelve it, like other reports by royal
commissions of inquiry have been shelved by the federal
government over the last 25 years.
We offered him these detailed, documented, very simple but
highly logical suggestions so that he would do something, so that
he would stop sitting back and watching the world go by, so that he
would stop going with the flow and doing nothing to improve the
tax system.
He did nothing. That would have been easy. We made a very
simple suggestion in this report, which we repeated in our report on
personal income tax published more than two weeks ago: we asked
the minister to eliminate a tax provision that applies to
corporations and wealthy Canadian families, and consists in taxing
only75 per cent of capital gains. For instance, only 75 per cent of the
value of equity holdings owned by a corporation or an individual
would be taxable.
When a worker earns $300, the entire $300 is taxable, not just75 per cent. But the rich, wealthy Canadian families, the same ones
who take advantage of almost perpetual tax referrals connected
with family trusts and who transfer money abroad without paying
income tax, the very same people who go around with powerful
lobbyists, go to see the minister and say: ``You must not touch
that''. Once again, the lobby of wealthy Canadian families has
won.
I must say that when we look at the government team and the
Prime Minister's office as well, we can see that the lobby of
wealthy Canadian families is very close to the government. I think
that explains much of this government's inertia. They were elected
to preserve all these advantages, because the minute the
government does anything about these tax provisions and revises
the system as we suggested, to be fair to businesses that do pay
taxes, especially small businesses, these undue advantages that
accrue to the friends of the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Finance will disappear.
I get the impression that is largely why the Minister of Finance
has been so slow to act and did not write a single word about
corporate tax reform. For the past year, and actually I am proud of
this, the Minister of Finance has been waving three pages at us:
``Look, I have three pages of measures with which I eliminated tax
loopholes, three whole pages''.
A week and a half ago we wisely asked the Minister of Finance
to table the document he had been waving around for a whole year
in this House.
(1545)
We were right to do so, because it allowed us to analyze each of
the measures the Minister of Finance claimed eliminated tax
loopholes. He would rise and list them endlessly. Sometimes we
did not quite understand. From this document we can see why we
did not quite understand. Of all the measures listed on these three
pages, only one quarter actually serve to eliminate tax loopholes.
Three quarters of the measures he waved in our face every
question period each time we asked him about corporate and
individual tax loopholes are erroneous, do not make sense, were
never carried out, have nothing to do with loopholes or are
duplicates. The repetitions go on for three pages. As if we could not
figure out that they repeated the same measures two or three times
over the three pages so they would appear to look like more, rather
than the meagre showing they were compared to the 400 pages we
gave him on corporate and individual taxes.
Really, this takes the cake. This is not being a little partisan or
election oriented; this is electioneering in spades, despite an
important responsibility to Quebec and Canadian taxpayers.
Since he came to this House, the Minister of Finance has been
and is still hiding behind a smoke screen. He claimed he had done
great things to deal with tax loopholes, but judging by what he
presented, it does not seem to amount to much.
With regard to personal income tax, it would have been so easy
for the minister and his team-I suppose it must be impressive, at
least in terms of numbers and volume; I believe its total weight
8321
must be around several million pounds. There are many brainy
people at the finance department, they are all over the place, at the
revenue department as well, experts who advise the Minister of
Finance and who could have conducted in-depth analysis, far better
than what we presented, with regard to the reform of the personal
and corporate tax systems. Why was it not done? Why is it that in
the last budget, as in the previous three, there was no measure to
make personal taxes more equitable?
Another red book broken promise. In the red book, they talked
about tax fairness, tax equity. You can go and see for yourself. They
have been quoting it less often lately, perhaps because of the
election, they know we are going to annotate it and rub their noses
in it. Again, they said the tax system should be made fairer and
more equitable, one more empty promise. Nothing, a big zero, is
what they have done to change the personal income tax system.
Two weeks ago we presented a report suggesting a few possible
measures. We were not asking the finance minister to implement
them immediately in his budget. However, he could have
announced that he was contemplating a reform of personal income
tax for next year, or some mechanism to improve the equity and
justice of the system. But no, this would have been too much to
expect from the Minister of Fiance. He is used to sitting back and
letting things happen. So he did nothing in these areas.
For example, if he had wanted to reduce poverty for families,
and particularly single parent families with children, he could have
replaced the income tax deductions for child care expenses, as
provided in the Income Tax Act, with a refundable child tax credit,
just as we had suggested.
He could have implemented measures so that even the single
parent families without any taxable income on their return would
have benefited from the refundable part of the credit. We have
estimated that families, depending on their income and the number
of children, would have saved an additional $600 to $1,000. The
minister could have done that. But no, he did nothing of the sort.
In order to focus taxation on job creation, he could have adopted
our suggestion and implemented a job creating RRSP similar to the
home ownership RRSP. Like the people participating in the home
buyers' plan, people could have withdrawn $25,000 out of their
RRSP to start up a new business.
(1550)
Last year, more than 60 per cent of new jobs were self-created,
that is to say people created their own jobs. That is the way of the
future. People are being told over and over again that it is the way
of the future and that is the goal they should pursue. However, no
government is willing to give them a hand. Yet, this is a new reality
of the labour market that should be acknowledged, and the tax
system should be adjusted accordingly. But there is nothing in the
finance minister's budget in this regard.
We are not creating enough jobs and he is sorry for it. Here is an
official in charge of managing public finances, making sure that the
economy is sound and the labour market more productive, and he
apologizes, like the Prime Minister. No, the Prime Minister does
not apologize, because he never admitted that he can make
mistakes. The Minister of Finance apologizes by saying: ``We
could do better, but we did not''. Yes, he could have done better,
much better.
For example, he could have restored the $5,000 ceiling on
contributions to labour-sponsored investment funds, like the FTQ
and CSN funds in Quebec and others in the rest of Canada, as we
suggested. Last year, he reduced the ceiling to $3,500. He says that
he is working to create jobs, but he is cutting off funding for one of
the best job-creating vehicles in Quebec and Canada.
There again, they are short of ideas, they are short of means. I
have a feeling that they lost their drive. Instead, they would rather
wait until they have won another election to play dirty tricks once
again, as they have been doing for the last three and a half years,
and they will be at it again. This is the Liberal establishment: they
continue to maintain undue advantages for rich families and rich
corporations. This is the Liberal Party of Canada.
I would like to remind the House of one thing that became
obvious to me when the analysis of corporate taxation was done. It
is always under Liberal governments, the previous ones and this
one, that tax deferrals by big corporations have consistently
increased. Every time the Liberals have been in office, all of a
sudden, there has been an increase in the number of tax loopholes
and tax deferrals by big businesses, for a total of $36 billion until
now.
The finance minister also did not think that this issue should be
examined and that-for big corporations that will never pay a
penny in taxes, because for them it is not a deferred tax but a
scrapped tax-a mechanism should be put in place to get, like in
the United States, at least a small minimum, minimorum as we say
in Latin, the smallest minimum in taxes.
Once again, the finance minister has nothing to his credit. I find
this is quite a bad way of completing a first mandate as finance
minister. I think Canadians are starting to understand the game
played by the finance minister and are starting-and we will see
thisduring the election campaign-to question the ability and
honesty of some of the people on the government side.
The finance minister, if he had been hard working, if he had been
the kind of beaver that he says he represents, because it is Canada's
emblem, could have taken advantage of exceptional circumstances
8322
in terms of tax revenues, as I was mentioning earlier, and in terms
of people's expectations.
Yesterday, the finance minister in his budget speech painted
quite a picture when he talked about deficit forecasts for this year
and next year. Our initial analysis of his statements is as follows: in
the past-since the past is the key to the future-the finance
minister has always somewhat underestimated his performance, so
that six months later, the first actual figures are spectacular,
exceeding forecasts by 30 per cent, and have a major political
impact. This is all he thinks about. He gets up in the morning and
only thinks about the way of looking like the best manager of the
government. In fact, the finance minister is a comedian, a real
comedian.
(1555)
He tells us: ``I must be careful. I cannot put in too much. I can
allocate no more than so many millions-a pittance, crumbs here
and there-to the fight against poverty''. The fact of the matter is
that the Minister of Finance is hiding the truth from the public. The
fiscal flexibility he will benefit from, not because of his managerial
skills-as I said earlier, Youppi and Alcide would have done
better-but simply because of the economic situation, could total
between $8 billion and $10 billion this year and the next.
What is this flexibility? It is the difference between last year's
deficit forecasts for this year and next year and the actual results
achieved because of the economic circumstances.
Even if he took $8 billion from his deficit reduction target,
thanks to the economic situation, he could still achieve a zero
deficit by the year 2000-achieving a zero deficit by the year 2000
is no small feat; the financial marketplace would be delighted to
hear that-but he is not yet committed to a zero deficit by the year
2000. The Government of Quebec, on the other hand, made that
commitment long before he did. Achieving a zero deficit by the
year 2000 would be possible if he took the $8 billion or more at his
disposal, and applied it to something else than deficit reduction.
The federal deficit could be eliminated by the year 2000 by
allocating $8 billion to various other things, to alleviate the job
crisis, to fight growing poverty, and so on. The Minister of Finance
did not tell us that yesterday; he was silent on this issue. Do you
know why? It will be very simple for him. Let me predict what will
happen during the election campaign. Let me pretend I am Bernard
Derome. I would say: At 3.55 p.m. this afternoon, I predict that,
when the election campaign is in full swing, the Minister of
Finance will release revised figures on deficit reduction. He will
say: ``This is wonderful. The Liberal Party of Canada and the
Minister of Finance-because he really likes to be a
star-managed to achieve results that greatly exceed all
expectations, including the minister's own, when he tabled the
budget''.
We know that. One only has to make a simple calculation to see
where the deficit reduction curve should be in the year 2000, based
on the budget forecasts made last year by the minister, and to see
that there is a margin of $8 billion to $10 billion for this year and
next year.
So, there is some leeway with this $8 billion margin. This is a
great opportunity for a government interested in doing something
about job creation, about poverty. But the government is passing up
the opportunity. The government could have added an extra $2.5
billion to this $8 billion, by committing to reform the personal tax
system this year. It would have had that extra $2.5 billion by
eliminating undue benefits for those who earn $150,000 or more,
while giving back some of the money to low income earners, who
have been bled dry with a tax burden of $22 billion over the last
three and a half years. So, this additional $2.5 billion could have
been added to the $8 billion margin, that is the money available to
the minister to take some action.
To this amount, the minister could have added another $500
million, and we were hoping to see this in the budget, as stated in
the document that we tabled last week, by saying yesterday that,
being the good manager that he claims to be, he was going to fight
the underground economy. Had he done so, he could have got
another $500 million.
In 1994, Statistics Canada estimated the underground economy
at $6 billion, so $500 million out of a total of $6 billion is not all
that much. By trying a little bit harder, the minister could have
generated those revenues. All things considered, in the first budget
he tabled in the province of Quebec, Mr. Campeau was able to
generate a lot of money by using the necessary resources. This
additional $500 million would have given the minister more
leeway.
In his last report, in the previous one and in the one before that,
the auditor general kept pointing to $2 billion to $3 billion in
inefficiencies and waste. Last time, besides that $3 billion, he
indicated that the federal government is spending $1.2 billion more
than needed to manage its inventory. That is $1.2 billion too much.
As a good manager of our public finances, the minister could have
promised, each and every year, to fight all that waste and try to give
himself more leeway.
(1600)
All in all, this year, if he had been willing to, he could have given
himself a lot more leeway, in fact between $8 billion and $14
billion more-that is a lot of money-and still maintain his
objective of eliminating the deficit by the year 2000. It is very sad
indeed. He could have told us: ``Look, I can do these two things at
the same time.'' Instead, he stuck to his fight against the deficit, the
only thing that matters to him, his only real achievement. He wants
to show the people that he can not only reach his goal and
completely eliminate the deficit by the year 2000, but that he can
8323
also generate surpluses immediately and go for a third election
campaign and maybe also run for the leadership of the Liberal
Party of Canada, something he seems to be interested in.
He had a margin of $8 billion to $14 billion. What could he have
done with that? He could have distributed it to his wealthy buddies.
That would have been his natural reaction. He could have done
things for all taxpayers in Quebec and Canada. He could have
helped the real people, the people he claims to serve, the people the
Bloc Quebecois actually does serve.
He could have said: ``I will forget about the $4.5 billion cut in
the Canada social transfer, the transfer payments to the provinces
for welfare, post-secondary education and health care. I will give
back to the provinces the $4.5 billion I took from them in my last
budget''.
