36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 188
CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 3, 1999
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| KRISTIN WILLEMSEN
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| ENDANGERED SPECIES
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| JUNO AWARDS
|
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
| OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
|
| Hon. Sheila Finestone |
1405
| THE LATE JACK WEBSTER
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| CANADIAN SPACE AGENCY
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| WORLD PUPPETRY WEEK
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| BRITISH COLUMBIA FRUIT GROWERS
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
1410
| SUCH A LONG JOURNEY
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| SONS OF ITALY
|
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
| RACISM
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| PAY EQUITY
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1415
| YEAR 2000
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| BUDGET SURPLUSES
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| PENSIONS
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
1430
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1435
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1440
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1445
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION FUND
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| HEALTH
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1450
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| FAMILIES
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. David Price |
1455
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| MR. JUSTICE ROBERT FLAHIFF
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1500
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Decorum in the Chamber
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
1505
| The Speaker |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1510
| FIRST NATIONS OMBUDSMAN ACT
|
| Bill C-480. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| PETITIONS
|
| Customs
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| The Senate
|
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| The Senate
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1515
| Gasoline Additives
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Violent Crimes
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| The Senate
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Merchant Navy Veterans
|
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
| Pay Equity
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| Nuclear Weapons
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Health Care
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1520
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| THE BUDGET
|
| Financial Statement of Minister of Finance
|
| Budget motion
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1525
1530
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1535
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1540
1545
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1550
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
1555
1600
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1605
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. John Harvard |
1610
1615
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1620
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1625
1630
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1635
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1640
1645
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1650
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1655
1700
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1705
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Mr. David Pratt |
1710
1715
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1720
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1725
1730
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1735
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
1740
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1745
1750
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1755
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
1800
1805
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Mr. Jim Jones |
1810
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1815
1845
(Division 326)
| Motion agreed to
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| National Defence
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1850
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| Health Care
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1855
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 188
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, March 3, 1999
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Sackville—Eastern Shore.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
KRISTIN WILLEMSEN
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
has often been said that Canada's future is only as bright as its
youth. With teenagers like Stittsville's Kristin Willemsen in
our communities it makes the nation's outlook for the new
millennium that much better.
Ms. Willemsen was recently honoured with the 1998 Ontario Junior
Citizen of the Year Award by the Ontario Community Newspaper
Association for her outstanding contribution to her community.
Kristin is not your average teen. At just 15 she is an
inspiration to us all. She maintains an amazing 94.5% average in
her grade 10 studies at St. Paul's High School while being an
active member in a number of varsity sports and doubling as a
peer helper. She also volunteers at the local library, with the
community choir and she enjoys precision skating.
In short, Kristin's efforts enhance her school, her home and of
course our community. In the words of her nominator, “Kristin
is committed to the community and an excellent role model for all
youngsters”. That is one very good reason to be optimistic
about our future.
* * *
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
expected that this spring the environment minister will finally,
after many delays, be introducing legislation that will give our
endangered species the protection they so desperately need.
Before the minister tables this legislation I want to make one
thing crystal clear so she does not make the same mistakes that
her predecessors made.
Co-operation, not confrontation, is what will ensure the
prosperity of our threatened wildlife.
This government must work together with provinces and
landowners. It must recognize the responsible stewardship
practices of landowners and create an environment where these
practices are rewarded. It must respect private property rights
and provide fair compensation for those landowners affected by
endangered species recovery plans.
Wildlife is not protected by top-down command and control
government regulations. Wildlife is protected when the
government works with landowners through voluntary
incentive-based legislation. It is protected when all members of
society work together. It is time for our endangered species to
be given the kind of co-operation and protection they deserve.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Friday, March 5, I will be hosting a breakfast in my
riding to commemorate International Women's Day and to celebrate
the accomplishments of the women of Parkdale—High Park.
International Women's Day in Canada was born in the 1900s.
Women in large urban centres began fighting unsafe working
conditions, contesting low wages and the lack of job security.
In 1907 International Women's Day was first celebrated in
Copenhagen, Denmark, where thousands of women rallied and marched
in the streets.
Parkdale—High Park will celebrate the success of local women,
including Connie Dejak, Vice-President of the Runnymede Chronic
Care Hospital; Susan D'Olivera, of the Parkdale Community Watch;
Dorothy Grey from the Parkdale Community Station; Mary Jo Leddy,
a professor and refugee activist; award winning and critically
acclaimed actor Fiona Reid; and film and television producer Mary
Young-Leckie.
International Women's Day is a wonderful occasion to acknowledge
the progress made by women from all walks of life in the
advancement of gender equality, as well as an opportunity to
honour all women in our communities.
* * *
JUNO AWARDS
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
March 7, 1999 the great riding of Hamilton West will once again
host the Juno Awards. I cannot think of a better place to honour
our performers and to show our appreciation for Canada's best
musical talent.
Canadian music has never enjoyed more success at home and abroad
than right now. Canadian International Music Week, the week
leading up to the Junos, allows us to acknowledge Canadian talent
in an increasingly competitive world.
The tidal wave of sales and success for Alanis Morissette,
Céline Dion, Bryan Adams, Shania Twain, Sarah McLachlan and, dare
I say, the True Grit Band certainly have international music
industry observers wondering if there is something magical here.
There really is magic on the Canadian music scene. This week we
pay tribute not only to those artists who are currently reaching
the high notes, but also to hall of famers like Anne Murray,
Gordon Lightfoot, Glenn Gould, Buffy Ste. Marie, Maureen
Forester—there are just too many to list—and this year's
inductee, Luc Plamondon.
We don't need a million dollars to hear the rock, jazz and
Canadian folk music live on stage in Hamilton next week.
* * *
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
our two official languages are an essential value and part of our
Canadian identity.
[Translation]
This is why the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced
yesterday that the Government of Canada would be giving an
additional $70 million annually to promote linguistic duality.
The government is devoting its efforts to the optimum
development of official language minority communities throughout
the country.
[English]
This money will go to direct support for official language
minority community groups as well as to encouraging the delivery
of essential services such as health and job training and will
also be used to reinforce minority language education and second
language education.
This support helps more than 260,000 young people study in their
first language, while 2.7 million are learning their second
language. It ensures the further development of a network of 19
French language colleges and universities outside Quebec as well
as 8 English colleges and universities in Quebec.
[Translation]
This money will enhance the vitality of English and of French,
in accordance with the terms of sections 41 and 42 of the
Official Languages Act.
* * *
1405
[English]
THE LATE JACK WEBSTER
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, British Columbia broadcasting
legend Jack Webster passed away. Friends have said that Jack
probably would have wanted his obituary to state that he died on
Tuesday, March 2, at 10.18 a.m. precisely.
Jack Webster was born in Glasgow, Scotland in 1918 and
immigrated to Canada in 1947. He spent his life in reporting and
broadcast journalism. Canada remembers his face on CBC Front
Page Challenge.
Jack was a pioneer of open line radio on New Westminster's CKNW.
He was notorious for finding a molehill at 9 a.m. and building it
into a mountain by noon.
One story that separated Webster from the others was the 1963
riot at the B.C. Penitentiary. The prisoners demanded to speak
to either Prime Minister Lester Pearson or Webster. What
followed was an all-night negotiation session between Webster and
the inmates, a story that changed the country.
Jack Webster was never one to avoid a challenge or succumb to
political correctness. There is now a journalism award in his
honour. Canada will miss him. His irascible voice of courage
defined him as a great Canadian.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN SPACE AGENCY
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on March 1, the Prime Minister of Canada helped the
Canadian space agency celebrate its 10th birthday.
Canada has every reason to be proud of this concrete example of
excellence in a sector which generates over 5,000 jobs
throughout the country and revenues of $1.2 billion, 45% of this
from exports.
Since its creation, the Canadian space agency has spared no
effort to maintain a national vision of space, and this has
culminated in our developing lead roles as experts in such areas
as robotics and computerization.
Quebec, the Montreal region in particular, holds a special
position in this field, both nationally and internationally.
I wish the Canadian space agency a long life, and look forward
to our young people having the opportunity to become members of
this skilled team working toward an even greater program
focussing on—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Jonquière.
* * *
WORLD PUPPETRY WEEK
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
organizers of world puppetry week at Jonquière have been awarded
a prestigious prize, le prix Rideau, in the initiative category,
by the independent network of special event organizers.
This award goes to the organizers of an original event that has
attracted and developed a new audience.
As well, two particular productions within the 1998 festival
also attracted the attention of the provincial jury at the
Soirée des masques, Les enrobantes, presented by Populus
Mordicus, and the Théâtre de l'Oeil's Le Porteur.
The world puppetry festival was a great success for the city of
Jonquière and the region of Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean. My
congratulations to the organizers, and wishes for continuing
success for many years to come.
In conclusion, I extend an invitation to everyone to attend the
next edition of the festival, which will be held at Jonquière in
the year 2000.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
February 24, the Government of Canada announced that it will
give $110 million to Quebec farmers to ensure their financial
security.
Farmers in my riding of Brome—Missisquoi are very pleased about
this news. The program will be administered by the Quebec
government, through its own aid program for farmers hit by the
farm income crisis.
Back in December, the Canadian government had announced the
creation of a new program designed specifically to help those
affected by the international financial crisis, particularly on
the Asian market.
The Quebec Minister of Agriculture has joined the national
program.
This, in our view, is a fine example of co-operation between
Ottawa and Quebec City, something that will serve first and
foremost the interests of Quebec farmers.
* * *
[English]
BRITISH COLUMBIA FRUIT GROWERS
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Okanagan—Coquihalla to express
my concern over this government's gross neglect of the British
Columbia fruit growers.
About 5,000 jobs in the Okanagan Valley are directly linked to
the $700 million orchard industry. After two years of weather
related disasters, cash-strapped growers were looking to the
government's Agricultural Income Disaster Assistance program for
immediate relief.
After being told they would have to wait until the summer, the
growers have said enough is enough.
On March 15 the sound of chainsaws will ring through the
Okanagan Valley. Growers, who have nothing to lose, will cut
down their apple trees.
Financial relief is needed now, not in the summer, and long term
solutions like reduced taxation must be a priority. This is just
another example of Canadians paying more in taxes and getting
less in services. Will the Liberal government stop the March 15
Okanagan chainsaw massacre?
* * *
1410
[Translation]
SUCH A LONG JOURNEY
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank all the members of this House who will be among
the some 600 guests expected this evening for the showing of the
feature film entitled Such a Long Journey.
[English]
This feature film is the result of a pan-Canadian effort
involving Toronto based production company Film Works, as well as
director Sturla Gunarrsson and distributor Red Sky Entertainment,
both of Vancouver. The film has already achieved considerable
success with 12 Genie Award nominations, taking home three Genie
Awards, including best performance by an actor in the leading
role for Roshan Seth, who is with us today as well as others
involved in the making of this film.
Such a Long Journey is based on the internationally
acclaimed novel by Governor General Award winner Rohinton Mistry.
Set in Bombay in 1971, the year India went to war with Pakistan,
this feature film tells the story of a hard working bank clerk
and devoted family man who gradually sees his modest life
unravelling.
Please join me in wishing success to all of those who have
contributed to the making of Such a Long Journey.
* * *
SONS OF ITALY
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
founded in 1905, the Sons of Italy have been a vital cog in the
Canadian dynamic. Several chapters are in Ottawa today from
disparate parts of the country to celebrate the achievements of
Canada and to recognize the participation of Italian Canadians in
the development of the country.
Italian adventurers and entrepreneurs accompanied voyageurs in
the 17th century, fought alongside Montcalm and Vaudreuil in the
18th century, and in the 19th and 20th century Italian Canadian
settlers immersed themselves in the agricultural, mining,
forestry and transportation industries in emerging Vancouver,
Trail, Canmore, Calgary, Winnipeg, Thunder Bay, Sudbury,
Hamilton, Toronto, Montreal, Sydney and elsewhere.
Their descendants have become respected entrepreneurs,
professionals, academics, jurists, doctors, politicians—leaders
in strengthening the fabric of Canadian society. Their Canadian
experience has always been marked by a sense of personal
responsibility, sacrifice, self-reliance and civic duty, no
matter the challenge or the hostility.
I join all colleagues today in saluting the representatives of
the Sons of Italy, some of Canada's most valuable, dedicated and
energetic pioneers.
* * *
RACISM
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's legal system is as white as an Ottawa blizzard. Racism
infects Canada's legal system and it is not getting any
healthier.
A Nova Scotia study says that the chances of a person of colour
being hired by the firm where they articled are virtually nil.
As well, white men are twice as likely as women to be hired by
the firm at which they articled.
How are visible minorities reflected in the number of judges
appointed by this federal government?
The Canadian Bar Association admits that this plague of racism
in our legal profession infects the whole system, from law school
admission tests to hiring practices to appointments. Each and
every member of parliament has both the moral obligation and
political duty to fight racism in their own lives and communities
and in all federal operations.
Our bill of rights outlines freedoms “without discrimination by
reason of race, national origin, colour”. Canada's legal
profession miserably fails the test of our bill of rights.
* * *
[Translation]
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise and tell the House some very important news for
the pharmaceutical industry in Canada and in Quebec. Technilab
Pharma has bought out AltiMed Pharmaceutical, an Ontario
company.
Technilab Pharma, a company that was founded in 1974 and has its
headquarters in Mirabel in my riding, will now be the
third-ranking generic drug manufacturer in terms of revenues and
the fourth-ranking pharmaceutical company in terms of number of
prescriptions filled by pharmacists across Canada.
Technilab Pharma expects to more than double its annual revenues
to $160 million and currently employs 350 people in its three
plants.
Congratulations to this leader of the pharmaceutical industry
for its contribution, on the economic level, to the health of
all Canadians.
* * *
[English]
PAY EQUITY
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, one
of the demands of striking federal public servants in my riding
is that they should be paid the same in all regions of the
country. However, at this very moment a federal electrician in
Newfoundland, doing exactly the same job as his counterpart in
British Columbia, gets $4 an hour less.
This is the policy of the same government that recently changed
our health transfers to a per capita basis, saying it wanted to
make all Canadians equal no matter where they lived. If the cost
is the same per capita in all regions of the country to build and
equip hospitals, to hire nurses and doctors, why does it not cost
the same all over the country to hire an electrician?
I support pay equity. Glaring pay inequities, be they gender
based or geography based, are a disgrace and should be eradicated
from the public service of Canada.
* * *
1415
YEAR 2000
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
pleased to read an article in the Financial Post today
which indicated that a special United States senate committee
investigating the year 2000 computer problem found that Canada is
among the top ranked countries in the world in terms of its year
2000 preparedness. The U.S. senate committee found that 70% of
Canadian businesses and 94% of medium and large companies have
launched programs aimed at heading off the year 2000 problem. It
estimated that Canadian companies have spent over $18 billion
U.S. so far to ensure year 2000 compliance.
The members of the industry committee have worked hard on this
issue and continue to monitor the year 2000 progress of business
and services for consumers. We commend the Minister of Industry,
his department and the private sector task force for ensuring
that companies across Canada are aware of this potential problem
and are taking steps to ensure that January 1, 2000 will arrive
with little disruption.
With less than 10 months to go, let us continue to work toward
eradicating the problem with the possible millennium bug.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Secretary of State for International
Financial Institutions took a swipe at parents who stay home with
their children. He said they do not work as hard as parents who
work outside the home, that their expenses are smaller, and that
is why the Liberal government discriminates against them in the
tax system.
Will the Prime Minister explain to the millions of Canadian
parents who stay home with their children why their work and
their financial position are of such little value to this
government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the secretary of state explained himself very clearly
this morning and I am very surprised to see the Reform Party
raising the question today about support for families.
Where was the Reform Party's support for families when its
members voted against the child tax benefit in this House? They
voted against increased funding for the community action program
for children. They voted against increasing funding for the
prenatal nutrition program. They voted against making child
support payments tax exempt for recipients. They wanted to
dismantle CPP and employment—
Some hon. members: Shame.
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, obviously the Prime Minister was not listening
yesterday. His minister was asked why government tax policy
discriminates against stay at home parents and he did not deny
the discrimination. Instead he justified it by saying “Well,
they don't work as hard as parents outside the home”.
Is this the reason the government continues to discriminate
against stay at home parents in its tax policies and in its
budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have known the secretary of state for a long time. In
everything that he has done he has shown an acute sensitivity and
a great appreciation for the work of Canadians, whether their
workplace be in the home or outside the home.
Anyone who has any doubt of that only has to look at the
transcripts of when he was the chairman of the House of Commons
finance committee, when time and time again he fought for the
rights of children against the Reform Party.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, whenever the finance minister starts to bellow like
that I am reminded of the preacher who wrote in his notes
“Argument weak here, yell like hell”.
I want to ask the finance minister, which weakness in his budget
is he trying to cover? Is he trying to cover the establishment
of two tier health care? Is he trying to cover the highest
income tax rates in the western world? Or is he trying to cover
discrimination against stay at home parents?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have a record of voting for the protection of the
family in this House. It is not only speeches. It is action
that this government has provided.
The only marriage that the Reform Party is interested in is the
marriage with the Progressive Conservatives, and Joe Clark will
not give them bedroom privileges.
1420
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if
only it were so easy as to try to explain this. The government's
real agenda is that next week it is going to the UN in New York
City to argue the tax discrimination against stay at home parents
is really okay. The Prime Minister's lawyers will be arguing
that tax fairness for stay at home parents would reduce their
incentive to work. Maybe he did give the government's position
yesterday.
Is the Prime Minister really telling us that he thinks these
moms and dads are lazy and that they do not perform any real
work?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure
the House and all Canadians that it was never my intention to
convey the impression that a person who stays at home does not
work. This was never my intention. This is not what I meant and
this has never been my belief.
The role of a partner who works in the home can be even far more
demanding than the role of one who has to go outside the house to
work.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to clarify my
words of yesterday.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is great. If that is not what he meant and it was just an
oops, perhaps he could change the law to make those differences.
This was a stupid, idiotic remark yesterday from a chauvinistic
minister. He cannot just explain it away.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I ask the member to go to
her question.
Miss Deborah Grey: Yes, I surely will, Mr. Speaker. They
are saying that stay at home parents and the whole tax fairness
issue would reduce their incentive to work.
Why does not the Prime Minister just admit that he honestly
feels single income families and stay at home parents should be
punished with extra taxes? Who is going to admit it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have a progressive tax system in Canada. I know the
Reform Party is not interested in looking into the facts.
We have introduced legislation to help the family. The programs
we have introduced are helping those families where one spouse
stays home to take care of the children. We have new initiatives
for them and the Reform Party votes against them all the time.
* * *
[Translation]
BUDGET SURPLUSES
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
repeatedly, including on October 1 in this House, the Minister
of Finance has said that the surpluses in the employment
insurance fund are justified in order to offset hard times or a
possible and hypothetical recession.
How can the Minister of Finance say that surpluses must be
accumulated for rainy days, when the Minister of Human Resources
Development said last week that there was no surplus, that they
had been spent and that the money did not exist any more?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first
we must look at what this government has done.
When we came to office, employment insurance contributions were
$3.07. Today, they are $2.55. That represents over $3.5
billion we are giving to employers, employees and SMBs in
Canada.
At the same time, we have to look at the employment figures.
The level of unemployment in Canada is 7.8%. That is why things
are going well in Canada and why things are going well when we
start talking about an economy that works.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister could have said it is snowing today, because what he
has just told me has nothing to do with the question.
