In one sentence, we see interference in three different areas,
namely health, education and manpower training. If we want to
attract new members to the nursing profession, we do not need
statisticians, sociologists or rocket scientists from the
federal government. Give us back the money and we will know what
to do with it. We will give nurses higher salaries and hire more
of them. We need money, not far-fetched ideas from the finance
minister and his accomplices.
In the computer age where communications are transforming our
society, the federal government will use new technologies to
further interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction. I am
thinking of the telehomecare, telehealth program. Ottawa can now
have a physical presence in CLSCs and is in the process of
creating virtual CLSCs.
This is unacceptable, especially the unfair treatment Quebec is
getting in the distribution of additional health transfers.
First of all, I must point out the hypocritical methods used by
the federal government in announcing, without ever consulting
Quebec, how it will distribute the $11.5 billion that will be
put back into the health care system. Quebec was not consulted,
probably because this was part of the federal government's
overall strategy regarding the social union issue.
Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia were given kickbacks and
asked to sign. That is what the arrangement was, as we now know.
1050
The document on health, signed by the ten premiers, specifies
that any amount paid back through the Canada health and social
transfer was to be reinvested in health on the same terms and
conditions as before. Once again, the Prime Minister broke the
promise he made, when he signed, but he has done that on many
occasions before. His whole career has been marked by such
actions.
On the social union, consultations and a a one-year notice are
provided for. The agreement was signed on February 4. The budget
was brought down on February 16.
The whole method of funding health care has been changed. That
is how Ontario's support was bought, and we have seen that the
stage was set for Mike Harris' comedy. That is how British
Columbia and Alberta were bought as well.
We only need a few figures to illustrate this. In 1998-99, of the
extra $2 billion in transfers for health, $150 million will go
to Quebec and $949 million will go to Ontario. As for the $11.5
billion over five years, $950 million will go to Quebec and $5.5
billion to Ontario. That is billion, not million. Overall, Quebec
will receive 8.3% of the transfers, while Ontario will receive
47%.
Whatever the period considered, Ontario receives six times more
money than Quebec. That is what this good budget for Quebec is
about, apparently.
Of course, the spineless Liberal members we have here in Ottawa,
these federalist yes-men, will contend that Quebec is getting an
extra $1.4 billion in equalization payments, which is nothing
but money owned to Quebec for the miscalculations the federal
government has made three years in a row.
I heard the Minister of Immigration state, yesterday, that they
are trying to repair a historic injustice. In fact, they are
creating another one for Quebec. This is disappointing on the
part of a former health and education minister in Quebec. This
kind of attitude is disappointing, appalling and sad. We are
expected to be pleased this consolation prize, because that is
what equalization is, a consolation prize for other policies.
A few years ago, I heard the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs say that, to bring Quebec nationalists and even
federalist nationalists to take a more realistic view, Quebec
would have to suffer. I think he has achieved his goal this
time.
His prescription has been filled by federal bureaucrat
pharmacists, “Quebec is getting what the doctor ordered”. That
is strong medicine. This is the sort of utter nonsense this
minister utters; however, cabinet accepted it.
It is a short term solution. Ontario will receive ongoing
transfer payments now and not just on the 50% provided for last
year by the Minister of Finance in the social transfers, but on
the whole thing, all 100%, not only for education or health,
where there is a certain rationale for a per capita basis, but
also for social welfare.
Should a province have 23% of the social welfare cases because
it represents 23% of the population? That is the sort of
nonsensical reasoning of the government and the Minister of
Finance.
Let us take a look at what this per capita method would mean
overall. If it applies to social transfers, will it apply to
current federal spending on goods and services, where Quebec
receives 20% instead of 24%? Will it apply to federal capital
assets and spending, where Quebec receives 19% instead of 24%?
Will it apply to federal subsidies to business, where Quebec
received 18% rather than 24%. And to federal laboratories,
where the figure is 16%? And to research and development, where
it is 14%?
In the national capital region, of 43 research centres, 42 on
the Ottawa side and one in Hull. Is that chance? We do not
think so. It is not a matter of chance, this is traditional
Ottawa politics. That is 13% of federal personnel in science
and technology, and I am not including the army.
Let us have a look at regional development. In the maritimes,
the per capita amount from the federal government is $1,074; in
Quebec it is $325. In this case, the per capita basis is not a
good thing. They forget the per capita basis when it is worth
their while, and the Liberals from Quebec, marching merrily
along, have not a word to say about it. They will agree to
anything. This sort of attitude is shameful.
1055
This government and this Minister of Finance in particular, with
his henchman, his shylock in human resources, are shameless.
Political schemes are now what guide the Minister of Finance in
determining how the accounting should be done.
The Minister of Finance tells us he is going to stay the course,
creating trusts like the millennium scholarships, in the name of
good public health and transparency. When we ask questions here
in the House about the millennium scholarships, we are told that
we must ask the foundation. What is transparent about that?
When we notice surpluses, later on, they will tell us there is a
foundation,
that they cannot answer our questions.
They call that transparency. I have another word for it, like
the term fair play they use so often. Unfortunately, fair play
seems to be the best we can come up with in French as an
equivalent for the English, but 90% of the time these people use
the expression fair play to mean what we call hypocrisy in
French. That is the only word for it.
We know that surpluses will magically materialize next spring.
The Minister of Finance will say that the government has done
much better than he expected it would, and that he had no idea
three weeks earlier that there would be a $15 billion surplus.
The Minister of Finance may be a lot of things, but he is not
unintelligent. He is not lacking in the brain department. He
knows how to count, we know that. He is a good counter, but we
do not have the right accounting book.
This is because, every year, the minister indulges in a game of
cooking the books. It reminds me of the recipes of a chef named
Pol Martin. I can mention that name, because there is indeed a
chef named Pol Martin.
The minister underestimates revenues, overestimates spending,
dips into the employment insurance fund of his accomplice, all
this with a good dose of political cynicism seasoned à la Pol
Martin, the chef, not the Minister of Finance, of course.
He tells us he is being cautious, but his figures no longer mean
anything. One cannot be off the mark by $15 billion or $12
billion year after year. People know that what is being
announced now is not what will be announced in March and in
October, when the last quarter will end. Last year, the Bloc
Quebecois said the surplus would be at least $2.5 billion. We
were told “No, no, no, this is wrong”. Well, in October, it
turned out to be $3.5 billion. This is the reality.
The minister uses the same trick every year.
So, surpluses will appear once again and what will the
government do? It will set up new trusts. Last year, the
government got involved in education, while this year it is in
the health sector. What will it be involved in next year?
Perhaps in municipal affairs, road infrastructures or whatever.
Things are becoming more and more clear with this government. We
can see why the Prime Minister was anxious to hold a last minute
meeting, on February 4, after refusing to do so just before the
budget. It was to bribe the provinces that would sign the
agreement and keep quiet afterwards. This government is
rebuilding Canada for Canadians, for the nine other provinces
that are working together.
I have nothing against their wanting to build a Canada in their
own image. I have known for a long time that Quebec has no place
in there. We are in each other's way because we are two
different peoples with two different ways of doing things. And
there are nine allies on the other side who sign documents, only
to go back on their word afterwards. The Prime Minister did it
yesterday by not adhering to the social union agreement with
regard to transfer payments.
The Prime Minister told us that the Constitution's general store
was closed. I can tell you that the Prime Minister's boutique is
open for business and that federal officials are getting in
through the back door and getting ready to change everything in
this country, trying to impose upon Quebec their own vision of
Canada. They are telling us: “You will comply. You will be
pleased to get equalization payments. You will be pleased that
there is no productive policy for Quebec.
You will be pleased with things such as the energy line in the
past, even though you are not getting your share of the research
and development envelope. But you have equalization payments.
You have more employment insurance, more unemployment
insurance”.
Could it be because unemployment is on the rise and federal
policies have something to do with it?
All the yes-men, all the happy beggars, Liberal members from
Quebec, applaud their leader.
1100
Quebec's motto is “I remember”. I can tell you that this budget
will not be well received in Quebec, that we will remember it.
If they think they can impose their own vision of Canada, the
Bloc will be here to defend Quebec's true interests.
We will not give in, as those on the other side constantly do,
thinking that 74 Liberals out of 75 signed the Constitution in
1982. We called them “the 74 nitwits”. I think we are not
through seeing nitwits among federal Liberals from Quebec.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois is complaining about the budget, but this is nothing
new, this is par for the course.
[English]
The Bloc members complain about everything and anything. I am
glad to hear the opposition leader say that they will be around
for a long time, not that I welcome them here in the House, but
that means Quebeckers will not accept their vision of Canada.
One thing I found very interesting is the Bloc Quebecois and the
Parti Quebecois talk about the per capita equalization. I find
that strangely ironic because I guess some deal was cooked up
with the previous Conservative government, the Quebec government
and other governments. It is fine to have nice little cosy
deals, but when they are not fair, that is when we speak up. What
we have here is a per capita equalization on the CHST that is
fair.
What the hon. member forgets to mention is the equalization.
[Translation]
Thanks to the new equalization formula calculated over a
five-year period, the have-not provinces will get $5 billion more
in the next five years than they did in the last five.
[English]
Sadly, Quebec is one of those less prosperous provinces. Why is
it less prosperous? Because of the policies and politics of the
Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois.
If we look at the equalization payments, Quebec received in
1997-98 $4.2 billion, and in 1998-99 $4 billion. That is about
half of all equalization. In fact it will allow the province of
Quebec to balance its budget.
The member conveniently forgets the equalization. He
conveniently forgets the fairness of the per capita CHST.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I did not forget it, in fact I
alluded to it in my speech. The member would know this if he had
listened.
When I said that this so-called fair-play and fairness was in fact
hypocrisy to us, this is living proof of what I meant.
If Quebec is getting more through equalization, and that may
well be the case, it is because research centres are primarily
located in Ontario, not in Quebec, it is because goods and
services are bought primarily in Ontario, not in Quebec. The
government would like us to believe that we are charity cases.
We do not want charity, we want productive investments.
This is the kind of speech heard even before Confederation. When
we got together back in 1840, Ontario was in debt, but not
Quebec.
They said “Let us be fair and have everyone contribute”. This is
their idea of fairness. Today, they are again talking about
fairness. They are saying “You have equalization, we are giving
you money, you should be pleased with our generosity”. In the
meantime, they make money.
For example, think of the money invested in Ontario with the
Borden line, to the detriment of Quebec, and with the auto pact,
again to the detriment of Quebec. This is productive money,
unlike the money for welfare and unemployment, as they well
know.
It is total hypocrisy to tell us that you love us, that you give
us money. If you love us so much, are you prepared to pay for
Quebec to stay? In any case, I do not believe you for one
moment.
[English]
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader
of the Bloc Quebecois, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, has
made an impassioned speech. He uses a lot of fine language. He
used the word “hypocritical”.
Twenty-three per cent of the funding is for 23% of the
population.
That is not hypocritical. My colleague has talked about fair
play. I find it passing strange that the leader says that they
have not found a good way to say it in French. I wonder if that
is because the Bloc Quebecois, the real—and I say that
facetiously—Quebeckers, do not really understand fair play?
1105
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Hon. members, before
we get into this, I think it is prudent to remark on the term
“hypocritical”. My understanding is that in the form and the
context used by the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, he did
not refer beyond generalities to an action. He did not refer to
a specific person or individual but to a circumstance. It is
important that that point be made.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, we have a clear enough
understanding of what fair play is to know that when my
colleague, the member for I am not sure which riding, talks
about fair play, we know that what he is really talking about is
hypocrisy.
We understand the concept well enough to know that it is not
fair play he is talking about but hypocrisy, because if funding
is on a per capita basis, that is fair, we get 23% of the social
transfer, fine. Why not in research and development? Why not
in procurement of goods and services? Why not in regional
development? How can they talk about fair play when, if
something is productive, it is not good for Quebec, but a great
boost for Ontario?
But, when health is on the table, fair play is dragged into it.
It is a double standard: it cannot be fair to one party and not
the other. If there is agreement for per capita funding, then
that is what it should be across the board. And the day we see
that, we will not need Ottawa, among other things. We will keep
our money for our own affairs. What we do not need is to send
it here, have it processed by a few bureaucrats and then receive
it back in another envelope.
They can work out whatever arrangement they want with the rest
of Canada. That is their business and I want nothing to do with
it.
But our money belongs to us and we are not receiving it in
productive sectors, because per capita funding has gone by the
board. But when it comes time to redistribute the money for
health and social assistance, the per capita formula applies.
Especially for social assistance. Talk about inconsistencies!
Will any member opposite rise in their place and defend their
government's policy, without fear of being mistaken for someone
who should not have been elected?
[English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time
with the hon. member for Chatham—Kent Essex.
The 1999 federal budget is good news for the people of
Guelph—Wellington. Last August I concluded a prebudget survey
asking constituents what they would like to see in the budget. I
sent a copy of the responses to my colleague the Minister of
Finance. I am proud to say that he listened to the needs of our
community.
When asked about their budget priorities, the most common answer
in my riding was health care. This is a health care budget. An
increase of $11.5 billion dollars over five years with an
immediate transfer of $3.5 billion is great news for everyone.
This infusion of funds brings the so-called health care component
of the Canada health and social transfer back to the level it was
before the period of restraint in the mid-1990s. It is very
important to note that all of this money will go directly to
health care.
A health accord was recently reached as part of the social union
negotiations. There the federal government agreed to increase
funding for health care. In turn, the provinces promised to
dedicate all new health money to health spending. The federal
government has upheld its end of the bargain. I am confident
that the provinces will do the same.
The era of federal-provincial struggles is over. The social
union agreement established an administrative framework for the
management of Canada's crucial social programs. It established a
process of dispute avoidance and resolution. It is proof that by
working together the provincial, territorial and federal
governments can build a better Canada. I believe that this
atmosphere of co-operation will continue into the new millennium.
How will this health care money benefit the residents of
Guelph—Wellington? It will be used to address the immediate
problems of the medicare system, bed shortages, waiting lists and
staffing difficulties.
However, it will also be used to ensure the long term survival
and fitness of the health care system that Canadians everywhere
are so very proud of, a system that is the model for countries
around the world.
1110
One aspect of this funding increase that I find truly remarkable
is that the provinces are given the flexibility to determine when
they will receive the money that they need. This way every
province will be able to meet the needs of its residents at its
own pace.
In addition to money for front line services, $1.4 billion has
been allocated to improve health information systems so that
Canadians know how their health care dollars are being spent. It
will also be used to promote health related research and
innovation in areas like breast cancer treatment and the Canadian
institutes of health research.
Finally, it will focus on prevention and ways to promote
community health.
Something else that is big news for Guelph—Wellington is the
equalization of transfer payments. It used to be that the have
provinces, including Ontario, received a lower per capita amount
under the CHST. Within three years these payments will be
equalized so that every Canadian receives the same transfer
payment because after all, Canadians want a society where
everyone is treated equally.
In addition to health care funding, many residents of
Guelph—Wellington wanted tax cuts. Once again the federal
government has delivered.
Last year the federal government initiated a program of
progressive tax cuts. This year we have built on that foundation
by increasing the basic personal income tax credit from $6,456 to
$7,131, an increase of $675. The 3% surtax has also been
eliminated. Families with incomes of up to $45,000 will see
their taxes reduced by at least 10%. When combined with the
measures announced in the previous budget, this amounts to $16.5
billion in tax relief over three years.
These measures will also take an additional 200,000 low income
Canadians off the tax rolls. Further, the federal government has
allocated an additional $300 million for the child tax benefit.
The threshold for benefits has been increased to allow almost $2
million for low and modest income families to receive benefits.
This is an important tool in the fight against child poverty.
For the residents of Guelph—Wellington, tax relief means more
money in people's pockets but not at the expense of our standard
of living. It is because we have balanced the budget that we are
able to do things like cut taxes and increase spending on social
programs.
However, we do not believe that we should throw caution to the
wind. We will not make decisions today that will run us into the
red causing future generations to pay for past mistakes. No, we
will continue to project two-year fiscal plans to have a
contingency fund and to use that contingency fund to pay down the
debt if it is not needed for other things.
This is only the second time since 1951 that a federal
government has recorded two balanced or surplus budgets back to
back. It is also only the third time since Confederation that we
have had four consecutive years of budgets in the black. We will
continue to improve on our nation's financial situation while
improving the standard of living for all Canadians.
We cannot pursue either goal at the expense of the other, but
rather, we must achieve balance.
The University of Guelph is one of the best post-secondary
institutions in Canada and an important part of my community. It
too will benefit from this budget and therefore so will the
people of Guelph—Wellington.
The 1999 federal budget builds on the Canadian opportunities
strategy announced last spring. Over the next three years the
federal government has allocated $1.8 billion for the creation,
sharing and commercialization of knowledge and innovation. This
money will benefit the University of Guelph in a very real way.
The Canada Foundation for Innovation will distribute $200
million to improve research infrastructure. The Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council will receive an additional $75
million to fund research and graduate studies. Biotechnology
research will receive a $55 million boost over three years. Larry
Milligan at the University of Guelph has been very involved in
this field.
1115
Once this knowledge is created the federal government will work
to commercialize new technology, thereby helping to strengthen
our economy and create jobs. Young people especially will
benefit from this commitment to research and innovation because
they will be on the cutting edge of technology and possess the
skills needed to succeed in today's marketplace.
Our method is working. The 1998 budget announced the Canada
education savings grant to help parents save for their children's
education. I am happy to report this program has been twice as
successful as projected. Between 1972 when registered education
savings plans were introduced and 1997 there was a net
accumulation of $2.5 billion in the plan. With the introduction
of last year's CESG that amount increased to $4 billion, which is
very impressive.
Another example of the success of our fiscal management program
is continued job creation. Our national unemployment rate is
7.8%, the lowest it has been since 1990. In Guelph the rate is
5.8%. Last year youth employment saw its largest increase in 20
years. Canada leads the G-7 in job growth.
Over three-quarters of the new spending outlined in this budget
reflects two of the highest priorities of the constituents of
Guelph—Wellington and of all Canadians, health care and access
to knowledge and innovation. However, it does not neglect other
important areas such as funding for youth, justice, foreign aid
and Canadian forces personnel.
I would like to commend my colleague, the Minister of Finance,
on a budget that benefits the people of Guelph—Wellington and
Canadians everywhere. This budget not only reflects the
priorities of Canadians but the goals of the government. We will
strengthen universal health care, provide tax relief for our
citizens, fight child poverty and invest to increase our standard
of living by promoting access to knowledge, research and
innovation.
This budget reflects the balanced approach for which the Liberal
government is known. It is one of the reasons Canadians have
elected us to form two consecutive majority governments. While
reducing our debt to GDP ratio is important, something we have
done and will continue to do, our bottom line is people. We were
elected by them to help improve their lives by steering the
nation on the right course. Given the contents of this budget I
would say we are definitely doing our job.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
morning the media were reporting that the President of the
Treasury Board and the Minister of Human Resources Development
saw a benefit of federalism in the budget. Good grief, I never
thought I would agree with ministers from the other side of the
House.
What a fine example of Canadian federalism: 78% of freed up new
money will go to the three richest provinces. Ontario will
receive nearly 50% of the new money. The member for
Guelph—Wellington must be very happy with that. Quebec will
receive less than 10% of this new money.
In other terms, Ontario will be getting $950 million and Quebec,
$150 million.
Once again, Quebec is being had, and no federal Liberal minister
or member is rising to defend the interests of Quebec.
So, I put my question to the member for Guelph—Wellington.
What does she think of the Quebec Liberal doormats, who have not
taken a stand in the defence of Quebec's interests?
[English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, this troubles and
saddens me. I see Bloc members continually talking in this
Chamber only for themselves, only for Quebec and never for the
rest of Canada. They do not care about the rest of Canadians. It
is shameful. It is an uncaring attitude that the Bloc Quebecois
members have had ever since the first day they came to this
Chamber.
I have seen it on a consistent basis day after day in this
Chamber. They truly should be ashamed of themselves.
1120
The question was what about our federal members from Quebec.
They continually stand in the House of Commons and talk about
Quebec, but they talk about Quebec as a part of this great
country. They talk about Quebec but they also talk about other
Canadians. Why do they do this? Because they care, they have
compassion and they have humanity. They do not only wish to
serve themselves as the Bloc Quebecois is doing in this Chamber.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
interested in the comments of the member about this being a
budget. The bottom line is that this is a budget for people and
it is very good for the people of her riding.
Some of the people in my riding of Dartmouth will benefit from
this budget, there is no question. We do have some millionaires
in the riding of Dartmouth and they will get an $8,000 tax break.
But there are a lot of people in my riding who will not benefit
from the budget and I am very concerned about those people. I am
concerned about the fact that we have high levels of disabilities
in my community, and Nova Scotia has the highest level in the
country. In this budget there is $5 million earmarked for the
disabled and that is an incredibly pitiful amount, given the
state of disabilities in the country today.
I am also very concerned of the fact that there is no money for
social housing. There is no money to go back into the EI fund
which has been in fact robbed in order to allow the Minister of
Finance his so-called health budget.
I would like to know how the member believes that this budget is
reflecting the needs of the one million poor children in this
country who received nothing whatsoever from the budget, not at
all affected by the child tax credit. How is the budget good for
these children?
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, obviously they are
getting a benefit from the budget because of the child tax
credit. We have increased that amount to poor families. There
is no doubt that children in bad straits come from low income
families. We have made a provision for that in this budget.
We have addressed taxes in the budget. We have also addressed a
major concern. When the member says in Dartmouth maybe we have
done a little for them, my goodness surely the people in
Dartmouth will benefit from the health care provisions. The
people in Dartmouth will benefit from the provisions for youth,
for justice and for the military. Surely the people from
Dartmouth will benefit from all these things in the budget. I
know they will.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, over the last 10 years that I have been in the House I
have never heard the opposition suggest there is a perfect budget
or a perfect answer to any question the government puts forward.
We all realize its job is to criticize and try to find practices
and policies which it feels the average Canadian would disagree
with. One of the things I have heard over the last couple of
days from my constituents is this is a pretty good budget. This
is a plan that is moving our Canadian culture and society forward
in many different ways. If we stop and think about it, it does
hold a tremendous amount of positives for all Canadians.
I would like to examine three areas of the budget that are very
important to all Canadians. The message that comes forth in my
view is we have a rock solid economy which is the foundation by
which business, social programs and all that we stand for as
Canadians can advance.
Clearly that rock solid foundation has been built by the cabinet
of the Liberal Party, by the finance minister and by the members
of the House. I want to make it very clear it was a combination
of all members here as well as Canadian society in general who
have told the House, the finance minister and the government what
directions they would like to see in this budget.
1125
The process has changed dramatically today compared with what it
was 10 years ago. Thinking back 10 years when I first came to
this House a budget leak occurred the night before the budget was
to be released. Suddenly, from the Conservative government, all
the budgets were sent out and everybody ran in circles and nobody
knew what to do because it was a very secretive process, a
process in which Canadians did not have a great deal of input and
as a result I guess there was a tremendous amount of
dissatisfaction at the end.
We have changed that process dramatically. Today we are very
transparent. We are very open in consulting Canadians. As a
matter of fact, the premier point that I can make with this
budget is there was nothing new. Canadians knew what was coming
down in the budget long before the budget day announcement. They
did not know the fine details, but they certainly knew the
direction in which this government was heading because of the
consultation process.
In my view, that probably is the number one change that has
occurred to make Canadians a part of the process and therefore
Canadians are very happy with the result of the process as well.
Three areas I want to touch on are the rock solid economy and
how that is helping the Canadian economy grow, investment in
social and economic priorities, and the substantial, fair tax
relief.
When we think about this rock solid economy that we are building
today and in the future, all we have to do is look at the process
over the last five years. We had a $42 billion deficit to tackle
in 1993 when we were elected. Through very tough programs,
through very difficult decisions Canadians worked along with the
government to make sure we did not bankrupt this country and
leave our children and our children's children in dire
situations. The process was to eliminate the deficit and get
our house in order. No one in the House can question that putting
our house in order was a priority that had to be done.
We paid down the deficit and now we are in a position where we
are starting to pay down the debt. The debt to GDP ratio has had
the largest decline in 40 years in this past year, which went
from approximately 70.3% to 66.9%. What it really means is that
we are getting to a point where we can better afford the debt we
have. With the growth the country is experiencing we will be in
a much better position not only today but in future years.
We have done all we can to support business and make sure
business has opportunity to grow in this country and expand
beyond our borders.
For technology partnerships, for aid to business support in
technology areas, this budget put $380 million. For the Canadian
Foundation for Research in which we are moving research forward,
helping universities, helping technological growth in the
Canadian foundation as well as teaching hospitals which then feed
off into our social net, $800 million was placed.
1130
We all know the successes we have had in working with foreign
markets, developing opportunities for business to expand beyond
our borders, making Canada a world trader and making sure that we
have stable businesses in the future.
At the same time, over this period of four or five years,
interest rates have been on a constant decline. There is no
question that interest rates have afforded business the
opportunity for greater investment, to move forward and to grow.
As a result our economy is rated number one in the G-7. That is
not frivolous. That has happened because of serious careful
planning which has made a huge difference.
I remember the former government during the 1993 election
campaign stating that unemployment would remain in double digit
figures until well beyond the year 2000. That was not quite
accurate. That was a quote from a former prime minister. She
said very clearly that unemployment would remain in double digit
figures at least beyond the year 2000. Today, unemployment is at
7.8%. This drop in unemployment tells us something about the
social values of the country because there is no greater move to
ensure social stability than ensured jobs for Canadians.
We have not been able to answer every social problem in the
country, but we did not start out under the best circumstances
either. The distance we have gone, from the comments of my
constituents, is tremendous. They are very thankful for the
kinds of policies and issues we have moved forward.
Investing in the social economic side of things is another
important issue. We know when we looked at the figures over the
last several years that youth employment was terrible and we had
to improve it. That is why over the last several years we have
focused on a youth employment strategy. This year, next year and
the year after we will be putting $465 million into youth
employment strategies, which will give young people opportunities
to develop job skills, to develop scenarios of work, and to
develop the skills they need to become active participants in
Canada.
It is also very important that tax relief has been included in
the budget. That tax relief is for all Canadians. I look
forward to the questions.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have
listened to the hon. member for Chatham—Kent Essex and to the
member for Guelph—Wellington and others. The member for
Chatham—Kent Essex said there was no one on the opposition
benches willing to give the government a passing grade.
I will give the government a passing grade on getting the budget
into the black. Most members over here would give a passing
grade for eliminating the deficit and putting the budget in the
black.
It is like the report cards kids bring home from school on which
it is indicated in very careful teacher's writing beside the
marks that the student is capable of doing much better. The
government is certainly capable of doing much better. It has
barely received a passing grade. Now it is time to really go to
work and do the business the country needs done.
The member for Guelph—Wellington talked of knowledge based
industries. The government put a levy on CD-ROMs to help the
music industry in Canada.
1135
The knowledge based industries those members were talking about
will be taxed 50 cents for every 15 minutes of time on a CD-ROM.
Those knowledge based industries will not hire people. They will
go to the States, Mexico, Ireland or someplace where they are
welcome because they will not be able to afford to work here.
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult that
my hon. colleague, the Conservative member across the way, is
saying that the government is not perfect.
Who drove us to where we were when we took over in 1993? It was
a roller coaster ride from way up there to a deficit of $42
billion down there. What on earth did they do for knowledge
based industries then? Where did they lead the Canadian economy,
aside from dividing the country and making people so extremely
angry that they ended up with a caucus of two that could be put
in a phone booth?
The public spoke. The public knows what they did. Today the
public is not saying the same thing. The public has returned
this government with two solid majorities. They should listen to
the public.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank my
colleague, who initially claimed the opposition was doing a very
good job. However, I would like to tell him that we are here
not just to criticize the government. I myself came here to
resolve the constitutional crisis, this abyss toward which
Canada keeps moving.
That said, when he talks of consultation and transparency, I
think we have to take it with a grain of salt. Barely a few
days before the budget was tabled, the premiers met to discuss
health and the provincial transfers.
There was never any question at that point of returning the
money with criteria other than those used to determine where to
cut.
I would like to know today whether my colleague thinks the Prime
Minister had consultations and acted with transparency?
[English]
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to talk
to that point. We in Canada are successful because we have
different values across the country. We have different economic
situations across the country. We try as a federation to make
sure that all sectors of the country are heard and have fair and
equal opportunity to do well.
There are times when my province and I looked at some of the
issues that came up in federal policy which showed the Ontario
government had less money than some other poorer provinces, some
other provinces that were not doing as well.
In general the wealthier help the other provinces. This has
been the goal and the rule of the country. Quite frankly I think
on a general scale Quebec has been treated equally to all
provinces on all measures.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely delighted to have a chance
to participate in today's debate and to tell about a couple of
things that happened to me in the last 24 hours.
Yesterday I encountered many of my Liberal friends in the
hallways and around Parliament Hill and they all said the same
thing: “Wasn't that a wonderful budget?” I said “Not the one
I heard”. Maybe we were listening to different speakers on
budget night. They thought it was a good budget; I thought it
was a distasteful budget.
1140
If Brian Mulroney had been sitting in the opposition gallery, he
would have been cheering for almost the entire budget. He would
not believe that things could get this right wing in the country.
I received an e-mail this morning—and I know others received it
as well—announcing the guest speaker Saturday night at the unite
the right convention in Ottawa. Guess who it is? The person
that symbolizes real right wing fanaticism in the country, the
single individual who has moved the right wing agenda of our
country about 185 degrees to the right, the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance must be the guest speaker Saturday night
at the unite the right conference because there is no better
spokesperson for the right wing than the hon. Minister of
Finance.
That went out this morning to all sorts of people who are
curious about this weekend's events. Now we know at least who
the Saturday night guest speaker will be.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: No one is surprised.
Mr. Nelson Riis: As my friend from Winnipeg says, we are
not surprised. We are not.
I thought Brian Mulroney was kind of a wild and woolly right
winger. Compared to the Minister of Finance he sounds like some
kind of economic piker. He tried to move the agenda to the right
but he failed.
I know my friends thought at the time this seemed a bit
perplexing. As a matter of fact, back in 1990 the Minister of
Finance he wrote a report on housing. He spent a number of weeks
touring the country on housing and wrote a report on it.
As a matter of fact, to be fair, he used the term homelessness
once in his budget. The term was actually there. There was one
reference to the fact that we have homeless people in the
country. We happen to have hundreds of thousands of homeless
people. This has been identified by the mayors of every major
city in Canada as a national tragedy. The finance minister did
mention it. Here is what he had to say in 1990:
The federal role in housing must not be a residual one. The
connection between housing and other aspects of both social and
economic policy means that the federal government must take a
lead role. Only the national government has the financial
resources to address the full dimensions of the needs of this
country.
Mr. Peter Mancini: Was it this finance minister?
Mr. Nelson Riis: It was this finance minister.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: He didn't say that?
Mr. Nelson Riis: He did. He said earlier this decade
that only the federal government should be taking the leadership.
It was only the federal government that had the resources to show
leadership. He mentioned homelessness in his budget. What did
he about it? Nothing. There was not a red cent toward housing.
The mayors of the major cities were shocked. We all got faxes
and e-mails in the last couple of days. Mr. Speaker, you will
probably have a whole pile on your desk when you get back to your
office. They were disgusted and dismayed. They found it
unbelievable that at a time when we have not $1 billion or $2
billion or $5 billion or $10 billion but more in surplus that not
a red cent was given to the housing crisis, the housing tragedy
in the country.
If I were a Liberal sitting across there today, I would run out
of here in shame.
Mr. Peter Mancini: There they go.
Mr. Nelson Riis: There they go. I do not blame them. I
would too.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Most of them have already. They are
not even here.
Mr. Nelson Riis: There is something else that is strange
about the budget. The Minister of Finance should be arrested and
charged. I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker. A few years ago an
individual called Doug Small leaked a little bit of a federal
budget. He was a broadcaster in Ottawa. He leaked a few phrases
of the budget and was charged by the RCMP. He went to court for
leaking a budget.