Thus, with the established programs and resources in the
provinces, especially in Quebec, we could have really fought
poverty. Instead, the minister announced a program that was all
show and only designed to get votes.
Thanks to the leeway he had, he could also have afforded to stop
doing what he has been doing for the last two years, that is, using at
least $5 billion of the unemployment insurance fund a year to
reduce his deficit.
I want to digress about the first measure, which is to put $4.5
billion back into the Canada social transfer to the provinces.
Yesterday, the minister announced that he would fight child
poverty with determination. Over the past few months, he has made
a show of being compassionate toward poor children. He wants us
to forget that his $4.5 billion cut in social programs is the very
thing that increased poverty for families, for the parents of poor
children.
He indicates today that there will be a supplementary child
benefit of $600 million. When you consider only that, it is fine. But
do not forget that the cuts amounted to $4.5 billion and that the
$600 million will only be implemented next year, after an election.
We must not forget the promises made during the 1993 election
campaign. Everybody remembers the promises made by the Prime
Minister and his ministers who were only candidates then: ``We
will create hundreds of thousands of jobs''. Where are those jobs?
``We will abolish GST''. What happened to the GST? ``We will
invest $720 million in the day care program''. Where is the $720
million?
And now they announce a new $600 million child benefit for
1998. We do not believe them. They are not believable. Nobody
believes them. We have our doubts about what will happen after the
election. It seems that they suddenly forget their promises once
they have been elected. They ignore them. They dismiss them and
act as if they had never existed.
There is a real national emergency in terms of child poverty. The
Minister of Finance said it was. According to our analysis, it is
more than an emergency. In fact, we should have done something
in the past three years. We should not have cut $4.5 billion in social
programs. On the contrary, we should have increased funding to
help families, the most disadvantaged families, the parents of these
children living in poverty.
(1605)
Instead, this year, we will spend only $50 million to fight child
poverty. Have you thought about what $50 million means? They
cut $4.5 billion from social programs, which will worsen the
problem of poverty. They will spend $600 million, but only next
year, because this problem is not enough of an emergency for the
government. They will spend $50 million this year to fight child
poverty. This amount shows how compassionate the Minister of
Finance is. We do not believe him either. He is not believable when
he says that he is greatly concerned about child poverty.
When he places his hand on his heart, I think what he really has
in mind is his wallet. Child poverty is the least of his concerns
because, once again, if he did not have his mind set on merely
partisan or crass electoral things, he would have put the money
where it is needed, and at the levels that his margin of $8 to $14
billion a year allows. He would have put $4.5 billion in social
programs instead of literally robbing the provinces of that amount.
That is where he should have put the money.
Concerning the unemployment insurance fund, once again, the
Minister of Finance could have been more shrewd, more hard
working, less lazy. He could have said: ``I will use part of the $5
billion surplus in the unemployment insurance fund to substantially
reduce unemployment insurance, now called employment
insurance, premiums''. Not a reduction of a nickel or a dime, which
is what he has accustomed us to. As a matter of fact, every analyst
is saying today that, in this regard, the minister's budget is
worthless, that it will not have any impact on corporate
competitiveness and job creation.
He could have done three or four times better. And with the rest
of the surplus, he could have given back the protection he took
away from the unemployed with the introduction of the
employment insurance program last January. He could have done
that, but not this finance minister. We know him and we know how
he is putting his fiscal house in order on the back of others, so we
could not expect him to use this cushion that he is hiding from us to
stimulate employment by reducing unemployment insurance
premium rates, and especially by helping small and medium size
businesses create jobs and by improving the situation of those who
fall victim to unemployment. He has not done that. Absolutely not.
I remind the House also that he has not followed our suggestions
on corporate income tax reform, which would have freed up $3
billion that could have been used to support employment in the
small and medium size business sector. He applauded these
8324
suggestions but he did not act on them. He applauded them just for
show, for his image. Image is very important to our finance
minister. He is paving the way to becoming the leader of the
Liberal Party of Canada some day. He came to thank us. He was
even quoted by a newspaper as congratulating the Bloc Quebecois,
but he did not do anything in the area of employment. The same
goes for our proposed employment RRSP. He applauded that
suggestion but did not act on it.
Speaking about employment, do you know what new measures
are contained in this budget to create jobs? I remind you that we are
experiencing a shortage of jobs. There are 1.5 million people
officially unemployed; there are another 1.5 million unofficially
unemployed, people who are discouraged, marginalized, driven to
welfare, who no longer show up as actively seeking work. This
adds up to 3 million underemployed people in Canada. He has set
aside $25 million in new money for job creation. This represents 90
cents for each Canadian. Direct assistance during the Great
Depression was more generous. It is terrible, 90 cents.
It is cynical, laughable, but sad at the same time, because 3
million people are waiting for help, while with great fanfare the
Minister of Finance is presenting his empty, ridiculous measures. It
is unacceptable.
The only new measures in the budget are measures that will lead
to confusion.
(1610)
In addition to being partisan and despicably election oriented,
these measures, when presented by the Minister of Finance,
suggest that the public will swallow anything. Apart from that,
there is the confusion that will result. The Minister of Finance is
proposing, and for three and a half years that is all his government
has been proposing when there is any reform, a wholesale invasion
of provincial jurisdiction. This is all this budget is.
It talks about health programs. Under the 1867 and the 1982
Constitutions it is clear that health comes under provincial
jurisdiction. The same clearly goes for education. Income security
and social assistance are areas of provincial jurisdiction.
The government tells us it has no more money for social
programs. It is cutting $4.5 billion, and all of a sudden we are
seeing little programs with ``Government of Canada'' at the bottom
and the Canadian flag at the top. It does not get much more
partisan.
There is no longer any money for social programs provided
jointly with the provinces. In particular, the government is cutting
$1.3 billion from the Government of Quebec's social programs.
And with a fraction of the amount it has stolen, it is setting up a
child benefit program to fight poverty. If that is not confusing and
inflammatory, I do not know what is. The Minister of Finance is
playing with fire.
The same goes for the Foundation for Innovation. The purpose of
the Foundation for Innovation, an $800 million dollar undertaking,
is to fund research and infrastructure in the areas of biomedical
research, post-graduate research and so on. Once again, this is an
intrusion into health and education.
What the Minister of Finance does not tell us is that his fund is
just a band-aid solution for a huge gaping wound, one he himself
has caused with the various measures he has put in place in the past
three years. When he cut $4.5 billion from social programs and
health, part of that was going to biomedical infrastructure and
research.
Moreover, people far smarter than those across the way came
before us in the finance committee to say that the cuts imposed by
Minister Martin in his first three budgets might compromise all
biomedical research. We are talking about major cuts here. They
slashed research budgets by 30 per cent, with the full knowledge
that we are already trailing behind all other industrialized
countries. A 30 per cent reduction is tantamount to a death sentence
for biomedical research.
The Minister of Finance announces to us, with great fanfare:
``are going to create an $800 million foundation to fund research''.
This budget is a total joke, a kind of vaudeville act. It is sad to see a
minister of finance behaving in this way, when there are crying
needs in the areas of poverty and job creation. He leaves the
provinces scrambling to keep their heads above water. He cleans up
his government's finances at their expense, and goes about patting
himself on the back for being a good manager.
We need to know where the Minister of Finance is getting his
$800 million to start up the Foundation for Innovation. It might
have been expected that he would get it from the $8 billion
available, plus all the items I have referred to, which could yield
between $8 billion to $14 billion to work with. If he had been a
good manager, if he had not had an exaggerated obsession with
waging war on the deficit, with immediate, spectacular results, in
order to bolster his image, to make him look like a Canadian leader
in training for a leadership fight, one might well think that he
would have taken the money from there. But no.
When we look at last year's budget, the 1996 budget-which I
am not allowed to use as a prop, but I do have in my hand-when
we look at his forecasts for overall transfers to the provinces,
including the equalization payments, the Canada social transfer and
so on, and when we compare them with the forecasts in yesterday's
budget, we see that last year he projected $800 million more in
transfers to the provinces than in this year's budget. Fascinating
coincidence.
8325
(1615)
There is new spending totalling $800 million for the Canada
Foundation for Innovation, and there is $800 million less available
for transfers to provinces. What a coincidence: exactly $800
million. So this is a big coincidence, but it is rather odd, because
we do not know why the minister deliberately decided to take away
another $800 million from the provinces or it may be the economy
or a combination of the two, but in any case, there is no new money
here.
He did not take advantage of the flexibility he has to establish
this kind of foundation. As I said before, this is just a band-aid on a
gaping wound he opened in the course of the last three budgets by
attacking provincial budgets for health care and education.
I would like to touch on one last point in this budget. I think this
is a very important issue on which there is practically a consensus
in Canada. I am referring to the harmonization of the GST with the
Quebec sales tax.
As you know, in 1991, the Quebec government offered to
harmonize its sales tax with the federal GST. It did so because it
felt that with a harmonized system, the sales tax would be easier to
manage by business and its administration would also be easier,
since the Government of Quebec would administer both taxes on
behalf of the federal government. It also wanted to improve
Quebec's competitive position and trade balance. In fact, Quebec
Finance Minister Bernard Landry made this clear when he started
to demand compensation last April. He made it clear why the
Government of Quebec decided to harmonize its sales tax with the
GST.
We did so in good faith, and we did so with a view to improving
the situation in 1991. What do we see six years later? That the
federal government thought it was a such good idea that it
suggested the same to the maritimes. However, to persuade the
maritimes to go along with it, it offered them about $1 billion. That
is $1 billion over the next three years to harmonize the sales taxes
of the three small maritime provinces with the federal tax, the GST.
One billion.
And now, the Minister of Finance says: ``It is not the same thing,
the harmonization is not being done the same way''. Is that right?
We harmonized in 1991, and they harmonized in 1997. They are
entitled to $1 billion and we do not get a red cent.
The Minister of Finance in rejecting the demand of minister
Landry for some $2 billion in compensation pushed arrogance to
the point of saying: ``We based our calculations on the formula we
used in the maritimes. Unfortunately under the terms and the
subtleties of the formula, you are not entitled to it''. Oh, come on.
According to this logic, the government can exclude whomever
it wants whenever it wants. This is exactly what the government
wanted to do. In setting up the formula, it justified paying out $1
billion in the maritimes and denying Quebec any compensation.
I heard the minister say in question period: ``We did the
calculations. The Government of Quebec made money with
harmonization''. My eye. In terms of tobacco and gasoline alone,
we lost something like $600 million in tax revenues, because we
wanted to harmonize with the federal government and make things
easier in terms of taxes on consumer goods. For these two items
alone, $600 million.
The claim for $2 billion is justified. It is justified to such an
extent that the government of Mike Harris, the Government of
Ontario, I am pleased to say, as it does not happen often, is
supporting Quebec's demand for $2 billion.
(1620)
Even the Government of Alberta is supporting Quebec's
demand. The Government of Manitoba is supporting Quebec's
demand. British Columbia is supporting the Quebec government's
demand for $2 billion. This is unheard of. The finance minister told
us he owed us nothing. He gave $1 billion of our own tax dollars to
the maritimes and told Quebec: ``No, you are entitled to nothing.
You went ahead, you did it all on your own, you spend money for
the others, but you are not entitled to anything, only the maritimes
are.''
We would have expected to see in this budget an indication of a
possible first payment, a first instalment to pay off the $2 billion
debt the federal government owes the Government of Quebec, but
nothing. A big fat zero.
There are many other things I could speak up against in this
budget-my colleagues will have the opportunity to deal with
specific elements of the budget over the three days set aside for the
debate-but I would like to end on the following note. The finance
minister wasted three and a half years he could have used to
improve things. He could have used these three and a half years to
make the tax system fairer and more equitable for everyone.
He could have taken steps to reduce the outrageous benefits for
the richest Canadians, who are said to represent 2 or 3 per cent of
the total population; I am not saying they should be eliminated,
they could have been allowed to keep some of their benefits-one
way or another we do have to keep them here-but at least they
should have been reduced in scope and what is collected
redistributed among middle and low income earners, who have
borne the brunt of increased income tax and other tax hikes over the
last 15 years, and who have been the victims, over the past three
years, of a $22 billion tax grab.
8326
With the manoeuvring room he had, thanks to the economic
recovery, not thanks to him-because he, I have made up my mind
on this, he is not the best manager I know-he could really have
helped the poor and given back to the provinces the money he stole
from them in the last two budgets, $4.5 billion.