If there is no more money, if the fund is empty, if the
employment insurance surpluses have been spent, what does the
Minister of Finance propose to do in the event of a recession?
Will he return to a deficit situation? Will he again cut
benefits to the unemployed or will he increase employers' and
employees' contributions to the employment insurance fund? If
there is no more money, what solution will the minister choose?
1425
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
the last recession, the fund was running at a $6 billion
deficit. Today, it has a surplus, and that is a good thing,
because it provides us with a bond for the future.
Deficit and recession were mentioned. Let us look at job
creation: over 1.5 million new jobs, including over 525,000 new
jobs in the past thirteen months. Canada is creating jobs
faster than any other country, and the opposition leader is
talking about recession.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
interesting to hear the Minister of Finance telling us there
will not be a recession, that everything is fine in Canada, that
unemployment is going down.
In his last budget, on page 64, the Minister predicts a $1.3
billion increase in employment insurance benefits in 1999-2000.
Since the Minister of Finance is telling us that unemployment is
going down, how can he explain such an increase in benefits for
this year? Is he going to enhance the program, or is he going
to hide surpluses from us once again?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
because salaries are increasing, which is the best thing that
could happen for Canada.
The hon. member is not pleased by that, but I like to see
salaries in Canada increasing.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what
he is not telling us is that, according to the chief actuary,
there will be a 2.5% increase in earnings, while he is
increasing employment insurance benefits by 11%. His answer
does not hold up.
Is he again telling us that, as in past years, he is again going
to conceal the surpluses he is taking out of the pockets of the
unemployed?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely obvious that,
as salaries increase, as the economy grows, as the work force
increases by 1.5 million, inevitably we will also see benefits
increase, as there will be far more people in the workforce who
could lose their jobs.
This is how we need to do advance calculations. This is the
proof of a dynamic economy.
* * *
[English]
PENSIONS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, first it
was the unemployment insurance surplus. Now it is the pension
fund. The government has never seen a pot of money that it did
not want to raid.
The public pension plan was created to pay pensioners, not to
pay government. Let us remember that the majority of pensioners
are women.
What is the scheme? Government raids the surplus and then
raises contributions. Why should these workers have to pay twice
for these pensions?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as my colleague should understand, because I have said it a
number of times and I will say it again, public sector pension
plans are legislated that the outcome, which is the payout to
employees, is guaranteed by law.
In the past when there were deficits, for instance when the plan
was indexed and the liabilities suddenly increased by close to $8
billion, it was the government and the taxpayers who paid for it.
Because it is a legislated plan and a guaranteed outcome, every
cent of that surplus belongs to taxpayers.
[Translation]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the surplus
in the employment insurance fund has disappeared. One-third of
the federal employees' pension fund has been spent. The surplus
in the Canada pension plan is going up. From whom will the
government take money next, after the workers?
Is the government now going to tell retirees that it's “Goodbye,
Charlie Brown”?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have
said on numerous occasions, but will say again, the government
pension plan is covered by legislation, and public sector
employees have their pension plan benefits guaranteed by law.
All the risks are assumed by the government, and hence by the
taxpayers. Every time there has been a deficit in the public
service pension plan, the government has made it up. For
example, when the plan was indexed, there was an $8 billion
deficit and the government was the one that made it up. The
surplus therefore belongs to the taxpayers.
* * *
1430
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday Canadians were appalled to hear the Secretary of State
for International Financial Institutions say that two income
families are putting in twice the amount of work of single earner
families.
If the Minister of Finance genuinely disagrees with the
statement yesterday of the Secretary of State or International
Financial Institutions that two income families deserve special
tax treatment, why does he not give the tax relief that Canadians
deserve to all Canadians families?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows that is not what I said, but let
me repeat it for his benefit. What I said was that I have known
the secretary of state for a long time.
If the hon. member would like to go back and look at the
transcripts when the secretary of state was the chairman of the
House of Commons finance committee, what he will see is a member
of parliament, a member of the House and a member of the
government who consistently fought for Canadian families, who
consistently fought for Canadian children. He did not do it with
any help from the hon. member or any of his ilk.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask all hon. members
to be very judicious in their choice of words.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
secretary of state probably also said he would abolish the GST
when he was in opposition. The fact is that the C. D. Howe
Institute has calculated that a two income family with two
children will pay $14,000 more in tax than a single earner family
in Canada.
If the minister agrees that stay at home parenting is real work,
why does he not eliminate his discriminatory tax policy that
punishes stay at home parents?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if my word was unparliamentary, I apologize. It is very
hard to figure out what to say about them.
In essence we have a progressive tax system. If the hon. member
does not agree with a progressive tax system, let him stand in
the House and say it.
How do we make sure that Canadian children are taken care of and
are best protected? That is what the government has worked on.
That is why we brought in the child tax credit. That is why we
brought in the other measures.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
can assure the finance minister that this tax system is
regressive for single income families.
This is more than just about the junior minister's foot in mouth
disease. The senior minister is not blameless in this whole
episode either. Two weeks ago he brought in a budget and
entrenched the discrimination against single income families. It
actually got worse in the last budget.
What is the minister's excuse? He cannot blame this simply on a
slip of the tongue.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our tax system is based on two principles, progressivity
and individual taxation.
If the hon. member opposite does not agree with progressivity
and believes in fact that higher income Canadians should be taxed
at a lower rate than lower income Canadians, let him stand in the
House and say so.
If the hon. member believes that in fact we should be taxing not
on an individual basis but on a family income basis, that a lower
income spouse should be taxed at his or her higher income
spouse's tax rate, let him stand in the House and say that. What
is their agenda?
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe the government has an obligation to show that it values
parenting. It has an obligation to treat single income families
like they have some value when they stay home to look after their
children.
What is the matter with that? Why can Canadians not be treated
fairly so that when they stay home and look after their children
the government shows through the tax system that is a good thing?
In budget after budget the government has chosen to discriminate
against those families. How can it do that? How can it justify
that?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is almost obscene to hear the Reform Party cry
crocodile tears about children.
The Prime Minister gave a list. Let us just go on. Why then is
the Reform Party seeking to dismantle the maternity benefits and
the paternity benefits in the Canada pension plan? Why did
members of the Reform Party vote against the way in which we
reversed the taxation of child support payments to benefit
children? Why do they want to cut welfare payments? Why do
they want to cut equalization payments?
1435
The fact is that every single day since the Reform Party was
elected along with the government in 1993 it has fought against
kids and it is—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, people have had enough of watching the
Minister of Finance tinker with the employment insurance fund,
alter the figures and make up new twisted excuses to continue to
take more than $6 billion per year from the EI fund, at the
expense of workers, businesses and the unemployed.
Does the Minister of Finance agree with his colleague, the
Minister of Human Resources Development, who said on Monday that
the Bloc Quebecois proposal to turn the employment insurance
fund into an independent fund is an interesting suggestion?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said that, as a government, we
had clearly launched a debate in recent months, and the public
is taking part in it. The Bloc Quebecois told us it would like
to see an independent fund, such as what they have in France.
I said “there is an interesting suggestion” because it is indeed
an interesting idea. But it does not mean it is the only
solution.
I also reminded the Bloc Quebecois that when the fund was
running a deficit, they never proposed the creation of an
independent fund. I also asked them to think about the impact of
an independent fund. Should it run a deficit, what would be the
position—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance knows that the
employment insurance fund paid back to the government all the
money borrowed, including the interest, and that this year the
fund will have an accumulated surplus of close to $25 billion.
Again, is it not time to remove the employment insurance fund
from the hands of the Minister of Finance and of the Minister of
Human Resources Development and turn it into an independent fund
that would be run by those who pay into it?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one thing: the
system that has been in effect since 1986 in Canada remains in
effect.
The Minister of Finance pays interest each year on the money
that comes from the employment insurance fund, as stipulated in
1986 by the auditor general.
Therefore, all these claims by the Bloc Quebecois to the effect
that money is being stolen are utterly false, since we
rigorously pay interest on that money, as we must.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the junior finance minister told us that the government
does not value the work of parents who stay at home. Let me tell
the government that the most important work in the world is done
by parents who stay at home and raise future generations.
It was not just a slip of the tongue. I have in my hand a memo
from the Prime Minister's Office which says that the assumption
that increased tax deductions will encourage parents to quit
their jobs and return to the kitchen is naive.
Why does the government perpetuate these kinds of negative
prejudicial stereotypes about parents who make sacrifices to do
what is best for their kids?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the preamble to the hon. member's question is simply
nonsense. The issue is how best can Canadians take care of their
children and what is the role of the state.
I have asked the hon. member and his party whether they are
against progressive taxation. We have had no answer. I have
asked the hon. member whether they are against individual
taxation. We have had no answer.
The one thing on which we have had an answer is that the
government brought in the child tax benefit and its improvements.
These apply to Canadians who work in the home and to Canadians
who work outside the home. We know that the Reform Party opposed
it.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we are for progressive taxation. Maybe the minister could tell
Canadian stay at home parents what is progressive about a system
that discriminates against their choice to raise their kids at
home.
Maybe the minister could tell us whether or not he will continue
to penalize those families by increasing the deduction for child
care and not extending it to all families including those who
stay at home.
Maybe the minister could tell us whether or not he will allow a
free vote for the members of his party when we put forward a
supply day motion tomorrow allowing for tax fairness for all
families.
1440
The Speaker: Order. The question of course is out of
order but the hon. Minister of Finance may answer it if he wants.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for well over five years, the essential debates that
have taken place in terms of how to protect children have taken
place within this caucus, whether it be the member for
Mississauga South, whether it be the women's caucus of this party
or whether it be our social caucus.
The fact is every progressive idea has come from this side of
the House and on that side of the House they have reacted
negatively to everything.
To stand up here today with crocodile tears pretending that they
are interested in the future of our children is simply not on and
it will not be bought by any Canadian.
* * *
[Translation]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
Monday, the Government of Quebec requested full responsibility
over the selection of temporary workers to complement the powers
it recently acquired as part of manpower training.
Could the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tell us
whether she intends to respond favourably to the request by
Quebec, which wants to assume the responsibility involved when
temporary workers come to Quebec.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity
to inform the members of this House that I met all of my
provincial counterparts responsible for immigration matters to
get their reaction to the new directions the government is
taking regarding legislation on immigration and refugee
protection.
That said, I also met my counterpart from Quebec, who shared his
opinions on the government's policies. Let me say that I was
delighted to see that the Canada-Quebec agreement currently in
force was very well received. Naturally, we already knew, but
it has been praised by the new minister of immigration.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
think the minister is a bit tired.
While there is a natural generally acknowledged link between
immigration policy and manpower policy, will the minister not
agree that Quebec should have control over the validation of
temporary job offers, if it is to maintain consistent policy on
manpower and the labour market?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed, those working hard as
an MP and a minister can at times become tired. We might wonder
about those who do not.
We are open to all suggestions and to reviewing the Quebec-Canada
agreement. If the Bloc member is suggesting the agreement be
reopened, I would be pleased to look at it, but with the
Government of Quebec only.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister is in full damage control mode. He
has been asked four or five questions about an obviously
discriminatory tax position in the government's tax policy and he
has not answered. I ask him one more time why did his 1999
budget make things worse rather than better for stay at home
parents?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is simply
wrong. The fact is we brought in a $300 million addition to the
child tax benefit which goes directly to middle income Canadians
whether their workplace is at home or outside the home.
If the hon. member wants to talk about damage control, it is a
fact that on the whim of the Reform, suddenly it decides it is
interested in children. For five years it has been against
children. For five years it has talked only about the deficit.
While we were fighting the deficit and at the same time
protecting kids and protecting Canadian families with children,
the Reform Party opposed every single measure.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, these are the facts. A two income family and a one
income family, each with children, each earning $50,000 a year,
are taxed differently by this government.
The one income family is penalized up to $4,000 more than the two
income family.
1445
If the finance minister does not believe in that discrimination,
why does he not change his tax policy which is at the root of it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have made it very clear, following on the work that
has been done within this caucus and within the various
departments, that what we want is the finance department this
year to work very heavily on those things we can do to help
families with children, improvements to the child tax benefit and
others.
If the hon. member believes that the solution is not things like
the child tax benefit, I simply ask him is he now saying that he
no longer believes in progressive taxation? Is he now saying
that he no longer believes in taxation of the individual? Does
he believe that somebody who is earning $25,000 a year—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.
* * *
[Translation]
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION FUND
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the federal government's foot-dragging in the Singer affair was
difficult to comprehend. But things are clearer now that we
know that the government plans to treat its own employees the
same way and pocket the surplus in their pension fund.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: That is dishonest.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne: Does the President of the Treasury Board
in fact intend to engage in a new confrontation with public
servants over the surplus in their pension fund, just as he is
now at daggers drawn with blue collar workers, women,
professionals and retired employees of the public service?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again,
I must repeat that the public service pension plan is a
legislated fund and thus differs legally from a private sector
pension plan.
All the risks associated with the public service pension plan
are assumed by the government. When there is a deficit, the
government picks up the whole tab. Through legislation, the
government has guaranteed the benefits of employees receiving
pensions. These pensions are guaranteed by the government.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health. There are indications
that marijuana could be beneficial for the relief of pain and
nausea in cancer, AIDS, MS and glaucoma patients. Is the
minister supportive of making marijuana medically available to
persons in medical need and of supporting research into the
medical effectiveness of marijuana?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member for London West has done a great deal to advance this
issue. This government is aware there are Canadians suffering,
who have terminal illnesses, who believe that using medical
marijuana can help ease their symptoms. We want to help.
As a result, I have asked my officials to develop a plan that
will include clinical trials for medical marijuana, appropriate
guidelines for its medical use and access to a safe supply of
this drug.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday Senator Carstairs threatened to hold the work of the
House hostage if senators do not get their funding increase.
Appointed senators intend to restrict the activity of the House
of Commons but it is our responsibility to be accountable for the
spending of hard earned tax dollars.
Will the Prime Minister publicly rebuke Senator Carstairs for
her remarks?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1450
The Speaker: I will permit the hon. House leader to
answer the question.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the
question from the hon. member when he is questioning the
estimates of the other place. We know of course that he is
almost virtually everything around here, but he and the House
should know that a good portion of what is in our estimates are
the salaries of the employees of the other place. Among other
things he is now against the employees of Parliament Hill.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. I think we are going down a path
here that is getting a little slippery. I ask the hon. member to
pose his second question but to please be very judicious.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, to add
insult to injury, the Senate is threatening to go on strike. Who
would notice? Yet it is demanding $3 million more. That type of
ransom is out of line.
Is the Prime Minister allowing the unaccountable Senate to wag
the elected dog?
The Speaker: I judge the question to be out of order. If
the Prime Minister wishes to answer the question, I will permit
him to do so.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I remember not long ago we wanted to reform the Senate
and they opposed it. They never take a very long view of things,
like earlier today. They voted against every change in the law
to help the family. Now they have changed their minds. They
voted against Senate reform. Now they are complaining about what
they voted for.
* * *
FAMILIES
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the finance minister. While the Liberal and
Reform parties argue about who gets the benefits, parents who
work outside the home or parents who work inside the home, the
real story is the kids get the short end of the stick.
Parents who stay home with their children get no help from this
government and parents who work outside the home are being forced
to work longer and longer hours to make ends meet and have less
time to spend with their kids.
What will this government do to relieve the stress on Canadian
parents and support children?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is precisely the point we have been trying to make
to the Reform Party, that what is really important here are
Canadian children.
That is why as a government we brought in the child tax benefit.
That is why we brought in increased funding for the community
action program for children. That is why we brought in the
prenatal nutrition program, all these items. That is why we
protected maternity and paternity benefits in the Canada pension
plan against the onslaught of the Reform Party, precisely because
the end game here is the welfare of Canadian children.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
fact is the child tax benefit does not even begin to do the job.
Last month Tom Kent, one of the architects of Canadian social
programs, issued a study on how we can support children and
families. He called on the government to introduce a universally
accessible early childhood education program.
Will the minister listen to the architect of Canadian social
programs instead of destroying the social programs that we have
had and support Canadian children and their families?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the time we moved with
the national child benefit our government had conducted extensive
consultations across the land and many experts advised us on the
very way that has been chosen by this government to help
children. There is $2 billion invested in it per year on top of
what we were doing.
I remind the member that all provincial governments are
participating in it and think it is an extraordinary program
helping children and making the provinces and the Government of
Canada work together better for Canadian children.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the late Captain Peter Musselman was a Labrador pilot who took
this Liberal government at its word and signed a pilot terminable
allowance entitling him to a bonus of $25,000 a year for three
years.
1455
He was killed less than a year ago in the Labrador 305
explosion in Gaspe.
Will the minister explain to this House why this man's family is
not entitled to the remaining $50,000?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to look into the
particulars of the case the member is talking about.
While he has raised the matter I should note that the
investigation is still underway with respect to the Labrador
crash. It was a tragic event. We do not want that to happen
again. We want to get to the bottom of it as quickly as possible
so that if any action needs to be taken to rectify the matter in
terms of the safety of our aircraft it will be taken. The safety
of our pilots is of utmost importance to us.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
this does not have anything to do with the crash itself. It is
the family.
Families of Canadian forces members who lose their life on duty,
such as Captain Musselman, are entitled to a supplementary death
benefit equal to two year's salary. The pilot terminable
allowance was a three year bonus on his salary. I think we owe
his family.
Will the minister ensure that this man's family receives the
$50,000 remaining in his PTA? Let us do it right for a change.
Please, yes or no?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated a moment ago, I will look
into the matter and advise the hon. member accordingly.
We want to do all we can to support the family which has
suffered such a great loss.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Last December the International Court of Justice rejected
Spain's suit against Canada in the fisheries jurisdiction case.
The verdict removed earlier questions as to the effect of the
1982 UN convention on the law of the sea on Canada's legal case
before the court.
Will the minister consider proceeding now to ratification of the
convention?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, Canada has taken a very active
role in securing a UN convention to protect straddling stocks,
those fishing stocks that are on the 200 mile zone border or on
the high seas. We are now actively pursuing a negotiation to get
it fully ratified.
I can tell the hon. member that once that enforcement regime is
put in place to protect and conserve fishing stocks, Canada will
be in a position to ratify the law of the sea convention.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the health
minister just made an announcement that he will allow the
compassionate use of smoked marijuana for those who are ill.
Is this the first step in the Liberal government's
decriminalizing marijuana for other purposes?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what I said is I have asked officials to develop a plan that
would include access to clinical trials so we can look at
evidence. Surely the hon. member's mind is not so closed that he
is not prepared to consider evidence from research into the
question.
There are people who are dying. They want access to something
they believe will help with their symptoms. We want to help.
Clinical trials would allow us to get research to know more about
how we can help.
* * *
[Translation]
MR. JUSTICE ROBERT FLAHIFF
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
will soon be two years since Mr. Justice Robert Flahiff was
suspended with full salary of $178, 500, while defending himself
against money laundering charges which have just culminated in a
three year prison sentence.
Can the Minister of Justice tell us how this judge, who has just
been given a prison sentence, can continue to draw a full salary
and benefits, at the taxpayers' expense?
[English]
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as has been said in the House, the minister has put a complaint
before the Canadian Judicial Council. The complaint is still
before it. The case of the judge is in appeal.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday three members of the RCMP commercial crime
squad in B.C. executed a search warrant on the home of the
premier, accompanied to his door by two journalists from BCTV.