The Minister of Finance leaked the entire budget. Every major
issue has been out in the public domain for weeks and weeks. He
should be charged by the RCMP for leaking his own budget. Why
did he do that? Why did the Minister of Finance leak his own
budget?
I will tell the House. I will have trouble saying it, so I will
have to muster up my courage. When the Conservatives were in
office they had guts. They actually believed in certain things.
I do not believe in them. Most Canadians do not believe in them,
but the Tories believed in them. They said the GST was good for
Canada. They did not leak it out.
I remember Michael Wilson rising and saying “We will introduce
a GST tax for every walking Canadian”, and the Tories jumped up
in applause. They thought it was a great idea. He also said
“We have a better one. We will give a $500,000 capital tax
exemption for major capital raised in the country”. There was a
standing ovation for that one.
1145
They announced it during the budget. They did not float it out
weeks before and then do focus groups, polling and trial balloons
to see what works and what does not work. This is not
leadership. This is cowardly leadership where before they say a
single word as leaders on financial matters, they test every
single phrase, every single word, every nuance. If it does not
fly then they will not say it. If it is popular then they will
say it. That is not what leadership is. Leadership is when they
come in here based on convictions and make announcements on what
they want to do. That is not what happened.
An hon. member: What are you saying, do not consult
Canadians?
Mr. Nelson Riis: Does the member think the Minister of
Finance did not consult Canadians? He did. I was part of the
consultation process. It is called prebudget consultations. I
will tell my Liberal friend that the finance committee went into
every province asking Canadians to come forward and tell us what
they thought should be done with the surplus. That was their
task. Not a single individual said that the priorities should be
major tax cuts. We talked to hundreds of people. Nobody said
ignore the homeless, ignore the unemployed, ignore students with
huge debtloads. They did not say that. They said address these
serious issues, including health care.
When I went out to consult Canadians from coast to coast to
coast and asked them what should be in the budget, none of them
said this stuff. None of them said they wanted this budget. They
said they wanted a whole bunch of advances on important fronts.
What did this Minister of Finance do? He ignored people. If we
go out on the streets of Canada today and ask people what they
think of this budget they will say that there is nothing in it
for them. They did not get anything out of it. Their family did
not get anything out of it. They are unemployed. There is
nothing in it for them. There are students $40,000 in debt.
There is nothing in it for them. There are single moms on social
assistance trying to raise three kids. There is nothing in it for
them.
I know one guy who is really happy. Mr. Cleghorn, the CEO of
the Royal Bank, made a tax break of $30,000 on that announcement.
He is $30,000 richer today because of this budget. Bob Cleghorn
is a happy camper.
I will tell the House who is not a happy camper. The hundreds
of thousands of single moms and single dads raising children on
social assistance. They did not get a single cent from this
budget. What kind of a government is that? What kind of a
government alienates and ignores Canadians? For political
scientists watching this, this is the classic liberalism. It is
the Darwinian approach to social policy where the weak die and
the strong survive. It is survival of the fittest. It is based
on the key role of the individual in society.
The Minister of Finance in his budget actually said that the
marketplace cannot deal with the social issues of the country. It
requires a government. We measure the value of a government not
by how it treats the Bob Cleghorns of the world, the
millionaires. We measure a government by how it treats ordinary
citizens, particularly citizens in need. Were the homeless
recognized in this budget? No, they were not. Were the people
who today are looking for work recognized? No, they were
ignored.
Let us identify a single group of young people. This morning
1.5 million children who are living in poverty because their
parents are living in poverty woke up still living in poverty.
Is there anything in this budget that is going to change their
lives to give them hope and optimism? There is nothing for the
1.5 million kids living in poverty. How can my Liberal friends
sit there and not do anything about it and applaud and say this
is some great budget? It is very sad.
He said this was a health care budget. What does someone who
knows about health care say about it? Let us ask the president
of the Canadian Medical Association. He said it had moved it from
being an emergency situation to a urgent situation.
1150
He acknowledges that over the next number of years the
government is to restore funding. Why? Some members will
remember back in 1995 the occurrence of the Ottawa chainsaw
massacre. The Minister of Finance came in here with a chainsaw
and started to hack $1 million, $2 million, $2.5 million out of
the health care budget, one of the major symbols of what it means
to be a Canadian.
We had a quality health care system. Yes, I know it started with
the NDP in the province of Saskatchewan and built up over the
years, but it was a showcase that we could show around the world
as what one can do as a country. President Clinton tried to
emulate it but he lost that battle. He said look at what
Canadians have.
To every single Canadian it was a symbol of what differentiated
us from others. It was the best of being Canadian. What did
this government do? It just followed suit of Brian Mulroney and
came here with a chainsaw and started hacking the health care
system year after year.
Finally this year the government says “Whoops, we blew it. We
made a mistake. We cut too deeply. We have destroyed the
system”. If one looks carefully out there one will see the
stealth like change occurring to health care as it is being
privatized. Thirty per cent of health care funding today is in
the private sector. Nobody talks about this because they are
embarrassed to talk about it. It is all because of the slashing,
hacking and whacking of the health care budget that allowed the
private sector to move into the health care system.
Let us take a look at what this will do. The government says it
will restore some of the funding and in a few years from now it
will be at the same level it was back in 1995. Big bloody deal.
In other words, after years of restoration we are going to be at
the same level we were back in the middle part of this decade.
Is that progress? At the same time inflation is moving along and
the population is increasing.
We are supposed to be cheering here today because the funding is
to be restored in a few years back to the levels of 1995. This is
almost unbelievable. It is pathetic. Somehow this is held up as
a health care budget. The reason it is called a health care
budget is it did not do a bloody thing to anything else. Nothing
else was recognized.
I think we all acknowledge, including the Minister of Finance in
his comments the other day, that the small business sector
accounts for most of the jobs being created in Canada. One would
expect, at a time when we have levels of joblessness in this
country that have been for the last decade the highest since the
Great Depression, that the government would want to do something
significant in terms of creating employment opportunities and
grow the economy into meaningful jobs with the recognition that
this involves the small business sector.
Would one not expect the Minister of Finance to do the right
thing and say he would make the small business sector a priority
by finding ways and means of assisting and supporting the small
business sector so it can create employment? I will bet most
people thought that would happen.
What did the Minister of Finance, the government and the Liberal
Party do about small business? Diddly-squat. I do not know if
that is a parliamentary term but I think I will use it anyway. I
cannot even say zero because they decided to put $50 million in
the next little while into the Business Development Bank of
Canada.
I did some calculations and asked what that meant for the
province of British Columbia. It means that the province of
British Columbia will get over the next few years $5 million to
assist the small business sector. This is the only initiative
taken by this government. It is absolutely incredible that this
government would be so insensitive, so uncaring, so unrealistic,
so impractical that it would not do anything to help the sector
of the economy that is actually creating some employment.
That is not all. Good grief, I wish I had a longer speech
today. Let us acknowledge that the one sector of our economy that
creates a lot of meaningful employment is the construction
sector. We know that the issue of homelessness is a national
tragedy.
I do not think there is a single MP in this House who would not
say we have a housing crisis in this country. We have to work at
this. We live in the second largest country in the world. There
are trees from one end of this country to the other. We have
land everywhere. We have the banks filled with money and we have
a housing crisis. To have a housing crisis you have to really
work at this. Our government has somehow been able to do that,
to create a housing crisis.
1155
A few years ago the government said it had a big deficit and
that it could not do much so it was going to get out of the
business of social housing, out of the business of assisting in
the development of affordable housing for Canadians. People said
that is fair enough, they understood that.
Now we are into a situation where we have billions in surplus.
We have people who do not have houses to live in. We have many
more people who do not have decent houses to live in. They are
trying to raise children in substandard housing. I had a moving
evening one night speaking with the grand chief of Canada. I
asked what crucial issue facing aboriginal people we could begin
to address in the House of Commons. He answered that it was
obviously housing. He asked me to imagine being a young first
nation child growing up and trying to do homework in a two room
house with 13 people living in it, no water and no sewage system.
Imagine trying to raise children in that type of environment,
and for some that is a good place.
We have been waiting and now that we have $10 billion or $15
billion in surplus we think we will see some action. It is not
that it was not encouraged. At every single stop as we
criss-crossed the country people said we should take a step to
confront the housing issue.
The construction consortiums from coast to coast said the
following: “The industry wishes to help in the development of
housing infrastructure in this country. Housing infrastructure
would put tens of thousands of unemployed Canadians back to work
at meaningful jobs and do a great deal in addressing this serious
problem in our country”. Create jobs and confront a major
social issue.
The mayors of all the major cities got together and asked what
they could do. They said that it is an emergency and a tragedy.
We should put 1% of this year's budget into housing. That is a
little over a billion dollars into housing that would really show
leadership on this. This is a term that is no longer part of the
Liberal vocabulary but I will try it anyway. That would provide
leadership on this issue.
If the Minister of Finance had said
we are committed to dealing with this issue, we are going to
allocate 1% of the national budget to the housing sector,
there would have been a standing ovation around this house and a
standing ovation from one part of this country to the other. But
he did not. He said we are not going to put a single penny
into housing, we are not going to take a single step toward
resolving social housing and affordable housing in this
country.
An hon. member: Let's not forget the provinces have
an important responsibility.
Mr. Nelson Riis: The Minister of Finance said in 1990:
“Only the federal government has the resources to provide
leadership on this crucial social issue”. My friend should be
embarrassed for suggesting that it is up to the provinces when
her own Minister of Finance said quite the opposite.
There is much to talk about in terms of this budget. At the end
of his budget speech the Minister of Finance quoted Sir Wilfrid
Laurier saying that the 20th century belonged to Canada. We are
entering the 21st century. What a terrible way to be exiting the
20th century with one and a half million kids living in poverty
with the government doing nothing to alleviate it. There are
hundreds of thousands of homeless people on the streets yet the
government does nothing. When we walk out of here today we can
see on every main corner in the city of Ottawa, the nation's
capital, people begging with caps in hand, and the government
does nothing about it.
One thing symbolizes this budget. We acknowledge in this House
that parents dependent on social assistance and attempting and
struggling to raise families are not getting a single cent of
benefit from this budget while millionaires walk away with at
least $8,000 in extra cash.
It means that the gap between those who have and have not in this
country continues to widen, thanks to this budget.
1200
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that the last
speaker obviously spent more time reading his speech than
listening to what the minister of finance from British Columbia
had to say and what the premier of Saskatchewan had to say. It
is obvious he spent more time writing his speech than actually
reading the budget.
Is the hon. member suggesting, given that poverty is one of the
single greatest indicators of health and given that the ability
to have access to good health care increases productivity
remarkably, that he would not have had us make health care a
priority in the budget?
Does the member think that we should not have dealt with the GST
so that single parents in very low income circumstances would
begin to get the maximum of their GST rebate supplement in a
timely manner?
The child tax benefit is going to give $1,975 for the first
child and an extra $1,775 for the second child in the family.
That may not sound like a lot of money but it is a substantial
increase of almost $4,000 to a low income family of two. The
child tax benefit moved the level up from $26,000 to $29,000
which may sound like a great deal of money but which is poverty
and low income circumstances as far as I am concerned.
There are so many initiatives that are helping poor single
parents in the budget. Had the member taken the time to read the
budget he would have known that. Does the hon. member not think
we should have done all of those things?
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question
because it allows me to say two or three points which I forgot to
mention. By the way, I did not write out my speech, as she could
probably tell.
Not only did I listen to the Minister of Finance, I was in the
lockup and read all the documents for four straight hours.
Therefore, it is not as though this were some kind of a flippant
response.
First let me inform my hon. friend that a mother on social
assistance raising children does not get the child tax benefit.
It is clawed back by the provincial government and the member
should know that.
When the member goes home next week I would ask her to visit
some of the families in her constituency. Ask them how delighted
they are with the federal budget. I know what she is going to
hear. They probably do not even know there was a federal budget
and thank goodness because they were overlooked in it.
Should I or they be thankful for this little tiny handout? That
is like walking down the street and getting mugged. Somebody
takes your wallet with all your money and credit cards and then
says “By the way pal, here is your wallet back” and you are
supposed to be thankful for getting the wallet back.
If all the minister has to say about child poverty is that there
is going to be, in her own mind, some minute benefit because of
the GST—minute benefit I believe are her own words—if that is
the only initiative that the government has taken, I would hope
that she would feel kind of badly.
The first part of her question was that investing in
productivity will eventually benefit poor people. Boy, there is
Ms. Trickle Down herself. This is trickle down economics at its
best: give breaks to the wealthy; give breaks to some of the big
corporations; give certain select tax breaks and grants; wait for
a few weeks, months or years and eventually some will trickle
down. Canadians have told her many times they do not want to be
trickled on any more. They want some trickle up economics, not
trickle down economics.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I add my
voice to that of the hon. member of the New Democratic Party in
denouncing the Liberal government's lack of will to eradicate
poverty across Canada, and in Quebec in particular.
We know that the new Canada social transfer formula, which
penalizes Quebec in particular in terms of health care, is a
historic achievement. To rely exclusively on a per capita
formula without taking the needs of the population into account
really hurts.
1205
We keep hearing that Quebec is getting more in equalization
payments, but we know what that means. It means more people on
welfare. In turn, this means more people who may need adequate
health care and better access to health care.
Meanwhile, the rich provinces, the provinces whose economy is
vibrant and where people can better support themselves and have
access to quality services, are favoured. That is what hurts
when we say that this government is not addressing the poverty
issue in Canada.
Neither is there any provision to increase EI benefits in high
unemployment regions, especially in Quebec.
There is nothing on social housing. We know how much the federal
government likes to negotiate third-rate agreements with Quebec.
I therefore add my voice to that of the member of the New
Democratic Party in denouncing the government's lack of will to
eradicate poverty across Canada. They can give us equalization
all they want, that is not what we need. We could use more in
terms of investments in the procurement of government services
in Quebec, which could result in job creation. That is the kind
of measure we need.
I would like my colleague from the New Democratic Party to
elaborate on that.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has
summarized a number of obvious concerns regarding the budget. She
referred to one aspect that I do not have time to address and
that is the whole issue of employment insurance benefits.
I think it is well known by all members and most Canadians that
one of the reasons the government has a surplus in order to
provide some of these initiatives is as a result of taking a lot
of money out of the EI fund. That is really an insurance fund;
it ought not to be a source of government revenues. It is also
fair for her to say that it is acknowledged that the level of
benefits is inadequate.
It was interesting to note on doing an analysis the other day
that a few years ago 75% of people who lost their jobs and had
paid into the EI fund actually were able to collect some
benefits. That has gone down now to about 34% on average across
Canada. Interestingly enough this 34% is the same level as that
in the great state of Arkansas, the state which is held as
probably one of the crummiest states in which to live in terms of
social policy. We have now reduced our social program called EI
or unemployment insurance down to one of the lowest levels of the
United States, which is what a lot of people feared would occur.
We thought we would now see some obvious recognition of this
imbalance.
I simply want to say in response to my friend that when we went
into this budget, the social playing field if I can call it that,
was very much tilted, out of whack. The gap between those who
have and those who have not was increasing. This was an
opportunity to level the playing field in social policy, to make
it a little bit more even so that a child growing up in one part
of Canada under certain circumstances would have a similar
opportunity as a child growing up in another part of Canada. In
other words, level the playing field so people have an equal
opportunity to become the productive citizens they wish to be.
Was that playing field improved, or was it tilted even further?
It was actually tilted even further. The gap was made even worse
as a result of this budget, which is why I started off my speech
by saying that I found it to be a rather disgusting budget
presentation, when we consider what could have been done and what
was done.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this morning I heard a number of my colleagues comment on the
budget.
I hear my colleagues opposite saying that we are tearing at our
clothing, bleating and taking pleasure in criticizing for the
sake of it. This morning, I would simply like to comment on the
budget, particularly table 6.4 on page 138, where they brag
about lowering Canadians' taxes.
Looking at this table—and I am not the one saying it, it is the
Minister of Finance who prepared it—we see that a Canadian or a
Quebecker earning up to $40,000 will save $114.75 a year. If we
divide that by 365 days, it amounts to about 30 cents a day, not
even enough for a cup of coffee.
1210
A single taxpayer earning $1 million will pocket over $8,000,
and the bank president will save $30,000.
So my question to the hon. member is this: Would indexing the
tax tables not be a fairer way to provide tax relief?
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's
question. I can best respond to it by saying there would be a
fair way to approach this issue.
His figures were accurate. I did some checking locally. He was
right that a bank president like Mr. Cleghorn would save about
$30,000 as a result. Bob Price, a gentleman who works in my
constituency, calculated that he would benefit by about $115 a
year. This is on taxes. Remember that at the same time there is
a tax benefit of $115, the government is taking that much more in
CPP payments. In a sense he will actually lose. Carol Smith, a
single mom raising two children on social assistance, got nothing
in terms of tax benefits.
Obviously this is a very unfair approach in terms of how the tax
system is modified. My friend's suggestion is worth looking at
and has considerable merit.
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will share
my time with the hon. member for Charleswood St.
James—Assiniboia.
First, I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance and his
staff for the remarkable job they did once again this year with
the budget.
For the second year in a row, our federal budget, the Canadians'
budget, succeeded in being deficit free, this after two decades
of running deficits. The light is no longer at the end of the
tunnel, because we have come out of the tunnel. We have every
reason to be proud.
I heartily congratulate the minister for having focused his
budget on health, thus reflecting the concerns expressed by
Canadians, who were increasingly worried about health care, to
the point of thinking that it might be in jeopardy.
The minister delivered and brilliantly so. Our government
listened.
This budget meets the concerns of my constituents in Laval West
and of all Canadians. People from all walks of life have
expressed their legitimate concerns to me. Thanks to the budget,
these concerns are now greatly alleviated. I am referring to
issues that concern our aging Canadian population, such as
health, and the middle generation, which has to deal with the
dependency of both the younger and older generations.
This phenomenon will of course not be reversed with the budget,
but at least this budget will give us the means to adjust to the
best of our ability to this new situation.
Let me mention a few figures to better show the scope of this
phenomenon. In 1981, 9.6% of the population was 65 or older.
Since then, this has increased by approximately 1% a year and,
in 1996, 12% of the population was at least 65 years of age. It
is expected that over 20% of Canadians will be in this age group
by 2031. This means that one in five Canadians will be at least
65 years old. Furthermore, I would remind everyone listening
that this is only 32 years away, and time is flying.
The aging of our population, a phenomenon common to all
industrialized countries, has had, and will continue to have, a
number of important consequences.
First, health services must adapt to new demands, for seniors
have special physical and mental health problems.
Unfortunately, for instance, they lose their autonomy and their
mobility. More gerontologists will therefore be needed.
Long term care is more appropriate for this age group.
Home care, provided by relatives, helps prevent the loneliness
to which they are too often prone. And, of course, research
must continue, and it must increasingly focus on developing care
for seniors and the next generations.
Like health care services, social services will also be
increasingly called upon to meet the needs of a population that
is demanding programs tailored to its needs.
1215
Pensions, for instance, will represent an increasingly large
component of federal budgets. Other programs will certainly
have to be developed to more effectively meet the needs of those
losing their autonomy. There must also be support for
charitable groups and organizations that will undoubtedly come
on the scene to provide assistance to seniors, which will make
up one fifth of the population.
In fact, the problem will be not so much one of finding
additional resources as of redistributing them effectively, for
the rate of dependency will be no higher than it was in the
1950s and 1960s after the baby boom.
In those days, the number of young children who depended on
their parents' work and care was even greater than the number of
seniors who will depend on social services and on their families
in the future.
Today, part of the population officially categorized as inactive
belongs to that category because it is getting into the twilight
years and is taking a well deserved rest to accomplish other
things. Thirty years ago, there was a similar part of the
population that was simply too young to work, busy growing up
and getting an education.
This means that pensions and health care will account for an
increasing portion of government budgets to meet the needs of
seniors. Inversely, the portion allocated to family allowances
and early childhood education will decrease. This trend is well
reflected in our 1999 budget.
In other words, in proportion of government revenues, there will
be more people receiving pensions, but there will be less people
in our schools and universities.
With the baby boom that followed World War II, millions of young
people who were not going to enter the labour force until the
1970s and who required special care were born in Canada. The
Liberal governments of the day responded to this new situation
in an intelligent and responsible manner. Specialized social
services were provided.
Tax deductions were granted and the health system put in place
to respond to a new demographic reality, but today we face a
similar situation, but in reverse, with an age dependency ratio
closer to what we had in the 1950s and 1960s. This means moving
from programs geared toward baby boomers directly to those to be
developed for seniors.
Programs must once again keep pace with changing demographics.
Now, we must respond intelligently to an aging population, as we
did in the past to a younger one. Our government has realized
how important this is. We have started taking steps and are even
ahead.
Regarding the health services, the minister has done well.
Over the next five years, $11.5 billion will be transferred to
the provinces under the Canada health and social transfer. In
addition, $1.4 billion will be injected into medical research.
This is a clear and effective response to the concerns and
health needs of Canadians in general, and seniors in particular.
Rumour has it that the Bloc Quebecois was not too happy with the
changes made to the terms of transfer under the CHST. Quebec
will not get as much, they protest. As usual.
But our colleagues should know that a budget is a whole, made up
of different parts. The Minister of Finance can readjust certain
transfers to make the whole more consistent and ensure that
everything works properly. He can transfer less under a given
program in order to transfer more under another. Criticism must
not be voiced out of context, or deal with concrete issues in
abstract terms.
The fact of the matter is that the so-called cut in transfers
under the CHST is more than made up by the increase in
equalization payments. With these two types of transfers, in the
next 13 months alone, Quebec will receive 48% of all the money
paid to the provinces, and 29% over the next five years. That is
not bad for a province with 24% of the Canadian population.
1220
The figures do not lie. Quebec, like the rest of Canada, comes
out a winner with this budget. In addition to the substantial
and impressive funds injected into health, the tax relief
announced in the budget is another way to respond to population
aging, by leaving more money in the pockets of seniors and the
families looking after them.
The 3% surtax introduced to combat the deficit serves no purpose
now and will disappear completely. The basic personal exemption
rises to $7,131. So the 600,000 Canadians with more modest
income will not pay income tax. By the fiscal year 2001-02, our
government will have cut taxes by $16.5 billion.
Two million low or middle income families will receive increased
child benefits.
I am unable to finish, because I am out of time, but I would ask
all members of this House to have the courage to recognize that
our government, through the Minister of Finance, looked after
the real problems of Canadians.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my colleague
opposite is just as nervy as the Minister of Finance.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: I do not think the word “nervy” is
unparliamentary.
Ms. Raymonde Folco: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The word
“nervy” in French is an insult, and I reject this insult. I
would ask the member to use more polite language with me.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. I
had to get a bit of help because my French is not that good with
the subtleties. The help that I received, which is beyond
reproach, is of course that there are subtleties in the language.
The use of that particular term could be received by the receiver
as being bad but it is not necessarily bad. It depends on the
thickness of the skin of the person on the receiving end. Really
it is more a question of debate than a point of order.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I could also have said that
she is has some nerve, that she has a lot of gall, or that she
is going too far. There are many synonyms.
In any case, the important thing is why I am saying this. We
need to step back a little. Bloc Quebecois members and
Quebeckers are upset by what the Minister of Finance calls the
change in the method of calculating transfers. Why? Because this
is not a change in the method of calculation, it is the
rejection by the federal government of the relationship between
Canada and the provinces, since it took poverty into account
when calculating transfer payments.
Back in 1969—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I ask the hon. member to
put her question.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, in order to put my question,
I must indicate why I am asking it.
The Canada assistance plan was established in 1969 to take
poverty into account. Until the Liberals took office, transfers
for health and education only took population into account,
whereas the assistance plan took poverty into account.
1225
In 1994, Quebec was getting 34% of the funds from that plan.
When the Minister of Finance did what was called a block
transfer he substituted, for the health sector, the figure based
on the population for a figure that takes poverty into account.
How can the hon. member explain that this government, after
shedding tears over—
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for Laval
West will have an equal amount of time for her response.
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, it is really too bad that the
hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois got so carried away.
I am looking forward to the Quebec finance minister bringing
down his budget; we will see how much Quebec has gained, not
lost, from the latest federal budget.
Where the member talks about changes made in the transfers, I
talk about fairness. Canada is a country where we talk about
fairness.
An hon. member: What fairness?
Ms. Raymonde Folco: Fairness is as important between individuals
as it is between provinces.
An hon. member: With three wealthy provinces.
Ms. Raymonde Folco: Take Quebec for example, where the
population—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to
continue. I did not interrupt the hon. member when she spoke.
When I raise the issue of fairness, and I am not the only one to
do so, I include fairness between individuals. And here, through
transfers and equalization payments to provinces, we will see
that each individual will be treated fairly on the basis of the
income earned over the year.
That is what fairness is all about in Canada. That is what being
a Liberal is all about.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Raymonde Folco: We have established a Canadian system that
respects Canadians and we will continue to do so.
[English]
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to
address the House in today's budget debate.
Before I go any further I would like to extend my sincerest
congratulations to my hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, on
the presentation of his sixth budget. I have had the honour of
representing my constituents in this place for more than 10
years. In all that time I have never seen a budget that was so
well received by Canadians.
Average Canadians support the measures in the budget. I know
frustrated members opposite are wondering why Canadians are
feeling so good about budget '99. I will take the opportunity to
explain it to them.
It is about balance. The budget builds on and continues the
tradition of responsible, prudent fiscal management of its five
predecessors, and provides the balance and fairness that
Canadians want and expect.
It is not skewed to the left with incomprehensible spending, as
some of the NDP would favour. It does not provide for the
irresponsible withering away of the federal government, as the
Reform Party demands. It certainly does not manage the nation's
finances in the capricious manner the Tories were famous for.
The budget is balanced, balanced both fiscally and in what it
provides Canadians. It is a good news budget for all Canadians.
That is why it is being so well received across the land, in
Toronto, Regina, Edmonton and in my home city of Winnipeg.
Since I have only 10 minutes to speak to this important issue, I
will not spend too much on the minutia of the budget. Rather I
would like to concentrate my comments on what the budget means
for the average Manitoban and the good citizens of Charleswood
St. James—Assiniboia.
First, let us look at health care. The budget increases federal
cash transfers for health care to the provinces by an incredible
$11.5 billion over the next five years. This is significant. It
is a significant reinvestment by any measure and is the single
largest investment ever announced by the government.
1230
This cash infusion into our health care system fully restores
the health component of the Canada health and social transfer to
its level in the mid-1990s before the attack of the deficit
curtailed expenditures.
As a result of this initiative, the Manitoba government will
receive an additional $425 million in federal transfers to fund
health care throughout the keystone province.
I would hope the provincial government in Manitoba would use
some of that money to reduce waiting lines, augment staff and
improve services at the Grace hospital, the main hospital
servicing the needs of Winnipeg and Headingley.
Manitoba's health care system would also benefit from an
additional $1.4 billion that this budget sets aside for new
investments in health pilot projects, prenatal care, aboriginal
initiatives and health information programs like the screening
assessment and care planning automated tool recently announced by
the health minister during a trip to Winnipeg.
Whether they live in the Courts of St. James or the Kiwanis
Courts, well known senior citizens complexes in my riding,
Manitobans want and deserve reasonable access to good quality
health care. This budget goes a long way to securing that
access.
Whether it be reductions in EI premiums or the introduction of
the child tax benefit, every budget this government has
introduced has included some form of tax reduction. In the past
all these measures were targeted for special needs or to low
income Canadians.
Last year, however, we began the process of introducing broad
based tax relief. This year, I am happy to say, we have built on
that.
This budget eliminates the 3% surtax introduced by the Tories in
their unsuccessful attempts to reduce the deficit. It increases
the basic personal exemption to $7,131 for every Canadian
taxpayer. It also enriches and broadens the child tax benefit by
a further $300 million. Combined with the measures in last
year's budget, the 1999 budget delivers $16.6 billion in tax
relief over the next three years.
The best news is that this is only the beginning. With the
nation's finances firmly under control, this Liberal government
is committed to reducing taxes further and will do so over the
rest of this mandate and into the next.
What do these tax measures mean for the average Manitoban? It
means that the single person living in an apartment on Portage
Avenue and earning $20,000 a year will see his taxes fall by at
least 10%. It means that the single mother living on Carriage
Road and trying to raise her kids on an income of $30,000 will
pay absolutely no federal tax. It means that the middle class
family of four on Charleswood Road with an income of $50,000 will
see its federal taxes fall by 15%. In fact, every Canadian will
pay less federal tax as a result of this budget. Even the
members of the Reform Party have to agree to that.
This budget is not only about health care and tax cuts. It is
also about securing a strong and vibrant future for all
Canadians. This budget invests more than $1.8 billion over the
next three years in the creation, dissemination and
commercialization of knowledge and jobs. This money will be used
to boost funding for the Canada foundation for innovation, a fund
that has been used to modernize the research infrastructure at
the University of Manitoba, the Health Sciences Centre in
Winnipeg and the St. Boniface general hospital.
Our university students will also profit from increased funding
to the research councils and to the network of centres of
excellence.
Manitoba's aerospace industry located in the main in my riding
has already benefited from a $3 million technology partnership
Canada investment at Bristol Aerospace.
This investment helped Bristol secure a $100 million contract to
supply composite components to Boeing creating nearly 300 jobs.
TPC provides fully repayable loans to assist high technology
companies develop and market new products. It will be
strengthened by an additional $50 million annually.
1235
While Manitoba is fortunate in having the lowest unemployment
rate in the country, unemployment in the north remains high,
especially among our aboriginal communities. This budget
allocates additional resources for job creation and for
aboriginal issues.
Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia is also home to CFB Winnipeg
and headquarters for 1 Canadian Air Division. The base employs
thousands of military personnel who welcome the $175 million
increase in the defence budget and who await the implementation
of the quality of life package by the government.
I would like to address one other issue that is of major concern
to the citizens of Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia. That issue
is the national debt. This government remains committed to the
prudent fiscal planning that has eliminated the deficit and
enabled reinvestments in health care, education, economic
programs and tax cuts. We will not stray from this course. The
nation's books will be balanced for a second year in a row, the
first time since 1952 that the federal government has been
deficit free for two consecutive years. Furthermore, we are
committed to balancing the books next year and the year after
that, only the third time since Confederation that the federal
government will have introduced four consecutive balanced
budgets.
The national debt is falling and will continue to fall in the
future. This government has implemented a viable debt repayment
plan that allocates the contingency reserve of $3 billion in each
budget to debt repayment. This measure, coupled with a growing
economy, will see our debt to GDP ratio fall to under 62% by the
year 2000-01 and free up more money for programs and tax cuts.
I think Canadians appreciate this budget. They particularly
appreciate the course that it sets out for the next few years.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask the hon. member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia
for his help in a little research I have undertaken today.
I am looking for an answer to the following questions: Where
were the Liberal members from Quebec when the decision was made
that all Quebec should get is less than 10% of the new money
added in this week's budget? Where were the Liberal members from
Quebec when the decision was made that Ontario should receive
$950 million while Quebec would receive a mere $150 million?
Where were the Liberal ministers and members from Quebec when
the decision was made to give 78% of the new money to the three
wealthiest provinces?
Once again, the federal Liberal ministers and members from
Quebec were not there. Did the hon. member see them anywhere?
Did he see them standing up for Quebec's interests or did they
not take part in the debate at all, as usual?
[English]
Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I point out that our
esteemed Minister of Finance comes from the province of Quebec.
If there is any minister well known for consultation, any
minister known for reaching out to his fellow politicians from
his own Quebec caucus and his entire province, it is the Minister
of Finance.
Whether it is the chairman of the Quebec caucus on this side or
all members, they are fully consulted and they have been full
participants in the budget process. I can assure the hon. member
of that.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today we have seen a lot of patting themselves on the back by
members of the Liberal government about this budget. This is
their sixth budget.
Being the sixth budget and that we have a major trading partner
in the United States where 83% of our exports go to, why have we
been falling so far behind in standard of living compared with
the United States growth?
In other words, living standards in Canada measured as a
percentage of gross domestic product per person are now a full
24% lower than they are in the United States. That is a 6%
decrease since 1990.