He also could have helped the unemployed. Hew could have
helped to create jobs. My overall assessment of this budget is that it
is good for the shredder, the waste basket. If it was meant to be a
pre-election budget, the Prime Minister should call an election
tomorrow morning with the budget as a platform. Let me tell you,
as the Prime Minister himself said, they will get clobbered.
We are ready for the election. We are ready to compare our
record to theirs, our reality to theirs. Our reality is more in line with
that of the grassroots, closer to what real people experience, more
attuned to the circumstances of the have-nots who were ignored by
this government over the last three and a half years.
I would like to move an amendment to the government's motion.
I move, seconded by my colleague, the member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies:
That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after the word ``That''
with the following:
``the budget statement by the Minister of Finance be rejected by the House of
Commons because it:
unilaterally maintains major reductions in transfer payments to the provinces in the
fields of postsecondary education, health, and social assistance, while intruding in
areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, particularly by creating the Canada
Foundation for Innovation from money earmarked for the provinces, introducing a
national child tax benefit system, and setting up pilot projects filled with national
unity propaganda in the field of health and social programs;
proposes no tangible job creation measures, does not substantially reduce
Unemployment Insurance contribution rates, or improve protection for
unemployed persons, which has been greatly reduced by Employment Insurance;
conceals its lack of action in creating jobs and fighting poverty, knowingly reducing
effectiveness in these areas and distributing electoral gifts around Canada and
Quebec;
does not include an in-depth reform of the tax treatment of businesses or individuals,
for example, by maintaining benefits for large corporations and rich Canadians; and
introduces no measures to compensate the Quebec government for the 1991
harmonization of its sales tax with the federal GST, although Quebec would be
eligible for this compensation in light of the $1 billion being paid to the maritime
provinces.''
(1625)
The Deputy Speaker: I must tell the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot that I can see nothing wrong with this
amendment, but we will need some time to determine whether it is
in order. We will let you know as soon as possible.
8326
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[
English]
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House
Ottawa
February 19, 1997
Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will
proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 19th day of February, 1997 at 5.00 p.m.,
for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Secretary to the Governor General
Judith LaRocque
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the
time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Waterloo-Canadian Securities Commission; the hon. member for
Rosedale-Exports.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House
approves in general the budgetary policy of the government; and of
the amendment.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are here to discuss the federal budget. The Liberals say
it is a good budget. What is more important is what Canadians are
saying about it. In our view Canadians will say: If this is such a
good budget, why don't I see the benefits. Where are the jobs?
Where are the health care and pensions that I can count on? Where
is the tax relief? Why is it that federal government revenues go up
by 20 per cent and family incomes go down by 10 per cent?
The good news is that the majority of the provinces have already
balanced their budgets and the benefits are starting to flow. It is
Ottawa and the federal Liberals that are furthest behind and most
off track. The big task facing Canadians in 1997, in a federal
election year, is to get the federal government on track with respect
to job creation and tax relief.
There are two options before Canadians. Reform offers its fresh
start platform designed to balance the federal budget now, and then
leave more dollars in the pockets of Canadians through broad based
tax relief. Notice the order: balance first, tax relief second. The
Liberals offer this tax and spend budget designed to get more tax
dollars into the hands of the federal government and then further
spending.
8327
The options are Reform's fresh start tax relief versus the Liberal
tax and spend budget. These are the principal fiscal options facing
Canadians in an election year at the federal level and should be
the focus of both public debate and this budget debate.
If we are going to have any kind of debate, one of the
prerequisites is to establish the facts and to separate myth from
reality. I would like to spend a little time on that because the budget
is loaded with myths. Budget myth number one is that federal
finances are finally under control. What is the reality? The federal
deficit is still at $19 billion. The debt will pass the $600 billion
mark this spring. The federal government will spend $46 billion
per year on debt service, more by far than it spends on social
programs. This is represented as prudent fiscal management. Only
in Ottawa would that be believed.
Budget myth number two is that the federal government has
reduced the deficit by controlling its spending. What is the reality?
Almost the opposite. Eighty-four per cent of deficit reduction has
been achieved by increasing tax revenues. Two-thirds of the
remainder of deficit reduction has been accomplished by
offloading on the provinces and through defence cuts. Only 6 per
cent has been achieved by reducing the federal government's direct
spending on other programs.
I noticed that at the beginning of the minister's budget speech, he
thanked everyone and his dog for contributing to this speech. The
people he did not thank were the Canadian taxpayers who are
responsible for 84 per cent of the reduction of the deficit.
(1630 )
Budget myth number three, Liberals are the great defenders of
medicare. The reality is that they have cut medicare by 40 per cent,
closing hospitals across the country and increasing waiting lines in
every province, but leaving others in local and provincial
governments to take the blame. This pretence of defending
medicare while gutting it is the ultimate hypocrisy.
Budget myth number four, Liberals are attacking child poverty.
The reality is that their new $600 million child benefit is
completely negated by the $7 billion federal cut in health,
education and social spending since 1993.
If one thinks about it, Canadians are a kind, caring and
compassionate people. If the average Canadian were willing to
spend $1,000 on helping a poor family or a poor child how would
they do it? They might make a direct contribution to that family or
that child, or they might make a contribution to a local agency or
church that was in the business of helping those people. They might
even be persuaded to pay $1,000 in taxes to their local government
or the provincial government which has services offered at the
community level.
However, I doubt if there is one Canadian in 1,000 who honestly
and sincerely wanted to help a poor family or a poor child who
would think that the best way to do it was to write a $1,000 cheque
to Revenue Canada because they know what would happen.
The $1,000 would go to the minister of revenue who would take
a bite out of it for administration and then pass it over to the
Treasury Board. The Treasury Board would take a bite out of it for
allocation and then pass it on to the human resources minister. The
human resources minister would take a bite out of it by having a
conference with all of his provincial colleagues and a bunch of
experts to decide what to do and then he would pass it on to his
provincial colleague who would take a further bite out of it and
then pass it on to some agency. Out of the $1,000 that went in at one
end of the pipe, we would be lucky if a loonie got out the other end.
Canadians know a better way. Canadians know that if Liberals
and Tories were so concerned about the poor and the children of the
poor then why are these people paying taxes in the first place? Why
is a single mother with one child making $2,000 a month paying
federal income taxes at all, let alone $1,300 a year? It is because
government after government made them pay taxes and offered no
tax relief.
Of course the greatest thing one can do for the working poor is to
get more jobs, which brings me to budget myth number five, jobs,
jobs, jobs. The reality is 1.5 million Canadians unemployed, 2
million to 3 million underemployed, 700,000 having two jobs to try
to make ends meet, 17 per cent unemployment among young
people, 1 out of 4 workers afraid of losing their jobs, and the worst
string of unemployment numbers since the depression, 76
consecutive months with unemployment rates over 9 per cent.
Some day the finance minister's picture will hang in the
hallowed halls of Parliament. At the rate he is going, I suspect they
will hang it next to the picture of the finance minister in R.B.
Bennett's government, the only other government that ran up
unemployment numbers like we are experiencing today.
The Liberal budget is accompanied by a booklet called the
government's job strategy, but it contains no reference to tax relief.
A job strategy without tax relief is like a beaver without teeth. It is
like a truck with no wheels. We can rev the engine, flick the lights
and honk the horn but it is not going anywhere, which is precisely
the Liberal record on jobs.
That brings me to the biggest myth of all. The finance minister
would have Canadians believe that he has not raised taxes. That is a
big whopper. The reality is that since the Liberals came to power in
1993, the GST revenues, the hated GST, are up by $2 billion,
corporate income taxes are up by $6.8 billion, personal income
taxes are up by $15 billion, and other taxes are up $500 million.
That is a $24 billion increase in tax revenues over what they were
on the day the Liberals took office.
8328
Just last week, in the biggest tax grab of them all, there was
a 70 per cent increase in Canada pension plan contributions. It is
the government's Achilles' heel, the tax grab that will be to the
Liberal's what the GST was to the Mulroney Conservatives. It is
the tax increase that brings to 36 the total number of tax increases
introduced by the Liberal government.
(1635)
Enough of these myths. Enough of the fudge-it budget. There has
to be a better way and there is a better way. It is described in the
platform which Reform has put forward under the heading of a
fresh start for Canada.
I suggest that the next election will be a contest between two
very different visions of the country, and the vision that captures
the hearts of Canadians will be the vision that shapes the Canada of
the 21st century.
One vision held by the government and by the Conservatives
before them revolves around big government and the high taxes
that go with it. It is based on the belief that the Canadian economy,
Canadian social services and Canadian unity all need aggressive
intervention and management by a big spending federal
government. It is the vision of Ottawa and the politicians who
control it as the centre of the universe.
This is a vision which has Canadians working more than half a
year just to pay taxes. It is a vision that promises job creation and
social justice and has delivered chronic unemployment and chronic
poverty. It is a vision which trivializes Canadians' sense of
themselves by implying that only through government programs,
government spending, government initiatives and government
propaganda can the country be held together.
The other vision, the one offered by Reform, is of a Canada
defined and built by its citizens rather than by the government. The
citizen, not the government, is at its centre. It is a vision in which
strong families and communities and local governments, not more
federal programs, are the principal pillars of social security. It is a
vision of a country where tax freedom day occurs in April instead
of in July. It is a vision of a country in which the unemployment
rate is 5 per cent or lower instead of 10 per cent, thanks to initiative
and entrepreneurship, innovation and hard work. It is a vision of a
smaller government and lower taxes. It is a vision based on the
proposition that a dollar left in the pocket of a consumer or a
taxpayer or a lender or an entrepreneur will create more jobs and
economic and social security than that dollar in the hands of a
federal bureaucrat or a politician.
We are talking about the budget, so I want to conclude with the
fiscal plan that makes that vision of a new and better Canada a
reality. Our fiscal plan calls for balancing the federal budget by
1998-99 at a level of expenditure lower than that proposed by the
finance minister, and then running surpluses thereafter.
Note that what we are proposing is balancing the budget first and
tax relief after. Many members opposite seem to think we are
trying to do the two things at once. We have made this abundantly
clear; balance first, tax relief after.
We then get to surpluses and these surpluses are the real light at
the end of the tunnel, the beginning of the hope for the future. We
propose to apply those surpluses as follows. A $5 billion down
payment on debt reduction by the year 2001, with a fixed
proportion of future surpluses being dedicated to debt reduction. In
other words, the federal debt would be set up like a mortgage and
the first payment made every month is a payment on the mortgage.
Second, $4 billion per year transfer for health and education
purposes to the provinces to repair the damage done by the
Minister of Finance.
Most important of all, broad based tax relief which follows, not
precedes, balancing the budget. Seven tax relief measures to
deliver $1 billion per year in tax relief to the people of Atlantic
Canada; $3.2 billion per year in tax relief to the long suffering
people of Quebec, the most highly taxed jurisdiction perhaps in
North America; $5.4 billion per year in tax relief to the people of
Ontario; $2.3 billion per year in tax relief to the people of the
prairies and $1.8 billion per year in tax relief to the people of
British Columbia.
Put another way, it is $2,000 in tax relief per average family by
the year 2000 or tax relief that lifts 1.2 million lower and middle
income Canadians off the federal tax rolls altogether.
(1640)
To put this into perspective, Reform proposes a trimmer, more
focused $94 billion a year federal government. We can get a lot of
government services for $94 billion. This compares with a bloated,
unfocused $109 billion a year federal government from the federal
Liberals and Tories. The difference between the two is about $15
billion per year. The number one question to be decided in the next
federal election is whether Canadians should allow that $15 billion
to be collected by the federal tax man and spent by Ottawa or
whether that $15 billion should be left in the hands of the Canadian
consumer and business community.
Reform believes that a fresh start for Canadians lies in the
direction of leaving that $15 billion in the hands of the people to
whom it belongs.
I therefore move:
That the amendment be amended by inserting after the words ``health and social
assistance'' the following words: ``a measure which is not the answer to stronger
sustainable social programs'';
8329
and by inserting after the words ``proposes no tangible job creation measures'' the
following words: ``such as lower taxes to create long term jobs'';
and by inserting after the words ``electoral gifts around Quebec and Canada'' the
following words: ``which, among other things, hampers the government's ability to
balance the budget''.
The Deputy Speaker: The amendment made by the hon.
member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot is acceptable. The
subamendment by the hon. leader of the Reform Party would
appear to be acceptable, but again, as with the Bloc, I would ask
permission to give it a formal ruling as quickly as can be done.
Questions and comments.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a question for the member for Calgary Southwest.