In view of the seriousness of this matter will the solicitor
general fully review the circumstances that led to the presence
of the media with the RCMP and will he clarify the policy of the
RCMP with respect to this apparent collusion between the RCMP and
the media?
1500
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague is well aware, the
RCMP was acting under its provincial capacity which comes under
the direction of the attorney general of British Columbia.
* * *
[Translation]
TAXATION
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, the way
the Secretary of State for Financial Institutions insulted women
who work in the home yesterday shows just how totally
disconnected from the reality of Canadian families this
government is.
His words are on record, we have heard them, and all Canadian
families have heard them. His response ought to be simple.
Will the secretary of state offer his apologies to homemakers
for his offensive remarks about them?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member is a bit late. First of all, the secretary of state
has already responded to this question numerous times here in
the House, and very well too. I myself have also responded.
I can say that I have known the secretary of state for a very
long time and that he has always been very much aware of work in
the home and outside the home. When he headed the Standing
Committee on Finance, he fought very hard for the children of
Canada.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
DECORUM IN THE CHAMBER
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a
few years ago, when Mr. Fraser was the Speaker of the House, he
struck a committee which deliberated on matters of vocabulary,
proper dress in the House and the importance of mutual respect
among members. The committee no longer exists, but I have the
strong impression that it should be re-established after what I
heard today in the House.
I would mention that the member for Papineau—Saint-Denis, who,
when I put a question shouted, or should I say, yelled, “That is
dishonest”.
1505
Mr. Speaker, I ask you to have the minister at least withdraw
his words and I strongly suggest that the committee, which
served a purpose at the time, be re-established.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The member has raised two
points. I was not aware that there used to be a committee to
review the language used by members of the House.
In my opinion, it is a very good idea, because it would be of
help during Oral Question Period, and not just then. If hon.
members wish such a committee, perhaps the best place to discuss
it would be with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs.
The hon. member also mentioned that another member had “yelled”,
I think was her word. The hon. member is not here, at least I
do not see him. We could ask the member if he used the word
“dishonest”. I did not hear it myself.
An hon. member: He is here, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: He is here, I am sorry.
I did not hear the word “dishonest”. I do not know how he used
it. However, before turning the floor over to the hon. minister,
I merely wish to point out to members that I hear yelling from
several of our members on both sides of the House from time to
time, and that this is not acceptable in this place.
I agree with the hon. member that, when a question is asked, we
should listen to it, and when an answer is given, we should
listen to that too.
Now, If the hon. minister wishes to add something, he has the
floor.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I should not have used the word
“dishonest” in fact, but it is not as bad as “thief”,
“liar” and whatnot that we constantly hear from the members
opposite.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. May I say that the hon. minister
withdraws the word?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word
dishonest.
The Speaker: Thank you. In my opinion that ends this point of
order, but the hon. member's suggestion is a good one and I
hope—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I do not often get an opportunity
to speak, so members should listen to me a bit. If I wish to say
something, I would ask members to listen to what I have to say.
If this committee were to be struck again, I would be very
pleased.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
* * *
1510
[English]
FIRST NATIONS OMBUDSMAN ACT
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-480, an act to establish the office of first
nations Ombudsman to investigate complaints relating to
administrative and communication problems between members of
first nations communities and their first nation and between
first nations, allegations of improper financial administration
and allegations of electoral irregularities.
He said: Mr. Speaker, indeed it gives me pleasure to table this
private member's bill, an act to establish the office of First
Nations Ombudsman to investigate complaints relating to
administrative and communication problems between members of
First Nations communities and their First Nation and between
First Nations, allegations of improper financial administration
and allegations of electoral irregularities.
Leona Freed and Rita Galloway were in town yesterday. They were
talking to us about the problems they are facing on the reserves.
They have asked for an ombudsman. This bill will do that. I have
heard favourable comments from government members and the press
that it might be a solution to deal with these problems. I am
looking for support from all sides of the House to get this bill
into action as quickly as we can.
I congratulate the people in the accountability coalition group
for initiating this and I am honoured to present it on their
behalf.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
CUSTOMS
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition, mainly from people
in the city of Estevan in my constituency, who are asking that
the hours of entry at the port of No. 47 highway which is
directly south of Estevan be extended. A number of Americans are
coming north to shop in this progressive city. I am very proud to
present this petition at this time.
THE SENATE
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to present a petition duly certified which contains
about 1,500 names of people from my riding and from the province
of Quebec. It notes that the Senate of Canada costs taxpayers
some $50 million a year, that it is redundant, that it undermines
the role of MPs in the House of Commons, and that there is a need
to modernize our parliamentary institutions. It calls upon
parliament to undertake measures aimed at the abolition of the
Senate.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I too have a petition surprisingly signed by 104 people,
I guess representing 104 senators. I notice they are from
Hamilton, London, and Grimsby, Ontario; and Saskatoon, Regina,
and Pilot Butte, Saskatchewan; and so on. These people are
saying the Senate is undemocratic, unelected, unaccountable and
costs the Canadian people some $50 million a year. They are
saying it undermines the role of MPs in the House of Commons.
They want to modernize parliamentary institutions. Because of
that, these 104 people are calling upon the House of Commons to
begin the process of abolition of the Senate.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition
signed by a number of Canadians, including from my own
constituency of Mississauga South, on the subject of human
rights.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that human rights abuses continue to be rampant around the world
in countries such as Indonesia. They also point out that Canada
continues to be recognized as the champion of human rights around
the world. Therefore they call upon parliament to continue to
condemn human rights abuses around the world and also to seek to
bring to justice those responsible for such abuses.
THE SENATE
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I too
have a petition on behalf of a number of western Canadians who
want to voice their dissatisfaction. They desire to see the
abolition of the Senate. They consider it an undemocratic
institution and it is not doing the job it should be doing for
Canadians.
1515
GASOLINE ADDITIVES
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am honoured to present
two petitions signed by residents of the Windsor and Grand Bend
area.
They urge parliament to ban the gasoline additive MMT, noting
that it is not used in Europe and most American states as it
clogs emission control devices in vehicles and is opposed by all
major car companies.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present the following
petitions which come from concerned citizens in my riding of
Lethbridge, Alberta.
The petitioners call upon parliament to enact Bill C-225, an act
to amend the Marriage Act in order to define in statute that a
marriage can only be entered into by a single male and a single
female. It is my pleasure to support them.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Lethbridge has
been here long enough to know that his support or otherwise of
the petition is uncalled for in the presentation of petitions. I
know he would want to comply with the rules in every respect.
VIOLENT CRIMES
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition signed by
constituents of Windsor West.
The petition requests that parliament introduce legislation to
publicly acknowledge offenders of violent crimes.
THE SENATE
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure on behalf of many constituents in the
province of Saskatchewan in communities like Rama, Invermay,
Margo and Hazel Dell to present a petition to let the House of
Commons know that they are sick and tired of the waste of $50
million a year on the Senate.
They think this is an undemocratic place where only friends of
the Prime Minister are appointed and that they are unaccountable.
They want the House of Commons to commence action to abolish this
terrible waste of taxpayers money on the Senate.
MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition from 55 of my constituents from
places like Bowmanville, Orono and Newcastle who were members of
our merchant navy during the second world war and Korea.
They call on parliament to act now to compensate merchant navy
veterans for their services and hardship after serving on
Canadian and allied ships during World War II and Korea.
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to present a petition on behalf of residents of
Edmonton and Calgary on pay equity.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the
honour to present a petition on behalf of Manitobans, some of
whom are my constituents, who are concerned about the possible
sale of Candu nuclear reactors to Turkey.
The petitioners point out that the reactors would be located in
a seismic area known for frequent earthquakes. The petitioners
are concerned about a possible nuclear accident that would affect
not only Turkey but neighbouring countries.
They also contend that Turkey is a state that does not respect
the human rights of its citizens, represses its minorities and
has used force and military aggression against its smaller
neighbours, and that giving nuclear technology to such a country
will give it the ability to produce nuclear weapons of mass
destruction and destabilize the whole region.
The petitioners call upon parliament to oppose this sale and to
take all possible measures required to stop it.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a perfect sequel. This petition reminds parliament that
the continuing existence of 30,000 nuclear weapons poses a threat
to the health and survival of human civilization in the global
environment and calls upon parliament to support the immediate
initiation and inclusion by the year 2000 of an international
convention setting out a binding timetable for the abolition of
all nuclear weapons.
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to present a petition from hundreds
and hundreds of Canadians in all parts of the country expressing
their concern about the state of the Canadian health care system.
The petitioners call upon the government to preserve and enforce
the Canada Health Act. They also call upon the government to
ensure that the principles of universal coverage, accessibility,
portability, comprehensive coverage and federal funding are lived
up to.
Most important and most appropriate in terms of the state of
health care in the country today, they call on the government to
ensure that the principles under the Canada Health Act are
applied broadly and are there for every citizen as a matter of
being part of a civilized country.
* * *
1520
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I ask, Mr. Speaker,
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be
allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
THE BUDGET
FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
The House resumed from March 2 consideration of the motion that
this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the
government.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to add my thoughts
on the federal budget that was tabled a couple of weeks ago in
the House.
A budget sometimes seems like a boring document, but it is
really a statement of how much of our earnings the government
intends to take. It touches each one of us, the work we do and
the money we have in our pockets. It is a statement of how much
money the government intends to spend, remembering that the
government does not have money of its own. It only has our
money. It is also a statement of what the government is to spend
our money on.
We have some very strong criticisms of the government in all
those three areas in terms of how much it intends to take from
our earnings, the way it is managing the spending of our
earnings, and what it is spending our earnings on.
We could have reversed the enormous tax hit and the slashing of
dollars from medical care, which we were told when the government
was elected was necessary to eliminate having to borrow to meet
government obligations. We did not want to live on borrowed
money. The government said it would have to tax us more and cut
support for health care.
We took that, some of us perhaps more willingly than others.
Some of us were astonished that it was the Liberals, who had
always stood up with their hands on their hearts saying that they
would protect the Canada Health Act against the fires of hell if
they had to. However, when push came to shove, their words meant
nothing as so often happens with Liberals.
Here we are today with no deficit. In fact we have a healthy
and growing surplus. Yet there is still extra taxation and there
are still cuts to the former support that we had for our health
care services. Why do these continue?
Federal revenues are an astonishing $42 billion between March
31, 1994 and March 31, 2000. On average each taxpayer is paying
over $2,000 more a year in taxes than they did when these
Liberals came to power. The government is taking $2,000 more
from each taxpayer's pocket. That is a lot of money to most
Canadians.
The Globe and Mail on February 23 made this cogent
statement: “A real tax cut doesn't just slow the growth in
government's revenue. It leaves the government with less
revenue”. We have not really had a tax cut if government is
still taking in more this year than it did last year, which the
government is doing. There has not been a tax cut at all. There
is less of an increase than there might have been. When the
Liberals talk about tax cuts they are simply not being accurate
with their words.
Since the government is confiscating billions more of the income
we worked so hard to earn, what wonderful things is the Liberal
government doing for us with our own money? I might add that $1
billion would be like winning a million dollar lottery three
times every day for an entire year. That is how much $1 billion
is.
The government is taking $42 billion out of the economy, out of
the pockets of the hardworking people of the country.
1525
In the most critical area of meeting our medical and health care
needs, especially as we get older and we know that the population
is getting older as the baby boomers retire, very little is being
done by the government to meet our health care needs.
For the 10 year period from the time the Liberals were elected
in 1993 to 2003, they will have slashed $33.3 billion from
support for health care and education. During the same period of
time, 1993 to 2003, they will put back $11.5 billion into health
care. They slashed over $33 billion in this 10 year period.
There was an outcry, which there might well have been, and they
grudgingly put one-third of it back.
In other words, the Liberals only made two-thirds of the raid on
health care that they intended to make. We are supposed to thank
them and feel that they are a wonderful, wonderful governing
party because they only raided our health care funds by
two-thirds of what they really would like to have done.
In fact each and every Canadian will have nearly $500 less
available to care for their medical needs this year than when the
government took office, and that is not all.
In addition to the enormous and punishing tax grab Canadians
have staggered under with the government, the government uses a
sneaky device to ratchet up its tax take year by year called
bracket creep. According to the Caledon Institute, this device
has pushed 1.9 million taxpayers from the lowest to the middle
tax bracket and 600,000 taxpayers from the middle to the top
bracket. It has also added more than a million low income people
to the tax rolls in the last 10 years.
When the government brags about the few people that its little
tax cuts pushed off the tax rolls, hon. members might want to
just balance that with all the people who are pushed on to the
tax rolls and pushed into paying more taxes because of these
sneaky stealth taxes which the Liberals have had over five years
and six budgets to fix and have done absolutely nothing about.
In 1980 a single wage earner would be able to keep $10,500
before paying tax. Guess what it is now under the Liberal
government. Last year taxes were due after only $7,000 of
income. The Liberals in their generosity will now let that
taxpayer keep an extra $175 before the tax man comes knocking.
Think of the generosity of allowing a single taxpayer to keep
$175 more before starting to pay tax. Even that paltry sum will
quickly be eroded by the stealth tax that I spoke of before.
Let us look at the child tax benefit. The Liberals make a great
deal of this so I think we should spend a minute talking about
it. The child tax benefit system is a program which the official
opposition supports. It represents the best of co-operation
between federal and provincial agreements. It is targeted to
those families that have modest incomes from work. It is
designed to encourage families and allow families to stay in the
workforce. Regrettably it is not as generous as it first
appears. The child tax benefit system was subject to this
stealth tax, this partial deindexing in 1985, and 14 years later,
six of them under a Liberal government, this regressive measure
is still in place.
Each year the value of the child tax benefit declines at the
rate of inflation and the value of the threshold at which the
benefit is clawed back declines by the rate of inflation. A
family with an income of between $20,000 and $30,000 a year faces
a clawback of up to 27% of the benefit on any additional earnings
under the Liberal government. What a nasty and insidious tax
burden. It is heaviest on those with low incomes.
1530
Secondly, the government announced increases in this child tax
benefit in the 1997 budget. These measures were announced again
in the 1998 budget. Some adjustments have been announced in the
1999 budget. However, the full benefits of the program will not
be in place until 2000, a delay of over three years. Too many
announcements; too little action. It is so typical of this
government. Could the government not speed up this program and
put money in the hands of families sooner?
The Liberal government would have Canadians believe it is using
our tax contributions to ease the load on low income parents to
help them. This is simply not the case.
Contrary to the purple prose of the finance minister and other
Liberal misrepresentations, we in the Reform Party, the official
opposition, support the national child benefit and have
repeatedly offered and called for measures to make it a real
benefit, not just Liberal lip service.
In addition, although Canada is a wealthy and prosperous
country, an increasing number of our citizens appear not to have
an opportunity to share in this wealth and prosperity. I refer
to the many homeless people, as well as those families on very
low incomes for whatever reason. We know much more about the
problem of homelessness in our large cities following a major
study released by the city of Toronto in January.
Homelessness has many causes and governments at all levels have
responsibilities to take action. Homelessness is not a partisan
issue, but one on which politicians of all stripes and at all
levels must work to solve.
The Reform Party believes and one of our principles is that
Canadians have a personal and collective responsibility to care
and provide for the basic needs of people who are unable to care
and provide for themselves.
I would submit that in this budget the government has failed.
Not only is it taking far more from the pockets of hard-working
Canadians than is necessary, but it is also putting too much of a
burden on those least able to afford it and giving too little and
too poorly managed programs in return.
For that reason I will vote against this budget. I urge members
of this House to get the government to clean up its act before
they support this budget.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member made a number of statements in which she suggested
that somehow taxes have been increased for Canadians.
I quickly looked back over the last two budgets and I saw an
increase in the child care expense deduction which went from
$5,000 to $7,000. I saw the total elimination of the 3% surtax.
I saw the non-refundable tax credit increased by $675 for each
and every taxpayer. I saw an investment of $1.7 billion in the
national child benefit. There were no increases in tax rates. We
introduced the RESP, government grants worth up to $400 a year
for parents. There were EI reductions worth $2.8 billion in
savings to Canadians.
If those are the facts, I would ask the member directly, could
she explain exactly what tax increases she is talking about? If
it is bracket creep, and if she wants to index the $6,542
personal exemption by inflation, which is 1% or a $65 increase in
the bracket level, at the tax rate of the non-refundable tax
credit that would mean $16 a year to a taxpayer. I therefore do
not accept bracket creep as the explanation. I want to know the
real explanation from the member.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, is this not a little
ironic, considering that this is a member of the government which
made the budget? Surely if they cannot explain their own budget
we are in some pretty big trouble.
I would simply refer the member to his own government's budget
where it states very clearly that tax revenue is going up by the
amount I mentioned, $42 billion since this government took
office. These are the government's own figures, not a figure I
pulled out of thin air.
This member, as Liberals so often do, reels off all of these
supposed wonderful tax cuts that the government brought in, even
though of course, in spite of these cuts, it is still taking in
more revenue than when it began.
It is taking in more revenue next year than this year. Its own
budget figures say that. All we have to do is look at the
budget.
1535
I ask the member to listen not just to me, although I know he
has a high respect for anything I would tell him. The Business
Council of British Columbia said that the tax cuts which the
member speaks of will amount to 0.17% of GDP in the first year
and perhaps 0.25% of GDP by the year 2000-2001. It concluded
that the cuts are like “throwing a golf ball into Lake
Superior”.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to try once more to see if we can get
clarification about where the Reform Party really stands on
health care. In the last few days during this debate some
members of Reform actually suggested that they truly do believe
in a universally accessible, publicly administered health system.
However, we know from the past that their health critic has said
that core services of health care could be provided outside of
medicare. We know from the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca
that the party stands for a parallel, private, two tier health
care system. We know from the member for North Vancouver that he
praises the system in Florida and condemns what he would call
socialist medicine in Canada.
At the recent United Alternative conference Reformers had a
chance to clarify. A motion was put and there was a debate.
There was a chance to add an amendment calling upon delegates to
uphold national standards for a health care system. The
delegates, which I assume included Reformers who were all
present, roundly defeated this amendment, especially after one
participant defended the right of the provinces to introduce user
fees. Where did the member who is speaking stand on this issue?
What is truly the position of the Reform Party on health care?
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, this member should be
asking questions of her sister governments in B.C. and
Saskatchewan which have put a two tier health care system into
place in those NDP provinces.
Let me clarify where the Reform Party stands on support for our
health care system. First I will discuss 1993. This is
verifiable. The member can look at our campaign literature. Even
though we had more than a $42 billion deficit in this country and
there was overspending, our party campaigned on zero cuts to
health care and education. Zero cuts. It is in our literature.
In 1997, after this Liberal government had slashed support for
health care, our campaign was on restoring funding to health care
to the tune of $4 billion a year.
I do not know where this member gets the idea that there is
anything less than the strongest support for health care from
this party.
As far as the UA convention is concerned, that was not a Reform
exercise. What those people did vote on were some strong
principles in support of strong social programs which they said
would be fleshed out in policy making sessions later on. I am
sure this member would be welcome to participate in those united
discussions to make sure good policies come out of them.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am not all that happy to talk about this budget because it is
about propaganda, not priorities. It is about brainwashing, not
budgeting.
Despite all the government spins to the contrary, this budget
leaves Canadians paying more in taxes and receiving less in
health care. In 1999 the average Canadian will pay over $2,000
more in taxes than they paid in 1993. At the same time total
cuts to health care over the last three years amounted to $1,500
per person.