1240
If we are doing so well here, with unemployment rates still
twice as high as in the United States, with 2% unemployment rates
in California, why are we not experiencing the same type of
increase in our standard of living that the Americans are?
Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I remind the member that
this is only our sixth budget. This is only the sixth year that
we have been in power in Ottawa. Things are getting better.
When we came here in the fall of 1993 we were staring at a
deficit of $42 billion. It is all gone. When we came here we
did not have the luxury of surpluses. Now we have modest
surpluses. Because of the kind of fiscal management that has
been brought to bear by the finance minister, we can do things
like restore health care funding, not only that but deliver tax
cuts.
Over the next three years Canadians will enjoy the benefits of a
tax cut exceeding $16 billion. That is better than what we had
six years ago.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I remind
the hon. member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia of 20 years
ago when I was doing documentary work in Winnipeg on the native
urban migration and this same member was a radio announcer at the
CBC. At that time it was indicated that within 20 years we were
to see massive problems with native people in the city unless we
took some real initiatives on their behalf.
We now have gangs roaming the streets of Winnipeg. We have one
million poor children in this country. The members of the
government ask us to look at the demographics. I say look at the
demographics 35 years from now. What will those poor children be
doing? What will be the strains on the justice system, the human
misery, their families? Where on earth do members see this as
being a positive budget for the poor people in this country?
We are seeing an increasing gap between the rich and the poor,
the elite and the street, and this is a shameful budget when it
comes to addressing those problems.
Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question
from the hon. member. I know when she was living in Winnipeg she
was a fine contributor to the broadcasting community.
The hon. member touched on a critical issue. I do not think
anybody can be proud of the aboriginal problems in this country.
They exist widely in my city of Winnipeg and in the province of
Manitoba. Nobody is proud of these problems. We are trying to
aggressively attack them.
When we went through program review and through deficit
reductions in program cuts over the last few years, the one
department that was not affected was the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development. We did not cut the budget of
that department.
But there are strategies laid out in this budget. There will be
a significant health care announcement regarding the aboriginal
community in my province next week.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is with some pleasure and certainly with a lot of frustration
that I rise today to detail our position on the budget.
I would echo the comments of the previous speaker from the
Liberal Party as I also come from Manitoba. I have a lot of
pride in what has been achieved in Manitoba over the last number
of years.
I must say, however, that the hon. member from the Liberal Party
and his government do not have a lot they can say about the
improvements in Manitoba. The improvements that have happened,
the 4.8% unemployment rate, the increase in the economy, were
done because of a provincial government that was able to put into
place its philosophies and financial understanding of its budget
so that it could develop that economy in Manitoba. So I take some
exception to the federal Liberal member's taking credit for
something that was done in the province of Manitoba.
1245
As I said, I stand with some frustration in speaking to the
budget put forward in the House. I have a number of areas of
frustration.
I guess we really did not have to hear the finance minister's
speech the other night because had we all been listening to the
media and reading the newspapers we could have heard what would
be placed on the floor. It was a budget that was put out to the
Canadian public long before it ever hit this floor. Trial
balloons were being floated constantly by the finance minister.
Obviously his program was being put out in the media as opposed
to being put out where it should been, in the House.
There was frustration in seeing the Liberals self-congratulating
themselves on putting forward what I considered to be a smoke and
mirrors budget. That is not my comment. The hon. member says
that Winnipeg and members of his constituency are pleased about
what the budget has embraced. A headline in one Manitoba
newspapers read “The Smoke and Mirrors Budget”. I do not see
where that is embracing the budget. It does, however, get to the
root of the issue where there is a lot of smoke and mirrors. A
shell game is going on in the budget with which I will deal in
the next couple of minutes.
I am splitting my time with the hon. member for New Brunswick
Southwest who will be speaking for the other 10 minutes.
Let us deal with a couple of very pertinent issues. The budget
is heralded as the health care budget. The hon. member just said
in his speech that an incredible—that was the term used; we can
check Hansard—$11.5 billion would be put back into health
care over the next five years. Incredible, incroyable.
Would he use the same term, incredible, to describe the $17
billion that was cut from the health care budget? Is that
incredible, incroyable? Since 1993, $17 billion were cut from
the health care budget, but now all of a sudden $11.5 billion is
incredible. Canadians are smarter than that. They do not think
so, but I know Canadians will see through their shell game.
There is a surplus today. We do not know what the surplus will
be because games are being played. Dollars are being budgeted in
the 1998-99 budget that have not been expended but will be taken
forward into the 1999-2000 budget. What is the real number?
When we deal with budgets and budgetary functions we try to
honestly put before the constituencies the revenue and the
expenditure. What was left over from the two was some surplus to
do with whatever we wished. We made sure the constituencies had
input into the spending of those surpluses.
We do not know what the surplus is for 1998-99. We do not know
what the budgeted surpluses are for 1999-2000 or where in fact
the finance minister will spend these surpluses. Let us make no
mistake about it. They will be spent on probably a leadership
campaign, not directly but certainly during the leadership
campaign. I suspect we will see a lot of those surpluses rising
to the surface and being put into programs that are perhaps pet
programs for particular individuals on the Liberal benches.
Let us get back to health care. The hon. member stood here and
read a press release which said that $425 million over the next
five years would be put back into Manitoba. What the hon. member
neglected to say was that Manitoba had been impacted by $240
million in cuts every year for the last three years. The numbers
do not add up.
1250
Manitoba has given back substantially more over the last three
years than the government is prepared to put back in over the
next five years. Why did the government not make it 10 years
instead of 5 years? Why did the government not give a real big
number so Canadians could be snowed? Why only five years? Why
did it not deal with 10 years? Maybe I am giving the finance
minister some opportunity to change his mandate or his method of
operation for the next budget so he can expand it over more than
a five year term.
Let us talk about some other areas of serious importance in my
constituency. That area obviously is agriculture. The 1998-99
budget, the one that will be ending on March 31 of this year,
shows $600 million being put to an aid program, the AIDA program.
I find it very unlikely that dollars will flow to farmers by
March 31 of this year, but $600 million are reflected in that
budget.
I assume that will be put in trust and will be put forward to
the next budget year, the year 1999-2000. The auditor general
will have a lot to say about the shenanigans in this budget. It
is not good accounting procedure, but it makes the government
look good. Unfortunately it will come back to haunt the
government.
In agriculture we have been saying all along that we do not need
an ad hoc program. We agree that the government should put
together some vision, foresight and thought and put dollars in a
budget that will be able to look after the cyclical problems of
agriculture on a regular basis, like the GRIP program that was
cut by the government in 1995. Short term gain for long term
pain continues. There is nothing reflected in the budget to show
for a long term solution to agricultural cyclical downturns. That
to me is a deficiency in the budget.
The hon. member for Charlesbourg said with great pride that he
has a Canadian forces base in his constituency. With great pride
I say that I also have a Canadian forces base in my constituency.
I probably see the personnel, talk to them and deal with them
more often than does the hon. member. I am in constant touch
with that constituency.
The $175 million reflected in the budget do not even come within
a fraction of what was requested to bring military families up to
standard. The budget does not reflect anything for needed
equipment purchases.
We sit in the House every day and talk about the Sea King
helicopters. We talk about military equipment that is 30 and 35
years old. That was not reflected in the budget because it is a
health care budget that is also a farce and a sham.
If there is one request I could make—and I know there is a
majority government and that the budget will pass—of the
Minister of Finance and the government, it would be that the next
time they table a budget in the House they should be totally up
front with Canadians, tell them exactly what they are doing to
them and tell them that the tax cuts will not be reflected in
their next paycheque.
I have request of Canadians. They should not start spending
their tax breaks because they will find there is not a lot there.
With the CPP increases and because the tax breaks will take place
on July 1 of this year, an income of $39,000 will have a $3
income tax increase for the year 1999. I would really like to
thank the Liberal government for that.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to some of the debate today. I understand
when members of the New Democratic Party give a long list of
things that we should have done and could have done that add
another $10 billion to $15 billion to the cost of operating the
nation's programs.
However what puzzles me completely is that for years and years I
have sat in the House, both in opposition and on the government
side, and have heard speaker after speaker from the Conservative
Party talk about the importance of the Liberal Party putting the
fiscal framework of the country's books back in order and about
over the last few years our Minister of Finance following the
direction of the Progressive Conservative Party so much so that
for the first time in 50 years we have a balanced set of books.
1255
We have a balanced set of books. We did all this in terms of
health care and huge tax cuts. The member lists many other areas
in which he would have wanted spending. How much of a deficit
would he have wanted the Minister of Finance to take on?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for pointing out that the reason the budget is balanced is the
policies that were put in place by the previous Conservative
government. I will not go over them, but because of NAFTA we now
have an export economy that is generating substantial revenues
that the government can hide and spend. We have low interest
rates because the government has more money to hide and spend. I
do not understand how the government can take the GST as its own
policy.
We would not like to see a deficit. What is the surplus? Is it
$7 million or $14 billion? The government has hidden the
surplus. There may not be a deficit. Some of those dollars from
the surplus can go into better programs. The government could do
a much better job than what it did in the budget simply by
identifying what the real surplus will be.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
too bad members of the Liberal Party will not congratulate the
taxpayers of Canada for paying the highest taxes in the land or
in the world, practically, in order to make this work. They do
not want to give credit where credit is due.
Coming from Manitoba and as one of the Indian Affairs critics I
spend a lot of time in the city of Winnipeg where I have
witnesses many tragedies regarding people from the native
communities who are on the streets. Mike Calder is one of the
directors of an organization which I think is called St. Norbert.
He came to the government at least five times with proposals to
the health care minister and to the justice minister to help to
alleviate the problems which exist in Winnipeg with the natives
who are on the streets. There has been no response during my
tenure in this portfolio from the government whatsoever to assist
the city of Winnipeg with that issue.
I am sure the member has been to that area and is familiar with
what is going on. Since 1993 has the government ever shown any
initiative whatsoever to alleviate the serious problems that
exist with natives on the streets of Winnipeg?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. I was born and raised in Manitoba and lived
there for most of my live, but fortunately or unfortunately not
in the city of Winnipeg.
There is a serious problem in Manitoba as the member pointed out
with respect to aboriginals in Winnipeg. To answer the question
simply, I have been trying to get to the Department of Indian and
Northern Affair. I have been stonewalled on a number of
occasions in trying to deal with some aboriginal issues in my own
constituency. The understanding in the federal government is
somewhat lax or missing. It does not necessarily want to deal
with the issues that should be dealt with.
We talk about deficits and we talk about spending. The one good
thing that happened in the budget was that there was nothing
reflected there to help professional sports teams.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, it is nice to respond to the budget. In all fairness,
there has been a lot of good publicity on the budget and most of
us would accept that fact although we may disagree with some of
the headlines.
There has been some analytical appraisal of the budget and not
all of it has been favourable. Despite the optics, this budget
is going to have a very short shelf life and the reason has been
articulated in the House more than once this morning.
1300
When I look at the budget, at the numbers and at how it was
presented by the finance minister, I cannot help but think of
Mark Twain who coined the expression “lies, damned lies and
statistics”. I am much too polite to use the word “lie” in
this House when it comes to the budget but I would suggest that
the minister is using a lot of creative accounting to come up
with the numbers. No one here knows what the real numbers are.
Not one member on either side of the House can tell us how the
surplus in the EI account works into the budget numbers. No one
knows and if they do know they are not going to tell us. If they
did, I think it would expose the finance minister for what he is,
someone who is capable of balancing the budget on the backs of
the unemployed. The number we often hear is $20 billion which
has been taken out of the hides of the employers and the
employees and used to help creatively balance his books.
There is a lot of doubt in the minds of ordinary Canadians as to
what the minister has really done in the last six budgets he has
brought into this House. I agree with the member next to me that
a lot of the policies this very government fought against are the
ones that are delivering the numbers the Liberals brag about.
We mentioned specifically the free trade agreement. We mention
the GST from time to time on this side of the House. It is
rolling in revenues of about $20 billion this year compared with
about $12 billion the day it was brought in. That is about $20
billion the minister would not have to play with if he had lived
up to the 1993 red book promise to rid this country of that hated
GST. He can roll around in the luxury of having it there but he
has not had to pay the political price for introducing it.
Is that not the Liberal way? Mr. Speaker, I see you nodding in
agreement. There is at least one person in this House who is
agreeing with me. You were there and you fought that election.
You know on the basis of how you fought. That is even a bigger
nod, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for that honesty.
This has been called the health budget. We have to be careful
what the Liberals call it. I think this same minister called a
budget he introduced a couple of years ago the youth budget.
Immediately after he introduced the so-called youth budget,
12,000 young Canadians filed for bankruptcy because of their
inability to pay off their student loans. Thousands are leaving
this country to seek employment.
I do not think the minister can take too much satisfaction from
the thematic approach to budget making. Goodness knows what is
going to happen to those people who depend on health care
services, given the track record of this minister.
The theme is health care. The Liberals are bragging about
putting $11.5 billion in. You are right, Mr. Speaker, they are
putting it in or we are being led to believe they are. But the
timing is the thing, is it not?
The first chunk of change to go in is going into what is called
a third party fund. Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard of that
type of fund before? It is a clever word game, a third party
fund is being created. It will be a $3.5 billion fund but no one
is going to draw down any money this year. It will be next year
and the year after.
I agree with the member from Manitoba in that I think it is
going to coincide with the finance minister's leadership bid. I
should not mention the dirty word leadership in here but that is
exactly what he has done.
He is very clever. The timing will work out perfectly for the
finance minister.
1305
Sadly, this is like giving the arsonist credit for burning down
your house and then building you a one room shanty. That is
exactly what the finance minister has done. He took the torch to
health care five years ago. And torched it he did. He
immediately extracted almost $6 billion out of health care. He
put back $11.5 billion after extracting $6 billion in health care
alone and he took $17 billion from the social transfers. If we
follow his scenario to its logical conclusion, in the year 2004,
we will be into the next millennium if we make it that far, and
health care spending will be back to the very same level that we
had in 1995.
In Atlantic Canada we call that backward speaking. That is
absolutely bizarre. He is taking credit for inventing health
care when he is the man who single-handedly wrecked health care.
Now the Liberals are standing up and bragging about it.
Back in all the provinces where the hurt was really inflicted,
back in New Brunswick and every other province, including his
friend Roy's whom he likes to brag about in the House, they are
questioning what they are going to do with this money. The
feeling is that this infusion of $11.5 billion is going to be
used by the provinces to eradicate debt that this character
imposed upon them. There will be no change in patient care.
I am speaking about the shelf life of this budget. There will
be no changes in terms of rural doctors and services for rural
Canadians for years to come. There will be no change in waiting
lines or in emergency wards. People are still going to be
waiting. They still will not receive the care they should be
receiving.
In fact, when money is taken out at the rate the minister has
taken it out of health care, it takes more to bring it back to
where it was. An analogy would be a house with a leaking roof.
If we let the roof leak, the problem gets worse and instead of
just having to fix the roof, we would have to fix the rafters,
the floor joists and the floors. We are talking about
maintenance. They have not had the money to sustain the system
over the years. Now we are going to have to wait until the year
2004 before we are back to the level we had in 1995.
Would it take a rocket scientist to figure this guy out? No it
would not. It would take an ordinary citizen to look at the
numbers, if they were provided. Unfortunately the minister does
not disclose the real numbers because he is devious. He is the
Houdini of finance. I suggest that he go back to the provinces
and teach those finance ministers the magic in his numbers. I go
back to the old Mark Twain expression “lies, damned lies and
statistics”. This minister fits into the very first category
mentioned.
The Deputy Speaker: Now the hon. member knows that this
kind of talk is quite unparliamentary. I know that he would want
to comply with the rules. He cannot do by the back door what he
is not allowed to do by the front door. I suggest that perhaps he
withdraw those words and carry on for the few seconds he has left
in his speech.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to Mark
Twain.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have to do more
than apologize to Mark Twain. He is going to have to apologize
to me and to the House, and he is going to have to withdraw those
words. I would ask him to do so at once.
1310
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, it is cold outside today
and I do not want to sit outside, so I do apologize for that
unkindly word.
I think Diane Francis can say it better than most of us in this
House. In an article in yesterday's Financial Post she
calls it “fiscal fairy tales”. Is that better, Mr. Speaker?
She wrote, “the minister is a master at devising fiscal fairy
tales”. This is his sixth in a row, fiscal fairy tale.
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep it concise.
I listened to both of the members' speeches and found them quite
humourous.
The hon. member is quoting newspaper articles and I want to
quote one. I have heard him mention how well this individual does
his job. It is a quote by the premier of Alberta. The premier
of Alberta says that the Minister of Finance's Liberal budget is
a blueprint for the type of policies Tories and Reformers should
embrace if they merge into a new party. He also said that the
Minister of Finance would deliver good government to Canadians if
he became prime minister. He also said that he was “very happy
with the Liberals' decision in Tuesday's federal budget to pump
$11.5 billion into provincial health care coffers”.
I would like to hear what the hon. member across the way has to
say about Ralph Klein's comments. Is he wrong?
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, we know it would be on
very rare occasions that a Conservative premier would be wrong.
The problem with Ralph of course is that he succumbs to the
beating the finance minister inflicts on him with his big
chequebook. I am sure Ralph mentioned this under great duress
because there would be no other way that he would say that. The
minister is famous for doing that.
The New Brunswick finance minister was not quite that
complimentary. In fact, yesterday the New Brunswick finance
minister said just the opposite. At least a few of them, even
though they may be political pals, do have the strength from time
to time to speak the truth, not to say that Ralph would speak
anything but the truth.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, we have an old family fight going on over here and I
thought maybe I could insert some rationale into it.
I am sure that Premier Klein and Premier Harris are smart enough
to know that the last thing they should be saying is “Take your
money, I don't want it. Get out of my sight”. No. They are
going to placate this government. They are going to take the
money and at the same time continue their fight and struggle to
defeat this government in the next election.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, that was an intelligent
intervention and of course it had to come from this side of the
House.
Sometimes in this business we have to eat our own words. I
would love to see the finance minister do that. Last week when
the Prime Minister was out of the country, he was talking about
how supportive he was when the prime minister of the day, Brian
Mulroney, brought in the GST and why he had to do it. What goes
on in the minds of some politicians one never knows, but I think
the hon. member is absolutely right. This is a man who controls
the nation's finances, he and the Prime Minister. It is not too
often that we will get a premier going on the attack, especially
when he is waiting for some of those health care dollars that
were taken away from his province.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member was talking about numbers earlier.
I know the hon. member was in this House up until 1993. I am
wondering if he could tell me what the unemployment numbers were
at that time. If I remember correctly it was 11.5%. Today it is
7.8%. Could the hon. member tell us what the budget deficit was
at that time? I am sure he will remember that it was at $42
billion a year. Could he also tell us what the budget deficit is
today?
The hon. member talks about numbers but those are the things we
had to deal with before we brought in this budget. This budget
is our attempt to try to deal with those dramatic numbers.
1315
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I have an institutional
memory. I think that sometimes comes in handy in this place.
The member for Fredericton and I had a little discussion on the
very topic of the numbers of unemployment last night in
Fredericton in terms of New Brunswick's unemployment. I wish the
rate of unemployment in my home province and Atlantic Canada were
as low as the national average. I do not disagree with that
because the economy as we know is very cyclical. What goes up
comes down sometimes.
The hon. member is right, the unemployment rate was too high
when we left office. Prior to that it was lower. We get to the
bottom of the cycle as well in terms of a low number of
unemployed. But back in New Brunswick this very day it is very
high. It is very high in Atlantic Canada. I wish that we were
experiencing the prosperity of southern Ontario. Maybe some day
we will, but it will need more attention by this government to
achieve those low numbers.
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
sharing my time with the member for Waterloo—Wellington.
This is a very intense debate and I am very honoured to enter
into it and to offer my congratulations to the government on what
I consider to be another tremendous budget.
This budget offers all Canadians a high standard of living and
again makes Canada a better place in which to live.
Our obligations as members of Canada's parliament are to ensure
that Canadians receive what they put into their country and to
ensure that we give Canadians the support they need to build a
strong and prosperous nation.
Our strategy of building a stronger and more prosperous Canada
takes action on three fronts, maintaining sound economic and
financial management, investing in key economic and social
priorities, and providing tax relief and improving tax fairness.
These fronts mesh together to improve Canada's standard of
living and quality of life. I would like to take a look at each
of these three fronts to see how they affect Canada as a nation
but Prince Edward Island also.
If one looks at the present fiscal situation it is apparent that
we as Canadians are living in a very unique time, a time in which
economic and financial management of the nation is once again a
possibility, a time in which the light at the end of the tunnel
is a reality.
The 1998-99 fiscal year is the second consecutive year in which
the budget has been deficit free. The last time this occurred
was almost half a century ago. Program spending as a share of
GDP will decline from 12.6% to 12% in 2000-01. This also is the
lowest in almost 50 years.
The federal government will post a financial surplus for the
third consecutive year, the only G-7 country to do so.
The financial position of the territories and the provinces has
also improved. The maintenance of a sound economy is something
to be very proud of, something this Liberal government has done
in a timely and efficient manner, in a manner of effective and
responsible government.
This government has not forgotten the fundamental principle that
has guided Canada through the 20th century, the fundamental
principle of fairness and social responsibility. This is a
government that recognizes the importance of health care, a
government that recognizes the burdens that taxes place on us, a
government that recognizes the importance of investing in
knowledge and innovation so that we are fortified as we enter the
new millennium.
This budget is proof that our government has recognized the
importance of knowledge and the development of a dynamic business
sector and workforce. An innovative and dynamic business sector
and workforce are essential for success in today's knowledge
based economy and we have recognized this through increased
support to the Canadian opportunities strategy. This strategy
supports employment through creation, dissemination and
commercialization of Canadian knowledge.
Economic and social priorities seem to concentrate on one
entity, employment. Creating permanent and prosperous jobs for
Canadians is a key economic and social priority and this is no
surprise. Without a strong economy we do not have a strong
society and vice versa. We must invest in both sides of this
relationship. That is what our government has done. We have
given our economy a boost as well as giving Canadians a boost.
1320
It does little good for us to educate Canadians, give them the
life investments they need and not supply them with the proper
innovative environments to put these skills to work. To
stimulate the creation of jobs in our workforce through the
careless allocation of money is not a solution. What good
government must do is create an environment where innovation and
the promotion of knowledge can flourish. Investments in knowledge
and innovation are key to improving our productivity performance
and increasing our standard of living.
This in turn creates a highly trained workforce that can stand
the test of the new millennium. This is what our government is
doing when it builds on the existing Canadian opportunities
strategy.
Our government is taking measures to create knowledge, creating
knowledge through increased funding for the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council and for the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council for advanced research in graduate
studies.
We have also made money available to the National Research
Council to invest in leading edge equipment. This money will be
available this year and for the next three years. Without
cutting edge equipment, our national research will suffer and in
turn affect employment. Jobs depend on research.
Not only must we take measures to create knowledge but we must
also disseminate this knowledge so Canadians can use it. The
Internet and its ability to transfer information to vast numbers
makes it a natural choice for keeping Canadians abreast of up to
the minute information.
This government plans to make information and knowledge
infrastructure accessible to all Canadians by the year 2000. This
will make Canada the most connected country in the world.
This budget will make for the investment of $60 million over
three years to establish a smart community demonstration project
in each province and territory. These projects use information
and communication technology to support economic development and
enrich community life. Several aspects of society will be
fortified with speedy information channels for sharing and mass
dissemination of valuable knowledge.
These initiatives support innovation by creating a network where
industry can reach out to potential partners, where small
business can network with large business and where students can
learn more about business innovation in Canada.
Not only must we help stimulate ideas and innovation, we must
also connect ideas with our markets. Innovation is the driving
force behind increased productivity and improved standards of
living. It is the commercialization of innovation and knowledge
that results in the creation of new products, new markets and new
processes that will lead to economic growth and the generation of
job opportunities.
This budget supports the commercialization of knowledge and
innovation. Our government designates money for the investment
in partnerships with the private sector to help firms
commercialize new technology. That is where research and
investment comes to the main street of Canada, where our
commitment to the creation of economic stability through
innovation meets the average Canadian. This is where investment
in knowledge bears its fruit.
This budget also supports the development of innovative projects
that support alternate energy development. For example, in my
home province of Prince Edward Island our government is
continuing to provide funding for the Atlantic wind test site.
This site contributes to the development of wind energy
technology and illustrates this government's commitment to the
diversification of the Atlantic economy.
Now to deal with health care. This is very important to
Canadians and to this government. There is $11.5 billion
specifically for health care over the next five years. This is a
lot of money. As a matter of fact, it is the largest single new
investment this government has made.
For my province of Prince Edward Island this government has
committed an estimated $51 million over the next five years, an
average of over $10 million a year. This amount is substantial.
It will clearly have positive effects for the people of my riding
and the people of my province.
This government is also investing in health information systems
and health research. Information systems improvements will
enable Canadians to make more informed choices about their own
health, improve decision making by those in health care roles and
allow for the public to hold these people more accountable. It
is a win-win situation. Here is how we are doing it.
Through the Canadian health network, our government is improving
health information channels by giving millions to increase public
access to health information. The government is giving $95
million to the Canadian Institute for Health Information to
strengthen its capacity to report on the health of Canadians and
the functioning of the Canadian health care system.
The Department of Health will be given major financial support
so that it may report on the performance of federal health
programs in a more effective manner.
Not only are we giving considerable support to health care
information systems but we have also strengthened our health
related research.
Over the remainder of the fiscal year and over the next three
years our government will commit a half billion dollars to health
related research. This is a considerable amount and I think it
will clearly have a visible effect on the type of health care
this country experiences in the next century.
1325
Health care research and innovation is traditionally focused on
the scientific aspect of health care. This budget provides $25
million to develop solutions to challenges facing nursing in the
next decade. It is thoughtful of our government to look at the
problems associated with the profession of nursing. This
profession is facing some serious challenges in the next decade
and this government had the foresight to fund research to prevent
a potential health catastrophe, a lack of nurses.
This is where our government differs from past governments. We
care about all these things and we are doing something about it.
Clearly this budget is providing substantial gains for Canadians,
health care, job creation through our knowledge investment and
tax relief for all Canadians.
It does not get much better than this. The people of Prince
Edward Island and all Canadians can celebrate this Liberal
government's budget, a budget for all Canadians.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure to rise and question the member who just finished his
speech. We are from the same generation. We are about the same
age and it is always nice to compare notes. I often wonder,
though, what happened to him over the years as he was growing up.
He was speaking about how wonderful this health care proposal is
to the people of Canada. I read in the headlines this morning in
the National Post where the Liberals are now a little
concerned that the budget may help Mike Harris win the election.
Is it not pathetic that suddenly the care about health care is
not as important as Mike Harris might win the election?
For members of his caucus to make those kinds of statements
really shows that it is a political concern. Win, win, make sure
you get a seat in the House of Commons and keep the ego going.
We have to win these elections. That is pathetic.
I would like the hon. member's comments with regard to the
auditor general who year after year condemns the government for
the way it keeps the books. It is not illegal but it is
unethical.
Betty Crocker's Cook Book should be renamed Paul Cookers'
Crock Book.
Mr. George Proud: Mr. Speaker, I suppose what someone
saying this budget would help get someone elected is something
everyone has to live with. The party in my province is a
different stripe from mine and I am certain it is hoping this
will help it get elected. That is what politics is all about.
The great thing about this is that it shows that all the
premiers, the Prime Minister, the Finance Minister of Canada and
the finance ministers of the provinces got together and made this
thing work and they are all very happy with it.
As far as the auditor general's comments on the way the
government keeps the books, I suppose there is a difference of
opinion between the auditor general, the people in the Department
of Finance and people in other departments. That will go on
forever. It always has and always will.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, we have
been sitting here in this budget debate listening to the hon.
members on the government side and what a great job they have
done. I made the point before that we will give this budget
barely a passing grade. It is nice to see the books in the
black. I will repeat that statement. It is not a problem.
Let us draw it into perspective. These guys are talking about
knowledge based industries and there is nothing in the budget for
knowledge based industries. They are talking about the military.
There is nothing in there for the military.
I want to draw the House's attention to something that is very
critical to P.E.I. and very critical to coastal Canadians. On
budget night we had in all of Canada three search and rescue
helicopters that were fit to fly and that men and women in the
Canadian Armed Forces would actually get into to try to rescue
someone.
It may not mean a lot to the member from P.E.I, but I bet it
means a lot to his constituents. It means a lot to my
constituents in South Shore, Nova Scotia. It means a lot in
Hudson Bay if one is adrift in a boat. It means a lot in just
about every place in Canada; three choppers fit to fly with crews
that would get in them.
1330
Mr. George Proud: Mr. Speaker, I am on the defence
committee. I am the senior member of that committee. I have
been on it since 1990 and if there is anything I can do to make
sure we have a fleet of search and rescue helicopters and a fleet
of shipborne helicopters, it is something I have been fighting
for since I went on the committee and will continue to do so as
long as I am part of this government.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is with a great deal of honour that I rise today to enter this
historic budget debate. I do so on behalf of the residents of
Waterloo—Wellington and indeed on behalf of all Canadians who
recognize the tremendous work that the government has done to get
our fiscal house in order, to provide tax relief and to ensure
that our health care system is secured for the next generation.
I begin by outlining the strong fiscal outlook contained in the
budget. It is no secret that budget '99 is an outstanding
testament to the efforts and sacrifices of all Canadians to put
Canada's fiscal house in order. The government is dedicated to
advancing the living standards of Canadians through the creation
of well paying jobs, a robust economy, equal opportunities for
all and a safety net for those in need.
In 1998 Canada's economy flourished despite the uncertainty in
overseas markets that has hit some parts of Canada, our western
provinces particularly hard. Yet job creation in Canada outpaces
the other G-7 countries. Employment growth remains strong.
There were 453,000 jobs created in 1998 following the impressive
gain of 368,000 jobs in 1997.
I point out that almost 40% of the new jobs created in the last
12 months were to Canada's youth who posted their strongest
yearly employment growth in over 25 years. I also want to note
that interest rates remain low and long term rates are nearly
historically low.
It is important to note that Canada's economic success is due to
sound economic and fiscal policies and the hard work and
sacrifice of all Canadians. The budgetary deficit which stood at
$42 billion in 1993-94 was eliminated in just four years. In
fact, a surplus of $3.5 billion, the first surplus in 28 years,
was recorded in 1997-98 and went to pay down the debt.
This year the government will begin balancing its books or
better. For the first time since 1951-52 the government has been
deficit free for two consecutive years. The government is
committed to further balancing budgets in both 1999-2000 and in
2000-2001. This will be the third time since Confederation that
the government will record balanced budgets for at least four
consecutive years. That is truly historic and worthy of note.
The balanced books means an ability to invest more in health
care. Reducing our debt is an investment in our future. Our
goal is to put the debt to GDP ratio on a steady downward track.
As we reduce our federal debt it means that more resources are
available to strengthen health care, to provide tax relief, fight
child poverty and invest in research and innovation.
In 1995-96 when the debt to GDP ratio was at its peak, 36 cents
of every federal revenue dollar went to paying down the debt.
Last year that was down to 27 cents. Again, it is truly
remarkable. This is tremendous progress and underscores the
government's commitment to debt reduction.
Canada's strong economy and bright prospects are clear evidence
that strong economic fundamentals are helping us to prosper. Our
record of maintaining sound economic and fiscal management has
led to strong growth and a reduced debt burden which in turn has
allowed the government to reinvest in priorities, especially
health care.
I turn to our health care system. Canadians believe our health
care system is a fundamental core value. Canada's publicly
funded health care system is a pillar of our society and reflects
the values shared by us all. I am pleased to see that preserving
and building on our health care system's strength is a
cornerstone of budget '99.
Over the next five years the provinces and the territories will
receive, as everyone knows, an additional $11.5 billion for
health care.
This represents the largest single new investment our government
has ever made. These new monies will help the provinces and the
territories deal with Canadians' immediate concerns about health
care, things like waiting lists, crowded emergency rooms,
diagnostic services and other things. The government is
committed to building a stronger health care system that reflects
the changing needs of Canadians and provides timely access to
high quality health care.