In the House today and over the last couple of days the Reform
Party has criticized the government for its approach to the Canada
pension plan. I think when an opposition party comes to Ottawa it
has an obligation not just to criticize but also to offer an alternative.
I wonder if the member for Calgary Southwest, the leader of the
Reform Party, would care to inform the House and Canadians what
exactly is the plan of the Reform Party with respect to reforming
the Canada pension plan.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question
because a lot of confusion has been spread, mainly by the Minister
of Finance, on what Reform's position is.
First of all, Reform's position is broader than that of the
government. Our aim is to get more retirement income for seniors
at lower cost through both pension reform and tax reform. That is a
broader objective than just rescuing CPP. It includes rescuing CPP
but it is a broader goal.
We propose three measures to accomplish this objective. First,
we propose to guarantee existing seniors that they will receive all
the benefits they are entitled to under CPP. We propose a
modification to CPP designed to achieve that guarantee.
Second, we propose to shift middle aged and younger workers on
to an expanded RRSP program. The RRSP program gives higher
benefits per dollar spent than CPP. And so our modified CPP plus
our expanded RRSP program give pensions at a lower cost than the
Liberal approach which is focused mainly on rescuing CPP.
(1645 )
The third thing we add is Reform's tax relief program. By lifting
1.2 million Canadians off of the federal income tax rolls altogether,
including many seniors, it helps seniors further, whereas the
Liberals have been increasing the burden on seniors on every front
by clawing back the seniors benefit, by gouging the contributors to
CPP and by restricting the use of RRSPs rather than expanding
them.
Reform's aim is to get more retirement for seniors at lower cost
through pension and tax reform. Our proposal rests on three pillars,
not one: a modified CPP; an expanded RRSP; and tax relief
including tax relief for seniors.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like the hon. member to provide some
clarification on the Canada pension plan.
There have been numerous statements made that the Canada
pension plan is a tax and not a pension. In my opinion when I pay
my taxes I do not expect any funds back over x number of years.
Presently as the CPP sits it is a pension and in due time whether it
be through disability or retirement people expect to have a return
for their funds invested.
Could the hon. member clarify his position that it is a tax and not
a pension?
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, what Reform has said is not that the
pension is a tax but that the premium paid is a payroll tax. This is
not just Reform's opinion.
The Minister of Finance has in his department the economic
analysis and forecasting division which did a lot of work on this
budget. Joe Italiano who is with that division put out a paper on
April 25, 1995 called ``Growth in CPP/QPP Contributions''. In it
he defines CPP contributions as a payroll tax. Incidentally he goes
on to analyse the impact of increasing those payroll taxes from
1986 to 1993 and concludes that they killed 26,000 jobs. This is not
me speaking; this is the finance minister's own department
defining CPP premiums as a payroll tax.
The government gets a lot of statistics from Statistics Canada. A
number of officials in Statistics Canada put out a paper in the
Canada Tax Journal a short while ago. They identified payroll
taxes and listed what they were and the list included CPP and QPP
contributions.
Last night Judith Andrew of the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business was discussing the minister's budget. She
referred to the hike in the CPP premiums as a payroll tax. If there is
any group in the country that would know a payroll tax when they
see it, it would be the CFIB because of course these are the people
who are actually paying it.
Reform says it would be very appropriate for the minister, since
his department acknowledges it, Statistics Canada acknowledges it,
economists acknowledge it and business people acknowledge it, to
acknowledge that the CPP premium is a payroll tax. When it is
increased by 70 per cent, that has extremely negative effects on
employment.
8330
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it appears to me that the leader of the third party is
engaging in a semantic exercise in using the term payroll tax.
The premiums deducted for the Canada pension plan at source
are paired equally, one to one with an employer contribution and
paid over into the Canada pension plan. The identical thing
happens with the employer's pension plan. The employee is
deducted an amount of money at source. It is paired with dollar for
dollar by the employer; the identical sum the employee puts in, the
employer puts in. It is the same as with the Canada pension plan.
Those funds are turned over and paid into the employer's pension
plan.
(1650 )
Does the leader of the third party agree that there is a pension
plan in both cases? In both cases it is mandatory that the employees
contribute. The contributions end up in pension plans and
ultimately the party making the contribution, the pensioner, will
draw the benefits from the plan.
Why does he insist on referring to one of those two options as a
tax when it is not?
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, first of all most employer pension
plans work the way the member describes, except one, namely the
one that the members in this House voted for themselves. In that
one the public puts in six times what the member puts in. That is
why it is unfair.
Second, one of the principal differences in what we are talking
about here is that the CPP contributions are a legislated mandatory
compulsory contribution whereas participation in
employer-employee pension plans are usually voluntary.
The third point and the most important one is that the finance
department itself defines CPP contributions as a payroll tax. This is
not the Reform Party; it is a division of the minister's own
department.
That is the explanation.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, whenever I present the arguments the leader just
developed, audiences tend to react by saying: ``You will never be
able to deliver on this''. I wonder what kind of an answer the leader
would give to people who make this argument.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, the way to deliver on all of these
commitments is first to get a mandate from the Canadian people to
do so.
The public are aware that their retirement income is insecure
under CPP. They are afraid that the minister is casting a lecherous
and covetous eye on their RRSP payments.
The way to get this secured and the way to get a mandate from
the public is the way we endeavour to get a mandate for virtually
everything that is done in this House, to go to the public with an
explanation of the program. If the public supports it, then there is
the authority to proceed with these types of reforms.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate and to speak
about the benefits the 1997 budget will bring for the businesses and
citizens of Etobicoke-Lakeshore. I will be sharing my time with
my colleague from Kenora-Rainy River.
The measures outlined by the finance minister in his speech
yesterday will improve the lives of young people, of families and
of seniors. Our measures for small and medium size businesses will
help Etobicoke businesses thrive, grow and create jobs.
In my speech today I will focus on the specific measures that
will benefit the people of my riding and then explain why the path
this government has chosen is the best one for Etobians.
First, the budget will invest in our most important asset, young
Canadians. Our youth employment strategy is good news for the
students of Lakeshore Collegiate, Father Redmond, Etobicoke
School of the Arts, Bishop Allen Academy, Humber College
Lakeshore Campus, as well as university students in my riding.
Our strategy will support Canadian students with 120,000 career
summer job opportunities and over 19,000 internship placements in
the research, private and non-profit sectors. These crucial first
opportunities will give young Canadians the chance to break the no
experience, no job and no job, no experience cycle.
We are also continuing the successful youth service program. In
Etobicoke-Lakeshore the program was instrumental in
developing a youth and crime prevention initiative in one of our
most troubled communities.
In addition, this government will assist young Canadians by
helping them and their families to afford training and education.
We are doing this by raising the per month education tax credit
from $100 to $200 in the next two years and enabling students to
apply it to more expenses and apply unused portions to future tax
credits. For example, a college or university student with tuition of
$2,800 and additional fees of $300 would receive $1,200 in
combined federal and provincial tax assistance per year.
(1655)
Moreover this government is extending the pay back period for
student loans and offering an additional $20 million a year for
student assistance. That is more good news for young Etobians
worried about the cost of education.
We are also enabling parents with young children to save early to
help pay for their children's education or make up for a
contribution missed when their children were younger. Families in
Etobicoke will be happy to hear that annual contributions to
registered education savings plans are being doubled from $2,000
to $4,000. We are also relaxing the requirement that in the event the
8331
child does not pursue post-secondary education, parents can
transfer the RESP to their RRSP or receive the investment income
directly.
Low income families in Etobicoke will be happy to hear that our
government will enrich the Canada child tax credit by over $600
million. This combined with a $250 million working income
supplement means an $850 million increase in annual benefits.
Our government will continue to work with the provinces and
territories to design the complementary changes that will reduce
child poverty and barriers to work.
Our efforts for health care in Canada are solid. We remain
committed to the values of the Canadian system and we will
enforce them through the Canada Health Act.
Etobians of all ages will be happy to hear that we have stabilized
the Canada health and social transfer to the provinces at $25 billion
annually and we anticipate growth in transfers at the turn of the
century. We are committing $300 million more over the next three
years for new health initiatives. Every dollar of the new money will
be devoted toward the delivery of better health services to
Canadians.
Seniors in Etobicoke-Lakeshore will be pleased to hear that we
are devoting $150 million over the next three years to help the
provinces put in place new projects, such as new approaches to
home care, drug coverage and other innovations, that will enable us
to test ways in which we can make our system more efficient.
There will also be $100 million for the community action
program for children and the Canada prenatal nutrition programs
designed to prevent health problems in our children.
This is more good news for groups like the Stonegate
Community Centre, the Association of Ontario Health Centres, the
Stothers Centre for Children and Families and the Welcome Baby
Support Network for Teenage Mothers. All of these organizations
will benefit from these new initiatives.
There is no question that our publicly funded system is one of
Canada's greatest achievements and there is no doubt that this
government will fight to keep it.
Our government is investing in helping the disabled achieve the
equality to which they are entitled. As a member of the human
rights and the status of persons with disabilities committee, I am
especially pleased by the announcement of $100 million worth of
additional support each year to disabled Canadians. Using tax
credits, financial incentives, training and opportunities funds, the
government will put Canadians with disabilities in balance with
other Canadians, allowing them to realize the same opportunities.
In a similar way we are giving the people of
Etobicoke-Lakeshore the chance to give more to charitable
causes. The charitable sector is playing an increasingly important
role in meeting the needs of Canadians. The government
recognizes the importance of giving charities the tools they need to
accomplish their important work.
Although tax assistance for charitable giving entails a cost for
governments, it is plainly a much lower cost than providing full
support directly through public funds. The 1997 budget levels the
playing field between the crown and other kinds of charities,
making it easier for organizations to raise funds and donors to
receive larger tax credits.
(1700 )
The budget contains $95 million annually of new tax assistance
to the charitable sector. This will give charities, like the Etobicoke
Cancer Society, Goodwill, St. Vincent de Paul, Reach the Rainbow,
the YM-YWCA, the Children's Aid Society and the Etobicoke
chapter of the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the framework they
need to accomplish their work and help Canadians whom these
charities serve.
Now that I have mentioned some of the ways in which we are
assisting individuals, I will speak about our strategy for a vibrant
economy. The government has always maintained that good fiscal
management is the route to investor confidence. In the time since
we took office we have witnessed a monumental turn around in the
fortunes of Canada. Remember, in the late 1980s, year after year of
Conservative finance ministers preaching restraint, and then year
after year of record deficits?
It was the Liberal government and the Minister of Finance that
turned Canada from the worst debtor nation in the G7 to a deficit to
GDP ratio of 2 per cent. In 1998, the government anticipates
breaking its dependency on borrowing new money. This means that
1998 will mark the first time in 28 years that it will not have to go
to the markets to borrow new money. It will put the Canadian
government in an enviable position internationally. Canada will
have the best financial record of any G7 government. In 1997, it is
expected to be the growth and job creation leader of all G7
countries.
If the government were to offer the Canadian public, as the
Reformers and the Ontario finance minister suggest, a broad based
tax cut, not only will we lose the war on the deficit but we will
surely lose the vital social programs we have been fighting to
protect. This is not a fresh start for Canada but a full stop for
Canada and a future for Canada.
8332
Members will be happy to know that we are not gambling all
our chips on the tax cut number like our opponents would. Instead,
we are building on the cornerstone of responsible fiscal
management, a strong health care system, a prosperous export
strategy and an innovative research and development program.
This is the best approach for Canada and for Etobicoke.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
the hon. member to comment on the request made by the
Government of Quebec to receive the same compensation as the
maritimes for harmonizing the GST with the provincial sales tax.
We all know that the maritimes received a gift of approximately $1
billion in compensation from the federal government.
Since the share of federal expenditures borne by the Government
and the people of Quebec amounts to about 27 per cent, this means
that Quebec is giving approximately $300 million to the maritimes,
which I feel is totally unfair. To claim that the federal government
did not reward them is inaccurate. Because in some of the maritime
provinces the provincial sales tax was relatively high-9, 10, 11 or
12 per cent-the federal government said: ``Set the harmonized
sales tax at approximately 15 per cent and we will make up the
difference''. If that is not a gift, what is?
It was said also that the maritimes did not have the funds
required to make up the difference, while all they had to do was
increase other sources of revenue, income tax for instance.
(1705)
I would like the hon. government member to tell me if, in her
opinion, it is fair and equitable to have the Government of Quebec
pay, through the federal government, $300,000 per year as a gift to
the maritimes, when New Brunswick Premier McKenna is setting
up an office in Montreal and using money Quebecers paid to
Ottawa, which Ottawa in turn gave to the maritimes, to lure Quebec
businesses to his province.