There is no doubt that we had to eliminate the deficit. There
is no doubt that Canadians wanted the federal government to
balance the books. Before the 1995 budget a wave of protest ran
across this country. Rallies were held in over 20 Canadian
cities where thousands of overburdened taxpayers demanded an end
to the era of chronic deficits. But they were also very clear
about one thing: “Don't you dare raise our taxes”. After
decades of constant tax hikes the anger of Canadians was growing.
The rally cries were around no more taxes and, more importantly,
they continued to tell the Canadian government “It's the
spending, stupid”. Canadians gave the finance minister clear
instructions: Balance the books on the spending side of the
ledger, attack waste, inefficiency and lower-priority programs.
1540
The finance minister appeared to hear these concerns. However,
appearances can be deceiving. Instead of no more taxes,
Canadians were hit with the single largest tax hike in the
history of Canada. CPP payroll taxes were increased 73% and
bracket creep continues to take a growing bite out of our
wallets.
In addition, it seems the finance minister took “It's the
spending, stupid” to mean keep up the stupid spending. Instead
of cutting waste and inefficiency, the government ravaged
transfers for health and education. Instead of funding hip
replacement surgery, taxpayers are paying $100,000 in government
grants for a book on dumb blond jokes. The government slashes
university funding while protecting $4 billion in pork-barrel
regional development grants over the last four years. Students
get less while there is plenty of money for a very questionable
hotel deal in the Prime Minister's very own riding. RCMP
services are cut while this government continues to give millions
of dollars in illegal trade subsidies to profitable corporations.
The government claims it was forced to cut health care spending.
The government claims its hands were tied on real tax relief. It
claims it had to make tough decisions so it could balance the
budget. The government has no right to claim any credit for
balancing the budget because it did nothing.
The credit goes entirely to Canadians—
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I believe I heard the member say that the government gave
millions of dollars of illegal subsidies to businesses. If that
is the case, I would ask that the member withdraw that remark.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member can clarify
the position. I did not hear that remark myself, but perhaps the
hon. member can clarify it if he did say that. I know he would
not want to suggest such a thing.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, what I said was that this
government continues to give subsidies to foreign businesses,
which in our view—and there are a lot of ways to characterize
them—is illegal, not that the government is committing illegal
actions.
This government has no right to take any credit for balancing
this budget because it did nothing. The credit goes entirely to
the Canadians who have been forced to pay $2,000 more in taxes
each and every year. The credit goes to those who have lingered
and died on hospital waiting lists, while waiting lists have
grown longer because this government slashed $20 billion out of
health care over the past few years.
No, it was not the Liberal government which made tough fiscal
decisions, it was Canadian families. They were the ones who were
forced to priorize their spending. They were the ones who were
forced to pay more for less health care.
It is high time that Canadian taxpayers received the recognition
they deserve. It is high time they got the tax relief they
deserve.
What does this budget offer them? Guess what? More tax
increases. While this government offers $7.7 billion in tax
cuts it will raise CPP premiums by $7.2 billion over the next
three years. Bracket creep will take another $2.7 billion. I
think it is absolutely shameful that this government tries to
spin a $2.2 billion tax hike and then tells Canadians they should
be grateful for that.
It comes as no surprise that Canadian families are not grateful.
Why should they be grateful for a government that continues to
ratchet up the tax burden faster than income growth? Why should
they be grateful for a government that treats stay at home
parents as second class citizens?
Let us take a family of four, with an income of $50,000, with
one of those parents staying at home to raise the children. That
family pays $4,000 more in taxes each year than the same family
with both parents working outside the home. This government has
deliberately penalized stay at home parents.
Does this budget put an end to this inequity? No.
1545
Instead, stay at home families are treated to an insult, a slap
in the face by the Secretary of State for International Financial
Institutions. Instead of tax fairness we see discriminatory
taxes and more shell games.
This budget reminds me of George Orwell's 1984. In that
novel the government announced that chocolate rations would be
reduced from 20 grams to 10 grams. There was a second
announcement the next day. There was all kinds of fanfare. The
government with excitement announced it was increasing the
chocolate rations from 10 grams to 15 grams. In that society
citizens were brainwashed into believing that was an
improvement. Canadian society is not so easily fooled. It is
tired of the big brother from Shawinigan and his Liberal speak,
Liberal speak like the finance minister's warning that Canadians
must wait another two decades before they will see real tax
relief.
I guarantee Canadians will not have to wait that long.
Overburdened taxpayers do not have to wait another 20 years for
something they have been demanding for decades. No, Canadians
need only have to wait a year or two. Soon Canadians will take
matters into their own hands in the next election. They will
toss out big brother and his big taxes. They will vote for a
party that is united in its resolve to give Canadians real
immediate tax relief.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member talked about tax increases, as did the member from
Nose Hill.
The figures members referred to are the estimated total revenues
from personal income taxation from all Canadian taxpayers. They
suggest that since that number is going up Canadians are paying
more taxes. The fact is that since the government took power
there are over 1.5 million more Canadians who have jobs, 1.5
million more taxpayers.
I ask the member very directly that when he considers all the
changes that have taken place in the last series of budgets, all
of which reduced taxes like the 3% surtax, the $675 on the
non-refundable tax credit and all the other improvements that
were made, is he saying to the House that the government has
introduced any changes which increase an individual's income
taxes?
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, that is an exact example of
what comes from this government, a bunch of numbers and figures.
Every Canadian will be able to show their paycheque stub in two
months or six months from now. Let us see if there is any real
tax relief. Look at paycheque stubs for the last five years
since this government has been in power. It goes down and down.
We have less and less to take home every single time. That will
continue to happen.
The government can put out all the rhetoric and fancy numbers it
wants but at the end of the day Canadians will look at their
paycheques and there will be less and less to take home to
provide for their families. There will be more and more
deductions. The story will be told on the paycheque stubs of
every working Canadian.
They will see that this is a shell game by this government. They
will see there is no real tax relief. The government can tell us
all the numbers it wants but Canadians will know the truth when
they have less to pay their bills at the end of the month, less
to provide for their families, less to give their children.
Those are the facts. They can look at their stubs today and ask
where the tax relief is and where are the hundreds and thousands
of dollars this government promises. They are not there. It is a
shell game. It is empty government rhetoric. The numbers will
not add up on the paycheque stubs. I challenge the member to
that.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, in his speech the Reform member failed to address
the most important message Canadians are sending to Liberals and
to Reformers. To use the words from the member's speech, they
are saying “Don't you dare bring in user fees into our health
care system. Don't you dare take our system any step further
toward a two tier, for profit Americanized health care system”.
1550
Yet that is exactly what Reformers did only two weeks ago at
their united alternative conference. That is what they voted
for. They had a chance to vote for national standards for a
health care system but they voted that down. They voted instead
to leave the door open for user fees.
The member talks about a united voice for Canadians. How did
the member vote on that resolution? Where does his party stand
on user fees? When will he join us in preserving medicare and
going forward?
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the member where
I stand in the party. I spent five years in the province of
British Columbia as a paramedic and nobody believes stronger in a
national health care system available to every single Canadian
than this party does.
The New Democratic government in British Columbia, my home
province, has forced Canadians into a two tier health system
where tens of thousands of British Columbians are forced to go
down to the States to get health care treatment. That is an
absolute disgrace. The Premier of British Columbia's home was
raided today by the RCMP because of the questionable way he
governs the province. It has led to a two tier health care
system. That is what we have from NDP governance.
The Reform Party believes in a strong national health care
system available to every single Canadian. That is what people
would get from this party. We campaigned in 1997 on putting $4
billion immediately back into health care. We are committed to
that, not like the current Liberal government which slashed $7
billion and then gave back a mere $1.5 billion or $2.5 billion,
and it wants us to thank it.
Imagine if a criminal came into your home and stole $10,000 and
came back and gave you $1,000 and asked to be thanked. I do not
think it adds up.
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be splitting my time. It is an honour to rise in the House
today to speak to the 1999 budget. This year's budget is a
Canadian budget. It invests in community, the community of
Canada.
What the government does not do is often as important as what it
does do. What we have not done with this budget is jeopardize
our sound fiscal base, a base that has enabled us to withstand
international fluctuation in economic trends.
This budget does not buy our way to prosperity as the authors of
the alternative federal budget, the Canadian Centre for Policy
Alternatives and Choices, would have us do.
We are investing in our national social system because this is
what Canadians have stated they want. This is what our
government is providing. It is the Canadian way, it is the
Liberal way. This budget does not abandon sound fiscal
principles. We will balance the books through to the year 2001.
We are not setting unrealistic targets.
Three years ago when the debt to GDP ratio was at its peak, 36
cents out of every revenue dollar, more than one-third, went to
debt interest. This was money Canadians could not use to prepare
for the future because their governments were too busy paying for
the past.
Last year with the debt ratio dropping, the portion of each
revenue dollar servicing the debt also dropped to 27 cents. We
have not returned to the old ways of the old days. We will
continue to invest and build on last year's focus of research,
job creation and knowledge.
This budget does not use borrowed money to invest in the future
of Canada and the welfare of Canadians. We are in a position to
reinvest Canadian dollars in the priority of Canadians.
It is impossible to cover everything contained in the budget in
this 10 minute speech. However, in my opinion there are four
main themes I would like to cover: fundamentals, framework,
fairness and the future.
First, the fundamentals. Our economy is in excellent shape. Our
unemployment rates are at all time lows. Interest rates are
down. The deficit has been paid off. It is through the efforts
of all Canadians that we are in a position to invest in our
nation's social system. This budget does just that.
Debt reduction is a priority for this government but it is not
its only priority. Of course we must pay down our debt. Step one
is our commitment to not overspend annually on our budget. We
will not borrow to buy the groceries. This government will not
put all our resources into debt reduction alone. It is like
paying off the mortgage on the house but allowing the children to
go hungry and leaving the roof leaking without repair.
This scenario does not strike a balance. It lacks vision for
long term health and it is not what Canadians have said they
want.
1555
In a survey my constituents of Kitchener Centre responded that
80% of them wanted some debt reduction. They said it should be a
priority. The government is making that a reality with the $3
billion contingency fund which will go annually to paying down
the debt.
I can stand in the House and firmly state that I believe this
government will pay down the debt. As a matter of fact, we will
eliminate the debt. But it will be by continually acting in a
prudent fashion. We will meet the expectations of my
constituents and all Canadians with sound fiscal management.
The tax policy of the federal government is based on three
fundamental principles. I would like to take a moment to outline
these. The first is that our tax system must be fair. Tax
reductions must benefit those who need them the most, low and
middle income Canadians.
Second, broad based tax relief should focus initially on
personal income taxes.
Finally, because of our debt burden, broad based tax relief
should not be financed with borrowed money.
As we know, this year's budget builds on last year's budget. On
budget day I had a hard time going through it trying to find some
kind of surprise that I could share with the local media. This
speaks to the transparency and the broad based consultation that
the government has been involved with to find out truly what
Canadians want to see and the vision that we will share as a
government.
The government has begun the process of providing broad based
tax relief for all Canadians. Together the 1998 and 1999 budgets
provide the largest proportion in tax reductions at the lowest
income level. This is good news. We have removed 600,000
Canadians from the tax rolls. I am pleased that the government
has continued to reduce the 3% surtax for those earning between
$50,000 and $65,000. Fourteen million Canadians will receive tax
reduction as a result of this measure.
The second theme to be addressed is framework. Through the
social union, the government has provided true leadership.
Canadians are tired of different levels of government pointing
fingers at each other. The social framework allows all
governments to move toward solutions that benefit Canadians. As
a society we have shared responsibilities on issues such as
homelessness, affordable housing and lack of skilled workers.
The government is looking to forge partnerships as well with
labour and industry so together we can address these important
social issues.
Faith communities in my riding of Kitchener Centre are planning
a forum with members of parliament and our provincial
counterparts as well as leaders at the regional and municipal
level because they acknowledge there is a shared responsibility
and are looking for solutions, not excuses.
There are fundamental issues of health care delivery that must
be addressed. We must look at how we pay for health care, how we
structure it in our communities and how we meet the evolving
demographic needs and the changing roles of health care
providers.
In addition, there is a strong desire by Canadians to see the
development of key indicators for measuring health care delivery.
Our investments in research will help develop these important
research measures.
The government has gone beyond just transferring larger funds of
money for health care to the provinces. We are setting a path
for a clear vision for our health care system. We are building a
system that is responsive and reflects the changing needs of
Canadians. We are committed to working with our provincial and
territorial colleagues on innovative health care programs,
programs that meet the needs of all Canadians.
Only the most partisan individual can criticize the health care
investments the government has made. We have invested according
to the priorities of Canadians.
Over the next five years the provinces and territories will
receive an additional $11.5 billion specifically for health care.
This represents the largest single new investment the government
has ever made. For my province of Ontario this is good news. I
know that constituents of Kitchener Centre are pleased to hear
that Ontario will receive $4.4 billion in health transfers.
A well rounded health care system must have a framework based on
a number of key areas: research, home care, pharmacare and
leadership within the medical community. This Liberal government
has invested in all these areas. I am pleased that the
government has committed to investing in projects such as the
nurse fund. A $25 million endowment announced in this budget
will enable nurses to find solutions to systemic challenges which
face them.
1600
I would like to address my third theme, framework. The
government has an important role to play in promoting access to
knowledge and skills. The budget demonstrates our commitment by
the allocation of $1.8 billion for the creation, dissemination
and commercialization of knowledge.
In my riding of Kitchener Centre we have seen a great surge of
knowledge based companies open their doors. These businesses are
always looking for talented individuals capable of functioning in
a high tech environment.
We are committed to providing the necessary funds to ensure that
our youth can meet the needs of high tech knowledge based
companies, whether it be through the Canadian opportunities
strategy or the Canada Foundation for Innovation.
I am pleased that the budget makes $150 million available
through technology partnerships Canada to partner with the
private sector to commercialize innovative processes and
products.
It is important to note that the nation's program spending in
relation to the GDP is only at 12.5%. This is the lowest level
since 1950. This government has only increased spending in a
minimal way, yet what we have done is reallocate existing funds
and solidified a framework from which to work.
Equalization is a federal transfer program that goes to the
heart of what it means to be a Canadian. It is about fairness.
This budget fully restores per capita entitlements for all
provinces in three years time. The government's increases to the
equalization program will make resources available to most of the
less prosperous provinces for public services, including health
care.
In conclusion, I am extremely proud that not only have we
addressed the queries that have been expressed by Canadians but
we will be able to build on the gains of yesterday in order to
create a bright future for tomorrow for all Canadians.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, the member for Kitchener Centre will know that
although I am from Winnipeg, I am fairly familiar with the
Kitchener area. I was born and raised in a small village near
Kitchener called Winterbourne, and I check in fairly regularly
with my parents, Harry and Klazina Wasylycia.
I hope the member will agree with me when I say that my sense
from that community is that the number one concern for all
citizens in the area is health care. They are reeling from a
double whammy, the effects of both cutbacks and regressive
measures by the Harris Conservatives in Ontario and the cutbacks
of the federal Liberals.
How does the member intend to deal with those concerns in that
area? In particular how does she feel about any of this new
federal money going to Premier Harris? He has opened up the
whole home care program in that province to competitive bidding.
This means that companies like Olsten, large American based
profit making companies, are winning contracts to provide
services at low cost while longstanding non-profit organizations
like the Victorian Order of Nurses are fearing for their
survival. It is really the patients who are at risk and people
who need home care who are suffering because of this whole
policy.
How does the member feel about money going to for-profit health
care instead of non-profit delivery of home care?
Mrs. Karen Redman: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon.
member's question. She really has put her finger on one of the
large concerns in my community.
This federal budget is very good news for the people of Ontario.
One of the things the social union framework acknowledges and
legitimizes is the partnership we have with the province. This is
a good news budget for the people in Winterbourne, for the people
in Kitchener, for the people in all of Ontario because we are
releasing resources and $3.5 billion can be accessed immediately.
What the Harris government decides to do with that will be
something he will have to be accountable to the people of Ontario
for.
1605
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have
enjoyed working on the finance committee with the hon. member.
I took note of one thing she said with respect to debt. I
suppose nothing concerns me more than the fact that the
governments of the last 30 years have driven us into debt to the
point where, as she mentioned in her speech, at one stage some 31
cents of every $1 collected in income tax went toward interest.
Just think of what we could do if we did not have the debt to
service. The amount of money that would be available for
programs would be immense.
She then talked about this $3 billion contingency fund which, if
not needed, will go toward reducing the debt. She said she was
sure the debt would be repaid.
I taught mathematics for a number of years and have these math
and finance formulas in my head. I did a quick calculation. To
get rid of the debt, $580 billion, over the next 25 years, by the
time I am 85, would require the posting of a surplus every year
in those 25 years of some $50 billion a year. Here we are paying
a puny little $3 billion if we happen to not need it at the end
of each year.
I wonder whether she would comment on a greater urgency to
reducing the debt so that we could reduce the amount of interest
payments and have more of the taxpayers' money available for
programs or to give them a tax break.
Mrs. Karen Redman: Madam Speaker, there are two halves to
the equation. I really support the fact that we are looking at
our debt through our GDP ratio. As the hon. member opposite
points out, even with a $50 billion investment, which would leave
us no money to reinvest in the programs we hear Canadians asking
for and the kind of social structure Canadians are demanding, it
would still take a long time to pay the debt off.
I do not see this government having a single focus on merely
paying down debt. As we went across Canada, people said health
care was up here and their second priority was down here. I
believe that this budget and this government have achieved the
balance that will give a quality of life to Canadians as well as
help to retire the debt.
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I did not think I was going to have an
opportunity to speak this afternoon but it has availed itself. I
am pleased to make a couple of observations during the budget
debate.
As the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, which is a
west end riding of the city of Winnipeg, I was naturally
interested in how my constituents would react to the February 16,
1999 budget.
I am happy to say that the budget is going over extremely well,
in fact, so well that very often it is difficult to find reaction
out there. When voters, constituents, are generally happy with
an initiative by government, they do not say a lot. It is when
government is seen to be doing something negative, something that
is a mistake that we hear it from voters. I have not been
getting an earful from constituents in the past week or so; in
fact it has been quite the opposite.
What are they saying? First of all, they are very happy with
our health care initiative. Most Canadians, and I think I can
speak for most of my constituents—
An hon. member: What about where I come from?
Mr. John Harvard: I know the member for Winnipeg North
Centre finds the budget very difficult, but then I am not too
sure whether there is anything we could do that would make the
hon. member happy. However, those are the things we have to put
up with.
I want to talk about health care, which is a real passion for
the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It is also one of my
passions. I am very proud of the fact that the government has
restored health care funding to the tune of $11.5 billion.
I am quite sure that if we asked any of the hon. member's New
Democratic friends whether we would have come back with $11.5
billion, they would have said no.
I am sure most New Democratic Party members, if they were honest
and straightforward, would say thank you very much to the
Minister of Finance and to the government. That is what
Manitobans are saying.
1610
I will quote a woman the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre
might even know, Lynda Kushnir Pekrul of the Canadian Nurses
Association. I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre
would love to hear what this woman said. She said: “This budget
is a victory for nurses”. Shall I repeat it again in case the
hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did not hear? This budget
is a victory for nurses.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Did you talk to the nurses on
the ward?
Mr. John Harvard: If the hon. member for Winnipeg North
Centre is not satisfied with that, I can find another quote to
settle her down. “They have no excuses left. There is every
reason why the Manitoba government must take immediate action.