1335
I take this opportunity to fully outline what this means. Of the
$11.5 billion dedicated to health care, $11 billion will be
provided through future increases in the Canada health and social
transfer. Over the next three years provinces will receive an
additional $6.5 billion. For this fiscal year, $3.5 billion will
be allocated as an immediate one time injection into the CHST.
Provinces and territories will be able to draw on these funds in
the manner which best suits their needs and their health care
systems.
The $2.5 billion increase to the CHST brings the total cash
portion to $15 billion, making the health component of the CHST
as high as it was before the spending restraint of the mid 1990s.
Combined with the CHST tax transfers and others, federal support
is expected to reach a new high by the year 2001-02. This is
truly good news for Canadians wherever they live.
In addition, budget '99 invests close to $1.4 billion in
improving information systems, providing health related research
innovation, improving first nations and Inuit health services and
preventing health problems. This will ensure that doctors,
nurses, administrators and researchers have the most up to date
knowledge, information, treatment and cures at their fingertips.
It will also allow them to innovate and learn from each other in
order to benefit all Canadians.
Health research helps prevent a wide range of diseases from
polio to tuberculosis. A national task force representing the
health research community has developed an innovative proposal to
create the Canadian institute of health research. The institute
would bring together the best researchers from across Canada in
areas such as aging, arthritis, women's health, cancer and
diseases of the heart.
Budget '99 sets aside $240 million over the next two years to
support this proposal. While we lay the groundwork for the
institute, increased funding will go to the existing federal
agencies that support health research and to hospitals and
universities to help create world class research facilities. That
is truly important to note.
Medicare is not only good social policy, it is good short and
long term economic policy. We will ensure that every health care
dollar spent by the Government of Canada is used to the greatest
possible extent to deliver those services.
Working with the provinces and the territories and all the
stakeholders in this very important public policy area, the
government then is investing in high quality and high calibre
health care for all. This is something Canadians need, want,
deserve and expect.
In addition to medical research the government is moving to
strengthen other areas of research, innovation and knowledge.
This is because we know it is very important to raise the
standard of living for all Canadians. In today's fast paced
world investing in Canadians' access to knowledge and innovation
is crucial.
Budget '99 builds on previous efforts by investing more than
$1.8 billion in innovation over the remainder of this fiscal year
and the next three years. This investment will help prepare
Canadians for the new economy and the new millennium.
Over the past five years our government has made important
investments in support of knowledge and innovation and we will
continue to do this. Budget '99 provides an additional $200
million for the Canada foundation for innovation's initial $800
million endowment which is now being used to support the
acquisition and modernization of world class research
infrastructure. An additional $150 million over three years will
be invested in technology partnerships Canada starting in 1999
and 2000. This will help keep Canada at the forefront of
technological innovation, open new market opportunities and
support the creation and growth of high technology industries.
The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the National
Research Council will also receive $121 million in funding for
research and support for advanced studies over the remainder of
this fiscal year and the next three years as well.
Networks of centres of excellence will also receive $90 million
over three years to foster research partnerships among world
class researchers in the private sector across Canada.
1340
More than 100,000 young Canadians a year will benefit from
summer employment, internships and job information through the
youth employment strategy. The program has been made permanent
and funding has been increased by 50% to $465 million over the
next three years. An additional $110 million per year will be
invested in a new Canada jobs fund to create sustainable long
term jobs in regions most directly affected by high unemployment.
That is very important to note and taken all together these
investments represent a balanced and comprehensive approach to
advancing Canada's knowledge and innovation agenda. They will
help businesses, organizations and individuals to put new ideas
to work in job creating industries for the future. For Canadians
this means a better standard of living and a better quality of
life.
This positions Canada and all Canadians for the 21st century.
This helps to secure the future for our children and our
children's children. This truly represents an historic budget
that we as a government and all Canadians can be proud of,
knowing it positions our country to enjoy the prosperity that
lies ahead in the future.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as
I listened to the member for Nepean—Carleton it sounded like he
was painting an awfully rosy picture for Canadians in the next
few years. I began to wonder whether he had his stats right. If
things are so rosy why has Canada fallen so far in terms of
standard of living? Why are Canadians facing such a lower
standard of living now than we were facing five or ten years ago?
Our major trading partner, the United States, has been
experiencing tremendous growth in standard of living. We have
fallen behind the Americans by 25% in standard of living
expressed in terms of GDP. We have seen 45,000 of our young
professional people leaving Canada to go to the United States.
If things are so rosy why is this happening?
We have the highest personal income tax rate in the G-7, about
15% higher than in the United States. The United States is
experiencing tremendous growth and a tremendous increase in
standard of living. Why are we so stagnant here if things are so
rosy?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the
question. I represent the riding of Waterloo—Wellington in
Ontario and I am certainly proud to do so. I do know that we are
on the cusp of great prosperity in this great nation. That is
because we as a government have laid the foundation that enables
us to take our place in the future and in the 21st century. That
is very important to note.
The hon. member spoke about the G-7. We are the envy of the G-7
in terms of what we are doing. For the past number of years the
United Nations has repeatedly shown that we are the leading
nation when it comes to the kinds of things we do for ourselves
and for our people. I think that is very important to note.
With the research and innovation we have included in this
budget, we will ensure that our young people have the fair chance
here that is needed and necessary. This we do in the interests
of all Canadians.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member said that we were poised for economic greatness.
Earlier his colleague, the member for Guelph—Wellington, talked
about balancing the situation in the country. Let me talk about
that balance a bit. I think the member from Guelph indicated
that the unemployment rate in her region was 5%. This member has
spoken about an unemployment rate of 7% nationally. The
unemployment rate in my riding is 19%. The unemployment rate on
the aboriginal reserve in my riding is 85%.
So I will ask the hon. member a serious question, not rhetoric.
Would he not agree with me that much of the thrust of the budget,
the centres for excellence which he talked about and the new
spending above and beyond the transitional jobs funds should be
directed to those regions in this country, and my riding is not
the only one, with the highest unemployment rates so we can see
those centres of excellence in places like Cape Breton, northern
Manitoba and eastern Newfoundland? Would he not agree that would
be a sensible way to direct the funding of those initiatives?
1345
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
the question.
What I do know is that we as a government have taken a very
balanced approach not only in this budget year but in previous
years as well. We have taken an approach that is balanced,
equitable and fair. We have ensured that we cut taxes, that we
pay down the debt and that we make the wise kinds of reinvestment
Canadians want, need, deserve and expect. We have done a very
good job at that.
Specific to the question, I point out that when we put in place
innovation, research and the new centres of excellence we do so
for everyone in the country no matter where they live, in a
manner consistent with the values that sustain us as a people. It
is important that we do so in a manner that enables Canadians
wherever they live to access those very important areas and make
sure that we all prosper and benefit as a result.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are three ways to look at the budget, in a
realistic way, an optimistic way and a negative way. Using the
example of the glass being half full or half empty, this glass is
seven-eighths full and one-eighth empty. That is a realistic
budget.
My colleague from Waterloo—Wellington spoke about the positive
points in this budget. He failed to mentioned the positive
responses we received from all the premiers and the favourite son
of the federal riding of Brampton Centre, Bill Davis. He spoke
very highly of this budget.
I wonder why my colleague skipped this fact and did not present
this information to the House?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I know Bill Davis. I had
the opportunity not so long ago to speak to him. I very much
value and respect his opinion. When Bill Davis says that this is
a good budget, we should all listen to that. He knows what he is
talking about.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
privilege to stand and talk about this budget.
Because I am the health critic and because I am really keen on
health, I looked forward to this budget. I must say that
frankly, I looked forward to it because it would be a health
reinvestment budget. In a non-partisan way, I thought this would
be the perfect opportunity for me to stand and cheer my
colleagues across the way. I honestly, truly hoped that I would
be able to do that.
Because a politician can find negatives in anything, I am going
to leave the negative comments relating to this budget to health
care people who are not politicians.
The Liberals said they had an excuse for cutting health. The
excuse was that there was an emergency, a deficit emergency, a
money emergency. Many Canadians asked why the Liberals took a
money emergency and made it into a medical emergency. That would
arch over my questions to my Liberal colleagues.
Reformers say that this budget is a pay more and get less for
health care budget. Members have heard that a lot. I hope they
will hear it a lot more.
What is the Liberal record on health since the Liberals came to
power in 1993? These facts are absolutely incontrovertible. In
1993 Canada was second in the world in spending on health care.
As a per cent of GDP, Canada was number two. Today Canada is
number five in the world. We have plunged from two to five as a
per cent of GDP. That is the Liberal record.
These are not just numbers; these matter to the public. As a
percentage in the 28 OECD countries, government spending on
health of all the OECD countries, Canada is 23rd out of 28. We
are so close to the bottom we are almost the anchor. We are told
that in private health spending we have one tier publicly
financed health in Canada. Where are we in terms of private
spending since 1993 until now? We went from 22% to 30% in a
short span of time. That is the Liberal legacy.
This is the big, big health reinvestment; budget increases
federal support for health care.
What will be the balanced result of that? The balance is pretty
simple. For every $2 the Liberals have taken out of health care,
they are going to put $1 back in. Most eighth graders would tell
me that is not very good math.
1350
Let us look at the reception of the budget from those who are
not politicians, those who stand aside and look at this with no
axe to grind, none. I have chosen three big groups.
The Canadian Medical Association said, “The patient is the
health care system. Budget day, it was an emergency situation,
just this close to life support. With the budget it has moved
from emergence to urgent. It is still acutely ill,” says the
president of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Hugh Scully.
“This is a band-aid”.
Sharon Scholzberg-Gray, the president of the Canadian Health
Care Association said, “This increased funding is a step in the
right direction but it will not be enough to deal with a growing
aging Canadian population. The amounts are not sufficient”.
This is not a political statement. This is a statement by
somebody who deals with the patient.
The Canadian Nurses Association expressed concern about the long
term sustainability. “At the end of four more years,” said
Mary Ellen Jeans, “we will be at $15 billion which was where we
were three years ago”. She did not say when the Liberals took
power we were at $18.8 billion for health care. She did not
mention that but I will.
I would say the reception by non-politicians to this tremendous
health care reinvestment budget is negative. Would my colleagues
agree? Would my Liberal colleagues agree? The Liberals talk
about this as getting all kinds of encouragement and enthusiasm
from across the country. I do not think so.
I have never done this in the House before but I am going to
take the position of Canadian doctors on the budget. They made a
prebudget submission. Because I am a doctor I have hesitated to
do this. Today I am going to present the CMA position, their
prebudget submission on health care. I am going to list off the
things that they said needed to be done. I am going to grade the
Liberal government on the CMA's behalf.
The first thing concerned funding. The CMA said there had to be
sustainable funding and asked for $2.5 billion per year now, to
raise the floor from $12.5 billion to $15 billion, not where it
was when they started but at least get started. They also asked
for $3 billion over the next three years for the damage. They
said please do not keep this CHST nonsense. Identify the health
care funding out in the open so that we can all see it. What was
the mark? I will be fair. It was a C-minus. The Liberals did
only one of those three things.
The CMA asked for a complete tobacco policy. I give the
Liberals a D for that because it was not even in the budget.
The CMA asked for every doctor to be treated fairly under the
GST rules, in other words, to have the GST be zero rated. I give
the Liberals an F.
The CMA wanted the RRSP limits raised. I give the Liberals an
F.
The CMA wanted the non-taxable health benefits maintained. That
was done; an A. They also wanted a national target for health
research funding. Well there is a little bit of money for health
research funding but no national target so I will give the
Liberals a C.
That is a C-minus, D, F, F, A and C. The Liberals did not pass
and would not get into medical school with this budget.
Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time in case you did not realize
that.
Who was totally missed in this budget? The 6,600 hepatitis C
victims of tainted blood. Not one penny for the left out
hepatitis C individuals.
I would like to make another little announcement today. It
looks like we are going to have to go to Washington, U.S.A. to
get justice for those victims. Next week that is exactly what
the victims and I are doing. We are going to Washington to see
if we cannot find proper care for them there.
There is not much in these speeches so let me draw a parallel
for my medical colleagues who are in emergencies this afternoon.
When hanging up 1,000 cc's of normal saline to look after the
patient on that gurney today, this is what should be done with
that 1,000 cc's.
This will be the way to tell how the Liberals have treated health
care funding in Canada. Pour 500 cc's of the 1,000 cc's into the
dish. Then pull up with a great big syringe exactly 68 cc's and
put it back in the 1,000 cc's. That is what is left for the
patient lying in the emergency room. That 1,000 cc's of saline
almost went down to half under the Liberal government. And the
Liberals put in a little tiny bit with their injection syringe
from this budget.
1355
Health care was too important to be turned into an emergency
because we had a deficit problem. There were so many other
choices. There was the choice of business subsidies that could
have been scrubbed. There was the choice of scrubbing all kinds
of aid programs. So many wasteful things could have been
scrubbed.
I am going to make one last prediction. The prediction is that
just before the next election a wheelbarrow full of money will
come out and that wheelbarrow full of money will be designed to
do one thing: save the political hides of the Liberals.
This budget is a budget where every single Canadian will pay
more and get less for health care. The taxpayer will pay $2,000
more in taxes and will get $1,500 less in health care. This
budget could have been so much better. I am disappointed.
The Speaker: The hon. member of course has five minutes
of questions and comments. I think I can get about a minute in
at this point. Then I want to go to Statements by Members. The
hon. member for Mississauga South has about 40 seconds to get it
in.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member talked about private spending and the increase he said
from 22% to 30% of private spending in health care. Could the
member advise the House how much of this private spending is for
non-medically necessary purposes? The member will know that
medically necessary has specific connotations within the Canada
Health Act. Could he at least clarify what percentage of private
spending in fact is discretionary spending?
Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, the real trick about the
Canada Health Act is to figure out where the Canada Health Act is
not working well. This is one of the areas where the Canada
Health Act is not working. The Canada Health Act needs
improvement.
On the issue of comprehensiveness, in the last eight years since
the Liberals have taken power some 40 separate things have been
taken out of what health care did pay for. That is not
comprehensiveness any more. There is a slide downward of the
things that are covered.
The member across the way decries, as I do, the changes that
have been undertaken. This is not what medicare should do. Fault
laid at the feet of the Liberals? Maybe. Fault laid at the feet
of the provinces? Maybe. But the funding has dropped.
The Speaker: It is almost 2 p.m. There is
still approximately three minutes in the questions and comments
of the hon. member. We will take that up after question period,
but right now we will hear statements. The hon. member for
Cambridge.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
PARKHILL DAM MEMORIAL
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
August two tragedies at the Parkhill Dam on the Grand River in
Cambridge shook our community.
Mark Gage, a vibrant 12 year old, drowned in the river when he
was sucked into a hole at the base of the dam.
Waterloo Regional Police diver Constable Dave Nicholson, a
husband and father of three children, died while battling the
vicious currents in his efforts to pull Mark free.
Area resident Lynda Fritz, supported by Cambridge Mayor Jane
Brewer and a special city task force initiated a drive to collect
funds for a memorial garden to commemorate Mark and Constable
Nicholson.
I call upon the people of Cambridge to show their community
spirit and generosity by supporting this important memorial.
* * *
POVERTY
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last fall I wrote this government to complain on behalf
of poor people, like the homeless who came here last week.
They do not want handouts. Most just want the chance for a
decent job, which can only come from the private sector now being
strangled by high taxes. The minister responded, just as the new
budget would make one fear, with a list of government programs.
1400
One of the biggest flaws in programs cooked up by bureaucrats is
that they do not work. For example, a couple of women in my
riding heard about the budget's increase to the child tax
benefit. They called to complain that their daughters received
social assistance but have the whole amount of the child tax
benefit deducted from their welfare cheques. The poor who need
it most will not get a nickel.
The same is true for child support payments after divorce or
separation. Fathers have called me to complain that they
struggle to provide child support only to see provincial
authorities deduct the amount from their wives' cheques.
I hope the lesson to be learned is clear. Not even the poor can
rely on programs cooked up by the government.
* * *
LITERACY
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is
national literacy action day, a chance for us to reflect on what
literacy means in Canada. Coming from the province of New
Brunswick, a province on the vanguard of the information era and
literacy in particular, I think of literacy as meaning more than
just reading and writing.
In today's world, literacy is essential for surfing the web,
using the bank machine or applying for a job. Reading is
essential to our knowledge based economy. Now more than ever
people need literacy skills if they are to be productive workers
and responsible citizens. As such we must find ways to improve
literacy skills for all Canadians.
My riding of Fredericton is home to Scovil House, the
headquarters of National Adult Literacy Database Incorporated, or
NALD. As the name suggests, NALD is a national database of
literacy resources and activities.
I am pleased to salute NALD for the wonderful work it is
carrying out on behalf of literacy across Fredericton, New
Brunswick, and throughout Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
THE LATE YVON DUFOUR
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay
tribute to one of Quebec's great actors, Yvon Dufour, who passed
away last week.
I had occasion to work with Yvon on a business project for a
number of years, and I will always remember his sense of humour
and how easy he was to get along with.
Many will remember him in Le Survenant, Le temps d'une paix, Les
enquêtes Jobidon and La petite semaine. Yvon enjoyed life, and
was a generous and fun-loving person.
He was very active in the community. He represented the
Association des aphasiques de la ville de Québec for many years
and was made honorary chair of the Semaine québécoise des
personnes handicapées this past December.
To his wife Josette, and his children and family, we
respectfully extend our heartfelt condolences.
* * *
SOCIAL UNION
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the social
union framework agreement is great news for all Canadians.
The first ministers agreed to improve a social union that is
already among the best in the world. Better yet, co-operation
was the watchword throughout the discussions.
Governments will work together to set national social policy
objectives, but programming will be left up to the provinces so
that they can meet specific needs.
This agreement represents an important step forward.
It reflects our government's desire to modernize the federation
and make it work better, while respecting provincial
jurisdictions, for the greater benefit of all Canadians.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Kurdish people are outraged in Canada and around the
world after their leader, Abdullah Ocalan, was arrested. However
this anger and fury is rooted in years of abuse by Turkish and
Iraqi leaders who have murdered, tortured, driven into swamps and
had chemical weapons dropped on innocent Kurdish people.
Peaceful efforts to resolve this situation have failed.
Layla Zana, Turkish MP, mother of two and Nobel Peace Prize
nominee, has been incarcerated since 1994 and for what? Speaking
out on behalf of the Kurdish people. Enough is enough.
Now that we are on the security council, I implore the Minister
of Foreign Affairs to bring this issue to the floor of the
general assembly and the security council to ensure that Layla
Zana will be released and to ensure that there will be a peaceful
negotiated settlement to the Kurdish situation. If it does not
occur, war will break out and thousands more innocent people will
die.
* * *
1405
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians have much to celebrate. The additional $11.5 billion
increase over five years in transfers to the provinces delivers
on the government's commitment to strengthen the health care
system.
In Ontario we will receive $4.4 billion, or 38% of the total
increase in transfers. The move to per capita entitlement for
all provinces means that Ontario will see a further $900 million
transferred for a total increase of $5.3 billion.
Burlington residents, in particular seniors, should get some
much needed relief from their Conservative government who made
bad decisions, like spending more than $85 million in partisan
advertising while cutting annual hospital budgets and introducing
millions of dollars in new user fees for seniors and the poor.
With investments in research, emerging priorities and a $25
million nurse fund we will meet the challenges ahead. Canadians
can continue to count on their federal government and on an
affordable and accessible health care system.
* * *
[Translation]
BLACK HISTORY MONTH
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, February is
Black History Month.
It gives us the opportunity to underline and appreciate the
important contribution that people of African origin have made
to Canada and to Quebec. Thousands of them worked to build a
better Quebec, and they were not always able to enjoy the fruits
of their labour.
Today, racial discrimination has regressed, but as Dan Philip,
chairman of the Black Coalition of Quebec, pointed out: “We have
to work hard and to work together within a Quebec that is open
and friendly, a Quebec where all forms of discrimination would
gradually disappear”.
I am proud to announce that, tomorrow, a young woman from my
riding, Jennie Dorsaint, will receive the Mathieu Da Costa award
in recognition of her efforts to bring together people from
different cultural backgrounds.
Thank you, Jennie, for promoting mutual understanding and
respect among Quebeckers of various origins.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
80% of Canadians acknowledge our health care system as the best
in the world and see the principles upon which it is based as a
source of national pride.
Cynical parties, however, would have Canadians believe that
evidence of the abuse known as queue jumping is reason for
robbing Canadians of this pride. Worse still, the same parties
that point to this abuse would correct the problem of queue
jumping by institutionalizing it as a two tier wealth care. To
these parties allow me to repeat the words of the hon. finance
minister “Not now, not ever”.
Because of the Liberal government's initiatives in the 1999
budget Canadians will be proud of their universal health care in
the 21st century, as proud as 80% of Canadians are today. We are
all very proud of the $11.5 billion increase in the health care
fund.
* * *
WINTERLUDE
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, back on the Hill after last year's great success the
Canada snow sculpturing competition showcased 12 teams of
professional carvers from every province and territory in Canada.
I ask all MPs in the House to join with me in applauding the
participants for making Parliament Hill a highlight attraction of
Ottawa's Winterlude with their works of art.
Today I make special mention of the sculpturing team of Bryan
Lane, captain, Ian Jones and Darcy Baranosky for their creation
of “The Legend of Qu'Appelle”. These three artists
represented my home province of Saskatchewan and won this year's
Winterlude snow sculpturing contest on Parliament Hill.
Congratulations to these three carvers and to all who came to
share their artistic skills for the enjoyment of thousands.
* * *
[Translation]
TAX RELIEF
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal
government cut taxes in each of its previous budgets and, in
1999, we are starting to extend these cuts to the general
population.
Our goal is clear: to provide tax relief to those who need it
most, targeted tax relief, particularly in the area of personal
income tax.
The 1999 budget provides for a $7.7 billion cumulative tax
reduction over three fiscal years, which will benefit each and
every taxpayer in Canada, especially low and middle income
earners.
The budget also provides for the elimination of the 3% surtax,
as well as $300 million in additional transfers for the child
tax benefit, which will help low and middle income families.
That was a brief overview of the measures contained in this
budget to improve the quality of life of Canadians.
* * *
1410
[English]
THE LATE KIRK MILLER
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the minister
for EI prefers to dismiss anecdotes about his program, but today
in Yukon there is a funeral for Kirk Miller, the father of three
sons and a devoted husband to Leslie.
Last week he was killed in a mine accident in B.C. Last fall
Kirk left Yukon to work in Alberta. He lived in his truck so he
could send all his money home to his family. His wife begged him
to return home and at Christmas he did, but he was denied EI
benefits because he did not have sufficient grounds to quit his
job.
In January he again left his family and went to B.C. to work. In
his last phone calls home he told his wife the ground was bad and
just days later he was dead in a mine cave-in.
Kirk had no choice. He could not and he would not leave his
family without an income. He knew he would get no EI if he quit.
Now there is no life for Kirk and only despair for his family.
This anecdote is the tragedy of a man who worked to his death
for his family because the minister would not let Kirk live in
the same territory as his family.
I ask the House to pay tribute to Kirk and his family.
* * *
[Translation]
COUNCIL FOR CANADIAN UNITY
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what do the
banks, Alliance Quebec, the Council for Canadian Unity and the
Minister of Canadian Heritage have in common? All of them were
on the no side in the last referendum.
It comes as no surprise, therefore, that millions of dollars are
being passed back and forth between these fine people, to stop
Quebec from achieving sovereignty. But they will not get off
lightly.
While it is subsidized through Heritage Canada's official
languages envelope, the Council for Canadian Unity also received
$5 million from the same source to finance its political arm,
Option Canada. The same council receives hundreds of thousands
of dollars from banking institutions, including the Bank of
Montreal, the Royal Bank, CIBC, Toronto Dominion and the Bank of
Nova Scotia. Together with Heritage Canada, banks also finance
Alliance Quebec to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Tell me whom you finance and I will tell you against whom you
are.
* * *
MAYOR OF MONTREAL
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reaction
of the Quebec intergovernmental affairs minister, last Friday,
to a speech by the Mayor of Montreal was disgraceful.
The mayor had been explaining to a group of young entrepreneurs
that another referendum on Quebec's separation would be
inappropriate.
He held the view that the public had realized that we are better
off living together, a remark that the sovereignists obviously
did not like.
What a fine example of tolerance on the part of the
sovereignists.
* * *
JEAN MANDÉ SIGOGNE
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, this year marks the
200th anniversary of the arrival in Canada of a great personage
in Acadian history in the Clare and Argyle regions.
Jean Mandé
Sigogne arrived in Nova Scotia to provide religious services to
the Acadians returning from exile and taking refuge in one of
the province's most inhospitable areas.
Despite many difficulties, he earned the respect and admiration
of the entire population. According to Gérald Boudreau, who, in
my opinion, is an expert in the matter: “He served Acadians
devotedly and faithfully for 45 years as providential pastor, as
builder of churches and schools, as educator and as defender of
their civil rights”.
Jean Mandé Sigogne died in 1884 in the vestry of his church, at
Pointe-de-l'Église, at the age of 81.
I ask the hon. members to join all Acadians in my riding in
celebrating the arrival of this great man who left his mark
among the Acadians.
* * *
[English]
LITERACY
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today is literacy action day and parliamentarians of all
parties are welcoming activists and adult learners into their
offices to discuss the daunting challenge we face of improving
literacy in the country.
Sadly some 22% of adult Canadians have difficulty reading
ordinary material and another 26% have limited reading skills.
For thousands of Canadians the smallest, most ordinary activity
from ordering a meal, to opening a bank account, to getting to
work, to buying groceries, to following their prescription and to
reading to a child can be difficult if not impossible.
As in so many things just realizing the problem is the first
step toward a solution.
I urge all my colleagues to take an active role in helping to
promote the cause of literacy in parliament and in their own
constituencies.
1415
I encourage all Canadians to learn more about this issue and to
learn more about how they can help to build a Canada where every
Canadian can—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday a senior minister of the government attacked
the premier of the largest province in Canada.
The President of the Treasury Board said that he and many
Liberals were reluctant to increase health care transfers to
Ontario because fixing health care in Ontario might make Premier
Harris look good.
Was the Prime Minister actually prepared to sacrifice the health
care needs of Ontarians just because he dislikes the politics of
Premier Harris?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should know that we always
do the right thing.
Perhaps I can quote to the Leader of the Opposition what his
guest speaker of tomorrow night had to say yesterday. Ralph
Klein said “Sometimes politics is a bloody sport and you hate it
when someone does something right but you have to live with it.
The feds did the right thing in the budget and I have got to
admit that”.
Some hon. members: More, more.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if members want more, here is what Premier Klein really
said. They should read the rest of Premier Klein's quote:
“There are many in that caucus who scare me including the
foreign affairs minister and the heritage minister”.
I will quote what this minister said: “The last thing we
wanted to do was to give Premier Harris a gift that would help
him get re-elected”.
Does the Prime Minister stand by the statement made by the
President of the Treasury Board, or will he order him to
apologize for that disparaging remark?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I guess that on this side of the House it is pretty
normal that the members would prefer the provincial Liberals to
form the next government in Alberta.
I will quote again from Mr. Klein who said there is no rush to
have an alternative in Ottawa because as long as the Minister of
Finance and the Prime Minister are there, there is no worry at
all. Everybody knows that I am in very good health and the
Minister of Finance will be around me as long as I am around.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is prepared to put his political
animosity for the Premier of Ontario ahead of the health care
needs of the people of Ontario.
The real reason he is envious is because Premier Harris spends
three times more on health care than this government spends on
the entire health care of the people of Canada.
Would the Prime Minister tell us what he would do to a minister
who made those disparaging remarks about Premier Bouchard in
Quebec instead of the Premier of Ontario?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think he should learn from Mr. Klein who said that
when a government does something right it should be able to
recognize it. This is the man who got elected promising to
everybody that there was to be new politics.
We have balanced the books. The economy is in good shape.
Unemployment is down. The people are happy. Only the Reform
Party is having problems these days.
Some hon. members: More, more.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Medicine
Hat.
* * *
THE BUDGET
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let
us talk about the new politics from the Liberal government.
When we factor in hikes to CPP taxes and bracket creep,
Canadians will pay over $2 billion more in taxes over the next
three years and that takes into account the pathetic alleged tax
relief that we got from the finance minister earlier this week.
Is a $2 billion tax hike this finance minister's twisted idea of
tax relief?
1420
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Reform Party attempted to demonstrate an
interest in health care and failed to do so. Today it raises the
tax issue as if people do not remember what it has said in the
past.
The Reform Party has called for some $7 billion to $16 billion
worth of cuts in order to pay for its tax package. It is very
clear that the bulk of that would come out of health care.
Will the Reform Party stand up here today and tell us where it
will cut and what it feels the effect of that would be on the
health care system in this country?
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
would cut fat and the finance minister would be gone.
The House will notice that every time we ask a question the
finance minister runs away from his own record. He should be
ashamed of it.
I pointed out that taxes are going up. I want an answer from
the finance minister. Will he acknowledge that CPP taxes and
bracket creep are going up almost $10 billion over the next three
years and will eradicate his pathetic tax relief earlier this
week?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will answer the question very quickly.
Our tax package will eliminate bracket creep for all taxpayers
for the next three years. We will protect the Canada pension
plan. I have answered the questions.
Now let the Reform Party answer its questions. Where will it
get the $7 billion to $16 billion worth of cuts that it would
take out of Canadian social programs? Answer the questions. I
answered its questions.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. We have questions here and answers
here.
* * *
[Translation]
TRANSFER PAYMENTS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
March 1995, in response to a question from Jean Campeau,
Quebec's finance minister at the time, who was worried that the
federal government would change its transfer payment system to
one based on demographic weight alone, the President of the
Treasury Board replied, and I quote: “It would be the least
favourable scenario for Quebec, so unfavourable that, in my
opinion, it makes no sense as a solution”.
Does the President of the Treasury Board think this solution
makes no sense?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is clear
that Quebec is still receiving a larger share of federal
transfer payments than the other provinces.
I would like the Bloc Quebecois and Parti Quebecois members to
admit this.
In the budget just brought down by the Minister of Finance, if
all federal transfer payments—health and equalization—are
combined, it will be seen that Quebec is still receiving 29% of
all federal government transfers. This has been the case for 20
years and it will continue to be the case as long as Quebec
needs this assistance.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
has been the case for 20 years and it was the case in 1995.
Equalization was not mentioned then.
And I continue with the interesting statements made by the
President of the Treasury Board: “One possibility, an extreme
one, would be to have the same formula as in 1996-97, but
Ontarians say that is not fair. Another possibility would be to
operate exclusively on a per capita basis, but that would mean
taking money from Quebec and giving it to Ontario”.
Does the President of the Treasury Board realize that that is
exactly what the budget is doing, taking money from Quebec and
giving it to Ontario? Does he remember those statements?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
difference between today and 1995 is that transfers were being
cut then.
Today, they have been increased and the provinces knew very well
that as soon as money was back in the system, there would be a
return to the per capita basis.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Paul Martin: It is very clear that the CHST and
equalization go hand in hand.
When the two are examined together, over a five-year period,
Canada will be paying out $19 billion to the provinces and
Quebec will receive—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would ask hon. members to be kind enough to
listen to the answers.
1425
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is clear
from all this that, when the Minister of Finance cuts funding,
it is mostly in Quebec, and when he increases funding, it is
mostly in Ontario. That is clear.
If, in 1995, the President of the Treasury Board was convinced
that this was the worst possible situation for Quebec, where was
he when cabinet made this decision? Where were they, him and his
Quebec colleagues? They are just featherweights against Ontario
heavyweights. They are unable to protect Quebec's interests.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
following the budget of the Minister of Finance, Quebec will
receive, within three weeks, a cheque for $1.4 billion, with no
strings attached.
Unfortunately, the reason for this is that Quebec's economy is
being hurt by all this separatist talk and is not improving as
well as Ontario's economy.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what is
unfortunate is—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Roberval.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, what is most unfortunate is
that the member for Saint-Maurice is among the 26 who should look
after Quebec's interests, but we know what his position is.