That is right, with our own money, Quebec's money, the
Government of New Brunswick is stealing our businesses away.
Does that seem fair and equitable to her?
[English]
Ms. Augustine: Mr. Speaker, it seems strange that I have to
address the whole question of fairness. We in the House and the
government have indicated in many ways that this federation works
because we all co-operate. Many of us speak on a daily basis on the
unity, harmony and co-operation that is needed to ensure that every
part of the federation works.
In addressing the budget presented by the Minister of Finance
yesterday, the question of fairness and of provincial responsibility
and the question of who is taking jobs from whom, I am not sure
was addressed.
On the question of co-operation and harmonization of the GST,
the provinces have to work with us. The tax is an administratively
bad tax. We are doing what is necessary to provide the best
approach for the country. I am not going to address what provincial
premier is doing what in any part of the country.
I would ask my colleague to co-operate with us to address the
issue of Canadian unity.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member reiterated in her presentation what the finance minister
said this morning in a CBC television interview.
He said that we are going to focus spending on things that really
count to Canadians. Our values are health care, education, children
and job creation. But when we look at the record, the government
has cut $7 billion a year from health and education funding. That is
a 40 per cent reduction. So the actions are quite different from the
words.
The government's record on jobs is not good. The
unemployment rate is about the same as it was when it came into
office.
I would like to ask the member to tell me how the words that the
finance minister presents and those that the member presents are so
much different from what the record really demonstrates in these
areas?
Ms. Augustine: Mr. Speaker, we stand on our record. That is the
short answer. We have created jobs. We have provided an
environment in which jobs can be created. We have reaffirmed our
commitment to the Canada Health Act. We have provided money
for youth and youth programs. We have set a course for the future
that will definitely take us to where we ought to be. The hon.
member's fresh start myths will not get us where we want to be.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to enter the budget debate.
First, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Finance on a
job well done. I would like to say to my constituents, welcome to
the greatest nation on earth. It is easy for me to say that, simply
because we have fulfilled the commitments we made in 1993. At
that time we campaigned on restoring fiscal sanity and created a
climate of opportunity. When I talk to people across the nation, to
consumers, to people in the construction industry, to homeowners,
to people who are buying their first car or their first home, they tell
me that we have done just that.
8333
(1710)
We have to continue through a number of other budgets to reduce
the deficit to a point where, at least in the next millennium, we will
not have to continue to deal with deficits even when there is a
downturn in our economy. That is what the finance minister means
when he talks about our values. Because of our values we have
made tough decisions.
I was here a number of years ago when the Tory government was
in power, when the finances of the nation and the government were
in rough shape-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Order.
_____________________________________________
8333
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[
English]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black
Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker,
The Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate
attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate
chamber.
(1720)
[Translation]
And being returned:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I have the honour to
inform the House that when the House did attend His Honour the
Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate
chamber, His Honour was pleased to give in Her Majesty's name
the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-41, an act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements
Enforcement Assistance Act, the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion
Act and the Canada Shipping Act-Chapter 1.
Bill C-53, an act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act-Chapter 2.
Bill C-57, an act to amend the Bell Canada Act-Chapter 3.
Bill C-202, an act respecting a National Organ Donor Week in Canada-Chapter
4.
Bill C-270, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act (session of
Parliament)-Chapter 5.
8333
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House
approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I was
saying, our efforts in the last almost four years clearly show that by
1998 and 1999 net borrowing requirements will be zero.
That is how most countries define a balanced budget. So what we
can now say is that we have the deficit under control. As well, the
debt is starting to fall as a portion of GDP. In only four years we
have been able to clean up the mess left behind by nine years of
Tory incompetence and mismanagement.
What are the results of all this hard work by this government and
quite frankly by Canadians as it relates to some of the pain that
Canadians have had to go through in order to deal with the
Conservatives and their rule and of course some of the people on
the right wing who have suggested that they have all the answers?
We have the lowest inflation in a very long time. We have
interest rates at their lowest level in almost 40 years. We have
massive savings for home owners and consumers and economic
growth is strong. In fact, we have led the G-7.
Of particular interest, because of course this is an election year
and everybody likes to make predictions, the private sector
forecasters predict we will continue to have the strongest economy
in the industrialized world.
Since our election more than 715,000 new jobs have been
created. As has been said in this place by the Prime Minister on a
number of occasions, that is more than Italy, France, Germany,
Japan and Britain all put together. That may not seem like a lot to
some members but in fact based on the mess that we inherited from
the right wingers in this particular scenario that I mentioned, I
think it is a job well done indeed. I suspect that some forecasters
like John McCallum from the Royal Bank are predicting we will
even better that this year with the creation of up to 350,000 more
jobs.
That is on the fiscal side. Those of us who were here under the
Mulroney rule have to remember that now we have the little
brother of the Conservative Party called the Reform Party whose
members were so embarrassed about their leader under the
Conservative Party they decided to start their own.
8334
None of us is fooled by that. It is the same right wing Tory
ideology. That is why we see the lack of interest by the voting
public in supporting the Reform Party, which is no different than
when it supported the Mulroney years because of the tax policies,
the vision and the values it holds for Canadians and which the
majority of Canadians do not support.
I want to talk a bit about those particular values. Before I do that,
I want to lay a few issues on the table for the public watching today.
The opposition and certain parties in the provincial jurisdictions
are suggesting that we in the federal government have been able to
clean up our finances by downloading to the provinces.
(1725)
I want to talk a bit about Ontario because I am an MP from north
western Ontario. What we are living through is almost identical to
what I would envision under a Reform government if it were ever
to occur in this land. We are seeing a slash and burn policy. We
should look at the facts in Ontario to give us a sort of preview and a
picture of the future if another right wing party like the ones in this
House would form the government.
Because of Mike Harris' irresponsible tax cuts he has had to cut
$1.3 billion out of hospitals, $.5 billion from roads, $400 million
from post-secondary education, $2 billion from social assistance
and I understand $1.3 billion from municipalities, and that is just
the tip of the iceberg.
I want to give people some information this afternoon that may
bring to light just why it is difficult for federal members of
Parliament to accept where Mike Harris is going and that he is in
fact trying to blame the federal government for the slash and burn
and all the different headaches that he is causing people from
northwestern Ontario and Ontario as a whole.
Payments to Ontario's government will drop from $10.3 billion
in 1993-94 to $9.1 billion in 1998-99, a decline of $1.2 billion or
11.4 per cent. This represents at most 2.5 per cent of Ontario's
revenues. We cannot, after the list I have just read, suggest that this
cut made to transfer payments to the Ontario government and the
Ontario people is the reason why Mike Harris and his Tories are
cutting all the services in Ontario.
Let me give the real reason why. It relates to the opposition,
especially the right wing opposition parties, both the Tories' and
Reforms' interest in across the board personal income tax cut. In
Ontario this particular government has suggested that it would cut
30 per cent out of our personal income tax. That works out to $4.9
billion per year by 1999. That is the reason we are closing
hospitals, why we are reducing payments to school boards and why
we are increasing the size of our classrooms and why we have to
reduce transfer payments to the municipalities.
Anyone who has spent any time looking at what is going on in
Ontario would know that it is not the transfer payments from the
federal government to the provincial government, but it is the
silliness of having a tax cut across the board when there is still a
major deficit to deal with and in fact you cannot afford to do
without those revenues. For the life of me I cannot understand why
this blind right wing ideology is even being considered by
Canadians and Ontarians when in fact those of us in this place
know that we cannot do without that revenue until we balance our
books.
I am proud to be a Liberal for a number of reasons. Even though
we have had to make some tough decisions on the deficit we
continue to maintain our values of looking after our social
programs, putting them on a good footing. The agreement that we
signed with the provincial governments on CPP is a perfect
example of that. Putting money toward health care, putting money
toward youth, putting money toward innovation and technology,
that is what Liberalism is all about. That is why this government is
popular in the polls. It is not because some of the members
opposite say that we have played some number game.
People are more intelligent than that. They know we have made
tough decisions but we have been fair and equitable. That is the
reason why when we go to the people with this particular budget
and our record they will agree with us that we have gone a long way
down the road to improving our chances in the next millennium.
(1730 )
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
member just described what Liberalism is all about. He said
virtually the same thing as the finance minister said this morning
on CBC television, which was that they are going to focus their
spending on the things that really count to Canadians. He said that
their values are health care, education, children and job creation.
Those are the same things which the hon. member said.
Those are the words, but I want to ask the hon. member about the
actions and contrast them to the words.
When we look at the action on health care, in fact federal
spending has been reduced by 40 per cent. That is a fact. That is
reality.
Unemployment has remained above 9 per cent for many months.
The unemployment rate is almost as high as it was when the
government took office in 1993. Not only are there 1.5 million
people unemployed, there are another two million to three million
who are underemployed, and fully a quarter of the workforce is
afraid of losing their jobs. More important than the actual
unemployment rates, bad as they are, is the fact that Canadians are
having to worker harder than ever just to make ends meet. That is
8335
making their lives very difficult. It is creating child poverty and
problems within families.
Education funding has also been cut by the federal government
by 40 per cent. That was the action. That is a fact.
The government shows its concern for children by reducing the
average family income by $3,000. I am talking about take home
pay. That is the pay which families have available to look after
their kids. That has been reduced by $3,000 since the government
took power. That is how the government shows care for children.
I would ask the hon. member to respond to the clear difference
between the words that he and the finance minister speak and their
actions over the last three years.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Speaker, I find it so humorous that I could
almost laugh.
All of a sudden that right wing party is talking about jobs, health
care and the plight of the poor. It is talking about those issues
because it cannot deal with the only issue that it ran on in the last
election, which was cleaning up the finances of the nation by
slashing and cutting everything that was not nailed down. Now that
the Liberal government has done what no government has been
able to do for the last 20 years, all of a sudden that party has
recognized that there is something else.
Let me deal with the issue of 42 per cent. When the finance
minister for Ontario presented the Ontario budget, on page 9 he
said that Ontario will experience federal cuts of some 42.4 per cent.
That is the reason I brought up these numbers and that is the spin
the member opposite is putting on this debate.
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe
there is some rule in the House about just how far a member can
stretch the truth before it is no longer acceptable?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): There is certainly a rule in
the House about referring to members who stretch the truth.
I think the hon. member is giving an answer to the question of
the hon. member for Vegreville. With respect, what he is
suggesting is that he does not agree with the answer, which is
entirely parliamentary, but the rest is not.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I was in opposition
between 1988 and 1993. I understand the opposition mentality.
When I sat across from Brian Mulroney, who is the big brother of
the Reform Party, I used to get these numbers as well.
However, it is important to get the facts on the record. The
opposition party is stating that we have cut 42 per cent of the
transfers to the provinces. The Ontario finance minister has
selectively chosen a 1995-96 starting point, the high water mark for
transfers and he is looking at only the cash. That is what the
opposition is doing today. It is very misleading to the public
because part of the CHST is not just the cash but the tax transfers.
(1735)
This is very important. I have a list of every single province in
front of me. Ontario, when the tax points and transfers are
included, will end up with only $1.5 billion less which is 2.5 per
cent of its total revenues.
For someone to stand up in this place and suggest otherwise is
not being factual. It shows why those members are at less than10 per cent in the polls. They cannot even get their facts straight.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Order. The time for
questions and comments has expired. A subamendment was moved
earlier in the day. It has been reviewed and has been found to be in
order.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to speak on the budget. Yesterday
afternoon, the people of Canada and Quebec were sorely
disappointed with this federal budget, who purpose is to win votes.
It is not only a do-nothing and meek budget, but also one that falls
short of their expectations, given the considerable flexibility the
government and its Minister of Finance had in preparing this
budget.
Like the vast majority of people and pressure groups, the Bloc
Quebecois condemns this cheap election-minded budget designed
to disguise this Liberal government's lack of action while
purporting to provide assistance to children, families and the
unemployed in Canada and Quebec.
Like in the cartoon published in Le Devoir this morning, the
Minister of Finance of Canada is bragging, with cynicism to boot,
in the face of all the people who were hit by the massive cuts of the
past three years. This cartoon illustrates the attitude with which the
finance minister tabled this budget. Such an attitude is an insult to
the 1.5 million unemployed in Canada today. It is an insult also to
the tens of thousands of children who have been forced to live in
poverty by this government since it took office. In fact, the number
of poor children has increased by 500,000 over the past three years.