Hospital and home care services in Manitoba have deteriorated too
far”. Who said that? Dr. George Kelly, president of the
Manitoba Medical Association.
I notice that the New Democratic member for Winnipeg North
Centre has suddenly fallen silent. I hear nothing but silence
from that side. The testimony hurts does it not?
The fact is in the budget we provided health care dollars to the
tune of $11.5 billion. Most people in my province of Manitoba
are very pleased. I got a letter today from a constituent who
said that he hoped this money would be well spent. Just a few
minutes ago I was in the process of replying to that constituent
pointing out the fact that the spending of that money falls
within the ambit of the provincial government. It is up to the
provincial government to spend that money wisely. I trust the
provincial government will do that because it is answerable to
the people of Manitoba.
If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre does not like the
message on health care, maybe I could please her a little on the
question of taxes. Again we had some good news regarding taxes.
In the last two budgets, the finance minister, who probably will
go down as the finest finance minister in this century, the
finance minister, with the support of the Prime Minister, with
the support of cabinet and with the support of the entire Liberal
caucus, has been able to provide in a gradual incremental way tax
relief of over $16 billion. Is it enough? I suppose it is never
enough but we are on track and we are on track toward further tax
cuts. Relief last year, more relief this year. If everything
goes according to Hoyle, if everything goes well, there will be
more tax relief next year which is exactly what Canadians want.
I say that because we got into this deficit and financial pickle
over a long period of time. Most Canadians understand that if it
takes a long time to get into it, it will probably take some time
to get out of it. The finance minister knows that; we on this
side know it. We cannot do it overnight, but we are doing it.
We are doing it with purpose and the job will be done. I know it
will be very hard to convince the people on that side of the
House, especially the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but
we are going to get the job done.
1615
I want to quote another Manitoban. This was on health care. It
is by Dr. Gary Glavin, associate vice-president of research at
the University of Manitoba. By the way, he is a constituent. He
stated “This is the first time that I have been excited about a
federal budget”. How do you like those apples? That is coming
from people who normally do not say great things about federal
budgets.
The hon. Harold Gillishammer who is the new minister of finance
for Manitoba spoke very highly of the budget when he said “This
budget was billed as one with tax reductions and increased
expenditures in health care. Certainly the federal government
came through”. Those are the operative words, “came
through”. He went on to say “They have balanced the budget,
they have reduced taxes, and we believe in that to make this
country more competitive”. Imagine, that was said by a
Conservative, who is hardly a Liberal flag waver. These are not
bad comments from opponents.
Perhaps I will quote one more individual. This is certainly not
from a normal Liberal flag waver. The fellow's name is Victor
Vrsnik of the Manitoba taxpayers association. They are usually
very critical of anything that Ottawa does. This is what he said
about the budget: “The Canadian Taxpayers Association is
delighted the finance minister is tuning into the message of tax
relief. He is eliminating the 3% surtax and he is raising the
basic personal exemption, which will mean that poorer or lower
income Canadians will only start paying income tax now after
$7,200 as opposed to $6,500”.
There we have it. I think that is pretty good testimony. But
we are not going to stop at that. Even if we have silenced many
of our critics, even if many of our opponents are saying good
things, we are going to continue to do a good job because
Canadians want better health care and they want lower taxes.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
would like to address a question to the hon. member, who
reportedly is my shadow in the riding of Halifax West.
I noted that the hon. member spoke about health care and he
spoke about taxes. But I notice he did not address the issue of
employment insurance with respect to the budget. The member who
spoke previously indicated that the unemployment rates are at an
all time low. The government seems to take a great deal of
comfort in throwing out that statement. But I am sure that
statement does not give a lot of comfort to the many people who
remain unemployed and, in particular, to those who find
themselves ineligible for EI benefits because of the many changes
that have taken place: the intensity rule, the clawback, the
change from weekly to hourly qualifications and so on.
There seems to be a great significance in the fact that as the
number of people who are eligible for EI benefits goes down we
also notice that child poverty and homelessness is going up.
Does the hon. member feel that this budget in fact has dealt
adequately with the question of homelessness, child poverty and
EI?
Mr. John Harvard: Madam Speaker, first I would like to
point out to the hon. member that I am not his shadow. I think
we do have an arrangement. It is called twinning. I am sure he
understands what twinning is in political jargon, but I am not
his shadow. I am not going to watch him very closely. But if I
can help my fellow Liberals in his riding, one way or the other,
I will do exactly that. That is what twinning is all about. It
has nothing to do with shadowing.
With respect to the question on the budget, was Rome built in a
night or a day? I do not think so. Was the economy rebuilt in a
day? Did the budget cover every possible avenue? Did it cover
every possible issue? No. There is always work to be done.
I am very aware of how controversial EI is, particularly in his
part of the country.
I know the intensity rule is under question, as are many aspects
of EI. What do I say to my hon. friend? Keep on raising those
questions. If we do not hear those questions from the member and
his colleagues, we hear them all the time from Liberal members
from Atlantic Canada. There is genuine concern about EI, as
there is about a lot of the issues.
1620
If the member wants to throw this into the budget process, we
have done something that no other government has done in the
past, which is to have very wide open budget consultations. In
fact we are into the pre-budget consultations for 2000 right now.
If the member has something to submit, I am sure the finance
minister and the rest of us will be all ears.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I suppose
I should not be asking the member this question because I think
it is unfair. I think that he, like most Liberal backbenchers,
like most Canadians, does not really understand the implications
of the numbers as announced.
When this budget was talked about as being a health care budget,
the number which they chose to use was $11.5 billion. If we look
at what the budget is, it is an annual budget. The auditor
general and other accounting experts have said that annual
budgets should have their annual numbers stated. In smaller
print, it says $2 billion a year.
Beyond that, $2 billion this year is mentioned, $2 billion next
year, $2.5 billion, $2.5 billion and $2.5 billion. They project
five years in advance and use the big number of $11.5 billion
after taking $20 billion out of the health care system.
It is my understanding—and I would like the member to correct
me if I am wrong, if he knows, and I do not think he will
know—that when they say $2 billion this year and $2 billion
next, it means $4 billion more and then $6.5 billion more and so
on as an accumulation. Or is it simply that next year there will
be no increase at all, but rather just $2 billion more than we
had in the past? Then it would be $2 billion and no increase and
then another $2 billion. Which is the right answer?
Mr. John Harvard: Madam Speaker, the way I read the
budget, it is pretty simple. It is $11.5 billion over five
years, but upfront, the very first year, it is a payment of $3.5
billion.
In other words, provinces can access not only the $2 billion
over each of the next five years, but they can get an advance of
$3.5 billion upfront.
For my province of Manitoba, that means a total of $425 million,
which is not bad.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today, not because this
budget pleases me, but to give the people in my riding an
opportunity to speak through me. I will be sharing my time with
my colleague from Rimouski—Mitis.
If I may, I will pick up the thread of what has been said this
afternoon. The member speaking before me mentioned that the
Minister of Finance would go down in history as one of the
greatest ministers of finance.
The people of the Gaspé will remember the Minister of Finance as
the greatest conjurer, that is, he has a talent for juggling
figures, making believe a cut is no longer effective and having
us believe that what he is giving us is coming immediately, when
it can take three or four years, as the Reform MP mentioned. It
is time to set things straight.
The other thing I must mention is that this conjurer opposite
got his deficit to disappear by having the provinces and the
unemployed pay first. I will elaborate on these two points.
First, let us talk about the unemployed. Everyone knows now
that there is over $20 billion accumulated in the employment
insurance fund.
I am entitled to speak to this subject today, because the
Minister of Finance included the employment insurance revenues
in his consolidated budget.
1625
This year, he is telling us that he thinks he will have revenues
of about $18.8 billion, of which he expects to spend about $17
billion. But everyone knows that he will once again save at
least $6 billion. The magician that he is comes up with various
expenditures, but he never thinks about the well-being of the
unemployed.
I want to take a moment to mention the excellent information
work being done in the Gaspé region by the Mouvement action
chômage Pabok and by its coalition, whose two co-chairmen, Mr.
Cousineau and Mr. Blais, do a great job.
Let me go back to the manifest released by the coalition in New
Richmond, two weeks ago.
These people are asking three things from the government: first,
to establish an independent employment insurance fund run by
representatives of the contributors; second, to improve the
employment insurance program; third, to put the surplus back
into the fund.
These three issues are important to regions such as ours. I see
that some Liberal members are listening carefully. Why is it so
important? Because, in January 1999—I do not have the current
figure—the actual unemployment rate was 20.8%. The average for
1998 was 22.8%.
Moreover, in the riding of
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, a paper mill may close
and 300 jobs will be lost if one of the two machines is shut
down, or 600 jobs will be lost if both machines are shut down.
We are told “perhaps work can be done for other companies during
down times”. But this requires maintaining the social security
net, that is the employment insurance program, even though I
would much rather see the paper mill operating year round with
the two machines and the qualified workers who are already
there.
I remind members opposite that our riding must also face the
closing of a copper mine in Murdochville. This means that 300
jobs will be lost. This time, it is not the federal government's
fault; it is because the mine is depleted.
When these job losses are added to the existing unemployment
rate, members can see the how important the transition measure,
the social net provided by the EI program really is. The
Liberals did not say much about that.
The minister of regional development will perhaps be able to
confirm this, but my reading of the budget is that there is
actually less money available for regional development. I would
like him to respond to this.
The second point I would like to make is that the Minister of
Finance magically transferred the deficit onto the backs of the
provinces. Wearing three jurisdictional hats at once, he
slashed the health, post-secondary education and social
assistance envelopes.
However, this time, he is saying that, with the situation bad in
the provinces and problems in the hospitals, the government will
come up with some money and pretend to alleviate matters but
will impose a medical police force to keep tabs on how it is
spent.
This is disgraceful.
Hospital management comes under provincial jurisdiction and the
money is now in Ottawa, but it is always the same taxpayer
footing the bill. The public will not be fooled.
That brings me to the following point. The sectors I have just
mentioned come under provincial jurisdiction. But what about
the fishery and the catch, which really do come under federal
jurisdiction? Do members recall that there is a groundfish
moratorium, that it is still in place, and that experts agree
that the commercial fishery will not resume on its former scale
any time in the next five years?
As for TAGS, the Atlantic groundfish strategy, the last lump sum
payments will be made in May 1999.
Nowhere in this budget is there any mention of what will become
of fishery workers after May 1999.
1630
What about the people approaching retirement age? What can we
do in a devastated region such as ours, where fishing is no
longer possible, when we get to be 50? What new job direction
are we supposed to take, and where are the energies and
catalysts for recharging our economy? There are none! Yet,
they have jurisdiction over this, and it is easily enough
understood.
I will use the other official language to pass the following
message to my friends in the other maritime provinces, and I
want the Liberals over there to listen carefully.
[English]
What kind of hope could this budget deliver to the fishing
worker? There is nothing in this budget to cover the end of the
TAGS program which will stop at the end of May 1999. This budget
gives only dividends to people who have a chance to work, mainly
Ontario workers. I am glad for them but nothing is done in this
budget for the people from the maritimes and the Gaspésie. The
people from Newfoundland and elsewhere in the maritimes should
raise this question with their members, if the members have the
courage to go back to these ridings after the last vote on this
budget.
[Translation]
We are trying to stay calm, but this is becoming increasingly
hard to do. In mid-January I was present at four or five
different demonstrations. The people are taking to the streets
of the Gaspé to voice their despair and confusion. At the
moment they are doing so peacefully, but I am afraid, and I want
the cries of the people to be heard all the way to this House.
I would like the Minister of Human Resources Development, or
rather the Minister of Finance, to stop fiddling with the
figures and to understand that the people need dignity, a social
security safety net, and catalysts for a diversified economy.
This is what they want the government to know.
They do not want to be on employment insurance for the rest of
their lives; they just want help in getting through some bad
times, and unfortunately there is nothing in this budget that
allows them any hope.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I listen intently every time the member from Gaspé
speaks of the perils of fishermen and plant workers and the
crisis in our fishing industry.
What do he and his constituents think of a government that
writes a letter in 1994 promising income support until May 1999
and then a year before this literally rips up that contract with
thousands of fishermen and plant workers and say here is the new
deal, completely destroying their hope and faith in the Canadian
federal government system?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for
Sackville—Eastern Shore raises a very good point.
This government made promises to get elected, but it was just a
smokescreen because, as soon as they took office, the Liberals
started governing like a right wing party and making cuts.
Close
to $1.9 billion was invested in the Atlantic groundfish strategy
but, unfortunately—and the hon. member is right—the very first
year cuts were made to all transition and economic
diversification programs, under the pretext that the number of
potential clients had been miscalculated. These people still
exist. There were close to 45,000 of them and they will still be
there at the end of May 1999. What will happen to them?
People who work in the fishing industry, including fishers and
the women who work in plants, will not disappear like the cod,
because it is the federal government that now manages that
program. These people are still there. They are human beings.
1635
I remind our viewers that Canada was discovered precisely
because there was cod along our coasts. Fishermen came close to
the Newfoundland and Gaspé shores. Today, people from the Gaspé
and Newfoundland are told “Sorry, we have had enough of you.
Stay home and keep quiet. We are not giving you another penny”.
This is an insult. It is pure contempt on the part of people who
claim that Canada is a wonderful country, full of life and full
of compassion for all its inhabitants, including those who live
in the regions that were the first ones to become part of
Canada. I do not know how the Minister of Finance can tell them
“Sorry, that's it, that's all”.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, I listened
to the remarks by my colleague, and I would add my voice to his
indignation.
A budget is supposed to provide for the welfare of a society,
and this is not the case here. For fishers and those working in
the fishing industry or on its fringes in the Atlantic region,
the situation is extremely precarious.
It is true that the Minister of Finance is using our tax money
to pay off the debt, but in doing so he is putting people in
debt. Our collective wealth is not really improved.
What is happening is that the Minister of Finance is paying off
government debt by putting people in fishing in debt. That is
the drama.
The real drama is that there are families sinking into poverty
and debt, whose heritage is being ruined, who are losing their
house, their boat, their possessions, and who see no future for
their children. That is the real tragedy.
I ask my colleague if he does not agree.
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Madam Speaker, the member for Portneuf is
absolutely right. The government's behaviour makes no sense.
I will conclude with the following statement: great magician
that he is, the Minister of Finance, he tried to make his
deficit disappear. This time he tried to make people in fishing
disappear, and that makes no sense.
You can take an individual out of the Gaspé, but you cannot take
the Gaspé out of the individual.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Madam Speaker, I too
am delighted to have an opportunity to take part in the debate
on the 1999 budget, a budget that will see us into the third
millennium.
Given the time available to me, I will not be able to examine
the budget in minute detail, nor is that my responsibility. I
will merely point out a few items that strike me as important.
Since 1994, individual income taxes have generated the modest
sum of $19 billion for the government, and the GST has brought
in another $5 billion on top of what the Minister of Finance
expected.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Fortunately, he did not scrap it.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes indeed.
When one looks at the Minister of Finance's five budgets, one
realizes that he has never been able to forecast good sources of
revenue, to know whether there would be a deficit or surplus, to
anticipate anything that actually happened. He has always
managed to play with the figures, take a little from here, cover
up a little there, so that only he knows exactly where he is
headed.
1640
He is headed toward a budget that will enable him, on the eve of
the next election, when he might expect to be the big boss of
the Liberal Party of Canada, to—
An hon. member: He hopes so.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: This is certainly high on his wish list.
He is therefore planning on having the budgets and the surpluses
he needs to be able to announce a huge tax cut for the public,
to pass himself off as the greatest finance minister this
country has ever known.
The bulk of revenues have come from the pockets of middle income
workers and the unemployed, yet the budget contains nothing for
them. The budget does, however, announce one thing: a new
employment insurance fund surplus.
It had already accumulated some $20 billion or $25 billion in
recent years, but the Minister of Human Resources Development
confirmed to us this week that all that money has been wasted.
For five years, the Minister of Finance has been telling us “I
need reserves, in case a bad economic situation develops”. Now,
all of a sudden, the Minister of Human Resources Development
tells us the surplus the Minister of Finance wanted to save is
all gone.
Now we are told of a new surplus, $4.9 billion. Once again,
this money will be used for something other than operating the
program.
Now for the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the one who interests
me the most.
During the prebudget study and debate here in this House, we had
reminded the government of the 40% assimilation rate across
Canada and pointed out that, if it was a responsible government
capable of doing more than just talk, one that wanted to
actually do something, it ought to restore the budget envelopes
for francophones to their 1993 level, at least.
Let us look at the situation a bit more closely. In 1993-94, the
budget allocated for official languages was $310 million. In
reality, it was $232 million, $78 million less. Then in 1994-95,
the budget was $240 million, $70 million less than the forecast
figure.
In 1995-96, it was $210 million; this time $100 million less than
what was forecast. So, in all, the government will have spent
for official languages $248 million less in these three years,
almost as much as he will be spending this year.
The $70 million announced live on television on RDI by the
Minister of Canadian Heritage in fact represents small
compensation for the losses incurred by the official languages
program since the Liberals arrived in office in 1993. However,
during this time, the minister found pots of money for all sorts
of other things.
She found $60 million over three years to spend on propaganda
with the Canada information office, the CIO. Such a fine thing.
It is too bad she chose such a name for her propaganda service.
Then for her “million flags” operation, she found at least $15
million. For the council on Canadian unity, she spent tens of
millions of dollars from the official languages budget,
including the $4.8 million wasted by option Canada in one
month's time during the referendum, without anyone knowing where
the money went. And then she hiked the Canada day budget by
500%, 60% of which was spent in Quebec.
The Bloc Quebecois is certainly not celebrating today, because
the government is giving $70 million back to francophone
communities.
The minister should never have allowed francophone communities,
like workers and the unemployed, to bear the brunt of reducing
the deficit.
1645
We have been here since 1993. Every day, we get surprises
concerning the official languages. When it is not a crown
corporation that submits a report in one language only, it is an
organization such as Katimavik that sends an invitation to
members of parliament in English only. When we contacted
Katimavik, we were told “Well, we thought everyone could speak
or read English”.
People everywhere forget that there are two official languages.
The member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies did not even bother to
check—after all he chairs that UNESCO organization—to see that
this organization could submit to us, right here, in a place not
far from Parliament, a—
Mr. Denis Coderre: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
We are talking about an organization for parliamentarians. I
remind this House that when the incident took place, we postponed
the event until a later date, to make sure that the whole thing
would be bilingual.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): This is not a point of
order.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Madam Speaker, I am very glad to hear
this event will be held. I heard it from the minister herself
this afternoon, when I went to see her after Oral Question
Period. The failure to make the necessary arrangements, whether
in this chamber or in adjacent rooms, is unacceptable.
Naturally, I am aware that people decided to come back.
All this is to say that we must be constantly on the lookout to
protect our language, to defend it at every opportunity, when it
should be sufficiently well known that this is a bilingual
country. That should be common knowledge by now.
While this government is tooting its own horn, francophone
communities are in decline.
According to the terminology used by the man responsible for
language demography at Statistics Canada, Réjean Lachapelle,
francophone communities are in the process of disappearing in
six provinces out of nine. This is not the Bloc Quebecois
saying this, but Mr. Lachapelle.
Moreover, in a report for Heritage Canada, Donald Savoie pointed
out that the challenge for francophones outside Quebec is
clearly to survive, to resist assimilation and to promote the
development of strong and vibrant communities.
