André Harvey

[Canada Labour Code, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the members of our party will vote against this motion.

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the members present from our party will vote in favour of this motion.

[Small Business Loans Act, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the members of our party who are present vote nay on this motion.

[Interim Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, members of our party present in the House will be voting against the motion.

[Division No. 102, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, members of our party present in the House tonight will be voting against the motion.

[Division No. 101, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, all members of our party present will be voting against the motion.

[The Economy, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we are being spoiled this evening. I am pleased to speak to the budget speech. Normally, the main purpose of a budget speech is to generate a bit of enthusiasm among people, to generate a bit of hope, but after a few hours, this budget has been completely torn to shreds. We are going to have to live with a budget that has not inspired a single Canadian.

The vast majority of editorial writers across the country panned the budget, which is completely regressive, and puts Canadians in an even tighter spot.

Instead of generating hope, the budget has shown us once again that this government has absolutely no agenda of any sort. Budget-wise, this government has spent the last five years fixated on the deficit. It should at least have done its homework, however, in preparation for introducing progressive measures, because it knew full well that, in the ten years leading up to 1984, the debt had been increased eleven-fold by the former Trudeau government from $18 billion to $200 billion.

Over almost the same length of time, about ten years, instead of multiplying the debt by 11, we multiplied it by two. The operational deficit was kept under firm control during that period. But, in the meantime, we had to adopt measures that would subsequently enable us to wipe out the deficit and also pay down the debt. We adopted measures such as free trade. As members will recall, we waged an extremely strong campaign on the issue of free trade. We were almost defeated on the issue, and this is what enabled us—and I point this out to our colleague who used to work in the finance and trade sector—to increase our exports from $90 billion to $215 billion over a seven-year period.

Sight must not be lost of the money this brought into Canada for the government. They had promised to abolish this measure. The government campaigned on a platform of abolishing free trade. In the end, this government embraced free trade with a vengeance. Talk about an about-face. This takes the cake.

Let us not forget the GST. It was a disaster for us, the goods and services tax. We knew at the time that it was the fairest tax. It was the best route to take before starting on a major tax reform to get the richest people contributing to the government coffers. Obviously, a doctor or engineer earning $50,000, $100,000, $150,000 or $200,000 will pay more GST than someone who just gets the old age pension. That was precisely the objective.

Tax shelters were considerably reduced. We knew it would not win us any popularity contests, but we felt in all conscience that when one has a country to administer, one must do so objectively, and with the conviction that the best interest of the country is being served.

Our ultimate goal was a comprehensive reform of the tax system for individuals and small businesses. But what did this government do? Absolutely nothing. They raised taxes, 40 tax increases for a total of $30 billion, a pretty considerable amount, as well as several billions in cuts to essential services. If we add on the considerable tax hikes and the cuts in transfer payments to the provinces, we have our answer. The deficit was attained at the expense of the poor and of the individual taxpayer. Such is the policy of the present government.

I could spend a couple of hours listing all of the tax increases the present government has slipped in. There is nothing surprising that nearly all the media reports state that Ottawa is pocketing the savings and sticking the provinces with the bill. That is how it is in all fields. Our fellow citizens in every province are afraid to get sick, because of the budget cuts, the cuts to transfer payments, made without consulting the provincial governments.

Millennium scholarships have been created to benefit tens of thousands of students, while thousands of children in primary and secondary school no longer have even basic services. There are schools that no longer have guidance counsellors, that no longer have psychologists. They are trying to convince us that they believe in the importance of education for our young people. No way. They are making drastic cuts.

When an organization like the OECD blames the shrinking of available income after tax and the major brain drain in this country on our overall tax policy, I think we should take heed.

We are told that our small businesses are no longer able to reinvest because of our extremely regressive tax system, which is aggressive to them, they not longer have the required net assets to reinvest. I think this is serious.

Editorial writer Alain Dubuc said “Here is why Mr. Martin is no longer credible”. These are not my words but those of an editorial writer known from coast to coast. “In March 1997, the minister announced that the deficit for fiscal year 1996-97, which was ending, would be $19 billion. It turned out to be $8.9 billion”. That is not a small miscalculation; it is a huge one.

This was an error of $10.1 billion. Mr. Dubuc went on to say “This did not stop Mr. Martin from once again announcing an obviously unreasonable deficit of $17 billion for 1997-98. It turned out to be a zero deficit. This is a $20.5 billion miscalculation, and Ottawa anticipated expenditures like those associated with the millennium fund”.

To establish such a fund when most provinces, and Quebec in particular—we will speak for Quebec—have a very well organized system, for the sole purpose of ensuring that recipients will see that their cheques were issued by the federal government and not to promote harmony, again this borders on provocation.

There are two major problems in Canada. In both cases, provocation is involved. On the constitutional issue, on numerous occasions over the past 30 years, Canadians agreed on proposals but, invariably, the Liberal government was responsible for one failure after another. Support for the sovereignist movement in Quebec has grown from 3% originally to 50% today. Why? Because of provocation.

Fiscally, the federal government has yet again found a way to use a budget to provoke the provincial governments. That takes some doing. It could have said “We are for harmony and good understanding; there is a little money left over, we will transfer it to the various provincial governments; you are good managers, you are close to your people, you will manage these surpluses”. It did not even do that.

Instead, it arbitrarily—fancy that—established a new $3 billion fund that cannot be used for another two years. Again, it is only to create a little interest among those concerned. But, in fact, these budget measures that do not favour decentralization and do not respect other levels of government do nothing but accentuate our problems.

Not only does the government base its economic intervention on provocation, but it travels the world singing the praise of economic missions. In my mind, the first economic mission that the government must undertake is the Canadian economic mission.

For the whole world, Mr. Chrétien's government is in favour of free trade, but not for Canada. Tariff barriers between the provinces cost a fortune each year. The time has come for businessmen from Chicoutimi, from Nova Scotia, from Shefford, from New Brunswick, from all regions, to travel across Canada with the various governments to create free trade within our country.

I will tell you a secret. Do you know how many jobs a 10% increase in interprovincial trade would create? Free trade strictly within Canada would create 200,000 jobs. I think that if there is an issue that needs to be addressed, it is the issue of Canadian free trade. We must eliminate trade barriers between the provinces.

That is the reality the government must work on. It must stop provoking all the provincial governments by creating new programs without ever consulting them, or pretending that it is consulting them through committees that travel across the country, knowing full well that the Minister of Finance will not listen to them. He is not interested in that. All he wants is to write cheques for the millennium scholarships.

I do not think this is the road to the future. It seems to me that when a party governs a country such as Canada, it must do it a lot more selflessly than the Liberals are doing right now.

I was pleased to say a few words on the budget. We should also have a long discussion on the growing problem of poverty in our country. People on welfare eat very poorly because of cuts in transfers.

[Division No. 93, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, members of our party will be voting in favour of the motion.

[The Canada Shipping Act, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, members of our party will be voting against the motion.

[Small Business Loans Act, February 23rd, 1998]

Members of our party are voting in favour of this motion, Mr. Speaker.