This attitude is also an insult to provincial governments, which
have had to pay the price for reduced transfer payments and to live
with the consequences of this government's policies for the past
three years. Finally, the most insulting aspect of this attitude is that,
in addition to showing off, the Minister of Finance is displaying a
terrible lack of initiative in his election minded budget.
8336
Two general conclusions can be drawn from yesterday's budget.
The first one is that, since it was tabled last night, this budget has
generated a unanimous reaction in Canada and in Quebec, as we
saw this morning in most newspapers. There is an obvious lack
of faith in the proposed measures, in light of the previous policies
of this government over the last three years, since it took office.
This lack of faith affects Canadians and Quebecers, because the
finance minister paints a misleading picture on the reduction of the
deficit, which he says is the result of the government's cost cutting
measures, but which is in fact largely due to a reduction in transfer
payments to the provinces.
(1740)
There is also a lack of faith when the finance minister proposes a
timid reduction of employment insurance premiums, whose rate is
well above the rate that the government and the minister could have
set. Instead of granting a 10 cent reduction, the minister could
easily have lowered the rate by 30 cents, as we will see later.
There is also a lack of faith when the finance minister announces
that $800 million will be earmarked for the creation of the Canada
Foundation for Innovation. That money will come from the savings
made through reduced transfer payments to the provinces. In fact,
it is the provinces that will pay for this investment.
Let us look at the reduction of the deficit, which the finance
minister is so proud of. The minister is very cynical when he boasts
about the early success of his fight against the deficit.
Yesterday, he said, and I quote: ``For 1998-99, the government's
deficit target is $9 billion''. The minister is therefore talking about
a partial deficit, without ever setting a deadline for a zero deficit in
his budget, as several provinces did, including Quebec.
We all know that the finance minister refuses to give a date, at
least for the time being. The minister, who is driven by fear, is
probably waiting for the next election campaign, which is not too
far away. He will then engage in grandstanding in setting a deadline
for his zero deficit, because he will have given himself enough
flexibility to set a date depending on the circumstances.
This timid attitude, to say the least, goes against the very idea of
a long term budgetary plan, and illustrates the essentially
demagogic nature of the budget tabled yesterday by the finance
minister. However, this lack of rigour on the government's part is
not the real issue. The real issue is the source of the funds used to
fight the deficit, something which the minister is so proud of.
It was precisely this that the Minister of Finance touched on
yesterday when he said, and I quote: ``The fact is that by 1998-99,
government spending on everything but the debt will have been
reduced from $120 billion in 1993-94 to $103.5 billion''.
Once again, we must put these statements by the minister in
context. Yes, spending has been reduced, but how? Now we know
that it has been almost entirely by offloading the deficit onto the
backs of the provinces. This reduced federal spending is largely an
illusion.
Let us return to a major sticking point in yesterday's budget: the
reduced EI premiums. As we have said repeatedly, these premiums
are well beyond the objectives that could have been reached in
order to demonstrate leadership in this area, and that could have
been an effective job creation measure.
Let us also return to the creation of the Canadian Foundation for
Innovation. Once again, this is a measure that owes its existence to
money taken from savings generated through decreases in
provincial transfer payments.
A second thing we notice in examining this budget is the sly
interference of the federal government in matters of provincial
jurisdiction. An examination of measures over the last three years
reveals three areas where the government has shown a lack of good
faith.
First, the piecemeal approach when it comes to the promises
regarding benefits for children living in poverty: $70 million seems
completely ridiculous, if you consider the role of this government
in contributing to child poverty, which has done nothing but get
worse since this government came to power.
I would like to quote a brief passage from the Liberals' red book,
which reads as follows, on page 15:
Today, after nine years of Conservative government, Canadians are facing
hardship: 1.6 million unemployed, millions more on welfare, a million children
living below the poverty line, record numbers of bankruptcies and bank closings.
(1745)
Here is another quote taken from real life, straight from
Statistics Canada: ``After three years under the Liberals, the
country is still in a sorry state: 1.5 million Canadians are
unemployed, nearly 3 million are on welfare, 1.5 million children
live in poverty, 500,000 more than three years ago, and the number
of bankruptcies, 86,253 between January and November 1996, has
also reached record levels''. We understand perfectly why before
he resigned from the Liberal Party, our colleague from York
South-Weston said: ``We accused Conservatives of every possible
evil, and I am resigning because we are doing exactly the same
thing they did''. People had certain expectations with respect to
child poverty.
How can we believe this government if we consider it failed to
inject $720 million in child care, a promise that was not kept, like
the GST?
8337
Second, more band-aid solutions, when we consider promises
in other areas that are strictly matters of provincial jurisdiction.
This is an amazing attitude on the part of the Minister of Finance.
He savagely cuts transfer payments to the provinces, which
undermines provincial objectives to fight poverty and
unemployment, and meanwhile he is interfering in provincial
jurisdictions with his pre-electoral gestures. We know perfectly
well the government cut $4.5 billion in transfer payments to the
provinces which are used for social programs. It also took $5
billion out of the unemployment insurance fund, which in the end
comes out of the pockets of Canadians.
What is going on? The problem is that the unemployed are
receiving fewer benefits that are becoming increasingly difficult to
obtain and are getting them for a shorter period of time. Thousands
of people will never have unemployment insurance, even if they
did work. So today, they tend to end up on welfare much faster.
Transfers to the provinces for social assistance have been cut.
When the government says it is doing something about poverty,
it is just putting a band-aid on a problem the government itself
created and which has not changed from what it was three years
ago, when the Conservatives were loudly condemned by this
government.
Finally, as you saw earlier during question period, no
commitment was made or will be made in this budget to
compensate Quebec for the cost of harmonizing the GST, a demand
that has been voiced repeatedly for a number of weeks, especially
by the Quebec Minister of Finance.
We know the government has just transferred $1 billion to the
maritimes, and as my colleague from Longueuil explained earlier,
when you transfer $1 billion from the federal government to the
governments of the maritimes, this is $250 million which comes
out of the pockets of Quebecers, since Quebecers provide Ottawa
with one quarter of its revenue. So they took $250 million out of
the pockets of Quebecers to send it to the maritimes, because they
were harmonizing their provincial sales taxes with the GST.
Quebec has claimed compensation for nearly $2 billion and will
not get a penny. That is the story of the GST.
[English]
This budget is an electoral budget but it is also a lousy budget.
The minister of finance did a lousy job on this budget. The minister
had every opportunity to do something. He had a margin in which
to manoeuvre; in fact $8 billion under the targeted deficit if we
include in the $5 billion the $3 billion that was set aside for bad
eventualities.
(1750)
The Bloc Quebecois produced three reports recently, trying to
show the government through an analysis of the fiscality that it
would be perfectly possible through the fiscality, through the
underground economy and by implementing some measures
suggested by the auditor general to get $6 billion more.
It is possible to get a $14 billion margin. It is a real possibility.
With this margin we should have expected the minister to do
something. It would have been quite possible to still target zero
deficit for the year 2000 but at the same time to give back to the
provinces the $4.5 billion taken for social programs and to put back
into the unemployment insurance fund the $5 billions taken from
there to give more protection to the unemployed and maybe to use a
30 cent reduction on fees instead of 10 cents. But that is not what
the minister has done.
Of course, this budget is an electoral budget, we all know it. We
are going into an election, as everybody seems to understand. The
election will be a very strange one in comparison with the one of
1993. In 1993, 54 members of the Bloc were elected from Quebec
and, to the surprise of all Canadians and to our own surprise, we
became the official opposition here.
This time there will not be any surprise. We will very easily elect
55 members of the Bloc back into the House of Commons. It is now
possible for Canadians to replace the Bloc as the opposition, if they
so wish, if they think we did not do a good job as opposition, by
electing an opposition from another party. If they do not, we have
to admit that we will be elected as the official opposition not only
by Quebecers but by all Canadians.
[Translation]
In conclusion, this budget needs to be seen as what it is: a
vote-seeking budget, a do-nothing budget which does not come up
to expectations, and for what it is absolutely not: a tax-reforming
budget.
We know, Canadians and Quebecers know, that the rich in this
country do not pay as much tax as they should. The minister has
been urged repeatedly to really reform the Canadian tax system, but
there is nothing in this regard in the budget.
To give a precise example, the family trusts, we know that they
all beat it for the U.S. not so long ago, and got out of paying an
amount estimated at between $500 and $600 million in taxes. Six
hundred million dollars is exactly what will be given to poor
children over the next two, three or four years. Two companies
belonging to the same group left without paying taxes, and the
government did not react.
Nor are there any job creation measures. Jobs, jobs, jobs, if
anyone can find any, let them tell us where. There will be no hope
for Canadians or Quebecers with this budget as far as job creation
is concerned. All that the minister and the Prime Minister say is
that it is up to the market to create jobs, and we must set up the
necessary conditions for jobs to be created.
8338
We need look no further than the banks, which have made
record profits in the past two years, but are now responsible for
record layoffs as well. Before telling us that private companies
create jobs, maybe a thorough analysis ought to be done.
There is nothing about the GST and Quebec. Where is the
fairness here? There is a double standard; the maritimes get money,
Quebec does not. And they will go on cutting benefits to the
unemployed and cutting social programs, while the minister is
madly patting himself on the back, claiming he has managed to
fight the deficit with his budget.
We are heading toward an election, and the Liberals will be
judged accordingly.
(1755)
[English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is budget time and with all the rhetoric around the tax
and spending plans of the Liberals of our money, in other words the
people's money, the money and the wealth created by Canadians,
not the government, with all this talk people sometimes become fed
up and rather cynical.
What flows from that is the notion of average Canadians that the
government always paints a rather rosy picture. When was the last
time we heard a federal Conservative or Liberal government admit
that things were not very rosy? Canadians then just tune out. They
tune out of the budget debate. They tune out of all the commentary
about finances. They say ``The government brags and so we really
cannot listen to them. We have the Bloc and it seems to always
resort to rather self-centred whining about how hard done by
Quebec is. It is always the message from the separatists of
wanting''. Quite frequently they use the word demanding.
Opposition parties have an obligation to compliment the
government when the government goes in the right direction. When
it comes to being critical the opposition must go beyond just
cynicism and criticism but offer practical, credible alternatives that
can stand the test of public examination.
I put it to the member of the Bloc, and he is being very negative
in his tone, what are his solutions to contribute to Canada? What is
the Bloc prepared to do to make Canada work rather than opt out?
What is the member prepared to offer as a fiscal alternative to help
all of Canada, including Canadians in Quebec, rather than just
complaining and offering to opt out?
Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Speaker, my colleague said many citizens
will tune out when we speak about the budget. They will not tune
out when the time comes for the election.
What did we produce in a practical way to help the government
to establish a good budget? Today we are giving our opinion on
this budget and our opinion is that this budget is not very good at
all. But we did a lot of work for the government. I am sure in
certain fields the Reform Party also did some work in presenting
some analysis to the government.
We produced three reports on fiscality, a study well done. We
received congratulations from the Minister of Finance for having
done so. These were reports on three studies that showed clearly
point by point through an analysis that if we would review the
fiscality in this country we would probably be able to save right
now $6 billion that could be used to put back into programs for
employment.
We are not trying to opt out of the government. We are trying to
help. If we want to help the government, the government has to
help itself. With this budget, when we see that it has a full margin
to act and it does not do anything, it is saying that it will help poor
people, but it put $600 million for the poor children. That is the
same amount of money that it let go with the fiducies familiales to
the United States. That is only one or two companies that did that.
We are trying to help. We offered some analysis but nobody
listened.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
quote remarks by Alain Dubuc, a journalist and economist, in La
Presse. He said he was a federalist in the last referendum.
(1800)
Just to give his remarks a little credibility, because there are
people in the government and in my party who say that we behave
this way because we are separatists, he himself said that the federal
government has cut $6.8 billion, including $2.5 billion this year, in
funding to the provinces over the past three years.
That means that the provinces have to face this cut and continue
to pay the same percentage of taxes. If the government is cutting
money to the provinces, it should also cut the taxes and revenues it
takes out of the provinces. The provinces are getting it both coming
and going. And, in return, they get what Alain Dubuc of La Presse
describes as the big box of Smarties. In other words, they sprinkle
little treats here and there just so they can say they are doing
something for health, for poor children, and so forth.
I would ask my colleague to comment on this example.
According to Alain Dubuc, and it is easy to calculate: In the case of
poor children, the federal government and the Minister of Finance
say they are helping poor children, but the figure works out to be
$28 a year per child. That is, 53 cents a week per child. It hardly
pays for a litre of milk per child.