I had many other criticisms, but as my time is running out I
simply wish to say to members that I think that the increased
funding to the CBC mentioned in the budget is good news for the
Department of Canadian Heritage, for now, anyway.
I hope that the $50 million earmarked for the CBC will mean that
it can open a television station serving eastern Quebec, the
North Shore and the Magdalen Islands.
[English]
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Madam Speaker, I am
appalled at the level of poverty that still exists in the
country. We have more poor children in Canada today than we had
during the great depression.
The children are poor because their parents are poor. The
Progressive Conservative Party in its last platform suggested
that the basic personal exemption should be raised to $10,000.
This would put much needed money in the pockets of those
Canadians who really need our help, be it those who are
negatively impacted by the downturn in the east coast fishery or
Canadian farmers who are negatively impacted by the lack of
support given to them.
Does my hon. colleague agree that with the federal budget the
government has let down Canadian people who really need our help?
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for
this highly pertinent and interesting question.
I have been an MP since 1993, and we were discussing that just
last evening at a committee we had struck precisely for the
purpose of looking further into poverty in Canada, the poverty I
see every time I am in my riding, every time people ask to meet
with me. The needs that they list have changed over time, and
it is most unpleasant to see this. Basically, the government
has surpluses. What the President of Treasury Board tabled
yesterday, or the day before, represents a $6 billion increase
in expenditures.
1650
Going through it, one notes such items as a $1 billion addition
to the National Defence budget. Why was that not allocated to
poor children? With 1.5 million Quebec and Canadian children
going to school hungry, it is no wonder that the illiteracy and
dropout rates are on the rise. How can children learn anything
on an empty stomach?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I listened to the remarks by
the member for Rimouski—Mitis. She said that I had said
recently in the House that all the employment insurance funds
within the consolidated fund have been wasted. That is indeed
the word I heard—that all the money was wasted.
I would therefore ask the hon. member from Rimouski—Mitis what
she considers wastage in the latest budget. Is it the
equalization payments, $1.4 billion of which will go to Bernard
Landry for his upcoming budget? What about the $2 billion we
are adding each year to the national child tax benefit, which
combine with the $5 billion we have already invested and which,
obviously, will enable the Quebec government to make breakfast
for children? The member for Rimouski—Mitis talks about
breakfasts for children.
I must also point out that this is provincial and not federal
jurisdiction.
And the job strategy, which helps young people find jobs, is it
wastage? Or the Canada jobs fund? What does she consider
wastage in all that?
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Madam Speaker, I said that the Minister
of Canadian Heritage had found the heritage fund a useful source
of money to waste on all sorts of things, such as the CIO,
flags, and whatnot.
The minister is grandstanding a little more than he usually
does.
An hon. member: A little more than he usually does.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: That is right, when he answers questions
in the afternoon, during oral question period.
The government told us that it needed to keep the money for five
years as a contingency fund. It needed the money and there was
a fund. Suddenly, we hear that there is no longer a fund, that
the money has been spent on all sorts of other things. We do
not even know why, we are unable to find out.
However, the legislation requires the minister to monitor the
use to which money in the EI fund is put.
That is his ministerial responsibility. He took an oath that he
would perform his duties as minister to the best of his ability.
Yet he allows the Minister of Finance to pillage the fund, to
empty it out and divert it to other uses while, in my riding,
there are people starving because they no longer qualify for EI
benefits.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
as the member of parliament for London—Fanshawe I am pleased to
join the debate on behalf of my constituents as we speak about a
very important budget and a very successful budget. Let me first
indicate that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from
Nepean—Carleton.
There are so many positive things to comment on in the budget
that one could use more than 10 minutes. However, as the
chairman of SCONDVA, the House of Commons Standing Committee on
National Defence and Veterans Affairs, let me first turn to the
matter of defence in the budget.
For the first time in 12 years the Minister of Finance has given
additional moneys to the department of defence, some $175 million
in each of the next three years. This is in direct response to
the SCONDVA report which was tabled in the House last October.
It was an all party committee which had the endorsement of most
members of the House.
It called on some reinvestment in the men and women in our
Canadian forces to help address their low level of pay and the
very unacceptable quality of life that many of them found
themselves facing as it related to housing, support for families,
pay, and several other factors.
1655
I would like to quote the minister's comment on defence in the
budget speech:
That is why we are improving the compensation and benefits of the
men and women of the Canadian forces, Canadians who put their
lives at risk every day around the world and who have
demonstrated uncommon dedication here at home helping their
country cope with a series of natural disasters.
This is the kind of finance minister that I am very proud to
serve with. For the first time in 12 years a government has seen
the need to begin to reinvest in the Canadian forces. Is it
enough? No. Candidly speaking probably it is not enough of an
investment, but it is a major step in the right direction.
It is a major turn in the road as far as ending the cuts that
have been repeatedly foisted on defence which the defence
department has had to accept and now, for the first time in 12
years, the start of a reinvestment in defence.
What has been the reaction to the budget? I have listened to a
party of avowed separatists today standing up for Atlantic
Canada. That is an interesting reaction. I have heard members
of the Reform Party decry the budget as the worst thing that has
ever happened to the country. I have heard them calling for more
tax cuts. I have heard my NDP colleagues calling for more
spending as if nothing has been done at all to try to help low
and middle income families.
Low income families in my riding know that is nonsense. One Roy
Romanow, the NDP Premier of Saskatchewan, very candidly gave his
full endorsement to the budget. How about Mike Harris, the
Premier of Ontario? Admittedly he is facing the polls in the
near future, but Mike Harris is trying to hitch his star to the
Minister of Finance. He is now going around talking about “The
Harris-Martin tax cuts”. It is interesting to see the reaction
of these two premiers.
How about the lead speaker at the Reform convention—sorry, a
Freudian slip—at the united alternative convention last weekend
in Ottawa? One Ralph Klein, Premier of Alberta, said “I think
the feds did the right thing”.
The reaction to the budget is fascinating. We have premiers
from the left supporting it and premiers from the right
supporting it, but those are people in elected office.
How about my constituents in London, Ontario? Each year my
colleagues and I in London, Ontario hold a budget round table in
early September. We invite a wide cross-section of groups and
individuals to come and present their ideas on the budget. Those
ideas are directly reported back to the Minister of Finance. We
go out of our way in London, Ontario, in my riding of
London—Fanshawe, to seek as wide as possible an input. The
reaction in London, Ontario, to the budget is quite positive.
Reactions of my constituents on the whole through calls and
through the mail are running about 70% to 75% in support of the
budget. I will take that report card any day.
Admittedly London, Ontario, is a major centre for health with
several hospitals. The absolute glee that reigns in London,
Ontario, over the reinvestment in health care can be imagined.
There is a considerable amount of research done in my community
in the health sector and in several other sectors.
Experts in London were very quick recently to come to a function
where I was in attendance along with my local MPs, one after
another to thank us for taking the message to Ottawa which they
have been giving us repeatedly for several years and to ask us
if—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: If the NDP members will not heckle me, I
will not heckle them. I know they may not like these truths.
The fact is I was asked to carry back the message to this House
which I am doing now and to the minister of how pleased the
medical community was in London and across Canada at the
reinvestment in research and development, particularly in the
field of health.
1700
Indeed, one only has to reflect on the words of Michael Smith,
our Nobel Prize winner, who said that in terms of reinvestment in
health, this is probably the best budget ever by a federal
government in this country. To my knowledge, Mr. Smith is not a
Liberal member of parliament. He is a highly respected
international figure in the medical community.
Why is there such a positive response? It is obvious. For the
second year in a row there is a balanced budget and a commitment
by this government that we will balance budgets over the next two
years as well. Therefore there will have been four consecutive
balanced budgets under this government, and that when we faced
the situation of a $42.5 billion deficit which we inherited when
we came to power in 1993.
We recently met with a wide cross-section of labour leaders in
London, Ontario. They had a concern about unemployment, as I do.
But they could not deny the fact that we inherited 11.5%
unemployment and today it stands at 7.8%. It is not good enough,
but it is a lot better than it was in 1993, and the lowest level
since 1990. Youth unemployment is decreasing. In the last 12
months youth employment has had its strongest yearly growth rate
in over 25 years.
We are a Liberal government and we see a Liberal balanced budget
which is trying to reinvest the surplus that we have been able to
realize through the efforts of Canadians and the leadership of
this government and at the same time continue the tax cuts which
were begun in past budgets.
One only needs to reflect on the fact that 200,000 more
Canadians are removed from the tax rolls this year. They are low
and middle income Canadians. Those are my constituents who live
in co-op housing in my riding whom I just met with the other
night. They praised that fact as well as they praised the
government's stand on not transferring federal co-op housing to
the province of Ontario.
It is very interesting to hear the champions of these issues.
Let them come to London—Fanshawe. I welcome them to come to
London, Ontario. I welcome them to a debate any time. I even
welcome their heckling now because it is a sign that these truths
do not sit well.
In conclusion, I say that we have had an excellent budget from
an excellent minister. It has been very well received in London,
Ontario. It has been very well received in my riding of
London—Fanshawe. Yes, there are suggestions for future budgets.
I intend to pursue them on behalf of my constituents but I am
proud to support this budget wholeheartedly.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
have two comments that might lead into questions with regard to
co-op housing. The federal government has decided not to shirk
responsibility in the province of Ontario. How does the member
explain that we got rid of co-op housing for Manitoba and other
provinces but what we do in Ontario I guess is a little bit
different from what we do anywhere else in Canada. If it was okay
in Ontario, why was it not okay somewhere else?
With regard to the singing and praising of the budget and how
things are so much better and we do not have a problem with the
EI or anything like this, I wonder how the member feels about
moneys for employment insurance. People who are working pay
money into employment insurance expecting that should they be out
of a job that money is going to be there for employment
insurance. Then they find out that the government thinks it is
a-okay, correcto, to spend it on this, that and something else.
What about the trust the government has broken with the people
who have put that money in? Whether it be employers or employees
they expect that that money is there for employment insurance.
The surplus the government is dealing with is dollars that it
took irresponsibly and, for lack of a better word, misrepresented
why it was taking that money from Canadians.
1705
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to
answer the member's questions. I hope she will not heckle the
answer because I did not heckle the question, although she was
pretty aggressive during my comments but that is okay.
It is fascinating to hear an NDP member talk about “trust
broken”. Come to Ontario. Tell the people of Ontario who
trusted Bob Rae one time, who trusted an NDP government in
Ontario one time and then saw the tricks that were pulled on
them. Ask the CAW—
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: I guess she cannot resist the heckling.
Ask the CAW why it is not supporting the NDP in the upcoming
Ontario election. It is fascinating to hear.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The CAW has come out very vocally that there is no rift—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): That is not a point
of order.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Madam Speaker, she is a new member but
she is not going to intimidate me with that kind of nonsense.
Maybe that would please her, I do not know.
She speaks about the problem with EI. Let me address that. We
do not need any lectures from the NDP on the fact that we
understand there are some valid concerns about EI. We on this
side share them as well. We have a concern about the intensity
rule. We have a concern about the clawback.
Come to London—Fanshawe, come and meet with me and the labour
leaders in London, Ontario. They know we have those concerns.
They know we are fighting for them on those issues. We have no
lessons to learn from the NDP on that score.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Madam Speaker, having
heard my colleague praise the Minister of Finance and his budget
to the skies, I have a very short question to ask him.
How can it be that the number of food banks in the country has
tripled since 1989, and that the number of those who go to the
food banks has doubled? How can he accept that people with
incomes of $250,000 or more are going to pay $8,000 less in
income tax? How can these things be reconciled?
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Madam Speaker, it is really quite simple
for the member. The first tax cuts this government brought in
since being in power were aimed at low and middle income
Canadians. Four hundred thousand low income Canadians were
removed from the tax rolls in the 1998 budget. Two hundred
thousand more low income Canadians were removed from the tax
rolls this budget.
This government understands that to be a Liberal is to help
those who cannot help themselves. We are not the Reform Party.
We believe in targeted tax cuts, which is exactly what we will
continue to do in future budgets.
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak on the
budget and what I would describe as a fiscal prescription for a
healthy Canada as we enter the new millennium.
When the Liberal Party came to power in 1993, Canada's fiscal
house was crumbling at its very foundation. The previous
government had let the debt skyrocket out of control for years
and was operating with a $42 billion deficit.
This party, unlike others in this chamber, learned the lessons
of history. This Liberal Party understood that if Canada was to
be an economic force to be reckoned with in the new millennium,
we absolutely had to get the country back on track.
Canadians wanted a government that would actually take a
leadership role and devise a new economic plan for this country,
one that actually worked. Sustained by our political courage and
armed with the knowledge that Canadians supported our policies,
we eliminated the deficit in four years and recorded a budgetary
surplus in 1998 of $3.5 billion, the first such surplus in 28
years.
We have put Canada's fiscal house in order. We delivered on our
promise. However, we do not hear the opposition members
recognizing the major strides this government has made over the
last five or six years. No, they are much too busy trying to
draft catchy sound bytes while we are developing sound economic
policy.
1710
The facts speak for themselves. Our record has shown that we
have delivered the goods when it comes to fiscal responsibility.
When the history of Canada is written in the years and decades
ahead, I have absolutely no doubt that the historians and
economists of the future will say that the last half decade of
the 20th century was absolutely critical in terms of rebuilding
Canada's economic foundation.
I am also supremely confident that history will record the Prime
Minister and the Minister of Finance as being the people
responsible for what the Economist magazine called Canada's
economic miracle.
This budget is part of an overall plan, one which did not begin
last year and one which will not end next year. It is part of a
building process which eliminated the deficit and began producing
surpluses which have allowed us to make major investments, last
year in education and this year in health.
As the Minister of Finance has so eloquently said on several
occasions, budgets are more than entries in the books of a
government, they are chapters in the progress of a people. So
true, so true.
Yes, budget '99 focuses on health. Over the next five years
this government will inject $11.5 billion into health into this
country so that the provinces have the proper tools to address
concerns about hospital waiting lists, crowded emergency rooms
and shortages of diagnostic services. This will ultimately result
in a stronger health care system that reflects and meets the
changing needs of Canadians. I believe that this is good news
for every Canadian and I am not alone.
My riding of Nepean—Carleton is located in the national capital
region. This is an area that has felt the sharp edge of the
Harris Tory cutting sword. The premature Tory tax cut put us
face to face with the Ontario government's vision of better
health care which was less hospitals, longer waiting lists and
poorer service.
With the additional federal dollars, the health care situation
in Ontario is starting to move in the right direction. This is
recognized by people who are close to the issue. For instance,
hospital and municipal officials in Ottawa-Carleton are labelling
our commitment to health care as good medicine.
Local heart surgeon and Conservative senator Dr. Wilbert Keon
said that the infusion of money into health care is “very good
news”. The mayor of Ottawa, Jim Watson, was even more
optimistic. He said, “We could learn a lesson from this budget,
that you can have more money to invest in social programs when
you rein in your spending”.
Hopefully the Ontario government learns from this budget, learns
that our government's commitment to health care is just what the
doctor ordered. However, there is much more good news in the
budget than an investment in health care.
Whether one lives in Nanaimo or Nepean, the budget provides tax
relief without borrowing money to pay for it. This is something
that Canadians have not enjoyed since 1965. Building upon the
initiatives in last year's budget, budget '99 prescribes $16.5
billion in tax relief over the next three years for the 15.7
million taxpayers in the nation.
The government understands the tax burden on lower income
Canadians. That is why we have removed 200,000 taxpayers from
the tax roll this year. Over the past two years our initiatives
have resulted in a total of 600,000 Canadians escaping the usual
financial pain that comes with a T-4 slip.
Together the 1998 and 1999 budgets provide the largest income
tax reductions to the lowest income levels. This translates into
a 10% reduction for single taxpayers earning $20,000 or less, and
a 10% reduction for families with annual incomes of $45,000 or
less. Families with two children and an annual income of $30,000
or less will pay no net federal income tax.
This year we have also removed the 3% surtax for all taxpayers.
That is good news again for every Canadian.
One very important issue this budget addresses is that of
productivity, the key to achieving sustained increases in our
standard of living. Over the past few months the media has
focused on what it calls Canada's decreasing level of
productivity. Budget '99 has a plan to promote productivity
growth to improve the standard of living and the quality of life
for all Canadians.
We have already taken steps to foster this important initiative,
including the elimination of the deficit as has already been
mentioned, putting the debt to GDP ratio on a strong downward
track, and the tax cuts that have already been mentioned.
However, knowledge and innovation are the real keys for
advancing productivity growth. That is why we have decided to
invest in creating, disseminating and commercializing knowledge.
We are building on the 1999 Canadian opportunities strategy
with an additional $1.8 billion for various programs.
1715
As members will know, my riding contains part of the city of
Nepean and borders the city of Kanata. Both these west end
municipalities in the Ottawa-Carleton region are the home of what
has been referred to as Silicon Valley north. In fact, they are
probably the most vibrant concentration of high tech companies
anywhere in Canada. To say that they are enjoying explosive
growth is almost an understatement.
Over the past couple of years and with the help of farsighted
policies like the SR and ED tax credit and the Technology
Partnerships Canada program, our high technology industry has
blossomed. The TPC program alone is a $250 million per year
program aimed at keeping Canada at the forefront of technological
innovation.
Historically there have been more applications, unfortunately,
than there have been resources available. Budget '99 adds
another $50 million per year for this initiative and that is good
news. It is also the catalyst to give businesses a competitive
edge in terms of getting their products to market faster.
Programs like the two I have just mentioned are making Canadian
high tech companies world beaters. That is why when we travel
abroad we hear more and more of companies like Nortel, Newbridge
and JDS Fitel. These companies are showing our flag and making
sales in places as diverse as Munich, Sao Paulo, Taipei, San
Francisco and Johannesburg.
The allocation of $550 million as well in another area, medical
research, is extremely important, as is the creation of the
Canadian institutes for health research. It marks a new and
important federal commitment to medical research for scientists
and researchers across Canada.
In the past our researchers have spent much of their time
chasing grants and wondering where their next research dollar is
coming from. This new initiative will enable these scientists
and researchers to spend more time in the labs doing research
extending the frontiers of human knowledge and increasing
business opportunities related to scientific discovery.
Once again this budget is good for Canada. It is also providing
more fuel for the growth of our local economy here in
Ottawa-Carleton. This is what the regional chair of
Ottawa-Carleton had to say about budget '99: “It will help
create jobs and new spinoff companies that will continue to make
this region the success story that it already is”.
Locally this funding will help benefit some major players in the
medical research industry, including the Ottawa General Hospital
Research Institute, the Ottawa Regional Cancer Centre, the Heart
Institute, the Loeb Institute and the faculty of medicine at the
University of Ottawa.
I should also mention a few comments about what budget '99 does
in terms of the national defence budget. As vice-chair of the
SCONDVA committee I am very pleased that the government has
provided additional dollars to help implement some of the 89
recommendations contained in our report.
We are now past the era when governments promise more than they
can deliver and, as the Minister of Finance has said, delivered
more than they could afford. This is responsible budget making,
future oriented budget making and affordable budget making.
From improved health care to tax relief, investing in technology
to improving the quality of life for our Canadian forces
personnel, this budget has all the right ingredients for a recipe
to build a better Canada. This is the type of leadership that
the Liberal Party of Canada was known for throughout the 20th
century and the type of leadership that we will continue to
provide into the 21st. This is the leadership that has made
Canada a leader among nations.
[Translation]
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 Halifax West, National Defence; the hon. member
for Winnipeg North Centre, Health Care.