Yesterday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said that
his province is very well served, while his colleague, the
President of the Treasury Board, who was less involved in this
matter, felt that this was the worst possible situation for
Quebec.
Are we to understand that what Liberal ministers from Quebec say
varies depending on what they have to sell?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
here we go again. When they run out of arguments, they resort to
insults and name calling.
What a terrible outcome: with the $1.4 billion that it will get,
the Quebec government will be able to balance its budget and
this will once again be the federal government's fault.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to put some quotes again today to the finance minister.
If they are willing to pay, Canadians could get themselves a
higher standard of care and quicker access. Whose words are
these? The leader of the Reform Party's, trying as usual to sell
two tier health care, and this government is buying.
Canadians now pay directly out of their own pocket 30 cents for
every health care dollar.
Why is this government following the lead of the Reform Party?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have invested $2 billion for this year and next year.
We have invested another $500 million into research and
development and so on. This is exactly what the NDP was asking
for. Just like the Reform Party, it cannot take yes for an
answer.
1430
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, two
tier or not two tier, that is the question. Before this budget
Ottawa paid 11 cents for every health care dollar. After the
budget—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. The hon. leader of the New
Democratic Party.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, they do not want to
deal with the question of two tier or not two tier. Before this
budget Ottawa was paying 11 cents of every health care dollar.
After the budget, five years later it will be up to 12 cents, 1
cent more. Meanwhile, citizens are paying 30 cents on every
health care dollar. Why will the government not admit that it is
following the lead of the Reform Party?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are reasonable NDP leaders. The Premier of
Saskatchewan said he is in agreement with us. The minister of
finance of B.C., another New Democrat, said that this is a good
government. And then there is this complaining group in the
corner. To be or not to be? I will take those who get elected
and into government rather than the perpetual third party of
Canada.
The Speaker: The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I made a mistake.
It is the fourth party, not the third.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, when listening to the finance minister I am often
reminded of that old Mark Twain adage “lies, damned lies and
statistics”.
I am quoting Mark Twain but it is up to the public to decide.
Will the minister admit that his health care budget will only
bring us up to 1995 levels by 2004?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the budget put out two days ago was the largest single
investment that has been made by a federal government in health
care in over two decades. In addition, the investments in health
care research are the largest that have been made by a federal
government in over two decades. Essentially what the government
did in this budget was make it very clear that the federal party
that created medicare is going to stand behind it for generations
to come.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I want to remind the minister that he took the single
biggest swipe at health care in the history of this country.
Maybe the minister is in the black but unfortunately hospitals
and health districts in province after province are deeply in the
red. Given this accumulated debt imposed on the provinces by
this radical surgery, can the minister still claim this new money
is going into patient care, or is the money simply going into
paying off past debts that he inflicted on these jurisdictions?
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member should know, if he
listened to the budget presentation, the $3.5 billion available
immediately to the provinces is available at their discretion to
solve whatever problems they deem fit. That money has been made
available and is part of an $11.5 billion investment, the single
largest investment of this government and, as the member just
heard, the single largest investment of any government in two
decades.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
all want to protect the lives of innocent Kosovars but we also
have the responsibility to protect our own troops. Let us talk
about our troops in Macedonia. They have just received their
flak jackets, they have been forced to eat raw meat, they have to
beg for their food from the French and they were recently
assigned axe handles to beat off the wild dogs.
1435
Why is the defence minister sending our troops into a war zone
with only axe handles for protection?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would not believe any of that. I would
believe that what we will do is ensure the proper protection of
our troops.
If our troops go into Kosovo, and that has not been determined
yet, they will be going on a peacekeeping mission. They will be
going there only after the two parties reach an agreement. The
conditions under which our troops will go in will help to ensure
their safety.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the fact is there are 62 members of the Canadian forces in
Macedonia. They are ill equipped. They cannot do their jobs
adequately. This government and this minister have the
responsibility to look after them.
I am asking the defence minister again why he is sending our
troops into harm's way and not giving them the proper tools with
which to protect themselves.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they are not being sent into harm's way.
Those who were in the former republic of Macedonia are in fact
there to help in an extraction force that would help to take our
verifiers out of Kosovo if that is necessary. But they are there
in an engineering capacity and in a medical capacity. They are
not actually going into Kosovo at all. They are there in a
supporting role. They are in fact quite safe and secure.
* * *
[Translation]
THE BUDGET
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if
population is a good criterion, synonymous with fairness for all
people in Canada, why is it that the people in Quebec have only
19% of federal investments, only 20% of federal purchases of
goods and services whereas they represent one quarter of the
population?
Is it because, for the Liberals, the population criterion is
proper and fair when it puts Quebec at a disadvantage?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
poor member is really out to lunch.
Under the labour market development agreement, with 24% of
Canada's population, Quebec receives 28% of the expenditures.
For immigrant settlement services, Quebec receives 34% of
spending. For Technology Partnerships Canada, with 24% of the
population, Quebec receives 53% of spending. From the Canada
Development Bank, with 24%—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance is taking us for a ride.
Will he recognize that, as far as cuts are concerned, in the
past four years, 39% of federal cuts have been made in Quebec?
However, when it is time to give back, population size is the
criterion. That is the reality.
Will he acknowledge that, had the federal government spent as it
should have on research and development, goods and services and
regional development, Quebec would not be getting equalization
payments today, but would be making them to the other provinces
in Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will continue and give other examples.
From the Canada Development Bank, with 24% of the population,
Quebec receives 37% of the loans and guarantees. From the
Canadian foundation for innovation, with 24% of the population,
Quebec receives 33% of the funds allocated. From the Canada
Medical Research Council, with 24% of the population, Quebec
receives 32% of the money spent.
This is the fault of the federal government.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what would
you call a medicare system where desperate patients have to fly
to the U.S. because they cannot get care at home?
One of the best new businesses in Canada is a business selling
waiting line insurance.
You would call that two tier health. You would call that
Liberal medicare.
Why does the Prime Minister not just get up and admit that is
his legacy to the Canadian people, two tier health care, Liberal
style?
1440
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the member has just
described in fact is the Reform Party's policy, as clearly
articulated by their leader to the Ontario Hospital Association,
when he said, “We would enable the provinces to experiment with
such options as user fees, deductibles and private delivery of
services”.
I say to him and to all members, this party and this government
will never permit that in Canada.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
rhetoric is fine but the facts are quite different.
If Canada has hit the debt wall, they have an excuse for this.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Macleod.
Mr. Grant Hill: As I said, if we had hit the debt wall,
maybe there would be an excuse for this. But the finance
minister has had plenty of loot, in fact $2,000 per taxpayer more
than when he took power back in 1993.
My question is very straightforward. Why did Liberals give us
the biggest, greediest tax collector and give us a rickety two
tier health care system? That is their legacy. Why did they do
it?
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I reject absolutely the preamble
to the member's question.
This party and this government stand firmly behind the
principles of the Canada Health Act, unlike that party which has
been calling for not only two tier, but American style medicine
for a very long time. We will never allow that to happen. We
will never amend the Canada Health Act as they propose. We will
ensure that when the people of Canada need health services that
the provinces have the resources they need to enable them to
deliver those services.
* * *
[Translation]
TRANSFER PAYMENTS
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government decided to change the rules about the financing of
health, post-secondary education and, more importantly, social
assistance, this without any consultations, lead time or advance
notice.
From now on, the federal contribution to social assistance will
be based only on the demographic weight of the provinces,
regardless of their real needs.
How can the minister explain that, from now on, the federal
contribution to social assistance will be based on population
rather than on the real needs of a province, including the need
to alleviate poverty?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
clear that the Canada social transfer and the equalization
program go hand in hand. We must keep them together, otherwise
there would be distortions.
For example, Quebec is currently getting $20 more per capita
than Newfoundland. Is Quebec poorer than Newfoundland? Quebec
receives $78 more per capita than Prince Edward Island. Is
P.E.I. richer than Quebec? No. This is because there are
distortions and we will have to eliminate them, so that
compensation—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Témiscamingue.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Finance forgets to mention that, in comparative terms, Quebec
will now receive less than Ontario, despite having many more
people on welfare.
How can the Minister of Finance claim that Quebec benefited by
temporarily getting more through equalization, when he knows
full well that the transfer payments will be stable and increase
over time, while equalization payments can diminish or disappear
altogether, depending on the economy?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
according to the per capita formula, Quebec is currently getting
$939 per capita; next year, it will receive $954, and this
amount will increase to $960 and then to $971. The amount will
increase over time.
It may well be that equalization payments will vary, but they
will also vary if Quebec's economy improves.
There is another thing. Within the next three weeks, we will
give Quebec a $1.4 billion cheque, and that is reality.
* * *
1445
[English]
SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, even this Liberal government grudgingly concedes that
small business is the engine of our economy creating in excess of
80% of the jobs the Liberals like to brag about.
My question is very simple. Why does this finance minister
continue to derail that engine with high payroll taxes and an
overburden of user fees?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, $50 million to the Business Development Bank of Canada
is directed totally to small business. When we took office,
payroll taxes and unemployment insurance taxes were going up to
$3.07. Today they are $2.55. That is $3.5 billion that has been
given back to—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The finance minister still has time if he
would like to answer the question.
Hon. Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am so anxious for his
supplementary.
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Battlefords—Lloydminster.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the reality is that Canadian businesses create those
jobs in spite of these government programs. The CPP hike more
than offsets any nickels and dimes that EI gave.
The CFIB gave this finance minister a failing grade. They
called it a disappointing budget. They called it a missed
opportunity. Payroll taxes in reality gouged deeper.
The small business deduction is mired in 1980 values. How dare
this finance minister stand there and continue to force small
businesses into paying more and getting less?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, small business participates in the overall economy of
the country. What has the overall economy of the country done?
We have one of the highest growth rates of any of the countries
in the G-7. We are creating more jobs than any country in the
G-7, including the United States. Our interest rates have come
down dramatically over the last five years. We have eliminated
the deficit. We are the only major industrial country now paying
debt. That is what gives us a solid economy. That is what small
and medium size businesses want.
* * *
[Translation]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
learned this morning that Immigration Canada officers had once
again tarnished Quebec's reputation by turning back a French
researcher.
The French government is obviously unhappy about this incident.
How could the minister still be defending her officials this
week, saying that their work is beyond reproach, when their
unacceptable behaviour is creating diplomatic incidents? When is
she going to wake up?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, relations between Canada and
France are excellent, as evidenced by the fact that we are even
looking to increase the number of exchanges of trainees,
students and researchers between the two countries.
That said, it is clear that anyone who wants to enter Canada
must obey the rules and prove that they have the required
authorizations to enter the country. In this regard, our
immigration officers at Dorval are doing exactly the job they
should be doing.
* * *
[English]
NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
In his ground breaking budget on Tuesday, the Minister of
Finance outlined an initiative called GeoConnexions, an attempt
to make geographic information more broadly available and useful
to Canadians through the information highway.
Could the minister tell me how this initiative might benefit
people in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie and Canadians in other
parts of the country?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this initiative is about Canada's geomatics industry,
one of the country's fastest growing high tech sectors with more
than 1,500 companies, 20,000 employees and a global market
growing at a rate of 20% a year. Canada is a big player in that
market.
GeoConnexions is a unique intergovernmental, private sector,
academic sector partnership to build an ultra modern information
highway for the delivery of vital integrated comprehensive
geographic information all across Canada.
That means urban, rural, aboriginal, northern and remote areas.
All Canadians will benefit.
* * *
1450
EMPLOYMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the proof is in. A recent evaluation of the Canada jobs
fund shows that grants are awarded for political reasons rather
than on the merits of job creation.
Why is the Liberal government using the Canada jobs fund as its
own private pork barrel to reward its Liberal friends?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely not what
the study revealed. It is quite the contrary. The study talks
about the role and the strengths of the fact that we do have
political consultations with the other orders of government, with
the fact that we consult all members of the House when a project
takes place in their riding, including members of the opposition.
If we call that political interference, that is the strength of
the program, to precisely consult the political actors, because
they know their regions, even when they are in opposition.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, let us look at the facts. First it was a Liberal bagman
using the Canada jobs fund as a carrot to demand election
contributions. Then a friend buys the Prime Minister's
money-losing hotel and is rewarded with $164,000 from the jobs
fund.
Now officials with the fund are blowing the whistle on grants
being handed out for political purposes. When will the minister
clean up this mess?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can say that the program
is working very well. It has created 30,000 jobs in regions
where unemployment remains stubbornly high. It is a remarkable
program that is appreciated even by a number of opposition
members of parliament who have mentioned it to me.
I can say one thing. We will on this side as a government
continue to provide opportunities for unemployed Canadians in the
regions where unemployment remains too high because that is what
they expect of us.
* * *
THE BUDGET
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance
who did indicate in his budget the growing concern about the gap
between the haves and have nots in Canada.
As a result of the tax changes he introduced the other day, we
find that the president of the Royal Bank received about a
$30,000 tax break while hardworking Bob Price in my constituency
got a tax break of about 35 cents a day. Holly Olson, a single
mom with four children on social assistance, got zero tax relief
from this budget.
With these kinds of tax changes, does it not actually expand the
gap between the haves and have nots as opposed to reducing it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if one takes a look at the budget, what one finds first
of all is that the increase in the exemption to $675
overwhelmingly benefits low and medium income Canadians.
Perhaps more important than anything, given the tremendous
burden that is carried by young families with small children, the
increase in the child tax benefit, initially directed to low
income families and now directed as well to middle income
families, directly benefits those who need it most.
Overwhelmingly the largest percentage increase—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and
Highland Valleys.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance likely knows that
people on social assistance do not get the benefits of that child
tax benefit. The provinces claw it back. He knows that benefit
is not a great deal.
My supplementary question regards a comment written in the red
book which I suspect he had something to with. It reads, “The
introduction of the hated GST has compounded unfairness and
complexity. The GST has undermined public confidence in the
fairness of the tax system”.
1455
Rather than come in with this array of tax changes that really
benefited some very wealthy people and did nothing for those who
need it the most, why did the Minister of Finance not reduce the
GST even by one point—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, overwhelmingly the best thing one can do for low income
families is to make sure that they either pay very low taxes or
no taxes at all.
As a result of our budget, to give an example, a family with two
children earning $30,000 now pays no net federal taxes. As a
result of our budget there are 200,000 Canadians added to the
400,000 from last year for a total of 600,000 Canadians who are
not paying any income tax in this country at all.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the government's budget was nothing more than an insult to the
Sea King crews who fly 35-year old helicopters.
On Tuesday we heard of seven Sea King engine failures in a
month. Yesterday one was forced to land on a golf course.
Luckily the Prime Minister was not playing. Now I am told the
Sea Kings are restricted to Shearwater.
Since the minister received nothing extra in the budget for
procurement how long will the families of Sea King pilots have to
wait for new maritime helicopters?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): First of all, Mr. Speaker, we are grateful that the
aircraft was able to land without any injuries.
The problem in a number of our Sea Kings as of late is related
to the start-up sequence of the aircraft. All of that is being
rectified.
As I have said on numerous occasions, we have a very high
maintenance level. We do not fly aircraft unless they are safe
to fly. I have also said on numerous occasions that we are in
the final stages of developing a procurement strategy with
respect to the replacement of the Sea Kings.
[Translation]
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, our
military needed $700 million to help solve its quality of life
problem, but they only got $175 million. The soup is still
frozen in the cupboard.
My question is for the minister. How long will military families
have to wait before the government does something to improve
substandard housing on military bases?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government will be responding fully
to the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on National
Defence and Veterans Affairs. There are some 89 recommendations
that deal with the issues of housing, pay and benefits, care for
the injured and support for families.
What has happened in the budget this week is additional money,
the first additional money that has come to the Department of
National Defence in over 10 years. It ensures that we can
implement a full and comprehensive quality of life program for
our troops, something they well deserve.
* * *
HEALTH
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Health.
While the $11.5 billion increase in health transfers is good
news for my constituency of Kitchener Centre, I would like to
know how the research dollars announced in the 1999 budget will
benefit institutions like the University of Waterloo that are not
connected to a teaching hospital? How will this announcement
benefit all Canadian communities?
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government believes that
research is at the core of both good health and quality health
services.
The new investments in the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the
granting councils and the new Canadian institutes of health
research will benefit all research centres, including those that
are not connected to an academic health science centre such as
Kitchener. In fact the exciting idea of the Canadian institutes
of health research is its inclusiveness. It will link together
all those doing research in all parts of this country so that
they can be part of a very dynamic and powerful research centre.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the auditor general says that our army is vulnerable. Our
infantry and our armour can be detected, engaged and defeated
before our troops even know that the enemy is present. This
budget did nothing to address that issue. Yet the government is
committing our troops to a combat zone in Kosovo.
1500
What will it take for the government to give our Canadian armed
forces the resources they need, including the equipment, to do
the job that you keep giving them?
The Speaker: We direct all questions through the Speaker,
not directly to the minister.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if our troops go to Kosovo they will be
properly equipped.
One of the reasons for that is that in the last couple of years
the Liberal government has invested a great deal in terms of new
equipment for the Canadian forces. There are new search and
rescue helicopters and submarines. We have upgraded many of the
armoured personnel carriers. We bought new armoured personnel
carriers. We are going through an upgrade of the CF-18s.
As I indicated a few moments ago, we are preparing the
procurement strategy with respect to the replacement of the Sea
Kings. This indicates the kind of commitment the government has.
* * *
[Translation]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan was arrested by the Turks on
Tuesday, many have expressed concern that he will not get a fair
trial, but what they are mainly concerned about is the future of
the Kurdish people.
Given that the minister has already shown he is sensitive to the
plight of the Kurdish people, does he not feel that Canada
should take advantage of its chairmanship of the security
council to raise this issue in that forum?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I report to the House that today we brought in the
Turkish ambassador to make it very clear that we would like to
have a fair, open and transparent trial to demonstrate that
justice can be done in these kinds of cases.
We do not condone terrorism in any way. A country has to be
able to appropriately apply its judicial system. Because this is
of such international significance, we think it is right for
Canada to raise its voice to ensure that a fair trial is given.
We will do everything possible to try to deal with some of the
grievances that have occurred in terms of the Kurdish people.
That is something that has to be done through very careful
negotiation over time.
* * *
SENATE OF CANADA
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Senate wants to go on yet another spending spree. Last year
the Senate had a budget increase of 10% and overspent. Now it
wants another 6%.
Given the pressing demands on the public purse, does the
Minister of Finance really think it is proper to spend the
hard-earned dollars of Canadian taxpayers on a two year 16%
increase for the unelected, undemocratic Senate? Will the
Minister of Finance—
The Speaker: Order, please. The question is out of
order.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I wish to draw the attention of hon.
members to the presence in the gallery of two visitors: His
Excellency Carlos Ruiz Sacristan, Secretary of Communications and
Transportation of Mexico, and His Excellency Dr. Juan Ramon de la
Fuente, Secretary of Health of Mexico.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of all those inmates watching television at home today,
I ask the hon. government House leader what the nature of the
business will be for the remainder of this week and the week
following the break of next week.
1505
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the House will
complete debate on the budget subamendment with a vote being
called at 6.15 p.m.
Tomorrow we hope to complete second reading debate on Bill C-63,
the citizenship legislation.
[Translation]
Next week is a constituency week for members.
When we return on March 1, we will debate and likely conclude
report stage of Bill C-49, the native land claims bill.
Tuesday, March 2, and Wednesday, March 3, will be the final two
days of the budget debate, with votes at the end of both days.
Thursday, March 4, shall be an allotted day.
* * *
[English]
THE LATE WALTER HARRIS
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for 17 years, Walter Harris served his constituents and
his country with great distinction in the House as the MP for
Grey-Bruce, as parliamentary secretary and as a fine minister in
the cabinet of Louis St. Laurent.
He also served Canada with courage during the second world war.
He was a modest and unassuming man, a man who quietly mastered
his brief and got the job done.
He taught himself all the ins
and outs of our parliamentary rules. He had a genius for accepting
the facts as they were and making the best of them. He was my kind of
minister.
However, his modesty never did justice to his record, one that
included being named Canada's first minister of citizenship and
immigration, carrying through the new Indian Act and working out
the details of Newfoundland's entry into Confederation 50 years
ago.
Perhaps most of all he will be remembered as the father of the
registered retirement savings plan, a legacy of personal
retirement security that has become more and more important to
Canadians over the years. Every time you see one of those RRSP
commercials, think of Walter.
As Minister of Finance he also helped preside over the
post-World War II economic expansion in which Canada took its
place among the ranks of the leading industrial nations in the
world.
[Translation]
I had the privilege of being his friend and benefiting from his
support over the years. His integrity, his honour and his
commitment to his fellow citizens reflect the finest traditions
of service to the community.
[English]
I can think of no higher praise for Walter than the words of his
law partner: “This is a prince of a person who never harmed
anyone”.
I am proud to be able to say that someone of his calibre was
also a member of our party. He was a distinguished
parliamentarian whom everyone will greatly miss.
To his family and many, many friends, I offer the deepest
sympathies of our government and of our caucus.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I stand in the House today to share with my colleague the sincere
feelings all of us have toward the life of Walter Harris.
The legacy he has left behind will never be surpassed. He did
it with a dedication to Canadians and without looking for the
self-acclamation to which some politicians may fall prey.
Today we in this country take RRSPs for granted. We seldom
think of the hard work, dedication, powers of persuasion and
genuine empathy to the future of Canadian people it took for
Walter Harris, as Canada's finance minister, to introduce
registered retirement savings plans to us. Just think of the
contribution he gave to our society in that one issue alone.
That is not all. Walter Harris was Canada's first minister
of citizenship and immigration in 1950. Just imagine the
leadership, the ingenuity and the long hours of dedication it
took to build that department and establish the philosophy that
would develop our nation. He was well known for his knowledge of
parliamentary procedure, which enhanced his ability to get things
done.
1510
The list of accomplishments of Walter Harris would take many
hours to expand upon in the House. Let me identify just a few.
He practised law in Markdale, Ontario, and he was successful at
it. He served in France during World War II. He served in the
House of Commons in 1940. He was re-elected in 1945, again
re-elected in 1949 and again in 1953. That is no small feat for
anyone, but the dedication to one's country is evident in his
desire to serve. He returned to law practice in 1957 and was
again exceptional in that business. Walter has been described by
some as a genius in politics, and I doubt whether anyone would
disagree.
Walter Harris was predeceased by his wife Grace. He is survived
by three children. To his children, his friends and fellow
members of parliament, we wish to express our sincerest
condolences.
Canada is a greater place, its citizens enjoy a greater
financial security because of a politician who put the affairs of
his country ahead of his own. Thank you, Walter Harris.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Walter Harris,
who passed away not long ago, was born January 14, 1904 in
Kimberley, Ontario. In other words, he lived through almost the
entire 20th century. In his 95 years, he served his fellow
citizens in his community and his country well as a lawyer,
soldier, member of parliament and minister.
Walter Harris was elected for the first time in 1940 in the
riding of Grey—Bruce. In his first term of office, he served in
the Canadian army during the second world war. Re-elected in
1945, he soon became Louis St. Laurent's right hand man.
In fact, Prime Minister Mackenzie King appointed him
parliamentary secretary to Mr. St. Laurent, when the latter was
appointed secretary of state for foreign affairs in 1947. When
he became prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent kept Walter Harris on
as parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Harris' patience and loyalty were rewarded. After his
return to office in 1949, he was appointed to cabinet as
minister of citizenship and immigration. The position was
especially important because Canadian citizenship had just been
made distinct from British citizenship, and, in this post-war
period, Canada was getting thousands of immigrants.
Re-elected again in 1953, Walter Harris took on his heaviest
responsibilities in the final three years of his career. From
1954 to 1957, as Canada was going through a period of expansion,
he served as minister of finance.
Of the three budgets that he brought down, it is the second one
that gave him the greatest shock. In this regard, I would like
to recount an anecdote.
Before the 1956 budget speech, a journalist from the Montreal
Gazette wanted to play a trick on a colleague from La Presse and
pretended that he had received, by mistake, a full copy of the
new budget. The other journalist quickly informed the Prime
Minister's office, which called the minister of finance. Having
heard the rumour about a budget leak, the minister set to the
task of writing his letter of resignation.
Fortunately, the prime minister already knew what had happened
and he sent a secretary to inform the minister of finance that
the whole thing was a joke. History has a way of repeating
itself.
After 1957, Walter Harris had a long career as a lawyer in
Markham, Ontario. He and his wife Grace Elma Morrison had
three children, Fern, Margaret Helen and Robert Walter.
The Bloc Quebecois offers its most sincere condolences to all
the surviving members of his family, and to the members of the
Liberal party who knew him.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of my colleagues in the NDP caucus, I would like to
join with the members who have already spoken on behalf of other
parties to pay tribute to the long and distinguished
parliamentary career of Mr. Walter Harris and to pay tribute to a
long and distinguished life in which we see success not only in
the political realm but in his work as a lawyer and in his
service to his country as a soldier.
1515
I was particularly struck when I read that in 1940 as a newly
elected member of parliament and as a family man with three
children he nevertheless volunteered and went overseas for four
years. He returned only after having been wounded and then
volunteered to sell war bonds.
He was obviously a man of great character and distinction and we
join with our colleagues in the House in paying tribute to him
and expressing our condolences to his family.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus I want to associate
our party with the words of sympathy and tribute from the Prime
Minister and from other hon. members.
The children of Walter Harris must be very proud of their
father. He served Canada and his fellow Canadians in so many
ways, here in the House of Commons, in the cabinet room and when
the world was inflamed in war he took up arms to defend this
country.
When he could no longer fight with a gun he gave leadership to
help finance the war effort.
On behalf of all Newfoundlanders I want to express our
appreciation for his fine efforts while negotiating
Newfoundland's entrance into Confederation.
Walter Harris left the national stage four decades ago, but his
example of public service shines as a bright light to those of us
who came afterwards. On marking the end of his long life we give
thanks for his service to Canada and to his membership in the
House and we offer our sincere condolences to the members of his
family.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: On Wednesday, February
17, the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast raised a
question of privilege concerning picket lines established at
strategic locations around Parliament Hill and at entrances to
specific buildings within the precincts.
The member alleged that these pickets impeded him as a member of
parliament because they prevented him from carrying out his
obligations in a timely fashion.
Two other members, the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt and
the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain, raised questions of
privilege relating to the effect of these same picket lines on
them and their work. The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville rose
to support those interventions.
[Translation]
I wish to thank all the hon. members who helped me regarding
this issue, including the Leader of the Government in the House,
the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, and the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Labour.
[English]
Before proceeding, let me remind the House that one of these
questions of privilege has already been disposed of, namely the
allegation made by the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt that,
in his words, a mob of hooligans used physical violence and
intimidation to prevent him from gaining access to his office in
one of the picketed buildings.
Because of the seriousness of the allegation I ruled immediately
that there was in that case a prima facie question of privilege.
The member moved the appropriate motion which the House adopted
without debate and so the matter of the alleged molestation of
the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt now stands referred to
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
[Translation]
I carefully reviewed what hon. members said when they informed
the House of their very justified fear about the events that
occurred yesterday morning, and I am now prepared to make a
ruling on the other incidents, which were reported to me and
which I took under advisement.
1520
[English]
One hon. member alleges that he was impeded from fulfilling his
responsibilities as a member because at least initially he was
unable to enter his building while other hon. members have argued
that their privileges were breached because the strikers
interfered with the usual operations of their offices and staff.
Mindful of the role of the Speaker as the guardian of the rights
of members, I have reviewed the facts presented yesterday
regarding impeded access to the parliamentary precincts. I have
been persuaded by the interventions made by the hon. member for
West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, the hon. member for Souris—Moose
Mountain and the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville and have
decided that these concerns are sufficiently serious for me to
act.
The Chair therefore rules that the incident of February 17,
1999, impeding access to the parliamentary precincts, constitute a
prima facie case of contempt of the House. I invite the hon.
member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Cost to move the appropriate
motion.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the incident of February 17, 1999, relating to picket lines
established to impede access to the precincts of parliament be
referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order arising out of question period. In
the closing minutes of question period the hon. member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle raised a matter having to do with
expenditures of the other place and you ruled it
out of order.
With respect, I want to suggest that another interpretation of
the the question might have been available to Chair. It seems to
me that when we are talking about the budget, when we are talking
about expenditures and we are talking about estimates we should
be able to bring up the other place in this context.
I understand there is a longstanding rule that there are certain
things we do not talk about it when it comes to the other place.
We do not even mention it by name, which is why I call it the
other place, out of respect for that tradition.
I know from being here for almost 20 years now that there are
contexts in which it is appropriate to talk about the other
place, whether we are talking about its abolition, its reform or
the expenditures associated with it.
I would ask the Chair to consider the ruling that was made at
that time. It seemed to me the government benches were upset by
it and I would ask Mr. Speaker to consider whether that ruling
was the appropriate one.
The Speaker: It is not usual for a Speaker to give
reasons for it. I refer the hon. member to article 409 in
Beauchesne's sixth edition.
But specifically, as I understood the question, whether one side
or the other is not particularly enamoured with a question does
not weigh upon me to make a decision.
I felt that the Minister of Finance is not responsible for
estimates or expenditures in the Senate and he is not accountable
to the House for that. That is the reason for my decision and my
decision will stand.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1525
[English]
WAYS AND MEANS
NOTICE OF MOTION
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of a ways and
means motion respecting the National Parks Act. I am also
tabling background information.
Our national parks remain one of the greatest resources
available to all Canadians. They continue to expand, become more
accessible and more pristine under current stewardship.
I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration
of the motion.
* * *
THE BUDGET
FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House
approves in general the budgetary policy of the government; of
the amendment; and of the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Macleod for his very
well delivered and factual presentation on this budget. He is a
particular expert in the area of health care, being a licenced
physician for many years.
I would like to ask a question of the member. The government has
indeed promised to put $11.5 billion back into health care
funding which brings it back to the 1995 level. This is over a
five year period.
Demographics clearly show that we have an aging population. As
well, as we grow older our demands on the health care system
dramatically increase. Five years from now when the $11.5
billion is used up, will the aging population create a demand on
the health care system such that we will find ourselves right
where we started again because of the increased demand on the
health care system? Is there any chance, given the way we are
moving to a greater dependency on health care, the 200,000
waiting list has any hope of being shrunk under this Liberal
formula?
Mr. Grant Hill: Madam Speaker, I
appreciate the question. I have never heard of projecting funds
five years down the road when there will be an election between
then and now. It is very bizarre to be able to think and project
beyond the mandate of the current government.
When we are talking about five years hence and we go back and
look at the five years prior, we will find that the cuts have
been $21.4 billion in the five years prior. Here we have $11.5
coming. Simple math would say two dollars taken out and one
dollar being put in will never get us a shorter waiting line.
The demographics, the aging of our population, are extremely
important and are one of the reasons Reformers are asking for a
real honest debate on the future of health care. We are
bantering back and forth. We say two tier is presently in place
in Canada and they are blaming us for two tier. What we would
really like is an honest debate with none of the name calling but
a true fixing of the health care system.
If we had that I would be proud to be a member of parliament and
debating health.
1530
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Finance is looking forward to this presentation
today. I know he will listen to what I have to say about the
budget and take the message to the finance minister and his
party.
It has been said that the Liberal government has truly and
rightfully earned the title as the pay more, get less government
of all time. In all of Canadian history there has been no
government that has picked the pockets of the Canadian taxpayer,
the individual, small business and large business as has this
Liberal government.
No matter what the finance minister said a couple of days ago in
his great budget speech, these are the facts. Canadians since
1993 have consistently, every year of this government, paid more
in taxes and received less in services.
Here are some numbers. Average Canadian taxpayers are now
paying annually over $2,000 more in personal income taxes than
they paid in 1993 when the government was elected. These are the
people who are out spending their earnings in the marketplace
trying to create a growing economy. The average Canadian
household income has shrunk by over $4,000 since 1993. Let us
imagine taking $4,000 out a household income. One year it is
there and five years later it is gone. That is what the
government has done to Canadian families.