8339
So you can see how ridiculous it is to gloat that, as $2 billion
is being taken away from Quebec, poor children are being given
53 cents a week. My colleague made an excellent speech. I would
like his comments, because I find this way of going about things
totally ridiculous.
Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his
excellent question. As we can see from my hon. colleague's
breakdown of figures, what this budget, tabled by a minister who
claims he wants to seriously look after poor children, provides for
is 53 cents per week per child in Canada. We can also see that, over
the past three years, instead of improving, the situation of poor
children in Canada has in fact deteriorated.
When the Liberals were criticizing the Conservatives in their red
book, they indicated that there were 1 million children living in
poverty in Canada. There are now 1.5 million poor children in
Canada, which means that their number has increased by 500,000
in the last three years. Poor children do not appear out of thin air. If
their numbers are growing, it is because the overall economic
situation is deteriorating, because more and more people are
unemployed and on welfare.
While it is content with giving 53 cents per week to poor
children and brag about it, as my hon. colleague said, the
government is letting family trusts move to the U.S. depriving the
government of $600 million in tax revenue. That is what this
budget is all about and the kind of work that has been accomplished
these past three years.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing
my time with the hon. member for Fundy-Royal.
The budget tabled by the Minister of Finance is good news as
regards job creation. This budget is in line with the federal
government's long term strategy to improve the state of public
finances, so as to create conditions that will promote employment,
as well as short and long term growth.
The government will also continue to invest in immediate and
longer term initiatives to create jobs, which is a top priority for me
and the federal government. Let us not forget that 715,000 new jobs
were created since the Liberals took office, in 1993.
(1805)
Extending the federal infrastructure works program is an
excellent example. The government will spend $425 million on
that program, for a total of $600 million this year.
I am also very pleased about job creation initiatives in rural
areas, since my riding includes some large rural areas. In this
regard, regional tourism will get increased support, through an
amount of $50 million allocated to the Business Development
Bank of Canada, as well as an additional $45 million, over a three
year period, to the Canadian Tourism Commission, and additional
funding to the Farm Credit Corporation.
Over the next three years, the federal government will allocate
$1 billion for job creation initiatives for young people. The
Minister of Human Resources Development recently announced
that $225 million would be earmarked for the creation of jobs for
young Canadians. These initiatives will provide a more promising
future to many young Canadians who wish to join the labour force.
I also want to mention the creation of the Canada Foundation for
Innovation, an investment of $800 million by the government,
which will ensure that Canadians remain on the cutting edge of
research and technology, areas which will help our industries to
remain competitive and to create jobs in the future.
Given the Liberal government's sound economic management
during the last three years, it is not surprising that private sector
forecasters are expecting more than 300,000 jobs to be created this
year and also next year. Having said that, I can assure the House
that the Liberals will keep up their efforts to create jobs for all
those Canadians who are still looking for work.
[English]
In the time remaining I would like to deal with some of the
criticisms that the government has received with respect to job
creation. I have already indicated that in the first three years of the
Liberal government's mandate Statistics Canada confirms that
approximately 715,000 net new jobs have been created by the
Canadian economy. This compares to a net loss of 71,000 jobs
during the last three years of the previous government's mandate.
Under the previous Tory government the unemployment rate was at
11.4 per cent at the time that the Liberal government was elected in
1993.
The current rate of unemployment is 9.7 per cent. This is
obviously much too high. One person in Canada unemployed,
seeking work and unable to find it is a human tragedy. There will
never be an acceptable unemployment rate until unemployment is
eradicated.
I do not think it is a fair comment to indicate that because the
official unemployment rate issued by Stats Canada is still at 9.7 per
cent that the Liberal government's record on employment and
setting the conditions that lead to employment creation is bad.
Look at the 715,000 jobs that have been created by the Canadian
economy in that time period.
We still have 1.5 million unemployed people which is certainly
not acceptable and is certainly a cause for concern to everyone,
particularly to those people who are unemployed, but 715,000
people have found jobs. The reason that the rate still remains as
high as it does is because more people have come into the work
force. This is something that the government cannot control. It can
encourage people to obtain more training so that they will be in a
8340
position to seek employment, but it does not preclude people from
coming into the workforce.
(1810)
I do not believe the official unemployment rate is the proper
indicator one should be looking at to measure the government's
performance in job creation. It should be the total number of net
jobs created.
The opposition parties are saying that the government should
provide tax relief. By giving Canadians tax relief, more disposable
funds would be available for them to make purchases and this
would stimulate the economy.
I would like to draw the House's attention to the low interest
rates which have the same effect. The government has managed the
economy and has been able to reduce the deficit. It has shown
responsible fiscal management and interest rates have dropped
dramatically. They are at their lowest of the last several years.
I have two examples of the savings and benefits that people can
obtain. I quote a Royal Bank report from October 1996 on home
ownership indicating that a five-year $100,000 mortgage has a
payment of $765 per month. The same mortgage for the same term
except for the higher interest rate in 1990 required monthly
payments of $1,200. The Royal Bank indicates that this is the
equivalent to receiving an $8,000 raise in salary. This is as a
consequence of the lower interest rates.
Similarly, on a new car loan of $15,000 over a four-year period,
the lower interest rates today are resulting in savings of almost
$500 per year. Again, that is an example of where money is being
made available and is being freed up as a consequence of the fiscal
management of the government and the lower interest rates.
It has been necessary to have certain cuts in spending in certain
programs that have led to the reduction of the deficit. That leads to
the more favourable interest rates. Now that the deficit is being
reduced and is below the finance minister's targets, he is able to
start paying the dividend for the suffering that all Canadians had to
endure over the last few years to reach this point.
This budget shows Liberal vision. It shows Liberal values. The
investments being made are in areas of child poverty, education,
benefits for the disabled, research and development and also for the
community action program for children.
CAPC is a program that is receiving increased funding when it
was scheduled to receive a reduction in funding. The community
groups and agencies in my riding with which I have met were very
concerned about the scheduled reduction in funding. I am sure they
will be very happy to see that the CAPC program is not going to be
reduced but will be increased.
The Speaker: So you will know, there are only five minutes of
questions and comments.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the hon.
member's presentation, he talked about how the government is
quite proud of its record on health care, education and jobs.
The finance minister, of course, expressed that this morning. On
a CBC television program, he said: ``We are going to focus our
spending on things that really count to Canadians. That is what our
values are: health care, education, children and job creation''. I
guess the two are giving the same message.
Those words are quite nice but when we look at reality and the
record of this government on those issues, it is quite another story.
When it comes to health care, we have seen a 40 per cent reduction
in spending. There was a 40 per cent reduction in transfers to the
provinces. Mr. Klein said 42 and that might be closer. I am not sure.
That is the reality.
(1815)
It is the same thing for education. There has been a 40 per cent
reduction in transfers to the provinces.
With respect to job creation, unemployment rates are still at
almost 10 per cent, compared to Japan at 3.4 per cent and the
United States at 5.4 per cent. The record of this government on jobs
is totally unacceptable.
Beyond that, the hon. member talked about how the
unemployment rate has actually dropped somewhat since the
government took office. That is true, but we are looking at a larger
than ever portion that is underemployed. There are far more people
underemployed than under the Conservative government and there
are far more people who are afraid of losing their jobs. The record
on jobs is nothing to be proud of.
I would like to ask the member to respond to the clear difference
in the words, the actions and the record of this government.
Mr. DeVillers: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the
statement made that this member is proud of the government's
record on health care and education. My submission did not deal
with those issues. My submission dealt with the jobs record. That is
something which I dealt with at length. It is something which I
stand by. It is not good enough. It is never good enough. Any rate of
unemployment is too high. However, what critics such as the
Reformers neglect to look at is the actual number of jobs which
have been created.
The figure is there. The Statistics Canada figure indicates that
715,000 jobs have been created by the Canadian economy in the
last three years, compared to 71,000 jobs that were lost in the last
three years of the Tory reign.
8341
The number is there. It is not an insignificant number. It is not
good enough, but it is certainly something which I am prepared
to stand by and be held accountable for during the next election
campaign.
The member asked my colleague from Kenora-Rainy River the
same question with respect to the 40 per cent cut to health care. All
I will do is repeat the answer. That 40 per cent deals with the cash
part only. It does not take into account tax points. We have to look
at the entire picture; we cannot only look at the cash points in the
transfers.
In the case of Ontario, the province with which I am most
familiar, it amounts to 2.5 per cent of the total provincial budget.
The provincial government is making draconian cuts to health care,
education and to a lot of other areas. We know why. It is to fund the
across the board tax cut of 30 per cent which that government,
which is a friend of the Reform Party, promised the people of
Ontario.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member where he gets his
math from.
If in fact this government has created these 700,000 or 800,000
jobs, why has that not affected the unemployment rate in Canada?
If these are new jobs which have been created by this government,
then in order for the unemployment rate to remain as stable as it has
in the upper limits of 9 per cent, there must be jobs being lost on the
other side because there are still 1.5 million people unemployed.
Mr. DeVillers: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with that point in my speech.
The number of people who are unemployed is still roughly the
same because more people have come into the workforce. Some
people have graduated from school. Other people have obtained
training and are now in the workforce. Other people have realized
that there is a possibility of getting a job now and that is why they
have returned to the workforce.
The government cannot control the number of people who enter
the workforce. It can encourage people to enter the workforce, but
it certainly cannot control who wants to be in the StatsCan figure
and who does not.
(1820 )
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
particularly pleased and honoured to rise today in the House of
Commons to address the issue of the budget.
Our fourth budget continues the plan that is important for
Atlantic Canadians. It is of particular importance to the people of
New Brunswick in my riding of Fundy-Royal.
It is a plan that dwells on the competent fiscal and economic
management that is reducing the deficit. It is a plan that is aimed at
creating and continuing to create a climate for jobs and economic
growth in both the short term and the long term. It is a plan that
ensures the long term future for effective sustainable social
programs and that invests in a stronger society through education,
health and our children.
I will point out a few facts that have become very important
especially to the people in my riding. Our fourth budget announces
that this year's deficit is the lowest in 15 years. It represents the
largest year over year decline in the federal deficit ever. By 1999
we will no longer need to borrow any new money from financial
markets and we will have the lowest deficit in the G-7.
Our fourth budget is also the latest instalment in our efforts to
clean up the unprecedented fiscal and economic mess that was left
behind by previous governments. In January 1994 the deficit was at
$42 billion and our unemployment rate stood at 11.4 per cent. Our
indebtedness was threatening our very future and the very future of
the social programs that are of such vital importance to Canadians,
especially Atlantic Canadians. No wonder so many Canadians had
given up hope until 1993. What a difference four Liberal budgets
have made.
One thing our budget does not do is to sacrifice sound economic
management and wise economic investments for short term
political expediency. Other parties are only too keen to play politics
with questionable across the board tax schemes, but this is not what
Canadians want. With this our fourth budget we are trying not to let
Canadians down.
When we took office Canadians knew that we needed to take
tough decisions and that fundamental reforms were required. When
we took office in 1993 Canada's fiscal mess was jeopardizing the
very future of our cherished social programs. With more money
going to bankers each year than to social programs, their prospects
were increasingly bleak.
Throughout our mandate our government has taken steps to save
Canada's social safety net. In just three and a half years, we have
reformed all aspects of our social safety net. All aspects of our
social safety net have been reformed: a new employment insurance
system; a new Canada health and social transfer which provides the
flexibility and certainty that provinces need to deliver services in
health, post-secondary education and social assistance; an $11
billion cash floor in the CHST, not a cash ceiling; and a new seniors
benefit which was created to better target those seniors in our
society in the most need without affecting current seniors.
(1825 )
When we took office in 1993, Canadians had lost confidence but
we knew that Canadians elected a Liberal government because they
8342
trusted us to make decisions with compassion. We are building the
social safety net of the future.
The 1997 budget announces the Canada child tax benefit,
targeting more assistance to over a million Canadian families and
their children to help those families escape the welfare trap.
Our youth employment strategy was announced to provide job
opportunities for 110,000 young Canadians and to give young
Canadians improved access to the federal youth programs which
are presently worth more than $2 billion. We also believe it is
important to ensure that all of our young people have access to
good education. We have improved the system of student loans and
education credits.
We have allocated $800 million for a new Canada innovation
foundation which will be particularly helpful to our hospitals and
universities in the province of New Brunswick.
We know that governments working together can do a better job
in labour market training. Recognizing this, the federal government
has turned over administration of labour market training to the
provinces. As everyone knows, Alberta and New Brunswick have
already signed ground breaking agreements.