[English]
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to talk a bit and then ask the hon. member
a question about the health component of this budget.
Before the budget came down I had an opportunity in my own
riding to sit down with a number of health care professionals. I
try to do this on a regular basis with focus groups within my
riding to get a sense of where they are coming from.
If anybody knows the state of the health care system in Canada
right now it is surely those people who are on the front lines,
the doctors, the nurses, the people who run our hospitals
particularly.
One of the questions I asked was if in the next budget the
government puts a lot of money back into the system would this
necessarily fix the system. I have to say that those people were
very skeptical about an infusion of money going back into the
system that would in some way, shape or form fix the sad state of
health care in this country.
1720
I went back to those same people after the budget and I asked
would this $11.5 billion that the Liberal government intends to
put back into this budget over the next five years do what we
hope it will do, fix the health care system. These people had not
changed their minds. I do not think they are fooled by the
rhetoric of the government in trying to make it appear that
somehow it is now the saviour of health care by putting this kind
of money back into the system.
Does the member think that putting this kind of money back into
the health care system will fix the system when indeed his
government is responsible for taking $20.4 billion out of the
health care system in the last five years and creating the
problem we are in today?
Mr. David Pratt: Madam Speaker, it is clear that when the
government took office in 1993 we were facing some very daunting
challenges. Part of those challenges was the $42 billion deficit
that had been left by the previous government and it was
absolutely essential that we get our program spending down which
also meant reducing the transfers to provinces.
In some provinces, as in my home province of Ontario, we face a
situation where there were cutbacks in transfer payments but the
situation was significantly aggravated by a premature tax cut,
something the party across the aisle seems to espouse as the be
all and end all of what is good for Canada.
The situation in Ontario has pointed out fairly graphically how
much in error that approach is and was. I think the government,
in terms of increasing the amount of money for health care, the
$11.5 billion, is taking steps in the right direction. There is
absolutely no doubt in my mind about that.
I am in touch with people in the medical community on a fairly
regular basis. Just last Saturday night I was talking to a nurse
who was complaining about the situation at the Queensway-Carleton
Hospital which is just outside my riding but which serves a good
portion of my riding. This nurse was very concerned about people
lined up in the hallways of the hospital because there are not
enough beds in the emergency department. This is something that
obviously has to be corrected.
What is important not just in terms of the infusion of health
care dollars is the future oriented spending in terms of medical
health research. In that regard I should tell members that I
have a sister who is a cancer researcher here in the
Ottawa-Carleton region who is absolutely delighted with the
foresight the government has shown in terms of investing more in
medical research and the money going into it. It will have great
benefits for the future.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, I will
be dividing my time with my colleague from Sackville—Eastern
Shore.
I intend to talk about health care and agriculture in this
budget. I also intend to talk about some things that are not in
this budget, the unemployed, the homeless and the poor in Canada
and beyond our borders.
The finance minister announced on February 16 that the
government will put $11.5 billion into health care. The money is
needed urgently for more nurses, for more cancer treatment and
for more home care. I am sure we are all grateful for that.
It is also important to know that $11.5 billion spread out over
five years will take until the year 2003 before federal spending
on health care reaches the level it was just four years ago.
1725
Canadians know that Ottawa and the provinces share health care
costs but in 1995 without warning the Liberals began a round of
devastating cuts under the CHST, the Canada health and social
transfer, that reduced Ottawa's contributions for said transfers
by a whopping $21 billion. That is b as in billions,
b as in big booboo.
When medicare began in the 1960s, Saskatchewan's gift to Canada,
it was the federal government putting up 50 cents and the
provinces putting up 50 cents. Now the federal share is down to
just 11 cents on the dollar and the budget will bring it only up
less than 2 cents to about 12.5 cents.
The cuts have been felt everywhere but nowhere more than in the
province of Saskatchewan. Our provincial government was forced
to make very tough choices after 1995. It could either pass
Ottawa's health care cuts on to its citizens and the district
health boards or it could find scarce dollars to replace that
money. Saskatchewan chose to replace the money and has increased
spending on health care over and above what was cut by the
federal government.
Replacing lost federal dollars on health care has meant that
other pressing needs could not be met. It would be useful to
have had that money to move more quickly on twinning our major
highways and improving our roads. That is why the Premier of
Saskatchewan, to respond to member for London—Fanshawe, was so
pleased that finally the government woke up and was putting some
real money back into health care so that he in turn can do some
things that desperately need to be done in the province of
Saskatchewan.
Canadians are extremely concerned about the future of our health
care system, notwithstanding this infusion of money. We in the
NDP caucus are committed to repairing existing health care
services and increasing the emphasis on health promotions. We
are determined to add home care and pharmacare to the health
system and ensure that two tier American style health system
never comes to this side of the border.
Looking briefly at the agricultural situation, in December after
much prodding the agriculture minister promised $900 million in
federal funds for an income disaster relief program. Farmers have
had to wait almost 80 days for the minister to announce any
details. If the devil is in the details there is much devilry in
this set of details.
In agriculture, like health care, it is important not to listen
simply to the government spin doctors but rather to read the fine
print.
In December the minister of agriculture was promising $900
million for a farm disaster relief program, as the member for
Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia knows, but now there are clear
indications that the minister and his bureaucrats, or someone
over there, have fiddled with the program design to ensure that
Ottawa will pay far less than it originally promised.
For example, when the program was announced last week the
minister acknowledged that the program would not cover negative
margins. That means if farmers lost money, as they certainly did
in northwest Saskatchewan because of drought last year and in
previous years, those losses are simply not covered.
I am receiving calls from farmers who have lost money in the
past few years and who fear, having looked at the details, that
this program will do absolutely nothing for them. In addition to
not covering negative margins, the minister also announced his
intention to deduct from his payments any contributions the
government has made to the net income stabilization account,
NISA, so it can pay farmers less.
The minister will pay out $600 million or less, not the $900
million he promised as recently as last December. As an aside,
at $600 million it is no longer a 60:40 program in terms of
federal-provincial. It is more like 50:50. The bottom line is
that an agricultural manager for a Manitoba-Saskatchewan lending
institution believes that under the rejigged rules announced last
week so few farmers will qualify that very little of the $1.5
billion will actually ever be paid out.
The provinces are also being forced to pay the 40%, and that is
not fair, as the Minister of Natural Resources would know.
1730
He would know that is not what happened in North Dakota. That
is not what happened in South Dakota or Minnesota. It was
Washington that paid in that case and it should be Ottawa in this
case. Small population provinces like Manitoba, Saskatchewan and
Nova Scotia are footing the bill to help our farmers through a
trade war. Our small provinces cannot afford to take on the
treasuries of the United States and Europe.
Ottawa used to take responsibility for safety net and disaster
programs, but this Liberal government has walked away from its
responsibilities. Since 1993 it has slashed spending on
agriculture by 60%. The money it announced for the disaster
relief program is a two year blip. By the year 2000 it will
again be spending less than it did last year. That, in turn, is
much less than it spent in 1993.
The minister the other day said that the announcement was a
great day for Canadian farmers. It does not explain why farmers
are still holding and planning to hold rallies as early as this
Saturday in Regina or why provincial governments on the prairies
are saying to Ottawa “You administrate this turkey because we do
not want any part of it”.
Farmers have played a key role in deficit reduction and the
restoration of a balanced budget. It is time for Ottawa to put
money back into agriculture. We in this party believe that
Canadian farmers need sustainable incomes. Our federal caucus
intends to keep the pressure on the agriculture minister so that
a solid, sustainable farm income disaster program will be there,
not for just one or two years but for the long haul.
There is new money for health care. There is some new money for
agriculture disaster relief. However, in both cases we are just
beginning to recover from years of devastating cuts. At best we
are running to stand still.
My colleagues have talked about unemployment. I will not go
into that in any detail except to note that in Saskatchewan only
one unemployed person in three is now eligible for employment
insurance. If we look back 10 years ago to 1989 we find that two
out of every three unemployed persons actually received some
benefits. This is a deliberate policy again by the federal
Liberal government and it takes some $10 million annually out of
the Palliser constituency, which affects small businesses, but
more importantly, it affects families who cannot afford some of
life's basic necessities. These policies are callous and
unacceptable. People matter most. They pay into unemployment
insurance and when they lose their jobs EI must be there for
them.
In addition, this budget has done absolutely nothing for the
homeless in our country and very little for the poor. The United
Nations published an in-depth study earlier this year which is
not at all flattering to Canada. This is not the one that
members opposite use when they stand to say the UN says that
Canada is number one in the world. This is the UNESCO study
which says that amongst industrialized countries Canada is number
ten in the industrialized world when it comes to the human
poverty index.
In addressing budget deficits the UN document notes that the
Canadian government has not paid attention to adverse effects for
the population in general. In other words, the Liberal
government has balanced its books on the backs of ordinary
families. Those hurt most were those most at risk.
The committee says that homelessness in Canada is an area of
grave concern. The report states that it is of grave concern
that little or no progress has been made to improve the lot of
aboriginal people, especially in the areas of housing,
unemployment and safe drinking water.
I will conclude by noting that there is absolutely no new money
in this budget for underdeveloped countries. I was particularly
disappointed that the finance minister was silent in his budget
about any commitment to forgive the debt owed to our government
by some of the world's poorest countries.
Thousands of Canadians are involved in the Jubilee 2000 campaign
to cancel debts owed to Canada by 50 of the world's poorest
countries. Leaders of the Jubilee 2000 campaign met with the
finance minister last fall. They felt at that point that he was
empathetic, but they and the poorest of the world's poor came
away without any crumbs from the finance minister's table.
On this side of the House we hearken back to what J. S.
Woodsworth said: “What we wish for ourselves we desire for
all”.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I would like to make a brief comment and then ask the member a
question.
The member will know that the Canada health and social transfer
is made up of two components, the cash component as well as the
tax points.
The sum of those two equals the total entitlement of a province.
1735
The member will also know that as the economy grows and more
people are working and provinces earn additional revenue, the
amount of cash does go down, all of which is subject to a floor
which is going to be set at $15 billion.
I wanted to raise that with the member because the cuts are not
simply the cuts that otherwise would not have been made. As
other members have already pointed out, some provinces like
Ontario gave $4.3 billion in tax cuts and the cut from the
federal government was only $1.2 billion. Clearly the provinces
have priorities and clearly the province of Ontario showed that
health care was not its priority.
My question to the member regards his final comments on
homelessness. The Golden report in Toronto identified that 17%
of the homeless in Toronto were aboriginals. The member will
well know the amount of dollars invested in aboriginal health and
wellness issues by the government, as well as in the last budget.
The member will also know that transfers to the provinces have
increased because of these health transfers and that about 30% of
homelessness has to do with mental and physical disabilities, and
that money is addressing that.
He also knows that 28% of the homeless in the Toronto survey
were youths. He knows how much money has been spent on youth
employment initiatives and youth programs to ensure that our
youth have the training and the education they are going to need
to participate in society.
With those few statistics, I would ask the member whether he
agrees that homelessness has been addressed directly by this
budget and by other policies of the government.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, I would absolutely not
agree with that comment from the member for Mississauga South.
There is a gentleman who is usually parked in front of the House
of Commons at the East Block entrance, about 200 yards from the
entrance to this building. He is there virtually every morning.
I asked him the day after the budget how he had been affected as
I dropped a few coins into his outstretched hand. He said “Not
at all”.
With respect to the question on tax transfers, it is simply
unrealistic to suggest that the provinces can make up the
difference. The taxpayer is feeling the burden enormously.
On the homelessness issue, I thought it was particularly
offensive the other day when the Deputy Prime Minister suggested
to the member for Halifax that it was simply a photo opportunity.
What this federal government needs to do is to convene a round
table or a discussion on homelessness. I agree that it is more
than one level of government, but there has to be some leadership
shown.
The mayors of the 10 largest cities in Canada have asked for a
meeting to discuss homelessness. So far this government has not
acceded to that request and I think it should with alacrity.
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
just want to ask the member a quick question. He talked about
the need for sustainable incomes in farming. I think if the farm
crisis shows us anything in this country, it is the value of
supply management.
I am wondering if he would see this as an appropriate time to
bring the hog producers under the supply management umbrella.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, I agree that supply
management has made the farm crisis far less significant in some
parts of the country than in others.
I was part of the agriculture committee that was in Washington
last week. I can assure the hon. member that there is a
deep-seated concern about supply management on the American side
of the border. The Americans would like to see it done away
with. The only thing they would probably put up on the same
level is the Canadian Wheat Board, what they refer to as the
state trading enterprise.
I would think in the great scheme of things that the government
was making a choice. Knowing where their seats are, it would be
that the Canadian Wheat Board would be offered up first, followed
in the next round by supply management.
1740
An hon. member: Not a bloody chance.
Mr. Dick Proctor: I hope you are right, Mr. Minister, but
we will wait and see.
The Speaker: I know hon. members always want to address
the Speaker when they speak.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting that the member referred to
the fact that the trick the Minister of Human Resources
Development had discovered was to make the unemployed disappear.
Initially, about two thirds of the unemployed in his province
were entitled to unemployment insurance. Now the figure is no
more than one third. Does he agree with the following
statement. Just as the great magician David Copperfield always
has an assistant, does the Minister of Finance have an assistant
too—that is, the Minister of Human Resources Development—to make
the unemployed disappear and to create the illusion that there
is no more deficit?
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, I think that 23% of
eligible people in Regina actually receive some employment
insurance benefits, the lowest in Canada.
We hear the minister of human resources on a daily basis say
“There is no problem here. It is simply that there are more
people working”. There is a huge problem in this country. Our
constituency offices are being overwhelmed by claimants who are
on employment insurance, demanding some relief. They are being
told that they have no alternative but to go to welfare in order
to seek relief for themselves and their families. The government
knows it has a large problem and it is becoming more evident with
each passing day.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, every time it snows outside this beautiful hallowed hall
we call the House of Commons, the Liberal government gives us a
snow job on the budget which we are discussing right now. It
just goes on and on.
I would first like to talk about the hallowed budget surplus.
The facts are the facts. Seven billion dollars has been taken
out of the pockets of employers and employees in this country.
My question, which I have asked time and time again, is: Where
is the money? We have heard from the minister of human resources
that the money has already been spent on other programs. This
government has no right to that money. It belongs to employers
and employees. That is the first fact.
If the Liberals really wanted to do something about tax
reduction, which all Canadians would like to see, why did they
not do the simplest thing, which would have benefited the
majority of Canadians, and reduce the GST, even by 1%? That
would have put money in many people's pockets and it would have
put money back where it belongs, into the economy and job
creation.
It is unbelievable that the government could do this while food
bank usage is on the rise, while the environment of our nation is
being “degregated” at a rapid rate and while public service
workers are not getting the equity and equality they deserve.
This government turned around in its recent budget and gave John
Cleghorn of the Royal Bank and Al Flood of the CIBC a $32,000 tax
break. That is what they will get for 1999-2000. Yet the
chairman of the committee for SCONDVA and the vice-chair were
both in here a moment ago bragging about how great this budget
was for defence. The fact is that there was not one single word
about compensation benefits for the merchant marines.
I would like these two to come back to the House and tell Ossie
MacLean, in public, exactly what this budget does for them. It
does absolutely nothing.
1745
Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I do not think my hon. colleague intended to, but he referred to
the absence of a member from the House. I think he has been here
long enough to know that is not appropriate.
The Speaker: I did not hear that particular part. We all
know that members cannot mention whether or not someone is here.
I am very confident the hon. member knows that.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member,
for whom I have great respect, for pointing that out. The fact
is I would like him to mention in future debates what the budget
does for our beloved merchant marines who sacrificed so much and
to whom the government gives so little.
It is unbelievable. The government talks about job creation.
What about the garment workers of Levi Strauss who just realized
they will be losing their jobs in Cornwall? What about the Volvo
workers of Halifax who have lost their jobs? What about the
thousands and thousands of fishermen and plant workers from coast
to coast to coast who have lost their jobs? What about the
Boeing workers in Toronto who in November will be losing their
jobs? What about the 2,400 Bell Canada operators who will losing
their jobs?
There was not a single mention from the Liberals about those
workers. All they talk about is tax breaks and health care
concerns. I admit putting $2.5 billion back into health care is
a good first step. The fact is that spread over five years it
will only match 1995 levels by 2003. It is an absolute disgrace.
Tommy Douglas, J. S. Woodsworth and all those beautiful New
Democrats of before stood up and fought for health care. They
were Saskatchewan's gift to Canada. My hon. friend from Palliser
is absolutely correct. The premise of health care was 50% in
dollars from the federal government and 50% in dollars from the
provincial governments. After five years the government even
admits that the grand percentage will be around 13% to 15% of
federal contributions. It is no wonder that we are going to a
two tier system.
An incredible amount of small business absolutely despises the
budget. If members do not believe me, they can listen to
Catherine Swift. I may not be a great fan of Catherine Swift but
she is right.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: I love the heckling. I have got them
going. This is great.
In my riding there are 14 small business operators on my street
alone. Every one of them complain about the underground economy
because of the GST and HST rules. The GST-HST was shoved down
the throats of Atlantic Canadians. It ended up that the
underground economy grew to over $4 billion in the country. It
is an utter disgrace that competent, well meaning and honest
small businesses have to compete with the underground economy.
The government did not address that problem in the budget.
One of the greatest concerns of our country—it is a national
disgrace—is what we are doing to hepatitis C victims. I know
Joey Haché is watching us right now and wants to know why the
government completely ignored the constant concerns of hepatitis
C victims. The government ignored those people just like it
ignored the fishermen on the east and west coasts and in our
inland provinces, just like it will ignore the miners of Cape
Breton, just like it ignored the miners of Kamloops and just like
it will let go the Volvo workers, the garment workers, the Bell
workers and everyone else.
It is absolute disgrace. The government sits here and I noticed
that not one member of the Liberal Party stood and spoke off the
cuff. They all had to read prepared speeches, obviously done by
bureaucrats in the finance department. They sound like a broken
record.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: I am glad to see the debate livened up
a bit. That is the way it should be. The government has
completely ignored the future of our nation.
I will quote for everyone an article which is hot off the press,
from Internet. Statistics Canada released information on family
incomes today. This is dated March 3 at 4.40 this afternoon. It
supports the old saying about the rich getting richer and the
poor getting poorer.
1750
Between 1970 and 1995 average family incomes in Canada rose by
32% but that affected only the richest 30% of families. For the
rest there was a slight decline. Hardest hit are families with a
single female parent. Such families have almost doubled in the
past 25 years and about 40% of them are in the bottom 10% of
income earners.
This information is from Statistics Canada. I took it off
Internet about an hour and a half ago. Those people are
seriously affected by what is not in the budget. The federal
government can talk about the budget benefiting its friends like
John Cleghorn and Al Flood, but the fact is that it does
absolutely nothing for single parent families and working people.
It is a sin.
The hon. member for Palliser did not get the opportunity to
mention the fact that family farmers across the country are
devastated and hurt terribly by what the budget has done. There
is a lack of commitment by the government to help them in their
time of need.
The European Economic Community came up with $60 billion and the
United States came up with $7 billion in aid for their farmers.
What does our government do? It hems and haws. It even comes to
the point where it denies its promise of a few months ago and
reduces it by almost $300 million. It is an absolute disgrace.