As well, the government is responsible for the highest increase
in payroll taxes for workers and employers than any other
government in the history of the country.
We will see Canada pension plan premiums increase by a whopping
73% over the next few years. And guess what? When the current
generation in their early twenties and thirties retire, having
paid the full 73% increase at least for now, they will get less
money. There might be more increases coming down the road. I
hope not. Having paid that massive increase through their entire
working lives, they will get less money in Canada pension
benefits than someone who has paid the lower amount, lower than
the 73% amount. That is the legacy of the government.
Average workers and employers are paying far more in EI premiums
than necessary. That is another payroll tax. The EI
commissioner has clearly said that the government is scooping an
additional $7 billion out of the EI fund that it is not entitled
to. It is simply not entitled to it. Why does it not just give
it back?
One thing that really aggravates hard working Canadians is the
war on the two parent, single income family begun many years ago
by the hero of the Liberal Party, Pierre Trudeau. It is
continuing today under this Liberal government.
1535
The average two parent, single income family with a $60,000
income, that is one parent working and two children, will pay for
the privilege of having one parent stay home to nurture the
children, to help to steer them in the direction within the
belief of the family, over $4,000 more in income tax than a two
parent, two income family with two children earning the same
$60,000. In other words, if a family earns $60,000 with one
parent working and one parent staying home, they pay $4,000 more
than if both parents were working earning the same $60,000 and
had two children.
One has to ask why the government continues this war against the
family. Why is the government so determined to drive every last
stay at home parent out of the house and into the workforce? Why
is the government so determined through its discriminatory
taxation regime to ensure that children growing up do not have at
least one parent at home to help in their formative years and
through their teen years into adulthood? Why is the government
through its taxation regime so determined to do that? I do not
know.
It has been suggested that some sort of social engineering is
going on. It has been suggested that the Liberal government with
its socialist philosophy has figured out that a family unit has
strength and as long as that family unit is together the strength
is present and the government cannot get its clutches on those
kids. It wants to break up families, get rid of the parents, get
them out working, put the kids in day care and make free thinkers
out of them so that it can come in with its philosophy and teach
the kids what the world looks like through the eyes of a Liberal.
I do not say it lightly when I say there is a war against the
family. It was started back in the days of Pierre Elliot
Trudeau, when he brought in tax regimes that literally forced the
second parent out of the home and into the workforce so that they
could maintain the same standard of living. It was not to
increase their standard of living but to maintain the same
standard of living.
What is this master plan the Liberals have had for so many
years? We do not know their real agenda, whether it is social
engineering or whatever. However, we do know that what they have
been doing is very real. It has been very effective in getting
both parents into the workforce through their discriminatory tax
regimes.
I can speak on behalf of many families who have made sacrifices
while raising their children in order to have one parent stay
home to be with the family. It happened in our family and it
happened in many other families of people whom I know very well.
They say it is no longer a privilege to stay home and raise the
kids. It is a true sacrifice because one has to give up so many
other things to have that ability.
It makes me very angry when I look at the budget to find some
relief for the two parent, single income families and it simply
is not there. There is over $4,000 difference in taxes between
those two examples simply because one parent stays at home and
one works or they both go out to work.
It is discriminatory. We had hoped the government would address
it and it has not.
1540
I say to all the families out there with one parent at home and
one income that we will keep the fight up. We will keep the
pressure on the government and sooner or later it will recognize
the value of mothers or parents who stay home to be with their
kids.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it
is just astounding for me to hear the word discriminatory from
the member opposite. This is not a discriminatory budget at all.
In fact the budget is absolutely wonderful for every citizen of
Canada. It is so obvious that members opposite do not understand
what is in the budget. Otherwise they would not be saying these
things.
Let us talk about single taxpayers earning $20,000 or less.
Their taxes will be reduced by at least 10%. The typical one
earner family with two children and an income of $30,000 or less
will pay no net federal income tax. Families with incomes of
$45,000 or less will have their taxes reduced by a minimum of 10%
and in some cases more depending on the specific situation.
It is easy to pull out numbers. I do not know where those
numbers come from, but I do know the accuracy of numbers that
talk about us being in a situation where we can give tax relief.
I do know that the government pays attention to children with
some needs and that $300 million extra are going into the child
tax benefit. These are very direct federal government
contributions where there are specific needs.
Tax relief for low and middle income Canadians is the top
priority of the government. Broad based tax relief should focus
first on personal income tax. That is what members saw. They
did not see a budget filled with corporate or business tax
relief. What they saw was down to the individual Canadian who
has worked hard to deliver the country to the place where we are
today where we can bring in these measures.
In my home town we have a medical community, a research
community. The people in my riding of London West are incredibly
grateful for the future orientation of the people and the
priorities of the government. I think of what that will mean in
the health of the nation. The budget will affect the health of
the nation and every family, no matter what income level, for
years to come.
When we put money in research we are showing forethought. I am
getting faxes from people in my riding, researchers, people who
have perhaps not corresponded with the political network ever
before, saying thanks for the budget. This is important to
understand.
I am wondering how much into the future they are looking, or
whether members of the Reform Party are only interested in some
long ago world which unfortunately in families, and the diversity
of families in the country, does not exist in that format. There
is choice here. We are talking about current day Canadians and a
society that is good. What century does the hon. member plan
for?
Mr. Dick Harris: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for
her rhetoric. However these are the facts. On that side of the
street lives the Smith family: two parents and two children. One
parent works. The total household income is $60,000. On this
side of the street is the Jones family: two parents and two
children with both parents working. Their total income is
$60,000.
The Jones family pays $4,000 more in taxes than the Smith family
on that side of the street. The same size family, the same
annual income, same street, same house and they even drive the
same car, but they pay $4,000 more than the family on this side
of the street because of the government's discriminatory tax
policies against families that choose to have one income and one
parent staying home.
That is the fact. All the rhetoric in the world put forward by
that member cannot dispute that. Where did I get the numbers
from? It was from the finance minister's own budget. That is
where the numbers came from.
1545
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, everyone
knows that the Minister of Finance's philosophy is to be tight
with the people and generous with the rich. That is obvious.
The current Minister of Finance is merely miserly with the
people. He takes what little people have and gives it to the
rich. However, I was listening to my colleague, and I am not
sure he would do a whole lot better.
I put the following question to him: What could he do for the
1,500,000 poor children?
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for
the question.
As a matter of fact the Reform Party has put forward many times
that if we were in power, and we will be in power, there would be
no family with a household income of under $30,000 paying any tax
whatsoever. There would be zero tax for a $30,000 household
income. That is what we would do.
We would lower the taxation rates for the hardworking Canadians
out there. They would have more money in their pockets to spend
into the economy. That would bring more revenue into the
government coffers which would allow us to give more services to
the poor families the member talked about.
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for
Niagara Falls.
Today I would like to address the House about a very important
investment that the 1999 federal budget is making. That
investment is in our children. We all know that today's children
are tomorrow's leaders. This government has taken that saying to
heart and we are putting our money where our heart is, in
Canada's children, in Canada's future. This budget is an
important step in giving our children the support they need to
become active and healthy Canadians.
[Translation]
Today I would like to speak about Canadian children. The 1999
federal budget invests in the future of our children. By
protecting their future, we are protecting the future of Canada.
[English]
The spirit of the 1999 federal budget is health. In addition to
the $11.5 billion that we are investing in the health of all
Canadians, we are investing $287 million over the next three
years in preventative and other health initiatives. This money
will go to improve prenatal nutrition, food safety, and toxic
substance control, to foster innovations in rural and community
health, and to combat disease. More important, this money will
help to ensure a healthy future for our children.
The Canada prenatal nutrition program will receive an additional
$75 million over the next three years to help high risk pregnant
moms have healthier babies. This is an investment we are making
in our future. From this investment we will reap both financial
and emotional benefits for generations to come. The additional
$75 million is on top of the current $13 million we are investing
per year. This program is especially dear to my heart because it
will address a growing Canadian crisis, fetal alcohol syndrome.
For the past 30 years I have been working in Moncton with
children with fetal alcohol syndrome, their parents and pregnant
women. They need us. Fifty-five per cent of people in our
Canadian prisons are fetal alcohol syndrome victims. It is an
economic issue and this is the first time we have had a
government that has looked at the preventative measures. We need
to help these children become taxpayers and not offenders.
Our children are especially vulnerable to toxic substances in
the environment, in food and drinking water. It can affect
fetal, infant and childhood development. We all know these are
the most crucial years of development for all Canadians. We must
work to prevent these effects.
This budget has two direct investments to ensure that we protect
Canadians and our children from these harmful effects. It has
allocated $65 million over the next three years to modernize and
strengthen the federal food and safety program.
1550
In addition it provides Environment Canada with $42 million over
the next three years to implement the recently introduced
amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This
act aims to protect all Canadians, including our children, from
the damaging effects of toxic substances by identifying them
quicker and controlling them faster.
[Translation]
In my province of New Brunswick, there is a mix of urban and
rural populations. It can be a real challenge to get proper
medical treatment in the rural areas, with time being a vital
factor in treating children.
We know that care provided at home or in community centres may
be a favourable alternative in certain circumstances.
This budget will invest $50 million in the next three years to
come up, in consultation with the provinces, with innovative
approaches to health care in rural and community settings.
[English]
Diabetes is a disease that affects Canadians, and the rate of
this disease is particularly high among aboriginal people,
striking three times that of the general population. The 1999
federal budget will invest $55 million to combat diabetes. This
money will go to finding better ways to prevent this disease and
enhance treatment and care.
The 1999 federal budget is not just an investment in health for
our children. It also provides direct financial support to
families through the Canada child tax benefit and the national
child benefit. The federal government is committed through this
program to assist low and middle income families with the
expenses of raising children. This is an investment in the
future of Canada.
In 1996 the Prime Minister and premiers made tackling child
poverty a shared priority. This government does not take that
priority lightly.
In our two previous budgets we provided $1.7 billion for the
children of low income families. This budget announced a further
$300 million to enhance the Canada child tax benefit for modest
and middle income families. These investments promote fairness
and equity among individuals with different incomes and family
circumstances because no matter the family, we need to ensure
that all Canadian children are able to benefit from all that this
great country has to offer.
The national child benefit supplement is a federal, provincial
and territorial initiative designed to tackle child poverty. The
supplement is available to those who need it the most, low income
families. The maximum level of the national child benefit
supplement would increase by a total of $350 per child. The net
family income level for eligibility will rise from about $27,000
to $30,000 by July 2000.
Enrichments to the national child benefit supplement will result
in increased benefits for 1.4 million low income families. A low
income family with two children will receive up to 48% more in
the year 2000 than they did in 1996.
This year's budget also adds $300 million to the benefits
provided to modest and middle income families under the Canada
child tax benefit. Taken together with the $850 million
announced in the 1997 budget, these measures will increase the
child tax benefit by $2 billion this year. Two million modest
and middle income families will receive these benefits. In
addition, it will be extended to about 100,000 families that
currently do not receive it.
[Translation]
Over three quarters of the child tax benefit will go to single
parent and single income families. This tax benefit will affect
some 3.2 million families, or over 80% of all Canadian children.
More importantly, this money will help our children to
successfully prepare their future. This way we are helping them
become the pillars of our society.
1555
[English]
In closing, I am proud of this budget, a budget that realizes
the importance of our children, a budget that invests in those
children. I entered politics and came to Ottawa to give a voice
to those who did not have one, those Canadians who are children,
children who are the future of Canada. These children of the new
millennium have the support and commitment of this government.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Madam
Speaker, my question is for the hon. minister who I know is an
Atlantic Canadian and with whom I share many of the concerns she
talks about in terms of our children.
She talked about toxic substances in toys. I direct her
attention to my riding where we have the highest cancer rates in
the country, where more people are dying because of cancer and it
is almost directly related to the huge environmental disaster
known as the tar ponds. Would she not agree with me that the
children who live in and around that area are at great risk and
that it is indeed regrettable that there is no mention in the
budget of special funding to honour the government's commitment
to clean up those tar ponds?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw: Madam Speaker, for sure, having
worked with children I understand what the member is saying. I
understand the importance of the environment. However, I would
suggest to the hon. member that the budget we received was not
very specific. Maybe we should wait for more specific areas to
come. When we talk about the environment, I know that this side
of the House is very concerned. We will take his request very
seriously.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
listened with interest to the member speak about the money that
was going to be pumped back into health care, which is certainly
welcomed funding. I want to remind the member that this is the
government that cut Canadian health and social transfers to the
provinces from $18.5 billion down to $11.5 billion. With the
money that is being put back in, it is going to take three years
to get back to where we were prior to the cuts.
My question really has to do with the $3.5 billion that is going
to be budgeted for in this current fiscal year, 1998-99, the one
that ends March 31, but which is going to be proportioned out
over three years. If it is going to be budgeted for this year,
why is that $3.5 billion not being pumped in immediately in order
to see some response as a result of the much needed money that is
required? If it is budgeted for this year, maybe it should be
spent this year.
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw: Madam Speaker, I do not know
where the hon. member and his colleagues were last year when we
did the budget because they keep bringing up the $18.5 billion.
If the member remembers last year's budget, we put an awful lot
of money into education for youth. There is the millennium fund.
We brought in the child tax credit. We brought in the
transitional job fund.
The hon. member should look at what we brought in for health
care, education and poverty. The member wants to talk about
health care so let us talk about it. We took away $6 billion but
with the tax credit we have cut by $3 billion, not $20 billion or
$15 billion.
Canadians listening to this debate wonder why they are hearing
all these different numbers. I sit here every day and wonder
about all the different numbers. At home in my region of
Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, I can assure the member that our
nurses, our patients and our citizens are glad because we gave
the message in this budget that health care, children, youth and
education are priorities for this government.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Madam Speaker, I have a
very brief question.
I was listening to the minister as she addressed two issues in
particular: poverty among children and in rural communities.
Yet, funding for rural communities and the regions has been cut
by $100,000.
1600
I would like to ask her this: In light of the fact that we have
unemployed workers in the riding of Matapédia—Matane who will go
two months without any benefits, what are her thoughts about the
poverty affecting the children of these unemployed workers?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw: Madam Speaker, this is an interesting
question, since during the election campaign, Premier Bouchard
announced a $400 million investment in health.
This week, we gave Quebec $380 million.
Mr. Bernard Bigras: The amount was $150 million. You are getting
your figures mixed up.
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw: I hope that Premier Bouchard will
invest $400 million, so that all the necessary initiatives can
be implemented to support health care and fight child poverty in
Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I welcome the opportunity to address this House and to speak to
the sixth Liberal budget. The 1999 budget demonstrates the
dedication of the Liberal government to advance the living
standards of Canadians through the creation of well paying jobs,
a robust economy and equal opportunities for all. All this has
built an excellent health care system and a safety net for those
in need.
In the last five years I have had the privilege of serving with
the Standing Committee on Finance and to take part in the
prebudget consultations held throughout Canada. The great number
of Canadians who took time from their busy schedule to present
their views had one thing in common, their strong desire to build
better lives for themselves and their families.
Canadians wish to be part of a society that not only provides
opportunities for everyone but that provides support when through
no fault of their own Canadians need a helping hand. This
government has listened. The results may be seen in the positive
turn taken by the Canadian economy.
The unemployment rate has fallen considerably since the Liberals
first took office. Now it stands at its lowest level in almost a
decade. I am proud to report that my own riding of Niagara Falls
and the Niagara area continue to grow and to prosper. Lately we
have witnessed new developments like expansions of existing
places of employment and many new businesses opening their doors.
This in turn translates into jobs.
In the month of November alone, 13,000 more people were employed
in the Niagara area. This means 13,000 more jobs than last year.
According to the last labour force survey, 2,600 additional
people were employed in the accommodation, food and beverage
industry. The unadjusted unemployment rate dropped from 8.8% to
approximately 6%. In Niagara 70 new businesses have opened since
last spring, businesses that range from large chains and
department stores to small entrepreneurs finding their niche in
today's market.
Existing businesses continue to expand and are making large
investments in their operations. This will not only ensure that
employees keep their jobs but it will create new positions. An
increase of workers in the agricultural sector has seen an
additional 5,000 people gain employment. As a result of previous
Liberal budgets, interest rates have declined substantially. An
economist will say that low interest rates encourage both
investment and expansion. We have wrestled to the ground. Now
it is firmly under control. All the economist indicators are
telling us that it will remain so.
Canada today enjoys a solid reputation as a low inflation
country. What a difference from the beginning of 1994 when
Canada's unemployment rate stood at 11.5%, when our country was
faced with a $42 billion deficit, the largest in Canadian
history, a large deficit that we were able to eliminate in just
four years.
This year for the second consecutive year the government has
brought down a budget that is balanced. Not only that but in
this fiscal year we will again balance the books.
1605
This is the first time since 1951-52 that Canada has been
deficit free for two years in a row. A surplus of $3.5 billion,
the first surplus in 28 years, was recorded in 1997-98 and it
went to pay down the debt.
Today Canadians believe their government can make a difference.
Despite the progress we have made in balancing the books, we are
not forgetting that the role of our government is to respond to
the needs of Canadians. The role of our government is to help
Canadians adjust to changes and prepare for the challenges that
we all have to face in the new millennium.
During prebudget consultations Canadians voiced one main
concern, the importance of their health system. They expressed to
us the fear that the quality of care available to them would not
be there when their loved ones would need it. These concerns had
to be addressed. Here, once more, we have listened to Canadians.
While budget '98 was an education budget, budget '99 makes
health the largest single investment this government has ever
made. Since the elimination of the deficit in 1998
three-quarters of all new government spending has been focused on
health and education.
With the provisions in the budget the provinces and territories
will receive from the federal government over the next five years
an additional $11.5 billion specifically for health care.
The Government of Canada has made major commitments to Canadians
through Canada's new social union and the new measures announced
in the 1999 budget.
Now Canadians will be able to see tangible benefits such as
improved health care, better programs for our children and our
young people.
We share the strong desire of all Canadians to have confidence
in our health care system and to see that medicare will continue
to meet everyone's needs well into the 21st century. Quality
health care is a priority for Canadians. We all want to be
reassured that the health care system is delivering accessible,
high quality care in a timely fashion.
Canadians also want to know how and where their health care
dollars are being spent. When medicare was first introduced our
focus was on curing illness with doctors and hospitals. Now good
health care is as much about preventing illness as curing it. We
know we need to develop innovative ways to provide care in the
home and community for people who are ill or who have long term
health problems. Good home care will free hospital beds for those
who need urgent medical attention.
In the last decade patients' needs have evolved, health care
needs have changed and medical technology has had to keep pace
with these changes. It is normal therefore to re-examine the way
we do things to continue to provide all Canadians with a superior
health care system. I believe that with this budget the Liberal
government has shown its commitment to medicare.
This government will never allow a two tier system of medicine
to take hold in Canada, one for the poor and one for the rich.
Support and research are paramount to a good health care system.
The 1999 budget builds on previous Liberal government
investments in research, knowledge and innovation by injecting
$1.4 billion over the remainder of 1998-99 and the next three
fiscal years.
This will expand and integrate research and innovation in health
care. Moreover, this funding will allow us to continue exploring
with the provinces innovative approaches to rural and community
health care.
This budget builds on the Canadian opportunities strategies
outlined in last year's budget. The investment of more than $1.8
billion over the remainder of this fiscal year and the next three
years will support the creation of employment.
It will strengthen research facilities, provide more
opportunities for advanced research, develop new and better uses
of the information highway and directly support employment,
especially for our youth. This is a very important measure in
this budget. It will tell many young bright Canadians,
scientists, to unpack their bags and stay in Canada.
1610
With the provisions in this budget the Liberal government has
provided target tax relief. With budget '99 we begin to
broaden tax relief, thus benefiting more Canadians. Our approach
is very clear.
Tax reduction should benefit those who need it most, low and
middle income Canadians. Tax relief should focus on personal
income taxes and tax relief should not be financed with borrowed
money.
The Canada child tax benefit has been enhanced by $300 million.
This will extend benefits to modest and middle income families.
Two million modest and middle income families will receive higher
benefits and a portion of the benefits will be extended to about
100,000 families that currently do not receive it.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
have a question for my hon. colleague from Niagara Falls, to
whom I had the pleasure of paying a visit last summer. I must
say that he has a wonderful vineyard and that he makes excellent
wines.
Now, after the good wine, the sour grapes. Does he not find it
unfortunate that the Minister of Finance did not put a single
penny in employment insurance?
I realize that Ontario is a privileged province. Unemployment
has always been lower there than in Quebec. In fact, it is a
richer province.
Does he not believe that the Minister of Finance should have
invested in employment insurance, which we still refer to as
unemployment insurance?
[English]
Mr. Gary Pillitteri: Madam Speaker, I recall in 1993 in
my area of Niagara Falls we had an employment rate of 14.5% and
without any specific sector creating unemployment my area now has
only a 6% unemployment rate.
It is not the government's responsibility to pay people to stay
at home. It is up to the government to create the atmosphere so
the private sector, individuals like me and my colleagues, can
create the jobs. We do not need money to provide for
unemployment. We need employers to create an atmosphere where
the employer could make money and employ more people. That is
the role of this government and that is the role for people we
should be looking at.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, we
keep hearing from the government side about how wonderful this
budget was. The fact is many people in this country, after
having a day to digest what they have heard, have come up with
some different ideas. One is KPMG.
Trying to get through the smoke and mirrors is a problem with
this. Some of the issues that were promised last year have been
repromised. Some of the things the government is taking credit
for now will not happen until next year. Some of the things the
government is saying will create a savings of $300 or $400 will
actually create a savings of $57. The fact is Canadians are
paying more and getting less. We will keep saying that until
they get the idea.
The member keeps saying how well his area has done. His area
happens to be in Ontario. The other area in Canada that is doing
well is Alberta. Most of the jobs created in this country have
been in Ontario and Alberta.
If we count in the fact that the Canadian pension plan is going
up and EI premiums are going up, which the government forgets to
mention, I wonder if the member would like to tell us how much
Canadians are saving after those two factors are figured in.
1615
Mr. Gary Pillitteri: Madam Speaker, the government is not
only dealing with statistics. It is dealing more with people.
Basically when more people are employed they are paying more
taxes. When more people are employed they are creating other
jobs. This is where we beg to differ with members on the other
side because they are only looking at statistics. We are trying
to put a human face to it.
No one has told me to look at the unemployment rate and at how
much tax we are paying. A lot of them come to me and say “Look
at what I have around me”. There is more development and more
people working and paying taxes. Therefore the whole economy
moves much better and faster. They are not asking about the
percentage of tax but what we have done for the people.
To some people it is only $1.20 or $1.30 more in their pockets,
but it is a lot better than raising taxes.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to rise today to speak to the budget. Last year at this time,
when the Minister of Finance brought down his budget, everyone
was shocked at the federal government's arrogant disregard for
provincial jurisdictions, particularly in the area of education.
Today, with this new budget, we can hardly believe our eyes as
the Liberal government openly sets out to invade areas of
jurisdiction that do not belong to it and to duplicate what is
being done already in the provinces, simply to ease its
conscience. That is what it is doing in this budget and that is
what we condemn.
We can hardly believe our eyes, but that will not stop us from
saying how disastrous this budget is for Quebec. The worst part
about all this is that the money belongs to us and is being used
in provincial areas of jurisdiction. This is unacceptable.
First they went after education, and now they are going after
health.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Come now. It is not “our” money.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: I am sorry, Mr. Minister of Human
Resources Development, I know you think this is no the
taxpayers' money. Everyone is paying—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. I must remind
the hon. member for Québec to address her remarks to the Chair.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Pardon me, Madam Speaker, but would you
be so kind as to tell the Minister of Human Resources
Development to calm down.
Some hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: This is unacceptable. First they go
after education and now it is health.
After cutting billions of dollars in transfer payments, after
hamstringing the provinces, which were already cleaning up their
finances and did not need this additional burden, and after
causing an unprecedented crisis in the health care system, the
Minister of Finance and his colleague, the Minister of Health,
are stooping to a new low in arrogance and getting ready to
impose their views on the health sector.
This strategy has been around for quite a while and is quite
deliberate.
The intrusions announced in the budget put into effect a
long-standing plan to deliberately smother the provinces that do
not generate enough revenue from taxes to take on their full
responsibilities under the Constitution.
So there is a hidden agenda here. The President of the Treasury
Board put it best in an interview to Le Soleil, on March 8,
1996, and we know that he makes numerous statements to the press.
He said “When Bouchard has to make cuts, we in Ottawa will be
able to show that we have the means to preserve the future of
our social programs”. This is the real intention behind this
government's long-standing strategy. This kind of reasoning
speaks volumes about the Liberal government's agenda and
priorities.
Federal cuts contributed to create a crisis in the health
systems of provinces that had already been affected by the
freeze on transfers imposed by the Conservative government. This
government is taking advantage of the difficult situation in
which it has put the provinces to impose all sorts of new
encroachments.
1620
In education, the latest encroachment by the Liberal government,
with the millennium scholarships, certainly is a case in point.
Treating patients with red tape and statistics is strong
medicine. Who is bearing the brunt of the finance minister's
generosity? Who is being made to pay for this strategy by the
Liberals? The unemployed.
The Minister of Human Resources Development should not be
laughing today, because we know. We have toured the regions and
we know how the unemployed have been ignored in this budget. The
provinces have had to come to terms with this offloading of the
federal deficit. It has not been a laughing matter.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I wish to point out to
the hon. member that I was certainly not laughing when she
mentioned her regional tour.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid that this is not
a point of order, but part of the debate. The hon. member for
Québec.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Madam Speaker, I do not know why the
Minister of Human Resources Development is so intent on
interrupting my speech, but I can say that we conducted a
regional tour on the impact of the new EI reform. Many
unemployed workers have been overlooked in the new budget's
strategy.
The entire middle class has been taxed so heavily that it
deserved a break. Yet, in 1993, the Prime Minister was proudly
dragging his infamous red book around and telling anyone who
would listen that his government would not cut payments to
individuals or to the provinces. It is there in black and
white.
A few months later, the Minister of Finance set the record
straight and said that the next budget would contain deep cuts
in funding to the provinces for health, social assistance and
education. I am not making this up. This is what he said
during an interview he gave the Toronto Star.
It is sad how this Minister of Finance juggles the figures and
makes a mockery of transparency. I could give many examples.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: He's a tinkerer.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: The few words I quoted earlier show only
too well how, since 1993, the Liberals have continued to feed
the public increasingly rosy promises in order to blind it to an
ever darker future.
What the budget is really saying is that some of the cuts will
be reversed over the next three years. We were promised $42
billion by 2003, and now it will only be $33 billion. So they
are still cuts. Before they talk about giving presents, they
should make sure the people getting the presents are not left
with a debt at the start.
The result is that the provinces will have to face cuts of $33
billion under Liberal management between 1994 and 2003, as
opposed to the $42 billion in cuts they promised.
However, true to itself, the government never gives without
taking away. This time, it is taking advantage of the difficult
situation it put the provinces in to impose a whole lot more
meddling. The millennium scholarships are a case in point.
They put their finger on the sore spot and talk about fixing it.
After bleeding the provinces of billions of dollars for health
care, the Liberals now want to spend hundreds of millions, a
total of $1.4 billion, on statistics and paperwork. There will
be $400 million in administrative costs.
All this money is going to go into reports on waiting lists and
on the assignment of doctors. What has the federal government
to do with all this? The Canadian Institute for Health
Information will be spending $95 million over three years, and
it will have the new task of providing periodic reports on the
health of Canadians, the health care system, including waiting
lists, doctor and specialist assignments and the most effective
courses of treatment.
A national health surveillance network will be created. It will
monitor the outbreak of serious illnesses and will provide an
electronic link among laboratories in Canada. This represents an
investment of $75 million over three years. It will give
Canadians access to information on health issues from nutrition
to colds and from breast cancer to diabetes.
1625
Here again, how is all this money—millions of dollars, $75
million over three years—going to help people waiting for
hospital beds? We will know how many are waiting, but I do not
know how many we will cure.
The Canadian Institute for Health Information is another
institution that will receive funds to report periodically on
the health of Canadians and their health system, specifically on
waiting lists, and the doctors and specialist assignments.
There will also be $115 million over three years for telehealth
and home telecare pilot projects.
This will overlap what CLSCs are doing. More duplication.
We must not forget accountability measures, all for the purpose
of providing Canadians with better information. This will cost
another $43 million over three years, so that Canadians are
better informed about the results of federal health programs, in
accordance with the social union agreement.
There is also the research and evaluation fund for nursing
staff. The fund will be used, it is said, to seek solutions to
the challenges facing nursing staff. We know the challenges
they are now facing. An amount of $25 million has been
earmarked to help nursing staff provide quality health care, and
find ways of recycling existing staff and attracting new
recruits.
The prenatal nutrition program is another example of
duplication.
This new initiative in health care is a scandal because of the
duplication and the mountain of paper and statistics involved.
That is not the way to improve health care in the provinces, and
we will oppose it.
They are taking another approach to health care in rural
communities. In order to attract doctors to rural regions, the
federal government plans to spend $50 million over three years
as it gives us another glaring example of duplication.
What is the real intent of the government with this intrusion
into health care? It is to centralize. When I was elected in
1993, the government was being criticized for its tendency to
centralize and its failure to respect provincial jurisdictions.
This will be another very unpopular budget in Quebec.
I can tell you what the Quebec minister of health can do with
$20 million.
She can invest $3.2 million to be distributed to hospitals with
crowded emergency rooms. This also represents 830 additional
hospital beds, the hiring of 900 people for one month, as well
as the cost of ambulance transport and new equipment for
emergencies.
There you have four measures with $20 million.
One can only imagine what we could have done in the Quebec
health care sector with the money the federal government is
going to use to duplicate services, collect statistics and
follow doctors around to see how they are responding to demand.
We will therefore continue to condemn this federal interference
in provincial areas of jurisdiction.
We know that the public has commented on the surpluses.
Provincial governments, health and social organizations, the
public, everyone agrees that the massive cuts in health care
were responsible for some of the most difficult times the health
system has experienced in recent years.
The saddest thing of all is that the federal government ended
the 1997-98 fiscal year with a surplus of between $5 billion and
$6 billion. It could therefore have achieved a zero deficit in
1997-98, without cutting so much as one red cent of social
transfer payments to the provinces.
1630
It obtained this budget surplus through cuts in the Canada
social transfer for health, education and social assistance.
Then there is the misappropriation of the money in the
employment insurance at the expense of the unemployed. Now six
people in ten are excluded from employment insurance, which
swells the employment insurance fund by $20 billion. Non
indexation of tax rates brought in a lot of money too, billions
of dollars. Tax rates and tax credits have not been indexed
since 1986. So the middle class is again bankrolling the
government's need for visibility and control.
Since they have been in power, the Liberals have dramatically
chopped transfer payments to the provinces. In 1994, payments
intended for the provinces were $18.8 billion. In 1997-98, they
were $12.5 billion, that is, cut by $6.3 billion. And the
government tells us it is being generous with this budget.
In 1994, the social transfer was, on average, $678 per capita.
In 1998, it was only $386, and all the while health care costs
were increasing because of population aging, the cost of new
technologies and increase in the cost of medicines.
There is another impact as well raising the cost of health care.
When a population becomes poorer, it eats less well and the
quality of life decreases.
That means also the stress resulting from loss of employment,
because employment insurance is not an option. That is what
that means.
People are distressed. They perhaps need more medical care.
What does the government do in the new budget? It pulls the rug
out from under the provinces and Quebec with the new way of
calculating the Canada social transfer in health matters.
The federal government has reached its deficit objective. It
has reached it and now it gloats. It wants credit for the fact
that Quebec will eliminate its deficit. That is shameful. It
has emptied the pockets of the provinces, and they will not have
$7 billion to give the public health care, education and social
assistance. That is what that means.
I will give the example of what happens because there is no
indexation. It is the case of people who, in 1986, had two
children and earned $25,800. With the increase in the cost of
living, they earn $35,400 in 1996. That does not mean they earn
more. Because the tax on the additional income is not indexed,
they have $3,790 less in their pockets since 1986. Since the GST
credit was not indexed, they have $944 less in his pocket. Since
the federal family allowance is not indexed, it means $554 less.