The National Forum on Health recently made a number of
recommendations to improve health care. The 1997 budget
provides for $300 million over the next three years to implement
key recommendations of the national forum. Social union
discussions between the federal and provincial governments are
setting out our principles of the safety net for the future and the
management of our future.
Our commitment to the principles of the Canada Health Act is
unequivocal. These principles will be enforced as they have been
throughout our mandate. We will not only protect medicare, we
will work in partnership with the provinces to improve it and to
strengthen it.
We will take action to ensure that our health care dollars are
spent more effectively and efficiently. We will bring the system up
to date to respond to the changing health needs of Canadians and to
respond to the advances which are being made to medical practices.
The National Forum on Health stated that the transition to a
better system in the future requires some targeted investments
today. That is why our fourth budget provides $300 million over
the next three years to implement key recommendations of the
national forum. Every single dollar will go to the delivery of better
health care for Canadians.
We are also providing $150 million over the next three years for
the health transition fund to help provinces launch pilot projects to
investigate new and better approaches to health care. I believe the
province of New Brunswick is already on the leading edge of
developing important new projects for this important transition
fund.
As I conclude, it is important to remember that today while
unemployment is at 9.7 per cent, we will not be satisfied until every
Canadian and every New Brunswicker who wants to work can get a
job. We need to build on what works. Despite the cutbacks in the
public sector, we have created 700,000 jobs since 1994. This year
alone we will create 300,000 new jobs. Our jobs strategy is
working.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): When the debate is
resumed there will be five minutes of questions and comments on
the hon. member's speech.
_____________________________________________
8342
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from February 18 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-72, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board
Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be
immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture
and Agri-Food.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): It being 6.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on
the motion to refer Bill C-72 to committee before second reading.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 226)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Augustine
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Canuel
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
de Savoye
Debien
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dubé
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
8343
Guarnieri
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Simmons
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Young
Zed-148
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Benoit
Bhaduria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
de Jong
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Kerpan
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Penson
Schmidt
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Taylor
Williams-30
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bethel
Crête
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Deshaies
Duceppe
Fillion
Finestone
Gagliano
Gauthier
Guay
Hanger
Lalonde
Landry
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Mifflin
Peters
Robillard
St. Denis
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne
Wells
Whelan
(1855)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion
carried.
Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee
on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
(Motion agreed to, and bill referred to a committee.)
* * *
The House resumed from February 18, 1997 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-79, an act to permit certain modifications in the
application of the Indian Act to bands that desire them, be referred
to a committee before second reading.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion to refer
Bill C-79 to a committee before second reading.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, you would find
that the House will give its consent that members who voted on the
previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House, with Liberal members recorded as having voted
yes.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, before announcing how the members
of the Bloc Quebecois intend to vote, I would like to point out that
at least one member on the government side has left the House. I do
not think we can count his vote.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the deputy whip of
the official opposition. The name of the Minister of Agriculture
will have to be withdrawn.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois will
vote no.
[English]
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
oppose this motion.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats in the House tonight
vote no.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Mr. Speaker, the member for Beauce
will vote yes.
[English]
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against the motion.
8344
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 227)
YEAS
Members
Augustine
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélanger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Catterall
Chamberlain
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Simmons
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Young
Zed-113
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bhaduria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Dubé
Dumas
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Jacob
Kerpan
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Williams-64
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bethel
Crête
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Deshaies
Duceppe
Fillion
Finestone
Gagliano
Gauthier
Guay
Hanger
Lalonde
Landry
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Mifflin
Peters
Robillard
St. Denis
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne
Wells
Whelan
(Motion agreed to)
_____________________________________________
8344
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
(1900)
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
establishment of a national securities commission is an idea that
has been around for close to 30 years, but until recently there has
been little progress.
The issue has become more prevalent in recent years because of
the ever-changing nature of investment and trade. This is the era of
the globalization of trade and Canada must remain competitive. To
do so, Canada must facilitate market investment. If we cannot
8345
encourage investment we will lose our competitive edge in the
broader global market.
In recent years, Canada has witnessed the creation of
conglomerates in the financial industry. This has generated a dire
need for regulation and, if this does not occur, Canadian investment
will suffer severely.
Unlike most other countries, Canada has a securities commission
in each province and territory. This requires a company to go
through the same procedure numerous times. A company wanting
to sell shares in several provinces must gain approval from the
securities commission in each one. This requires the company to
file both its prospectus and disclosure many times. It is tedious and
expensive, creating a great deal of uncertainty and duplication.
Companies are also discouraged by the different standards of the
various provincial commissions. This complicated situation has
resulted in companies opting for the single filing system in the
United States. Many Canadian companies are choosing to file on
U.S. exchanges such as NASDAQ. This is precisely how the
numerous provincial commissions hurt the Canadian investment
market. Costly duplication and differing standards discourage
Canadian companies from listing on Canadian exchanges.
Canadian exchanges are losing high quality companies to other
countries.
Because of the current situation, I have seen Canadian
companies that were funded by Canadian research grants using
Canadian graduates, Canadian expertise develop a new technology
that become a commercial success by going to a U.S. exchange to
raise capital. We have the ridiculous situation now where Canadian
companies are encouraged to become foreign companies and to
move their operations outside Canada, denying jobs to Canadians.
This must be stopped.
Why is it that the management of Canadian exchanges generally
favour a national commission and the provinces do not? This is not
a political question but an economic one which must be addressed.
The solution to this problem is to create a centralized agency
which can increase efficiency, standardize regulation and reduce
the costs involved in investment. The current system is not good
enough. Canada risks losing much of its high quality investments
to the United States if it does not facilitate these companies.
As the member for Waterloo riding, I am particularly concerned
with this issue because of its important impact on my community.
Waterloo is a member of the Canadian technology triangle and is an
important contributor to Canada's profile on the global market.
Waterloo companies are extremely dependent on their investment
potential throughout Canada.
We must encourage the Canadian economy through every means
possible. This would entail a transition from the provincial
securities commissions to a centralized national commission which
would be more efficient and less costly.
This is not a political question but an economic one. Our
economic interests are at stake. If Canada is to remain a forerunner
in the global market, we must facilitate investment interests in a
national securities commission.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
hon. member for Waterloo for his question on the Canadian
securities commission initiative.
The federal government became involved with the Canadian
securities commission initiative as a result of the request from
provinces. The objective is to improve on the existing system of
securities regulation in Canada whereby the capital market
participants have to deal right now with up to 12 different
regulators. We are prepared, at the federal level, to facilitate the
process.
Regulatory duplication creates uncertainty and adds to the cost
of raising capital in Canada. It may be motivating some Canadian
companies to raise capital in other markets. It may also be
deterring some global issuers from selling their securities in
Canada.
(1905)
For some months now, federal and provincial officials have been
developing a memorandum of understanding which would set out
the possible parameters of a Canadian securities commission. We
have been talking about a voluntary arrangement whereby
participating provinces would delegate the authority to regulate
securities in their jurisdiction to the Canadian securities
commission. Provinces who do not wish to participate will
continue with their existing securities regulations.
We are talking about a regime with one set of rules applied
across all participating provinces, a single agency with a number of
regional offices capable of providing one-stop service yet at the
same time maintaining the strengths of our regional capital
markets.
Work on the memorandum of understanding has now been
completed and it has been forwarded to the provinces for their
response.
While we believe that a Canadian securities commission would
make an important contribution to the efficiency of Canadian
capital markets, the decision to proceed further with the
establishment of a Canadian securities commission rests with the
provinces.
The Minister of Finance has asked the provincial ministers
responsible to respond in the very near future regarding their
interest in proceeding. If there is sufficient interest, a process will
be established to ensure the timely implementation of a Canadian
securities commission.
I hope this responds to my hon. friend's question.
8346
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak
on the matter of a question I asked the Minister for International
Trade on October 23 about Canadian exports. In the minister's
response to my question, he made two points that I thought were
very important.
The first point was that our merchandise exports are sufficiently
high in terms of the surplus over our imports to counteract what has
previously been an unfavourable balance for us in invisible trade.
That means our current accounts are now in a surplus position in
Canada for the first time in something like 22 years. That is largely
due to a lot of aggressive moves by the government which I would
like to refer to later. However it is important that the Canadian
public focus on the fact that it is not just our exports that are in
surplus now, but it is our total current accounts which are in
surplus. This is an extremely important development for the
Canadian economy.
The second point the minister made was that much of the success
in the export market that has been made recently has been due to
efforts of small and medium size businesses. The committee on
foreign affairs and international trade recently prepared a report on
small and medium size businesses and the export trade.
In that report we found that small and medium size businesses
are being much more aggressive in areas of export than they had
been before. They are becoming familiar with the tools which
government provides them with, such as the Export Development
Corporation which in turn is working with the banks to enable
better financing mechanisms for exports. They are better using our
trade commissioner services. They are using team Canada and
going on team Canada missions when team Canada goes abroad.
They are participating also through their provinces and
municipalities in a way to ensure that they have access to exports.
We found something else about small and medium size
businesses and their access to exports that is very important for this
country. We have a tremendously talented pool of people in the
multicultural communities of our country who speak languages
other than English and French and who have knowledge of other
cultures, business cultures.
In my own riding of Rosedale in downtown Toronto, there are
areas where over 50 languages are spoken. I speak to many of these
people. Some of them are now forming small and medium size
businesses. They are able to export their products to the
communities where they came from because they have access to
those communities. They know those markets. This is an
enormously rich pool for us to develop. This government is to be
congratulated on reaching out to that community and seeking to
enable it to be effective in these markets.
Finally, the other thing we have to draw attention to in this area
is the fact that many of our exports are now directed toward the
service industry. Services now represent about 60 per cent of the
GDP of modern economies. I am informed that in Toronto over55 per cent of all services are traded services.
(1910 )
A report prepared by the Boston consulting group, sponsored by
the Bank of Nova Scotia, shows the importance of the financial
services to the Toronto economy.
This is key to the future because these are traded services and
therefore require a marketplace within the domestic economy
which will enable them to reach out into the international economy.
We must be conscious of the fact that we have to make sure that in
this country we have an appropriate domestic marketplace that will
enable these companies to grow and develop in the service field,
particularly in the financial field in modern cities like Toronto,
Montreal, Vancouver and other important financial centres.
This means we must focus on ensuring that we have a free
market within Canada. We have to perfect our national markets. We
have to insure that we are not impeding but helping our financial
services providers to be part of the international community as well
as the domestic community.
The people from small and medium size businesses who came
before us in the committee told us that they are now competing in
the domestic economy as well as internationally. We must make
sure we have both. In so doing, we must ensure that we have the
multilateral as well as the bilateral mechanisms in place.
Finally, in that respect we should congratulate the government
on signing the Canada-Chile free trade agreement, which is one
more way to ensure that we will have access to those important
developing Latin markets which will complement our exports
outside of Canada.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
respond to the comments from my colleague, the hon. member for
Rosedale.
I do not think there are many people in the House who are as
articulate when it comes to dealing in the realm of foreign policy,
both trade and others. There are many times that I seek his wise
guidance, as does the minister.
The questions he raises and the comments he made are quite
true. This year has been a record year for Canadian exports. Indeed,
Canada is now exporting almost $1 billion of goods and services
every single working day. We have seen our trade surplus continue
to mount over the last few years.
This year the trade surplus has increased by 20 per cent in excess
of $34 billion. In the last three years exports have increased by47 per cent. Our GDP as it relates to trade is now at an all time high
of almost 40 per cent. Some have put it over 40 per cent. So it is
very clear that Canada's success in trade is driving the engine of
8347
recovery. It is the engine which is producing the jobs in the
economy and wealth for Canadians.
The member spoke about the importance of the service sector.
He is entirely correct. For the last number of years as our trade and
our surplus in goods and products has grown, we have lagged
behind in services.
I would like to say to the hon. member that according to the
statistics that came out today, for the first time in 12 years Canada
has posted a surplus not just on the goods side but on the service
sector side. That is very positive news for the movement in that
sector of the Canadian economy.
The member speaks about the importance of small and medium
size enterprises. The government could not agree more. It knows
that the continued success of trade abroad will continue and will
sometimes be led by large companies. But the success we are most
proud of are in the small and medium size enterprises whose people
accompanied the Prime Minister, the minister of trade and other
members of Parliament along with me around the globe. They are
truly showing the entrepreneurial spirit in the Canadian economy.
And this is what will continue to lead in the creation of jobs and
growth both domestically and abroad.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): It being 7.15 p.m., the
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to our
standing orders.
(The House adjourned at 7.15 p.m.)