I would like government members to speak to Mr. Ray Martin of
Flin Flon, Manitoba; Carol Ferguson of Louisbourg; and Alex
Handyside of Porters Lake. Government members are bragging; they
are proud of the budget. I can give them phone numbers so they
can call these people and tell them how proud they are of the
budget. These are only three people from across the country who
have called me to say that they are very disgusted with the
budget and very disappointed in the federal government.
The Speaker: It is not usual for me to intervene, but I
thank the hon. member for giving me a new word, “degregated”.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: No, that is fine. I appreciate it.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member's comments with regard to tax impacts on or benefits
to single parent families are important. He said that the budget
did nothing, but when I looked back over what happened in this
budget and in the prior budget I saw that the child care expense
deduction was increased from $5,000 to $7,000 for those who have
preschool children. I saw that the basic personal amount under
the non-refundable tax credits was increased by $675. I also saw
the announcement of another $1.7 billion to the Canada child tax
benefit, which benefits primarily low income Canadians.
Would the member try to reconcile all of those direct benefits
to low income parents, in particular single income parents, with
his statement that the budget did nothing for them?
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for the question. He knows very well that the provinces claw
back some of that money. He knows darn well that is exactly what
happens. He is shaking his head but those are the facts.
Francine Cosman, community services minister of the Liberal Nova
Scotia government, stated quite clearly that it claws back some
of that money. That is exactly what it does.
They are very proud of the national child benefit. I admit it
was a good first start to helping low income families but it is
nowhere near enough. If that money went directly to the families
and not through the provinces, it would have a much greater
effect.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
intrigued with the member's speech. We share one thing. I am
sure there will be some heckling immediately, but we share a
genuine concern about the health care system.
I expressed that earlier in the House when I talked about my
dear aunt who just died. She got very poor care and had to be
moved to a private health care facility, an extended care centre
run by a religious organization, so she would get decent care. He
talked a little about the restoration of health care dollars.
The Liberals want us to believe that they are putting in $11.5
billion.
I look at that as simply a very small amount. It is a $2 billion
increase per year. The next year there will be no further
increase and they are still calling that $2 billion. The next
year there will be a $.5 billion increase and they are calling
that $2.5 billion and so on for the next three years. They come
up with this grand total of $11.5 billion when in fact it is an
increase of either $2 billion or $2.5 billion per year over the
next five years.
1755
I would like the member to take this opportunity to rip into the
Liberals because of this.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his statement. One of my favourite pastimes is ripping into
the Liberal government. Although I have some personal friends on
the other side and I respect a lot of them greatly, fact is fact.
The member is absolutely correct. When it comes to health care
spending, the $11.5 billion over five years, they did not take
into account inflation or the fact that we have an aging
population. They certainly did not take into account the needs
of rural Canada when it came to the budget.
When they talk about the major urban centres and the health care
crisis of downtown Toronto, Montreal, Halifax or Vancouver, they
certainly forget areas like Medicine Hat, Sheet Harbour,
Whitehorse, Yellowknife, et cetera. The government should not be
very pleased with what it has been doing to rural health care.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join in the
debate on the 1999 budget. I will be sharing my time with one of
my colleagues, the member for Mississauga South.
I congratulate the hon. Minister of Finance for putting forward
a budget that addresses the needs of Canadians. This is a budget
we can all be proud of. Today I will use my time to speak
briefly to three themes in the budget. I want to make sure my
constituents who are watching this debate get some facts directly
from the budget. I will address the issues of health care,
knowledge, innovation and tax relief as outlined in the budget.
I believe the support of strategies to enhance quality health
care for Canadians and the support to families and individuals in
our tax system are essential for the growth of
Etobicoke—Lakeshore and for all communities across the country.
Budget '99 is not an end in itself. It is a continuation of the
federal government's commitment to building a strong, secure
future for all Canadians. My constituents are pleased with
budget '99 and agree that the government has taken yet another
step in the right direction.
Over the past year my constituents have been saying to me that
they would like to see the budget surplus used for deficit
reduction, health, research and development, and tax relief among
other things. In my consultations with them, those were the
issues that kept coming to the top.
With the budget the federal government has delivered on their
priorities without borrowing a single penny. I was pleased to
share that with my constituents. Despite new investments in
social and economic priorities, the federal government has not
swerved in staying the course in sustaining sound fiscal
management. This is what all of us in the House want our
government to do.
In 1993 when the government took office the budgetary deficit
stood at $42 billion. The state of Canada's fiscal house was in
poor shape. The federal government had a major task in balancing
the books and restoring the confidence of Canadians in our
economy.
My constituents were concerned. The phone calls and the round
table discussions we held all expressed their concern about the
deficit. In 1998, when we delivered a budget that eliminated the
deficit and balanced the books for the first time in 28 years, we
were pleased and proud to share that with every individual who
sat around the table and moaned with us about the $42 billion
deficit we were in.
Today the policy of sound, prudent fiscal management pursued by
the federal government has put our economy on the right track for
the benefit of all Canadians.
1800
Budget '99 continues the course. It continues to build on this
comprehensive plan for creating a strong economy and a secure
society. On this side of the House we believe that our young
people deserve to inherit a country that is fiscally robust and
capable of meeting the challenges of the next century. As we
head into that next century the fiscal outlook of Canada is
positive.
As we listened to our finance minister on budget day, all
Canadians got the sense of renewed optimism about the economic
viability of our country. In budget '99 the federal government
will again balance our books. For the first time since 1951-52,
the government has been deficit free for two consecutive years.
The federal government will remain committed. We heard our
Minister of Finance speak to this.
The 1999-2000 budget and the 2000-01 budget are again recording
consecutive balanced budgets. The fiscal policy of the government
continues to put the debt to GDP ratio on a permanent downward
track. Again, this pleased my constituents. This is of
tremendous significance to them simply because balanced budgets
and a decline in the debt to GDP ratio means that the government
can free up resources to strengthen our health care system,
provide tax relief, invest in a more productive economy and a
higher standard of living by promoting access to knowledge,
research and innovation.
Budget '99 also preserved our health care system by securing
high quality, equitable health care for all Canadians. The
budget sets us on a course that speaks to the highest possible
quality of health care and other tools that will make healthy
lifestyles and healthy lives.
The health agreement reached in last month's first ministers
conference and the new social union framework shows Canadians
that the federal and provincial governments will pursue a common
vision that puts health and quality of life first. We know that
the prosperity of any nation depends on the health of its
citizens. It has a direct bearing on how well Canada is situated
in the global economy and ultimately the future of our country.
In budget '99 the federal government reaffirmed to all Canadians
that sustaining and strengthening health care is one of its key
priorities. My constituents know the total number is $11.5
billion and they are very much aware of the $3.5 billion that
will be provided immediately as a one time supplement which the
provinces will have the flexibility to draw upon according to
their needs and priorities. In the province of Ontario we know
the importance of that immediate $3.5 billion and what it will
create for us.
In the weeks leading up to the budget, my constituents asked me
over and over to ensure that the federal government addressed the
problems of crowded emergency rooms, long waiting lists, shortage
of diagnostic services, et cetera. As the media portrayed the
upcoming budget as a health budget, there was more and more
anxiety by constituents to ensure that these issues were
addressed. This health budget is welcome news for the people of
Etobicoke—Lakeshore. Ontario will also be receiving other
moneys. It will receive a $4.4 billion investment in health care
to encourage the government to make fundamental improvements to
Ontario's health care system.
Making decisions about one's health requires one to be given the
information and the tools to make positive decisions and choices.
I want to ensure that my constituents understand where some of
the dollars will go in terms of initiatives to enhance the flow
of health information. A national health surveillance network
will be built which will electronically link laboratories and
public health offices across the country.
1805
My constituents also need to know that we are establishing the
Canada health network, accessible by computer and telephone and
enabling Canadians everywhere to have direct access to objective,
reliable, up to date information on a range of health issues and
providing better reports on the health of Canadians and the
functioning of the health system. Those initiatives are
consistent with the government's commitment on health and are a
concrete step to strengthening medicare.
Budget '99 takes action on many fronts. It builds on the
Canadian opportunities strategy by investing more than $1.8
billion over the remainder of this fiscal year and the next three
years in the creation, the assimilation, the commercialization of
knowledge and in support of employment.
There is just so much this budget has addressed that it would
take minutes more to delineate the many positive items in this
budget. I call on all of my colleagues as they debate this 1999
budget that they recognize the issues, that they recognize the
measures which are in there and that they recognize the way in
which this budget has addressed the concerns of Canadians.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
a comment.
I have been taken aback at the praising of the budget and the
praising of how great it is that this money is going back and
everybody is cheering the government. I have sat here and
thought that of course everybody is happy because there is money
going back into health care. The government has cut $20 billion
out of health care. It is finally putting something back in. Of
course we are going to be happy.
It is as if there has been a war going on. This is a war. The
Liberal government has attacked and waged war on social programs
in Canada with all the cuts. We had the Korean war, the first
world war and the second world war. The war ends and of course
we are all going to cheer and be excited. But that does not mean
we are going to sing the praises of Hitler, our enemy, or anybody
else who has been attacking those programs. We are going to make
darn sure we keep fighting for what is right.
Ms. Jean Augustine: Mr. Speaker, I think I will comment
on the comment.
I will not want to use the analogy of war. I tend to be a
peaceful person and therefore I would like to see the positives.
I tried to speak to my constituents about what budget '99 has in
it for them. We know that cuts had to be made. We know that we
started in 1993 with a $42 billion deficit and some things had to
be done. What we have done at this point in time is we have
tried to address some issues and to move forward. Budget '99 has
indeed moved the agenda forward.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, I want to
thank the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.
In this budget the fundamental problem with the government's
approach is that it ignores the best approach to increase the
business investment needed to improve productivity: lower
business taxes and a lower regulatory burden.
Since the Liberals took office in 1993, corporate income tax
revenue has more than doubled. Many of these taxes do not even
depend on whether or not a corporation is profitable. The
federal Department of Finance estimates that 70% of taxes that
business pays are not related to any profit. Meanwhile,
according to the Conference Board of Canada, of every single
dollar in extra profit made by corporations over the past 30
years, a full 62 cents is clawed back.
I ask the member, if the government were truly concerned with
productivity and jobs, would it not address the heavy tax burden
that discourages needed business investment in this country?
Ms. Jean Augustine: Mr. Speaker, I am happy that I was
able to give the member the opportunity to read into this debate
the concerns that he has in the books.
Again, we are addressing some issues that we have advanced from
the 1998 budget into the 1999 budget. If the member did spend
the time to go through the documentation, he would see the
progress that we have made from 1993 until now.
1810
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to comment on a couple of issues that have come up in this
debate.
The first one has to do with personal income taxes. Some
members have suggested that there have been increases in taxes
and that Canadians are paying more taxes.
I looked back from 1993 and found that personal income tax
revenue to the Government of Canada was $51.4 billion. In the
current year ended March 31, 1999, personal income tax revenue
will rise to $73.7 billion. Next year it is expected that it
will further rise another $1.3 billion to $75 billion.
There is no question that personal income tax revenue is
increasing in Canada, but since the time that the government took
office in 1993, there are 1.5 million more employed Canadians
paying income tax. There have been no increases in personal
income tax rates. There have been no increases in personal
taxes. In fact, there have been decreases and I will mention a
couple.
The child care expense deduction was increased from $5,000 to
$7,000. It is a direct savings for families with children. The
federal 3% surtax has been totally eliminated for all Canadians.
It is a savings in taxes to Canadians.
The basic amount, the non-refundable tax credit, has been
increased by $675 for all Canadians, a significant increase. It
deals directly with the issue of bracket creep and indeed will
cover any impact of bracket creep for an additional three years.
If the member would like to know what bracket creep is, it is
basically inflate that exemption portion.
The basic exemption for a Canadian is about $6,500. Inflation
in Canada last year was at a rate of 1%. One per cent of $6,500
is $65. At the tax credit rate it means the member is talking
about an impact of $16. That is not a significant amount. It is
not the number the members are saying.
In addition there are non-taxable benefits that Canadians have
received. The $1.7 billion invested in the Canadian child tax
benefit is directly related to low income Canadians who need help
with their children. Important changes were also made to things
like RESPs. A government grant of up to $400 per year, per child
was available to invest in the education of our children. These
are very important.
The employment insurance premiums were reduced. They were going
up to $3.30. Today they are $2.70. It was a $2.8 billion
decrease in employment insurance revenue to the government
because of the reduction in those rates to Canadians.
The fact remains that 600,000 Canadians no longer pay tax as a
result of the tax deductions delivered by the Government of
Canada, by the Liberal Party of Canada.
In addition, there is program spending on matters such as
prenatal nutrition to deal with fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal
alcohol effects, programs such as CAPC that help children who are
at risk.
I am very proud of the government's budget. I am very proud of
the benefits and the programs it has bought, particularly for
families with children. I look forward to the debate tomorrow
when this comes up because I think Canadians will understand that
the Liberal Government of Canada has children in mind first.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member
whether he would answer one question. There is one minute for
that. Could I do that?
The Speaker: The answer is no, the time is up.
It being 6.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings
and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of ways and
means motion No. 19.
1815
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
1845
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 143
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Muise
| Nystrom
| Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Price
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
– 108
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Graham
| Grose
| Longfield
|
Marceau
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| Perron
| Sauvageau
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
people of the Halifax regional municipality and all Nova Scotians
deserve to know what plans are in the works for the Shearwater
Canadian forces base.
I am becoming increasingly concerned about the past operations
of Shearwater Development Corporation Limited and am equally
concerned about what the future holds. Underscoring both these
issues is a sense that this Liberal government is not willing to
be entirely open with the people who will be affected by whatever
decisions are made.
Shearwater Development Corporation Limited was created in
response to the 1994 federal budget when it became clear that
operations at Shearwater would be reduced. Now we have Frontec
Corporation suing Shearwater for over $663,000 for services and
products.
Exactly what did Shearwater Development Corporation do for the
past half decade and, in particular, what has happened to the
$2.6 billion in taxpayer money invested in the Shearwater
Development Corporation?
1850
The people of the Halifax-Dartmouth area deserve full and fair
accounting of just what this corporation did over the past five
years and how their money was spent. How many jobs were created?
What long term projects were crafted and developed?
The people of the Halifax regional municipality also deserve to
know what the long range plans for Shearwater are. Will the
military keep the shoreline property? How many jobs will be
lost? What is the long term plan and use of both the base and
the valuable lands on which it rests?
In response to my question in the House on November 18, 1998,
the Minister of National Defence stated that the federal
government would bring about an outcome where the lands would be
used for the benefit of the people of the province and to create
economic development opportunities so that jobs can be created.
That is what the minister said in the House.
Will the people of the region have a say or will this just be
one more deal made between the federal and provincial Liberals,
behind closed doors, without the full and constructive input of
the people whose lives will affected by the decisions made?
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government remains
committed to making the most of the surplus property and the
associated potential economic benefits at Shearwater Canadian
forces base. The transfer of the surplus property has begun.
Since reducing its activities on the airfield, the department
has done its best to maintain the property's viability, pending
an official transfer.
As a local development agency, Shearwater Development
Corporation has had some successes, including the Fisherman's
Cove project.
Shearwater Development Corporation is no longer in the picture,
but the tenants, which are still operating commercially on the
property, are being accommodated to the extent possible by the
base commander.
The Province of Nova Scotia is interested in acquiring the
surplus property.
The Province of Nova Scotia and Public Works and Government
Services Canada, representing the Department of National
Defence, are now negotiating the transfer of the surplus
property.
At the request of the Nova Scotia government, negotiations are
taking place behind closed doors. Information on the
transaction will, however, be released when an agreement has
been signed.
[English]
The economic impact of the Shearwater transfer has always been
the prime concern of national defence. As the Minister of
National Defence previously stated in the House, our main
objective with these negotiations is to use lands that are no
longer required by the department for the benefit of the people
of that province and that community and to create economic
development opportunities so that jobs can be created there.
It is important to remember that the Canadian forces still have
a strong operational requirement for the land we are retaining.
Moreover, there are some 1,000 military and civilian personnel
who operate out of the site and the resulting economic benefits
cannot be overlooked.
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, on February 8, I raised in the House some critical
health care situations. I asked the Minister of Health to inform
Canadians how he was prepared to address the growing crisis in
our health care system.
I raised the issue of a Windsor individual who was asked to
leave the hospital after tonsil surgery, bleeding and vomiting.
He wanted to know why he had to be discharged that first day. I
asked the minister why cancer patients in Ontario were being
shipped to the United States for treatment. At that time the
Minister of Health suggested that these were provincial issues
and that he could not interfere with those decisions. In fact,
he abdicated full responsibility for those critical situations.
That was before the budget. That was on February 8.
The question for us all today, especially since the government
has just approved its so-called health care budget, is has the
situation changed at all. Will people facing these horrific
situations be any better off? It would seem to me that the
answer to all these questions is essentially no.
Since the government took office in 1993 it slashed and froze
money for health care. Every day now we see the results of those
health care cutbacks. Emergency room line-ups still exist today.
We see pressure and stress on our nurses who are overworked and
overburdened.
1855
We see delayed surgical procedures and we see growing
privatization of medical services. Will the health budget undo
the damage? It does not appear so.
The question for us all today is what steps will this government
now take to ensure that all Canadians regardless of where they
live are able to enjoy quality of health services.
In that question, the minister also suggested that the solution
was not with the Reform Party which is promoting a two tier
privatized health care system. On that point I will agree,
having just a few weeks ago been in Windsor, Ontario where the
Reform candidate actually stood up in a public debate and said we
must end the public monopoly on health care. That says it all.
A couple of weeks ago at the united alternative conference,
Reformers refused to allow for a resolution that would ensure
national standards and raise the desire to allow provinces to
implement user fees.
We know the solution is not with Reform's Americanized version
of health care. I ask the parliamentary secretary today how they
intend to pursue ending privatization of our health care and
pursue their ideas for a national home care plan and a national
drug plan.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government stands committed
to the principles of the Canada Health Act, as I have stated on
numerous occasions.
We believe that access to necessary services should be based on
health need and not on one's ability to pay. There is very
clearly a constitutional responsibility for the provinces to
deliver services.
There is also a responsibility for the provinces to do the
planning and the managing of the resources in their provinces.
The problems the member has identified are a result of stresses
and strains the provinces have had over the years.
With the budget of February 16 we have seen the biggest single
investment this government has ever made, some $11.5 billion over
the next five years. The budget clearly demonstrates this
government's commitment to defending medicare. We are also
defending access to quality care and ensuring that care is given
to all those who need it regardless of their ability to pay.
Let me remind the hon. member that over the next five years
$11.5 billion will be available. What is needed is more than
money. What is needed is a more accountable, more integrated way
of delivering services. The federal government has shown a
leadership role in bringing together all the provinces, arriving
at a health agreement.
I say to the member who has raised the principle of public
administration that the NDP would have government run everything
under the mandate of public administration. What we have in
Canada today is a publicly funded but not government run method
of delivery. The provinces have stewardship but they determine
what partnerships they will engage, the corporate structures of
their hospitals and their providers.
If people are dissatisfied with the way their health system has
evolved, they must go to their provincial governments and say
they are dissatisfied. Each province has done it differently and
that is appropriate.
The role for the federal government is one, an important funding
partner and two, the guardian of the Canada Health Act. We want
to ensure that health services and the outcomes therefore are
more accountable and the provinces develop a real system, more
integrated models where people work together to ensure that when
the people of Canada need care, they will get the care they need
without having to pay for it.
[Translation]
The Speaker: 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 6.59 p.m.)