For the child tax credit, it means $602 less. The refundable
child tax credit—I know it does not exist any more, but I am
talking about 1986—means $1,157 less.
So people earning $25,800 in 1986 get $7,047 less this year,
with a salary of $35,400. Members cannot say people earning
$35,000 a year are in the favoured class.
And what about the $7 billion that came out of the EI surplus
every year to lower the deficit?
I know that they do not like it when we talk about robbery in
the House, but this was robbery of the poorest—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I would ask hon. members to
be very careful in their choice of words.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: That is a fine general principle, Madam
Speaker. I am accusing no one.
1635
From whom was this $7 billion taken every year? From the
poorest members of society, those who had lost their jobs, who
needed help the most. From SMEs, which create the most jobs but
which are also the most vulnerable. As a result, fewer people
are eligible for EI and are forced to turn to social assistance.
We know that not everyone can qualify for social assistance. An
individual is not eligible if he or she has any income, however
small. Therefore, when one of the partners in a relationship is
working, it is clear that they will not qualify.
There is nothing for the poor, and a few crumbs for the middle
class. This is a budget that favours the rich, three rich
provinces, where the quality of life is perhaps better than in
the poorer provinces, where fewer health services will perhaps
be used, where there is perhaps less need for support.
And the Liberal government is talking about equity? What
exactly is equity? The new CHST formula changes the rules of
the game.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): 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 Bras D'Or—Cape Breton, Devco; the hon. member for
Skeena, National Revenue.
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the
comments made by the hon. member opposite. She continued to
criticize and to chastise the federal government for investing
and reinvesting in a shared responsibility in research.
I cannot help but point out my dismay at why the member would
continue to criticize an investment in research which in fact
would help Canadians and would help Quebeckers.
Researchers in Quebec have said after the budget that they
welcome the moneys the government is reinvesting in research. It
will help to improve the quality of life for Quebeckers and for
Canadians. We have reinvestments in areas like telehealth and
home care.
The member went further to criticize the prenatal nutrition
program, a program where the federal government works with the
provinces that works directly with the communities. That is
working extremely well. If the hon. member has some criticisms
or some way to improve that program, I would be willing to listen
to her.
She talks about all this money being spent by the government and
how there is no outcome. I want to point to one specific example
in terms of the service delivery. We have done some research in
service delivery to individuals who suffer from a thyroid
condition and have been able to improve it and at the same time
save money to reinvest in health care.
I do not understand why the hon. member wants to continue to
treat Quebec in the way she wants to treat it. Why she does not
accept that researchers in her own province are supportive of the
additional money and want to continue to do good work to help
Quebeckers and to help Canadians?
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Madam Speaker, the Liberal member is not
happy with my criticism of the budget.
What I said was that this budget fails to focus on those in the
greatest need. One part of the budget deals with research. My
criticism was about the budget as a whole and its impact on the
public.
What I said was that research funding duplicates and overlaps
existing funding. The federal government is going to spend
millions of dollars on administration instead of putting them
where they will help people who are sick and those on waiting
lists.
I criticized the number of documents and statistics that are
going to be produced, with no regard for what the public is
going through. Right now, we need more hospital beds, less
pressure in emergency wards, more ambulances, and faster
transportation. We need to give provincial governments the money
they were entitled to expect, rather than the mere $150 million
for health care they received. They were expecting $500 million
for health.
1640
The member lacks compassion for those who footed most of the
bill for lowering the deficit. That is what I was critical of
in the budget. They always talk about what makes them look
good. He took one aspect of the budget, rather than the budget's
overall impact on the public.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
congratulate the member for Quebec on her speech. The member is
well known for her concern for the less well off in Canada and I
think she made some very good points.
Would she care to reflect on something I came across in an
newspaper today? A KPMG accountant took a look at some of the
tax relief in the budget and discovered, lo and behold, that the
tax cuts the government is reporting are nowhere near what they
will actually be.
Let me talk about somebody who has a low income. According to
the budget a single taxpayer with $20,000 of taxable income will
save $178 from the last two budgets, but this accountant says
that this year the savings would be $57 rising to $114. This is
nowhere near the government's numbers.
Would my colleague be prepared to comment on the government's
sleight of hand?
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Madam Speaker, the tax system is indeed
far from helping low income families, and we know full well that
those most favoured by the budget are those earning $250,000 or
more, whose taxes will be cut by over $3,000. In contrast, after
sending in his tax return, the employee who made $20,000 this
year will only get a $57 tax cut. That is what we deplored. This
is a budget for the rich, not for low-income earners.
The hon. member is right. In our remarks on the tax tables, we
pointed out that it will not result in a tax saving of hundreds
of dollars for anyone who earns $20,000 a year.
Earlier, I told the hon. member of the Liberal Party that he was
making a short-sighted comment on the budget as a whole and that
the tax deductions provided for in the budget for people who
earn $25,000, $30,000 or $40,000 are minimal.
Do you think that someone earning more than $250,000 and getting
more than $3,000 back will put that money back into the economy?
No, they are going to invest it.
Low-income earners would not use hundreds of dollars in tax
savings to make investments; they would put the money back into
the economy because these people often cannot afford basic
commodities.
So, this budget favours the privileged and it could have been a
little more sensitive to low-income earners.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Speaker, I have a follow-up
question. In the same article the accountant points out that his
calculations do not take into account the hike in Canada pension
plan taxes which took effect on January 1 and will go up again on
January 1 of successive years.
Would the member comment on the fact that this is not taken into
account in the budget and the fact that Canadians will actually
be $2 billion worse off over the next three years because of
hikes in CPP and bracket creep? In fact there is no tax relief
in the next three years. Taxes are going up.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Madam Speaker, we know there will be an
increase so the fund will be built up, because our young people
will not be able, because of their numbers, to build up the
pension fund.
1645
This represents a total lack of sensitivity toward those who
contributed significantly to reducing the deficit. We thought
there might be some sensitivity. This government does a lot of
studies that produce nothing concrete to help people earning
less than $30,000 or $40,000.
This budget is very disappointing. In addition to going after
provincial jurisdictions, the government goes after the low
income earners, those who are entitled to expect something,
those who have contributed are the ones affected. The middle
class contributed enormously to the deficit. They are being
crushed under the weight of taxes. They are losing manoeuvring
room in order to help the economy.
This government is attuned to the rich, the three wealthy
provinces that will benefit from the budget and the class of
individuals earning above $100,000. Anyone earning $100,000 and
paying perhaps $3,000 in taxes is not going to be prevented from
buying the essentials.
However, someone earning $30,000 with two or three children can
often use the few hundred dollars they get from a tax break to
make ends meet at the end of the month or on weekends to buy
what they need to feed, house and clothe their children.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will
be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver Kingsway.
It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to the budget
brought down this week. It is the Liberal government's sixth
budget since it was first elected to office in 1993. We have
not seen two balanced budgets in a row since the 1950s.
Let us go back to the 1997 election campaign for a look at the
Liberal Party's election platform. We set out to do what we are
doing today and what we will continue to do in future budgets
during our term of office.
As for the surpluses, we said that 50% would go towards social
and economic programs; 25% towards tax relief; and 25% towards
paying down the national debt. That is what we have done in the
last two budgets and that is what we will go on doing.
Who is not happy with our budgets? The opposition parties who,
unfortunately, will never be satisfied with what the government
does. This is perhaps a weakness in our system. The opposition
parties always have to be unhappy. They can never say they are
satisfied with the government's achievements.
I do not wish to be too critical of the opposition parties, for
that is the nature of our system, but there are also special
interest groups that are dissatisfied with the budget. There is
the accountants' association, which says we should put more
money into paying down the debt. Bay Street says there should
be more tax relief. Doctors' associations in Ontario say we
should have put more money into health care.
1650
This goes to show that this is really a balanced budget. When we
are criticized from all sides by special interest groups, I
think it means that we in the government have done a good job.
Another group that is not pleased with the budget is the
separatist government in Quebec. They have misgivings about the
changes made to the method used to calculate the Canada social
transfer. However, what they fail to mention is that, in the
next three weeks, Quebec will be receiving $1.4 billion in
equalization payments.
With social transfer and equalization payments combined, Quebec,
which accounts for 24% of the Canadian population, will be
receiving 29% of all federal transfers. Some injustice. Some
humiliation.
As the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday in Montreal and
again today in the House, this $1,4 billion payment will enable
the PQ government to balance its budget. But then again, that
too will be blamed on the federal government.
[English]
But I have to confess that I am biased. I believe the
government is doing a terrific job. So rather than hearing it
from a biased individual, I will quote from today's editorial in
the Orillia Packet and Times in my riding, a Hollinger
owned newspaper, not necessarily given to being friendly to the
Liberal Party:
Balance.
That's the most striking element in Tuesday's budget
announcement.
Paul Martin's second straight balanced budget—something not
seen by Canadians since the early 1950s—seems to be a hybrid of
political thought. It could even be used to demonstrate that,
despite its flaws, Canada's political system is working.
This budget has the distinction of being balanced at the centre
of the political spectrum. Its influences are obvious: the
frugality and fiscal responsibility preached by Conservatives and
Reform are balanced with strong social conscience represented in
significant increases in health care funding.
The right is represented again in the small tax relief presented
to Canadians. It acknowledges that Canadians are struggling under
a heavy tax load, but it does so with a trickle, rather than a
gusher.
We believe this is a responsible, moderate budget.
It will not solve every pressing issue on the spot. But that is
the stuff of political fiction. Problems as complex as those
faced by the federal government will not be solved overnight. But
they can be solved.
There is hope sewn into the lining of this budget.
That speaks volumes on how this budget was conceived and how it
is perceived in the community.
Another issue I will touch on is the question of the reaction of
the provincial government in Ontario. The Harris reformatories
will be saying because of the funds being put back into health
care in this budget, it is an admission by the federal government
that the difficulties in the health care system were caused by
cuts in transfer payments.
I believe the Ontario electorate will not be fooled by that
rhetoric. I believe the Ontario electorate will be able to
understand the figures. They will know that for the next year
the cuts in transfers prior to this budget from the federal
government to the province of Ontario were in the order of $831
million. They will also know that the Harris reformatory tax
cuts amounted to $4.8 billion. If we divide the responsibility
for any difficulties that may be being experienced in Ontario
health care, the apportionment can be easily struck at
one-seventh responsibility for the federal government cuts and
six-sevenths responsibility for the Harris tax cuts.
Those are the priorities of the Harris reformatory government and
that is how it chose to use the resources.
1655
I do not believe that the electorate will be deceived. Nor do I
believe that the electorate will pay any attention to Premier
Harris when he makes comments like what I read in the newspaper
today. He was referring to the Harris-Martin tax cuts.
There is no comparison between the way this government under our
finance minister dealt with the issue of tax cuts with the
deficit and the havoc that the Harris government, the reformatory
government, has imposed on Ontario by allowing the massive tax
cuts before it was in a position to balance its budget. There is
no question that this will be taken into account by the Ontario
electorate in the upcoming provincial election.
In summary, it appears evident to me that this budget will be
widely accepted by Canadians and so far it has been widely
accepted by Canadians. I congratulate the government for once
again bringing in a balanced budget with a significant surplus
and properly applying that surplus in a balanced fashion.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Madam Speaker, I
want to ask the hon. member who makes many references to the
Harris reformatories if they have anything in common with the
Liberal suppositories that we have been hearing about since
budget day.
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Madam Speaker, I do not believe that
was a question. I would say it was a smart—no, I would not say
that.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
listened carefully to the speech by our colleague and I think he
has not grasped certain elements of the political situation.
First, can he admit that, since 1993, funding has been cut by
$33 billion? Even though the provinces were counting on this
amount to balance their budgets and provide public services,
they never received this $33 billion.
The member talked as if happiness was the absence of misfortune.
I would like to say that we cannot operate on that basis in a
society.
The first question I would like him to answer is this: Does he
recognize that his government has acted indelicately, in a way
that is inconsistent with the spirit of federalism in which two
governments should respect each other's jurisdictions?
Second, can he stand in his place and tell me where it says in
the Constitution Act of 1867 or 1982 that the federal government
is authorized to intervene in health care? Would he be prepared
to put his seat on the line on the constitutional jurisdiction
of his government to intervene in the area of health care?
Some $80 billion will be spent on health, whereas the federal
government has no business there.
If our colleague wants to help out his neighbour, there are
areas where the federal government can act.
Liberal members are like one long film we might call The Silence
of the Lambs: always agreeing with what the government does.
In terms of employment insurance, the government could improve
the situation of the unemployed. With the banks, it could pass
legislation on community reinvestment. But it did not—
An hon. member: Question.
Mr. Réal Ménard: I suggest our backbencher remain calm.
I would ask the hon. member if he could tell us where it says in
the Constitution that this government is entitled to intervene
in health care—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Réal Ménard: —and I wish the backbenchers were a little more
critical of their government.
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Madam Speaker, first, we pointed out three
or four years ago that the social transfer formula was not fair
and that changes were needed.
1700
First, we notified all the provincial governments. As for the
issue of federal government jurisdiction in health care, it was
clear in the health agreement signed by the first ministers two
or three weeks ago. It was made clear that the government was
prepared to invest in this area and to transfer the money to the
provinces with no strings attached and without interfering in
provincial jurisdictions.
As for research, this is a federal-provincial jurisdiction.
[English]
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on February 16 the finance minister presented the 1999 budget.
The budget is fiscally responsible and it invests in Canada's
social priorities. It provides tax cuts and health care funding.
The budget is good news for my constituents of Vancouver
Kingsway and for all Canadians. Today I would like to address
three aspects of the budget that will increase our standard of
living and enhance our quality of life: health care, research and
development, and tax relief for all Canadians.
Health care is the first priority of this budget. As a member
of the finance committee I have heard from many Canadians that
more resources should be devoted to health care. This is also a
key issue in my riding. This year's budget has answered this
demand. It has been called the health care budget because it
greatly increases federal government support for health care. An
additional $11.5 billion will be transferred to the provinces
through the Canada health and social transfer over the next five
years. In addition to the CHST enhancement, the 1999 budget
allocates $1.4 billion over the remainder of the fiscal year and
in the next three fiscal years. Those funds will improve access
to quality health care information and increased support for
research and innovation in health care.
The second important aspect of this budget is research and
development funding. While the government is strengthening the
health care system, it is also working to expand and integrate
research in health care. Our government recognizes that
innovative ideas are essential to maintaining a successful and
competitive economy. Medical research can ensure the highest
quality of health care for Canadians now and in the future.
This budget provides significant increases in funding to the
Canadian Foundation for Innovation for biotechnology research and
development, to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada, to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada and to the National Research Council. There
will be increased support for the successful network of centres
of excellence, technology partnerships Canada and the Canadian
Space Agency.
The third important aspect of the budget is tax relief. It is
because our government has acted responsibly in recent years that
we are in a position to implement tax reduction measures.
Last year tax measures for low and middle income Canadians were
introduced. Now we have begun to offer broad based tax relief to
all Canadians.
1705
Every Canadian who pays taxes will get a tax cut this year and
600,000 Canadians will not have to pay any income tax at all.
Important initiatives include the phasing out of the 3% surtax on
personal income, increased benefits to middle income families and
increased child benefits to two million modest and low income
families. The basic personal exemption has also been increased
to $7,131. For the first time since 1965 nothing has been
borrowed to pay for the tax relief.
While I do not have the time to discuss other elements of the
budget in detail, I would like to mention several important
areas. Highlights include support for learning opportunities and
employment, broadening the child tax benefit and continued debt
reduction.
I am happy to report that this budget will have a great impact
on the province of British Columbia. That is where I come from.
It will add $270 million a year during the next five years to
B.C.'s provincial revenues in addition to tax breaks to
individual British Columbians.
The cap on B.C.'s share of transfer payments has been lifted.
For many years B.C. was one of the three provinces getting a
lower per capita share than other provinces. Now the finance
minister has lifted the cap so that over the next three years all
provinces will receive the same amount on a per capita basis.
Over five years it means that B.C. will get an additional $1.4
billion plus $471 million for health care. This is tremendous.
Tax breaks will result in B.C. taxpayers sending $200 million
less to Ottawa in 1999. Even B.C.'s finance minister called this
budget good news. It is great news for all of us.
As an MP from Vancouver Kingsway and a member of the finance
committee I am proud of the budget our government has delivered.
It will ensure that Canada maintains a strong economy and invests
strategically in key economic and social priorities. Finally, it
provides tax relief for all Canadians.
I congratulate the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and
all my colleagues for the thoughtful and well planned budget for
Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I did
listen to my hon. colleague, but she kept repeating what the
finance minister had said. The members opposite are parrots. And
the Liberal members from Quebec even applauded.
I can understand my hon. colleague. She is from British Columbia
and everyone there got something. The people of this very
wealthy province are now even wealthier.
I must tell my colleagues from Quebec who were applauding that I
cannot understand them. They are servile—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. René Canuel: “Servile” means “servant”. They are little
people.
They cannot understand that Quebec is the loser here, the big
loser.
An hon. member: Come on.
1710
Mr. René Canuel: My question to the hon. member is this: Why is
it that, three or four days before the Minister of Finance
brought down his budget, the Minister of Human Resources
Development, whom I had invited to New Richmond, did not show
up? There were about 800 workers and unemployed people—
Mr. Michel Gauthier: He is afraid of people.
Mr. René Canuel: —who, in the spring, will have to do without
benefits for two whole months. There will be no food for their
children. The hon. member boasts about the fact that those who
earn $250,000 or more will see their taxes cut by 3%, thus
saving $8,000 a year.
[English]
Ms. Sophia Leung: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should reply to
the member in Chinese because today is Chinese New Year.
I think we all know that Canada has been very good to Quebec.
You always gain more than B.C. Even now with this budget we gave
you much more and we never complain.
An hon. member: C'est le problème de Landry
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In an attempt to
keep everyone on each side of the aisle, let us refer to each
other through the Chair.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the member from
British Columbia.
This budget missed the boat in an essential area. The
government does not listen very often to anybody from any other
political party. But I would like it to listen to independent
reviews that are taking place right now on Canada's productivity.
What are these reviews saying? This budget fails because it
fails to address the central issue of Canada's failing
productivity. Why is Canada's productivity failing? Our tax
structure is too high and companies do not have the ability to
invest in themselves. We cannot compete with our brothers and
sisters to the south because our tax structure is too high.
Will the member bring to the attention of the finance minister
the fact that the government's budget failed because it did not
adjust the egregious tax structure we have in Canada that is
choking off the private sector—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Vancouver Kingsway.
Ms. Sophia Leung: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
the good point. Yes, we would like to increase our productivity.
That is one of our recommendations in the report of the finance
committee. We do focus on that.
Research and development is what we will address. We have given
$800 million to the centre of innovation. This year we are
giving an additional $200 million to the centre. That will
create many jobs. We will have more resources to encourage
productivity, to have more research and development for Canada.
In the meantime this will prevent brain drain.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with colleagues, as will most of the Reform
members from here on today.
It is sad to stand up today to talk about this budget. It is
sad because it is such a failure. It is sad because it is a
missed opportunity. It is sad because of the fact that what
could have been done and what should have been done was not done.
As we have said over and over, as result Canadians will be paying
more and getting less in all instances.
1715
I will not talk a lot about getting less because some of my
colleagues have covered that material very well and I do not want
to repeat it. However, I do want to emphasize that we are
getting less particularly in health care.
In 1993 when the government took power, and ever since then, it
has been proclaiming from the house tops that it is the saviour
of health care in Canada. They are empty words. We need to
judge people by their actions and not by their words. Every
Canadian knows that since the Liberals took power five years ago
our health care system has deteriorated and deteriorated big
time.
There have been some instances of individuals not being able to
get the treatment they need in Canada. They are forced to take
their money to the United States in order to get the health care
they need. Thankfully those who do are able to pay for it. The
government, by failing to continue a health care system which was
built on good principles and by reducing the amount of funding to
health care, has literally destroyed it.
I want to tell the House a personal story. It is rather close
to my heart these days since it is only a little more than a week
ago that we had my aunt's funeral. She was an older lady, a very
gentle but fastidious person. When she had a stroke she went to
the hospital. What happened when she was in a public hospital?
As I said, she was very fastidious but when she had to leave her
bed for personal reasons she would ring the buzzer. Because of
her stroke she was not able to help herself. No one came so she
rang again and still no one came. Finally she tried to get out
of bed herself and landed on the floor in a heap.
That happened not once, not twice, not three times but four
times. The family could not always be there. They all lived a
distance away from where she was. Eventually they too practised
the two tier health care system the government has provided. They
took her out of the public hospital and moved her into a private
extended care centre run by a religious group where she got good,
loving attentive care and people looked after her. Fortunately
she was able to allocate some of her pension money and the family
helped as well.
What has happened to our health care system when people who need
it push the buzzer and no one comes because the funding for
staffers has been cut? This was not to be the topic of my speech
today. It was just by way of introduction to show that we are
getting less. In this particular case it hit very close to our
family.
I want to talk about the issues of debt and taxes. Here again
is a huge missed opportunity. It is not just the Reformers who
are saying this. Many people are saying it. I am on the finance
committee and we heard from a number of expert witnesses,
ordinary people, a number of lobby groups and economists. They
came before before committee and testified. It was a most
intriguing session when we heard from some of the top economists
of the country. Their message was crystal clear: we need to
reduce taxes. How do we do that? By having a plan for reducing
the debt.
Sometimes for recreational reading I read the Fiscal
Monitor. Not many people do that.
I looked at the Fiscal Monitor to see what is happening to
our debt. I also looked at the budget the finance minister read
the other day and I looked at our debt. It is very distressing.
This is what has caused the greatest break in our economy. There
is nothing that has reduced our productivity more than our
burgeoning debt and the burgeoning taxes that are required to pay
the interest on the debt. Until this year we were paying around
30 cents of every dollar collected in income tax simply on
interest on the debt, much of it leaving the country.
1720
If I were to be in my usual jovial mood, I would now say that I
want to congratulate the government. I always do this in my
speeches. I always try to find at least one place where I can
thank government members. I would like to thank them for
resisting the temptation to spend, spend, spend everything when
the surpluses came in. They are only spending about two-thirds
of it now, but I would like to thank them for not spending
everything.
I have looked at the projections of the Minister of Finance and
his department. Many members first came here in 1993 and will
realize that the 1993-94 budget referred to a debt of $508
billion. It grew to $545 billion and to $574 billion. Then in
one of those first year budgets the projections were $593
billion, $610 billion and $619 billion. Those were the
projections unless the deficit could be beat.
Thankfully the Liberal government was at the right place at the
right time. It lucked in and won the lottery. If it had not
been for the fact that there was a vigorous free enterprise
economy in Ontario and a similar one in Alberta, there would not
have been any growth to speak of and it would have been in deep
trouble.
As a result of some forward looking provincial governments that
were able to attract business to help industry, the economy grew
and the debt did not grow as much. What distresses me most is
that the debt is now projected to be $579.7 billion. What is it
for subsequent years? It is projected at $579.7 billion and
$579.7 billion.
The Minister of Finance has absolutely no vision or plan to
reduce the debt. If we happen to have a surplus and do not need
our contingency fund, he says that will go toward it.
The problem is that the Minister of Finance and the Liberal
government are back loading and forward loading the surpluses we
know exist. In the same Fiscal Monitor I read that the
surplus this year for the first three-quarters is $11.2 billion.
That is the surplus as advertised by the finance department on
the web. Members can look it up themselves. Yet they are
projecting that the surplus this year will be around $3 billion.
What are they doing? They are forward loading and back loading.
They are not dealing with the present reality. As a result our
debt will continue.
I remember hearing an economist, I think it was at committee,
say that the most positive economic signal that can be sent to
our investors and our businesses would be a tangible, manageable
plan for reducing the debt, which would reduce interest payments.
Public debt charges are projected to go up. Even though they
are keeping the debt the same in their planning, every year the
public debt charges go up. It is in the document. All members
need to do is to look at the budget that was tabled in the House
two days ago and there it is: $40.9 billion, $41.4 billion,
$42.5 billion and $43.3 billion. That is what we will be paying
in interest on our debt. That is what is killing our economy.
That is the missed opportunity.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
do not know where to start. Maybe I should focus on one aspect,
and that is the debt.
The member seems to want to talk about the debt. He started off
by dealing with the growth of the debt.
1725
The member will well know that when the government was formed in
1993 it inherited a deficit scenario of some $42 billion. That
deficit had to be dealt with each and every year. The annual
deficits are added to the national debt. Yes, it went up. Yes,
interest charges went up, but we had to deal with the deficit to
stop the leakage. Now we are getting surpluses.
The member said that a particular economic publication indicated
the surplus would be something like $7 billion. That may very
well be. The member will well know there was a one time transfer
on behalf of health of $3.5 billion which, based on consultations
with the auditor general, will be expensed in the current year.
That takes the projected $7 billion down to $3.5 billion, which
is precisely what the government is projecting.
If the member uses numbers from a month ago to somehow compare
to the forecast as was outlined in the budget, does he not think
that he should also take into account other charges against that
surplus spending of the fiscal dividend which will be charged
against the current year so that in fact what has happened is
exactly what should have happened?
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I agree that the numbers
should accurately reflect the reality. This is where the rub
comes in. What does the budget say? What is the number that is
being communicated by the Liberals? What number are they using
in terms of what they are putting into health care?
The number is $11.5 billion. We hear it all the time. That is
because the little number of $2 billion which they are actually
putting in, in the coming year, is so small. After cutting $20
billion out of health care, how would the Canadian people accept
that they would only put $2 billion in? They got into their
little corner and asked what they could do with this number. Like
my leader said the other day, they just came up with a magic
number to multiply it by. They multiplied the number by five for
the next five years.
This is an annual budget. I do not mind them giving
projections, but I think it is downright dishonest to say they
are putting $11.5 billion into health care when in fact this year
$3.5 billion is being put into the year before and $2 billion
into the planned year. Those are the actual numbers. To say
$11.5 billion in the face of that is just not accurately
communicating to Canadians what the facts are.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I appreciated a comment of the hon. member and I wanted to touch
on a similar theme. He just alluded to the way the government
announced the health care spending but did not mention very
strongly that it was over five years.
I am concerned that Canadians are aware of the taxes they are
paying. With GST and EI and CPP there is some way for the public
to be very much aware of that. The one area I was hoping to
see—and we actually discussed it in the prebudget debate in the
House—was the fact that income tax brackets were not indexed to
inflation.
I know the hon. member is a man of high integrity and when he
speaks it is from his heart. The issue is that because they were
not indexed Canadians are actually paying $10 billion more since
they stopped indexing the personal income tax system or $692 per
taxpayer. This is a hidden tax.
It is one thing when people know the taxes they are paying and
can react, but when they are hidden and buried in bracket creep
that is particularly offensive to me. It must be to Canadians
when they find out about it. How could they believe anything
when they find out there is a hidden tax that is not up front,
that is a big revenue increase for the government which they hear
nothing about?
1730
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must interrupt the
member. The time has expired. The hon. member for Elk Island on
a very brief comment.
Mr. Ken Epp: Very briefly, Madam Speaker, that is the
point exactly. Originally it was set up in such a way that
people paid a certain proportion of their income in taxes. But
that proportion has gone up because of inflation, yet it does not
reflect it accurately.
What this government is giving is mediocre. Again, it is using
the figure $675 as an increase in the basic exemption, which
actually is not used any more but that is what the government is
calling it, when as a matter of fact $500 of that for most
taxpayers was announced last year. It is $175 this year. The
government makes it look good when in fact it is pretty mediocre.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is great to rise today on behalf of my constituents
and speak to the budget that was brought down on Tuesday. For
most of my constituents they are finding it a very muddled
document that is not really quite sure what it wants to do.
It is touted as the health care budget and we are waiting to see
the proof of the pudding. This document claims to restore health
care funding but in fact it hardly starts the process of putting
back into place what existed before members opposite came to this
place in 1993.
While Canadians were piling extra billions of dollars into
government coffers, waiting lines for health services went up by
28%. Members opposite like to blame the provincial governments.
If the provincial governments were solely to blame, it still
would not explain why federal expenditures on health have fallen
from the promised 50% base line as outlined in the original
Canada Health Act to the measly 11% that exists today. It does
not explain why the much talked about five principles are in a
shambles while this government did nothing but download to its
provincial counterparts.
Where is the portability when we see one government failing to
fully reimburse another for treating its residents? Where is the
universality when the wealthy are put at the front of the queue
or skip off to the United States to get their service, leaving
180,000 Canadians waiting weeks and months for operations here in
Canada?
Members of this party find it ironic that Liberals have
attempted to frighten Canadians with that bogeyman of a two
tiered American style health system when in fact they have
encouraged through their action or inaction the creation of this
very thing.
The problem began in the first days of this government. The
present Prime Minister was elected in October 1993 and his
finance minister brought down his first budget in 1994. Since
this was greeted with roaring disapproval, the Liberals decided
on a new tack for 1995. They would make the appearance of
cutting the deficit their central theme. What a good idea, one
near and dear to everyone's heart, but not the way we would have
pursued it.
The government started to see the economic recovery and decided
to do two things: rake in the maximum amount Canadians could
stand to give and download the responsibility of paying bills on
to provincial governments. That is a reality. The numbers are
there for anybody to see. I am gratified to see many
commentators starting to say the things we have been saying for
the past few years.
This government has never got its wild spending habits under
control. It has never admitted to the anchor that its high tax
regime imposes on all Canadians. It cannot get it through its
collective head that Canadians want to be in charge of their own
destiny. Leave the money with them and let them decide.
This government lays claim to a balanced budget because it pulls
$42 billion more in revenues from the economy than it did in
1993. We are paying more while provinces, individuals and
institutions are getting less. Members opposite will say to look
at the tax cuts.
The 3% surtax will be cut in half this year and eliminated in
the year 2000. Average taxpayers will see a few dollars per week
from that one. The basic personal credit is up $340 over 1998 and
will go up another $240 next year. This translates into another
couple of dollars per week for hardworking Canadians and that
sounds really good. It works out to about a cup of coffee a
week. The reality of this cut is on average $79 a year. We know
the EI rate is going down a whopping 5%, from $2.70 per hundred
dollars to $2.55. The CPP is certainly going to offset that with
the increases we are seeing there.
Everyone was saying the EI rate should have gone down even more.
Business is calling for it. It is a tax on jobs. But the
finance minister has been banking that $7 billion a year surplus
and the Liberals will have us believe that these nickel and dime
returns should have us all thanking our lucky stars to get
anything at all. That is the reality again. This government
would have us believe that their tuna fish ideas are seen as
caviar by the peasants out there.
If we add all this up, what do we get? As it turns out Canadians
will pay $2 billion more in taxes while these little tidbits of
so-called tax relief are phased in. We pay more, we get less. We
pay more CPP premiums with no guarantee that anything will exist
in 20 years. We still have bracket creep working its magic on
our incomes while this government ignores outdated brackets and
disincentives that have existed in our tax code for decades,
especially for small business.
1735
What do we get for this? Do we get more health care? Do we get
more economic activity? Do we get more national wealth? No, we
get more politics, the last thing we really need.
Two weeks ago were treated to the spectacle of our government
leaders trumpeting the creation of a social union deal. Did this
amazing document re-establish the primacy of the two levels of
government in their respective spheres of jurisdiction as set out
in our Constitution? No. It put on display the arrogance of the
Liberal government and the desperation that provincial
politicians feel when they see billions of dollars up for grabs.
They need it. They have programs to run.
There was no thought to leaving that money in the hands of the
taxpayers, or to giving it back from where it originally came.
These politicians traded away the right to spend the money and
take the credit as if there were two kinds of taxpayers and
government was all about the size of the program and not how good
it is. He who has the money makes the rules.
Why does the federal government not concentrate on what it is
supposed to do? The budget just released puts $175 million into
DND. That does not rebuild a single soldier's house, add a
single soldier, sailor or pilot to the forces, nor does it buy a
single piece of equipment. The Canadian forces as we see them
now are overcommitted. They cannot train up to the proper
standard without the proper equipment. They cannot replace worn
out equipment. They have lost $7 billion from what previous
governments told them to expect, and this administration has the
nerve to give them this pitiful increase.
Members opposite will say to look at the wonderful job they do.
That is the whole point. Despite broken promises by this
government and unfulfilled commitments, despite the downloading
of responsibility, despite the fact this government does nothing
but take while it asks for the moon, these hardworking Canadians
get the job done.
The Canadian taxpayer is in the same leaky boat. We are so used
to high taxes, hidden costs and government programs that are
supposed to alleviate every problem under the sun, that I am
afraid we are complacent about the antics of this government in
this budget. This budget repeats what we have seen in the last
three. The minister's projections are wrong. He finds himself
with more of Canadians' money than he even thought possible so he
pumps up government spending. The debt continues to fester,
taxes continue to suppress our potential, a key element, and the
Liberals continue to claim that they are being prudent, generous
and compassionate. They are none of these things.
In the past, Canadians slowly became outraged as they saw
finance minister after finance minister miss the mark on the
deficit and charge them for it in increased taxes. Now they are
slowly becoming outraged that this finance minister misses the
mark on spending and charges them for it. It is not their
imagination. It is being exposed everywhere. The numbers are
there. They are documented very well.
Think tanks, research institutions and economists are all asking
where the surplus went. They are all answering that the finance
minister is hiding it from the Canadian people so he can pursue a
political agenda of his own. For how long are Canadians going to
accept this outrage? For how long does this minister think he
can make taxpayers pay more and receive less?
This Liberal government has failed on health care. It has taken
out far more than it intends to put in. It has failed to perform
the federal role it is supposed to focus on. And it is losing
the trust of Canadians by manipulating the national books.
Over the last few months we have heard a great deal about
productivity but I do not see much about that from the Liberal
spin doctors. I do not suppose that is because it is another
missed opportunity by this government. The Canadian Federation of
Independent Business classed this budget as a missed opportunity.
We have been losing ground on these issues for years. This
finance minister trots out the typical line that things are
looking up and that adding a few dollars will address the
situation. Everything looks better after you have hit rock
bottom which is where we seem to be headed.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has
warned this government that Canada is failing, not rising upward
on the issue of productivity. These studies indicate that our
tax burden is just too great. The window dressing in this budget
does nothing to solve that. Again nothing for business, the
engine of the economy, the job creator. It says that the United
States is surging ahead in this area with half the unemployment
rate, but here we have the finance minister bragging about job
creation. Eighty per cent of those jobs are created by the small
business sector, not by government programs.
Our unemployment rate is twice that of the U.S. Is that good
enough? Our standard of living is falling; disposable income
continues to fall. Why is this acceptable? Why is being 17th in
the world good enough? It is not. There is so much more that
has to be done.
What did the minister do about the small business deduction?
Nothing. It is still mired in 1980 values. What has he done
about corporate taxes, payroll taxes, user fees? Nothing in this
budget. Where is the burden of personal income tax? Among the
highest in the world, and this budget does a little tinkering
with it. We pay more and get less.
We need a government in this country that is committed to
openness, accountability, freedom and wealth creation for
everybody. Instead we are stuck with a government that is
obsessed with manipulation, social engineering and bureaucracy. I
do not see anything productive about that.
1740
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I know
the opposition is on a great theme here. I presume they cannot
get too many ideas in their heads at one time as they keep
repeating the same phraseology which is basically pay more, get
less. There are two aspects of this, paying and getting. In
other words they believe that one simply pays for services and
that is what one gets.
When they came to the House years ago they were concerned about
the debt. What they have said during the last two days is that
we should forget about the debt, forget about the obligation to
pay the debt. They are happy to leave it for another generation
of Canadians so let us just forget about it. We want to get every
dollar into this that we put into it. It is services for every
dollar that we put into it.
People watching this debate know if they have a mortgage on
their house that some of that money and hopefully a lot of it
every month is going to make principal payments on their debt.
These payments meet their obligations. Therefore their children
will not have to live in that house and pay the mortgage which
the parents have enjoyed. Those members are showing total
irresponsibility by ignoring that aspect.
The member also talked about small business. Does he realize
that Canada taxes small businesses at the lowest rate of the G-7
countries? I guess he is not very happy to know this as well.
One of the other members mentioned the CPP and called it a tax
even though we all know it is a pension. The federal government
does not have its hands in it one way or the other. It is money
contributed by employers and employees for their pensions. Once
again those members would be happy to run away from, shirk their
responsibilities, transfer that liability on to another
generation and walk off with the gravy.
Do those members think they could get beyond the two little
things in their minds, that is pay more, get less? Could they
deal with some of the substantive problems in the country?
Mr. Gerry Ritz: Madam Speaker, there was a lot verbiage
but I am not sure there was too much meat. I remember an ad years
ago with a little lady standing at a hamburger counter saying
“Where is the beef?” I guess that points to what the member
was talking about.
The biggest problem we have in the country is underperformance.
People are penalized to get out and make things happen. We have
a tremendous problem with brain drain. There is a little bit of
money in the budget to address that issue, but it is a
significant problem. Taxes are driving people out of this
country. We cannot bribe them to stay here. They will gradually
migrate to where there is more tax incentives and work
incentives.
We have a burgeoning underground economy. It is created by
overtaxation. People have to make a living, put bread and butter
on the table for their families and they do it in any way they
can. If it means cheating Uncle Sam a little bit they are more
than willing and prepared to do that. Many people said it was the
GST that created the underground economy. It is not.
My background is in construction and the whole premise of the
underground economy is not the GST. It is 7%. As a contractor I
can pass that on and claim it back. That is not the problem. It
is the income tax that I pay. It is the income tax that the
plumbers, electricians, concrete finishers, carpet layers pay.
It is the heavy tax load on everything. The not profit sensitive
tax, a lot of them have become user fees and programs and things
like that, drive the burgeoning underground economy. That is not
being addressed. There must be fairness in the taxation system.
The member also talked about the debt and the deficit. We are
paying $41 billion or $42 billion a year in interest on what has
been a runaway debt. The prudent approach has added another $130
billion to that debt in the last number of years. Thank God we
finally got our deficit under control, but it has been done by
taxpayers; 70% of the deficit control was done on the backs of
taxpayers. They are looking for some sort of relief from this
overburden. They are looking to the government for some
direction and leadership.
This budget is a small step in the right direction. We need to
take large strides. We are going into a worldwide economy.
Canada can be a leader. We do not have to settle for 17th place.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, just to
conclude, paying Uncle Sam? I do not think the member knows what
country he is in, let alone much about our tax policy.
I am very happy to engage in the debate and talk about what I
think is maybe an unsung part of the budget which has to do with
productivity.
Some of the members across the way have touched on this issue.
1745
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time as well.
Usually when we start talking about productivity a lot of people
go to sleep, not least of which is the opposition. But
productivity basically means how efficiently we use inputs of
production. I am trying not to sound like an economist but what I
mean by that is labour and labour components either to make
manufactured goods or to provide services. We use labour,
technology, capital, equipment and so forth.
The object of the exercise is to utilize those things more
effectively and more efficiently. That is to say how can we use
less of a component of these goods to produce more and more
services? That is often what we call productivity.
People in the labour movement often hear business people talking
about productivity and they feel a bit threatened about losing
their jobs. But that is not what I am talking about at all. How
can labour, as one of those component factors, utilize its time
more effectively and more efficiently?
Why is this important? It is important because Canada is
definitely falling behind many of our major competitors, not the
least of which is the United States. I believe the Conference
Board of Canada's recent report claimed that Canada's
productivity lags behind our American counterparts by as much as
20%.
This is important because it impacts our standard of living. The
televisions we have, the furniture we use, the cars we drive are
all factors of productivity statistics. A lot of people believe
that Canada is hiding its poor productivity rating behind its
lower valued dollar vis-a-vis the United States. In other words,
if our dollar suddenly increased in value we would have some
significant job losses and losses to our effective
competitiveness in the world markets because this productivity
number would suddenly become very important and very glaring to a
lot of people as to how we have not been keeping up with some of
our competitors.
This budget addresses that issue. It addresses that issue in
some very fundamental ways. It does that by increasing our
funding by about $1.8 billion. These are some of the areas in
which that money has gone, $200 million to the Canadian
opportunities strategy and $55 million a year for biotechnology
research and development. I do not have to tell a lot of people
out there how important biological research is. Canada has
developed many products and we have done that, and I would not
use the word assistance, but by governments and businesses
working together to find common solutions to find new
technologies where Canada can be very competitive.
We have increased funding of $75 million for what we call the
granting councils, the National Research Council and the Medical
Research Council. We talk about medicare and funding. Members
have been talking about giving the money back to the provinces,
but this is another fundamental way in which the government is
assisting with finding new technologies to solve some of our
medical problems.
Canada has been a major leader in the world in discovering new
technologies to find new drugs and other medical cures. I do not
have to tell members we are well asserted as an incubation tank
for that because our population is getting older, possibly more
rapidly than in any of the G-7 countries. We are very concerned
about finding cures for some of our medical problems.
We have put $60 million into a three year program to develop
smart demonstration projects. This allows communities to find
ways to use the information highway to more effectively utilize
the resources they have.
In my community I think of all the hospitals being wired
together which would enable a resident in one hospital being able
to wire information back and forth to another hospital some miles
away so that a patient in one location could have access to the
expert care they need.
1750
These are the kinds of technologies that will make Canada a
better place to live and help keep our brain power. Some people
say that Canada is a country full of great resources but our
greatest resource is still the resource we have between our ears.
I am very proud to be a part of a government that has provided
some additional funding for these areas. It provided $60 million
for GeoConnections. This is a mapping system to allow our
communities to plug into each other and to understand their
regions. I do not have to tell the House that Canada is the
second largest country in the world. The knowledge of who we are
and where we are is very important for us to be successful.
I will speak a bit about some of the additional funding that has
gone into the technologies partnership program. There is an
additional $150 million that has gone into the technologies
partnership program. Some of that money went into a company
close to my riding called Cametoid. This is a company that makes
paint for the Challenger rockets that the United States is
sending up. This is a unique technology that was made possible
by this government's providing the additional funding. These are
not grants. They are not give away programs. It leverages some
of the risk capital that the company needs to take on some of
these projects. Some banks ask what they are going to give them
for collateral. Here we are selling products to the United
States. The company has about 20 direct jobs and 17 indirect
jobs.
I was on the floor of the De Havilland plant when the minister
was there to give the technology partnerships grant. That is
money that is coming back to us. It is paid back to us through a
royalty payment system. I talked to those workers and they said
that manoeuvre saved 2,000 jobs in the city of Toronto. That is
a very positive way that we are increasing the knowledge base
that exists in our country. We are keeping Canadians employed
and we are keeping them at home.
Why is this a problem? As I mentioned, the OECD has stated that
even with solid improvements in Canada, it is likely that our
country will slip below the average in the standard of living of
the OECD countries by 2015.
From 1973 to 1995 the average annual rate of real domestic gross
product increased in Canada. It went up 2.6%. Productivity went
up 1%. Canada's score sheet in some of these areas has not been
as good as some of our neighbours. Labour productivity and growth
averaged about 1% per year during the 1990s. The average of the
OECD countries is 4%. Why is that? Frankly, I do not know. Some
of my colleagues will say it is because of our tax laws. That is
not quite the case. The business sector is somewhat responsible
for this.
In the United States the business community supports its
university systems in the area of research and development. That
is not the case in Canada. I am not saying we do not do any of
that but our businesses only marginally support our university
environments. As a consequence, Canada's funding is heavily
reliant on government grants to granting councils. Another
positive way which governments could make a contribution is to
the networks of centres of excellence across the country which
allow our scientists to communicate with one another, not in the
lifestyles today but the lifestyles five or ten years down the
road.
It takes a long time for that kind of technology to seep through
and be effective. We have to find better ways for Canadians to
use the technology that is available. I am very proud to be a
part of a government that has made a significant down payment on
that reality.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party for his
speech.
I want to ask him some questions. I do not think that some of
the members across the way get it. If the member is listening to
the assertions put forth by independent think tanks not only
within Canada but from around the world, they send one clear
message.
Canada is not competitive because our tax structure is choking
the life blood out of our private sector.
1755
As an example, a family of two earners in the United States
earns 42% more than the equivalent family in Canada. That can be
extrapolated to private sector companies. How can companies
compete in Canada with their counterparts in the United States if
they are saddled with a tax structure that is at least a third
higher than what they have to compete with south of the border?
The central failure our party is trying to impress on the
government in this budget is that the government's budget has
failed to address the issue of productivity because it has failed
to address the issue of high taxes. The member from Vancouver
mentioned we want to be productive and therefore the government
is investing in research and development.
That is not the issue. If the private sector is given the money
to invest in its companies it will invest in research and
development. The fact is it cannot because the tax structure is
too high.
Again I ask the member from the Liberal government will he go to
the finance minister and ask him to lower taxes substantially and
do it as soon as possible. Then our private sector would have a
fighting chance to compete in the global economy.
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Madam Speaker, I am sure the member
was here during the budget speech but he seems to have missed the
fact that there have been substantial tax reductions in the
budget in some of the low income areas. Also we have removed the
3% surtax. Why he does not understand this is beyond me.
I will address the great model they always want to use, the
United States. That seems to be the only comparison. It seems
to be the whole world actually when they get into comparative
economics.
The reality is that in the numbers quoted some of those people
in the United states pay the highest per capita rate for health
care. Often it is not funded through their governmental system.
They have higher crime rates and so forth too. We do not quote
those things. We quote the taxation system.
Through the judicious hands on the lever of this government
interest rates are lower. Interest rates are lower in Canada
than in the United States. I do not know where the member has
been if he does not think a major factor of productivity in any
business is interest. The reality is that Canada is still and
continues to be an attractive place in which to do business.
An hon. member: What about personal tax?
Mr. Alex Shepherd: We are on the track of lowering
personal income taxes and we have had a major down payment on
that in this budget.
A combination of lower taxes and greater investment in research
and technology is part of this program and I think that will do
the job.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
was surprised to hear the member for Durham say that the budget
contained all sorts of tax breaks.
Who gets the biggest tax breaks? I will tell you, Madam
Speaker. Those earning $250,000 and over. Their tax bill will
be reduced by $3,800. As for those earning $30,000 to $70,000,
the middle-income earners who have footed most of the bill for
cleaning up the nation's finances, their tax break is between
$50 and $300 a year.
This is an insult. I would suggest that the member for Durham
really read the budget documents and quit being a doormat like
his colleagues.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Madam Speaker, I have taken a close
look at the budget. I know we have increased personal exemptions
for all taxpayers.
All taxpayers have shared in this tax reduction package and the
3% starts at $65,000. The hon. member talks about $200,000. I
suggest he check the tax rates. If he does not have any
constituents in all of Quebec who do not make over $65,000 I
would be shocked.
There have been across the board tax cuts and I am sorry he does
not understand that.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I paid careful attention to the budget debate on the
monitor in my office and when I was in the House.
I do not mean to make light of interventions that colleagues
make. I know they are studied and I know they are very sincere
but I often think of dark clouds looking for that silver lining
so that they can avoid it.
1800
That in essence is the substance of the debates that I have
heard from the opposition side so far.
I am especially struck by the desire to manipulate two contrary
views, especially by one party opposite. On the one hand, the
critic for health turns around and says that there are two words
to describe what the contributions are and they are “not
enough”. Then his colleague over to his right—and I mean that
figuratively as well as geographically—turns around and says
that we did not cut enough taxes and we did not take out more
from that spending.
I do not know what it is that they want to do, but I want to
remind colleagues that the Canadian public has been telling all
members of parliament on that side as well as on this side that
its priorities for government spending, government activity and
government involvement in the life of all Canadians has had to be
involvement in a health care system, a health care system that is
at least from the federal government's perspective, constrained
by what it can do jurisdictionally.
Canadians have asked all of us parliamentarians to look for
solutions to ensure that the priorities of all Canadians, and
again health is the number one priority of every man, woman and
child in this country, be given the same status when we fulfil
the most basic, the most important and the most significant
functions of all parliamentarians in this House and that is to
set a budget that establishes those priorities.
What do we have? People are whining that we are spending too
much and doing too much to meet the demands and needs of
Canadians everywhere. People have been saying that we have
problems with our health system, notwithstanding the fact that in
agreements with the provinces in the past we provided
sustainable, predictable continuous funding. We gave the
provinces the authority to go ahead and do what they would in
establishing health priorities through their administrations. We
moved back.
Notwithstanding that, the Canadian government recognized that it
had to do something more directly for Canadians. In collaboration
with the provinces, it struck a deal a couple of weeks ago, a
social union. It is a reflection of the ability to work together
with other jurisdictions. To do what? To meet the priorities of
Canadians. In what area? In health. What were they looking
for? Some said $2 billion would be more than enough to meet all
the immediate needs. But no, the Government of Canada and the
finance minister said we would give $3.5 billion today to meet
the urgent and critical needs in health care.
What does the opposition say? “Not enough. It didn't go to my
province. My province didn't get what it wanted”. Guess what?
Wake up. The Canadian public got what it wanted, in fact it got
more. Not only did it take the $3.5 billion—
Mr. Dick Harris: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like you to inform the member that raising his
voice does not make his story any more believable.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): That is not a point
of order.
Mr. Joseph Volpe: The hon. member is absolutely correct.
He has just proven that in politics one has to raise one's voice
enough to wake the dead. Stones must hear the good message. I
am glad that the stones opposite have also heard that the number
is $3.5 billion today. It is an additional $8 billion over the
next five years. That is much more than anybody had anticipated.
Yet what have we heard? The opposition said we took out $20
billion. That number was only $16 billion two weeks ago, and two
weeks before that, it was only $6 billion.
The amount of money that has been withdrawn has been growing
exponentially as the opposition has seen the government meet the
priorities of Canadians head on.
1805
The Canadian government, through its finance minister, through
its health minister, through the other cabinet colleagues, in
co-operation with the provincial premiers of this vast nation has
struck an agreement that would also ensure that those moneys
would go directly to the citizenry. None of this bureaucratic in
between let us manipulate this ministry hideaway. None of that
sort of business. The business of the health of Canadians was
going to be met by every single province.
Not only that, they agreed that the federal government ought to
spend and in fact is spending an additional $1.4 billion. I
cannot count that high but I can spell the number. It is a lot
more than a million, $1.4 billion directly in health outcomes.
What are they? This is what the opposition is lamenting. That
is why I say it seems like this dark cloud is avoiding the silver
lining. For health, research and development in the basic
sciences, $550 million. Whether they choose to appreciate that
or not, there is not a person in the basic science research and
development community who does not think that this exceeds their
wildest dreams.
An hon. member: We are losing them because of high taxes.
Mr. Joseph Volpe: It exceeds their wildest dreams. Wake
up. Look at the numbers. Call the universities. Call the
doctors.
Members opposite should ask their own physicians face to face if
they are doing something with $550 million additional moneys for
health and they will tell them yes. Ask them if this is money
well spent and they will tell them yes. And if they then ask them
shall we cut more taxes, they will say no. Why? Because the
money that we spend this way collectively brings us greater
results. Greater results where? In meeting the priorities of
all Canadians, all men, women and children of all ages from all
provinces.
If we are going to meet the priorities of Canadians everywhere,
not only do we do this, but we take a look at the information
system. That is at the base of making evidence based decisions
which will lead to better administrative systems in health, which
will lead to better outcomes, which will lead to more research,
which will lead to services that will produce the healthy society
Canadians demand, need and want.
We are going to spend $328 million in that area, and the
opposition asks “Why? It might infringe on somebody else's
jurisdiction”. Wake up. The people in the other jurisdiction
found out two weeks ago and said they wanted us to do this, they
needed us to do this and in fact they demanded that we do it. Did
we meet their demands? Of course we met their demands.
First nations everywhere have been at a disadvantage. All
members on this side of the House recognize that. Some members
on the other side are willing to admit that maybe a problem
exists. But our cabinet reacted to reality and said yes there
are problems, let us address them. How can we do it? We have
already put a mechanism in place. Can we put the money there?
Shall we find it? How much do we find? How much did the Prime
Minister and cabinet find? What did the health minister look
for? He looked for and saw $190 million over three years to
ensure that we meet the health needs of all aboriginal
communities. The opposition said no, we should not do that.
I do not understand those people any more, I really do not. They
say that there are other issues. There are other issues and the
government has been looking, it has been researching and it has
been listening. That is a good word. Some hon. members might
look up. It has been listening to the Canadian public. It says
we need to spend an additional $287 million for prenatal
nutrition programs, for food safety, for environmental safety,
for rural health and for diabetes.
I ask all colleagues in this place, is that money well spent or
not?
1810
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): I really
hesitate to ask a question, Madam Speaker. I do not want the
member to get too worked up in the House.
It is the member's party that had the biggest cutback in the
history of this country in terms of health care in February 1995.
Even with the additions in this budget, it will be 2004 before
the same expenditure is made that was made in 1995 in terms of
transfers to the provinces for health care. Nine years later we
get back to 1995.
Is the member not ashamed and embarrassed to sit in a government
that was so conservative that it had the biggest cutback in terms
of social transfers in the history of this country? Is he not
ashamed of that?
I know the member from Scarborough who sits behind him, the
fellow with the beard, hangs his head in shame when I talk about
that issue. Does the hon. member share the same opinion as the
member from Scarborough?
Mr. Joseph Volpe: Madam Speaker, what the hon. member
really meant was, do I take any pride at all in the fact that a
Liberal government could get the provinces together, including
the NDP provinces of British Columbia and Saskatchewan, and at
the same time Ontario, and get them to agree that we needed to
establish fiscal responsibility and give them in return complete
control over a budget that involved health and give them the
opportunity to administer those funds as they see fit? Should I
take pride in the fact that my government is capable of meeting
the priorities of Canadians by working with provincial
governments of all political stripes? The member might be
surprised. My answer is yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
listened with great interest to the remarks made by my hon.
colleague.
The reason he sounded so enthusiastic is because his native
province got the biggest share of the budget pie last week.
An hon. member: They won the jackpot.
Mr. Richard Marceau: I have been conducting a little survey
throughout this debate. I am looking for ministers and members
from Quebec. I am wondering where the Liberal members from
Quebec were when the decision was made to give Ontario
approximately 50% of all new funding, and Quebec less than 10%?
Where were the Liberal ministers from Quebec? Where were the
Liberal members from Quebec?
Mr. Michel Gauthier: They are nothing but doormats.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Richard Marceau: I am also wondering where the Liberal
members from Quebec were when the decision was made to give $950
million to Ontario and $150 million to Quebec. Where were the
Liberal members from Quebec?
Mr. Joseph Volpe: Madam Speaker, I am really surprised. I am
almost upset that the Quebec members are not prepared to admit
that we are going to give Quebec $1.4 billion today—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Joseph Volpe: So where were our colleagues from Quebec?
They were there in cabinet, still asking for a lot of money for
Quebec, as Canadians. That is where they were.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. It seems to me that the member who has just spoken is so
worked up that he is going to have to check his blood pressure.
Otherwise he might be a victim of—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): This is not a point
of order. It is debate and there is no time left.
[Translation]
It being 6.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings
and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the
amendment to the amendment now before the House.
1815
[English]
The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
1850
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was
negatived on the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Borotsik
| Brien
|
Brison
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Power
| Price
| Rocheleau
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Venne
– 45
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Cummins
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Elley
| Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grewal
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harris
| Harvard
| Hilstrom
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jaffer
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Lincoln
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stinson
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Wilfert
| Wood
– 202
|
PAIRED
Members
Bellehumeur
| Bulte
| Carroll
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Longfield
| Marleau
| Phinney
|
Plamondon
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment to the amendment
defeated.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
DEVCO
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP):
Madam Speaker, in January the Cape Breton Development Corporation
was abandoned by the federal government after three decades of
lives lost, lives invested and communities dedicated to doing
what Cape Bretoners have done for centuries, mine the rich coal
beds that reach beneath our island.
In war and peace coal fed our nation and it was recognized when
Devco was created by a Liberal government that the nation owed
something to these people who had given their lives. It was
recognized that they deserved dignity and a graceful transition
from an industry that was gradually and inevitably declining.
Only a Liberal government could dedicate 30 years to closing an
industry and still, at the end of those three decades, find
itself in the same position as when it started.
In 1999 we still see dependent communities, massive liabilities
and a new generation that was promised it had a future
underground.
What happened in those 30 years? What happened to the billions
of dollars the Liberals talk about when they say why Devco must
be sold? It went to their friends. Instead of trading miners
for new jobs, instead of helping the economy adjust to new
challenges, the government helped its friends get rich.
Some examples. Devco, a mining company, imported sheep. Cape
Bretoners joked that maybe Devco would now start to make steel
wool with the help of scrap from the Sydney steel plant. This is
economic development Liberal style, $250,000 into Liberal
pockets.
A cabinet minister built a pile of rocks three feet high around
the University College of Cape Breton; $400,000 into Liberal
pockets. Economic development Liberal style.
1855
Just last year, weeks before Devco's sale was announced and when
it was clear that the end was near, Devco's management bought $11
million worth of new equipment, new equipment needed for long
term development that management knew would never happen. That
money came from the $41 million given the corporation so it could
meet payroll until the end of March of this year.
Does a corporation that cannot pay its workers buy new and
unnecessary equipment? Only a corporation being run into the
ground by those paid to preserve it. Hundreds of miners were laid
off in 1998 while dozens of managers were hired.
This is the reality that Cape Bretoners have lived with for
decades, the impression of incompetence that reflects on all of
us but which is in fact a reflection of the incompetence of
management, of this Liberal government, because Cape Breton coal,
despite all the claims, has made money. For every dollar
invested it put five back. If we look at Devco's mining
operations and remove the workers compensation and environmental
liabilities, we see a profitable business, a business that will
now be passed to a private firm to extract private profit.
Managed mismanagement.
When a company sells off the part of its business that makes
money and keeps the part that loses money that is economic
development Liberal style.
Of course there is money to be made in Cape Breton. On December
17 a prominent Liberal registered an environmental cleaning
company and has hired a lobbyist, a gentleman well known to the
government and to the people of Cape Breton. Of course it would
be unfair for me to begrudge the former minister of health some
work. God knows we need jobs in Cape Breton.
With these examples I am sure members can appreciate the
frustration Cape Bretoners feel about the way Devco has been run
and now the way it is being closed.
I was not thrilled after more than a year of extending
invitations that the Minister of Natural Resources decided to
make two trips to Cape Breton in January, two trips a few hours
each. That is all he felt Cape Breton was worth. That is what he
thinks about nearly 2,000 jobs.
Now, in the weeks since the announcement, we see the latest
chapter in the Liberals' attempt to blame anyone but themselves
for this economic nightmare.
Is the government telling Cape Bretoners that it does not make
decisions based on economics?
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat
Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, in response to this question I
would like to input the following additional information the
member may not necessarily be aware of.
Last October the chairman of the Cape Breton Development
Corporation came to Ottawa to inform the Minister of Natural
Resources that Devco would indeed require $41 million in
additional funding to operate just until March 31, 1999.
However, at that time it was also apparent that this new
injection of funds into the corporation would not necessarily
resolve all its difficulties. It was clear that the government's
goal of commercial viability, set for Devco in 1996, was out of
reach.
This meant that the federal government had to review its long
term position on Devco and set a new direction. As part of that
review the Minister of Natural Resources asked Devco to look at
different options for its mining operations and discussions were
undertaken with the stakeholders to obtain their views on a new
direction for the corporation.
Many community leaders, Nova Scotia Power Inc., Devco's senior
management and board, the Premier of Nova Scotia and Devco's
unions provided input into the process.
On January 11, 1999 the minister accompanied by Senator Al
Graham and Senator Sister Peggy Butts visited Cape Breton and had
a day long meeting with the community and unions. These meetings
were very important to discuss a process for determining a new
direction for Devco and I understand that the hon. members from
Bras D'Or and Sydney—Victoria also participated.
Again on January 28, 1999 the minister went to Cape Breton and
personally addressed the miners and the community to announce the
government's final decision. The Minister of Natural Resources
believed it was important that he make the announcement directly
to those affected.
The government has approved $111 million in funding for the
human resources strategy which includes $60 million in pensions,
$46 million in severances, $5 million—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must interrupt. The
time has expired.
NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Madam Speaker, last week I
rose in the House on several occasions.
I provided the Minister of National Revenue with information with
respect to a consortium of environmentalists in British Columbia.
I provided him with a document and I asked him why these
organizations were continuing to receive charitable status, in
other words a tax holiday, particularly in light of the document
that had come into our hands.
1900
Essentially the document outlines about a dozen environmental
groups, many of them Canadian, that are involved in a strategy
which amounts to nothing more than an attack on mining in British
Columbia, and more specifically mining in my riding of Skeena.
The minister is aware of the participants. Some of them are the
Sierra Club, the Sierra Legal Defence Fund and the Suzuki
Foundation. There is a list of them. At least some of these
organizations are getting charitable tax status.
At the same time, and this is outlined in the document of which
I have a copy here, they are accepting huge contributions from
wealthy American corporate trusts and family trusts, hundreds of
thousands of dollars from American corporate and families trusts
in a paid campaign to attack a mine proposal in northwest British
Columbia.
Redfern Resources has a proposal called the Tulsequah Chief
Mine. It was actually an operating mine many years ago. It has
been dormant and the company wants to reopen it. It went through
a 3.5 year rigorous environmental review in which the federal and
provincial governments and all their various appropriate line
ministries participated. The state of Alaska participated in it.
Last year, at the end of that process, the Premier of British
Columbia publicly stated that the mine was to get approval to go
ahead.
The environmentalists have shifted gears. They do not want the
project approved. They do not care about the facts. They do not
care about the fact that there was an environmental review done.
They do not care about the science. They do not care about
truth. They do not care about balance. Above all, they do not
care about people, particularly the people in my riding who are
counting on that mine as an economic development opportunity.
They have joined forces with Alaska Governor Tony Knowles in
pressing for this project to be reviewed at the International
Joint Commission. Furthermore, the same Alaska Governor Tony
Knowles is an environmentalist and wants the project halted.
He is the same governor whose rapacious actions on Pacific
salmon have devastated many coastal communities in my riding and
have hurt recreational and commercial fishermen. Commercial
fisherman on the north coast are devastated as are commercial
sport fishing operations. Virtually all commercial sport fishing
operations were shut down last year. Aboriginal fishermen,
aboriginal people who are fishing for food, ceremonial and
commercial purposes, have been dramatically prejudiced by the
actions of the same governor whom the environmentalists want to
join in lockstep to shut down this mining opportunity in
northwest British Columbia.
It is clear these organizations may be getting charitable tax
status. I have given the minister the names of all the
organizations and asked him to provide me with that information,
but I am aware that some of them are getting charitable tax
status.
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is my pleasure to respond on behalf of the Minister
of National Revenue this evening to this question.
The member for Skeena is requesting that the charitable status
of the Sierra Legal Defence Fund Society, the David Suzuki
Foundation and the B.C. Spaces for Nature Society be revoked.
The member has stated that a leaked document reveals that a
number of Canadian environmental organizations including these
three registered charities are accepting contributions from
American corporate and family trusts.
He also stated the documents show that these charities are
counting on these funds to finance a smear campaign and
manipulate share prices of a Canadian company, Redfern Resources
Ltd., to scare off investors and kill a mining project, as he has
alluded to, in northern British Columbia, resulting in lost jobs
and investments in Canada.
These are indeed very serious allegations that could result in
severe consequences for these charities, even though it has not
yet been conclusively established that these charities have done
anything wrong.
The member has provided, as he said, the documents to Revenue
Canada. I can confirm that the Sierra Legal Defence Fund
Society, the David Suzuki Foundation and the B.C. Spaces for
Nature Society are indeed registered charities under the Income
Tax Act.
However, under the confidentiality provisions of the same Income
Tax Act, I cannot discuss the affairs of these charities or
indeed any actions the department may take in dealing with them.
The charitable sector should be an asset for all Canadians, and
parliament has recognized this by providing through our tax
system important financial support. To be registered as
charities they must have charitable purposes and we will ensure
that these are carried out properly in the country.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn
the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.05 p.m.)